suc. cos. 9 Apr. 1697 as 2nd Bar. CRAVEN.
First sat 6 Dec. 1697; last sat 6 Mar. 1711
b. 24 Oct. 1668, 1st s. of Sir William Craven (1638–95) and Margaret, da. of Sir Christopher Clapham; bro. of Robert Craven‡. educ. Oxf. DCL 1706. m. 12 Oct. 1697 (with £10,000),1 Elizabeth (1679–1704), da. of Humberston Skipwith, 3s. suc. fa. 1695. d. 9 Oct. 1711; admon. 27 June 1712 to Elizabeth Craven, spinster, paternal aunt and guardian of William Craven, 3rd Bar. Craven.2
Ld. lt. Berks. 1702–d.; warden, Whittlewood Forest 9 July 1711–d.3
Ld. proprietor of Carolina 1706–d; ld. palatine 1708–d.
Associated with: Coombe Abbey, Warws.;4 Hampstead Marshall, Berks.; Ashton Park, Berks.; Drury House, Middx.5
Craven succeeded to the barony of Craven by special remainder on the death of his cousin, William Craven, earl of Craven. The succession to the title had been re-conveyed on a number of occasions as a result of the deaths of all of the previous holder’s immediate relatives, his penultimate heir being the 2nd baron’s father. With the peerage, Craven also succeeded to the late earl’s estate, including his interest in Carolina. In addition to this substantial inheritance from his cousin (worth at least £5,000 p.a.), he inherited extensive estates from his father.6 His eventual holdings comprised lands in more than a dozen counties, as well as property in Coventry that offered him influence within the city.7
Shortly after his succession to the peerage Craven made a settlement of his Berkshire and Warwickshire estates, as well as lands in Shropshire worth £1,000 p.a. The manor of Hampstead Marshall in Berkshire was settled on his wife.8 Marriage into the Skipwiths connected him with a number of influential individuals, including Sir Francis Dashwood‡ and Sir Orlando Bridgeman‡. Craven appears to have enjoyed a good relationship with his wife’s family, entering into at least one financial ‘adventure’ in 1700 with his brother-in-law, Sir Fulwar Skipwith‡, who was a regular resident of Craven’s London home.9 A published account of the Skipwith family includes some inaccuracies, confusing Lady Craven’s brother with his grandfather, the first baronet, while also implying that Craven married his wife’s aunt.10
Described by Macky as ‘very fat and fair’ and a lover of ‘field sports and a bottle’, Craven proved to be a consistent Tory supporter.11 He took his seat in the House three days into the new session on 6 Dec. 1697, introduced between John Colepeper, 3rd Baron Colepeper, and John Jeffreys, 2nd Baron Jeffreys. Although he had succeeded to his peerage, the ceremony of introduction was deemed necessary in his case, as Craven had inherited it by a special remainder. He was thereafter present on 48 per cent of all sitting days. On 4 Mar. he entered his dissent at the resolution to give a second reading to the bill to punish Charles Duncombe‡ and on 7 Mar. he was one of those named to manage the conference concerning the amendments to the bill explaining poor relief. Craven was absent from 3 May until the close of the session, but he covered his absence by registering his proxy in favour of his Warwickshire neighbour Basil Feilding, 4th earl of Denbigh, on 9 June. Craven took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec., following which he was present on 63 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Feb. 1699 he voted in opposition to a committee resolution for offering to assist the king in retaining the Dutch guards, and entered his dissent when the resolution was adopted.
Craven returned to the House for the opening of the second session, on 16 Nov. 1699, after which he was present on 56 per cent of all sitting days. In February 1700 he voted in favour of continuing the East India Company as a corporation. He appears to have invested in the company, from which he was said to have been expecting £500 at his death in 1711.12 He was again absent for the final two months of the session, in March and April 1700, and was then present for just 15 per cent of all sitting days of the first Parliament of 1701. On 15 Mar. he entered his protest at the resolutions to reject the second and third heads of the report relating to the Partition Treaty and on the 20th he entered a further protest at the resolution not to send the address concerning the treaty to the Commons for their concurrence.
Craven was absent from the opening of the new Parliament in December. Missing at a call of the House on 5 Jan. 1702, he delayed taking his seat until 15 Jan., after which he was present on 53 per cent of all sitting days. On 20 Feb. he subscribed the protest against the bill to attaint James II’s widow, Queen Mary Beatrice, for high treason, and on 24 Mar. he entered a further protest against the passage of the bill for the further security of the king’s person. Craven’s brother, Robert, was believed to be one of those who would have supported a Jacobite restoration had the exiled claimant renounced Catholicism.13
The death of William III and the accession of Queen Anne offered Craven improved prospects at court and in the summer of 1702 he was appointed lord lieutenant of Berkshire, in succession to Montague Venables Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon. At first sight Craven’s appointment is curious. Despite holding extensive estates, he does not appear to have exercised much influence in Berkshire, though the election of Sir John Stonhouse‡ for the county certainly accorded with his political sympathies. The explanation may lie more with Abingdon’s interest than that of Craven. Craven’s appointment to Berkshire facilitated Abingdon’s restoration to the lieutenancy of Oxfordshire, in place of Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, and ensured that both counties were headed by dependable Tory peers. In spite of his new office, Craven’s principal interest remained in Warwickshire, where he exercised considerable political influence in association with Denbigh and William Bromley‡.
Craven failed to return to the House for the opening of the new Parliament. He took his seat almost two months into the session, on 10 Dec. 1702, in time to participate in the debates over the Occasional Conformity bill. Having attended just nine days he quit the chamber for the remainder of the session. Despite this, he proved himself a committed upholder of the Church of England, wholeheartedly persuaded of the dangers facing the Church, and in January 1703 he was assessed by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as a likely supporter of the bill. On 16 Jan., although absent from the attendance list that day, he was listed among those who voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause.
Craven was again missing from the opening of the new session in November that year. The reason may have been poor health, as a report probably dating from the beginning of October in the same year noted that he was ‘very much indisposed’.14 In advance of the session he was included by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, among those likely to persist in their support for the Occasional Conformity bill. The forecast was repeated just over a fortnight later and on 14 Dec. Craven was noted as having voted in favour of passing the measure by proxy, though this cannot be confirmed as no proxy records survive for the session. His failure to attend at the time may have been due to his involvement in a chancery case concerning disputes over the manor of Ryton in Shropshire. Disagreements dating from his predecessor’s tenure as lord of the manor over the payment of an annual rent charge, encouraged by certain ‘confederates’, had continued to rumble on beyond the earl of Craven’s death in 1697 and the affair perhaps hinted at a more general problem concerning the Cravens’ authority in the area.15 Craven took his seat at last on 18 Jan. 1704 but he was thereafter present on just 17 per cent of all sitting days. His absence from the latter part of the session may have been owing to his wife’s ill health, as Lady Craven died shortly afterwards.16 He was, however, included in a list drawn up by Nottingham in 1704 which may indicate support over the ‘Scotch Plot’.
Craven did not allow his mourning to stand in the way of his sporting engagements and in mid-October 1704 it was noted that he had a horse running in the opening day of a meet at Lutterworth.17 He dragged himself away from the racecourse to take his seat a week into the new session on 2 Nov. and he was thereafter present on approximately a third of all sitting days. That month he was listed among those thought likely to support the Tack. He also applied to Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, on behalf of Sir Thomas Dolman to be appointed sheriff of Berkshire.18 Absent for the final week of November and for the entirety of December, on 26 Nov. he registered his proxy with Denbigh once more, which was vacated by his return to the House on 15 Jan. 1705. On 17 Jan. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to give a first reading to the Bath estate bill and on 22 Jan. he joined with several other lords in subscribing the protest at the rejection of the petition of Thomas Watson, the deprived bishop of St Davids.
Family loyalties did not sway Craven during the 1705 general election, when he failed to rally to the cause of his brother-in-law, Fulwar Skipwith, who was unsuccessful in attempting to secure the county nomination for Warwickshire. Skipwith’s failure was principally due to the dominant force in the county, Fulke Greville, 5th Baron Brooke, making plain his support for Sir John Mordaunt‡ and Sir Charles Shuckburgh‡, but Craven also seems to have favoured his brother-in-law’s rivals on this occasion.19 Skipwith was also unsuccessful at Coventry, where Craven’s interest was greatest: he opted to lend his support to Thomas Gery‡ and Sir Christopher Hales‡ instead. The election was marked by violence, during which the mayor of Coventry sustained minor injuries.20
Craven took his seat in the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705, after which he was present on just under 35 per cent of all sitting days. He was absent briefly in November 1705 but once again ensured that his proxy was registered with Denbigh. On 12 Nov. he was excused at a call. He resumed his seat (thereby vacating the proxy) on 6 December. The same day, he voted in favour of the motion that the Church was in danger under the present administration, and entered his protest when the motion failed to carry.21 On 31 Jan. 1706 he registered three dissents in response to resolutions to alter the phrasing within one of the clauses of the bill for securing the Protestant succession.
Craven was one of a number of prominent Tory peers to be advanced doctors of law at Oxford in the spring of 1706.22 Later that year, rumours circulated that he was to remarry, but nothing came of it.23 He returned to the House at the opening of the ensuing session on 3 Dec., after which he was present on just over a third of all sitting days. On 3 Feb. 1707 he entered a further protest against the resolution not to instruct the committee of the whole House to insert a clause in the bill to secure the Church of England declaring the 1673 Test Act to be perpetual and unalterable.
Craven failed to attend the brief session of April 1707 and attended just over a fifth of the first Parliament of Great Britain, which convened in October. Following the dissolution, his interest in Coventry proved unequal to the task of securing a seat there for his brother, Robert, in the 1708 election.24 In September he, along with Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort, and Grace, Lady Carteret, acting as guardian for her underage son, John Carteret, 2nd Baron Carteret, were involved in a chancery action brought against them by Nicholas Trott, who claimed to have inherited the proprietorship of Carolina formerly in the possession of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. Trott’s claim was denied by the remaining proprietors.25 Although Craven then returned to the House just under a fortnight after the opening of the new Parliament on 29 Nov. 1708, he attended just four days before quitting the chamber for the remainder of the session.
Craven’s association with Beaufort may have been the catalyst for his commencing negotiations to marry Beaufort’s granddaughter Lady Mary Somerset in the winter of 1709. Craven’s approach was warmly welcomed by the duke and duchess, not least because he was in possession of £5,000 a year, £2,000 in reversion and ‘a very considerable personal estate’. He and Beaufort were also both members of the Tory club, the board of brothers, to which Craven had been elected in July.26 Such recommendations cut little ice with his prospective bride. Lady Mary seems to have regarded Craven, whom she found ‘prodigiously fatter than ever’, with undisguised dislike. Writing to her aunt Anne, countess of Coventry, she comforted herself with the hope that ‘if my Lady Duchess hears he has as ill health as people say he has that will prevent it’.27 Lady Mary’s wish was granted, and the marriage never materialized.
In the midst of his unsuccessful courting, Craven resumed his attendance of the House, taking his seat in the new session on 21 Nov. 1709. Present on just under 56 per cent of all sitting days, on 16 Feb. 1710 he registered his dissent against the resolution to agree with the Commons’ address requesting that the queen order John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, to Holland. He entered a further dissent when the House resolved not to adjourn and then dissented again at the resolution not to require Greenshields and the Edinburgh magistrates to appear before the House. Craven continued to enter a series of protests in March during the Sacheverell crisis. On 14 Mar. he registered his objection to the resolution that it was unnecessary to include within the impeachment the words that were deemed criminal; he then dissented when it was resolved not to adjourn. He dissented twice more on 16 Mar. over the resolution that the Commons had made good the first article against the doctor, and the following day he dissented against the resolution that the Commons had successfully established their second, third and fourth articles. On 18 Mar. he protested at the resolution that limited peers to a single verdict of guilty or not guilty; two days later he found Dr Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.28 He then subscribed the protest against the guilty verdict, and on 21 Mar. registered a final dissent against the censure passed against Sacheverell. In the aftermath of the trial, Craven remained one of Sacheverell’s champions and during the summer he was one of a number of Warwickshire notables to welcome the disgraced cleric during his tour of the county.29
Craven undoubtedly benefited from the shift towards the Tories that year. Despite his brother’s 1708 setback, the elder Craven was able to exert considerable influence in Coventry, where the election of 1710 was celebrated with the composition of a song acclaiming the Tories’ triumph at the polls.30 On this occasion Robert Craven was elected one of the members, while Craven himself featured prominently in a popular ballad that declared how:
The Glorious sons of Warwickshire may justly be commended,
There’s ne’er a Member now Elect that ever has offended;
Denbigh and Craven we esteem, a loyal and noble pair, sir,
And hope to see our worthy friend, Great Bromley, in the chair, sir.31
Craven took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710. In advance of the session he was reckoned by Harley as a likely government supporter and in June 1711 his name appeared on the list of Tory patriots in the previous Parliament. By then, Craven had quit the chamber for the final time, though he ensured that his absence was covered by registering his proxy with Denbigh on 8 March. The prospect of additional honours under the new administration was hinted at in July, when Craven was appointed warden of Whittlewood Forest. Such expectations were brought to a halt by his death three months later, at his Warwickshire seat of Coombe. His unexpected demise from ‘apoplexy’ ‘eclipsed’ the annual diversion of the Lutterworth races.32 He was buried in the family vault at Binley and succeeded as 3rd Baron Craven by his eldest son, also William Craven, then aged just 11 years.
Craven died intestate, raising certain difficulties in the division of his estate, though administration was granted to his aunt Elizabeth Craven. His younger sons, Fulwar and Robert, later presented a bill to the House for raising suitable provision for their maintenance.33 Craven left a considerable personal estate, worth at least £3,000, including an extensive wine cellar at Coombe Abbey of more than 1,300 bottles (though half of these were empties).34 Sir Fulwar Skipwith was able to capitalize on his brother-in-law’s death by using his position as guardian to the young baron to secure his return for Coventry in 1713.35
R.D.E.E.- 1 HP Commons, 1690–1715, v. 488.
- 2 TNA, PROB 6/88, f. 112v.
- 3 Verney Letters 18th Century, i. 238.
- 4 VCH Warws. vi. 74.
- 5 TNA, PROB 5/3262; E. Hatton, A New View of London (1708), ii. 623–39; Add. 22267, ff. 164–71.
- 6 Badminton, Coventry pprs. FMT/B1/2/17; Bodl. MS Craven 279.
- 7 T.W. Whitely, Parliamentary Representation of the City of Coventry, 116.
- 8 VCH Berks. iv. 181.
- 9 Bodl. MS Craven 282, Craven to Mr Batchelor, 27 July 1700; TNA, PROB 5/3262.
- 10 F. Skipwith, Brief Account of the Skipwiths, 27–28.
- 11 Macky Mems. 106.
- 12 TNA, PROB 5/3262.
- 13 Whitely, Parliamentary Representation of the City of Coventry, 137.
- 14 Bodl. MS Craven 282, W. to R. Craven, 25 Oct. ?1703.
- 15 TNA, C 9/351/35.
- 16 Add. 70075, newsletter, 20 May 1704.
- 17 Verney ms mic. M636/52, Sir T. Cave to R. Verney, 15 Oct. 1704.
- 18 Add. 70282, Craven to Harley, 8 Nov. 1704.
- 19 HP Commons, 1690–1715, v. 488.
- 20 WCRO, Mordaunt of Walton Hall MSS, CR 1368/iv/42.
- 21 WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60.
- 22 Bodl. Rawl. letters 37, f. 43.
- 23 Verney ms mic. M636/53, C. Stewkeley to Fermanagh, 23 Nov. 1706.
- 24 HP Commons, 1690–1715, iii. 785.
- 25 TNA, C 9/477/79.
- 26 Add. 49360, f. 2.
- 27 Badminton, Coventry pprs. FMT/B1/2/17.
- 28 Timberland, ii. 276.
- 29 G. Holmes, Trial of Dr Sacheverell, 245; Add. 70421, newsletters, 8, 13 June 1710; HEHL, HM 30659 (123); Bath mss at Longleat, Thynne pprs. 46, ff. 329–30; LPL, MS 952, 43b.
- 30 Whitely, Parliamentary Representation of the City of Coventry, 116.
- 31 HP Commons, 1690–1715, iii. 785; Verney Letters 18th Century, i. 306; Whitely, Parliamentary Representation of the City of Coventry, 138.
- 32 Verney ms mic. M636/54, Sir T. Cave to Fermanagh, 9 July and 15 Oct. 1711.
- 33 HMC Lords, n.s. x. 36–37; LJ, xix. 517.
- 34 TNA, PROB 5/3262.
- 35 HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 631.