styled 1644-54 Ld. Talbot; suc. fa. 8 Feb. 1654 as 11th earl of SHREWSBURY, and 11th earl of Waterford [I] confirmed June 1661
First sat 19 May 1660; last sat 29 July 1667
b. c.1623, 2nd but 1st surv. s. of John Talbot†, 10th earl of Shrewsbury, and 1st w. Mary, da. of Sir Francis Fortescue. educ. unknown. m. (1) c.1650, Anne (d. c.1658), da. of Sir John Conyers of Sockburn, co. Dur., 2s. d.v.p., 1da.; (2) 10 Jan. 1659, Anna Maria (d. 1702), da. of Robert Brudenell, 2nd earl of Cardigan, 2s. d. 16 Mar. 1668; will 10 Mar., pr. 1 June 1668.1
Ld. high steward [I], 1654–d.; housekeeper, Hampton Court bef. 30 Apr. 1661–?d.; treas. and recvr. gen. [I], bef. 31 July 1661–?d.2
Col. of horse (roy.) 1651.3
Associated with: Grafton Manor, Worcs.;4 Pepper Hill, Salop; Longford Hall, Salop; Alton Castle, Staffs.; Arundel House, Westminster.
Best known for dying from injuries sustained in a duel fought over his wife’s numerous infidelities, Shrewsbury was the holder of one of the most ancient English peerages and head of one of the premier English Catholic families. With the earldom he also succeeded to the hereditary lord high stewardship of Ireland. By the time of his succession, he had already distinguished himself as a loyal supporter of the royalist cause. He probably served as a volunteer in the First Civil War and rallied to the new king in 1651, when he commanded a regiment of cavalry.5 Following the defeat at Worcester, he fled abroad, but around the time of his succession to the earldom he returned to England, he petitioned Oliver Cromwell‡ for pardon for all offences and sued to compound for his estate. For a while the government appears to have considered proceeding against Shrewsbury for treason but he was eventually permitted to compound for £2,000.6
Shrewsbury’s peerage may have been prestigious but he inherited an estate in some disarray. His father had succeeded to the title following the extinction of the direct line and many of the ancient Talbot estates had since passed to other branches of the family. Even so, the inheritance comprised lands in several counties. The principal residence lay in Worcestershire but the estates extended into Shropshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire.7 The Staffordshire lands alone were worth in excess of £1,000 p.a.8 In 1664 Shrewsbury and his sister Lady Mary Talbot were granted fairs at Albrighton in Shropshire and in June 1665 he was granted 800 acres of reclaimed fenland in Lincolnshire.9 However, he appears to have inherited debts that he was never able to clear and it was left to his son to see to the final settlement of some of the outstanding arrears.10
In spite of his apparent reconciliation with Cromwell’s regime, Shrewsbury remained attached to the Stuart cause. His marriage to Anne Conyers had connected him to the Catholic family of Vaux of Harrowden and he was also closely related to the equally royalist Catholic earls of Powis. His second marriage connected him to another prominent Catholic peer, Thomas Brudenell, Baron Brudenell (later earl of Cardigan). Shrewsbury was in communication with the exiled king in 1657.11 Two years later he was involved in Booth’s rising, for which his estate was sequestered.12 At the Restoration he was rewarded for his loyalty with a clutch of Irish offices and titles. He was granted confirmation of his Irish earldom of Waterford (a judgment of 1612 had concluded, apparently mistakenly, that both the peerage and its possessions had been forfeited by the 4th earl under Henry VIII) and the offices of treasurer and receiver general of Ireland to add to his hereditary dignity of lord high steward. Shrewsbury’s heir, Charles Talbot, born in 1660, was distinguished by becoming the new king’s first godchild; the following year Shrewsbury carried the second sword at the coronation.13
Shrewsbury does not appear to have wielded much direct political patronage but it is noticeable that his Protestant cousin John Talbot‡ of Lacock was elected to the Convention as knight of the shire for Worcestershire, where the Talbots’ principal estates lay.14 Whether or not Shrewsbury exerted any influence himself on his cousin’s behalf is uncertain but evidently the Talbot family as a whole was influential in the county. Shrewsbury’s participation in the House was similarly unspectacular. He took his seat on 19 May 1660, the fourth Catholic peer to claim his place in defiance of the 4 May proviso excepting known recusants from receiving summons. Present thereafter on 56 per cent of all sitting days prior to the adjournment, on 4 June he was added to the committee for petitions and on 19 June to that considering former acts and ordinances. He was named to an additional four committees during the session, among them that considering the bill of his fellow Catholic John Paulet, 5th marquess of Winchester, and that considering the bill concerning the free school at Newport in Shropshire, which may have had some local interest for him. He resumed his place on 12 Nov., after which he was present on 84 per cent of all sitting days but was named to just two committees.
Once again, there is little indication that Shrewsbury exerted himself in the elections for the new Parliament. He took his seat at the opening of the new session on 8 May 1661 but his subsequent attendance was dramatically lower than hitherto, with him present on just 22 per cent of all sitting days and named to three committees. On 20 May he was absent at a call of the House but was excused, having sent up his proxy to Cardigan (as Brudenell had since become). He resumed his seat on 25 Nov. and on 7 May was entrusted with the proxy of his co-religionist Charles Smith, Baron Carrington.
Shrewsbury was missing from the opening of the second session and was again excused at a call of the House on 23 Feb. 1663. He took his seat once more on 13 Mar., after which he was present on 43 days in the session (50 per cent of the whole) and named to four committees. It may have been significant that his kinsman Sir John Talbot (by then sitting for Knaresborough) was named to the Commons committee for the bill to prevent the growth of popery during the session, as Andrew Marvell‡ seems to have thought Talbot sympathetic to his cousin’s faith even though he did not share it himself.15 Prior to taking his seat, Shrewsbury was again entrusted with Carrington’s proxy, which he appears to have used to bolster support for another Catholic, George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, and his attempted impeachment of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. In mid-July Shrewsbury was noted by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, among those likely to support Bristol’s endeavours. Shrewsbury took his seat in the ensuing session on 21 Mar. 1664, after which he was present on 94 per cent of all sitting days and was named to two committees in addition to the sessional committees. On 30 Mar. he was entrusted with Carrington’s proxy once more.
Shrewsbury’s attendance of the subsequent winter session of 1664 declined markedly with him present on just five days (9 per cent of the whole), during which he was nominated to one committee. He then failed to attend the Parliament at Oxford in 1665. The following summer, he, his wife, his father-in-law (who had since succeeded to the earldom of Cardigan) and his brother-in-law, Francis Brudenell, Lord Brudenell, journeyed to York. There they were entertained by George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, with whom Shrewsbury appears to have been liaising closely. It was probably during this visit that Buckingham and Lady Shrewsbury began liaising even more closely, embarking on the affair that was to result in Shrewsbury’s early demise.16 The driving force of Shrewsbury and Buckingham’s alliance was probably the development of the anti-Clarendonian bill for preventing the importation of Irish cattle. The bill, vigorously promoted by Buckingham in the coming session, may have driven a wedge between Shrewsbury and his father-in-law as it was a trade on which Cardigan was particularly reliant.17
Shrewsbury was absent from the opening of the new session of September 1666. At a call of the House on 1 Oct. he was excused on grounds of ill health. He took his seat at last on 15 Oct. and the following day was nominated to the committee for Lady Holles’ naturalization bill. His attendance remained lacklustre though, and having sat on just 12 occasions he absented himself for the remainder of the year. On 20 Nov. he entrusted his proxy to Buckingham, with whom he was still presumably on reasonable terms. The proxy was noted as having been vacated on 26 Jan. 1667 though Shrewsbury’s presence in the House was not noted in the Journal until 28 January. He then attended just once more before quitting the House for the remainder of the session. He attended for the final time later that summer for the prorogation day of 29 July 1667.
The reason for Shrewsbury’s prolonged absences is uncertain but may have been owing to growing personal troubles, in particular his continuing efforts to control the excesses of his wife. There certainly appears to have been ample grounds for provocation. Lady Shrewsbury was said to have been the cause of one duel in August 1662 and Samuel Pepys‡ later referred to her as a ‘whore’.18 By the autumn of 1667 relations between Shrewsbury and his countess had broken down completely. Rumours circulated that she had fled abroad to enter a convent ‘to vindicate her reputation to the world’. It was also put about both that her husband intended to intercept her flight and that she intended to kill one of her former lovers, Harry Killegrew, herself.19 On 12 Oct. Shrewsbury covered his ongoing absence from Parliament by registering his proxy with John Granville, earl of Bath.
Apparently urged on by Sir John Talbot, in January 1668 Shrewsbury finally challenged his erstwhile ally Buckingham to a duel, in which Talbot and another relative, Bernard Howard, served as his seconds. Shrewsbury was said to have threatened the duke that he would ‘pistol him wherever he met him’ should he decline to fight.20 During the affray, Shrewsbury was run through and one of Buckingham’s seconds killed outright.21 The duel almost provoked a second involving Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, Charles Sackville, styled Lord Buckhurst (later 6th earl of Dorset and Middlesex), and ‘Lord Savile’ (presumably the newly ennobled George Savile, Viscount Halifax, later marquess of Halifax), though this was averted by the king’s interposition.22
Initial reports of Shrewsbury’s injuries were optimistic. Soon after the bout, directions were given for all the principals to be pardoned for their roles in the engagement, in spite of the protests of the lord keeper (Sir Orlando Bridgeman‡) and of the lord privy seal (John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes, later earl of Radnor).23 By March, though, Shrewsbury’s condition had deteriorated dramatically. A report of 16 Mar. described him as lying ‘dangerously sick of the ill effects of his late wounds’. He died the same day from complications arising from his injuries, though one set of surgeons diagnosed his complaint as being ‘a consumption’.24
A few days before his death, Shrewsbury had a will drawn up but he proved too weak to sign it, necessitating both Sir John Talbot and a lawyer, Richard Langhorne (later executed for treason at the height of the Popish Plot), to provide affidavits testifying that the will was Shrewsbury’s. In it he attempted to make provision for his three remaining children, committing them to the guardianship of his father-in-law, Cardigan, his brother-in-law Mervin Tuchet, later 14th Baron Audley and 4th earl of Castlehaven [I], William Talbot and Gilbert Crouch. He also implored Elizabeth, Viscountess Mountgarret (mother of his first wife) to oversee the education of his daughter (her grand-daughter), Mary, and appointed his cousin Henry Howard, Halifax and two more kinsmen as auditors to ensure that Cardigan and Tuchet’s accounts were accurate.25 No mention was made of the countess. Lady Shrewsbury continued to be an embarrassment to her family and ten years later she was thrown out of Cardigan House for her clandestine marriage to George Rodney Brydges‡.26 Shrewsbury was buried at Albrighton, his estate in quite as much disarray as when he inherited it. He left it to his heir, Charles, and executors to grapple with the problems he bequeathed them.27
R.D.E.E.- 1 TNA, PROB 11/327.
- 2 CSP Ire. 1660–2, p. 388.
- 3 Newman, Royalist Officers, 366.
- 4 VCH Worcs. iii. 127.
- 5 Ibid.; Recusant Hist. xx. 351.
- 6 CCC, 1775, 1776.
- 7 CCC, 1774.
- 8 R. Kidson, ‘Gentry of Staffordshire 1662–3’, Colls. for a Hist. of Staffs. (Staffs. Rec. Soc, 4th ser. ii), 41.
- 9 CSP Dom. 1663–4, p. 462; 1664–5, p. 441; Add. 46458, f. 169.
- 10 Add. 46457, f. 136.
- 11 CCSP, v. 735.
- 12 Newman, Royalist Officers, 366; CCC, 1777.
- 13 CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 584.
- 14 HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 525.
- 15 Ibid. iii. 526.
- 16 Reresby Mems. 58; T.C. Nicholson and A.S. Turbervill, Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, 2–3.
- 17 Swatland, 208.
- 18 Verney ms mic. M636/18, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 21 Aug. 1662; Pepys Diary, iii. 170–1, ix. 52.
- 19 Eg. 2539, ff. 118–19; Savile Corresp. 22.
- 20 Verney ms mic. M636/22, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 23 Jan. 1668.
- 21 Pepys Diary, ix. 26–27.
- 22 Add. 36916, f. 60.
- 23 Verney ms mic. M636/22, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 23 Jan. 1668; Sir N. Hobart to same, 24 Jan. 1668; Add. 36916, ff. 59–60, 63, 77; HMC 7th Rep. 486.
- 24 Add. 36916, ff. 85–86, 88; Verney ms mic. M636/22, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 19 Mar. 1668.
- 25 PROB 11/327.
- 26 Savile Corresp. 62.
- 27 Add. 46457, ff. 136–7.