CAPELL, Algernon (1670-1710)

Very little is known of Lord Malden’s early years, although he spent some of his childhood in England while his father was serving as lord lieutenant of Ireland: in May 1676 he was at the family’s house in Cassiobury, Hertfordshire. Essex Corresp. (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, xxiv), 49. His education is also unclear, although in April 1680, John Evelyn recorded that he was ‘a hopeful son, at the Academy’, possibly a reference to Foubert’s establishment, although he would have been only nine at the time. Evelyn Diary, iv. 201.

There is little evidence of the effect upon him of the violent death of his father, in suspicious circumstances, whilst under arrest in the Tower. The king, acutely aware of the sufferings of his grandfather in the royalist cause, acted to ensure that the young man did not suffer materially, for what was officially, at least, a suicide and therefore subject to forfeiture of property. A newsletter of 21 July 1683 reported that the young earl waited on the king, who ‘out of his royal clemency received him with all the marks of love and kindness bidding him follow the steps of his grandfather and take heed of disloyalty which brought him [his father] to his untimely end and then assured him he would be a friend to him and love him.’ JRL, Legh of Lyme mss, newsletter, 21 July 1683. It was reported on 26 July that Essex was ‘often brought to court by’ Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, his uncle by marriage. Bodl. Carte 216, f. 315. Thereafter he seems to have remained in court circles, Evelyn recording his attendance at a dinner with Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland and others on 27 June 1684. Evelyn Diary, iv. 383. As a minor, Essex was excused from calls of the House on 26 May and 16 Nov. 1685.

The most important man in his childhood was his uncle, Sir Henry Capell, the future Baron Capell of Tewkesbury, who was able to arrange for the young earl to complete his education with a grand tour. With this end in mind, he was granted a pass to travel abroad on 25 April 1687. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 449. Capell had arranged extensive financial support for his nephew and travelling companions, including several French speakers. Add. 40629, ff. 199, 211, 213, 217-19. As Essex was still a minor on his return to England his political role was limited but it is likely that he kept a close eye on proceedings as the Convention launched an inquiry into the circumstances of his father’s death. Various witnesses were summoned and a few people arrested, but the whole affair petered out following increasingly public disavowals of allegations of murder by the countess of Essex and others.

On 7 Apr. 1690, the Lords gave a first reading to a bill to enable Essex to make a jointure and to raise £6,000 to make up his sister Anne’s portion, following her marriage in 1688 to Charles Howard, then styled Viscount Morpeth, the future 3rd earl of Carlisle. The bill was reported from committee without amendment on 10 Apr. and passed the following day. The passage of this bill coincided with a rumour that Essex would marry the only daughter of Sir John Garrard^‡, but this proved to be inaccurate. Essex at this time gives the impression of a young man waiting to attain his majority and find a role for himself. In February 1690 he had been accounted one of ‘the lewdest young men of the town.’ HMC Portland, iii. 444. In July he was given permission to raise an independent troop of volunteer horse, in the wake of the threat of a French invasion. HMC Finch, iii. 384; HMC Hodgkin, 202. The war promised the most obvious outlet for his energies. On 24 May 1691 Essex was one of group of noblemen that embarked for Flanders to serve as volunteers in the army, arriving back on 20 October. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 233, 296.

Essex first sat in the Lords on 29 Dec. 1691, the day after the Christmas recess, which was also the day after his 21st birthday. On 16 Feb. 1692 Essex entered his protest against the resolution that proxies would not be allowed in the proceedings on the duke of Norfolk’s divorce bill. Altogether he attended on 37 days of the session, 37 per cent of the total, and was named to one committee. Now of age, Essex was able to reclaim the local offices held by father. As early as 2 Jan. 1692, the secretary of state, Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney, ordered a warrant for Essex to be custos of Hertfordshire and St Albans, and on 13 Jan. a warrant for the lord lieutenancy of Hertfordshire followed. The next step was marriage, and in November 1691 it was reported that a match had been concluded with the eldest daughter of the king’s Dutch favourite, Portland. Verney ms mic. M636/45, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 19 Nov. 1691. A few days after the marriage, Essex was granted a pass to accompany the king to Flanders. CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 164; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 376. He returned again in early May, although a couple of weeks later he went back to Flanders to serve as a volunteer in the army. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 440, 456. On 22 Sept. 1692, Essex accompanied by Portland, left Loo for one of the family’s residences in order to consummate his marriage. HMC Finch, iv. 468.

Essex was in attendance when the 1692-3 session opened on 4 Nov. 1692. Strangely, he was not listed either as present or noted as absent when the House was called over on 21 November. On 31 Dec., he voted against the committal of the place bill. On 3 Jan. 1693, he was again listed as voting against the bill, this time by proxy (registered that very day with his father-in-law Portland). The proxy was necessitated by illness, which probably explains his absence from the Lords between 2 and 31 January. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 4. On 3 Feb. Essex voted Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder. State Trials, ix. 1048-9. Altogether Essex attended on 51 days of the session, 48 per cent of the total, and was named to three committees. Over the following summer he served in the military campaign and in October he was reported to be with the king at The Hague, preparing to return to England. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 199.

Essex attended the Lords on the opening day of the session of 1693-4, 7 November. It was probably near to the beginning of this session that Baron Capell wrote to John Somers, Baron Somers, to ask ‘if nephew Essex behaves himself in the House of Peers, like the son of his father, and grandfather. He has promised me, in his last, that he will, and that no consideration of place or relation shall make him deviate from the principles I have given him.’ New York Pub. Lib., Hardwicke ms 33, f. 61. On 17 Feb. 1694 Essex voted in favour of reversing the court of chancery’s dismission in the Albemarle inheritance case and then entered his dissent when the judgment was confirmed, dissenting to a further order in the case on 24 February. On 24 Apr. he entered his dissent against the passage of the supply bill which incorporated the Bank of England. He had attended on 82 days of the session, 62 per cent of the total, and been named to four committees.

Essex again went over to Flanders in May 1694 to serve in the campaign. He wrote to his brother-in-law Carlisle for his assistance in persuading the dowager countess of Essex to let him have Cassiobury, his mother not being happy with his initial offer of £110 p.a. Castle Howard, J8/37/4, Essex to Carlisle, 28 May 1694. This exchange suggests that Essex was labouring under the conditions imposed upon him by the family’s settlements and particularly of his mother’s jointure. Further trouble occurred on the domestic front, when, in a letter of 20 Nov. 1694 to Capell, Portland indicated more familial strife, presumably relating to Essex. UNL, PwA 230.

Essex attended the Lords on the opening day of the session of 1694-5, 12 November. Again, he was not recorded as either present or absent on 26 Nov., when the House was called over. On 12 Jan. 1695, Essex received the proxy of Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans. However, on 25 Jan. 1695 he registered his own proxy with Portland, although he does not appear to have been absent for a prolonged period. On 16, 23 Feb. and 15, 20 Apr. 1695, he was named to report or manage conferences on the treason trials bill. On 18 Apr. he entered his protest against the resolution that John Sheffield, marquess of Normanby, had committed no act worthy of censure in relation to bills that had passed during the session. Essex had attended on 78 days during the session, 61 per cent of the total, and been named to eight committees.

On 30 Apr. 1695, the king sent to the Lords an Act of Grace, pardoning all felonies and treasons committed before that date. One of the beneficiaries was Sunderland, and as such, it aroused the opposition of Essex, who regarded him as responsible for his father’s murder, no doubt because the chief suspect had been a servant of Sunderland’s. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 467; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 495, 529. This caused much embarrassment to his mother (a friend of the countess of Sunderland), his uncle Capell, and his father-in-law, Portland. Kenyon, Sunderland, 272 Japikse, Correspondentie van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck iii. 48-49. In April Portland and Capell were expressing serious concerns over the ‘unacceptable’ personal conduct of Essex, who they felt was in danger of losing honour, but who refused to listen to advice. UNL, PwA 237. In May Portland thought that Essex and his wife had embarked ‘on the road to ruin’, and Capell acknowledged the need to make ‘several amendments and alterations in the course and manner of my nephew’s living.’ Ibid. 239-240/1-2. Shortly after this Essex joined the campaign in Flanders, his wife also travelling to Flanders, where she gave birth to a daughter (Elizabeth) and apparently showed signs of ‘mending her ways’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 502; UNL, PwA 244. Essex presumably returned to England in October with the king. However, the concerns of Portland and Capell remained unassuaged, the latter writing on 10 Dec. of Essex’s mismanagement of his private concerns. The tenor of their correspondence continued through the early months of 1696 until Capell’s death. UNL, PwA 254, 265/1-3, 267, 271/1-2.

Essex attended the opening day of the session of 1695-6, 22 Nov. 1695. On 20 Feb. 1696, together with Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, Essex introduced William Henry Nassau de Zuylestein, earl of Rochford into the Lords. On 27 Feb. he signed the Association. On 6 Apr. he was named to manage a conference on the privateers’ bill. On 14 Apr. he was named to the committee to draw up reasons for a conference on insisting on the Lords’ amendments to the bill continuing the acts prohibiting trade with France. He was named to a further 16 committees during the session, having attended on 89 days of the session, 72 per cent of the total. In June the death of his uncle, Capell, saw moves to ensure that Essex was named in his place as high steward of Tewkesbury in the new charter intended for the borough. Add. 34515, f. 199. Portland, it was hoped, would help to facilitate the passage of the new charter. Add. 72483, f. 166. Orders were duly despatched from the king for Essex’s name to be inserted the charter in July 1696, but various legal wrangles delayed the charter until March 1698. CSP Dom. 1696, p. 268; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 224-5. Meanwhile, Essex was as usual on campaign, returning to England with the king at the beginning of October 1696. CSP Dom. 1696, p.159; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 122.

Essex attended on the opening day of the session of 1696-7, 20 October. On 23 Dec. 1696, he voted in favour of the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick^‡, although Fenwick had initially hoped for support from Essex because of their mutual connections to the Howard earls of Carlisle. HMC Hamilton Supp. 136. On that day he had asked for and been granted leave of absence for a week or ten days, but the House then substituted an order for all peers to have leave until 7 Jan. 1697. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 285-6. Altogether, he attended on 67 days of the session, 57 per cent of the total and was named to 11 committees.

Essex again travelled to Flanders for the campaign, leaving on 18 May 1697 and returning at the end of August. CSP Dom. 1697, p. 156; Verney ms mic. M636/50, A. Nicholas to Sir J. Verney, 31 Aug. 1697. It was reported on 14 Aug. that Essex had ‘given up all his places at court and it’s presumed not without his father-in-law’s allowance, which makes many reflections.’ HMC Hastings, ii. 292. According to Sydney, now earl of Romney, who talked to Essex when he came to London at the end of August, Essex had felt slighted by the king not making him a brigadier-general. Japikse, ii. 78. Wiser counsels evidently prevailed and Essex retained his posts. Indeed, by 14 Sept. Essex was asking Portland if his newly born son might be named after the king (and his father-in-law), and in October he duly received a gift of royal plate as a christening present. UNL, Pw A 228; CTB, 1697-8, p.140. Essex remained in London attending the prorogation on 20 Sept. 1697. At the beginning of October it was reported that he had leave to accompany Portland on his embassy to France, one of his recommendations being his ability to speak French. Add. 72486, ff. 196-7; Japikse, ii. 82. This was still being reported in December, but he did not join Portland in January 1698, although he did attend him upon his departure from London. HMC Hastings, ii. 303; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 330.

Essex attended the opening day of the session of 1697-8, 3 Dec. 1697. On 15 Mar. 1698, Essex voted in favour of the committal of the bill to punish Sir Charles Duncombe^‡, and entered his dissent when the bill was not committed. On 16 Mar. he entered his dissent against the resolution to grant relief to the appellants in the cause between James Bertie^‡ and Lucius Henry Carey, 6th Viscount Falkland [S]. On the following day he entered his dissent against another resolution relating to the case. He had attended on 71 days of the session, 51.5 per cent of the total, and been appointed to 11 committees. Essex clearly remained in the king’s favour, entertaining him twice in April and accompanying him to Flanders in July. CSP Dom. 1698, p. 200; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 374, 403, 451.

Essex returned to England in mid November and attended the opening day of the session of 1698-9 on 6 Dec. 1698. On 4 Jan. 1699, together with his uncle Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, Essex introduced Henry d’Auverquerque* [1757], earl of Grantham, into the House. On 8 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the resolution offering to assist the king in retaining his Dutch guards and entered his dissent when the House agreed to the resolution. He was named to ten committees during the session, and attended on 51 days in total, 59 per cent of the total. Essex himself did not suffer in the general disbandment of the army, his regiment of dragoons surviving the cull. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 487. He again attended the opening day of the session of 1699-1700, on 16 November. On 23 Feb. 1700 Essex voted against the motion to adjourn during pleasure, which would have allowed the House to proceed into a committee of the whole on the bill continuing the East India Company as a corporation, and entered his dissent against the passage of the bill. He had attended on 58 days of the session, 64 per cent of the total and had been named to 12 committees.

The replacement of Portland as groom of the stole by Romney did not adversely affect Essex’s position. Indeed, in July 1700 Essex was one of those in attendance on the king as he went for Holland: Essex, it was reported, ‘the king took at his word when he only thought to make a compliment in offering his service.’ CSP Dom. 1700-2, p. 90. Around this date, after the formation of a new ministry, Essex was assessed in a list of Whig peers, as one who might be willing to support the new ministry as opposed to the Junto, suggesting again a more court-oriented than party Whiggery. Essex was not present at the opening of the 1701 session, first attending on 11 Feb. 1701. On 17 June he voted in favour of the acquittal of Somers, and on 23 June voted likewise to acquit Edward Russell, earl of Orford. He attended on 65 days of the session, almost 60 per cent of the total, and was named to six committees. He also found time at the beginning of June to attend his brother-in-law Carlisle when he sat in court as deputy earl marshal. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 58.

Essex attended the opening of the 1701-2 session on 30 December. He signed the address of 1 Jan. 1702 resenting the recognition by the French of the Pretender. In January Essex had designs on becoming the captain of the yeomen of the guard, upon which it was intended that he would surrender his regiment to Mohun, but the place went instead to William Cavendish, styled marquess of Hartington, the future 2nd duke of Devonshire. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 17 Jan. 1701[-2]. On 8 Mar. Essex was named to the conference on the death of King William and the accession of Queen Anne. In all he attended on 76 days of the session, 76 per cent of the total, and was named to 22 committees. John Macky’s assessment of Essex at about this time described him as ‘a good companion; loves the interest of his country; hath no genius for business, nor will ever apply himself that way; is a very well bred gentleman’. Macky Mems. (1733), 70. As Macky also noted, the Queen continued him in his employments.

Essex attended again on the opening day of the session of 1702-3, 20 October. On 4 Nov. he registered the proxy of St Albans. On 19 Nov. he was named to draw up an address on the votes of the Commons pertaining to William Lloyd, bishop of Worcester. On 9 Dec. Essex signed the Lords’ declaration against tacking. On 17 Dec. 1702 and 9 Jan. 1703 he was named to manage conferences on the bill to prevent occasional conformity. In about January 1703, Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, forecast him as likely to oppose the occasional conformity bill and on 16 Jan. Essex voted to adhere to the Lords’ wrecking amendment. On 19 Jan. he entered his protest against the clauses relating to grants in the bill to settle a revenue on Prince George, duke of Cumberland, should he survive the queen. Altogether, he had attended on 69 days of the session, 76 per cent of the total, and had been named to 30 committees.

The rise to power of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, had implications for Essex both in terms of his military profession, and for his lord lieutenancy of Hertfordshire, which covered St Albans, an area in which the Churchills wielded some political influence. As early as February 1703, Essex and Marlborough were in discussions as to the latter’s suggestions for additions to the deputy lieutenancy. Adam de Cardonnel^‡ wrote to Marlborough on 25 Feb.:

I delivered last night the list of the gentlemen to be added to lieutenancy of Hertford to Mr Secretary [Charles] Hedges^‡, who tells me this evening that my Lord Essex, upon his giving it to him from your grace, made some scruple at the number, and said he should speak to your grace of it at your coming to town, so that Mr Secretary thought it best to defer for a day or two telling his lordship that it was the queen’s positive commands. Add. 61395, ff. 38-39.

On 4 Mar. Hedges wrote to Essex that as Marlborough had now departed for Holland, ‘I presume you told him what you intended in regard to the persons whose names I gave you at the House of Lords to be deputy lieutenants for Hertfordshire. Pray let me know what you have decided therein that I may acquaint the queen’. CSP Dom. 1702-3, p. 612. On 9 Mar. Hedges wrote to the duke that Essex intended ‘the reasons he has to object against some of these gentlemen shall be laid before the queen, and your grace is like to have a letter from his lordship on that subject.’ Add. 61119, f. 101. Clearly, Essex was aware of the need to protect at least his nominal authority. Essex did not serve in Flanders in the 1703 campaign, Marlborough politely declining his assistance on the grounds that ‘there are those in England, who are actually major-generals already that would be very uneasy at it, besides that our campaign would be near at an end before your lordship could be with us with your equipage.’ Letters and Dispatches of Marlborough ed. Murray, i. 110. However, in August, with his regiment already bound for embarkation to Portugal, it was rumoured (falsely) that he would be serving under Meinhard Schomberg, 3rd duke of Schomberg, in that theatre of the war. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 326-7.

On 9 Nov. Essex attended the opening day of the session of 1703-4. He was present on 71 days of the session, 72.5 per cent of the total, and was named to 18 committees. He figured in both of the lists compiled by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as an opponent of an occasional conformity bill, and as predicted voted against the bill on 14 December. On 17 Dec., Essex was one of a group of peers, including Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston, Charles Montagu, Baron Halifax, St Albans and Charles Lennox, duke of Richmond, who dined with Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, presumably after the parliamentary sitting which included the Queen’s speech on a Scottish plot, and possibly in preparation for the committee on the address scheduled for the following day. C. Jones, ‘Parliamentary Organization of the Whig Junto’, PH, x. 170. On 24 Mar. 1704 Essex entered his protest against the resolution not to put the question whether the information contained in the examination of Sir J. Maclean was imperfect. On 27 Mar., Essex dined at the Queen’s Arms with Ossulston, Mohun, Richard Lumley, earl of Scarbrough, Charles Montagu, 4th earl of Manchester, Charles Fitzroy, duke of Grafton, Charles Cornwallis, 4th Baron Cornwallis, and Arthur Maynwaring^‡. TNA, C104/116, pt. 1, Ossulston diary, 27 Mar. 1704. In April Essex wrote to Marlborough pointing out his claims to be a major-general, with which Marlborough agreed, and his commission was backdated to the beginning of the year. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. i. 279-80.

On 24 Oct. Essex attended the opening of the session of 1704-5. On 27 Feb. 1705 he was named to a committee to consider the heads of a conference with the Commons regarding the Aylesbury election case, but he was not named as one of the conference managers. On 8 Mar. Essex and James Berkeley, 11th Baron Berkeley, exchanged proxies. He attended on 62 days of the session, 63 per cent of the total, and was named to a further 24 committees. After the close of the session, on an analysis of 13 Apr. 1705 relating to the succession, Essex was classed as a supporter of Hanover. Discussions between Essex and the Marlboroughs over local politics in Hertfordshire again took place in the run up to the election. In April 1705 Marlborough had informed his wife that ‘about a year ago I did endeavour to persuade my Lord Essex to model the justices of peace so as I thought was for his and the queen’s service’, but nothing had occurred. Major changes to the Hertfordshire bench had to await the appointment of William Cowper, Baron Cowper, another Hertfordshire landowner, as lord keeper. Essex must have played his hand skilfully, because he managed to remain on friendly terms with the duchess. Indeed, Sarah was particularly solicitous in pushing for his appointment as constable of the Tower in place of her local political foe, Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon. As she wrote to Ralph Montagu, duke of Montagu, on 21 May 1705:

Lord Essex being my neighbour, and having very little to do, he has done me the favour to come twice to St Alban’s; I think he has as good a heart as one can wish in any person, and I believe that helps to make his circumstances uneasy, which would be something mended by being governor of the Tower. I should think a man that is a soldier has a better title to an employment of that nature than Lord Abingdon. Ibid. 428, 440.

Halifax, on being acquainted with Sarah’s plans wrote flatteringly, ‘you could not do a more generous thing, you will oblige a man of as much honour, and as well disposed, as any in England, and show a just disdain’ for Abingdon. Add. 61458, f. 165. Sarah was prompted to act partly by the St Albans’ election, partly by Essex’s sister, the countess of Carlisle, and ‘partly because he was in want.’ However, even with Sarah’s backing Essex had to wait. He had approached Marlborough on 27 May about the post, and although Abingdon was dismissed in September 1705, no replacement was immediately forthcoming. Marlborough objected to Essex on the grounds that the current lieutenant governor, his brother, Charles Churchill^‡, was of a higher rank than Essex. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. i. 454; Add. 61458, f. 166. Eventually, Churchill was given the governorship of Guernsey, and after a suitable delay, Essex was made constable of the Tower on 29 Apr. 1707, a post worth £1,000 p.a. On 23 May 1707 Essex was commissioned to replace Abingdon as lord lieutenant of Tower Hamlets. Sainty, Lords Lieutenants, 79.

Meanwhile, Essex maintained his presence in Parliament and at court. On 23 Aug. 1705 Essex was one of the peers who accompanied the queen to the thanksgiving service at St Paul’s. Luttrell, v. Brief Relation, 585. He even had a choice of London residences, the doorkeepers of the House of Lords in the 1705-6 session recording addresses in both Whitehall and Pall Mall. Add. 22267, ff. 164-71. On 25 Oct. Essex attended the opening of the session of 1705-6. On 6 Dec. he voted that the Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration. WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60. On 7, 11 and 19 Feb. 1706 he was named to conferences on the regency bill. As he was recorded as present on 11 Mar. 1706, he was probably named to two conferences on the letter of Sir Rowland Gwynne^‡ to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford. He attended on 74 days of the session, 77 per cent of the total, and was named to 35 committees. He also attended the prorogation on 21 May.

Active military service at last beckoned for Essex in the Spanish theatre of the war. In June 1706 Essex was named as one of those to accompany the forces under the command of Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers. Add. 61131, ff. 167-8; HMC Portland, viii. 238. This expedition was originally intended to incite the Cévennes into revolt against France, but poor weather saw the forces switched to Spain where disagreements and contradictory orders caused Essex and Rivers to return to England, landing at Falmouth on 20 Apr. 1707. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 754. Essex was consequently absent from the entire 1706-7 session, nor did he attend the short session in April 1707.

On 28 Oct. 1707 Thomas Foley^‡ approached Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, on behalf of Nicholas Lechmere^†, the future Baron Lechmere, for Harley’s assistance in obtaining a letter from Essex for use in the next election at Tewkesbury, where Henry Ireton^‡ would be his competitor, noting that what passed between the earl’s grandfather and Ireton’s father ‘lays my Lord under no great obligation to him.’ HMC Portland, iv. 457. In the event, when the election took place in 1708 Lechmere was elected elsewhere and Ireton was returned for Tewkesbury. Essex first attended the 1707-8 session on 30 Oct. 1707. He attended on 79 days of the session, 73 per cent of the total and was named to 27 committees. On 5 Feb. 1708 he acted as a teller in a division on whether to put the House into committee on the bill for a Union with Scotland, and then voted that the Scottish Privy Council should be dissolved on 1 May 1708, which was the key issue of the debate. Addison Letters, 89. On 3 Apr., Arthur Maynwaring informed the duchess of Marlborough that ‘Lady Fitzhardinge says my Lord Essex’s treat will be the end of next week, and hopes your grace will keep your promise,’ noting on 6 Apr. that ‘the day of the treat won’t be fixed till your grace comes to town, only ’tis wished it may be the end of this week, or beginning of the next.’ Add. 61459, ff. 12-13, 16-19. Essex attended the prorogation on 13 Apr., and that same month he was named among those major generals to be promoted to lieutenant general, presumably backdated to 1707, the official date of his promotion. Add. 61389, ff. 77-78. On an analysis of about May 1708 of the post-Union House, Essex was unsurprisingly marked as a Whig. On 20 June Marlborough wrote to the duchess that he thought the error of leaving John Gape^‡ as a justice within St Albans lay with Essex, as lord lieutenant, in not ensuring his removal from the borough as well as the county, although it may just have been an administrative muddle. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1016; Glassey, JPs, 185.

Essex attended the opening of the session of 1708-9 on 16 November. He attended on 62 days of the session, 65 per cent of the total, being named to 19 committees. On 21 Jan. 1709, Essex voted against permitting Scottish peers with British titles to vote in the election of Scottish representative peers. On 26 Jan. he acted as a teller on the question of whether to call in counsel on this matter. On 14 Feb. he registered a proxy with Cornwallis, although he was not absent until 19 Feb. and returned again on 4 March. C. Jones, ‘Further Proxy Records’, PH, xxviii. 437. On 17 Mar. Essex dined with Ossulston and other peers, including Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset. TNA, C104/113, pt 2, Ossulston diary, 17 Mar. 1709. On the following day he acted as a teller in the committee of the whole House on whether to add a list of the statutes relating to treason to the bill improving the Union. On 28 Mar. Essex acted as a teller at the third reading of the same bill on whether to read a rider for the second time. Essex attended the prorogations on 19 May and 6 October.

Essex attended the opening of the session of 1709-10, on 15 November. He attended on 17 days of the session up to the Christmas adjournment on 23 Dec., 16.5 per cent of the total sittings in the session, and was named to three committees. On 5 Jan. 1710 it was reported that Essex was so sick of a fever that the doctors had little hope of his recovery. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs, 46, f. 206. On the day that the Lords reconvened, 9 Jan. 1710, he lay ‘dangerously ill, and little hopes of his life,’ having, according to a newsletter, ‘contracted his distemper by hard drinking of bad wine.’ Add. 72499, f. 105; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs, 46, f. 212. Essex died at the Portland lodgings in Whitehall on the evening of 10 January. He left his real estate in trust to his two executors, Carlisle and Peter Walter^‡, to pay his debts, with Walter seemingly taking on most of the burden, for it was he who received the money owing to the estate for his time as constable of the Tower. CTB, 1710, p. 511.

Essex was said to have been ‘so obliging and showed so much good nature to every body that he’s generally lamented’. His wife was said to be going with her children to her brother, Henry Bentinck, 2nd earl of Portland. Badminton muns. FMT/B 1/2/17, M. Somerset to aunt, 11 Jan. 1709/10. His death provoked a political crisis over the disposal of his posts, particularly his regiment, which the Queen gave to John Hill^‡, brother of her favourite Abigail Masham, without consulting Marlborough. Essex was buried at Watford on the 19 January. His widow married Sir Conyers Darcy^‡ in 1714. Essex’s son, William Capell, 3rd Earl of Essex, told his uncle, Carlisle, in 1718, that his own aim in political life was to be an ‘honest man’, like his father and never to be ‘a slave to any ministry’. Castle Howard, J8/1/718, Essex to Carlisle, 1 Nov. 1718.