LEGGE, William (1672-1750)

As the son of an influential courtier, Dartmouth was often introduced to important people or a witness to significant events. While his father was serving in Tangier in 1683, Legge was taken by his uncle, Colonel William Legge^‡, to visit the court at Winchester, where he stayed three or four days, impressing Charles II with his behaviour and becoming ‘the greatest favourite’ there. HMC Dartmouth, iii. 124. He visited George Morley, bishop of Winchester, at Farnham shortly before his death in 1684 and was present at Westminster School when Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester, read the Declaration of Indulgence in the Abbey on 20 May 1688. He was at Whitehall when James II returned from Faversham following his failed attempt to flee the country and he was ‘behind the woolsack’ on 4 Feb. 1689 when the Lords voted that the throne was not vacant. He also witnessed the arrival in Whitehall of Princess Mary on 12 Feb. 1689. Burnet, i. 86; ii. 440; iii. 229, 398, 407. He attended King’s College, Cambridge, where he was when his father communicated with him about the candidates a few weeks before the poll of the 1690 election. Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/i/1804.

Following his father’s sudden death in the Tower on 25 Oct. 1691, it was reported by Anne Nicholas that ‘the king has promised to settle £1000 a year on his son for he is dead very poor’. Verney ms mic. 636/45, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 27 Oct. 1691. Dartmouth was excused attendance on the Lords, on three occasions, 2 Nov. 1691, 21 Nov. 1692 and 26 Nov. 1694, all on account of being underage. On the latter occasion this was incorrect for he had attained his majority, but was abroad. On 10 Apr. 1693 he had received a pass to travel into Holland in order to travel in Germany and Italy. CSP Dom. 1693, p. 96. While abroad he left his mother to deal with estate matters, such as leases for the Irish lands. Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/i/1810, 1814. In July 1693, at the time of the battle of Landen, he was in Hanover, and, after spending some time in Vienna, he proceeded to Italy. Burnet, iv. 203; iii. 174. In September 1694 Francis Gwyn^‡ had heard that Dartmouth had recovered from a fever and gone to Padua, although he did not sign the university’s register, as his long-term friend Robert Benson, later Baron Bingley, did in September 1694. HMC Portland, iii. 556; H.F. Brown, Inglesi e Scozzesi all’ Università di Padova, 1618-1765, p. 176; Wentworth Pprs. 133. Dartmouth then went to Rome, from where in May 1695 it was reported that he had left ‘in order for England’, and by mid-October Dartmouth was definitely on his way home. Burnet, iii. 165, 170, 175; iv. 131; Verney ms mic. 636/48, R. Lawley to J. Verney, 22 May [1695] n.s ; Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/i/1817.

Under William III, 1695-1702

Dartmouth took his seat in the Lords on 22 Nov. 1695, the opening day of the Parliament, and he attended on 74 days of the session, 60 per cent of the total, and was appointed to seven committees. He signed the Association on 27 Feb. 1696. On his return, many issues clamoured for his attention: there was a back-log of estate matters; on the day after he took his seat he was advised to ‘suffer a recovery as soon as possible to safeguard the estates for his sister should he die’; and he was encouraged to visit his Irish estates. In February 1696 Dartmouth’s mother confirmed that her son ‘doth fully resolve of his journey into Ireland as soon as the Parliament rises’, it being ‘extremely necessary before he settles in the world to see his estate there and put it into such a method as it may yield a better revenue’. Once he had returned from Ireland he could then ‘find a good wife’. Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/i/1818, D(W)1778/I/ii/1. He duly arrived in Dublin on at the end of May, and in June he compiled a memorandum about granting leases in co. Louth. Burnet, iv. 285; PRONI, D.562/283. He also benefited from the ground rents on Dartmouth Street, Westminster. Verney ms mic. 636/51, D. Ford to C. Hope, 5 Sept. 1699.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1696-7 session, 20 October. On 2 Dec. he entered his dissent from the decision of the House not to insist upon their amendments to the bill for further remedying the ill state of the coinage. He signed three protests against the campaign to attaint Sir John Fenwick^‡, 3rd bt: on 15 Dec. against the decision to allow the evidence of Cardell Goodman to be used; on the 18th against the second reading of the bill for Fenwick’s attainder; and on the 23rd, after voting for the rejection of the bill, against its passage. He later recorded that the dispute was about whether Fenwick ‘a man of no fortune (besides an annuity) with a very indifferent reputation and actually in custody, was a subject proper for the legislature to exert its utmost authority upon’. He also noted that ‘the violent unrelenting usage I met with in the last reign, after Sir John Fenwick’s trial, I thought justly entitled me to oppose anything that was for his majesty’s advantage or personal satisfaction’. Burnet, iv. 333; v. 11. On 23 Jan. 1697 he entered his protest against the resolution not to give a second reading to the bill for further regulating elections to Parliament. He had attended on 77 days of the session, 68 per cent of the total and had been named to 13 committees.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1697-8 session, 3 Dec. 1697. On 15 Mar. 1698 he voted in favour of committing the bill to punish Charles Duncombe^‡. On 16 Mar. he entered his dissent from the resolution to give relief to James Bertie^‡ and his wife in their appeal against Lucius Henry Carey, 6th Lord Falkland [S] and others, while the following day he dissented from the resolution that the relief would consist of the appellants enjoying Falkland’s estate during the life of Mrs Bertie. On 10 May Dartmouth was named as a manager of a conference on the bill for erecting hospitals and workhouses in Colchester, while two weeks laterhe was appointed a manager for a conference on the bill for suppressing blasphemy and profaneness. On 15 June he was named to draw up the heads for a conference on the resolution of the Lords concerning the venue for the impeachment of Goudet. Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, registered his proxy with Dartmouth on 30 June, and the following day Dartmouth entered his protest against giving a second reading to the bill for raising two million pounds and for settling the trade to the East Indies. He was present on the last day of the session, 5 July, having attended on 110 days of the session, 84 per cent of the total, and been named to 53 committees.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1698 Parliament, 6 Dec. 1698. On 8 Feb. 1699 he voted against and entered his dissent from the resolution that the Lords were ready to enter into any expedient, consistent with the forms of Parliament, for retaining the king’s Dutch Guards. On 28 Mar. 1699 he was excused from attending the trial of Edward Rich, 6th earl of Warwick, owing to sickness. Dartmouth was present on the last day of the session, 4 May, having attended on 66 days, 82 per cent of the total and been named to 17 committees. He also attended the prorogation on 24 Oct. 1699.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1699-1700 session, 16 Nov. 1699. On 8 Feb. 1700 he entered his dissent from putting the question whether the Scottish colony at Darien was inconsistent with the good of the plantation trade and two days later he further protested against the Lords’ address on the Darien scheme. He was forecast as likely to support the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation and on 23 Feb. he voted in favour of adjourning the House into a committee of the whole to discuss amendments to the bill. On 2 Apr. he was named as a manager of a conference on the bill for taking off the duties on woollen manufactures. According to his later account, Dartmouth played a role in resolving the impasse between the Houses over the land tax bill, to which the Commons had tacked a bill resuming Irish forfeited estates. Upon discovering that the king intended to dissolve Parliament, Dartmouth sent Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd earl of Shaftesbury, to inform the Commons, who forestalled the matter by an adjournment. Dartmouth was then used by the court to ensure that the bill’s supporters in the Lords remained in the House until, on 10 Apr., the courtiers had convinced sufficient of their peers to drop the wrecking amendments to the bill. Burnet, iv. 439. He was present on the last day of the session, 11 Apr., having attended on 67 days, 85 per cent of the total and been named to 16 committees. He also attended the prorogation on 23 May 1700.

At the end of June 1700, news broke that Dartmouth would marry. Add. 75368, [Weymouth] to Halifax, 30 June 1700. Speculation about his marriage had been current since June 1697 when it was rumoured that Dartmouth would marry Lady Frances Jones, daughter of Richard Jones^‡, earl of Ranelagh [I]. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 241. On 18 July 1700 Dartmouth married instead Anne Finch, daughter of the prominent lawyer and Member for Oxford University, Heneage Finch, the brother of Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and himself later Baron Guernsey and earl of Aylesford. This match may have heralded a search for investment in land, for in April and June 1701 arrangements were being made for the purchase of Sandwell in Staffordshire, which became the focus of Dartmouth’s estate building. Indeed, in 1703 he considered buying land at Handsworth, near to the estates of William Digby^‡, Baron Digby [I], at Coleshill in Warwickshire. Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/ii/31, 33, 58, 60; HMC Dartmouth, i. 293. In 1703 William Smith of Tettenhall began work on rebuilding the house at Sandwell, which was finished in 1711. Dartmouth also engaged in coal-mining nearby. VCH Staffs. xvii. 19, 39-40.

After attending the prorogation on 21 Nov. 1700, Dartmouth attended on the opening day of the 1701 Parliament on 10 February. On 17 Feb. he was named to manage a conference on the Address. On 14 Apr. Dartmouth witnessed the debate in the Commons in which John Somers, Baron Somers defended his conduct in putting the seals to the Partition Treaty. He was unimpressed by his performance: ‘I never saw that House in so great a flame as they were upon his withdrawing’, which led to the Commons’ impeachment of the former lord chancellor and three of his colleagues from the previous ministry. Burnet, iv. 491. On 16 Apr. Dartmouth entered his protest against the resolution for an address asking the king not to pass any censure or punishment against the four impeached lords until they had been tried, and then that same day subscribed a second protest against the decision to expunge the reasons for the first protest. Throughout June he signed a series of protests against decisions of the House that furthered the likelihood that the impeached peers would be acquitted: on 3 June against both the second and last paragraphs of the Lords’ answer to the Commons over the impeachments; on 9 June against the decision not to agree to establish a committee of both Houses regarding the trials; and on 14 June against, first, the Lords’ asking for a second free conference before the first conference had been determined, and then against the Lords’ insisting on not having a committee of both Houses on the impeachments. On the day of the trial, 17 June, he protested against the resolution to go into Westminster Hall to proceed with the trial, voted against the acquittal of Somers and then protested against the verdict of not guilty. On 5 June he also acted as a teller, in opposition to Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, on the question whether to reverse the decree in the case of Grosvenor v. Coy. Concerning the bill of settlement, Dartmouth later commented that the death of the duke of Gloucester made it ‘a necessity for this declarative act; there being so many intermediate heirs that were papists, who are as incompatible with our constitution as Jews or Mahometans’. Burnet, iv. 497. He was present on the last day of the session, 24 June, when he acted as a teller, in opposition to Mohun, on the question of whether to adjourn the House into a committee of the whole to discuss an address to the king concerning the commission for public accounts. He had attended on 84 days of the session, 80 per cent of the total and been named to a further 22 committees. Following the end of the session, he examined the journals for the session on 25 and 30 June.

In early July 1701 the king restored Dartmouth’s pension in the ‘cofferer’s office’, which ‘was to have been paid him on the exchequer list’. CTP, 1697-1702, p. 507. This was perhaps the pension which had been promised him after his father’s death and which may have been withdrawn following the Fenwick trial. He attended the prorogations on 7 Aug. and 6 Nov. 1701. Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1701-2 Parliament, 30 Dec. 1701. On 1 Jan. 1702 he signed the address condemning the recognition of the Pretender by Louis XIV. On 20 Feb. he entered his protest against the passage of a bill of attainder against Queen Mary, James II’s widow. As he was present on 8 Mar. he was probably a manager of the conference over the death of the king and the proclamation of Queen Anne. On 21 May he acted as a teller, in opposition to Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, on the question whether to dismiss Dr Davenant from attendance on the House in the hearings on the bill for the relief of Jane Lavallin, with relation to forfeited estates in Ireland. HMC Lords, n.s. v. 48. He was present on the last day of the session, 25 May, having attended on 86 days of the session, 86 per cent of the total, and been named to 33 committees.

Under Queen Anne, 1702-10

At the beginning of Anne’s reign it was proposed to send Dartmouth as envoy to Hanover, but he feared this was a poisoned chalice, in that ‘whoever was employed between her majesty and her successor, would soon burn his fingers’, and so he refused the appointment. Burnet, v. 13. Instead he was appointed to the board of trade, possibly owing to the influence of Nottingham, where he was able to liaise between the board and the House on trade matters. R. Walcot, Eng. Politics in early 18th Century, 98; HMC Lords, n.s. vi. 364. He attended an average of almost 36 per cent of the meetings of the board, ranging from almost 56 per cent in his first year to only just over 21 per cent in 1710. He attended no meetings at all in 1708, nor indeed any before May in 1709. I.K. Steele, Politics of Colonial Policy, 114, 174-5.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1702 Parliament, 20 October. As a commissioner for trade and plantations, he laid before the House on 20 Nov. 1702 an account of the state of the trade of the kingdom since the previous session. On 11 Dec. he acted as a teller in opposition to John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, on the question whether to proceed further that day on the case of Sherard v. Harcourt. He was forecast by Nottingham in January 1703 as likely to support the bill against occasional conformity and on the 16th he duly voted against adhering to the Lords’ wrecking amendments to the penalty clause of the bill. However, Dartmouth was a lukewarm adherent of ‘this impertinent bill’, which ‘was afterwards frequently taken up to inflame parties and distress the court, as opportunities offered themselves to either side’. Burnet, v. 49. On 22 Jan. he entered his protest against the dismissal of the petition of Robert Squire and John Thompson in their appeal against Wharton. Nicolson, London Diaries, 184-5. He entered his protest on 22 Feb. against the failure of the Lords to commit the bill to ensure a landed qualification for Members of the Commons, and two days later he subscribed the protest against the resolution that the bill against occasional conformity, including the Lords’ amendments and the report of the conference with the Commons on these amendments, be published and printed. Dartmouth was present on the last day of the session, 27 Feb., having attended on 73 days, 85 per cent of the total and been named to 33 committees.

Dartmouth attended the prorogation on 22 Apr. 1703, when he introduced into the House his father-in-law Heneage Finch, as Baron Guernsey, John Granville, as Baron Granville, and Francis Seymour, as Baron Conway. He also attended the prorogations on 14 Oct. and 4 Nov. 1703. He was present again on the opening day of the session of 1703-4, 9 November. In about November 1703 he was forecast by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as likely to support the bill against occasional conformity, as he was again when Sunderland made his second forecast in early December. He duly voted for the bill on 14 Dec. 1703, but did not sign either of the protests against its rejection. He was closely involved in proceedings concerning the recruiting bill. On 21 Mar. 1704 he acted as a teller in the committee of the whole, in opposition to Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrrers, on the question whether to add some words to the bill. That attempt to amend the bill having failed, it was then proposed to adjourn the third reading of the bill to the following day, when a rider to it could be proposed. When the motion to adjourn was defeated, Dartmouth entered his protest, but he did not protest when the proposed rider itself was rejected. The bill was then passed, against which Dartmouth entered his protest because it contained the clause that any three justices were empowered ‘to raise and levy such able-bodied men as have not any lawful calling or employment, or visible means for their maintenance and livelihood, to serve as soldiers’. His name was included in a list of members of both Houses drawn up by Nottingham in 1704 which may indicate support for him over the ‘Scotch Plot’, and on 25 Mar. he entered a protest when it was agreed to put the question on whether the failure to pass a censure on Robert Ferguson was a great encouragement to the queen’s enemies; he then entered his protest to the adoption of the resolution itself. He was present on the last day of the session, 3 Apr., having attended on 69 days of the session, 70 per cent of the total, and been named to 35 committees. Of the legislation passed that session to establish Queen Anne’s bounty and alleviate clerical poverty, Dartmouth later commented somewhat critically that ‘no Christian church has a better provision’, but proposed a redistribution of dean and chapter lands to the poorer clergy, and equalization of revenue between bishops to prevent ‘the great scandal given by commendams and translations’. Burnet, v. 120.

With the removal of many Tories from office in 1704, Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, proposed that Dartmouth ‘might be willing to be out of the way for a little time’, by serving as envoy to Venice. Dartmouth refused, pointing out that he could be out of the way at his house in Staffordshire. Burnet, v. 142. He was present on the opening day of the 1704-5 session, 24 October. In about November he was listed on what was probably a forecast of those likely to support the tack. On 30 Nov. he delivered into the Lords the commissioners of trade and plantations’ report on trade. Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey registered his proxy with Dartmouth on 5 Dec., which was vacated when Jersey returned to the House on 10 Jan. 1705. On 27 Feb. Dartmouth was named to the committee to prepare the heads of a conference on the resolutions voted by the House on the case of the Aylesbury men. He entered his protest on 2 Mar. against the passage of the recruitment bill because it again contained a clause giving justices extensive powers to levy recruits, as in the bill of the previous session. On 3 Mar. he acted as a teller in opposition to Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford, in the committee of the whole on a question whether a clause should be made part of the bill to make several expiring acts perpetual. He was present on the last day of the session, 14 Mar., having attended on 66 days of the session, two thirds of the total, and been named to 32 committees. Following the end of the session, he was classed as a Jacobite in an analysis of the peerage in relation to the succession. In July Dartmouth was arranging for Townshend to be a godparent to his son, who ‘is so large a boy that I have some thoughts of making him a bishop (if the High Church last long enough)’. HMC Townshend, 333; HMC Dartmouth, i. 294.

Dartmouth was not present when the 1705 Parliament first assembled on 25 Oct. 1705, and he first attended on 6 November. As he was present on 11 Mar. 1706 he may have been a manager at two conferences to discuss an address on the pamphlet A Letter from Sir Rowland Gwynne to the earl of Stamford. On 13 Mar. he was named to manage a conference on the militia bill. He was present on the last day of the session, 19 Mar., having attended on 58 days of the session, 61 per cent of the total and been named to 30 committees. He attended the prorogations on 21 May, 17 Sept., 22 Oct. and 21 November. A character sketch described him at about this time as one who ‘sets up for a critic in conversation, makes jests, and loves to laugh at them; takes a great deal of pains in his office, and is in a fair way of rising at court’. Macky Mems. 89. The duchess of Marlborough concurred in some of this, albeit more waspishly, when she noted Dartmouth as ‘a jester himself, and a jest to all others’. Add. 61418, ff. 150-4.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1706-7 session, 3 Dec. 1706. He last attended on the penultimate day of the session, 7 Apr. 1707, having attended on 46 days of the session, 54 per cent of the total. Despite a lower rate of attendance this session he was appointed to 30 committees. He then attended on the first day of the short session of April 1707, 14 Apr., and was named to two committees. On 23 Apr. he entered his protest to the resolution to consider the following day the refusal of the judges to answer in the committee of the whole the question of whether the existing laws were sufficient, now that the Act of Union had been passed, to prevent the fraudulent use of drawbacks by Scots to avoid English duties. In all he attended on four days, 44 per cent of the total.

Dartmouth was absent from the beginning of the 1707-8 session, first attending on the second day, 30 Oct. 1707. He was present on the last day, 1 Apr. 1708, having attended on 74 days of the session, 69 per cent of the total, and been named to 21 committees. He attended the prorogation on 13 Apr. 1708. In about May 1708 an analysis of the post-Union Parliament classed him as a Tory. Dartmouth found his place on the board of trade under some pressure after the Union, with Godolphin being pressed to have him removed as one that ‘commonly’ voted against the court, but Godolphin countered this by pointing out that Dartmouth enjoyed the queen’s protection. Burnet, v. 359. It was this royal protection which explains his continuance in office during the period 1706-10, although his family links were with Tories. From the summer of 1707 Dartmouth appears to have been involved in the negotiations for a marriage between Nottingham’s daughter, Dartmouth’s own cousin and the widow of William Savile, 2nd marquess of Halifax, and John Ker duke of Roxburghe [S], which finally took place in January 1708. HMC Dartmouth, i. 294. Similarly, on 2 Dec. 1708 Charles Hay^†, styled Lord Yester (later 3rd marquess of Tweeddale [S]), reported that Dartmouth had stood in for Nottingham at the christening of Roxburghe’s son, Robert Ker^†, later 2nd duke of Roxburghe [S], by John Sharp, archbishop of York. NLS, Yester ms 7021, f. 138.

Dartmouth attended on the opening day of the 1708 Parliament on 16 Nov., but was absent from 27 Nov. to 21 December. Dartmouth’s support for his cousin Roxburghe, a Squadrone peer, made him take some actions contrary to the view of the court. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted against Scottish peers with British titles, such as James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S] (duke of Dover in the British peerage), being able to vote in the election of Scottish representative peers. Later, on 31 Jan., the Junto leader Sunderland, informed Dartmouth of a ‘trick’ intended by the ‘enemy’ at the following day’s report on the election of the representative peers and their intention to bring up the matter of Queensberry’s right to vote. Sunderland asked that Dartmouth ‘summon’ Guernsey ‘and their friends early to the committee’. HMC Dartmouth, i. 295. In view of Dartmouth’s attitude, on 25 Mar. 1709 Godolphin wrote to John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, ‘I find you have talked of what I said to you about the carriage of Lord Dartmouth, for today I was told by a friend of his that he was in great concern to hear that I was not pleased with him.’ Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1233. Dartmouth was present on the last day of the session, 21 Apr., when he was named to manage a conference on the bill to continue the acts for the prevention of coining. He had attended on 56 days of the session, 61 per cent of the total, and been named to 18 committees. Following the end of the session he examined the journals on 27 April.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1709-10 session on 15 Nov. 1709, and next attended on 1 December. He was very busy with protests on 16 Feb. 1710 when first he entered his protest against the decision not to send for James Greenshields and the Edinburgh magistrates to be present at the hearing of Greenshields’ appeal. Then on the matter of the address from the Commons which requested that the queen send Marlborough immediately to Holland, Dartmouth protested against the decision not to adjourn the House before the consideration of the address, and then against agreeing with it. Concerning the impeachment of Henry Sacheverell, on 14 Mar. he entered his protest against the decision not to adjourn the House before considering the impeachment articles and then against the resolution that the particular words supposed to be criminal were not necessary to be expressly specified in the charges. Two days later he protested against the decisions to put the question whether the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment, and then against the resolution affirming it. On the 17th he protested against the resolution that the Commons had made good the second, third and fourth articles of the impeachment and the following day against the decision that peers could only provide a simple verdict of guilty or not guilty to all the articles. He not surprisingly voted Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours at his trial on 20 Mar., and duly protested against the guilty verdict. He did not, however, protest against the censure laid down against Sacheverell on 21 March. He was present on the last day of the session, 5 Apr., when he was named to manage a conference on the amendments to the bill vesting the copyright of printed books in their authors. He had attended on 53 days of the session, 57 per cent of the total, and been named to 21 committees. He attended the prorogations on 2 May and 5, 20 June, 18 July and 1 Aug. 1710.

Oxford’s administration, 1710-14

Meanwhile, Dartmouth had emerged as the compromise candidate to succeed Sunderland as secretary of state, in preference to John Annesley, 4th earl of Anglesey, John Poulett, Earl Poulett and John Holles, duke of Newcastle, and very much with the queen’s support. Indeed, she apparently asked Somers if he was acceptable to the Whigs and was told, according to Dartmouth, that ‘though I was looked upon as a Tory, I was known to be no zealous party man; and he was sure the Whigs would live very well with me’. He took office on 14 June 1710, with the Whigs in agreement that they could live easily with such a moderate Church Tory, who had, in any case, been in office since the start of the reign. PH, xxix. 278-9; Burnet, vi. 9. Some Whigs, such as Thomas Coningsby^†, the future Baron Coningsby, were somewhat scathing about his appointment, saying he ‘could not write true English and was an utter stranger to all business’. Thomson, Secs. of State, 20. Lady Rachel Russell noted on 15 June that William Cavendish, 2nd duke of Devonshire, with whom he had been great friends at Westminster, said that ‘he is very pleasant conversation, but application to business has not yet been his talent. HMC Rutland, ii. 190. The £3,750 Dartmouth received from the crown was perhaps arrears from his pension under William III. Jones, Party and Management, 164.

Dartmouth was an assiduous secretary and attended 168 meetings of the cabinet and lords of the committee between 18 June 1710 and 17 June 1711, the longest gap between meetings being five days. TRHS ser. 5, vii. 137, 143. From the exercise of his office some idea of his religious views can be gleaned. He held no truck with the non-jurors; in August 1710 it was reported that he had issued out a warrant for the arrest of Charles Leslie, author of The Good Old Cause. Post Boy, 5-8 Aug. 1710. Further, on 25 Aug. the Rev. Ralph Bridges noted the placement by Dartmouth of the address from the clergy of London in the Gazette. This he perceived was a riposte to ‘a very pernicious book called the good old cause’, ‘designed particularly against the said wicked pamphlet’. Add. 72495, ff. 17-18. Similarly, Dartmouth felt that William Whiston’s Sermons and Essays (1709) ‘struck at the essentials of a Christian religion’, but that Pierre Bayle’s ‘naughty book about a comet’ was designed chiefly ‘to prove that idolatry was worse than atheism, and that false worship was more offensive to God than none’. Burnet, vi. 55.

There is some evidence of secret manoeuvrings by Dartmouth with Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset and Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, in the summer of 1710, as Harley plotted the downfall of the ministry. HMC Dartmouth, i. 295. Some Tories were encouraged by Dartmouth’s promotion. On 7 Aug. William North, 6th Baron North [and 2nd Baron Grey], congratulated Nottingham on ‘the happy turn the public affairs seem to take’, and Dartmouth’s advancement:

his own steadiness to the Church interest in Parliament does not make all good men more secure under his protection, than the alliance that he has to you; and ‘tis the least thing that is expected from such birth, education, and alliance to be negatively good; not to attempt upon the Church, habeas corpus act &c as who he succeeds did [Sunderland]’. Leics. RO, DG 7 Box 4950 bdle 23, letter E17.

Dartmouth’s close ties to the Finches had other advantages for Harley, who, as Lady Roxburghe informed her father, Nottingham, on 31 Aug. ‘brags that both you and my uncle Guernsey are now so pleased that my Lord Anglesey and my Lord Dartmouth are employed, that you both must do journey man’s work under them, or else keep out of the way of opposing’. PH, xxix. 299.

On 1 Sept. Dartmouth dined with his fellow secretary, Henry Boyle (the future Baron Carleton), Somerset and, as Arthur Maynwaring^‡ put it, ‘a great deal of such choice company’, possibly as part of a failed charm offensive to keep Boyle in the government, for Boyle was replaced as secretary of state for the northern department by Henry St John, the future Viscount Bolingbroke, on 21 September. Add. 61461, ff. 79-81. Indeed, Dartmouth does not appear to have been all that effective as a conciliator of the Whigs, for on 18 Sept., when Harley was lobbying William Cowper, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, to remain in office, the lord chancellor in reply referred to having ‘already tasted mortifications from Lord Dartmouth’. Cowper Diary, 44. Harley also used Dartmouth as an agent in an attempt to lure Mohun into accepting a seat on the admiralty board. Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 75n. With the administration installed, on Harley’s analysis of 3 Oct. Dartmouth was expected to support the new ministry.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1710 Parliament, 25 Nov. 1710. In December there were rumours of Dartmouth’s removal, along with those of Queensberry and St John, and his intended replacement by Archibald Campbell, earl of Ilay [S], Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton or Sir Thomas Hanmer^‡. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 664; Wentworth Pprs. 163. On 8, 11, 17 and 22 Jan. 1711 he delivered in papers to the Lords to assist into their investigations into the war in Spain. In February, having attended a meeting with Nottingham, he denounced what he saw as the earl’s attempts to force extreme policies on the ministry, such as the prosecution of all the former Whig ministers. Pols. in Age of Anne, 254; Burnet, vi. 41-42. Dartmouth was also one of those ministers called to attend a dinner early that month aimed at reconciling Harley with St John, who was accused of setting up to govern the Commons himself. HMC Portland, v. 464. At that same time Swift wrote in the Examiner that Dartmouth was ‘a man of letters full of good sense, good nature and honour, of strict virtue and regularity in his life; but labours under one great defect, that he treats his clerks with more civility and good manners, than others, in his station, have done the queen’. Swift v. Mainwaring, 217. Swift wrote this even though, as he later noted in September, he could ‘never work out a dinner from Dartmouth’ (although Dartmouth had remedied this omission by April 1713). Jnl. to Stella, ed. Williams, 374, 663. In April 1711 Dartmouth approached Harley with a request that the queen ‘knight him again’, on the grounds that ‘since the Revolution half the House of Lords have had brevets granted over my head, and by a late transaction half the world’. HMC Portland, v. 679. This may have been the opening shots in a campaign which resulted in his earldom later in the year. Among the rumours circulating in April was that Dartmouth would become postmaster-general in place of Sir Thomas Frankland^‡, or that he would be replaced by Townshend, as part of a turn to the Whigs which encompassed Cowper and Somers. Clavering Corresp. 116; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters quarto, 5, f. 192r. On 11 May it was rumoured that Dartmouth would be replaced by Boyle as secretary. HMC Var. viii. 251. Before the end of the 1710-11 session, he was listed as a ‘Tory patriot’. He last attended on 9 June 1711, having attended on 64 days, 57 per cent of the total, and been named to 12 committees. He attended the prorogations on 10 July.

The death of Queensberry on 6 July 1711 saw the third secretaryship lapse and a redistribution of duties between Dartmouth and St John, with the provinces returning to their old spheres of responsibility, except that St John retained the Spanish Netherlands and therefore strengthened his position in relation to Dartmouth. Dartmouth backed Jersey for the vacancy as lord privy seal caused by Newcastle’s death on 15 July. Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 129-131. On 16 Aug. Oxford (as Harley had become the previous May) wrote to the queen that `Lord D[artmouth] came hither from Windsor very much out of humour, but upon discourse with him, he was satisfied and the paper which Mons. Mesnager [a French diplomat involved in preliminary negotiations for peace] brought was put into his hands, which his Lordship produced to the Lords at the Cockpit’. Add. 70295, Oxford to Queen Anne [draft]. Harley was later to note that between the 1710-11 and the 1711-12 sessions, he spent much time ‘reconciling or calming quarrels’ between Dartmouth, St John and Abigail Masham. HMC Portland, v. 465. Dartmouth’s promotion in the peerage on 5 September to the earldom of Dartmouth (with the viscountcy of Lewisham) was announced in the Gazette along with other promotions. London Gazette, 4-6 Sept. 1711. On 27 Sept. Dartmouth and St John signed the peace preliminaries with France. HJ, xvi. 250. When Dartmouth attended the prorogation on 9 Oct. 1711, he was introduced into the House as an earl by Oxford and Edward Hyde, 3rd earl of Clarendon. On 16 Nov. Oxford wrote hoping that Dartmouth had received the names of the commissioners for the Scottish chamberlaincy so that they could be sent by express to Scotland and the peers hurried down for the forthcoming session. HMC Dartmouth, i. 307. Dartmouth, at Oxford’s prompting, ensured that the Whig demonstration against the Peace scheduled for 17 Nov., which was to include the burning of effigies of the pope and the Pretender, was cancelled. Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 140; HMC Dartmouth, i. 307-8; Wentworth Pprs. 212.

Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1711-12 session, 7 Dec. 1711, but did not contribute to the debate on the amendment to the Address in favour of adding a commitment to ‘No Peace Without Spain’. Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 161-2. However, he had no sympathy for Nottingham’s defection to the Whigs on this occasion, accusing him of accepting bribes from his erstwhile foes. Rev. Pols. 234. On 8 Dec. he was listed as one who would have voted in favour of presenting the address containing the clause, if the division had not been abandoned, yet on.10 Dec. Dartmouth appeared on Oxford’s list of ‘loyal’ peers in this matter. He had opposed the creation of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], as a duke in the British peerage when the matter had been discussed in Cabinet, probably on the grounds that it infringed article 22 of the Union which governed the number of representatives from Scotland in Parliament. He remained consistent in his opposition against Hamilton, being forecast by Oxford on 19 Dec. as likely to vote against Hamilton’s right to sit in the House as a British peer, as he duly did the following day. Hamilton’s reaction was to press the queen to dismiss Dartmouth over a matter which was seen as limiting the royal prerogative, and there were rumours in the days after the vote that he would indeed lose his post. G. Holmes, Politics, Religion and Society, 84-5, 96; Wentworth Pprs. 233. Others reported that Hanmer would be secretary and Dartmouth treasurer of the household, or even that Dartmouth would become master of the horse. HMC 7th Rep. 507; Wentworth Pprs. 225. Dartmouth’s own later account stressed the protection he received from the queen, who told Hamilton that Dartmouth ‘understood it to be against law, and she believed I acted sincerely, with affection to her service, and zeal for my country; therefore had deceived nobody; and had refused to sign the warrant for the patent at first’. Burnet, vi. 89.

Nevertheless, the ministry was in crisis and on 19 Dec., Swift reported that ‘things do not mend at all. Lord Dartmouth despairs, and is for giving up’. Jnl. to Stella, ed. Williams, 42. On 25 Dec. Lady Strafford had heard rumours that Dartmouth was a candidate to succeed Somerset as master of the horse, which she dismissed as he was ‘not one of consideration enough for a place of that profit’. Add. 22226, f. 52. On 27 Dec. (or early on 28th) the queen ‘drew a list of twelve lords out of her pocket and ordered me to bring warrants for them’, thereby implementing Oxford’s plan for regaining control of the Lords through creating court peers. Given his attitude to the dilution of the peerage, Dartmouth was somewhat critical of the measure, making no objection to the legality of the move, but only its ‘expediency’, fearing it would have ‘an ill effect’ in the Lords ‘and no good one in the kingdom’. To Oxford he was less polite, calling it ‘so odious a course’. Burnet, vi. 94-95. Following his visit to England early in 1712, Prince Eugene wrote of Dartmouth that he was ‘very pliable, a great stickler for the Tory party, but not much bred to business, of a tolerable sense, and easily led’. HMC Portland, v. 157.

On 17 or 18 Jan. 1712, when Dartmouth made a motion that satisfaction should be given to the Scottish peers concerning the Hamilton peerage case, another peer asked ‘what satisfaction that should be’. The ensuing silence saw the matter put off to another day. Timberland, ii. 362. On 9 Mar. Oxford was concerned at ‘all these meetings of the enemy’, and asked Dartmouth what the Whigs designed to do. HMC Dartmouth, i. 309. In April Ralph Bridges thought that when Hanmer returned from Flanders, he would replace Dartmouth as secretary, who would in turn become treasurer of the household or lord chamberlain. Add. 72495, ff. 138-9. Dartmouth received the proxy of William Berkeley, 4th Baron Berkeley of Stratton, on 28 May. This was a time of acute stress for the ministry over the ‘restraining orders’ sent to the captain-general James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, forbidding him to engage in offensive military actions against France. Dartmouth duly voted, presumably using Berkeley of Stratton’s proxy entrusted to him that day, for the ministry in the division of 28 May on the address against these ‘restraining orders’. PH, xxvi. 178. Berkeley returned to the House, thereby vacating his proxy on2 June, but that same day registered it again with Dartmouth, who held it until Berkeley next showed up in the House three days later. This was another testing period for the ministry, as on 7 June the Whigs almost saw through an amendment to the Address on the peace which would require the queen to enter into a ‘mutual guaranty’ with the Allies to ensure the Hanoverian Succession. Dartmouth was obviously concerned with mustering as many ministry votes as possible during these fraught days, as Berkeley once again entrusted his proxy with him during another period of absence from 10 to 21 June. Dartmouth’s role as a ministerial ‘whip’ can also be seen by Bishop Sprat’s favourable response to a letter of 12 June, in which Dartmouth requested his attendance the following day, when the protest of 28 May against the rejection of the ‘restraining orders’ address was ordered to be expunged. HMC Dartmouth, i. 310. Dartmouth was present on the day the session was adjourned, 21 June 1712, and when it was prorogued on 8 July, having attended on 68 days of the session, 64 per cent of the total.

One of the things that irked St John when he was only offered a viscountcy in June 1712 was that Dartmouth had been promoted to an earldom a year previously: ‘I am sure his birth nor fortune do not give him much better pretensions than mine are’, he complained. HMC Portland, v. 194. In general Dartmouth did side with Oxford in cabinet battles, such as the debate, probably on 24 Sept., which saw him join with Oxford and Poulett in successfully arguing against the dissolution championed by Bolingbroke (as St John was eventually created in July), and Dartmouth duly attended the further prorogation of Parliament the following day. Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 222; Add. 17677 FFF, ff. 361-2. There were more serious causes of friction. Following the return of Bolingbroke from his embassy to Paris in late August 1712, Oxford had accused him of exceeding his instructions in the negotiations, and they had been handed over to Dartmouth, in whose southern province they lay. Since Matthew Prior^‡ kept Bolingbroke informed of developments in France, Dartmouth faced problems dealing with his fellow secretary. Clashes in cabinet followed, including at least one tirade, on 12 Oct., by Bolingbroke against Dartmouth. Faced with such treatment Dartmouth was only with difficulty persuaded not to resign by Oxford and the queen. B.W. Hill, Robert Harley, 187-9; Gregg, Queen Anne, 359-60; Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 224. As Erasmus Lewis^‡ reported to Oxford after the stormy cabinet meeting Bolingbroke treated Dartmouth ‘on two or three occasions in so rough a manner that he believes it will be impossible for you to find any expedient to keep them together’. As Dartmouth regarded Bolingbroke as essential to the peace negotiations, he was willing to retire. HMC Portland, v. 234-5. On 20 Oct. 1712, ‘an uneasy’ Dartmouth asked the queen’s leave at Windsor to go into the country. The queen felt that he was determined to quit the secretaryship, which she thought would be prejudicial to her service. HMC Bath, i. 222. However, before he went, he attended the dinner at Goldsmiths’ Hall on 29 Oct. celebrating the swearing in of the new lord mayor, Sir Richard Hoare^‡. Post Boy, 28-30 Oct. 1712. Although he remained in post, Bolingbroke regained control of most of the important diplomatic correspondence with France. HJ, xvi. 260.

By the beginning of 1713 Dartmouth was a fixture at the regular Saturday dinners for ministers hosted by Oxford. Jnl. to Stella, ed. Williams, 599. Letters abound from Oxford reminding him that ‘tomorrow is Saturday and ... your company at dinner as usual will be a great favour’. Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/V/151. He attended the prorogations on 17 Feb., 3 and 26 Mar. 1713 while the peace was still being negotiated in Utrecht. Dartmouth in February told Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, as ever seeking military promotion, that he had ‘no other part in any military promotions than barely to lay the commissions before her majesty upon a signification of her pleasure by the secretary of war’. Add. 22211, f. 19. In February Dartmouth was in correspondence with the East India Company over their ‘Memorial’ about ‘the trade with France in East India goods, on the treaty of commerce to be settled’; and Company records show that ‘Mr Dawson and Mr Herne’ were to attend Dartmouth ‘with the Company’s thanks’. OIOC, B/52 Ct. of Dirs.’ mins. 1712-14, pp. 319, 323. February 1713 saw more rumours of his replacement as secretary, this time the post office being earmarked for him. Wentworth Pprs. 321; Jnl. to Stella, ed. Williams, 625.

Dartmouth as secretary was probably at the heart of the government’s organization of political matters. On 7 Mar. 1713 he sent almost identical letters to North and Grey and to Oxford arranging a meeting at his house in St James’s Square for noon on the 9th. Bodl. North mss, b.2, ff. 5-6; Add. 70246, Dartmouth to Oxford, 7 Mar. 1713. Dartmouth was present on the opening day of the 1713 session, 9 April. At the end of April he introduced the Members for Dartmouth when they presented an address to the queen in favour of the Peace. London Gazette, 28 Apr.-2 May 1713. Around 13 June Oxford forecast that he would support the bill confirming the French commercial treaty, should it reach the Lords. On a personal matter, for the past several years the executors of the late marquess of Halifax’s estate - Nottingham, Guernsey, Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, Francis Gwyn and John Conyers^‡ - had borrowed money from Dartmouth to execute their trust. As they had been unable to pay him back, Dartmouth had obtained a decree against them (possibly in collusion with them), which facilitated their approach to Parliament for a bill for the sale of the reversion and inheritance of the manor of Morley in Yorkshire, which was passed in June. HMC Lords, n.s. x. 70-71. On 15 June Dartmouth suggested the omission of part of the draft speech intended to close the parliamentary session. As he put it ‘thanking heaven is a poetical expression, and I believe never used from the throne before’, and ‘thanks to the affection of my people, is not good English’. HMC Dartmouth, i. 316. Neither reference appears in the speech delivered, in Dartmouth’s presence, on the last day of the session, 16 July. In all he had attended on 49 days of the session, 74 per cent of the total.

Oxford’s ministerial reshuffle of July-August 1713 saw John Robinson, bishop of Bristol, translated to London, and Dartmouth replace him as lord privy seal on 21 August. CTB, xxvii. 335. This retained Dartmouth in cabinet, where he acted as a loyal counterweight to Bolingbroke, but removed him from the burdensome secretaryship and the wearing battles with Bolingbroke. Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 282. This was very much to the queen’s liking for, as Abigail Masham had informed Oxford on 6 Aug., the queen had ‘commanded me to let you know she will endeavour to persuade Lord Dartmouth not to give up the seals, but she has thought him out of humour a good while by things he has let fall to her.’ Add. 70290, A. Masham, to Oxford, 6 Aug. 1713. At the beginning of September Dartmouth wrote to Oxford that the queen had given him ‘leave to go to Staffordshire for some time’, but that he hoped to see Oxford in London before he went, adding ‘I shall not fail to acquaint Lord Bingley with the honour you do him’. Add. 70031, f. 107. He was in the country at the end of September. Wentworth Pprs. 356.

Dartmouth’s loyalty to Oxford continued to antagonize Bolingbroke. On 18 Nov. Bolingbroke wrote that Dartmouth gave the queen ‘near two hours of his conversation every night. His Lady does the same honour to the duchess of Somerset’. HMC Portland, v. 359-60. On 19 Nov. Dartmouth, about to depart for Windsor, rather presciently warned Oxford that ‘your absence lately (though upon a much better occasion) was not neglected by some you had the least reason to expect it from’, namely Bolingbroke. Add. 70031, f. 223. By 3 Dec. Bolingbroke was referring to Dartmouth thus, ‘the pigmy stretches and struts and fancies himself a giant’. HMC Portland, v. 370. On 20 Jan. 1714 Dartmouth attended a dinner for Bingley, given by the court of directors of the South Sea Company upon his appointment as ambassador to Spain. British Mercury, 13-20 Jan. 1714.

Dartmouth was absent when the 1714 Parliament convened on 16 Feb., first attending on the 18th. On 1 Apr. Dartmouth wrote to Oxford, commenting on the ‘diminution in that favour and protection you have been pleased to honour me with’, thinking that it proceeded from ‘other people’s uneasiness at my being in the queen’s service, or a desire to have somebody else in my place’. In which case, he offered to resign. HMC Portland, v. 406-7. On 4 Apr. Oxford wrote to deny any alteration in his demeanour, referring to Dartmouth having received ‘your share of the impertinent humour of some people, though I believe at that time I was chiefly aimed at’. HMC Dartmouth, i. 320. Dartmouth held Bingley’s proxy from 15 to 20 April. On 7 May Dartmouth reported to Oxford that the extended Finch family had been at his house this evening, ‘from whence’, he commented, ‘I conclude they are all under great apprehensions’ of the queen’s displeasure, possibly over plans for the electoral Prince to reside in England. HMC Portland, v. 436. At the end of May or beginning of June he was forecast by Nottingham, as likely to support the schism bill. On 4 June he was one of four Harleyites who voted with the Whigs against rejecting the petition of the Dissenters to be heard by counsel against the bill. Boyer, Anne Hist. 705. Dartmouth received the proxy of Berkeley of Stratton on 1 July. Dartmouth himself was present on its last day, 9 July, having attended on 53 days, 70 per cent of the total.

Bolingbroke’s ascent to power and Oxford’s dismissal saw it assumed that Dartmouth would be dismissed; indeed, rumours had been current to that effect since June 1714, with Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester, the expected replacement. Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 424; Add. 17677 HHH, ff. 268-70, 292-6; Wentworth Pprs. 394. Dartmouth had as little time for Atterbury, later noting that he was ‘just such another busy hotheaded confident churchman’, albeit with a ‘superior understanding’. Burnet, vi. 176. However, on 29 July a newsletter suggested that ‘we hear now the lord p[rivy] s[ea]l will keep in’. Add. 70070, newsletter, 29 July 1714. Following the death of the queen, on 1 Aug., Dartmouth signed the proclamation of George I as king. Flying Post, 31 July-3 Aug. 1714. He first attended the session of August 1714 on the 5th, on which day he took the oaths and was named to the Address committee. By virtue of his office, Dartmouth was one of the lord justices, and on 21 Aug. he was one of 13 acting as commissioners for the passage of bills. He sat in the same capacity on 25 Aug. when Parliament was prorogued. In all he had attended on four days of the session, 27 per cent of the total.

There seems little doubt that at this point Dartmouth retained his links to Oxford; while he was still lord privy seal he wrote to Oxford about meeting him at Oxford’s house or that of his son, Edward Harley^†, the future 2nd earl of Oxford, adding that, `I had a very long conversation last night with lord treasurer [Shrewsbury], but more of that when I see you.’ Add. 70299, Dartmouth to [Oxford], n.d. On 12 Aug. Oxford told Dartmouth that he had ‘seriously thought upon our Saturday night’s conversation’ [on 7 Aug.], and after his conversation that day with Shrewsbury, he pledged not to take any steps without discussing it with Shrewsbury, Ormond and Dartmouth. He also wished to propose something to Dartmouth ‘on that head’. Dartmouth met Oxford at Lincoln’s Inn Fields on 18 Aug. 1714. HMC Dartmouth, i. 320-1. Dartmouth retained his respect for Oxford, later writing that ‘no man had more affectionate zeal for the interest of his country or less for his own’. Burnet, vi. 50.

Dartmouth was rather unceremoniously deprived of his office of lord privy seal, which was given to Wharton the day after the king arrived at St James’s in September 1714. However, as he wrote on 1 Oct. he was ‘not conscious of having done anything to deserve so early a mark of his majesty’s displeasure and had many assurances that it was not designed in that sense’. He would however retire into Staffordshire the following week ‘without fixing any time for my return’. Add. 22211, f. 39. On 28 Feb. 1715, Dartmouth was granted a pension of £2,000 p.a., dating from Christmas 1714. CTB, xxix. 402. His long-term friendship with Townshend also protected Dartmouth from impeachment from his role in negotiating the Peace. L. Colley, In Defiance of Oligarchy, 179.

Dartmouth had one further contribution to make to the history of the period, as an assiduous annotator of the History written by Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, which Dartmouth thought ‘the most partial, malicious heap of scandal and misrepresentation that was ever collected’. From the viewpoint of the 1730s Dartmouth burnished his image as a moderate, whom the queen thought ‘less engaged in party than any of her servants’, and referred to Whigs and Tories as ‘unhappy distinctions’. He revealed his poor opinion of some clerics, noting that even the ‘meanest of them’ was ‘always very able’ on the subject of ‘promoting the authority and wealth of churchmen’. He criticized James I for propagating the ‘doctrine of unconditional allegiance’, and ‘whose arbitrary, illegal administration could be justified by no former rules of government’ was ultimately put upon ‘a set of flattering clergymen’ who started the ‘notion’ of divine right. Dartmouth attributed to the flattery of clergy the one part of the liturgy he felt uncomfortable with: ‘thanking God for the king’s being what we ought to pray he should be’, which had led to prayers to continue James II in the true worship of God when he went publicly to mass. Above all Dartmouth was a traditionalist, who disliked the ‘provoking, insolent manner of speaking’ and the ‘familiar style’ brought up from the Commons by Wharton and Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax. Burnet, vi. 77, 180; i. 78-79; iii. 195, 379, 403; iv. 54; v. 234.

In 1715 Dartmouth had a long career left in the Lords before his death on 15 Dec. 1750. This will be treated in detail in the succeeding volumes of this work.