suc. John Villiers, Visct. Purbeck 18 Feb. 1658 as 2nd Visct. PURBECK
Never sat.
MP Westbury Jan.-Feb. 1659, Malmesbury 1660
b. 19 Oct. 1624, s. of Frances, da. of Sir Edward Coke‡, l.c.j.k.b. 1613-16, of Stoke Poges, Bucks., w. of John Villiers†, Visct. Purbeck (c.1591-1658). educ. in France c.1633-41. m. 23 Nov. 1648, Elizabeth (d.1709), da. and coh. of Sir John Danvers‡ of Dauntsey, Wilts. 2s. 3da. suc. mother 1645. d.1674. admon. 14 Mar. 1676 to Thomas Hughes, guardian of heir Robert, Viscount Purbeck.1
Col. of ft. (royalist) 1643-4; gov. Oswestry 1643-4.
Freeman, Chipping Wycombe 1668.
Associated with: Bassetbury, Wilts. and Knighton, Rad.
Whether Danvers possessed a peerage that entitled him to be regarded as a member of the House of Lords was the subject of much controversy. The mental health of John Villiers, Viscount Purbeck (older brother of George Villiers†, duke of Buckingham) was fragile.2 His wife deserted him in 1621 and was subsequently convicted in the court of high commission of adultery with Sir Robert Howard‡, a younger son of Thomas Howard†, earl of Suffolk. It was a matter of common belief that Sir Robert was the biological father of Lady Purbeck’s son. The child was initially christened as Robert Wright but subsequently assumed the surname of Howard before taking that of his wife’s father in 1655. Nevertheless, Viscount Purbeck did not sue for a legal separation or Church court divorce and appears to have recognized the young man as his son and heir. Like the analogous case of Nicholas Knollys, who styled himself 3rd earl of Banbury, the normal application of common law rules suggests that Danvers was legitimate and ought to have succeeded to the viscountcy at the death of his mother’s husband.
In the eyes of the House of Lords in 1660, Danvers was indeed a viscount. Having once been a Catholic and a royalist, Danvers had married the daughter of a man who was to become one of the regicide judges and then shifted both his religious and political allegiances, becoming a Presbyterian supporter of Parliament. On 15 June 1660 the House of Lords ordered his arrest for treasonable words. When he was brought to the House in the custody of Black Rod the following day, the charges included informations against him by Henry Carey, 2nd earl of Monmouth, who testified that he had ‘heard the said Viscount Purbeck say, that rather than the late king should want one to cut off his head, he would do it himself’ and by William Petre, 4th Baron Petre, that Purbeck had declared the regicide Bradshaw to be ‘a gallant man, the preserver of our liberties … [who he] … hoped … would do justice upon that tyrant (speaking of the late king).’ He was also accused of blasphemy. The House ordered him to take his place as a peer, but he refused, denying his peerage on the grounds that, ‘1. This honour was but a shadow, without a substance. 2. His small estate was unfit to maintain any such honour. 3. That noble family he comes of never owned him; neither hath he any estate from them.’ Yet although he also tried to stand on his status as a Member of the Commons, he effectively accepted his peerage status by petitioning the crown to pay a fine ‘to clear him of any title to that honour’ and, as he told the House that day, the crown had accepted his offer. The House did not order his release from imprisonment until 10 Sept. and even then it was on bail of £10,000. At no point during these transactions did the House consider him to be anything other than a peer. Danvers duly paid his fine to the crown in the autumn of 1660 but a year later, on 25 Nov. 1661, when it was noted that his name had been omitted at a call of the House a fresh investigation into his entitlement to sit was ordered. No report was made and there the matter rested until after his death.
In April 1675 Danvers’ son, also named Robert Villiers and still a minor, claimed the viscountcy. In his report to the crown (a copy of which was delivered to the House on 30 Apr. 1675), the attorney general declared that the matter should be referred to the House of Lords ‘forasmuch as it is a considerable question (never yet resolved that I know of) whether a peer can by a fine bar or extinguish an entailed honour.’ The claim also attracted opposition from the Villiers family in the person of George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, and Buckingham’s kinsman, William Feilding, 3rd earl of Denbigh. The House did not rule on the matter until forced to do so when the young man came of age in 1678 and claimed a writ of summons. On 18 June the House resolved ‘that no fine now levied, or at any time hereafter to be levied, to the king, can bar such title of honour, or the right of any person claiming such title under him that levied, or shall levy, such fine.’ Given the House’s insistence on its jurisdiction over the claimant’s father in 1660, despite allegations of his illegitimacy, the logical outcome of its decision that a peerage could not be relinquished would seem to have been that the claimant should have been admitted to the House as 3rd Viscount Villiers. With Buckingham and Denbigh still vehemently opposed to such a move, the House was reluctant to agree to his admission, although recognition of its own inconsistency was implicit in its decision on 20 June to petition the crown for leave to bring in a bill to disable his claim to the peerage. No such bill was ever passed. Villiers never received a writ of summons but continued to style himself Viscount Purbeck; after his death in 1684 so did his son John Villiers.
R.P.