SHIRLEY, Robert (1650-1717)

The Shirley family traced their descent to the Saxons. By the 17th century they held estates in several counties, principally in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire and the head of the family had been made a baronet. During the 1690s, the profitability of their Staffordshire holdings was increased markedly by the development of salt works at Weston-on-Trent, which by 1720 were estimated to be providing the family with a profit of some £320 annually. VCH Staffs. ii. 247. While the Shirleys were committed royalists, they enjoyed the advantage of being closely related to Robert Devereux^†, 3rd earl of Essex, which offered them some protection during the Civil War and enabled them to escape the worst of the committee for compounding. In spite of such connections, and despite his family’s recent Catholic background, Shirley’s father was a devout member of the Church of England, whose church construction project at Staunton Harold during the 1650s was designed as an explicit statement of religious defiance at a time ‘when all things sacred throughout the nation were either demolished or profaned’, and who hosted several senior clergymen, including Gilbert Sheldon, later archbishop of Canterbury and Henry Hammond. Shirley was also a key royalist plotter, closely in touch with the exiled court. He was imprisoned for his activities by Oliver Cromwell^‡ and died in the Tower: his death was treated by Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, as an irreparable loss. Shirley, Stemmata Shirleiana, 106-7; E.P. Shirley, Lower Eatington: its manor house and church, (1869), 66-8; A. Lacey, ‘Sir Robert Shirley’, Trans. Leics. Arch. and Hist. Soc. lviii. 25-35. His eldest son, Sir Seymour, died young as did Sir Seymour’s heir, and Robert Shirley therefore succeeded as 7th baronet in 1669. Verney ms mic. M636/23, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 10 Mar. 1669.

Shirley continued the family’s political tradition, asserting his credentials as an upholder of the Church of England and in the course of his long career in the Lords which began eight years later, in 1677, he acquired a reputation as an outspoken and at times splenetic orator, a patron of trade and a stern opponent of dissent. His hostility to nonconformists was established long before he entered the Lords. In 1673 several Leicestershire Dissenters attempted to undermine his position in the county where he was already accounted ‘a very great man indeed’, claiming that he had ‘spoken very unseemingly and disrespectfully of the king’s authority’; the king, however, dismissed the case declaring that ‘he believed no such words were spoken, and that he knew very well the loyalty and good affection of Sir Robert.’ Add. 70012, f. 63; CSP Dom. 1673, p. 369.

Baron Ferrers 1677-85

On 14 Dec. 1677, the barony of Ferrers was called out of abeyance in Shirley’s favour. The award, which emphasized that Shirley was being restored to the honour rather than created a new peer, was in part an acknowledgment of ‘the great and eminent services’ of his father but was also clearly part of an effort by the court to shore up its group in the Lords. Some anticipated that Shirley’s promotion would be questioned in the Lords as ‘it was not done in the first descent.’ It was also thought noteworthy that ‘this is done merely by his majesty, without any interposition or money given either to mistress or minister.’ Ferrers’ claim to the peerage came from his grandmother, Dorothy Devereux, the younger of Essex’s two sisters. The elder daughter, Frances, had left no family, thereby enabling the title to be revived. In the event, when Ferrers took his seat on 28 Jan. 1678 no protest was entered and he was allowed the precedence of the 6th Baron rather than being considered a new creation. CSP Dom. 1677-8, p. 505; Add. 38141, f. 77; HMC Bath, ii. 160; HMC Finch, ii. 37. He continued to attend for a further 42 days (almost 37 per cent of the session’s sitting days). Absent from the session after 23 Mar., two days later he registered his proxy with George Berkeley, 9th Baron (later earl of) Berkeley. Unsurprisingly, Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, added Ferrers to his list of lay lords under those he considered ‘triply vile’. Ferrers’ summons to the House occurred at a time when he had been considered a potential candidate for Lichfield in the forthcoming by-election occasioned by the death of one of the sitting members, Richard Dyott^‡. His elevation left the way clear for Sir Henry Lyttelton^‡, bt. to stand for the borough on the court interest. Add. 75363, T. Thynne to Halifax, 24 Dec. 1677.

Ferrers was absent during the following session but returned to the House for the next one on 7 Nov. 1678, after which he was present on 69 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Nov. he voted in favour of the motion for the test bill that the declaration against transubstantiation should lie under the same penalties as the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. He was one of only four peers to subscribe the protest of 6 Dec. against the decision to agree with the Commons’ address requesting the king issue a proclamation for disarming all Catholics convicted of recusancy. On 26 Dec. he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill, while the following day he voted against the commitment of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds). He was named a manager for the two conferences on 28 Dec. concerning the amendments to the supply bill, but the session was prorogued two days later with this matter still pending.

In advance of the new Parliament, Danby noted Ferrers among those lords upon whom he could rely for support. Ferrers first took his seat on 31 Mar. 1679, and attended about two-thirds of all sitting days in the session. He supported Danby by opposing the Commons’ bill which threatened his attainder if he did not surrender himself, and on 14 Apr. he signed the dissent against the House’s acceptance of this bill. On 9 May he was a manager for a conference concerning the Commons’ proposal that a joint committee be appointed to consider procedures against the impeached lords, and the following day Ferrers voted against agreeing to it. Also on 10 May he was appointed a manager for a conference concerning a petition from Danby. Ferrers returned to the House for the second Exclusion Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680, of which he attended almost 85 per cent of all sitting days. On 3 Nov. he introduced Conyers Darcy, the son of the 8th Baron Darcy, as Baron Conyers (later 2nd earl of Holdernesse), and on 15 Nov. he voted to reject the exclusion bill. On 23 Nov. he opposed, once more, moves to establish a joint committee to consider the state of the kingdom. On 7 Dec., he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason. Ferrers also remained a consistent supporter of the incarcerated former treasurer. In August 1680 Danby had written to him from the Tower, hoping that ‘I shall be so happy as to hear of your lordship amongst my judges at the beginning of the Parliament in October.’ HMC Hastings, ii. 172. Ferrers had replied modestly that, ‘you over pay those small services I have done you’ but assured him that, ‘it was honour, justice and loyalty prompted me to appear your servant and will still make me not consider either your lordship’s prosperity or adversity so as to change me from doing your lordship all the justice that is in my power.’ Add. 28053, f. 186. Ferrers’ support for Danby continued the following year. In a pre-sessional forecast of March 1681 Danby noted Ferrers again among those on whom he could rely. Ferrers attended all seven days of the brief Oxford Parliament that month.

Following the dissolution of 28 Mar. 1681, Ferrers joined a number of other local peers in putting his hand to the Derbyshire address. Add. 75360, J. Millington to Halifax, 27 July 1681. The following year, he was instrumental in persuading the corporation of Derby to surrender its charter. He wrote to Sir Leoline Jenkins^‡ reporting his actions and asking for further directions, desiring that the king might:

take notice of the loyalty and love of the magistrates towards him and the government and, if he accept the surrender, he’ll give me leave to be a petitioner to him for a new one, being under an obligation of serving them for their so readily complying with my advice. If his Majesty shall think I have been serviceable herein, I shall with his further pleasure endeavour to influence the corporations in Staffordshire to do the like. CSP Dom. 1682, p. 229.

Ferrers’ fond hope that the ‘happy issue’ might prove an ‘excellent example to other corporations’ was soon dispelled. Ibid. pp. 286-7. The corporation of Derby complained to him that the surrender of their charter at his instigation had cost them almost £300 and that they faced a case in the exchequer brought by one Turner who claimed that the new charter was invalid. CSP Dom. 1683-4, p. 126. Despite the corporation’s complaints, in January 1685 a new charter was also granted to Stafford where Ferrers had been appointed high steward in 1683 in place of James Scott, duke of Monmouth. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 192; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 389.

James II and the Revolution, 1685-95

The succession of James II initially promised further preferment for Ferrers. In the elections for the new Parliament in April 1685, he acted in alliance with Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, and George Legge, Baron Dartmouth, to promote the claims of Richard Leveson^‡ for the seat at Lichfield. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 121. Besides consolidating his interest in the midlands, Ferrers also established himself at court. In Feb. 1684 he had replaced Richard Lumley, Baron Lumley (later earl of Scarbrough), as master of the horse to Charles II’s queen, Catharine of Braganza. HMC Portland, iii. 377; Add. 75361, Chesterfield to Halifax, 7 Feb. 1684. He relinquished the post in 1686 but continued to be closely associated with Queen Catharine, becoming steward of her household and a member of her council from 1685 until her death. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 273-4; Belvoir Castle mss, Add. 18, no. 54; NLW, Wynnstay, L643.

Ferrers took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685. He introduced Dartmouth and then continued to attend on every day bar one of the session. On 22 June he acted as a teller in a division in a committee of the whole on the Deeping Fen bill. At the time of Monmouth’s Rebellion he was commissioned colonel of a regiment to be raised specifically for that emergency; he appears to have resigned his commission late in the following year. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 211; CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 294; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, f. 103. He was summoned to the court of the lord high steward for the trial of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington) on 14 Jan. 1686. State Trials, xi. 513-15. In the late summer of 1687 he was appointed lord lieutenant of Staffordshire in the place of Shrewsbury, apparently on the recommendation of Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 59; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 413; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 125. Nevertheless Ferrers remained a firm Anglican and refused to accede to James’s desires for toleration for Catholics. Political observers in 1687-8 consistently listed him as an opponent of the king’s policies. Given his stance it is unsurprising that the appointment proved to be short lived. Within two months of being granted the post Ferrers was summoned to London and turned out in favour of his Catholic neighbour, Walter Aston, 3rd Lord Aston [S]. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 98; HMC Downshire, i. 275-6; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 419. Aston also replaced him as high steward of Stafford in February 1688. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 389.

Ferrers continued to oppose the king’s policies into the following year. In June 1688 he ‘swore’ that the declaration ‘should not be read in his church’ and it was thought that few other churches in Derbyshire would accede to the king’s wishes. HMC Hastings, ii. 184. On the news of William of Orange’s landing, Ferrers joined Philip Stanhope, 2nd earl of Chesterfield, in rallying to Princess Anne at Nottingham. Even so, he proved a reluctant rebel and proceeded to annoy the princess by following Chesterfield’s lead in refusing to sign the association to protect the Prince of Orange. When the princess marched south to link up with Prince William’s forces Ferrers and Chesterfield accompanied her only as far as Warwick before returning to their midlands estates. Add. 19253, ff. 191-3; Add. 75361, Chesterfield to Halifax, 16 Dec. 1688; HMC Hastings, ii. 211.

Ferrers was in London for the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, though he proceeded to attend on just 21 days of the whole session. On 29 Jan. he voted in favour of a regency. His actions attracted the attention of Roger Morrice, who recorded that although the proceedings had been chaired fairly by Danby, Ferrers, whom he dubbed Danby’s ‘creature’, ‘voted as you have heard’. Morrice also noted that Ferrers spoke ‘with great fierceness and very frequently’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 504. On the last day of January Ferrers voted against declaring the prince and princess king and queen. On 2 Feb. he seconded Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, in calling for John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, to open a petition he had brought in and reveal who had signed it. Lovelace withdrew the paper, which he admitted lacked any signatures, but assured the House that in the future ‘there should be hands enough to it’. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 258. Two days later Ferrers was appointed a reporter for the conference at which the houses discussed their disagreement over the word ‘abdicated’. He then voted against concurring with the Commons in this, and over the following two days he was named a manager for a further two conferences. On 6 Feb. he was one of a number of peers who had hitherto sided with the loyalists who absented themselves from the decisive vote on this issue, which ultimately saw the acceptance of the notion that James II had abdicated. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 261. He then left the House for a period of two months after 8 February.

By the beginning of March Ferrers was in Leicestershire, from where on 8 Mar. he wrote to George Savile, marquess of Halifax, as speaker of the Lords, to excuse his absence which he attributed to ‘his present unhappiness of health (which is very extraordinary).’ Ten days later two of his servants appeared before the House to certify to his continued indisposition as a result of which he was granted leave to remain in the country. Ferrers resumed his place on 8 Apr., on which day he was appointed a reporter for the conference on the bill for removing papists from London. As steward of the household of the queen dowager Ferrers was concerned with the bill’s provisions for the number of Catholic servants allowed to her and he was named a manager for the ensuing three conferences on this matter on 16-18 April. On 16 Apr. he was also one of three peers nominated to wait on the king about his reception of an address. Ferrers then quit the chamber again two days later and on 19 Apr. was once more granted leave to retreat to the country on the condition that he leave his proxy, which he lodged with Dartmouth. HMC Lords, ii. 37. Dartmouth employed it on 30 July to vote in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill for the reversal of the judgments against Titus Oates.

Dislike of the new regime did not prevent Ferrers from continuing to attend the House entirely. He was back in his place for two days at the close of the first session, on 19 and 21 Oct. 1689, and then took his seat in the chamber for the second session on 23 October. He then proceeded to attend for a further eight days before retiring from the remainder of the Convention. On 12 Nov. he submitted a request for leave to go into the country for his health and the following day he registered his proxy with Dartmouth once more, which was vacated by the prorogation. Ferrers took his seat in the new Parliament on 1 May 1690, after which he was present on 37 per cent of all sitting days of its first session. On 2 May he spoke in the debate on the abjuration bill, stressing that the measure should be rejected as it dishonoured those who had opposed the claim that the former king had abdicated. Eg. 3347, ff. 4-5. Five days later, he was entrusted with Berkeley’s proxy, which he was able to exercise between 9 and 20 May. On 10 May Ferrers acted as teller in three divisions concerning the petition of the City of London about the bill to restore its former charter. On 21 May he was one of the tellers on the question whether to proceed with consideration on the bill for forfeitures.

Ferrers was missing from the opening of the following session on 2 Oct. 1690. The reason for his absence appears to have been poor health, which made him reluctant to ‘venture the passing over the river at this time of the year’ but he had presumably recovered by 6 Nov. when he took his seat once more. Bodl. Tanner 27, f. 222. He was thereafter present on 27 sitting days. His attention was taken up by the progress of an appeal, first heard before the House on 21 Nov., arising from a chancery case between his son and the family of his daughter-in-law. HMC Lords, iii. 187. Ferrers attended for the final time in the session on 8 Dec. when he registered his proxy with Dartmouth. Nearly a year later, he took his seat a month into the 1691-2 session on 28 Nov. 1691, of which he attended just under 24 per cent of all sitting days. On 7 Dec. he acted as one of the tellers on the question whether to adjourn the debate whether proxies might be employed in preliminary votes on judgments. Ferrers ceased to attend the session after 5 Jan. 1692. On 23 Jan. one of his servants was subpoenaed to give evidence about the alleged adultery of the duchess of Norfolk. Two days later Ferrers registered his proxy with his kinsman Weymouth. At about that time he was listed by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, among those Derby thought sympathetic to his efforts to recover estates lost during the commonwealth. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9.

Ferrers failed to attend the House for the next two sessions. In a letter of 26 Nov. 1692 he excused his absence by ‘some extraordinary family business’ HMC Lords, iv. 121, 122. He registered his proxy on 6 Dec. 1692 with Weymouth, who wielded it to vote in favour of the passage of the place bill on 3 Jan. 1693. Ferrers registered his proxy with Weymouth again on 8 Nov. 1693 and in June 1694 he was in communication with Weymouth about problems relating to the partition of their Irish estates. Staffs. RO, D3794/7/5. He returned to the House finally after an absence of almost three years on 6 Nov. 1694 but then proceeded to attend on just 17 per cent of all sitting days of that session, leaving on 20 December, from when his proxy was once more in Weymouth’s hands.

Return to politics, 1695-1702

Ferrers’ attendance improved markedly in the Parliament elected in 1695. Having taken his seat on 2 Dec. 1695, he was in the House on almost 80 per cent of all sitting days of the first session. The reason for his apparently sudden change of heart may have been his concern over the progress of the war and the state of trade. On 3 Dec. he was a prominent participant in the debates in the committee of the whole House, advocating that the House turn its attention first to the state of trade and the state of the fleet. He then supported a motion put forward by Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, that representatives of the East and West Indies companies should attend. He was named a manager for the conference held 5 Dec. at which an address concerning the state of the currency was presented to the Commons. The following day he spoke out against England’s involvement in the land war against France arguing that ‘the war by land is for the sake of a foreign prince, of which we have no cautionary towns’. He then moved that an address be made to the king requesting that papers on the composition of the English Army and Navy be submitted to the House. On 9 Dec. he was again a participant in the continuing exchanges over the state of trade and asked that a list be submitted of all those English merchants who had stock in the Scottish East India Company. HMC Hastings, iv. 313-16. He was named a manager for the conferences on 14 and 16 Dec. at which the wording of the address against the Scottish company was agreed upon.

Early in the new year he was appointed a manager for conferences on 3, 7 and 11 Jan. 1696 at which the two Houses argued over the Lords’ amendments to the bill for regulating the coinage. On 6 and 23 Jan. and 6 and 7 Feb., he reported from the committee assigned to consider papers submitted by the admiralty. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 65. On 14 Jan. he also reported from the committee considering the state of trade. On 24 Jan. he also subscribed the dissent from the passage of the bill to prevent false and double returns of Members. Ibid. 74, 75. On 24 Feb. 1696 he was appointed a manager for the two conferences that day at which the houses agreed on the address to the king congratulating him on his escape from assassination. Two days later Ferrers was as a teller on the question whether a newly devised clause abrogating the right of James II to the throne should be included in the Association. Ibid. 205. Ferrers consistently refused to subscribe the Association. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 22; HMC Portland, iii. 574; Add. 36913, f. 266. In explaining this decision, l’Hermitage described Ferrers as ‘not among those who are the most listened to, but from whom occasionally escapes some sally or jest which diverts the others’. Add. 17677 QQ, f. 297-8. His refusal to join the Association was consistent with his previous behaviour at Nottingham during the Revolution.

During the last months of the session he also reported regularly from committees of the whole House: on the bill to prohibit trade with France (7 Feb.); on the mutiny bill (23 Mar.); and on the bill regarding the honour of Tutbury and Needwood Forest (13 Apr.). HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 151, 224. On 3 and 12 Mar. he reported from select committees considering private and local bills. He was involved in the claim to the barony of Willoughby de Broke of Richard Verney, which was eventually accepted this session. On 17 Jan. 1696 Ferrers was a teller on the question whether Verney and his counsel should be heard at the bar, and on 13 Feb. he again acted as a teller for the division whether to continue consideration of Verney’s case. On 31 Mar. he signed the dissent from the passage of the bill to encourage the bringing in of plate to the Mint. In early April, prior to the close of the session on 16 Apr., he acted as teller in three further divisions and was named a manager on 6 Apr. for a conference on the bill to encourage privateers. Ibid. 197, 223, 242.

He returned to the House for the 1696-7 session on 2 Nov. 1696. On 26 Nov. acted as one of the tellers for the division over whether to retain a standing order relating to lords’ answering queries in the Commons. On 27 Nov. and then again on 5 Dec. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the condition of the Navy. Ibid. n.s. ii. 302. Ferrers was a prominent opponent of the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick^‡, 3rd bt. He signed the protest of 15 Dec. against the admission of Cardell Goodman’s evidence and three days later spoke, with characteristic vehemence, against giving the bill a second reading, equating it with the proceedings against Edward Fitzharris in 1681 and considering it a violation of justice and Magna Carta. He consequently signed the protest against the second reading. WSHC, 2667/25/7; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, i. 133. On 23 Dec. he was again prominent in opposition to the bill, and argued that there was ‘as great a necessity against all the Roman Catholics of England as against Sir John Fenwick.’ Bodl. Carte 109, ff. 69-70; Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/1/6, ff. 96-8. He then voted against the bill and entered his protest when it was carried. On 18 Jan. 1697, he acted as teller in a division on the question whether to include wording in the representation to be made to the king concerning the interference of Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough), in Fenwick’s trial. Earlier that month he had also told in another division on a legal cause. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 270, 294. He joined with Thomas Tufton, 6th earl of Thanet, Chesterfield and Weymouth in February in standing bail for his kinsman, Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury. HMC Downshire, i. 645; Ailesbury Mems. 424-5; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 183. On 16 Mar. he entrusted his proxy with Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford, which was vacated by the close.

Ferrers spent part of the summer of 1697 in conference with other Tory members of Parliament, including Weymouth, Chesterfield, and William Savile, 2nd marquess of Halifax. In August Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, wanted Weymouth to bring Ferrers with him to Exton; Ferrers was keen for them to go together; Weymouth wanted to know Halifax’s opinion before he committed himself. Ferrers later played host to both Sir Edward Seymour^‡, 4th bt. and his hounds. Add. 75368, Weymouth to Halifax, 9, 26, 30 July 1697, Nottingham to Halifax, 2 Aug. 1697; Add. 75370, F. Gwyn to Halifax, 21 July 1697; Add. 70203, A. Newport to R. Harley, 11 Sept. 1697. Ferrers returned to London in November, keen to dispose of his daughters, ‘for which London is the best market’, wrote Weymouth. Add. 75368, Weymouth to Halifax, 7 Nov. 1697.

Ferrers took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec. 1697, after which he proceeded to attend 47 per cent of all sitting days. On 6 Dec. he reported from the committee concerning the Address. He received Weymouth’s proxy on 10 Dec. and five days later that of Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon. Weymouth was eager to assure Halifax that he would have preferred to have lodged it with him but that he felt obliged to entrust it to Ferrers, having been the recipient of his proxy on so many previous occasions. Ibid. Weymouth to Halifax, 11, 31 Dec. 1697. Ferrers reported from four committees between 28 Jan. and 13 Apr. 1698. In February he was present at a dinner attended by Halifax and Nottingham at which discussion of the Commons’ bill to punish Charles Duncombe^‡ was discussed. They confidently expressed the view that Duncombe ‘will come off in the House of Lords if the bill should pass against him in that of the Commons’. Bodl. Ballard 39, f. 136. On 7 and 11 Mar. Ferrers was appointed a manager for conferences on this bill. On 12 Mar. he acted as one of the tellers for the division whether to reverse the judgment in the case Rex v. Mellen. On 15 Apr. he entrusted his proxy with Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke.

Following the dissolution, Ferrers was active in the elections of summer 1698 for the new Parliament. Eager to cultivate his interest in Staffordshire, he encouraged his son, Hon. Robert Shirley, to stand for the county. In spite of meetings held at Chartley and the support of Shrewsbury and John Holles, duke of Newcastle, who ‘always differ with my Lord Ferrers in their opinions in the House of Peers’, Shirley failed to secure the county’s support. William Salt Lib. D/1721/3/291; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 531-2. Ferrers took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present on 81 per cent of all sitting days in its first session. On 8 Feb. 1699 he was typically forthright in his contribution to the debate about the retention of the king’s Dutch Guards. He took the king’s part against those that wished to deprive William III of this bodyguard, suggesting that by their refusal to aid the king they had given him ‘a crown of thorns and put a reed in his hand and afterwards they had given him vinegar and gall to drink.’ Carte 228, ff. 282-3. Such contributions may have given rise to rumours in the spring that Ferrers was to be advanced to the earldom of Tamworth. Ibid. f. 288. Ferrers was excused on the grounds of ill health from participating in the trial on 29 Mar. of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun. Ferrers did return to take his place two days later. Reports of his expected promotion in the peerage failed to come to pass, though he was admitted to the Privy Council on 25 May. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 19; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 485, 520. He continued to play a role as a committee chairman, reporting that April from three select committees on private bills and one committee of the whole.

In August 1699 Ferrers married for the second time. Both his decision to marry (given the number of legitimate, not to mention illegitimate, children he already had) and his choice of bride provoked delighted salacious gossip. The new Lady Ferrers, Selina Finch, was thought to be around 16 or 17 years old, ‘her beauty her portion’. She had originally been introduced into the family by Ferrers’ daughters as a companion and his apparently very sudden resolution to marry her caused consternation among his remaining offspring. Several of them left home in disgust causing him to fling their belongings into the moat, while his second son, Washington Shirley^†, later 2nd Earl Ferrers, tried to dissuade his father from the marriage, telling him that he had already slept with his prospective step-mother. Some speculated that Ferrers’ histrionics were contrived while others seem to have believed that he was genuinely unhinged and had been behaving increasingly oddly over the previous year. Weymouth (a relative of Selina, Lady Ferrers and never very complimentary about his Staffordshire neighbour) seems to have been ambivalent about the way in which Ferrers’ marriage now made him his ‘double cousin.’ Verney ms mic. M636/51, A. Nicholas to Sir J. Verney, 19 Aug. 1699; Add. 75370, G. Eyre to Halifax, 19 Aug. 1699; Kent HLC (CKS), U1590/c9/8; Add. 75368, Weymouth to Halifax, 28 Aug. 1699.

Mad or not, Ferrers attended the prorogation days of 28 Sept. and 24 Oct. 1699 prior to taking his seat in the new session on 16 Nov. 1699. He then proceeded to attend on 84 per cent of all sitting days. Between 24 Jan. and 10 Feb. 1700 he chaired two committees and on 23 Feb. 1700 voted against adjourning into committee of the whole to consider amendments to the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation. On 2 Apr. he reported from committee of the whole House on the bill for continuing the act preventing the exportation of wool and two days later further chaired the committee of the whole on the bill to appoint assayers of plate. HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 136. He was closely involved in the controversy surrounding the land tax bill, with its ‘tack’ of provisions for the parliamentary resumption of William III’s grants of forfeited Irish lands. On 6 Apr. he was as a teller in two divisions on the bill, one of them on the Commons’ clause to bar excise officials from future Parliaments. On 8 Apr. he again told, on a proposed rider to the bill, and over 9-10 Apr. he acted as a manager in three bad-tempered conferences over the Commons’ objections to the Lords’ amendments to the bill. Ibid. 141. When on 10 Apr., following the king’s request that this supply bill be seen through, the House receded from their amendments, Ferrers joined 20 others to register his dissent. The session was prorogued the following day and on 23 May Ferrers acted as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament again, before the dissolution of 19 Dec. 1700.

In December 1700 Ferrers appears to have been engaged in an arrangement concerted with Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, over the election at Malmesbury, though it is not clear what Ferrers’ interest in the borough amounted to. Carte 233, f. 300. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Feb. 1701, of which he attended approximately 48 per cent of all sitting days. Later that month he was one of four peers appointed by James Annesley, 3rd earl of Anglesey, to attempt to reconcile him with his countess. HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 190. On 8 Mar. he reported from the committee of the whole House considering the bill for renewing exchequer bills. During the remainder of the session he acted as a teller in three divisions: on the previous question in the case of Captain Desborough (8 Mar.); on whether to adjourn discussion of the partition treaty (18 Mar.); and on whether reasons given in the address to the king concerning the impeached Whig lords should stand (16 April). Ibid. 182, 222, 296.

The reign of Anne to 1710

Ferrers attended the prorogation day of 30 Oct. 1701 before returning to the House for the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701. He reported from the committee for the Address on 1 Jan. 1702 and he reported from another committee on 21 February. On 6 and 10 Feb. he was appointed a reporter for conferences on the Lords’ amendments to the bill to attaint the Pretender. Given his previously frosty relations with Princess Anne, the death of William III in March 1702 promised Ferrers little hope of greater preferment. However, he remained active in the House for most of the queen’s reign, and on 7 May was named a manager for a conference on the bill for the oath of abjuration. In the early years of the reign Ferrers was described as ‘a very honest man, a lover of his country, a great improver of gardening and parking.’ Macky Mems. 100.

Ferrers took his seat in the new Parliament on 9 Dec. 1702 after which he was present on a third of all sitting days of its first session. He was named a manager for a conference on 17 Dec. 1702 on the occasional conformity bill and early in 1703 Nottingham estimated him a likely supporter of the bill. He was again a conference manager for this measure on 9 Jan. 1703 and a week later he voted to adhere to the Lords’ ‘wrecking’ amendment to the bill’s penalty clause. On 18 Feb. he acted as a teller for a division on motion about condemning the Commons for the language used in their censure of the Lords’ acquittal of Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax and on 22 and 25 Feb. he was named as a manager for two hotly contested conferences on this dispute.

Ferrers took his seat for the following session on 4 Nov. 1703 after which he was present on just under 70 per cent of all sitting days. During the session he seems to have drifted from his usual Tory associates and to have made common cause with the Whigs. In advance of the session he was noted by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as now being a likely opponent of the occasional conformity bill, and he co-operated as forecast to defeat the measure by voting against it on 14 December. Though his opposition to a measure intended to strengthen the Church of England was unusual, like John Thompson, Baron Haversham, Ferrers may have believed that such a divisive bill was inappropriate in wartime. Timberland, ii. 66. In February 1704 he was again to be found consorting with Whigs. On 13 Feb. he was present at a meeting hosted by Sunderland, where most of the other leading figures in the Junto were in attendance and the main topic of discussion was the Scotch Plot. TNA, C104/116, pt. 1 (Ossulston Diary), 13 Feb. 1704. He acted as a teller for the divisions on whether to reverse part of the decree in the case Scott v. Hilton (29 Feb.) and (in committee of the whole) on a question whether to add words to the recruits bill (21 March). He also maintained his active role as a committee chairman, reporting from the committee for Holden’s bill on 23 Feb. and then from four committees of the whole between 13 and 30 March. HMC Lords, n.s. v. 557, 560.

In spite of his apparent fluctuation in political loyalties during the session, at the opening of 1704 Ferrers undertook to make common cause with Weymouth in the selection of candidates for Tamworth. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 28, f. 328. Ferrers took his seat in the new session on 9 Nov. 1704, in advance of which he seems to have been noted among those thought likely to support the Tack, although the mark on the list falls indecisively mid-way between Ferrers’ name and that of John West, 6th Baron De la Warr. On 21 Dec. he acted as one of the tellers for the question whether to adjourn discussion of the proposal to construct a new gallery in the chamber. Shortly after the Christmas recess, Ferrers, while warming himself at the fire in the Lords, discussed with Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, the value of wit in sermons (which Ferrers approved of). Their conversation followed an attempt by Halifax to censure one of the sermons preached by George Hooper, bishop of Bath and Wells. Verney ms mic. M636/53, R. Palmer to R. Verney, n.d. On 10 Feb. 1705 he served as a teller for the last time in his career, acting opposite Wharton on the motion whether to pass the bill concerning people taking new offices. On 28 Feb., and then again on 7 Mar. he was appointed a manager for the bitter conferences in which the Lords expounded their complaints against the Commons’ actions in the case of the ‘Aylesbury men’. He reported from the committee of the whole of 6 and 14 Mar. on, respectively, the bill for imposing duties on low wines and the subsidy bill. In April Ferrers was listed among those thought likely to support the Hanoverian succession.

Ferrers’ activity in the House declined markedly over the next few years. He took his seat once more on 15 Nov. 1705 but attended just eight days of the session. He was involved in no significant committee activities and quit the session after 6 Dec., after having voted that day that the Church of England was not in danger under the queen’s administration. PH, xxxii. 259. The reason for this sudden falling-off in attendance is not known but it remained the pattern until 1710. He took his seat in the following session on 3 Dec. 1706 but attended just 11 days of the whole (approximately 13 per cent). Fears for the security of the Church of England caused Ferrers to oppose union with Scotland. William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, reported him to have been ‘full of resentment’ towards the Scots since the time of the Act of Security. He felt that ‘the beggarly nation could not subsist without us; and yet they are for insulting us. He was for humbling them immediately.’ He was present for debates on the union on 3, 15 and 19 Feb. 1707, when he was said by Nicolson to have been ‘violent against the admission of Cameronians and Covenanters into our Parliaments.’ Nicolson, London Diaries, 246, 414, 419.

Resentment at the passage of the Union bill appears to have led to Ferrers absenting himself from the House for a lengthy period from March 1707 until 10 Dec. 1708 when he once more took his seat in the chamber. In the interim he was omitted from the new Privy Council of Great Britain when it was remodelled on 20 May 1707, but was subsequently sworn to it on 25 Nov. 1708. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 174; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 788; Add. 61652, f. 102. Having returned to the House, his attendance proved sporadic and he was present on just seven days of the whole session of 1708-9. In the meantime he was noted in a list of party affiliations as a Whig, which was perhaps indicative of the extent to which he was considered a maverick.

Sacheverell and the Hanoverian Succession, 1710-17

If Ferrers’ concern for the Church of England had caused him to shun the House for the previous few years, it seems to have been the same anxieties that brought him back on 31 Jan. 1710 in time to rally to the cause of Henry Sacheverell. He was a prominent participant in Lords debates on the matter and at Sacheverell’s trial he ‘pleaded warmly, the warmliest of any for the doctor.’ TNA, PRO, 30/24/21/182; HJ, xix. 769. On 14 Mar. he signed the protest against the decision that it was not necessary to include the specific words alleged to be criminal in the impeachment articles and two days later he protested against the resolution that the Commons had made good their charges in the first article of the impeachment. On 18 Mar., he joined with a handful of Tory peers in arguing against this resolution and also voiced his opposition to the proposal that the lords must express themselves merely ‘content’ or ‘not content’ to the whole set of charges, rather than being able to vote article by article; Ferrers argued that ‘some of the peers there present, might hereafter be impeached and repent, too late, the having made such a precedent of giving judgment generally.’ He subscribed the protest when this matter was resolved against him as well. A compleat history of the whole proceedings ... against Dr Henry Sacheverell (1710), 235-6; State Trial of Dr Henry Sacheverell, ed. B. Cowan, 71, 73, 93-4. Ferrers found Sacheverell not guilty on 20 Mar. and although he then failed to sign the dissent from the guilty verdict, he did the following day register his dissent from the sentence commanding Sacheverell’s papers to be burned and barring him from preaching for three years. Add. 29547, f. 52. After Sacheverell’s committal, Ferrers continued to display his loyalty to the disgraced cleric. HMC Cowper, iii. 171. The fall of the duumvirs’ administration and the increasing influence of Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, presented Ferrers with a new opportunity to advance his interests. In October 1710 Harley noted Ferrers as a likely supporter of his new ministry and although Ferrers was accused of acting ‘a very odd part’ during the election for Staffordshire in the autumn of 1710, he was successful in prevailing on Samuel Bracebridge^‡ to throw his hat into the ring at Tamworth. Add. 70026, f. 207; HMC Portland, iv. 608-9; Worcs. RO, Cal. Wm. Lygon letters, 340.

Ferrers took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710 after which he was present on 48 per cent of all sitting days of its first session. On 28 Nov. he reported from the committee concerning the Address to the queen. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 659. At about the same time, Ferrers weighed in on the debate provoked by the motion made by Scarbrough (as Lumley had become) for a vote of thanks to John Churchill, duke of Marlborough. Ferrers was noted to have said ‘a great many handsome things in the praise of the duke’ but concluded by advising delaying the vote until Marlborough had returned to England: a suggestion that was gratefully seized upon by Marlborough’s supporters. Wentworth Pprs. 159. From 3 Jan. 1711 Ferrers participated actively in the debates surrounding the military miscarriages in Spain. HMC Lords, n.s. ix. 19. On 9 Jan. the House accepted his motion that the memorial of the commander of the Allied forces in the peninsula, Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, Viscount Galway [I], should be heard in committee of the whole. Two days later he opposed the motion to read further petitions from the military commanders involved and insisted that they did not have to defend themselves as they had not yet been formally censured by the House. In the debate on 12 Jan. he strongly censured both those generals and the previous Whig ministry:

it was plain, the Council of Valencia was the cause of all our misfortunes in Spain. That the resolutions taken in it, were carried against the opinion of King Charles, and his ministers. That it was certainly a fault in the ministry here to approve that council; for a Secretary of State gives no direction but from the cabinet council.

Ferrers persevered in insisting that the most pressing point to be answered was how many English forces had been despatched to Spain by the ministry, and he undoubtedly voted for the resolutions of 11-12 Jan. which condemned the Whig war effort in Spain. Timberland, ii. 284, 311, 312, 319, 320-21, 322, 327.

Between 22 Feb. and 16 Mar. 1711 Ferrers reported from four committees of the whole, including those for the bills to establish landed qualifications for Members (22 Feb.) and to continue the Recruiting Act (28 February). On 16 Mar. he reported from two select committees. He was prominent in debates in the House on 5 Feb. on the reversal of the General Naturalization Act and he subscribed the protest against the rejection of the bill for its repeal. Nicolson, London Diaries, 542. On 1 Mar. he argued in favour of the House hearing the cause between the magistrates of Edinburgh and James Greenshields, and voted to overturn the judgment against him.NRS, GD 124/15/1020/13; NLS, Advocates’ mss,Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, ff. 153-4. Following the close of the session he was noted among the Tory ‘Patriots’ of the previous Parliament.

In early February 1711, in the midst of the session, Ferrers was involved in the by-election for Leicestershire, triggered by the succession of the sitting Member John Manners, styled marquess of Granby, as 2nd duke of Rutland. Ferrers was thought initially to be firm for Sir Thomas Cave^‡ but it later became apparent that he intended to employ his interest for Henry Tate instead, though in the end Cave was returned apparently unopposed. Leics. RO, Braye mss. 2845, 2864; Pols. in Age of Anne, 317; Verney Letters 18th Century, i. 323. By late June 1711 both Ferrers and his contemporaries were certain that he would be advanced in the peerage as Viscount Tamworth and Earl Ferrers, under the aegis of Ferrers’s new patron Lord Treasurer Oxford (as Harley had become), though the letters patent formally recording his promotion to earl were not sealed until 3 September. Boyer, Anne Annals, x. 215; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 267-8; Add. 70282, Ferrers to Oxford, 20 June 1711. The preamble to this patent praised Ferrers for his ‘unblemished reputation’ and for being ‘always either… the first proposer or assenter to the wholesome counsels of the Commonwealth.’ The Preambles to the Patents for advancing the Rt Hon William Lord Dartmouth… Thomas Lord Raby… and Robert Lord Ferrers, (1711), 8. His connection with Oxford was further underscored in August when Ferrers approached the lord treasurer to stand godfather to his daughter, Stuarta Shirley. Her unusual name was a deliberate attempt to flatter the queen (one of the child’s godparents) and was submitted to her for approval. Add. 70282, Ferrers to Oxford, 19 Aug., 4 Sept. 1711; HMC Portland, v. 74.

Ferrers was introduced in his new dignity on the prorogation day of 27 Nov. 1711, supported between Oxford and Nicholas Leke, 4th earl of Scarsdale. He then took his seat in the new session on 7 Dec., after which he was present on 64 per cent of all sitting days. He was listed among those to be canvassed to oppose the Whig attempt to insert a clause calling for ‘No Peace without Spain’ in the Address. On 19 Dec. he was forecast as likely to support the ministry the following day in the matter of the right of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat as duke of Brandon in the British peerage (as with Ferrers’ promotion, the title had been promised to Hamilton in the summer but did not pass the seals until September). On 20 Dec., however, Ferrers voted against the government and to bar Scots peers holding post-Union British titles from sitting in the Lords. He left the House for the remainder of the year after that vote, although a few days later Oxford noted him as someone to be contacted during the Christmas recess.

Ferrers resumed his place on 2 Jan. 1712, the day on which Oxford’s ‘dozen’ new peers were introduced. In the debates over whether or not the House should adjourn until 14 Jan., Ferrers delighted in teasing Nottingham, now allied with the Whigs, for insisting that the motion was unprecedented and ‘that what never had been done ought never to be done’, pointing out that everything had a beginning otherwise the search for precedents would be in vain. Having made his point, he then declared himself in favour of adjourning. Wentworth Pprs. 239-40. Over the two months following the adjournment, Ferrers chaired and reported from a number of committees. On 19 Jan. he reported from the committee for privileges on the petition of Francis Annesley. HMC Lords, n.s. ix. 184. He was particularly engaged in debates in committee of the whole House relating to Scotland, reporting from committees on the queen’s request that the House devise a solution to the crisis caused by its rejection of Hamilton’s right to sit (18, 21 and 25 Jan.); the bill to legalize Episcopal worship in Scotland (13 Feb. but reported 15 Feb.); and the bill to restore the presentation rights of lay patrons in Scotland (12 April). Ibid. 174, 197, 235-6. He also reported on 29 Feb. from committee of the whole House on the bill to continue the commission on public accounts. He divided with the ministry on 28 May in opposing the motion to address the queen to overturn the orders forbidding James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from prosecuting an offensive campaign on the continent, and on 7 June he reported from committee the draft of an address thanking queen for imparting news on progress of the peace negotiations.

Following the close of the session, Ferrers wrote to Oxford in August 1712 praising his ‘indefatigable labours’ in procuring the peace and insisting particularly on his own pleasure ‘that have been so great a sufferer both in England and Ireland by this aggressive and ill managed war’, in the end of hostilities. Add. 70282, Ferrers to Oxford, 16 Aug. 1712. That autumn Ferrers was himself the subject of complaint from one Maurice Wheeler, concerning an episode that did nothing to enhance Ferrers’ reputation as an upholder of the Church of England. Wheeler was attempting to undertake the reconstruction of the church at Coleorton in Leicestershire, lying within Ferrers’ estates. Although Ferrers’ lands there were worth £1,300 a year and there had once been a chapel of ease in the village, Wheeler alleged, the church had received ‘not one farthing of tithes’ from Ferrers’s tenants. A previous effort to sort out the problem had been unsuccessful and Ferrers had apparently castigated his own father as a ‘religious fool’ for promising too much to the church. Wheeler hoped that now that the estate had been settled on Ferrers’ grandson and heir, Robert Shirley^‡, styled Viscount Tamworth, the latter, ‘if a person of conscience as well as honour’ might prove more amenable. Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss, 23/243, 245.

Ferrers attended six prorogation days between 13 Jan. and 26 Mar. 1713 before taking his seat on 9 Apr. when the session eventually convened for business. He was thereafter present on just under a quarter of all sitting days, but seems to have played little role in the House beyond agitating with Weymouth for the tacking of the place bill to the malt tax. Add. 70236, E. Harley to Oxford, 9 May 1713. In advance of the convening of the new Parliament, which had been elected the previous summer, Ferrers, in early January 1714, approached Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke to ask him to present a petition to the queen, but was disappointed to be rebuffed on the grounds of the queen’s illness. TNA, SP 44/114/283. He returned to the House for the new Parliament on 18 Feb. 1714. His attendance declined further to just under a fifth of the total sitting days of this session. Despite this, on 5 Apr. he was prominent in the House’s debates that ranged around Whig criticism of the peace, intervening after a series of contributions and moving that ‘it was time to propose a question that they might come to some conclusion.’ He then proposed the motion that ‘the succession to the House of Hanover was in no danger’. After the lord chancellor, Simon Harcourt, Baron (later Viscount) Harcourt, added the words ‘under her majesty’s government’ to the resolution, it passed in the ministry’s favour at a division. Add. 22221, ff. 105-8. Absent from the session from 17 Apr., three days later he registered his proxy with Harcourt.

Ferrers attended just one day, 9 Aug. 1714, of the brief 15-day session that met in the wake of the queen’s death. He was perhaps preoccupied by family concerns following the sudden death of his grandson Viscount Tamworth from smallpox early in July. Add. 70070, newsletter, 3 July 1714; Verney ms mic. M636/55, Fermanagh to R. Verney, 6 July 1714; Northants. RO, IC 1799. After the accession of George I, Ferrers attended the House on only a further 17 sitting days before his death on Christmas day 1717. In his will, composed a month before his demise, Ferrers requested that an elaborate monument be constructed at Staunton Harold. Permission for the monument was refused and it was erected eventually in 1776 by his son George Shirley at Lower Eatington in Warwickshire instead. Between his two wives, Ferrers had sired 27 legitimate children, 17 of whom were still living at the time of his death, and he was also said to have been the father of some 30 illegitimate ones. Despite this his fortune was sufficient to enable him to assign to his five surviving daughters by his first wife £5,000 each, and to those five born to his second wife £4,000 each, while he gave his third surviving son Lawrence Shirley £8,000. TNA, C112/187. At his death, his titles were divided, the Ferrers barony descending to his daughter and heir general Elizabeth, while his younger son and heir male, Washington Shirley^†, succeeded as 2nd Earl Ferrers. His grandson, Lawrence Shirley^†, 4th Earl Ferrers, later attracted notoriety as the last peer to be hanged for murder. The Trial of Lawence Earl Ferrers for the Murder of John Johnson (1760), 73, 75.