suc. bro. Aug. 1652 as 2nd Bar. BYRON.
First sat 1 June 1660; last sat 27 May 1679
b. 1605, 2nd s. of Sir John Byron (1583-1625) of Newstead, and Anne, da. of Richard Molyneux of Sefton, Lancs. educ. Oxf. MA 1642. m. (1) c.1629, Elizabeth (d.1651), da. of Gervase Rossell, of Ratcliff-on-Trent, wid. of Nicholas Strelley, 3s. (2 d.v.p.) 5da. (?4 d.v.p.); (2) by 1661, Elizabeth, da. of Sir George Booth, bt., of Dunham Massey, s.p. Kntd. 1 Oct. 1642. d. 4 Oct. 1679; admon. 3 Nov. 1679-30 Apr. 1680.1
Gov. Newark and Appleby Castle 1643-6;2 maj. and capt. tp. of horse, earl of Lindsey’s regt. 1662;3 capt. tp. of horse, 1666.4
Associated with: Strelley, Notts. and Newstead Abbey, Notts.5
The Byrons, according to tradition, were the descendants of a family living at Beuron near Nantes, who came over with the Conqueror. In 1086 Ralph de Buron was recorded as holding land in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire; by the 15th century the family had extended their estates into Lancashire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Newstead Priory was acquired following the dissolution of the monasteries in 1540 and became the principal family seat, while Sir John Byron† (later Baron Byron), further consolidated the Lancashire holdings by purchasing the manor of Rochdale in 1638.6
One of the seven Byron brothers ‘bred up in arms’ to fight for the king during the Civil War, Sir Richard Byron was overshadowed by his more flamboyant elder brother, Sir John, and his more accomplished younger brother, Sir Thomas Byron, both of whom proved themselves able military commanders.7 Despite his less obvious talents, Sir Richard Byron was made governor of Appleby Castle in Westmorland and of Newark in Nottinghamshire in 1643, the same year that his elder brother was raised to the peerage as Baron Byron of Rochdale.8 He compounded in 1646, being fined £120 at the rate of one tenth.9
Following the death of the 1st Baron without heirs in 1652, Sir Richard Byron succeeded to the peerage under a special remainder. He inherited an estate heavily reduced through sequestration, the total value of his wealth estimated at £1,200.10 Having been previously content to remain on the sidelines, Byron now displayed a determined, if ineffectual, commitment to the royalist cause. The Restoration put an end to his incompetent plotting. On 1 June he took his seat in the House after which he was present on almost 58 per cent of all sitting days and was named to three committees.
Byron spent much of the remainder of his career both in and out of the House desperately attempting to rebuild his fortunes: the extent of his precarious financial situation perhaps indicated by his decision to sell his estate at Royton in Lancashire in 1662.11 On 23 June 1660 a petition of his son, William Byron, later 3rd Baron Byron, seeking the reversal of a decree in chancery was referred to the committee for petitions, and on 13 Aug. Byron himself petitioned successfully for the restitution of tithes and glebes in the rectories of Rochdale and Saddleworth, which had originally been let to his mother by William Juxon, archbishop of Canterbury.12 The following day he was added to the committee considering the bill for his Nottinghamshire neighbour, William Cavendish, marquess (later duke) of Newcastle. In October Byron petitioned for several manors in Hampshire and Wiltshire, formerly belonging to the regicide John Lisle‡, and the following month he submitted a further petition for the revival of an office granted by Charles I to rectify abuses in the silk dyeing industry.13
Byron resumed his seat for the second session on 6 Nov., after which he was present on 77 per cent of all sitting days and he again named to three committees. On 14 Dec. the House issued a further order referring to his property in Rochdale and Saddleworth, instructing that any money still in the hands of the former trustees should be made over to him.14 On 20 Dec. Byron complained that one of his servants had been arrested contrary to privilege, and the House ordered that the offender, Charles Blackamore, should be brought to the bar to explain his conduct.
Byron took his seat at the opening of the Cavalier Parliament in May 1661. Named to the sessional committees for petitions and privileges, he was present on 95 per cent of all sitting days. His high rate of attendance was reflected in his nomination to 39 committees during the session, the majority of them concerning private bills, or measures involving improvement in trade. Byron opposed Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in his attempts to secure the office of great chamberlain in July 1661, presumably preferring the claims of his Lincolnshire neighbour Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey. In December an order was made for Byron to be paid £600 out of fines on goods forfeit for non-payment of customs. Byron chaired a session of the committee nominated to consider the bill for curates’ allowances on 13 Feb. 1662, but when the committee met again on 22 Feb. Jerome Weston, 2nd earl of Portland, took over the chairmanship.15 On 19 May he protested against the resolution to agree with the Commons in dropping two provisos suggested by the Lords from the bill for mending common highways.
Byron returned to the House for the second session on 18 Feb. 1663, after which he was present on almost 91 per cent of all sitting days and during which he was named to 18 committees. Byron’s assiduous attendance of the House may have been on account of his keen interest in the progress of a bill of his own. On 18 May a bill for supplying the loss of certain evidences in the time of the late troubles belonging to Byron received its first reading. On 21 May the bill was heard before a select committee chaired by John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater. Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden, raised objections to the bill, concerned that the interest of his niece, wife of Byron’s son William, should not be compromised. The committee ordered that William Byron and Lady Campden should be notified of the bill and at a subsequent hearing on 30 May Byron assured the committee that his son had consented to the measure. Sir John Colladon, the queen’s physician, speaking on behalf of Byron’s creditors, was heard and gave his consent on 1 June, enabling the committee to recommend that the bill be returned to the House.16 Two days later Bridgwater reported back from the committee, recommending the bill as fit to pass, but the same day Sir Daniel Harvey‡ petitioned to be heard in the matter and on 11 June the bill was recommitted. Following a lengthy consideration of Harvey’s objections, the bill was again recommended as fit to pass with the addition of a proviso and eventually sent down to the Commons for their approval on 6 July.17 The same day Byron’s chaplain, Samuel Withers, petitioned the House to be freed from custody in Norwich, where he had been imprisoned for debt. Order was given for Withers’ release two days later. That month Byron, one of a number of former royalists who now opposed the lord chancellor, was listed as being a doubtful supporter of the attempted impeachment of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol.
Byron was missing at the opening of the new session, and he was excused at a call of the House on 4 Apr. 1664. He resumed his seat on 2 May, after which he attended 39 per cent of all sitting days, but he was named to only one committee: that of 10 May considering the bill to continue the act for regulating the press. On 12 May Byron was subjected to the indignity of having a number of his goods in Nottingham, including a bedstead valued at £60, seized by the sheriff in satisfaction of a debt of £100 still owing from Byron for the voluntary gift to the king.18 The House ordered their restoration. Byron resumed his familiar attendance pattern during the following session, sitting from 24 Nov. 1664 until 2 Mar. 1665, approximately 75 per cent of all sitting days in the session, during which he was named to nine committees. He failed to attend the brief fifth session later that year, perhaps again preoccupied with financial troubles. In May 1665 Bulstrode Whitelocke‡ noted that Byron still owed Sir John Colladon £4,000 and that he was able to ‘give only promises, and no assurance’ for the sum.19 In April 1666 Whitelocke’s agent, James Pearson, attempted a more direct approach, writing to discover whether Byron would pay any of the money owing having heard of ‘some considerable sum to be lately raised by the sale of timber in Newstead’ but Byron remained immoveable.20 Byron’s financial embarrassments ought perhaps to have been alleviated by a decision made in May 1665 to accept timber from his estates in Nottinghamshire for the navy, and during the following years Byron petitioned frequently to be leased ships to transport his wood to the dockyards.21
Byron resumed his seat and regular attendance pattern for the 1666-7 session. He attended 80 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to nine committees. On 19 Dec. he registered his proxy in favour of John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes (later earl of Radnor), which was vacated at his return to the House on 17 Jan. 1667. The same month, on 23 Jan., Byron dissented from the resolution not to add a clause granting a right of appeal to the king and House of Lords in the bill for resolving disputes concerning houses destroyed during the great fire. In June Byron was commissioned into the non-regimented troop of horse commanded by Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland.22
Byron took his seat almost a fortnight after the opening of the 1667-9 session, after which he was again conscientious in his attendance; he was present on 101 of the 122 sitting days and was named to at least 18 committees. Having aligned himself with those in opposition to Clarendon in November, he protested against the failure to impeach the disgraced lord chancellor on 20 Nov. 1667. On 7 Dec. he was named to the committee considering the bill for banishing Clarendon. On 29 Feb. 1668 Byron was added to the committee for petitions. On 24 Apr. another of his servants, Samuel Selwood, petitioned for his release from incarceration in Newgate, to which he had been conveyed notwithstanding Byron’s protection.
Byron returned to the House a few days after the opening of the brief session of October 1669, attending 31 of the 36 sitting days. Despite this, he was named to only two committees during the session in addition to the sessional committees to which he was added on 26 October. On 9 Nov. the House received information that John Filewood was engaged in suing one of Byron’s servants, declaring openly that he did not care about Byron’s protection. Filewood was ordered to appear before the House the following day, but failed to do so.
Byron resumed his seat in the House for the new session on 14 Feb. 1670, attending almost 88 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to at least 50 committees. His signature on 19 Mar. confirms that he was an active member of the Journal committee, but in the midst of the session Byron’s attention was increasingly taken up with a protracted dispute with Sir William Juxon (nephew and heir to the archbishop) over the rectories of Rochdale, Saddleworth and Butterworth. Byron first complained of a breach of privilege by Juxon in November 1670, Juxon having continued to collect tithes and having threatened any tenants who attempted to pay their rents to Byron’s agents.23 Although Byron was restored to possession the following month, the case continued into the next year. In March 1671 Byron complained again that Juxon had ignored a further order concerning his rights. Unable to resolve the matter, on 14 Mar. the House referred the dispute back to the court of chancery.
Byron returned to the House on 4 Feb. 1673, and was again conscientious in his attendance, sitting on 93 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the sessional committees for petitions, privileges, and the sub-committee for the Journal, during the course of the session he was named to a further 18 committees. Presumably in response to his constant petitions for restitution of his wartime losses, in April 1673 Byron was granted an annuity of £500.24
Byron attended just two days of the following session in October and November 1673 but resumed his normal attendance pattern in the next brief (1674) session, attending 82 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to three committees. Byron was present for almost 79 per cent of the first 1675 session, during which he was named to the sessional committees as well as five other select committees. In April 1675 he was noted as one of those thought likely to support the non-resisting test. He resumed his seat for the October session of 1675, attending 17 of the 21 sitting days. On 14 Oct. Edward Ward, 2nd Baron Ward, registered his proxy in Byron’s favour; it was vacated by the close of the session. In November Byron may have been among those peers to vote against the address to the Crown requesting a dissolution, but as the list states simply ‘L B’ a definite identification is not possible.25
Byron returned to the House on 15 Feb. 1677 for the 1677-8 session, attending some 70 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to 44 committees. At the beginning of May he was noted triply vile by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. He was present at the opening of the ensuing session on 23 May 1678, when although he was named to a dozen committees, he attended less than half of the session before retiring. He returned on 2 Nov. for the second 1678 session and was present for almost 76 per cent of the session. Although Byron was not nominated to any select committees during this session, on 6 Nov. he was added to the sub-committee for the Journal of which he appears to have been an active member, signing off the record on at least four occasions. On 15 Nov. he voted against including the declaration against transubstantiation in the Test Bill and the following month, on 26 Dec. he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the bill for disbanding the army. The same day he was added to the committee for examinations, and the following day (27 Dec.) he voted against committing Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds).
In or about March 1679, before the opening of the new Parliament, Danby assigned Peregrine Bertie‡ to canvass Byron about his attitude to Danby’s attainder. It was presumably as a result of information provided by Bertie that Danby included Byron in his list of likely supporters in the coming session. Noted in favour of the disgraced former lord treasurer in subsequent forecasts, Byron took his seat at the opening of Parliament on 6 Mar. 1679. On 12 Mar, although he was recorded as present in the Journal, Byron’s name was included in a list of absent court lords. He resumed his seat at the start of the second session of the Parliament on 15 Mar., after which he was present on every sitting day. At the beginning of April he was listed among those who had voted against the early stages of the bill of attainder, and on 4 Apr. he again voted against it, registering his dissent against the resolution to pass the measure. Ten days later he voted against agreeing with the Commons on the issue. The following month, on 10 May, he opposed appointing a committee of both Houses to consider the method of trying the impeached peers, and on 14 May he entered his dissent at the passage of the bill for regulating the trials of peers. Byron sat for the last time on the final day of the session on 27 May, when he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during consideration of capital cases. He died later that year on 4 October. He was buried at Hucknall and succeeded in the peerage by his only surviving son, William Byron, as 3rd Baron Byron.
R.D.E.E.- 1 Index of Wills, Administrations and Probate Acts in the York Registry, (Yorks. Arch. Soc. lxviii) 149; Walker, 114.
- 2 E. Baines, History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster ed. J. Croston, iii. 10.
- 3 CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 504.
- 4 Ibid. 1667, p. 182.
- 5 V. W. Walker, The House of Byron, p. 67.
- 6 Walker, 2, 21, 26; VCH Lancs. v. 191.
- 7 Mems of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson (1806 edn), 96.
- 8 Walker, 73.
- 9 CCC, 1308.
- 10 M. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 107.
- 11 Walker, 106.
- 12 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/298.
- 13 CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 341, 384.
- 14 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/302.
- 15 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, 135, 148.
- 16 Ibid. 374, 379, 380.
- 17 Ibid. 318, 383, 395-6.
- 18 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/320.
- 19 Whitelocke Diary, 692.
- 20 Whitelocke Diary, 703; Longleat, Bath mss Whitelocke pprs. 20. f. 120.
- 21 CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 398, 1665-6, pp. 271, 276; 1667, p. 88.
- 22 CSP Dom. 1667, p. 182.
- 23 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/339/309; HMC 8th Rep. 147.
- 24 CSP Dom. 1673, p. 121.
- 25 Add. 35865, f. 224.