STAWELL, John (c. 1668-92)

Stawell was born at Somerton, probably in 1668. Little is known of his early life, but he appears to have been at school and he had a long-term tutor, Francis Lee, before he went to St. John’s College, Oxford. CJ, xi. 128; HMC 9th Rep. pt. 2, p. 495. While there he spoke some verses written by his tutor Ambrose Bonwick during the visit in May 1683 of James Stuart, duke of York. Wood, Life and Times, iii. 51. He may have been the ‘Mr. Stawell’ in arms with the prince of Orange, but this was probably William Stawell^‡. HMC 7th Rep. 416; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 477.

Stawell succeeded his father in August 1689. On 16 Sept. he replied from Ham to a circular requesting information about his personal estate by noting that ‘I am at present possessed of no personal estate for my father being very lately dead all the personal estate he died possessed of he gave amongst his younger children.’ Chatsworth, Halifax Collection, B19. He was excused a call of the House on 28 Oct. and on 1 Nov. made a settlement of his estates. Stawell, Quantock Family, 424. He first took his seat on 14 Nov. 1689, Roger Morrice noting that he had newly come of age. Morrice, Entring Bk. v. 260. He last sat during the session on 13 Dec., when he was granted leave to go into the country, and the following day he registered his proxy with Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth. In all he attended on 12 occasions, 16 per cent of the total. He did not attend the session of March–May 1690, being excused a call of the House on 31 Mar., and in June 1690 it was reported that he was going abroad. HMC Finch, ii. 303.

Stawell attended the Lords on the second day of the 1690–1 session, 6 Oct., when he may have voted against the discharge of Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, and James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury from the Tower, although Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), added the comment ‘I hope to gain’ beside his name. Browning, Danby, iii. 181. This was a vain hope for Stawell sat for only five days until 14 Oct., not quite 7 per cent of the total, although on the following day he did register his proxy with John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham), who had married his cousin Ursula Stawell. The date of Stawell’s own marriage is imprecise. On 17 Feb. 1691 it was reported to Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, that Stawell ‘saw some time since my Lady Margaret Cecil at a play and fell in love with her and is married, and they say has settle[d] £4,000 jointure’ on her, but on 7 Mar. a newsletter reported that he would be married to her. Narcissus Luttrell^‡ merely referred to him early in May as being ‘lately’ married. HMC Finch, iii. 19; CSP Dom. 1690–1, p. 299; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 224.

On 10 Oct. 1691 Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, had heard a report of Stawell’s death. Add. 70015, f. 204. This was a mistake, but Stawell was probably ill for he was excused a call of the House on 2 Nov. and first attended on 23 November. He last sat on 17 Dec., having attended on 13 days, just over 13 per cent of the total. On 1 Feb. 1692 he again registered his proxy with Mulgrave. He next attended on the third day of the 1692–3 session, 9 Nov., and sat on six days, his last appearance being on 19 Nov. 1692.

On 18 Nov. it was ordered that the Lords would hear counsel on both sides on 25 Nov. concerning an appeal from John Cole against an order made by the commissioners of the great seal, on a bill exhibited by Stawell and others. On the 23rd Cole petitioned for more time and was granted a continuation until the 30th. On that date counsel informed the House that Stawell had died and therefore they could not proceed, whereupon the Lords made Stawell’s executors the respondents to Cole’s appeal. On 22 Dec. Cole petitioned that by Stawell’s death his appeal abated and was granted leave to amend his appeal. The decree was affirmed on 11 Jan. 1693.

Stawell was heavily indebted at his death, the result of over-ambitious building plans at Ham. His executors moved quickly to shore up the family’s finances, with a bill being introduced on 28 Jan. 1693 for the payment of his debts. At the same time the Lords ordered that all persons concerned in the bill should heard by their counsel before the second reading. The bill was committed on 6 Feb. but then seems to have got bogged down in committee. It was reintroduced into the Lords on 15 Feb. 1694 and committed on 22 February. On 1 Mar. the lord chief justice, Sir George Treby^‡, was ordered to attend the committee. Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, reported amendments on 2 Mar. and it passed the House the following day. In the Commons the bill was committed on 9 Mar. but four days later the tradesmen, servants and labourers to the late Lord Stawell petitioned the House. They claimed that divers considerable allowances had been made to Lady Stawell and her daughter out of Stawell’s estate and no particular care taken for payment of his debts, despite his personal estate amounting to £30,000. On 15 Mar. a further petition was presented by William Lee, on behalf of his brother Francis, who was abroad, setting forth that Francis Lee had been Stawell’s tutor for nine years, for which Stawell had by deed granted him an annuity of £100 for three years and £80 for his life, and there was no provision in the bill for the payment of this annuity. Both petitions were referred to the committee.

The report of the bill on 27 Mar. estimated Stawell’s estate at £4,557 p.a., consisting of £3,870 15s. 4d. to his heir-at-law (presumably his daughter) and £686 4s. 8d. to the new Baron Stawell. Debts due on bonds, recognizances and mortgages were estimated at £75,000, with £10,000 due in interest, plus £7,467 for workmen and servant’s wages, making a total of £92,000. On the credit side, Stawell’s personal estate consisted of £26,017 6s. 3d. in debts, plus £10,501 of other ‘debts doubtful’, of which £6,000 might be recoverable, making a total of £32,017 6s. 3d. The committee deemed the tradesmen and servants sufficiently provided for in the bill and offered a clause on Lee’s behalf, as well as providing that all suits either in law or equity now depending, wherein Lady Stawell was plaintiff as administratrix of Stawell, should be prosecuted in her name, but at the charge of the trustees named in the act, Robert Cecil^‡, Sir John Austen^‡, Edward Berkeley^‡, John Hunt, Richard Cooling and Gerrard Newcourt. The Commons returned the bill with amendments on 31 March. The Lords agreed to all but one of these on 2 Apr., ordering Francis Lee to show the title upon which his clause was grounded. After hearing counsel the following day on this clause, the Lords disagreed to it and named a committee to draw up reasons to be offered at a conference on the subject. On 4 Apr. Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, reported the reasons for not agreeing, amounting to the fact that they would create a title in Francis Lee to the annuity mentioned in the said clause. On 9 Apr. the Commons decided not to insist upon their amendments and the bill received the royal assent on the 16th.

The trustees sold much of Stawell’s estate. Stawell, Quantock Family, 120–2. His household goods were sold in July–August 1693, and in November Weymouth was given an account of what remained at Ham, namely some ‘very rich marble chimney pieces, a large very fine carved frame for a looking glass and two carved chimney pieces in wood, and a great many grange trees and a noble library of good books’. Som. Heritage Centre, DD/SF/564; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 24, f. 251. Most of Stawell’s estate went to his daughter, Anne. His half-brother, William Stawell, succeeded as 3rd Baron Stawell. In 1696 his widow married Richard Jones^‡, earl of Ranelagh [I], at which point his daughter was probably still alive. Som. ALS, DD/SF/1031–2.