FEILDING, Basil (1668-1717)

‘Tall, fat, very black’ and ‘one of the greatest drinkers in England’, Feilding succeeded to the earldom while still a student at Christ Church, Oxford. Macky Mems. 71. It thus seems unlikely that he was the same Basil Feilding who was appointed to the office of lieutenant governor of Carlisle in April of the same year. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 119. Still underage, he appears almost at once to have turned his thoughts to acquiring a bride, and in January 1686 he approached James Bertie, earl of Abingdon, for the hand of his kinswoman, Bridget Bertie. Although Denbigh was recommended to the Berties as being ‘seemingly good natured and free from vice’ and, perhaps more importantly, in possession of an estate of £4,000 per annum, nothing came of his proposal. Belvoir Castle mss, letters xix. f. 249. Disappointed, he travelled abroad, and by July he had settled at the academy in Brussels, where he remained for the following two years. Add. 72524, ff. 180-1; 38847, f. 129.

There is no indication that Denbigh took any part in the events surrounding William of Orange’s invasion, though one correspondent at the time of the Seven Bishops’ trial thought that Denbigh would add his name to a petition in favour of the imprisoned prelates. Add. 34515, ff. 77-78. At a call of the House on 25 Jan. 1689 he was still recorded as being under age. He was again marked under age at a call on 28 Oct., but on 14 Nov. he was issued with a writ of summons. He took his seat in the House two days later, after which he was present on 43 days (59 per cent of the total). Classed as among the supporters of the court on a list prepared by Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds) of October 1689 to February 1690, he resumed his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690. Eight days later he owned to a protection that he had issued to one of his servants. He was marked excused at a call of the House on 31 Mar. but resumed his place the following day after which he continued to attend until the close (57 per cent of all sittings in the session).

Denbigh resumed his seat at the opening of the new session on 2 Oct. 1690, after which he was present on 56 per cent of sittings. On 6 Oct. he may have voted for the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower, but Carmarthen placed a query against his name, suggesting that he did not vote. On 22 Oct. it was reported that a duel with the suspected Jacobite, Charles Livingston, 2nd earl of Newburgh [S], had been averted. Another peer, Algernon Capell, 2nd earl of Essex, was said to have been Newburgh’s second in the affair, but no mention of the quarrel was made before the Lords. BL, Verney ms mic. M636/44, J. Verney to Sir R.Verney, 22 Oct. 1690. In May 1691 Denbigh was again involved in a fracas with Newburgh, but on this occasion the two peers, in company with Sir John Conway^‡, bt., joined forces to attack the watch, only to be overpowered and imprisoned for the night. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 348.

Denbigh’s uncle, Dr. John Feilding, ‘a twice a day preacher for many years in a small living in Dorsetshire’, was said to be one of the pretenders to the vacant bishopric of Hereford that spring. He was disappointed in his ambition, but there is no evidence that the young Denbigh exerted much interest on his behalf. Add. 70015, f. 55. Denbigh resumed his seat at the opening of the third session on 22 Oct. 1691, after which he was present on approximately half of all sittings. In January 1692 he was said to be one of two contenders for a place as gentleman of the bedchamber, vacant on the removal of John Churchill, earl of Marlborough. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 17, Yard to Poley, 26 Jan. 1692. On 12 Feb. 1692, he was entrusted with the proxy of Charles Mildmay, 18th Baron Fitzwalter, which was vacated by the close of the session on 24 February.

Denbigh returned to the House for the new 1692-3 session on 4 Nov. 1692, after which he was present on 54 per cent of all sittings. There is some ambiguity in the positioning of his name on the list of 31 Dec. on the place bill, suggesting that he may have opposed its committal, but on 3 Jan. he voted for the bill’s passage, and then subscribed the protest when it was voted down. He was forecast as a supporter of the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, and on 2 Jan. 1693 he voted, as expected, in favour of the bill. On 12 Jan. it was rumoured that Denbigh was to replace Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton, as master of the horse to Prince George of Denmark. The appointment was confirmed the following month. Bodl. Carte, 79, f. 473; Tanner, 25, f. 8; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 37. On 4 Feb. he agreed with the majority in finding Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.

Denbigh returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present for just under a third of the session. In January 1694, he resigned as master of the horse to Prince George, possibly as a result of the continuing rupture between the king and Princess Anne. Macky Mems. 71; Gregg, Queen Anne, 98. Denbigh resumed his seat in the House after the Christmas recess on 8 Jan., but towards the end of February he was absent for just over a month, only returning to the House on 4 April. The following day an order was drawn up for providing provisions for a regiment of dragoons that he was to command and on 10 Apr. it was reported that he was at Spithead with his squadron. CSP Dom. 1695, pp. 90, 251. He returned to the House on 16 Apr. and sat for a further five days before the close of the session. Denbigh was again present at the beginning of the new session on 12 Nov. 1694. Although marked as being present on the attendance list, he was excused at a call of the House on 26 Nov., resuming his seat on 4 December. He was thereafter present for approximately 46 per cent of the sittings.

The following summer Denbigh married Hester Firebrace, daughter of the notorious purveyor to the royal household, Sir Basil Firebrace, who had recently been the subject of a joint investigation by the Lords and Commons of his dealings with the East India Company. A report of the marriage in the Post Boy inflated the new Lady Denbigh’s portion to £20,000 but it was still a lucrative match for Denbigh. Post Boy, 11-13 June 1695. Firebrace, however, would be imprisoned for a year as a result of the parliamentary investigation, and his reputation permanently damaged; by 1705 he was rumoured bankrupt.

Indicative perhaps of his increasing profile among the Tories in the Lords, in November 1695 Denbigh was one of a number of peers and distinguished gentry to be granted honorary doctorates at Oxford upon the king’s visit to the university. Bodl. Ballard 5, ff. 89-90. He took his seat in the new Parliament later that month on 22 Nov. but his attendance declined once again. He sat for a mere nine days in December and seven days in January 1696 and was present overall for a total of 36 per cent of sittings in the session. In spite of this lacklustre performance, on 6 Apr. he was entrusted with the proxy of John West, 6th Baron de la Warr, which was vacated by the close of the session.

Denbigh returned to the House a month into the new session on 24 Nov. 1696, after which he was present on 46 per cent of sittings. He failed to attend the House on 23 Dec. and was consequently absent from the division for the bill of attainder against Sir John Fenwick^‡. He was present when the House reconvened after the Christmas recess on 7 Jan. 1697, and on 1 Feb. he registered his proxy in favour of de la Warr, which was vacated by Denbigh’s return four days later. Just under a fortnight later, on 17 Feb., Denbigh’s brother-in-law, Evelyn Pierrepont, 5th earl of Kingston, registered his proxy in Denbigh’s favour, which was vacated on Kingston’s return to the House on 24 February.

Denbigh returned to the House just over a week into the new session on 14 Dec. 1697. Present on 41 per cent of sittings, on 4 Mar. 1698 he entered his dissent at the resolution to read the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe^‡ a second time, and on 15 Mar. he voted against committing the bill. On 9 June, Denbigh’s Warwickshire neighbour, William Craven, 2nd Baron Craven, registered his proxy with Denbigh, which was vacated by the close of the session. On 15 June Denbigh was also entrusted with the proxy of William Byron, 4th Baron Byron, which was again vacated by the close of the session. On 1 July Denbigh entered his protest at the resolution to give a second reading to the bill for establishing the two million fund and for settling the East India trade.

Denbigh returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present on 53 per cent of all sittings. Having attended the prorogation of 1 June 1699, he resumed his place in the new session on 23 Nov., after which he was present on just under half of all sittings. In February 1700, no doubt influenced by his father-in-law’s position, 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 enable discussion of amendments to the bill.

Perhaps reflecting his position as a former member of the household of Prince George, Denbigh participated as one of the assistants to the chief mourner at the funeral of the duke of Gloucester in August 1700. Add. 61101, ff. 68-9. He had attended the prorogation of 1 Aug., and took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 6 Feb. 1701, after which he was present on 54 sittings (just under half of the session). On 9 June he entered his protest at the resolution not to appoint a committee to meet with the Commons regarding the impeachment of the Whig lords, and on 14 June he protested against sending a message to the Commons requesting a conference on the matter. Three days later he voted against acquitting John Somers, Baron Somers, and then subscribed a series of protests on the same subject.

Denbigh resumed his seat in the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701 (of which he attended 55 per cent of sittings), and on 24 Feb. 1702 he entered his protest at the resolution to pass the bill for the further security of the king’s person (abjuration bill). Following the king’s death, Denbigh was active in the elections for Leicestershire and Warwickshire. In August he reported the results to Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, hoping that ‘now we are pretty sure of a Church of England Parliament which will settle the affairs of England a little better than they have been of late.’ Add. 29588, f. 117.

Denbigh took his seat in the new Parliament almost a month into the first session on 14 Nov. 1702 and was present on just over half of sittings. In about January 1703 he was listed by Nottingham as likely to support the bill for preventing occasional conformity and on 16 Jan. he voted accordingly, against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. On 22 Feb. he joined with a number of other Tory peers in protesting at the resolution not to commit the bill for the landed qualification of members of Parliament and two days later entered a further protest at the resolution to publish the occasional conformity bill along with the Lords’ amendments and the report of their conference with the Commons. The following month, Denbigh’s reliable Tory credentials earned him the position of lord lieutenant of Leicestershire in place of the Whig John Manners, duke of Rutland. Glassey, JPs, 158; Add. 70075, newsletter, 16 Mar. 1703; Post Boy, 13-16 Mar. 1703; London Gazette, 15-18 Mar. 1703. He proceeded to stamp his mark on the county by overseeing a purge of the deputy lieutenants. CSP Dom, 1703-4, p. 279; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 349.

Having attended the prorogation of 22 June 1703, Denbigh resumed his seat for the winter session on 17 Nov., after which he was present on just under a third of sittings. In both forecasts drawn up by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in late 1703, he was predicted to be a likely supporter of the bill for preventing occasional conformity, and on 14 Dec. he voted in favour of passing the measure. On 21 Mar. 1704 he entered his dissent at the resolution not to give a second reading to a rider to the bill for raising recruits for the army. Four days later, he registered two further dissents concerning ministers’ failure to censure, arrest or prosecute ‘the plotter’ Robert Ferguson over his two papers had been an encouragement of enemies to the crown. Denbigh was included on a list of members of both Houses drawn up by Nottingham in 1704 which may indicate support over the ‘Scotch Plot’. Denbigh sat for just one day in April, and was then absent from the House until the winter session.

In May 1704 Denbigh approached Marlborough for his assistance in securing him a command in the army, having recently been overlooked for one for which he had considered himself ‘as fit’ as the other candidates, namely the command of the Royal Horse Guards. Determined not to be disappointed again, he requested that ‘if any honourable post should happen that you would think of me.’ Add. 61287, f. 95. He resumed his seat in the House a month into the new session on 23 Nov. 1704, after which he was present on 35 per cent of sittings. Shortly after the opening of the session, he had been listed among those thought likely to support the Tack. On 26 Nov. he was entrusted with Craven’s proxy and two days later Price Devereux, 9th Viscount Hereford, also registered his proxy with Denbigh; both were vacated by the close of the session. On 15 Dec. Denbigh entered two dissents relating to the rejection of the bill for the prevention of occasional conformity.

Denbigh’s name was included among the Jacobites in a list compiled around April 1705 of the peerage ‘in relation to the succession.’ He took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705 after which he was present on just 22 per cent of sittings. Despite this, on 14 Nov. Craven once again registered his proxy in Denbigh’s favour, which was vacated by his return to the House on 6 December. On 30 Nov. Denbigh entered his dissent at the resolution not to give any further instructions to the committee of the whole on the regency bill and on 3 Dec. he protested against the passage of the bill. On 6 Dec. Denbigh acted as one of the tellers in a division held in a committee of the whole on whether or not the Church was in danger. He then subscribed to the subsequent protest at the resolution that the Church was not in danger. Denbigh was absent after 11 Dec. 1705 until 31 Jan. 1706. On that day he put his name to three dissents relating to the amendment of the place clause in the regency bill. He was then absent again until 19 February. On 23 Feb. he acted as one of the tellers in two divisions concerning the archbishop of Dublin’s bill, in the second of which it was resolved to appoint a day for the measure to be given a third reading. On 9 Mar. he dissented again at the resolution to agree with the Commons that the published letter from Sir Rowland Gwynne^‡ to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, was a ‘scandalous, false and malicious libel.’ Two days later Denbigh was named as one of the reporters of two conferences held to examine Gwynne’s letter.

In May 1706 Denbigh was noted as being one of the members of the revived Tory club, the ‘Honourable Order of Little Bedlam’, and the same month it was rumoured that he was to be removed from office along with a number of other Tory lords. HMC 5th Rep. 399; Cornw. RO, Antony mss CVC/Y/2/28. On 1 July he was accordingly put out from the lieutenancy of Leicestershire. For the remainder of 1706 and throughout 1707 Denbigh’s attendance of the House was sporadic. He took his seat a week into the new session on 10 Dec. 1706 but proceeded to attend on just 17 days (18 per cent of the whole). He was then present on just one day of the brief nine-day session of April 1707. Disinclination to attend Parliament does not seem to have prevented him from continuing to participate in local events. In October of that year he was present at the races held at Lutterworth and afterwards was entertained at the house of his kinsman, Sir Thomas Cave^‡. Verney ms mic. M636/53, Cave to Fermanagh, 20 Oct. 1707. The new session found Denbigh demonstrating greater activity. He took his seat on 28 Nov. 1707, after which he was present on just under a third of sitting days. In March 1708 he attempted to make use of his interest with Marlborough to procure a captaincy for one of his brothers-in-law in the regiment of General William Cadogan^†, the future Earl Cadogan. Add. 61287, f. 120. In about May he was (unsurprisingly) classed as a Tory in an assessment of the peerage in the first Parliament of Great Britain.

Denbigh returned to the House a fortnight after the opening of the new Parliament on 3 Dec. 1708 but then quit the chamber until the new year. He resumed his place on 10 Jan. 1709, after which he was present on a further 43 occasions (48 per cent of sittings). In March, evidence emerged of Denbigh’s occasionally boisterous lifestyle when two London constables were compelled to enter public apologies to him as well as to Craven and several others for having arrested them the previous year: the two constables, Violet and Ravis, now admitted that they had been ‘guilty of this great imprudence without any just cause.’ London Gazette, 3-7 Mar. 1709. On 21 Jan. Denbigh voted against the resolution that Scots peers with British titles had the right to vote in the elections for Scots representative peers, thereby ensuring that James Douglas, duke of Queensberry [S], was not able to vote. On 15 Mar. he was present at a dinner hosted by William Johnston, marquess of Annandale [S], which was attended mainly by other Scottish peers, including James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], John Ker, duke of Roxburgh [S], and James Graham, duke of Montrose [S], and may possibly relate to the bill for improving the Union. C. Jones, ‘Parliamentary Organization of the Whig Junto’, PH, x. 179. Certainly, on 28 Mar, he joined these Scottish lords in subscribing two protests relating to the passage of the bill: first at the resolution not to give a second reading to a rider permitting those accused of treason to receive a copy of the indictment at least five days in advance of their trials; and second at the passage of the bill.

In July 1709 Denbigh joined Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort, and Nicholas Leke, 4th earl of Scarsdale, in becoming one of the founding members (and also the vice president) of the Board of Brothers, a hard-drinking Tory club. Pols. in Age of Anne, 22; Add. 49360, f. 2. He took his seat at the opening of the new session on 6 Dec. 1709, after which he was present on 44 per cent of sittings. On 16 Feb. 1710, he entered his dissent from the resolution not to adjourn the House and then again from the resolution to agree with the Commons’ address to the queen for Marlborough’s immediate departure for Holland. The following month, Denbigh lent his support to Dr. Henry Sacheverell: on 14 Mar. he subscribed two protests, firstly against the decision not to adjourn the House and then against the crucial resolution that allowed the prosecution to continue—that in cases of impeachments for high crimes or misdemeanours, by writing or speaking, the particular words need not be expressly specified. On 16 Mar. he protested against the decision to put the question that the Commons had made good the first article of their impeachment, and then against passage of the resolution. On the 17th he signed a protest against the resolution that the second, third and fourth articles had also been made good. On 18 Mar. he protested against the form of the question and answer to be asked of peers when judging Sacheverell. On 20 Mar. he voted Sacheverell not guilty, and signed a protest against the peers finding him guilty. On the 21st he dissented from the censure passed on Sacheverell. The trial over, Denbigh attended only three more days before the end of the session on 5 April. He did, however, attend the prorogation of 2 May.

Early in June 1710 Denbigh continued to demonstrate his support for Sacheverell, as he was one of the Warwickshire peers to entertain the clergyman during his progress through the county. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 46, f. 330; Add. 70421, newsletter, 8, 13 June 1710; HEHL, HM 30659 (123); Post Boy, 10-13 June 1710. At the beginning of July, he was reported to be in Holland with his brother. With the ministry under reconstruction, in August William Bromley^‡ wrote to Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, recommending Denbigh’s claim for the vacant chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster, and reminding Harley that Denbigh had

been a sufferer by the misfortunes of Sir B. Firebrace to a degree that all, who know his circumstances, compassionate. He has just pretensions to be distinguished in the army, having been in that service till the disbanding upon the late peace. He has asked for Essex’s Dragoons, but I believe is not likely to succeed’ HMC Portland, iv. 547, 570.

Although Denbigh was overlooked for the chancellorship, on 3 Oct. 1710 he was assessed by Harley as a likely supporter of his new ministry.

Denbigh was present on the second day of the new Parliament, 29 Nov. 1710. He then sat on just six more occasions before the end of the year, but his attendance improved over the following three months and he was present in all on approximately 54 per cent of sittings during the session. On 5 Feb. 1711 he registered his dissent at the resolution to reject the bill repealing the General Naturalization Act. On 5 Mar. he was again entrusted with Hereford’s proxy and three days later, he also received that of Craven. Both proxies were vacated by the close of the session. Following Rutland’s death, Denbigh was reappointed lord lieutenant of Leicestershire, though the formal appointment was delayed until Parliament had risen. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 291-2; Glassey, JPs, 211; HMC Portland, iv. 694. The elevation of Rutland’s heir, John Manners, styled marquess of Granby, to the dukedom provided Denbigh with the opportunity to use his interest to secure Sir Thomas Cave’s return for the newly vacant Leicestershire county seat. Pols. in Age of Anne, 317; Leics. RO, Braye (Cave) mss 2843, 2845; Verney ms mic. M636/54, Cave to Fermanagh, 11 Feb. 1711. Cave was successful but only after another Tory, Henry Tate, had been persuaded to withdraw. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 350.

In spring 1711 Denbigh was listed among the Tory ‘patriots’ of the first session of the 1710 Parliament. From this time he appears to have been increasingly troubled by financial difficulties and his loyalty to the ministry was underwritten with the award of a £500 pension to help alleviate the situation. Jones, Party and Management, 164. In July 1711, he sought Oxford’s interest in case the indisposition of George Fitzroy, duke of Northumberland, proved fatal and the colonelcy of the Royal Horse Guards became vacant. Denbigh had also sought it when the previous incumbent, Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, had died. Add. 70282, ff. 204, 209. The colonelcy proved elusive. Clearly reluctant to make another expensive journey to London, on 17 Sept. Denbigh approached the secretary of state, William Legge, earl of Dartmouth, to ask whether he could exercise his duties as lord lieutenant without being sworn formally before the queen and council. The following month he acted as one of the bearers at the funeral of his neighbour and companion in unruliness, Craven, whose death from apoplexy had ‘eclipsed’ the annual festivities at Lutterworth. Verney ms mic. M636/54, Cave to Fermanagh, 15 Oct. 1711.

With the ministry’s peace policy expected to come under attack at the beginning of the session, Bromley was deputed to ensure Denbigh’s prompt arrival in London. On 15 Nov. 1711 Bromley had advised Oxford that he had already been in discussion with Denbigh about his appearance in the House. Bromley had warned Oxford that it would ‘be most suitable to his unhappy circumstances to stay as long as he can in the country’ but noted that Denbigh had conceded his willingness to turn out earlier should the occasion demand it. Add. 70214, W. Bromley to Oxford, 15 Nov. 1711. Forced to honour his promise, Denbigh grumbled at having his peace disturbed and protested that he had not thought ‘of coming up to town so soon, knowing that our House used to have little to do at the first sitting till the Commons had cut us up some work,’ though he conceded, ‘but I find now the case is altered. It’s we that are doing that and indeed fine work.’ Pols. in Age of Anne, 383. Despite his annoyance about being roused earlier than he had hoped, Denbigh took steps to ensure the attendance of three other peers at the beginning of the session. Add. 70214, Bromley to Oxford, 3 Dec. 1711. Denbigh took his seat on 7 Dec. 1711, after which he was present for just under 64 per cent of sittings. On 8 Dec. he supported moves to remove the reference to ‘No Peace without Spain’ from the Address, and protested against the failure to do so. On 10 Dec. his name appeared on a memorandum by Oxford of peers to be rewarded; in his case the suggestion was a ‘regiment’. On 19 Dec. he was forecast as being likely to vote in favour of Hamilton’s petition to sit as duke of Brandon and the following day he voted (as expected) against barring the holders of Scots peerages from sitting in the House by right of post-Union British creations. Denbigh’s name also featured on Oxford’s 29 Dec. list of peers to contact during the Christmas recess. Denbigh was in attendance on 2 Jan. 1712, when the ministry secured a further adjournment of the House. On 15 Jan. he was included in a list of ‘poor lords’ sent to the elector of Hanover, in which it was recommended that he should be promised a pension of £1,000 to secure his allegiance to the new dynasty. On 28 May Denbigh voted against the opposition motion that the queen overturn the orders restraining James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from conducting an offensive campaign on the continent.

In July 1712 Denbigh renewed his approaches to Oxford about the colonelcy of the Royal Horse Guards, lamenting his ‘misfortune that I have not so much reputation, or interest with your lordship as to be trusted with such a command.’ In spite of the award of the pension, his financial problems continued to mount and in August Denbigh petitioned Oxford for payment of his arrears. He was even reduced to the embarrassment of admitting that he was unable to pay his way home from London to Newnham. Following the death of Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, in August, Denbigh redoubled his efforts to secure the command of the horse guards, begging leave ‘to solicit… in a stronger manner than I could persuade myself to do whilst he was living.’ His petition received Bromley’s warm support, and Denbigh also approached Ormond for his assistance. Ormond told him that he thought that he was already in receipt of a government pension. Denbigh sought Oxford’s approval for his denial, saying that he had ‘denied it… in such a manner that I hope you’ll approve of… I’m not used to lie and should be sorry to be thought in one now.’ Add. 70282, ff. 207, 209, 216; Add. 70214, Bromley to Oxford, 23, 30 Aug. 1712; Pols. in Age of Anne, 391.

Denbigh was noted by Oxford in February 1713 as a peer to be contacted in advance of the new session. An estimate shortly after compiled by Jonathan Swift (with Oxford’s additions) assessed Denbigh as being likely to continue to support the ministry. He resumed his seat in the House a month after the opening of the new session on 15 May. He was present for approximately 40 per cent of all sittings. In June it was predicted that he would divide in favour of the ministry in the expected vote on the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty. Having been denied his ambition to secure command of a regiment, in August it was widely rumoured that Denbigh’s support was to be bought with an appointment as one of the tellers of the exchequer. Wentworth Pprs. 348-9; NLW, Ottley corresp. 2441. By the end of August he was becoming frustrated with the delays in securing his patent and his loss of patience with the lord treasurer was more than apparent in his complaints that he was ‘even denied the common decency of good manners.’ Add. 70282, Denbigh to Oxford, 23, 27 Aug. 1713, Denbigh to [?], 6 Oct. [?1713].

Denbigh took his seat a fortnight after the opening of the new Parliament on 2 Mar. 1714, after which he was present on just under 49 per cent of sittings. Having sat for just eight days, he registered his proxy in favour of Beaufort, which was vacated on his return to the House on 27 April. On 31 May, Gilbert Coventry, 4th earl of Coventry, registered his proxy in Denbigh’s favour, which was vacated by the close of the session. At the end of May or beginning of June Denbigh was forecast by Nottingham as being a likely supporter of the schism bill. Continual failure to prise his pension out of the government’s hands seems to have made Denbigh increasingly desperate, and in July 1714 he wrote to Oxford begging for payment, professing himself ‘perfectly astonished’ at Oxford’s latest prevarication. Add. 70282, Denbigh to Oxford, 12 July [1714]. On 24 July Oxford included Denbigh in another of his memoranda, in which he noted the £500 pension due to him. Add. 70331, memorandum, 24 July 1714. Denbigh attended just two days of the brief session that met following the queen’s death in August. Despite his Toryism, in November 1714 Denbigh received a re-grant of his tellership, but on 3 Dec. he was again put out as lord lieutenant in Leicestershire. Towards the end of that month he was said to be suffering from poor health. Verney ms mic. M636/55, R. Palmer to R. Verney, 21 Dec. 1714. In spite of this, he retained considerable influence in Leicestershire and was active in employing his interest in the elections to the new Parliament. Leics. RO, Braye mss 2878, 2881, 2884. He lost his tellership in November 1715. Denbigh died of an apoplexy on 18 Mar. 1717. HMC Portland, v. 525-6. He was buried at Monk’s Kirby and was succeeded by his son, William Feilding^†, as 5th earl of Denbigh.