suc. fa. 5 Jan. 1653 as 2nd Bar. ROCKINGHAM
First sat 2 June 1660; last sat 26 Apr. 1689
b. 30 June 1630, 3rd but o. surv. s. of Sir Lewis Watson†, bt. (later Bar. Rockingham), and 2nd w. Eleanor (d.1679), da. of Sir George Manners‡, sis. of John Manners, 8th earl of Rutland. educ. unknown. m. 24 Nov. 1654, Anne (d.1695), da. of Thomas Wentworth†, earl of Strafford, 4s. (1 d.v.p.), 4da.1 d. 22 June 1689; admon. 9 July 1689, 28 Jan. 1696.2
Associated with: Rockingham Castle, Northants.
The Watsons, originally from Cambridgeshire and Rutland, had planted themselves in Northamptonshire in the mid-sixteenth century. They faced some obstacles in securing support for their parliamentary ambitions on the grounds of their Catholicism, but by the mid-seventeenth century the main branch of the family appear to have conformed. Sir Lewis Watson attempted, unsuccessfully, to balance his loyalties during the civil wars: his own inclinations tending towards the king, those of his wife’s family, the Manners, towards Parliament. Charles I forgave him his ambivalent behaviour and elevated him to the barony of Rockingham in 1645. During the war, the parliamentarians successfully besieged Rockingham Castle and Rockingham was at one point imprisoned at his brother-in-law’s home of Belvoir. He returned to his estates following the king’s defeat and spent the rest of his life attempting to restore his devastated home. On succeeding to the title, Edward Watson, 2nd Baron Rockingham, continued his father’s work of restoration.3 In 1654 he married the daughter of his father’s old friend, Strafford, whom he was later accused of treating ‘basely’.4 The family’s reputation for royalist sympathy was such that in the confused state of affairs following the fall of Richard Cromwell‡ and amid threats of royalist uprisings, Parliament ordered Rockingham Castle to be garrisoned, though the order appears not to have been carried out.5
Rockingham appears to have enjoyed some success in restoring the family estates following their devastation during the civil wars and he was estimated to have been worth over £5,000 a year by the time of his marriage.6 Through Lady Rockingham’s influence, he agreed to assist his beleaguered brother-in-law, William Wentworth, 2nd earl of Strafford, who offered in turn to marry Rockingham’s younger son, Thomas (later Thomas Watson Wentworth‡), to his niece, Charlotte, and make him his heir.7 Strafford was said to have been ‘sadly entangled in his estate’, and wrangling over the settlement led to tensions within the family. Strafford declared himself ‘surprised at my lord Rockingham’s carriage’ and was frustrated by Rockingham’s reluctance to commit himself. The marriage did not take place but Strafford made Thomas his heir nonetheless.
For all his improved financial position and his close kinship with a number of influential families in the area, notably the Manners and the Montagus, Rockingham does not appear to have wielded the kind of influence within Northamptonshire of some of the other county magnates, or to have been as generous. Following the great fire of Northampton in 1675, he and his wife contributed only £25 to the fund for rebuilding the town, a modest donation when compared with that of James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, who gave £120.8 While Rockingham himself was not completely without interest, Lady Rockingham appears to have been determined to exercise influence in her own right. In February 1679 she called upon her cousin John Wentworth, hoping to secure a seat for her son, Lewis Watson, later earl of Rockingham, explaining that ‘he designs to stand for the county of Northampton, but there are several considerable competitors and he may miss it; wherefore understanding that her cousin has the making of two parliament men, she prays him to reserve one place for her son’.9 Lady Rockingham also wrote to her uncle George Savile, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax, in the same month, requesting his assistance when Lewis Watson presented a bill to the House concerning the ownership of his wife’s estate.10 In spite of her efforts, Watson was not elected until 1681, when he was returned for Canterbury through the interest of his wife’s family, the Sondes.11 Rockingham appears to have taken advantage of the family connection with Halifax also, writing to him in 1684 to apologize for being unable to wait on him owing to a trial in the court of exchequer.12
Rockingham was one of half a dozen peers to wait on George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, on 4 May 1660 to seek his permission to allow them to take their seats in the restored House. Monck appears to have dissuaded them from doing so, in spite of the presence in the House of several royalist peers who had taken their seats on the first day of the session.13 Monck’s disinclination to allow a peer such as Rockingham to attend was presumably because Rockingham’s peerage was a disputed civil war one. At the king’s return, Rockingham was among those joining the royal procession through London. He eventually took his seat in the House on 2 June, after which he was present on half of all sitting days in the session and was named to two committees. He resumed his place following the September adjournment on 13 Nov., after which he attended a further 27 days before the dissolution and was named to three select committees.
Rockingham appears not to have made any particular impression on the elections in Northamptonshire in the spring of 1661. He resumed his seat two days after the opening of the new Parliament on 10 May and the following day introduced his neighbour, John Crew, as Baron Crew. He was thereafter present on approximately 41 per cent of all sitting days in the session, but was again named to just two committees.
This rather half-hearted attendance of the House persisted for the remainder of the decade. Absent at the opening of the second session, after taking his seat almost a month into it on 14 Mar. 1663, Rockingham attended on just 10 occasions (a little under 12 per cent of the whole) before retiring. He was named to just one committee in the meantime. He resumed his seat for the subsequent session on 21 Mar. 1664, after which he attended on approximately 44 per cent of all sitting days. Having failed to attend the following two sessions at all, being missing without explanation at calls on 7 Dec. 1664 and 1 Oct. 1666, he rallied to attend approximately 37 per cent of all sitting days in the session of October 1666, but was again named to just two committees. On 26 Nov. he appealed to the House to uphold his privilege following the issuing of a process against him by Dr George Wake, a commissary of Joseph Henshaw, bishop of Peterborough. Wake appeared at the bar of the House on 27 Nov. to answer the complaint, where he apologized for his error; following Rockingham’s agreement, the House ordered Wake to be released the next day. On 23 Jan. 1667 Rockingham registered his first dissent, being one of 29 peers to object to the failure to include the right to an appeal to the king and Lords in the bill for erecting a judicature for determining disagreements over houses lost in the Great Fire.
Despite his disappointment at not being permitted to attend the coronation in his hereditary office of master of the buckhounds, Rockingham seems initially to have supported the court. A letter describing the events in the House of Commons during the impeachment proceedings against Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, suggested that Rockingham’s correspondent, P.S. (possibly the member for Rutland, Philip Sherard‡), and thus presumably also Rockingham, opposed the impeachment.14
Rockingham took his seat in the House in the following session on 21 Oct. 1667 and was thereafter present on almost 47 per cent of all sitting days. He was excused at a call on 17 Feb. 1668 but had resumed his seat a week later. During the course of the session he was named to three committees, besides the committee for petitions, to which he was added on 31 Mar. 1668. Absent at the opening of the following session, he took his seat on 6 Nov. 1669 after which he attended almost 42 per cent of all sitting days. It appears to have been around this time that he dined with Anne Walsh, where he was said to have expressed ‘what a great honour and love he had’ for his neighbour, Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu of Boughton.15
Rockingham was again absent from the opening of the ensuing session on 14 Feb. 1670. He registered his proxy with his kinsman, Rutland, on 7 Mar., which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 7 Nov. 1670. He then attended on just nine days (a mere 5 per cent of the whole) before retiring for the remainder of the session. He was present for just long enough to be named to the committee for the bill enabling Thomas Leigh, Baron Leigh, to sell lands to raise money for his daughters’ portions on 2 December. His final appearance that session was on 14 December. He had left London by 17 Dec. when Benjamin Chancy tried to secure his assistance in putting a motion to the House concerning a privilege case brought by the dowager Lady Gerard and her young son, Digby Gerard, 5th Baron Gerard of Gerards Bromley.16
Rockingham returned to the House just over two years later on 13 Feb. 1673. Although he was present on almost 44 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to no committees and made no impression on the session. He failed to attend the brief session of October 1673 but took his seat once more on 12 Jan. 1674, after which he was present on just under 40 per cent of all sitting days. Again, he was named to no committees. The following year, in advance of the new session, Rockingham was included among those thought likely to support the non-resisting Test. Absent at the opening of the new session on 13 Apr. 1675, he was excused at a call on 29 April. He took his seat on 8 May, after which he was present on some 38 per cent of all sitting days, before once more retreating. He was again absent for the following session and was excused once again at a call on 10 November.
Rockingham appears to have finally abandoned the court for the opposition by the mid-1670s, which may be reflected in his increased activity in the House in the subsequent session. Having taken his seat on 17 Feb. 1677, he attended some 34 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to eight committees. On 9 Mar. he registered his proxy with James Scott, duke of Monmouth. Monmouth had written to his father, the king, a few years previously, commending one ‘Mr Watson’, presumably Rockingham’s kinsman Captain Watson, who appears to have managed Monmouth’s household, as well as Rockingham’s son, presumably Lewis Watson. Both were both serving with him at the siege of Maastricht.17 The proxy was vacated by Rockingham’s resumption of his seat on 19 March. On 1 May he was noted ‘worthy’ by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury.
Rockingham resumed his seat in the new session on 24 May 1678, after which he was present on almost 77 per cent of all sitting days. His much higher level of attendance in the short session was also reflected in his nomination to seven committees. He then resumed his seat in the final session of the Cavalier Parliament on 11 Nov. 1678, after which his enthusiasm appears to have dissipated, since he was present on under half of all sitting days and was named to no further committees. On 15 Nov. he voted in favour of including the declaration against transubstantiation within the test bill. On 20 Dec. he subscribed the protest against the proposed alterations to the bill for disbanding the army and three days later he registered his dissent at the resolution not to insist on the disgraced lord treasurer, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), withdrawing following the reading of the articles of impeachment against him. On 26 Dec. he voted against insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the bill for disbanding the army, registering a further dissent when the resolution was carried. The following day he voted in favour of committing Danby.
In advance of the new Parliament, Danby included Rockingham among those whom he expected to oppose him in two forecasts drawn up around March and April 1679, noting him as ‘unreliable’. Rockingham attended three days of the abortive session of March 1679, before taking his seat in the first Exclusion Parliament on 15 March. Although he was thereafter present on 95 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to just two committees. In early April he was among those to vote in favour of the early stages of the Danby attainder bill and on 4 Apr. he voted in favour of passing the measure. Ten days later he voted to agree with the Commons’ attempt to attaint the former lord treasurer and on 10 May he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords. Meanwhile, on 2 May he introduced to the House his cousin John Manners, as Baron Manners (later duke of Rutland). On 27 May he voted against adhering to an earlier vote that the lords spiritual had a right to stay in court in capital cases until judgment of death came to be pronounced.
That winter, Rockingham signed the address to the king for a new Parliament but he was again missing without explanation at a call following the opening of the subsequent Parliament on 30 Oct. 1680. He took his seat in the House a few days later on 3 Nov., and on 15 Nov. voted both against putting the question to reject the Exclusion bill at first reading and then against its rejection. On 23 Nov. he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee to consider the state of the nation. The following month, he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason and on 7 Jan. 1681 he entered his dissent when the House resolved not to request the king to suspend Sir William Scroggs from his office of lord justice.
Rockingham failed to attend the third Exclusion Parliament at Oxford. Following the accession of James II, he petitioned to be recognized as master of the buckhounds for the coronation but his suit was again refused and the place was awarded instead to James Graham.18 Throughout 1687 and 1688 he was consistently listed as an opponent of the repeal of the Test. At the Revolution, predictably, he joined the ranks of those in opposition to James II.19
Rockingham does not appear to have turned out at the Revolution and he was absent from the opening of the Convention. He took his seat almost a month into its proceedings, on 18 February. He was thereafter present on approximately one-quarter of all sitting days. On 5 Mar. he was nominated a reporter of the conference for assisting the king. Although Rockingham’s name was missing from the attendance list on 27 Apr. 1689 he was named to the committee for the bill for preventing questions concerning revenue collecting, so it may be assumed he was in the House at that time. This appears to have been the date of his last attendance. He was again absent at a call on 22 May and he died the following month at Rockingham Castle. He left no will and was succeeded in the title by his son Lewis Watson, who was later created earl of Rockingham. His third son, Thomas, inherited the Wentworth estates of his uncle, Strafford, and was the progenitor of the later marquesses of Rockingham.
R.D.E.E.- 1 C. Wise, Rockingham Castle and the Watsons, 91–92; Collins, Peerage (1709) 427-8.
- 2 TNA, PROB 11/458.
- 3 Isham Diary, 106n.
- 4 HMC Bath, ii. 131.
- 5 CSP Dom. 1659, p. 117.
- 6 TNA, E 367/2974.
- 7 Add. 75361, Strafford to Halifax, 16 Feb. 1687.
- 8 Records of the Borough of Northampton ed. C.A. Markham and J.C. Cox, ii. 249–51.
- 9 HMC Var. ii. 393.
- 10 Add. 28569, ff. 32–33.
- 11 HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 432.
- 12 Add. 75361, Rockingham to Halifax, 27 June [1684].
- 13 Chatsworth, Cork misc. box 1, Burlington diary, 5 May 1660.
- 14 Wise, Rockingham Castle, 89. Wise mistakenly ascribes the letter to be concerning the impeachment of the (non-existent) earl of Carrington in 1678.
- 15 Northants. RO, Montagu letters, xviii. p. 34.
- 16 NAS, GD 406/1/10, 298; 406/1/9898.
- 17 Rockingham Castle, WR A2/60/1.
- 18 Rockingham Castle, WR A/3/27; Sainty and Bucholz, Royal Household, i. 54, 111.
- 19 Browning, Danby, iii. 158.