styled 1694-1708 Ld. Newport; suc. fa. 19 Sept. 1708 as 2nd earl of BRADFORD.
First sat 16 Feb. 1710; last sat 17 Nov. 1721
MP Salop 1670, 1679 (Mar.), 1679 (Nov.) 1681 (Mar.), 1689, 1690, 1695.
b. 3 Sept. 1644, 1st s. of Francis Newport, earl of Bradford, and Diana, da. of Francis Russell†, 4th earl of Bedford. educ. Christ Church, Oxf. MA 1662. m. 20 Apr. 1681, Mary, 3rd da. and coh. of Sir Thomas Wilbraham, 3rd bt. of Weston-under-Lizard, Staffs.1 6s. (4 d.v.p.) 5da. d. 14 June 1723; will 15 Jan. 1722, pr. 15 July 1723.2
Equerry and gent. of privy chamber 1665–85; PC 18 Feb. 1710–d.
Commr. for assessment, Salop 1673–80, 1689–90; freeman, Much Wenlock 1680, Ludlow 1695; dep. lt. Salop 1689–1704;3 ld. lt. Salop 1704–12, 1714–23, Mont. by 1708–?12, by 1716–d.; custos rot. Salop 1708–12, 1714–d., Mont. 1701–?, 1714–d.
Associated with: High Ercall, Salop; Eyton-upon-Severn, Salop; Soho Sq., Mdx.4
As was true in so many other areas of the country, the county families of Shropshire were closely interconnected. Richard Newport was related to many of the most prominent gentry families in the area. First cousin to Sir William Forester‡, he was also a distant cousin of another local Member of the Commons, Forester’s brother-in-law Sir Richard Corbet‡ (Corbet and Forester were both married to daughters of James Cecil, 3rd earl of Salisbury). Newport’s sisters also married into parliamentary families, Diana marrying first Thomas Howard‡ of Ashtead, and later William Feilding‡, a younger son of William Feilding, 3rd earl of Denbigh, while Elizabeth was married successively to Sir Henry Lyttelton and Edward Harvey‡. Newport was able to build on his family’s impressive connections with the marriages of his own children. Having been intended for the law, Thomas Newport†, later Baron Torrington, married into the families of Bridgeman and Pierrepont, while Elizabeth Newport married James Cocks‡, nephew of John Somers, Baron Somers. Anne Newport married Sir Orlando Bridgeman‡, and Diana became the wife of Algernon Coote‡, 6th earl of Mountrath [I]. The family was also closely connected to that of Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, which demonstrates clearly that ties of kinship did not necessarily give rise to political alliances.
In the years following the Restoration Newport was associated with a gang of ‘rogues’ noted for their wit and loose behaviour.5 In February and again in December 1671 he was a participant in violent altercations, the latter case involving a fracas with John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester, at the playhouse.6 A reference to Newport being ‘two yards and a half about’ made by William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, in 1705 presumably called to mind such earlier excesses.7 He was as lively in Parliament as out of it, one particular exhibition in the Commons leading to his temporary banishment from court.8 After 1675 he was a follower of the opposition grouping that coalesced around Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury classed him as ‘worthy’ in 1679 and after 1685 he was listed among those believed to be opposed to James II’s policies.9 Returned for Shropshire to the Convention and again in March 1690 with the support of Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, Newport was an inactive Member but a consistent upholder of the Whig interest when he deigned to attend.10
Under the new regime, Newport’s father resumed his prominent role both at court and in Shropshire but in 1704 he resigned his lieutenancies in favour of his heir, who had already assumed the office of custos rotulorum of Montgomery in 1701. Rumours circulating in October 1707 that Newport would stand for Shrewsbury in the forthcoming election proved inaccurate but his son Henry Newport†, later 3rd earl of Bradford, stood successfully for Shropshire, presumably supported by the Newport interest.11 Speculation of a possible return to the Commons was rendered meaningless in September 1708 when he succeeded his father in the earldom. Elevation to the Lords does not appear to have inspired Bradford to demonstrate any greater political activity and he failed to take his seat until 16 Feb. 1710. The following day he was sent a notice requiring his attendance at the Privy Council, to which he was sworn on 18 February.12 Present on 30 per cent of all sitting days in the session, Bradford voted (as expected) with the Whigs in finding Dr Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours in March. The following month he communicated a representation from ten Whig gentlemen of Shropshire to Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, complaining of the behaviour of certain of their Tory neighbours who were promoting an address to the queen on Sacheverell’s behalf.13
Bradford was active in the elections in July 1710 on behalf of his son Henry and Richard Corbet, but both were defeated by their Tory rivals.14 In October he was assessed by Robert Harley as an opponent, but he survived as lord lieutenant for a further eight months before being replaced by Shrewsbury.15 Bradford was present on just one day of the new Parliament (27 Nov.) and failed to attend the first two months of the subsequent session of December 1711. He took his seat once more on 13 Feb. 1712 but attended on just 15 days of the session (14 per cent of the whole). On 16 Feb. he registered his proxy in favour of Thomas Wharton, marquess of Wharton, which was vacated by his return to the House on 29 February. The proxy was registered with Wharton again on 12 Apr. and vacated on 20 May. On 28 May he voted in favour of the opposition-inspired motion for an address to be drawn up requesting that the queen overturn the orders preventing James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from pursuing an offensive campaign against the French. When the measure failed to carry, Bradford subscribed the resulting protest.16 He registered his proxy with Wharton once more on 5 June, which was vacated by his return to the House the following day, and on 7 June he registered his protest at the resolution not to amend the address on the queen’s speech concerning the peace.
Jonathan Swift assessed Bradford as an opponent of the ministry on 15 Mar. 1713. Three months later, on 13 June, Bradford was estimated as being opposed to confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commerce treaty. A change in the political climate led to his reappointment as lord lieutenant of Shropshire in 1714 and he was also returned to his office of custos rotulorum of Montgomery. He registered his proxy in Wharton’s favour again on 6 Apr. (vacated the following day) and on 10 Apr. (vacated three days later), and on 17 Apr. in favour of Sunderland. Sunderland held the proxy again on 3 May, which was vacated by Bradford’s resumption of his seat on 2 June. On 27 May Bradford was assessed by Nottingham as being opposed to the schism bill. He registered his proxy again on 6 July, this time in favour of Francis Godolphin, 2nd earl of Godolphin, but he had resumed his seat again on 8 July when he entered his protest at the resolution not to make a representation to the queen stating that the benefit of the Asiento contract had been obstructed by the effort of some individuals to obtain personal advantages from it.
Bradford prospered under the new regime. An influential figure in Shropshire, he reported the effects of the riots in Shrewsbury and Wem in July 1715 and in 1716 he was appointed lord lieutenant of Montgomery.17 His attendance in the House remained sporadic. Full details of his post-1714 parliamentary career will be considered in the second part of this work.
Never a very assiduous attendant of the House, Bradford sat for the last time on 17 Nov. 1721. On 17 Mar. 1722, while excusing his inability to wait on Sunderland in person on the grounds of the ‘long illness’ that had kept him at home for a number of months, he attempted to make use of his interest on behalf of his son-in-law Mountrath, whose brother had been promised a peerage. The effort proved in vain and no such award was made.18 Bradford died the following year, on 14 June 1723, at his house in Soho Square. In his will of 15 Jan. 1722 he made over a number of his estates to his sons-in-law James Cocks and Orlando Bridgeman, in trust for his wife, and following her death required that the estates be sold to raise £500 for his brother-in-law William Feilding. Small bequests were made for Cocks, Bridgeman and Nicholas Lechmere†, Baron Lechmere, as well as modest sums for mourning for his children and bequests of £20 each for three of his servants. He was succeeded by his son Henry Newport as 3rd earl of Bradford.
R.D.E.E.- 1 Hatton Corresp. i. 240.
- 2 TNA, PROB 11/592.
- 3 CSP Dom. 1701–2, p. 249.
- 4 Stowe 750, f. 99.
- 5 Pepys Diary, xi. 218, 220.
- 6 Add. 70011, f. 219; Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. to E. Verney, 28 Dec. 1671.
- 7 Nicolson London Diaries, 334–5.
- 8 Add. 75366, H. Thynne to Halifax, 24 June 1675.
- 9 HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 138.
- 10 HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 494.
- 11 HMC Portland, iv. 454–5; HP Commons, 1690–1715, iv. 1022.
- 12 TNA, PC2/82, pt. 2, p. 535.
- 13 Add. 61652, ff. 215–16.
- 14 Salop RO, Forester mss, 1224/21/34; HP Commons, 1690–1715, iii. 722.
- 15 Add. 70333; HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 496; HMC Portland, iv. 694.
- 16 PH, xxvi. 177–81; LJ, xix. 461.
- 17 Add. 38507, f. 136.
- 18 Add. 61632, f. 215.