WEST, John (c. 1654-1723)

Early life to 1689

West’s date of birth is problematic. Most sources have about 1663, but at the beginning of 1713, he described himself as ‘travelling fast on towards threescore’, which suggests a date of birth nearer to 1654. Add. 70282, De la Warr to Oxford, 6 Jan. 1713. His two elder brothers were baptised in 1645 and 1646 respectively, but his sister, Sophia, was not baptised until 1661. J. Park, Hampstead, 303. It seems likely that he was the ‘John West’ approved of as a deputy-lieutenant for Hampshire in May 1685. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 152. The financial difficulties of his father seem to have cast a shadow over West’s early years. His father may have attempted to relieve his pressed finances by putting his son into the prebend vicarage of Wherwell in 1687, but this was thwarted by Peter Mews, bishop of Winchester, on the grounds that he was not in orders. Bodl. Tanner 29, f. 38. Since West inherited in December 1687, it is uncertain if it was De la Warr, or his father, who consented to the ‘three questions’ posed by James II’s agents. Duckett, Penal Laws, 423. In January 1688 he was listed as absent on a list of lords detailing their attitude towards repeal of the Test Act. However, in April, he was one of a group of eight deputy lieutenants approved of for Hampshire. CSP Dom. 1687-8, p. 189. In early November he was rumoured to have been made lord lieutenant of Hampshire in place of James Fitzjames, duke of Berwick, but if so the appointment was soon made redundant by the Revolution. HMC 7th Rep. 348. De la Warr attended meetings of the peers acting as the provisional government on the afternoon of 13 Dec. 1688 and the following morning. After James II’s second flight, he was summoned on 20 Dec. by the Prince of Orange to meet on the next day, duly attending on 21, 22, 24 and 25 December. Kingdom without a king, 92, 98, 122, 124, 153, 158, 65.

De la Warr attended on the opening day of the Convention, 22 Jan. 1689, and on 133 days of the subsequent session (82 per cent), and was named to 21 committees. On 29 Jan. he voted in favour of regency as the best way to preserve the Protestant religion and the nation’s laws. On 31 Jan. he voted in the committee of the whole against declaring William and Mary king and queen. He voted on 4 Feb. against agreeing with the Commons in the use of the word ‘abdicated’ instead of ‘deserted’, and voted the same way two days later, when the majority of the House resolved to accept the Commons’ wording. He subsequently entered his dissent from the resolution. Despite this consistent attitude against the settlement of the crown on William and Mary, on 2 Mar. he took the oaths to the new monarchs. On 6 Mar he entered his protest against the passage of the bill for better regulating the trial of peers. On 20 Apr. he acted as a teller on the opposite side to Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, on whether to agree with the reasons the Commons had given for rejecting the Lords’ amendments to the bill abrogating the oaths. On 11 July, together with John Bennet, Baron Ossulston, he introduced first Charles Berkeley, Baron Berkeley (later 2nd earl of Berkeley), and then Robert Sydney, Baron Sydney (later 4th earl of Leicester), into the House, both of them heirs to existing peers summoned by writs of acceleration. On 30 July he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments in the bill to reverse the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. When the Convention resumed on 19 Oct. 1689 after the adjournment, De la Warr was present and he attended on 21 Oct. when the Convention was prorogued. Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), classed him as among the supporters of the court in a list prepared between October 1689 and February 1690.

The Reign of William III

De la Warr missed the opening day of the second session of the Convention, 23 Oct. 1689, and first sat on the following day. He was present on 32 days of this session of 1689-90 (44 per cent), and was appointed to three committees. He was present on the opening day of the 1690 Parliament, 20 Mar. 1690, sat on 42 days of this session (78 per cent), and was named to 10 committees. He was still in the House on 7 July 1690, when Parliament was prorogued. He was not present at the opening of the 1690-1 session on 2 Oct., and made his first appearance twenty days later, although he was later absent from the call of the House on 2 November. In all he attended 35 sittings of the House in this session (48 per cent), and was named to 12 committees. He was still present on 5 Jan. 1691, when Parliament was adjourned to 31 Mar. but did not sit again until 26 May, when the session was prorogued. On 31 May he attended the consecration of John Tillotson, archbishop of Canterbury. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 238. On 18 June he married Margaret Freeman, ‘a widow, only daughter to a Turkey merchant’, reputedly worth £20,000. Verney ms mic. 636/45, J. Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 19 June 1691; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 251. Her previous husband, Thomas Salwey, merchant of London, in his will of June 1686 left his wife £2,000 and a half share of his estate. PROB 11/383.

Although De la Warr was at the further prorogation on 3 Aug. 1691, he was absent on 22 Oct., the opening of the 1691-2 session, and first sat on 6 November. He was present on 58 days of the session (60 per cent), and was appointed to 23 committees. On 11 Dec. he asked leave of the House to ‘make his application to the House of Commons’. The following day the committee of privileges, to whom the matter had been referred, reported in favour of allowing him to apply to the Commons ‘in his own concerns’. On 29 Dec. his petition to the Commons was read setting out the grounds why Sir John Cutler^‡, a member of the Commons, should not be allowed to resume his privilege. The cause revolved around the amount De la Warr was indebted to Cutler by virtue of loans to his father, who in February 1677 (or 1678) had borrowed £10,000 upon some manors of his Hampshire estate, and then subsequently increased his indebtedness. Following his father’s death, De la Warr applied to Cutler to pay off the mortgage, only to find that Cutler claimed a debt of £35,000. De la Warr considered this a fraudulent account, but his attempts at legal redress were thwarted by Cutler’s claim of privilege. When Cutler finally waived his privilege, it was decreed that upon the submission of a proper account, De la Warr could pay the requisite sum and the estates would be re-conveyed to him by Cutler. Cutler had since resumed his privilege to the inconvenience of De la Warr who had raised money ready to redeem the mortgage. After an extensive debate in which Sir Christopher Musgrave^‡ and Sir Robert Sawyer^‡ led off for De la Warr, and he received support from John Smith^‡ and Charles Montagu^* [1803], (later earl of Halifax), the House ordered that Cutler ought not to resume his privilege. Luttrell Diary, 95.

The Commons then considered a counter-petition from Cutler, in which he outlined the chronology of the debt which had risen to £35,000, and prayed that he might have leave to apply to the Lords to reverse a decree which threatened to deprive him of £10,000 of his debt. Consideration of this petition was postponed for three weeks, and then ignored. A further petition from Cutler on 6 Feb. 1692, praying that he have liberty to seek relief against a Chancery decree in favour of De la Warr or to resume his privilege was left to lie on the table in the Commons. Meanwhile, on 5 Feb. De la Warr acted as a teller opposite Vere Fane, 4th earl of Westmorland, on the motion to reverse the decree in the case of Gawdey v. Scroggs. He last attended on 17 Feb., a week before the prorogation. He also was present at a subsequent prorogation on 11 July.

De la Warr attended on the opening day of the 1692-3 session, 4 Nov. 1692. He was present on 63 days of the session (62 per cent), and was named to 24 committees. On 14 Nov. he acted as a teller opposite Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, on the question of agreeing with the resolution on the commitment of peers for treason or felony. On 19 Jan. 1693 he entered his dissent to the decision not to refer to the committee for privileges the Lords’ amendments to the land tax bill. However, he did not protest when the Lords receded from their amendment. On 25 Jan. he acted as a teller opposite Berkeley on the resolution to commit the bill to prevent the dangers which might happen from persons disaffected to the government. On 31 Jan. he entered his protest against the resolution of the House not to proceed immediately with the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, and on 4 Feb. he voted Mohun not guilty of murder. He chaired and reported from one committee, on Browne’s estate bill, on 10 Jan. 1693. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, p. 134.

Meanwhile, Cutler had died in April 1693, so the legal case devolved upon his executors, his son-in-law, Charles Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor, and his nephew, Edmund Boulter^‡. In late June 1693, there was ‘a great hearing in Chancery’ between De la Warr and Cutler’s executors, which confirmed ‘a mortgage of £40,000’ on De la Warr’s estate. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 125-6. This success for Radnor and Boulter proved costly for De la Warr, and, although Boulter later acknowledged receipt from De la Warr of over £5,000 in part payment of the debt, he was able to purchase the Hampshire estates in 1695. Add. 75366, R. Harley to Halifax, 1 July 1693; Kent HLC (CKS), U269/E347/1, acknowledgement from E. Boulter 1694-5; VCH Hants. iv. 412. Thereafter, De la Warr lived mainly in London; he had a house in Queen’s Square until 1707, and lodgings in St James’s Palace until at least the end of Anne’s reign, having ‘a large apartment’ in October 1714. CTP 1702-7, p. 286; London Jnl. xvii. 27; HMC Cowper, iii. 110.

De la Warr was present at the prorogation on 26 Oct. 1693, but missed the opening of the 1693-4 session on 7 Nov., and was still absent when the House was called over on the 14th. He first attended on 29 Nov. and was present on 58 days of the session (45 per cent). On 19 Dec. his proxy was registered with Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland. De la Warr was then absent from 21 Dec. until 15 Jan. 1694, when the proxy was vacated. On 17 Feb. he voted in favour of reversing the court of chancery’s dismission of the petition of Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, in the cause of Montagu v. Bath. He last attended during this session on 5 Apr. and that same day his proxy was registered with Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, who held it until the prorogation on 25 April. During this session De la Warr was named to 11 committees, and chaired the committee on Turner’s estate bill on 9 and 13 Feb. and reported it as fit to pass on 14 Feb. 1694. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 194-5.

De la Warr was absent from the opening of the 1694-5 session on 12 Nov. 1694, and his proxy with Montagu was registered that same day. He did not take his seat until 9 Feb. 1695. He attended 33 sittings (28 per cent), and was named to 12 committees. He was absent between 15 Mar. and 15 Apr. 1695. Following his last attendance on 25 Apr., on 29 Apr. his proxy was registered with Robert Bertie, Baron Willoughby de Eresby (later duke of Ancaster), who held it until the prorogation of 3 May. De la Warr attended the prorogation on 18 June, but he missed the opening two days of the new Parliament elected that autumn, first attending on its third day, 25 Nov. 1695. He signed the Association on 27 Feb. 1696. On 2 Apr. he acted as a teller opposite Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrers, on the resolution to reverse the judgment in the case of Swayne v. Middleton. In all he was present on 70 days of the session (57 per cent), and was appointed to 24 committees. He last attended on 3 Apr. and on 6 Apr. his proxy was registered with Basil Feilding, 4th earl of Denbigh, who held it until the prorogation of 27 April. De la Warr was, however, present at the prorogations on 28 July and 1 Sept. 1696.

De la Warr was present on the opening day of the 1696-7 session, 20 Oct. 1696. He attended 103 sittings of the session (90 per cent). On 23 Dec. he voted in favour of the passage of the bill of attainder against Sir John Fenwick^‡, 3rd bt. On 15 Jan. 1697 James Vernon^‡ reported on the proceedings in the Lords relating to Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough), noting that De la Warr was one of those against sending Monmouth to the Tower. Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, i. 174. This was confirmed on 16 Jan. by Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, who noted that De la Warr had been one of a dozen lords that had dissented from the vote. HMC Buccleuch, ii. 439-40. On 1 Feb. De la Warr received the proxy of Denbigh, but this was quickly vacated by his return to the House four days later. In all he was named to 37 committees during the session, chairing and reporting from six of them: Sir John Hanham’s estate bill (chaired on 21 Dec. 1696, 12, 14, 15 Jan. 1697 and reported 18 Jan.), Oliver Neve’s estate bill (20 Jan.), the bill to settle the estate of the deceased Francis Holles, 2nd Baron Holles (5 Feb.), Edward Leigh’s estate bill (18 and 20 Feb.), Charles Milson’s estate bill (1 Mar.), and the bill amending Neve’s act (10 Mar.). He also chaired one session on the James estate bill on 25 Jan., but did not report the bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 416-18, 421, 429-30.

In March 1697 De la Warr succeeded the deceased John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, as groom of the stole to Prince George, duke of Cumberland, a place worth £1200 p.a. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 193; CTB, xxiii. 221. He attended the prorogation on 26 Aug. 1697 and was present on the opening day of the 1697-8 session, 3 December. He attended on 109 days of the session (83 per cent). On 15 Mar. 1698 he voted against the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe.^‡ On 19 May 1698 he received the proxy of James Brydges, 8th Baron Chandos. This was vacated by Chandos’s return to the House on 15 June, but Chandos left the House two days later for the remainder of the session and again entrusted his proxy with De la Warr, on 29 June. On 24 May De la Warr was named to a conference on the bill for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness. On 7 June, after the House had heard several merchants and counsel for the Russia Company against the bill for improving and encouraging trade to Russia, De la Warr offered some proposals on behalf of the Company relating to the tobacco contract recently negotiated with the Czar. When the House took up the matter again on 16 June, he proposed, on behalf of the Company, an amendment to the terms whereby the tobacco merchants would be admitted to membership of the Russia Company. HMC Lords, n.s. iii. 219. When the House came to vote, he acted as a teller opposite Charles Mildmay, 18th Baron Fitzwalter, in a division on the question whether the proposals were reasonable. On 15 June he was named to a committee to prepare reasons for a conference for the Lords’ adhering to their resolution of 9 June on the trial of John Goudet. He was named to 50 committees, and chaired and reported from two of them: Fanquier’s naturalization bill (1 Apr.) and the bill confirming a conveyance from George Pitt and others to John Pitt (4 and 6 June). PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 523, 593.

De la Warr’s interest in trade was also manifest when the newly appointed ambassador to the Porte, Sir James Rushout^‡, died in February 1698, before he set out on his embassy to Constantinople. De la Warr was described as a ‘pretender to’ the post, although he was passed over. CSP Dom. 1698, p. 105. He attended the prorogations on 24 Aug., 27 Sept. and 27 Oct. 1698, and was present on the opening of the 1698-9 session on 6 December. He attended 36 sittings in the session (44 per cent), but was absent after 8 Mar. 1699. He was named to 11 committees. He attended the prorogation on 1 June, but missed the opening day of the 1699-1700 session, 16 Nov. 1699, attending for the first time a week later. He attended on 51 days of the session (65 per cent). About February 1700 he was forecast as likely to support the bill continuing the East India Company as a corporation. On 23 Feb. he acted as a teller opposite Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, in a division whether to adjourn into a committee of the whole in order to expedite the passage of the bill. He was listed as in favour of the adjournment, and most likely told for that side as well. In all he was named to 18 committees, chairing one on them, Wallop’s estate bill, on 22 Feb. and reporting it the following day. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, p. 117.

De la Warr was present on the opening day of the 1701 Parliament on 10 February 1701. He attended 89 sittings (85 per cent). On 24 Mar. he acted as a teller opposite William North, 6th Baron North, on the motion to adjourn the debate on the petition of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, for further time to pay £10,000 according to his divorce act. In April, De la Warr wrote a letter to Governor Thomas Pitt^‡ of the Old East India Company, in which, after thanking him for a favour to a fellow servant of Prince George, he informed him of the recent political changes:

This present alteration in the ministry will prove so advantageous to the nation in general and old East India Company in particular, that all mankind which are for monarchy and the Church of England and the trade are resolved to exert their utmost interest to support it and to prevent those Presbyterian rats from infesting the government and plundering it any more. Add. 22851, ff. 182-3.

At this date De la Warr had £2,000 invested in the Old East India Company, and he had the same amount in April 1702, although by April 1707 this had been reduced to £900 in the United Company. OIOC, HOME MISC/3, pp. 25, 76, 172.

De la Warr’s Toryism came to the fore on the issue of the impeachment of the Junto lords. On 3 June 1701 he entered his protest against the resolutions, first, to accept the second amended paragraph of the reasons to be given by the Lords at a conference concerning the impeachments, and then to accept the final paragraph of the same set of reasons. On 6 and 10 June he was appointed to conferences on the impeachments, and on 9 June he protested against the resolution not to appoint a committee to meet with the Commons to discuss procedure. On 14 June he entered his protest against sending a message to the Commons requesting another conference before a previous conference had determined and also protested against insisting on the resolution not to appoint a committee of both Houses on the impeachments. On 17 June he entered his protest against the decision to put the question whether to acquit John Somers, Baron Somers, and also against the decision to go into Westminster Hall to proceed with his trial. There he duly voted against the acquittal of Somers. In all he was appointed to 34 committees, chairing five of them and reporting from three: Bagneol’s naturalization bill (chaired on 19 May 1701 and reported 28 May); Barrington’s estate bill and Apsley’s estate bill (both chaired 7 June and reported 9 June); Trevisa’s bill (chaired 11 June); and Bigg’s bill (chaired 14 and 16 June). PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 168-9, 179, 182, 184-5. He was also present at the prorogation of 7 August.

De la Warr missed the opening of the 1701-2 Parliament, and first sat on 7 Jan. 1702. He attended 66 days of the session (66 per cent). On 8 Mar. he was named to a conference on the death of William III and accession of Queen Anne. Although present on 11 Mar. he was not recorded as taking the oaths to the new queen, and he was then absent for 10 days. On 7 May he was appointed to a conference on the bill for altering the oath of abjuration. He acted as a teller on 12 May, on the opposite side to Wharton, on the question whether to leave out the words ‘groundless, false, and scandalous’, in the question condemning the pamphlet Tom Double returned out of the Country. On 19 May he reported from the committee of the whole on the bill for the relief of Captain Richard Wolseley, and other Protestant lessees in Ireland. He last attended this session on 23 May. Over the course of the Parliament he was named to 23 committees and chaired and reported from four of them: the bill to naturalize the wife of Hugh Boscawen^†, the future Viscount Falmouth (21 Feb.); the bill to improve Suffolk Place in Southwark (27 Mar.); the Darwent navigation bill and the bill regulating gold and silver thread (both 14 Apr.). He also chaired one session of the Hunt estate bill, on 10 Mar. 1702. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 193, 206, 224-5, 230.

On 16 Apr. 1702 he introduced the representatives from Corfe Castle to present their address to the queen. London Gazette, 16 Apr. 1702. In June it was reported that De la Warr was one of four gentlemen of the bedchamber made by Prince George at a salary of £600 p.a., but this was merely a continuation of his old post as groom of the stole and first gentleman of the bedchamber. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 6 June 1702. On 27 Aug. De la Warr was awarded the degree of DCL by Oxford University, probably in recognition of his standing and favour at court rather than for any outstanding academic achievements. John Macky made the interesting observation of him around this year as ‘a free jolly gentleman, turned of forty years old,’ who was ‘always attached to the present queen’s family; seldom waited on King William’. Macky Mems. 100.

The Reign of Queen Anne

De la Warr was present on 20 Oct. 1702, the opening day of the 1702-3 session of Queen Anne’s first Parliament. He attended 76 sittings (88 per cent), and was named to 35 committees. He chaired and reported from three of these: Aldworth’s estate bill (14 Jan. 1703); Thomas Erle’s estate bill (22 Jan.); and Castelman’s estate bill (25 Jan.). He also chaired the committees on the Lone estate bill, the Morris estate bill and Hoare’s estate bill, all on 25 January. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 262, 272, 276-7. On 9 Dec. 1702 he acted as a teller opposite Wharton in favour of a motion to adjourn the House rather than vote on a motion condemning tacking. He acted as a teller on 11 Dec. on a motion to proceed further on the Sherard v. Harcourt case. On 17 Dec. he was named to a conference on the bill to prevent occasional conformity, as he was again on 9 Jan. 1703. In January he was listed by Nottingham as likely to support the bill to prevent occasional conformity, and on 16 Jan. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ wrecking amendment to the penalty clause in the bill. On 21 Jan. he acted as a teller opposite John Poulett, 4th Baron (later Earl) Poulett, on whether to hear the cause of The Haberdashers Company v. the attorney general. On 29 Jan. he attended a dinner at Wharton’s London residence, along with several other peers, possibly (if somewhat oddly in his case) in relation to the occasional conformity bill. PH, xvi. 208-9. On 17 Feb. he acted as a teller opposite Mohun on whether to agree a motion on Sir George Rooke^‡ relating to his conduct of the expedition to Cadiz. He acted as a teller on 19 Feb. opposite Poulett on the motion to reverse the decree in the case of The attorney general v. the mayor of Coventry. He was also present at the prorogation on 23 April.

De la Warr was present on the opening day of the 1703-4 session, 9 Nov. 1703. He attended on 73 days of the session (75 per cent), and was named to 29 committees. He chaired and reported from five of them: the estate bill of Henry, Viscount Dillon [I] (13 Jan. 1704); Robert Cawdron’s estate bill (9 Feb.); the bill settling the estate of the late Thomas Jermyn, 2nd Baron Jermyn (10 Feb.); John Jenkins’s estate bill (16 Feb.); and Bernard Cotton’s estate bill, (6 and 9 Mar.). PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 332, 379, 381, 385-6, 416. In about November 1703, Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, forecast him as a likely to be in favour of the bill to prevent occasional conformity. On Sunderland’s revised forecast made between 26 Nov. and 8 Dec. he was classed as a likely supporter of the bill. On 6 Dec., together with John Granville*, Baron Granville, he introduced John Leveson Gower Baron Gower, into the House. He was then absent until 14 Dec., when his name appears on both lists of the division of that day as voting in favour of the bill, and he duly registered his protest against the resolutions not to give the bill a second reading and to reject the bill. On 21 Mar. 1704 he acted as a teller in a division opposite Francis Seymour Conway, Baron Conway, on the recruiting bill.

At Windsor in September 1704, De la Warr was wounded in a duel with a Mr. Feilding, formerly a page to William III. This prompted the queen to threaten to turn out of her service any officer of her court that issued a challenge. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 466, 468, 470. After attending the prorogation on 19 Oct., he was present on the opening day of the session on 24 October. He attended 49 sittings of the 1704-5 session (about 49 per cent), and was named to 23 committees. In November he may have been listed as likely to support the Tack, but the markings on the list may refer to Baron Ferrers. On 8 Dec. he reported from the committee of the whole on the land tax bill. He was absent from 30 Jan. 1705 and registered his proxy with William Byron, 4th Baron Byron, on 1 February. He briefly returned to the House on 19 Feb., but was absent from 21 Feb., once again entrusting his proxy with Byron (on 26 Feb.), until he briefly returned on 12 Mar. for the last three days of the session. On 13 Apr. he was classed as uncertain in his attitude to the succession. He attended the service of thanksgiving at St Paul’s on 23 August. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 585. In September it was reported that Lady De la Warr’s mother, Mrs Freeman, had married her coachman; she was worth £20,000 and had been living with Lady De la Warr since the death of her husband. Wentworth Pprs. 49; HMC Cowper, iii. 64.

De la Warr was present on the opening day of the new Parliament, 25 Oct. 1705. He attended 42 days of the session (44 per cent), and was named to 19 committees. On 6 Dec. he voted that the Church was not in danger under the current administration. That month De la Warr also sent a memorandum to the secretary of state, Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, arguing that Joseph Mellish should be excused from being sheriff of Nottinghamshire for the ensuing year, partly because John Holles, duke of Newcastle, ‘desires that he be excused this year’. Add. 70248, `Memorial for Secretary Harley … from my Lord De Lawarre’ [1705]. De la Warr was successful in his lobbying as Mellish did not serve as sheriff. He did not attend after 1 Feb. 1706, and registered his proxy on 6 Feb. with Scroop Egerton, 4th earl (later duke) of Bridgwater, who held it until the prorogation of 19 March. De la Warr was present at the thanksgiving service at St Paul’s on 27 June. Daily Courant, 28 June 1706.

He further attended the prorogations on 22 Oct. and 21 Nov. 1706, but was absent from the beginning of the following 1706-7 session on 3 Dec., and sat for the first time that session on 16 December. He was present on 49 days of the session (57 per cent), and was named to 26 committees. On 30 Dec., together with Thomas Howard, 6th Baron Howard of Effingham, he introduced the lord keeper, William Cowper, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, into the House. In February 1707, De la Warr had the promise of the first vacancy as a page to the queen, for his son, John West^†, the future 7th Baron De la Warr. Add. 61303, ff. 61-62; Marlborough Letters and Despatches, iii. 320. He attended seven of the nine sittings of the session of April 1707. On 24 Apr. he examined the journals up to 27 February. Interestingly, De la Warr’s name does not appear on a list of addresses of peers and bishops in 1706. London Top. Rec. xxix. 53-57. In August 1704 he had lodgings in the Inner Court at St James’s, which Sir Christopher Wren^‡ intended to convert into a chapel for the prince, and in May 1707, it was reported by Ralph Brydges that ‘Mr. [John] Dolben^‡ has bought my Lord Delaware’s house in Queen’s Square, Westminster and has given 1400 guineas for it.’ CTB, xix. 326; CTP 1702-7, p. 286; Add. 72494, ff. 29-30. It seems probable that by this date De la Warr was residing permanently in St James’s Palace, especially as a list of peers’ addresses from the 1708-9 session gave his address as ‘St James’s House’. London Jnl. xviii. 27.

De la Warr was present on the opening day of the 1707-8 session, 23 Oct. 1707, and attended 33 days of the session (31 per cent), and was named to 12 committees. On 8 Dec. 1707 he acted as a teller opposite Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford, on the question of whether to receive the appeal in the case of Radnor v. Childe. He did not attend after the Christmas recess on 23 December. Through his service with Prince George, De la Warr had long been associated with the Churchills: indeed he rarely failed to congratulate John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, on his military exploits. More pertinently, on 1 May 1708 De la Warr wrote from Bath to the duchess of Marlborough to inform her of the death of one of the domestic servants of the Prince,

if there is any particular person that your grace has a mind to oblige with it let me know your pleasure and it shall be obeyed, for as I owe the honour of my station about the Prince to your goodness of your grace’s intercession, so Madam shall I always think myself obliged as long as I remain in it, to submit all the powers of it to your grace’s direction. Add. 61474, ff. 159-60.

De la Warr also played an important ceremonial role, as groom of the stole, at the funeral of Prince George on 13 November. Dublin Gazette, 23 Nov. 1708.

On a list forecasting the composition of the 1708 Parliament, De la Warr was classed as a Tory. He was present on the opening day of the 1708-9 session, 16 November. He attended 79 sittings in this session (86 per cent). On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted in favour of the motion that Scottish peers with British titles should be permitted to vote in the election for Scottish representative peers. He was appointed to 28 committees, chairing the committee on 1 Mar. on the Newcastle estate bill, which he reported later that day. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, p. 341. He also reported from two committees of the whole House: on the estate bill of John Bourke, 9th earl of Clanricarde [I], (15 Apr.) and on the bill continuing several duties and for raising a loan (20 Apr.). On 21 Apr. he was named to a conference on the bill continuing the acts to prevent coining.

De la Warr was intent on swapping his pension of £1,200, held as a continuation of his salary as a servant of the Prince, for a more secure office. Upon the death of the first lord of trade, Henry Herbert, Baron Herbert of Chirbury, in January 1709, he had applied unsuccessfully to the lord treasurer for the vacancy at the board of trade. Wentworth Pprs. 73. He did, however retain his lodgings in St James’s, and was thus in and around London and the court. Daily Courant, 21 Apr. 1709. On 2 Mar. De la Warr dined at the house of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], possibly in preparation for the case of Grey v. Hamilton, which was heard on 4 March. PH, x. 179. On 27 Apr. he examined the Journals up to 25 January. After attending the prorogation on 19 May and 6 Oct., he appears to have left London for a while because on 3 Nov. he gave away the bride, Mary Reeve, daughter of Sir Robert Reeve^‡, 2nd bt. of Thwayte, Suffolk, reputedly a ‘great fortune’, at her marriage to Hon. Thomas Sydney conducted by John Moore, bishop of Ely, in his chapel. IGI; Clavering Corresp. 57-58. De la Warr had only retained a residual political interest in Hampshire, for at the beginning of December Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, wrote to Thomas Jervoise^‡ in connection with his attempt to gain the county seat in a by-election: ‘I have secured Mr Fryar that has Lord Delaware’s estate for you.’ Hants. RO, Jervoise mss, 44M69/G2/264/4, Bolton to Jervoise, [1] Dec. 1709.

De la Warr attended the opening day of the 1709-10 session, 15 November. He was present on 86 days of the session (93 per cent), and was named to 29 committees, two of which he chaired and reported from: Smyth’s estate bill (25 Nov. 1709) and Cogg’s estate bill (5 Apr. 1710). PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, pp. 369, 394. From this session, De la Warr becomes a more visible presence in the chamber, particularly in the chair of the committee of the whole. He reported from the committee on: the land tax bill (10 Dec. 1709); the window tax bill (18 Jan. 1710); the raw silk bill (13 Feb.); the candle duty bill (23 Mar.); the bill regulating the price of bread (1 Apr.); and the bill to prevent excessive gaming (23 Mar.). On 25 Feb. he acted as a teller opposite Mohun on the previous question that the Lords should sign and seal their tickets for the trial of Dr Sacheverell and on 20 Mar. he voted Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. On 5 Apr. he was further named to a conference on the copyright bill.

De la Warr was present at the prorogations on 18 Apr., 2 and 16 May, 20 June, 4 and 18 July and 1 Aug. 1710. As Harley considered the strength of his new ministry in October 1710, he thought De la Warr likely to support the ministry. De la Warr was present at the beginning of the 1710 Parliament on 25 November. He attended 99 sittings (88 per cent), and was named to 25 committees. He may have felt some strain, as a courtier and one who had acknowledged debts of patronage to the Marlboroughs, now that they were out of favour. According to the royal physician, Dr Hamilton, on 29 Jan. 1711, when De la Warr asked the queen how he should vote, she replied ‘as the rest of the ministers’. Hamilton Diary, 29. On 2 Mar. De la Warr proposed to William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, that the queen should be persuaded to grant the Scottish Episcopalian minister James Greenshields (whose appeal against a judgment of the Edinburgh magistrates had been upheld by the House the previous day) ‘a subsistence in England’ to help sustain him. Nicolson passed the idea of this expedient on to John Sharp, archbishop of York. On 9 Mar. De la Warr was named to a conference on the safety of the queen’s person. On 4 Apr. he was one of a committee that read through the journal. Nicolson, London Diaries, 554, 567. He received the proxy of Howard of Effingham on 7 May and three days later he was named to a conference on the amendments to the bill for the preservation of pine forests in the American colonies.

During the latter part of this session De la Warr continued to report from select committees: Monoux’s estate bill (1 Feb. 1711); Matthew’s estate bill (20 Feb.); Allin’s estate bill (reported2 Mar.); the estate bill of Evelyn Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester ( 9 Mar.); Weller’s estate bill (7 May); Clerk’s estate bill (17 May); Salemarshe’s estate bill (22 May); and the estate bill of Charles, Viscount Cullen [I] (31 May). Likewise, he chaired and reported from committees of the whole, on: the Dunstable road bill (24 Apr.); the Exeter Castle bill (27 Apr.); the bill establishing the Post Office (7 May); the bill making it a felony to attempt the life of a privy councillor and the bill imposing a duty on hides and other goods (9 May); the naval stores bill (22 and 23 May); the woollen manufactures bill (23 May); the bill allowing John Williams, ‘a negro’, to give evidence in civil cases (25 May); the South Sea deficiencies bill (31 May); and the Scotch linen bill (1 June).

In August 1711 De la Warr wrote to thank Oxford (as Harley had since become) for the queen’s decision to continue to pay the salaries of the servants of the late prince. HMC Portland, v. 74. He was present at the prorogations of 9 Oct. and 13 and 27 Nov. and attended on the opening day of the 1711-12 session on 7 December. He was in the House on 100 days in this session (94 per cent), and was named to 26 committees. On 8 Dec. he protested against the resolution to present the Address as it contained the ‘No Peace Without Spain’ clause. On 19 Dec. he was forecast as likely to support the duke of Hamilton’s cause, and on the following day voted against the motion that ‘no patent of honour, granted to any peer of Great Britain, who was a peer of Scotland at the time of the Union, can entitle such a peer to sit and vote in Parliament’. On 2 Jan. 1712 he introduced two of the twelve peers created by the queen at the turn of the year into the House: Henry Paget, Baron Burton (with Charles Boyle, Baron Boyle, known as 4th earl of Orrery [I]), and Samuel Masham, Baron Masham (with Baron Byron). He was also involved in protecting the financial interests of the absent Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, when the House came to discuss the bill for more easily passing sheriffs’ accounts. On 7 Mar. Peter Wentworth was able to inform his brother Strafford that De la Warr had already promised to be against the bill ‘upon your account’. Add. 31144, f. 241. On 14 Mar. De la Warr presented the petition from the countess of Strafford requesting that counsel could be heard on the bill in order to protect Strafford’s ‘interest in the post fines’. Wentworth Pprs. 278. On 6 May De la Warr acted as a teller opposite Masham at the report stage of the county elections’ bill, in favour of leaving out the amendment in favour of Quakers. On 28 May he supported the ministry in the division over the ‘restraining orders’ sent to James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond. On 29 May he received the proxy of William Carey, 6th Baron Hunsdon, but this was vacated as early as 3 June by Hunsdon’s return. Hunsdon entrusted his proxy with him again on 20 June, and this time De la Warr held it until the last day of the session.

De la Warr was again heavily involved in legislative activities in the latter part of the session, including reporting from the committee of the whole on: the bill for making the Success a free ship (10 Apr.); the bill concerning the enrolment of crown leases (14 Apr.); the bill for the relief of merchants shipping prize goods from America (5 May); the Ipswich road bill (7 May); the lottery bill (20 May); the Highgate-Barnet and the Northfleet-Gravesend-Rochester road bills (30 May); the bills enlarging the time for Scots ministers to take the abjuration oath, making effectual any agreement between the African Company and its creditors and concerning Peirson’s estate (all 5 June); the bill to make more effectual the act in favour of Coggs (both 5 and 11 June); and the bill laying additional duties on hides and other goods. (21 June). On 28 Apr. he reported from committee on the estate bills of the late Arthur Henley and Simon Patrick.

De la Warr attended the meeting on 8 July 1712, when Parliament was prorogued (and Hunsdon returned to vacate his proxy). He examined the journals twice, on 12 and 17 June. Following the death of John Berkeley^‡, 4th Viscount Fitzhardinge [I], treasurer of the chamber, on 23 Dec. 1712 it was reported that De la Warr was soliciting for the post, and offering ‘to quit his pension of £1,200 a year for it, they say that is £1,400 a year.’ Wentworth Pprs. 309. He had written to Oxford to exchange his pension for the post, lamenting to the lord treasurer his loss of office after the death of Prince George and claiming ‘that to support the queen’s interest in Parliament from the Revolution, to this day, has been always my study and my greatest ambition’. In a further missive of 6 Jan. 1713, De la Warr underlined his necessitous situation and emphasized ‘the legacies of an unkind father ....Your Lordship cannot choose but remember my story, it was before the House of Commons in a point of privilege’. He also invoked the queen’s ‘princely commiseration’ which had allowed him to serve Prince George for 14 years. He added that ‘I am very infirm, afflicted with the gout and am travelling fast on towards threescore, too late to think of a new course of life, but am capable to perform this office’. Add. 70282, De la Warr to Oxford, 19 Dec. 1712, 6 Jan. 1713. He was present at the prorogations of 31 July 1712, 13 January, 3 February, 3, 10 and 26 Mar. 1713, while Parliament awaited the results of the peace conference at Utrecht. In mid-March to early April 1713, he was listed by Jonathan Swift as expected to support the ministry.

De la Warr was present on the opening day of the 1713 session, 9 April. He attended on 65 days of the session (99 per cent), and was named to 20 committees. When Oxford in early June made an estimate of the possible voting on the French commercial treaty, he expected De la Warr to support the bill. Again the management of legislation loomed large in De la Warr’s activities. He reported from select committees on: the Charlton parsonage bill (2 May); Sir Charles Gresham’s estate bill (3 June); Enden’s naturalization bill (8 June); Ellin’s indemnity bill, which the House then rejected (9 June); and the hackney chairs bill and Arran’s oath bill (14 July). In the same period he reported from committees of the whole on: the land tax bill (4 May); the Shoreditch to Enfield road bill and the malt bill (8 June); the Scots election bill (25 June); the militia bill, the naval stores bill and the northern borders bill (4 July); the perpetuating laws bill (10 July); and the mutiny bill (both 15 and 16 July). On the two days following the end of the session on 16 July, he was one of the peers that examined the journals for the accuracy of its record.

During the summer of 1713 De la Warr renewed his petition for the post of treasurer of the chamber, offering Oxford the reassurance that ‘all the monies which shall at any time be paid into the treasurer of the chamber’s office whilst I am in it shall be duly applied as your Lordship directs’. Add. 70282, De la Warr to Oxford, 24 July 1713. On 21 Aug. the queen wrote to Oxford expressing surprise that he should think that she had changed her determination to appoint De la Warr treasurer of the chamber. Longleat, Portland pprs. 3, f. 101. Her insistence thwarted Oxford’s plan to give the office to Robert Benson, Baron Bingley. Add. 31144, f. 408. De la Warr wrote to inform the duchess of Newcastle on 22 Aug. that he had kissed the queen’s hands for the post, acknowledging ‘I could never have hoped for the favour the Lord Treasurer has shewed me but from the powerful influence of your intercession.’ HMC Portland, ii. 234. Dr Arbuthnot ventured the opinion on 2 Sept. that ‘happiness depending upon opinion, one would think it impossible to be more so than my Lord De la Warr is’, while the same day Peter Wentworth noted to his brother Strafford that, ‘I believe the place Lord De la Warr has was purely the pleasure of the queen without any advice of the ministry’. De la Warr apparently thought so too ‘for’, as Wentworth explained, ‘there was several that would have persuaded his pension was better, but my Lord thanked them for that he had rather be his own paymaster.’ De la Warr himself expressed to Strafford at the same time his opinion that holding office in the royal household is ‘a blessing far more valuable than life itself’ HMC Bath, i. 239; Add. 31144, f. 410; Add. 22221, f. 289. A warrant for his appointment was issued on 7 Sept., and he was appointed a week later, his accounts running from 22 Sept. 1713 to 4 Nov. 1714. CTB, xxvii. 340; E351/566. At the end of January 1714, De la Warr tackled Oxford over the arrears of his pension, which at Christmas 1712 amounted to £2,400. Add. 70282, De la Warr to Oxford, 27 Jan. 1714. That very day, William Lowndes^‡ ordered Spencer Compton^†], the future earl of Wilmington, to pay the arrears for two years to Christmas 1712, amounting to £2,400, ‘from which time said pension is to cease’. CTB, xxviii. 109.

De la Warr attended the opening day of the 1714 Parliament, 16 February. He was present on 68 days of the session (90 per cent), and was appointed to 21 committees. On 9 Mar. he registered his proxy with Oxford, although he only missed two sittings before returning on 15 Mar. to vacate it. On 17 Apr. he acted as a teller opposite Heneage Finch, Baron Guernsey (later earl of Aylesford), in the committee of the whole in favour of retaining the offices of attorney- and solicitor-general in the place bill. On 13 May De la Warr delivered a petition from Katherine Bourchier to the Lords for an estate bill because Chandos was unwell and unable to do it. SCLA, DR 671/89 (Henry Brydges Diary), for 13 May 1714. Between 27 May and about 4 June Nottingham forecast De la Warr as likely to be in favour of the schism bill. On 27 May he reported from the committee of privileges on the case of the arrest of a servant of Richard Lumley, earl of Scarbrough. He received the proxy of Hunsdon on 28 May, which was vacated on 7 June, and that of Chandos on 4 June, which he held for the remainder of the session. On 9 June he acted as a teller in the committee of the whole opposite Maurice Thompson, 2nd Baron Haversham, on a question concerning the wording of a clause in the schism bill. He reported several bills from committee: Cherry’s estate bill (28 May); William Brown’s estate bill (2 June); the estate bill of Clotworthy Skeffington, 4th Viscount Massereene [I] (24 June); and Brereton Bourchier’s estate bill (25 June). He again reported several bills from the committee of the whole: the Edinburgh road bill (1 June); and the Scotch linen bill, the bill preserving wrecks and the lottery bill (all 7 July). He also examined the journals for this session on 15 July 1715.

De la Warr was present on the opening day, 1 Aug. 1714, of the session called in the wake of the queen’s death. He attended on 12 days of the session (80 per cent), and was named to two committees. On the first days of the session he signed the proclamation of George I as king of Great Britain. Daily Courant, 3 Aug. 1714. On 20 Aug. he reported from the committee of the whole on both the bill rectifying mistakes in the commissioners of the land tax and the one enabling people in Britain to take the oaths for Irish offices.

De la Warr prospered following the Hanoverian Succession. On 4 Nov. 1714 letters patent were issued for him to be a teller of the exchequer, and he was admitted to the office two days later. His career in the House under George I will be treated in the following volumes of this series. He died on 26 May 1723 in New Palace Yard and was buried on 2 June in St Margaret’s, Westminster. De la Warr was clearly a Tory, but one for whom party played a subservient role to being a courtier, which he felt was ‘a blessing far more valuable than life itself’. Add. 22221, f. 289; Pols. in Age of Anne, 385.