LEKE, Robert (1654-1707)

A riotous womaniser who was described by Queen Anne as a ‘pitiful wretch’, Deincourt (as he was styled before his succession to the earldom) achieved notoriety long before his formal entrance onto the political scene for absconding with the underage daughter of a wealthy merchant. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 250; CSP Dom. 1671-2, p. 147; J. Habakkuk, Marriage, Debt and the Estates System, p. 193. His young wife, Mary Lewis, was sister-in-law to Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, and for much of his career Deincourt and Huntingdon were close associates. Appointed to the minor court post of captain of the gentlemen pensioners in 1677, in August of the same year Deincourt accompanied the king’s natural son, Charles Fitzcharles, earl of Plymouth, to observe the siege of Charleroi, and in December he was prevented from fighting a duel with Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, through the king’s personal intervention. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 112; HMC Rutland, ii. 43; HMC 12th Rep. v. 43.

Two years later Deincourt was elected one of the borough members for Newark in the first Exclusion Parliament. At odds with his father on most matters, Deincourt owed his return to the interest of his cousin, Sir Francis Leke^‡. He was noted by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, as ‘base’ and absented himself from the vote on the exclusion bill on 21 May. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 732; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. i. 469; ii. 207. Although said to have been considering standing for the following Parliament, he was reluctant to spend money on doing so, and Deincourt seems not to have contested Newark again. He was instead summoned to the Lords in his father’s barony, taking his seat one day into the second Exclusion Parliament on 22 Oct. 1680. He was introduced between Charles Henry Kirkhoven, earl of Bellomont [I] (who sat as Baron Wotton), and Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis. Present for approximately 79 per cent of all sitting days in the remainder of the session, the following day Deincourt took the oaths and was named to the sessional committees for privileges and petitions. On 15 Nov. he voted in favour of putting the question that the exclusion bill should be rejected at first reading, and he then voted against passing the bill later the same day. On 23 Nov. he voted against appointing a committee to join with the Commons in considering the state of the kingdom, and on 7 Dec. (once more at odds with his father) Deincourt found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason.

Deincourt succeeded his father in January 1681 as 3rd earl of Scarsdale. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 267. Shortly before the opening of the new Parliament at Oxford, he suffered the loss of his only child, Lady Frances Leke, but in spite of this bereavement he assumed his seat in his new dignity on 22 Mar. and attended five days of the brief seven-day session. Registers of Westminster Abbey, ed. J.L. Chester, 202. Before the opening of Parliament Scarsdale was forecast as being in favour of bailing Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds). In May he was one of several of the nobility to attend the trial of the informer, Edward Fitzharris, and the same month he joined with a number of fellow peers in petitioning for the pardon of Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, who had been indicted for the murder of William Sneeth. HMC 10th Rep. iv. 172; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 95-96; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 41; TNA, SP 29/415/192; CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 298. In July he was one of a number of members of the local elite expected to sign the Derbyshire address. Add. 75360, J. Millington to Halifax, 27 July 1681. In June of the following year, Scarsdale was put out of his place as captain of the gentlemen pensioners in favour of his brother-in-law, Huntingdon. HMC Hastings, ii. 349. In August, he dined in company with Danby’s heir, Edward Osborne^‡, styled Viscount Latimer, where the continuing efforts to secure Danby’s release were doubtless discussed. Eg. 3334, ff. 25-26. In spite of his removal from office, Scarsdale continued to co-operate closely with Huntingdon over the inheritance of their father-in-law’s estate, co-operation that was in no way diminished by the death of Lady Scarsdale ‘of the spotted fever’ in February 1684. TNA, C10/497/101; Morrice, ii. 453; Registers of Westminster Abbey, 209. The same month, Scarsdale was one of four peers to stand surety for the Catholic, Henry Arundell, 3rd Baron Arundell of Wardour. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 452; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 300-1; London Gazette, 11-14 Feb. 1684.

In January 1685 Scarsdale was appointed to the lieutenancy of Derbyshire, a brief interruption of its usual tenure by a member of the Cavendish family. Shortly afterwards he was also made groom of the stole to Prince George of Denmark as a reward for supporting the new king, James II, during the exclusion crisis. E. Gregg, Queen Anne (1980), 36; HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 732; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 504. In May Scarsdale’s unsavoury sexual reputation was enhanced with the reports of Lady Elizabeth O’Brien having fallen ‘raving mad’: her malady said to be ‘for love of Lord Scarsdale who refuses to marry her.’ Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 13; HMC Portland, iii. 384. His own attentions were presumably taken up with his service in the army suppressing the rebellion of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and he sent some of the earliest reports of the rebels’ defeat to court. NAS, GD 406/1/3308, W. Hamilton to Arran, 27 June 1685. In October of the following year Scarsdale’s name was again to the fore in connection with a bizarre incident when he was said to have broken into the home of Charles Dormer, 2nd earl of Carnarvon. Scarsdale, in company with Thomas Wharton, later marquess of Wharton, and Charles Spencer, Lord Spencer (later 3rd earl of Sunderland), were reported to have whipped the unfortunate Carnarvon and to have performed ‘some other peccadilloes of that kind in his castle besides.’ Verney ms mic. M636/41, E. to J. Verney, 4 Oct. 1686.

In conjunction with indulging in a riotous private life, Scarsdale continued to attend the House. He took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685 and was thereafter present on approximately 83 per cent of all sitting days. He was thought to have been one of those sympathetic to the passage of the bill revived by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, to secure the restoration of lands that had been sold during the Interregnum. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. In November he was one of a number of the nobility to attend the trial of Charles Gerard, Viscount Brandon (later 2nd earl of Macclesfield), in whose father’s regiment Scarsdale had previously served as a captain. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 66. Despite his earlier refusal to countenance exclusion, he quickly demonstrated his opposition to King James’s policies. In November 1686 it was rumoured that he was to resign his commission, while a report of January 1687 speculated that he was one of a number of peers to be removed from their commands. NAS, GD 406/1/3303, W. Hamilton to Arran, 8 Nov. 1686; Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 42, f. 103. An assessment drawn up at about the same time noted him as being opposed to repeal of the Test, and in or about May he was again noted as an opponent of the king’s policies. In spite of this Scarsdale retained his places, and in June he accompanied Prince George to Denmark in his capacity as groom of the stole. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 13. The reprieve proved to be only temporary and, following a further negative assessment in or about November and his unsatisfactory response to the three questions, he was put out of both his lieutenancy and command of his regiment and replaced (in the former) by Huntingdon. Add. 70149, A. Pye to A. Harley, 12 Nov. 1687; Add. 34510, f. 65; Luttrell, i. 423; Add. 34510, f. 65. His replacement came as no surprise to Roger Morrice, who commented before the news broke that, ‘if it should be so it’s not at all strange to me for I have thought him for this year or two to be more likely to go off then almost any of those that are gone.’ Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 183. Despite the prince and princess of Denmark’s unwillingness to follow suit and the prince’s determination that Scarsdale’s office of groom of the stole should ‘sink’ rather than that he should have another ‘imposed upon him’, he was shortly after removed from his position in their household at the king’s behest. Ibid. 195; Verney ms mic. M636/42, newsletter 6 Dec. 1687; Add. 34510, f. 67; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, f. 326. Scarsdale’s kinsman, Anthony Carey^‡, 5th Viscount Falkland [S], succeeded him. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 16-17.

Bereft of office Scarsdale was again noted an opponent of repeal of the Test in January 1688, and the same month he was also listed as being among the opposition to the king in the Lords. In June his name was suggested as one of the sureties for Sir Jonathan Trelawny, bt., bishop of Bristol, but despite being present in town at the time of the seven bishops’ trial, he failed to attend. Bodl. Tanner 28, f. 76. His absence elicited a caustic comment from Morrice, who supposed that he ‘had some valuable reason wherefore he was absent.’ Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 284. At the revolution Scarsdale joined a number of other Midlands peers in rallying to Princess Anne at Nottingham, but along with Philip Stanhope, 2nd earl of Chesterfield, and Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrers, he angered the princess by refusing to subscribe the Association. Gregg, 67; Letters of Chesterfield, 50-51.

By the close of December, Scarsdale was back in London. He was one of a number of peers to dine with the prince of Orange at St James’s, and on 21 Dec. he took his place at the meeting of the provisional government that convened in the queen’s presence chamber. English Currant, 19-21 Dec. 1688. He then continued to attend the subsequent meetings held in the House over the next few days, but by the end of the year he had become disillusioned with the revolution. Kingdom without a King, 124, 153, 158, 165; Bodl. ms Eng. Hist. d. 307, ff. 12-13. He was dismayed at the king’s overthrow and the presence of Dutch troops in London, and although he remained thereafter a loyal supporter of his former master and mistress, the prince and princess of Denmark, they came to view him with considerable suspicion. K. Feiling, Tory Party 1640-1714, p. 247. In January 1689 the princess confided to Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, that her husband, Prince George, ‘was at a great loss for want of some person of quality about him; that he had thoughts of taking Lord Scarsdale again, but that he proved so pitiful a wretch, that they would have no more to do with him’. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 250.

Despite his reservations at the course the revolution had taken, Scarsdale took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689 and sat thereafter on approximately two-thirds of all sitting days, during which he was named to four committees. On 29 Jan. he voted in favour of establishing a regency and two days later voted against inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen. His actions attracted the attention of Sir John Reresby^‡, who noted Scarsdale, along with Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington, and ‘some other lords who had all been active to bring in the prince’ spoke ‘in another strain’: ‘some said the thing was gone further than they expected, others that they never believed the prince would contend for the crown; and all were of opinion the crown ought to be set upon the princess’s head, and so descend in its right course.’ Reresby Mems. 551. Scarsdale maintained his position throughout the course of the session, voting against agreeing with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’ on 4 Feb. and against the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’ on 6 February. The same day he entered his dissent when the House resolved to concur with the Commons. On 23 Apr. Scarsdale acted as teller for the not contents on the question of whether to agree with the Commons in the bill for abrogating oaths, and on 31 May he voted against reversing the two perjury judgments against Titus Oates. Scarsdale again acted as a teller on the question of whether the House should proceed with the impeachment of Blair, Vaughan, Mole, Elliott and Gray on 2 July, and he then entered his dissent when the motion was carried. On 30 July he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill to reverse the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates.

In advance of the second session (1689-90) of the Convention, Scarsdale responded to a request for a self-assessment declaring that he had, ‘no money at interest, nor any personal estate’, that fell within the scope of the act. Chatsworth, Halifax collection B.86. Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classed him as among the supporters of the court in a list of October 1689 to February 1690. He resumed his seat in the new session on 23 Oct. 1689, after which he was present on approximately 66 per cent of all sitting days. On 30 Oct. he was named to the sub-committee appointed to consider the bill for preventing minors’ clandestine marriages, something of which he had notorious personal experience, and on 6 Nov. he was added to the committee for inspections.

Scarsdale was missing at the opening of the new Parliament in March 1690. Earlier that month (6 Mar.) he had written to Huntingdon from Stamford where he was enjoying the diversions of ‘cocking at day and cards at night with the ladies at Burghley’, which may explain his tardy return to the House, but he resumed his seat on 1 Apr. after which he attended on almost 69 per cent of all sitting days. HMC Hastings, ii. 213. On 8 Apr. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the bill recognizing William and Mary as rightful and lawful sovereigns, and on 15 Apr. he was named to the committee examining precedents concerning writs of error brought before the House without having been argued previously in the court of exchequer. The same day he acted as one of the tellers on the question of whether counsel should be heard in the case of Macclesfield v. Starkey. On 5 May he acted as a teller again on the question of whether to affirm the decree in Vincent v. Parker.

Following the prorogation Scarsdale attended the single sitting day on 8 Sept. before resuming his seat in the second (1690-1) session on 2 Oct. 1690. Named to two committees during the session, he was present for just 36 per cent of all sitting days. On 6 Oct. he voted for the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and the earl of Peterborough from their imprisonment in the Tower. He took his seat for the third (1691-2) session on 4 Dec. 1691 after which he attended just under half of all sitting days. Again named to just two committees, towards the close of the year he was named by Fuller as one of those peers involved in a plot to achieve King James’s restoration. HMC Portland, iii. 485. Scarsdale wrote to Huntingdon to warn him that he was also included on Fuller’s list and advised him to come to London. The case continued to excite interest into the following year when Fuller appeared before the Commons with his evidence. HMC Hastings, ii. 222; Bodl. Carte 130, ff. 337-8. Although Fuller’s information was dismissed, for the remainder of the reign Scarsdale was viewed with some suspicion by the authorities. On 23 Feb. 1692 he subscribed the protest at the resolution to include an entry in the Journal concerning the Commons adding a clause to the poll bill establishing a commission of accounts and the same day protested again at passage of the supply bill.

Present in the House on the prorogation day on 12 Apr., the following month Scarsdale was named in the proclamation among those being sought as Jacobites. Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 10 May 1692; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 441, 448; CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 276; HMC 7th Rep. 535; Add. 36988, ff. 269-70. His inclusion in this list appears to have been the result of a singularly indiscriminate effort on the part of the ministry to ‘clap up a certain number’ of known opposition figures, but he was sufficiently concerned for his safety to disappear from view for a few days. Verney ms mic. M636/45, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 5 May 1692. In his memoirs, Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, claimed that he (Ailesbury) ought to have headed the list, but on the queen taking exception to his inclusion she proposed Scarsdale’s name be inserted instead, suggesting to Daniel Finch 2nd earl of Nottingham, that, ‘if titles please you, there is an earl for an earl. What is sauce for one is sauce for another.’ Ailesbury Mems. i. 298. In May it was rumoured in some reports that Scarsdale had already been committed to prison, while others maintained that he had fled and was still being sought. Portledge Pprs. 137; Glasgow UL, ms Hunter 73, lxiii; Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 10 May 1692; Add. 75361, Strafford to Halifax, 10 May 1692. The following month, presumably unaware of the haphazard manner in which he had found himself on the list of those being sought, Scarsdale at last surrendered and was sent to the Tower. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 469. Following his release on parole, he was bailed for £5,000 thus enabling him to be present in the House for the single sitting on 14 June. Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 15 June 1692; CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 319. No formal charges were brought against him.

Scarsdale resumed his place at the opening of the new session on 4 Nov. 1692. He was quick to lodge a complaint about the manner in which he had been arrested. The business of both Houses between 10 and 18 Nov. was dominated by consideration of the matter, with Scarsdale joining with his brother-in-law Huntingdon, and John Churchill, earl (later duke) of Marlborough, to protest that their arrests constituted a breach of privilege. HMC Lords, iv. 87-88; CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 500; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 106, Yard to Poley, 8 Nov. 1692. On 31 Dec. Scarsdale voted in favour of committing the place bill. On 1 Jan. 1693 he was forecast by Ailesbury as being opposed to the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, and on the next day he voted against reading the bill. Huntingdon registered his proxy in Scarsdale’s favour on 3 Jan. (possibly to be employed in the division on the place bill), which was vacated six days later. The same day (3 Jan.), Scarsdale voted in favour of the place bill. On 17 Jan. he registered his dissent at the resolution that the claimant to the earldom of Banbury had no right to the peerage and the same day dissented again at the resolution not to hear all the judges regarding Banbury’s claim. On 19 Jan. Scarsdale registered further dissents at the decisions to recede from the Lords’ amendments to the supply bill and not to refer consideration of those amendments to the committee for privileges. He found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder on 4 Feb. and on 17 Feb. he voted in favour of reversing the court of chancery’s dismission in the cause between Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, and John Granville, earl of Bath. On 20 Feb. Scarsdale acted as one of the tellers on the question of whether to insist on amendment to the treason trials bill, and on 6 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to communicate to the Commons the information concerning Ireland that had been presented to the Lords at the bar of the House.

Scarsdale resumed his seat at the opening of the ensuing session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he attended on approximately 48 per cent of all sitting days and was named to three committees. On 22 Dec. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to allow the duchess of Grafton and William Bridgeman to withdraw their petition during the cause Bridgeman v. Holt. Scarsdale was absent from the opening of the following (1694-5) session. He took his seat on 12 Nov. 1694, but he was then absent until the end of the month and excused at a call on 26 November. On 10 Jan. 1695 he was named to the committee appointed to determine the procession for Queen Mary’s funeral and to a further four committees in the course of the session, of which he attended just under 60 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Jan. he registered his dissent at the resolution to agree to an amendment postponing the implementation of the bill for regulating treason trials to 1698 and on 20 Feb. acted as teller for the contents on the question of whether to insist on certain amendments to the bill.

Towards the end of the session Scarsdale took time away from Westminster to indulge in his passion for horseracing at Newmarket. Castle Howard, J8/37/3. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695 after which he was present for just over half of all sitting days in the 1695-6 session but was named to just one committee. On 23 Dec. he acted as teller for the not contents in a division held in a committee of the whole over whether to append a clause to the treason trials bill, and on 9 Jan. 1696 he acted as teller for the contents on the question of whether to insist on amendments to the coinage bill. HMC Hastings, iv. 318-19. The following month he was heavily involved on behalf of his brother-in-law, Huntingdon, in attempting to prevent Huntingdon’s heir, George Hastings, styled Lord Hastings (later 8th earl of Huntingdon), from travelling to the war in Flanders: ‘I do think it a hundred pound to a penny that you never see him again if he go over, for he is so miserable a horseman, besides being very weak on horseback, that it is impossible for him to undergo the least difficulty.’ Ibid. ii. 252, 258.

Scarsdale refused to take the Association in February, but he appears to have avoided any further attention over his reputed Jacobitism. Add. 36913, f. 266; HMC Portland, iii. 574; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 22; HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 208. Although he was absent from the opening of the session on 20 Oct. 1696, Scarsdale was entrusted with Huntingdon’s proxy on 24 Oct., which was vacated on 10 December. He resumed his seat in the House a fortnight into the new session on 6 Nov., after which he was present for approximately 48 per cent of all sitting days and named to two committees. On 15 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution to read Goodman’s information concerning Sir John Fenwick’s^‡ attainder, and on 18 Dec. he acted as teller for the not contents on the question of whether to read the Fenwick attainder bill a second time. He then registered a further dissent when the question was carried. On 23 Dec. he voted against Fenwick’s attainder and subscribed the protest against the bill when it was passed. The same month Scarsdale was named in the evidence Huntingdon presented to the House as part of his dispute with his son, Hastings, over the inheritance of land formerly belonging to the Lewis family. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 374.

Scarsdale was absent from the House for several days from 23 Mar. 1697. On 27 Mar. he registered his proxy with John Jeffreys, 2nd Baron Jeffreys, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat for a single day on 12 April. He returned to the House at the opening of the following session on 6 Dec. 1697 after which he was again present for just under half of all sitting days. On 20 Dec. he received Jeffreys’ proxy, which was vacated on 3 Jan. 1698, and on 7 Jan. he was named to the committee considering the proper method of appealing from decrees made by the Irish court of chancery. Named to a further six committees in the course of the session, on 16 Feb. Scarsdale was one of those to present evidence to the House relating to Lady Macclesfield’s behaviour during the hearing of Macclesfield’s divorce bill. Ibid. iii. 62. Scarsdale registered his dissent on 4 Mar. at the resolution to read the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe^‡ a second time, but on 15 Mar. he voted in favour of committing the bill. The following day (16 Mar.) he registered a further dissent at the resolution to grant relief to the appellants in the cause between James Bertie^‡ and Scarsdale’s kinsman, Falkland, and on 17 Mar. dissented again at the resolution that Bertie should enjoy Cary’s estate during his wife’s lifetime.

Scarsdale was noted as being among ‘a great deal of company’ present at Newmarket in April 1698, but despite being a prominent participant in the entertainments in town, it was observed that he avoided the court. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, box 1, no. 53. On 24 Apr. he received Huntingdon’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session, and on 1 July he subscribed the protest at the resolution to read the bill for settling the East India trade a second time. Scarsdale took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, and on 9 Dec. he was named to the sessional committee for privileges. Named to a further 14 committees in the course of the session, there was also a significant increase in his level of attendance, being present on approximately 60 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Feb. 1699 he voted against assisting the king in retaining his Dutch guards, and the same day entered his dissent when the House resolved to do so. Scarsdale was missing from the attendance list on 16 Mar. but presumably did take his seat as he was named to two committees during the day’s proceedings. In April the House finally settled a dispute over an estate worth £600 p.a. that had been in train between Scarsdale and Bernard Granville since 1687 in Granville’s favour. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 510; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 84.

Scarsdale took his seat in the second session of the 1698 Parliament on 23 Nov. 1699, but although he was again present for just under 60 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to just three committees. On 1 Feb. 1700 he was forecast as being in favour of continuing the East India Company as a corporation, and on 23 Feb. he voted in favour of adjourning into a committee of the whole to discuss the East India bill. On 8 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to read Norfolk’s divorce bill a second time, and on 12 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution to pass the bill. Scarsdale acted as one of the tellers on the question of whether to add a proviso to the land tax bill in a division in a committee of the whole on 6 Apr., and three days later (9 Apr.) he again acted as a teller on the question of whether to insist on the proposed amendments.

Scarsdale was in Paris in the summer of 1700. Post Boy, 22-25 June 1700. He returned to England in time to participate in the elections for the new Parliament later that year and took his seat in the new assembly on 6 Feb. 1701. HMC Cowper, ii. 406, 416. On 10 Feb. he was named to the committee for privileges and to a further 14 committees during the course of the session of which he attended on approximately 72 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to reject the second head of the report relating to the partition treaty, and on 20 Mar. he subscribed a further protest at the resolution not to send the address concerning the treaty to the Commons for their concurrence. Scarsdale subscribed two protests on 16 Apr., first at the resolution to appoint a committee to draw up an address requesting the king not to punish the four impeached lords until their impeachments had been tried, and second at the resolution to expunge the reasons for the former protest from the Journal. On 22 May Scarsdale entered a further dissent at the resolution to pass the bill for further limiting the crown and securing the rights of the subject. On 17 June he subscribed the protest at the resolution to adjourn to Westminster Hall for the trial of John Somers, Baron Somers, and the same day he voted against Somers’ acquittal. He subscribed a further protest following the resolution to acquit.

Scarsdale was able to bring his interest to bear successfully in the second election of 1701, helping to secure the return of Thomas Coke^‡ and John Curzon^‡ for Derbyshire. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 130. He resumed his seat in the House for the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701, thereafter attending on 47 per cent of all sitting days. On 20 Feb. 1702 he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the bill of attainder of Queen Mary Beatrice, and four days later he subscribed a further protest at the resolution to pass the bill for the security of the king’s person. In March he was noted as being one of those yet to take the oath of abjuration. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 19 Mar. 1702. Absent from the House from the close of April to 21 May, on 14 May Scarsdale registered his proxy with Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, possibly to be employed in the division held the following day over whether the House should adjourn. He sat on just one further day (25 May) before the close of the session.

Scarsdale took his seat in the new parliament on 20 Oct. 1702, after which he was present on 77 per cent of all sitting days. On 11 Nov. he acted as one of the tellers on the question of whether the Lords should wear their robes to a service of thanksgiving at St Paul’s Cathedral, and on 3 Dec. he again acted as a teller on the question of whether to agree to an instruction to a committee of the whole on the occasional conformity bill. Four days later he again acted as a teller in the division in a committee of the whole on whether certain words in the clause relating to penalties should stand apart in the occasional conformity bill, and on 17 Dec. he told once more on the question of whether to proceed to the report of the conference on the occasional conformity bill. Nottingham estimated Scarsdale to be in favour of the bill in or about Jan. 1703. Scarsdale continued to be employed frequently as a teller for the remainder of the session. On 11 Jan. he acted as one of the tellers on the question of whether to resume the House from a committee of the whole deliberating on the bill for Prince George of Denmark, and the same day he told again on the question of whether to adjourn the debate on the rights of peers under the Act of Settlement. The House’s business on 12 Jan. was dominated by Huntingdon’s appeal for the reversal of a decree made in favour of his stepmother, the dowager countess. Scarsdale intervened decisively in the debates being ‘privy to all the secrets of the cause’ and was able to give ‘the House a much better light than all the counsel could do.’ As a result the decree was reversed in Huntingdon’s favour. Nicolson, London Diaries, 167. The following day Scarsdale acted as a teller for the motion to appoint a second day for reading the River Derwent bill. He voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause in the occasional conformity bill on 16 Jan. in which vote he once again served as teller. On 19 Jan. he was one of the tellers in a division in the committee of the whole proposing that a clause should stand apart in the Prince of Denmark’s bill. The same day he told again on the question of whether to resume the House from the committee of the whole and on the question of whether to make a report on the case between the attorney general and the mayor of Coventry. On 22 Feb. Scarsdale subscribed the protest at the resolution that the bill for the landed qualification of Members of the Commons should not be committed. LJ, xvii. 300.

Following the prorogation Scarsdale attended the single sitting day on 22 June, before resuming his seat in the second session on 22 Nov. 1703. He was thereafter present for 72 per cent of all sitting days. Both of Sunderland’s forecasts for the occasional conformity bill listed him as a supporter of the bill. On 14 Dec. he voted for it. In December he appears to have been among those lords who requested to be excused from serving on the committee examining Boucher, Ogleby and others. The request was denied and the record expunged from the minutes. HMC Lords, n.s. v. 300-1. He entered his dissent on 14 Jan. 1704 at the resolution to reverse the judgment in Ashby v. White, and on 3 Mar. he registered a further dissent at the decision that the key to the ‘gibberish letters’ be made known only to the queen and members of the Lords committee examining the Scotch Plot. His name was included on a list of members of both Houses drawn up by Nottingham in 1704 which may indicate support over the Plot. Scarsdale registered his dissent again on 16 Mar. at the resolution to agree with the decision of the committee of the whole to remove the name of Byerley from the list of commissioners for examining public accounts, and the same day he dissented once more at the resolution to agree to replace Byerley with another three commissioners. Scarsdale registered two further dissents on 25 Mar., first at the resolution to put the question that the failure to pass a censure of Robert Ferguson was an encouragement to the crown’s enemies, and second when that resolution was passed.

Scarsdale resumed his seat in the ensuing session on 24 Oct. 1704, after which he was present for 65 per cent of all sitting days. Listed as likely to support the tack in November, on 30 Nov. he received the proxy of Charles Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea (vacated 13 Dec.), and on 1 Dec. that of William Stawell 3rd Baron Stawell (vacated 20 Jan. 1705). On 15 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to read the occasional conformity bill a second time and later the same day at the resolution to reject the bill. Scarsdale acted as teller for the not contents on 17 Jan. on the question of whether to read the bill of William Henry Granville, 2nd earl of Bath, a second time.

In or about early 1705 Scarsdale was listed as a Jacobite in an analysis of the peerage. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 31 Oct. 1705, after which he attended on just under half of all sitting days, and on 15 Nov. he was again entrusted with Stawell’s proxy (vacated on 8 December). On 20 Nov. he acted as one of the tellers on the question put before the committee of the whole whether the lord mayor of London should be included as one of the seven lords justices in the Protestant succession bill. Two days later (22 Nov.), in a further session of the committee of the whole, he again acted as one of the tellers on the question whether to make an address to the queen concerning the state of the nation. Scarsdale registered his dissent on 30 Nov. at the resolution not to provide the committee of the whole, to which the bill for securing the queen’s person and the Protestant succession had been committed, with instructions. On 3 Dec. he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to read a second time a rider to the bill preventing the lords justices from giving the royal assent to any bills repealing or altering the Habeas Corpus Act, Act of Toleration or Treason Trials Act. The same day he subscribed two further protests, first at the resolution not to read a second time a rider to the same measure preventing the lords justices from giving the royal assent to the repeal of the Test Acts of 1673 or 1678, and second at the resolution not to read a second time one preventing them from giving the royal assent to any bill repealing the Act of Succession. On 6 Dec. he protested once more at the resolution to concur with the committee in its opinion that the Church was not in danger, and on 31 Jan. 1706 he subscribed a further protest at the resolution to insert an additional phrase into one of the clauses of the bill for securing the queen’s person proposed by the Commons. The same day he entered his dissent at the resolution that the words ‘regulated and altered’ should not stand as part of the Commons’ contentious addition. Scarsdale acted as a teller on 26 Feb. on the question that the House be adjourned during the Parton Harbour bill, and on 9 Mar. he registered a further dissent at the resolution to agree with the Commons that Gwynne’s letter to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, was a ‘scandalous, false and malicious libel.’

Scarsdale resumed his seat in the second session on 3 Dec. 1706, after which he was present on approximately 47 per cent of all sitting days. On 3 Feb. he protested at the decision not to instruct the committee of the whole to which the bill for securing the Church of England had been referred to insert a clause declaring the 1673 Test Act to be perpetual and unalterable. On 7 Feb. he was noted as one of those dining with Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville), at the George in Pall Mall. TNA, C104/116, pt. 1. The following month, on 4 Mar., he lent his support to a rider to the bill for ratifying the Union, declaring that Presbyterianism was not to be recognized as the true Protestant religion. The same day he registered dissents when the rider was rejected and at the passage of the bill for Union with Scotland.

Scarsdale attended three days of the brief ten-day session of April 1707 and resumed his seat in the first Parliament of Great Britain on 23 Oct. 1707. He attended on just 13 days before sitting for the final time on 19 December. He died eight days later. In his will he made bequests totalling £8,500 including a bequest of £1,000 to the actress, Anne Bracegirdle, with whom he had long been associated. One poem addressed to the ‘fragrant earl’ had enjoined him to ‘espouse the dame’ in spite of her humble birth, and to ‘damn’ society’s dim opinion of such a match but Scarsdale did not follow the poet’s advice. Add. 37684, f. 13. He was buried at Westminster Abbey in the same vault as his father, wife and mother, and was succeeded in the peerage by his nephew (a suspected Jacobite), Nicholas Leke, 4th and last earl of Scarsdale. Registers of Westminster Abbey, 261.