NOEL, Edward (1641-89)

NOEL, Edward (1641–89)

cr. 3 Feb. 1681 Bar. NOEL of Titchfield; suc. fa. 29 Oct. 1682 as 4th Visct. CAMPDEN (CAMBDEN, CAMDEN); cr. 1 Dec. 1682 earl of GAINSBOROUGH.

First sat 21 Mar. 1681; last sat 10 May 1686

MP Rutland 1661; Hants. 1679 (Mar.).

bap. 27 Jan. 1641, 1st surv. s. of Baptist Noel, 3rd Visct. Campden, and Hester, da. of Thomas Wotton†, 2nd Bar. Wotton.1 educ. Magdalen, Oxf. 1656; travelled abroad (France 1658, Italy 1665). m. (1) bef. 25 May 1661, Elizabeth (d. 1680),2 da. and coh. of Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, and 1st w. Rachel de Massue de Ruvigny, 2s. (1 d.v.p.),3 4da. (2 d.v.p.);4 (2) 23 Apr. 1683, Mary (d. 1693), da. of Hon. James Herbert‡ of Kingsey, Bucks., wid. of Sir Robert Worsley‡, 3rd bt., s.p.5 bur. 8 Apr. 1689; will 20 Jan., pr. 8 June 1689.6

Dep. lt. Rutland 1660–76; commr. for assessment, Rutland 1661–9, 1677–80, Mdx. 1661–3, Hants. 1673–80; freeman, Portsmouth 1668, 1681, 1682, Lymington and Winchester 1677; high steward, Romsey by 1685;7 warden of New Forest 1676–87;8 ld. lt. Hants. 1676–84, (jt.) 1684–7, Rutland 1682–5, (jt.) 1685–8; gov. Portsmouth 1681–7;9 custos rot. Hants. 1681–8, Rutland 1682–d.10

Capt. of ft. 1682–7; capt. Queen Dowager’s Regt. of Ft. 1687.

Associated with: Titchfield, Hants.; Exton, Rutland.

Noel’s father was a committed royalist who had been fined substantially under the Commonwealth. Even so, Noel was able to attend Magdalen College, Oxford, for two years, after which he was granted leave to travel abroad. He came back at some point before 1661, when he was returned to the Cavalier Parliament, though underage, for his father’s old seat of Rutland.11 The same year he married Elizabeth, daughter of the lord treasurer, the earl of Southampton. At his marriage, a vast estate totalling some 16,490 acres in Gloucestershire, Kent, Middlesex and Rutland was settled on Noel.12 The alliance also brought an interest in Hampshire based on the Wriothesley estate at Titchfield. After Southampton’s death in 1667 his estates were divided between Noel’s wife, her sister Rachel, wife of William Russell‡, styled Lord Russell, and another sister, confusingly also named Elizabeth.13 Despite his prestigious and potentially lucrative match, Noel appears to have been permanently short of cash. Following his marriage an act had been passed settling Campden House in Kensington on Campden and his heirs but Noel declined taking advantage of a proviso within the act allowing him to pay his father £4,000 in return for the voiding of a 1,000-year lease on the house made over to Sir Richard Wingfield and Abel Barker‡, whom he had defeated at Rutland the previous year. He preferred instead to receive £2,000 from Campden thereby releasing the house for his father’s use.14

Listed as a court dependent in 1664, Noel appears to have taken little interest in parliamentary affairs at this stage of his career and in 1665 he departed on his travels once more, journeying to Padua. On his return he remained a sporadic Member of the Commons. In 1669 he was named to the commission of the peace for Hampshire and was listed by Sir Thomas Osborne, later duke of Leeds, as one of those to be engaged for the court by George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham.15 As Noel’s brother-in-law, Lord Russell, became increasingly associated with the opposition, it was also hoped that Noel might prove a positive influence in reining him in.16

In 1676 Noel replaced Charles Powlett, 6th marquess of Winchester (later duke of Bolton), as lord lieutenant of Hampshire. Winchester had allowed the county militia to stagnate during his lieutenancy but Noel was effective in restoring it.17 Closely involved with the Noel–Bertie alliance in support of Danby (as Osborne had since become), the following year Noel was marked ‘vile’ by his cousin by marriage, Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. At the general election of February 1679 Noel transferred from Rutland to Hampshire, where he was returned (unopposed) in partnership with the moderate Richard Norton‡, both men benefitting from the support of James, duke of York.18 Noel voted against exclusion and he was then defeated unexpectedly in the second general election of that year by his brother-in-law, Lord Russell (though Russell was also elected for Bedfordshire, which he chose to represent instead).19

Noel chose not to contest Hampshire in the 1680 by-election; in February 1681 he was advanced to the Lords as Baron Noel of Titchfield. The creation was undoubtedly part of a general effort by Danby to bolster his support in the Lords, which was made more necessary by Campden’s indisposition in the final years of his life. Three more peers were created in the course of the year, but at least one newsletter writer remarked correctly that this was the only new creation of which he was aware at the time.20 Noel had been listed by Danby as one of those prepared to stand bail for him the previous month and in March he was again listed as one of those expected to support the imprisoned lord treasurer.21 Danby stipulated to his son Edward Osborne‡, styled Viscount Latimer, that Noel was one of those whom Latimer was to approach in person prior to the sessions, along with Noel’s other relatives, Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, James Bertie, 5th Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon), Philip Stanhope, 2nd earl of Chesterfield, and Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury.22

Noel took his seat in the Oxford Parliament on 21 Mar. 1681, introduced between William Byron, 3rd Baron Byron, and Charles Henry Kirkhoven, Baron Wotton (better known as earl of Bellomont [I]). Noel was then named to the committees for privileges and petitions, after which he proceeded to attend on the remaining six days of the session. Following the dissolution he continued to be entrusted with local offices and in July he succeeded James Annesley, styled Lord Annesley (later 2nd earl of Anglesey), as custos rotulorum in Hampshire.23 Actively involved in attempting to procure an earldom for his father at this time, Noel was dismayed to be asked by the king to purchase the governorship of Portsmouth from George Legge (later Baron Dartmouth) later that year. The impetus for the arrangement appears to have come from York.24 Noel protested that he was unable to provide the £5,000 demanded by Legge and that he was fearful that his father would be unwilling to lend the money, as he needed a similar amount to procure the coveted new peerage. The money was eventually obtained through Danby’s intercession, enabling Noel to secure the appointment.25

Despite continued promises that Noel’s father, Campden, was to be the next earl created by the king, in June 1682 Noel approached Legge for his assistance before his mother, Lady Campden, discovered that no further progress had been made in securing the award.26 Noel was compelled to approach Legge again three months later, having heard that Sir Edward Seymour‡ was now rumoured to be on the point of being advanced to an earldom. Fearful of his mother’s reaction, he confided to Legge, ‘you may easily guess how great her rage will be against me, and what prejudice she may do me by alienating my father’s affection’.27 Campden died in October with the promotion still unsettled, a state of affairs that prompted criticism of Noel from some quarters as it was believed that he was responsible for the failure to secure his father’s earldom.28 Six weeks later a patent was finally made out creating Noel earl of Gainsborough.29

Gainsborough’s new honour was one of a number of promotions and creations at that time. He swiftly became established as one of the most influential peers in the south and in the midlands, commanding the lieutenancies of Rutland and Hampshire as well as the strategically important governorship of Portsmouth. His further role as warden of the New Forest brought him into close association with the king, especially towards the end of Charles II’s reign when plans for the new palace at Winchester began to take form.30 In April 1683 Gainsborough remarried, though his choice of bride attracted criticism from some who considered that ‘more money and less jointure would do as well for him that has so many daughters’.31 In spite of such sniping, the same year Gainsborough secured a match for his daughter Frances with Simon Digby†, 4th Baron Digby [I]. Gainsborough was able to provide the new Lady Digby with a portion of £8,000 and she was also granted the precedency of the daughter of an earl despite her marriage to an Irish baron.32 Marriage to Digby was also the occasion of Gainsborough’s heir, Wriothesley Baptist Noel, styled Viscount Campden, and daughters bringing an action in chancery against Rachel, Lady Russell, whom they accused of failing to execute a trust which should have made portions of £4,000 payable to Frances, Lady Digby and her two sisters at the time of their marriages.33

In October 1684 Lady Russell commented on Gainsborough’s continuing ‘great honours from the court’, though the costs incumbent on his responsibilities concerned him.34 The accession of James II appeared to confirm Gainsborough’s prominence. He co-ordinated the celebrations in Portsmouth and declared to Charles Middleton‡, 2nd earl of Middleton [S], that he was, ‘resolved to live and die his Majesty’s loyal and obedient servant’.35 Gainsborough was continued in his commands, though he now shared his lieutenancies in Hampshire and Rutland with his heir, Campden, who was returned to the House of Commons for Hampshire in March 1685. Gainsborough’s half-brother Baptist Noel‡ was elected for Rutland.36 During the election for Winchester Gainsborough demonstrated that he was not necessarily prepared to toe the court line. In spite of clear instructions from Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, to support the candidacy of Roger L’Estrange‡ and Charles Hanses‡, Gainsborough offered his interest to Francis Morley‡ and Sir John Cloberry‡ instead. His intransigence infuriated the court agent in Winchester, Bernard Howard, who complained to Sunderland that:

I could have wished that the two lord lieutenants would have appeared for whom they knew the King recommended to me, but I think their acting otherwise will do us little hurt, and only show that they have as little interest as I wish all men may have who in a cunning trimming way discountenance what the King promotes.37

Gainsborough appears to have been warned off by Sunderland. He agreed to ‘meddle no more in the matter’, and Cloberry and Morley were persuaded to withdraw before the poll.38

Gainsborough took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685, after which he was present on 53 per cent of all sitting days. During the summer the Hampshire militia were mobilized to form part of the force raised to counter the rebellion of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, though two of the foot regiments were rejected by Louis de Duras, 2nd earl of Feversham, as unserviceable. Reports that it was Gainsborough’s men that captured Monmouth are mistaken.39

In spite of reports circulating in March 1686 that Gainsborough was to be turned out of his governorship of Portsmouth and replaced by the local Catholic landholder Sir Henry Tichborne, the earl appears to have remained on warm terms with the king.40 He entertained him at Portsmouth in September 1686 and again in August 1687 but his disquiet at James II’s policies became increasingly pronounced over the government’s plans to overturn the Test Act. 41 In January 1687 it was again reported that he was to be turned out of his place.42 Then, in May, he was included in a list of peers thought to be opposed to the king’s policies. In November he was again assessed as being likely to oppose repeal of the Test. The same month he was summoned to an audience and, on refusing to offer satisfactory answers to the Three Questions, he was removed from all of his offices.43 At the beginning of January he was listed once again as an opponent of repeal.

During the last year of his life, Gainsborough was plagued with poor health. In February 1688 he appears to have suffered a massive stroke, paralysing one side and blinding him in one eye.44 He recovered from this attack but seems not to have taken an active role during the events of the Revolution, though his house at Titchfield was taken by Queen Mary Beatrice and the infant prince of Wales as a convenient location for a swift escape across the Channel.45 On 20 Jan. 1689 Gainsborough composed his will, in which he described himself as ‘sick and weak in body but of perfect and sound memory’. He was mistakenly rumoured to have died by 24 January. The following day he was listed as being absent through ill health at a call of the House.46 A further report of early February recording his demise the week before was also based on mistaken information.47 On 19 Mar. the House accepted the explanation of two of Gainsborough’s servants that he was ‘so indisposed with sickness’ that he was in no condition to attend. By that time his condition was desperate. He died at Exton the following month aged 48 and was buried on 8 April. In his will Gainsborough nominated his countess as his executrix and made provision for her, his two surviving daughters (Frances, Lady Digby, having died after just over a year of marriage) and a servant to whom he bequeathed money to buy a £20 annuity. He was succeeded in the peerage by his only surviving son, Campden, as 2nd earl of Gainsborough.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Stowe 621, f. 43.
  • 2 L. Schwoerer, Lady Rachel Russell, 55.
  • 3 Verney ms mic. M636/24, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 24 Sept. 1671.
  • 4 Belvoir Castle mss, letters xix, f. 65.
  • 5 Verney ms mic. M636/37, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 16 Apr. 1683.
  • 6 TNA, PROB 11/395.
  • 7 A.M. Coleby, Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire 1649–1689, p. 218.
  • 8 Add. 34510, f. 65.
  • 9 HMC Rutland, ii. 62; CSP Dom. 1680–1, p. 49.
  • 10 CSP Dom. 1682, p. 527.
  • 11 HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 145.
  • 12 Coleby, Hampshire, 99.
  • 13 VCH Hants. iii. 466; iv. 450.
  • 14 HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 362; TNA, C 204/54.
  • 15 HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 145.
  • 16 Schwoerer, Lady Rachel Russell, 76.
  • 17 Coleby, Hampshire, 113.
  • 18 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 27 Feb. 1679.
  • 19 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, ii. 205; HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 245.
  • 20 Bodl. Carte 222, f. 246.
  • 21 Add. 28042, f. 83; Add. 38849, f. 168.
  • 22 Browning, Danby, ii. 96; Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS 6, box 2, folder 27, private instructions, 17 Mar. 1681.
  • 23 Coleby, Hampshire, 160.
  • 24 UNL, PwA 2110/1–3.
  • 25 Add. 28053, ff. 279, 287.
  • 26 Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS, fb 190/2/L.131.
  • 27 HMC Dartmouth, i. 76–77.
  • 28 Verney ms mic. M636/37, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 2 Nov. 1682.
  • 29 CSP Dom. 1682, p. 553.
  • 30 CSP Dom. 1683, p. 410.
  • 31 Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. to Sir R. Verney, 18 Apr. 1683.
  • 32 CSP Dom. July–Sept. 1683, p. 410; Add. 75375, ff. 4–5.
  • 33 TNA, C10/213/20.
  • 34 Letters of Lady Rachel Russell (1809 edn.), 51.
  • 35 Add. 41803, f. 154.
  • 36 HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 245, 363.
  • 37 CSP Dom. 1685, pp. 79, 96.
  • 38 HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 261.
  • 39 Coleby, Hampshire, 184; HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 145; Add. 41804, f. 12.
  • 40 Verney ms mic. M636/40, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 10 Mar. 1686.
  • 41 Hatton Corresp. ii. 70; HMC Downshire, i. 263; CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 265; Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS 1, series 1, box 2, folder 64, ? to Poley, 26 Aug. 1687.
  • 42 Add. 70236, E. to R. Harley, 22 Jan. 1687.
  • 43 CSP Dom. 1687–9, pp. 96, 113–14; Add. 34510, f. 65; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 422.
  • 44 Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, 146.
  • 45 HMC Rutland, ii. 122–3; VCH Hants. iii. 220–1.
  • 46 HMC Portland, iii. 422.
  • 47 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 503.