At the time of his succession to the peerage, Wharton’s family held extensive estates principally in Westmorland and Yorkshire. The latter included significant lead mines in Swaledale.
At least one of Wharton’s post-Reformation forebears had been Catholic (Thomas Wharton†, 2nd Baron Wharton), but the family thereafter reverted to Protestantism and the 4th Baron came to be regarded as one of the foremost Independents in Parliament. While close association with John Hampden‡, William Lenthall‡ and William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele, brought Wharton into the very centre of the parliamentary cause, his relation to prominent royalists such as his brother, Sir Thomas Wharton‡, and his Musgrave cousins provided him with a foot in both camps. Although a central figure in parliamentary politics after the Restoration and until his death mid-way through the reign of William III, Wharton’s significance as a parliamentary leader remains difficult to determine precisely. His exhaustive lists of presumed friends and his detailed recording of the minutiae of numerous matters that came before Parliament could be said to have influenced some historians into according him a standing that is not entirely deserved. But, while there are undoubtedly difficulties with some of the lists he created, Wharton clearly perceived himself to be central to certain topics that came before Parliament (particularly those concerning indulgence towards Dissenters) and that he was perceived similarly by others of undoubted influence. It is also significant that, despite his frequent opposition to three Stuart kings, he inspired affection from them all and a degree of toleration denied to many more influential figures.
Before the Restoration, 1634-1660
Wharton succeeded his grandfather in the barony when just 12 years old and, on his coming of age in 1634, he gained control of estates worth an estimated £8,000 p.a.
Wharton was appointed lord lieutenant of Lancashire in February 1642 and in June Parliament added the lieutenancy of Buckinghamshire to his responsibilities. He was also appointed as colonel-general of the ‘adventurer’s army’, which was to be raised to quell the Irish rebellion, but which was never, in the end, assembled. One of the most active peers in the House, on 30 July he was appointed colonel of a regiment of foot within the army commanded by Robert Devereux†, 3rd earl of Essex (though he was also notable for contributing the fewest horses of any peer on the parliamentary side and just £300). The conduct of Wharton’s regiment at the battle of Edgehill was far from exemplary, while he was also the subject of mocking rumours that he had hidden in a saw-pit during the affray (giving rise to his sobriquet ‘Saw-Pit Wharton’). Despite this, Wharton was one of those sent from the army to report on the battle to Parliament where his behaviour was praised.
Although Wharton’s activity in Parliament declined after 1646, his close association with Oliver Cromwell‡ meant that he retained considerable influence and his activities following the king’s defeat continued to dog him long after the Restoration. Most insidious was his ambiguous behaviour over an apparent plot to assassinate the king. Wharton had nominated one of Charles I’s attendants in his captivity at Carisbrooke Castle, Richard Osborne, who soon after became involved in one of the king’s numerous escape attempts. When the plan was discovered, Osborne fled to London and informed Wharton of a conspiracy to murder the king led by the governor of the Isle of Wight, Colonel Hammond, and Edmund Rolph.
His suspicious behaviour in the summer of 1648 notwithstanding, Wharton appears genuinely to have parted company with the army by the time of Pride’s Purge. He sat for the last time on 7 Dec. and on 28 Dec., in response to an order to attend, pleaded ‘urgent occasions’ for his failure to comply. He refused to participate in the king’s subsequent trial and, in spite of the earnest attempts made by Cromwell to bring him into the administration between 1649 and 1651 he remained in effective retirement for the remainder of the Interregnum. He also rebuffed an effort made by Cromwell to ally their families with the marriage of his son, Henry Cromwell‡, to Wharton’s daughter, Elizabeth. He was later persuaded by Saye and Sele to reject Cromwell’s offer of a place in the Other House.
Head of the Presbyterian Cabal?
Although by the time of the Restoration Wharton had been removed from direct involvement in public affairs for more than a decade, he was early on identified as a prominent figure among those seeking a solution to the country’s difficulties. Sir Edward Hyde, later earl of Clarendon, directed one of his agents, Colonel Hollis, to ‘comply with L.W.’ (possibly meaning Wharton) ‘in all things’ as early as August 1659.
Wharton returned to London in February 1660, according to his own account (penned after the Restoration), ‘with full resolution to endeavour a happy settlement’.
While Mordaunt’s information may have questioned it, the perception that Wharton was the ‘head of the junto’ has been reinforced by his composition of a list of the newly returned members of the House of Commons. Of the entire list of 526 names, more than half (276) were annotated with a variety of symbols, indicating their relative trustworthiness on a range of issues, while 121 were assigned to 23 ‘managers’ (including Wharton himself), over whom he, presumably, expected to be able to exert his influence to a greater or lesser degree in the Convention.
It is certainly unwise to dismiss Wharton’s list as little more than an inaccurate wish list. There was clearly purpose in the compilation, for while Thomas Crew‡, returned for Brackley, was included, his father, John Crew, later Baron Crew, also a staunch Presbyterian who sat for the same borough, was not. Although George Pitt‡ was a cavalier, he appears to have had Presbyterian and Independent sympathies, which presumably explains his inclusion. The list also illustrates the fluid situation of the spring of 1660.
For the Lords, Wharton compiled a separate list, noting down the previous allegiances of each peer. As with the Commons list, this record presents some difficulties, particularly among those peers who Wharton evidently did not know well. George Berkeley, 9th Baron (later earl of) Berkeley, was listed as ‘Lord Bartlett’, while William Sandys, 6th Baron Sandys, who had inherited the peerage from his grandmother, was inaccurately listed as a peer whose father had sat. The same error was made in the case of Thomas Windsor, 7th Baron Windsor (later earl of Plymouth), though he was marked with a query. Wharton noted himself as one of those peers ‘who sat’.
The Convention Parliament 1660-1
Wharton took his seat in the House at the opening of the Convention on 25 Apr. 1660. As an indication of how raw memories of the 1640s remained for men of his stamp, when Wharton passed the bench formerly occupied by Laud, it was said his ‘blood did rise to see where that accursed man did sit.’
In spite of his apparent poor health, which may well have been used as a ploy, Wharton remained an active participant in the House’s business. The same day that he was granted leave for his health, he acted as the manager of a conference considering ‘ways and means to make up the breaches and distractions of the kingdom’. He was present again the following day (2 May) when he was named to the committee for settling the militia and on 9 May, when he was named to the committee concerning the commissioners to be sent to the king. The following day (10 May) he was named with Saye and Sele, Theophilus Clinton, 4th earl of Lincoln, and Basil Feilding, 2nd earl of Denbigh, to make some amendments to the commissioners’ instructions in reference to the arms of the Commonwealth. He reported the proposed amendments the same day, which were agreed to by the House. Added to the committee for petitions on 16 May, on 22 May he was absent from the attendance list but named to the committee considering an answer to be returned to the Commons concerning a free conference over the fate of Charles I’s judges. He was also restored to the office of custos rotulorum for Buckinghamshire and Westmorland.
Despite his sober, puritan upbringing, Wharton was more than ready to indulge in fine clothes and to enjoy the pleasures of dancing and court masques.
Wharton’s apparent pleasure at the restoration of the monarchy failed to curb rumours that continued to circulate over the following two months that moves were afoot to have him excepted out of the bill of indemnity.
Despite his pardon, the spectre of Osborne’s information against him may explain the decline in Wharton’s activities in the House in July and August, during which time he was named to just six committees, but his involvement increased once more in September. On 3 Sept. he was added to the committee for the bill concerning patents and grants obtained during the troubles and three days later he reported from that concerning Augustine Skynner. On 10 Sept. he reported from the committee for the bill for restoring ministers in livings, amendments to which were passed. The same day, during the afternoon session, he was named one of the reporters of a conference with the Commons concerning amendments to the bill for ministers and the following day (11 Sept.) he continued to be heavily involved in the measure, being named to the committee appointed to make further amendments to the bill, and reporting from the conference held with the Commons, as a result of which the proposed proviso was agreed to, generating protests from four peers. Wharton was then named once more to be a reporter of a further conference with the Commons on the same business.
Wharton returned to the House for the second part of the Convention on 6 Nov. and was again present for approximately three quarters of all sitting days, during which he was named to 10 committees.
Wharton’s interest in the Commons declined substantially as a result of the elections for the Cavalier Parliament.
Cavalier Parliament 1661-67
Wharton took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 8 May 1661. On 11 May he was named to the standing committees for petitions, privileges and the journal. Three days later (14 May) he was named to that considering the bill for reversing Strafford’s attainder and to a further 17 committees over the course of the session, during which he attended on almost 78 per cent of all sitting days.
Although Wharton resumed his seat following the adjournment on 21 Nov. he was named to no further committees until 24 Jan. 1662, when he was included on that considering the bill for repealing acts of the Long Parliament. Reflecting his close interest in the religious settlement, on 8 Apr. he was named to the committee nominated to draw up a proviso for members of the clergy deprived by the provisions of the uniformity bill and on 30 Apr. he was named to the committee considering the bill for restoring advowsons taken away upon compositions. On 12 May Wharton chaired the committee for stoppages on common highways, from which he reported back on 14 May.
In December one of Wharton’s servants, Walter Jones, formerly a servant to one of Cromwell’s kinsmen, was arrested as a result of information provided by Sir John Denham‡. Jones was questioned by Sir Henry Bennet, later earl of Arlington, but was freed shortly after at Wharton’s request.
Whatever Wharton’s precise motivation in attacking Clarendon, his role in the affair is again both enhanced and complicated by his composition of a list, which probably represents his assessment of how he expected the peers to act on the question of the impeachment. According to his forecast (which is open to interpretation), 43 or 44 peers holding 15 proxies were expected to support Bristol, while only 24 or 26 (and their three or eight proxies) were expected to hold firm for Clarendon. Fourteen or 15 were believed to be uncommitted. John Granville, earl of Bath, appeared twice, noted as being both in favour of Bristol’s attempt and opposed to it. William Grey, Baron Grey of Warke, was listed both as opposed to Bristol and uncertain. Only five prelates appear on the sheet, though it is clear that Wharton expected all of the 17 bishops present to back Clarendon.
In the wake of Bristol’s failed attempt, Wharton remained active in the House. He opposed the passage of the conventicle bill in July and condemned the fact that ‘the exorbitant power given to a single justice of the peace or town officer [is] greater than the judges and all the justices of peace together now have or ever had.’
let Sir [Philip Musgrave] know that if there be jealousies concerning Ric[hard] Waller, I will not keep [him] in my service. My private opinion of him is that he is a very harmless fellow, and upon my knowledge he had… occasion of his repairing into Westmorland when he did (since my return out of the north) for the supplying himself with monies for paying of debts he is run into, but I say notwithstanding this or what ever I think of him I shall readily quit him, though I judge him to be so helpless a young man that I doubt much he will not know how to dispose of himself when he is gone from me.
Carte 81, f. 191.
The man in question may have been the same sought out by Arlington at the beginning of December, who appears already to have been arrested and released (at Wharton’s intercession) the previous year. As far as his own conduct was concerned (which was certainly open to suspicion), Wharton was again able to rely upon his brother to counter any accusations of involvement with the plotters. On 18 Jan. 1664, Sir Thomas wrote to Wharton advising that he speak ‘with the king and good men in this, because I perceive by reports spread… that some people are busy to blast your good name’. Wharton was assisted by the speed with which information against him degenerated into claim and counter-claim among those taken up. One, Walters, swore that another conspirator, Denham, had proposed that Wharton should be their general, but that when ‘he had sent to let my lord know that the eyes of some were upon him’ he ‘found that he was not to be dealt with.’
Poor health and concentration on clearing his name may explain a substantial decline in Wharton’s activity in the House over the following three sessions. He took his seat in the third session of the Cavalier Parliament on 29 Mar. 1664, but was then absent for almost three weeks. Excused at a call of the House on 4 Apr. (he was reported to have been ‘very ill of an ague’ that month) he resumed his place on 18 Apr., after which he attended on 55 per cent of all sitting days.
Wharton was absent from the opening of the following session that met at Oxford on 9 Oct. 1665, but he took his seat two days later and then proceeded to attend nine days of the brief 19-day session. Named to the committee considering the additional bill to prevent the plague on 26 Oct., the following day he was named to the committee concerning a bill in which he was closely interested: that for restraining nonconformists from residing within corporations. On 30 Oct. he was prominent among those who spoke in opposition to this, the five-mile bill, but their demand to have the bill recommitted was defeated through York’s interest.
Wharton was one of only two peers (the other being Anthony Ashley Cooper Baron Ashley) to find Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley and 6th Baron Monteagle, guilty of murder at his trial in April 1666.
From Clarendon’s fall to Exclusion, 1667-1678
Wharton’s uncertain health intervened again later in the year and he was absent from the initial six months of the ensuing session. On 29 Oct. he was excused at a call on account of poor health and he was excused once more on 17 Feb. 1668. His ill health may explain his failure to support those attempting once more to achieve Clarendon’s impeachment. It may be that his neutrality was more deliberate and linked to hopes to obtain Clarendon’s assistance to achieve comprehension.
Poor health certainly does not appear to have prevented Wharton from pursuing his own business. In May 1668 he appears to have been working closely with Andrew Marvell over the composition of an address to the crown desiring intervention to bring about better relations between Protestants, though nothing came of it.
The anticipated resignation (or likely imminent death) of Sir Edward Atkyns, baron of the exchequer, at the close of 1668 was the occasion of Wharton seeking to propose William Ellys‡, one of those he had included on his list of 1660, for preferment. He approached John Wilkins, bishop of Chester, on Ellys’s behalf asking that Wilkins might use his interest with the lord keeper, Heneage Finch, Baron Finch (later earl of Nottingham), to procure him the vacant place but on 1 Jan. 1669 Wilkins replied advising Wharton that the place had already been promised to someone else.
Following four years of poor health, Wharton’s attendance improved steadily for the remaining sessions of the parliament. He took his seat at the opening of the new session on 19 Oct. 1669 when he was named to the standing committees for privileges, petitions and the journal. Absent without explanation at a call of the House on 26 Oct., he resumed his seat four days later and was, thereafter, present without major interruption for the remainder of the session (a little under 70 per cent of the whole). Despite this, he was named to only one committee when on 9 Nov. he was added to that considering the report from the commissioners for accounts. Wharton was again present at the opening of the ensuing session on 14 Feb. 1670, after which he was present for approximately 67 per cent of all sitting days. Named again to all three standing committees, he was named to a further 19 committees in the course of the session.
During the summer adjournment Wharton was again perceived to be to the fore among those seeking a general toleration.
Wharton returned to the House on 4 Feb. 1673 at the opening of the session that followed the lengthy prorogation that had lasted from April 1671 to February 1673 (interrupted only by his attendance at two sittings on 16 Apr. and 30 Oct. 1672). He was thereafter present for approximately two thirds of all sitting days. Named to the standing committees for privileges and petitions on 4 Feb., on 13 Feb. he was excused at a call of the House, but he resumed his seat again on 25 Feb., and was named to three committees during the remainder of the session.
During the summer of 1673 Wharton’s attentions were taken up with attempting to secure a match for his heir, Thomas Wharton (later marquess of Wharton). In doing so he was aided by the assistance of his Buckinghamshire neighbour, Sir Ralph Verney‡ (who was credited with ‘making’ the match) and the Dissenting minister, William Denton.
Wharton returned to the House at the opening of the session of October, but attended just one of its four days. He took his seat in the ensuing session on 7 Jan. 1674, after which he was present on almost 90 per cent of all sitting days but was named to just two committees.
Wharton returned to the House at the opening of the ensuing session and was thereafter present on each day of the session. On 8 Nov. he was named to the committee established to discover the identity of the publisher of A Letter from a Person of Quality (in which he featured, being described as ‘an old and expert Parliament man of eminent piety and abilities’), and to a further five committees during the brief 21-day session.
During the summer of 1676 Wharton was once more noted as one of the notables frequenting Thomas Manton’s meeting house in Covent Garden.
Wharton took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session on 15 Feb. 1677. Although one of the principal supporters of Shaftesbury and Buckingham in their contention that Parliament was dissolved by the 15-month prorogation, Wharton’s own argument differed significantly from that of his associates.
What Cooper designs Sawpit dares not oppose,
And George leads soft Cecil about by the nose,
The first is a statesman, The second his tool,
The third a d[amned] Atheist, The fourth is a fool.HMC Le Fleming, 143.
Wharton’s experience appears to have persuaded him to detach himself from Shaftesbury and his co-internees. While the other three initially submitted joint petitions, in his efforts to gain his release Wharton appears always to have acted unilaterally. After two months’ confinement in the Tower, ‘deeply sensible of the displeasure he is under,’ he petitioned the House that he might be set at liberty, ‘in regard of his bodily infirmities and the affairs of his family.’
You will easily suppose I desire a total release and I am not out of hopes of it. You know of how great an import it would be to me to have a good word from my lord keeper therein, and I cannot bethink myself of any who I believe would be so ready to do me that kindness as yourself.
Verney ms mic. M636/30, Wharton to Sir Ralph Verney, 5 May 1677.
Despite these efforts, Wharton was recommitted to the Tower on 21 May according to the terms of his parole.
In a letter of 7 Aug. 1677 Andrew Marvell recounted Wharton’s subsequent and remarkably jocular interview with the king. The latter, it was said:
jested with him and said he would teach him a text of scripture; ‘It will be very acceptable from your Majesty’. ‘Sin no more’. ‘Your Majesty has that from my quotation of it to my Lord Arlington when he had been before the House of Commons.’ ‘Well my lord you and I are both old men, and we should love quietness.’ ‘Beside all other obligations I have reason to desire it having some £1500 a year to lose.’ ‘Ay my lord but you have an aching tooth still.’ ‘No indeed, mine are all fallen out.’
HMC Portland, iii. 355; Marvell, ed. Legouis, ii. 354-5.
As his self-deprecating remark about the decay of his teeth suggested, Wharton’s incarceration appears to have taken its toll on his already uncertain health. In September it was even put about that he had died at his home in Buckinghamshire.
On 7 Feb. 1678, almost exactly a year after he had first been imprisoned, Wharton returned to his seat in the House. In advance of his return efforts appear to have been made to incarcerate him, Salisbury and Buckingham again when the lord chancellor complained ‘of their being released out of the Tower without making satisfaction to the House’. Finch was not permitted to finish his accusation. Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Berkshire, interrupted him to inform the House that ‘to his knowledge one of them was ready to give all satisfaction’ and he also revealed that he was in possession of a petition from Buckingham.
Wharton took his seat at the opening of the new session on 23 May 1678, following the brief 10-day prorogation. In the course of the session, of which he attended approximately 86 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to the standing committees and to a further 13 committees.
Early in December Wharton was again the subject of controversy within the House. On 2 Dec. it was questioned whether or not he had taken the oaths correctly, after it was noted that he had failed to kiss the Bible. Wharton argued in his defence that it was ‘idolatry to kiss the book’, which invited a rejoinder from his erstwhile associate, Shaftesbury, that, ‘he hoped kissing was no idolatry for then they must forbear kissing their wives’.
In the midst of his vigorous efforts to curb the freedoms of the Catholic population, Wharton still found time to indulge his passion for art-collecting. On 10 Dec. 1678 he wrote to Peter Lely to confirm receipt of a painting of Ormond in garter robes. He complimented both artist and sitter in his praise of the work, ‘it being so excellent a piece of so excellent a person.’
Following the dissolution, Wharton was active in the elections in Buckinghamshire and Wiltshire. He corresponded extensively with his son, Thomas, eager to discover where he intended standing and promising to do all he could ‘with all the lawyers and attorneys in town’ to engage agents to further their electioneering efforts.
I have advised about preventing the election being at Buckingham, but cannot find any way to do it but by dealing with the under-sheriff who is now at Aylesbury and will be to the middle of the week. It may be 20 guineas may prevail with him if it be rightly managed. Or less.
Carte 79, f. 173.
Leaving no stone unturned, Wharton prevailed on the duke of Buckingham to be present in person at Aylesbury on the day of the election and he also advised Thomas Wharton to send to another associate, John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, for his interest. Thomas Wharton was duly returned with Hampden’s son, John Hampden‡.
Exclusion and the reign of James II 1679-1688
Wharton took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Mar. 1679 and attended on each of the initial six days of the abandoned first session. On 11 Mar. he was named to the standing committees and the committee to receive information concerning the plot. He resumed his seat on 15 Mar., the effective opening of the new Parliament, and attended every day but one of the second session. On 17 Mar. was again named to the committees to which he had been nominated six days previously. In advance of the session he had been assessed by Danby as a likely opponent in two forecasts, though in a third (of 2 Mar.) he was noted merely as an ‘unreliable’ opponent.
It was perhaps in connection with his interest in assessing the strength of both sides that on 16 Apr. Wharton again compiled a list of those peers who had registered proxies, including his own possession of that of Saye and Sele.
Wharton was named to a further six committees during the remainder of the session.
Thomas Wharton was returned for Buckinghamshire again in the second election of 1679 on the opposition interest, but Wharton appears to have achieved some degree of rapprochement with the king following the dissolution. He also appears to have adopted a more cautious approach following his unwelcome five months in the Tower. While assuring those petitioning for a new Parliament at the close of the year that ‘his heart was with them,’ he followed Anglesey’s advice and avoided putting his name to any such request.
Wharton took his seat four days into the new Parliament (the second Exclusion Parliament) on 25 Oct. 1680, when he was added to the committee for receiving information for the discovery of the plot. Present on approximately 73 per cent of all sitting days, Wharton was named to a further eight committees in the course of the session and on 15 Nov. he voted against rejecting the exclusion bill at its first reading.
Wharton’s association with Shaftesbury appears to have declined by the time of the meeting of the Parliament at Oxford in March 1681. When Wharton’s servant, Thomas Gilbert, purposely arranged Wharton’s accommodation so that he and Shaftesbury could be in close proximity, Wharton rejected the proffered lodgings.
The ensuing ‘Tory reaction’ in no way cowed Wharton, by then aged almost 70, into quiescence and he continued to be associated with radical opposition to the court and with championing dissent. In 1681 the grievances of certain Protestant Dissenters in Kendal were addressed to Wharton and in September 1683 rumours circulated of his being implicated with Robert Ferguson.
Wharton took his seat in the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685 but attended on just 10 days (approximately 23 per cent of all sitting days) before retiring from the remainder of the session. On 17 June he registered his proxy with William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, and on 7 Aug. he was granted a passport to travel overseas for his health.
Final years, 1685-96
Wharton’s journey overseas was not quite voluntary exile but, accompanied by the Dissenting minister John Howe, his decision to leave the country may have been a reaction to James’s pro-Catholic policies.
A certain English lord, named Wharton, has requested leave to make some stay in the district of Cleves and has shown various passports in token of his not being under the displeasure of his own sovereign. It is the elector’s pleasure that Lord Wharton should be protected against any act of violence or injustice; but should also be kept under watchful observation. Should any demand be made by the king of England for his expulsion his continuance within the elector’s dominions will be undesirable.
Carte 81, f. 733.
There seems no reason to believe that Wharton’s activities on the continent were in any way suspicious but he clearly felt the necessity of explaining his actions to his hosts. From his retreat, on 18 Oct. Wharton penned a brief autobiographical memoir, addressed to von Spaen. No doubt eager to represent his former actions in the best possible light and perhaps mellowed by age, Wharton set out how ‘the three kings I have mentioned, from the first to the last, openly showed me all tokens of goodwill despite my constant opposition to the counsels prevailing, especially with the late and the present king’.
Denton’s caution was well-founded. Nothing in Wharton’s actions after his return suggested that he intended to be involved with facilitating the kind of toleration desired by the king. At an audience he indulged in some badinage with James about the benefits of attending one of the Jesuit colleges he had met with on his travels but the drift of the conversation was dominated by the king’s suspicious enquiries as to why Howe had remained in the Low Countries.
In November Wharton rallied to the support of William of Orange (his son Thomas was one of the first to arrive in the prince’s camp). Noted as joining with Devonshire in presenting 20 Dissenting ministers to the prince in November, on 11 Dec. Wharton joined the peers assembled at the Guildhall.
That he had in several times signed several declarations, but he never found any signify much; had forgot many he had signed; and perhaps the words of this may not be agreeable to all men; and that, therefore, their lordships may consider of something that all may agree to, which their lordships may sign to prevent a division.
Kingdom without a King, 151.
Wharton’s attitude to the former king and his family was far more uncompromising. When it was suggested during the debates of 24 Dec. that the prince of Wales’s rights should be considered, Wharton was quick to point out that ‘the prince of Wales, as well as the king is gone’ and when Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon moved that the House might inquire into the events surrounding James Francis Edward’s birth, Wharton responded angrily, ‘My Lords, I did not expect, at this time of day, to hear any body mention that child, who was called the prince of Wales. Indeed I did not; and I hope we shall hear no more of him.’
Wharton took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he attended on approximately three-quarters of all sitting days in the first session. He took a prominent role in the debates on the settlement of the administration, warmly defending the de facto government of the new king, and was named to some 29 committees.
Wharton’s commitment to achieving liberties for protestant non-conformists remained constant after the Revolution. In January and again in March 1689 he was one of those to present representatives of the nonconformist clergy to the prince. He also drew up a memorandum ‘to be discoursed with Mr Hampden’ detailing ways in which such a settlement might be accomplished.
In spite of their vigorous disagreement in the House at the close of 1688, Wharton appears to have remained on amicable terms with Clarendon following the latter’s retirement from the Lords. In return Clarendon expressed ‘an extraordinary kindness and value for’ Wharton and noted Wharton’s efforts to assist him over his unwillingness to take the oaths.
Wharton’s interest in Cockermouth came under assault again during the general election, from both the local Tory magnate, Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, and Sir Wilfred Lawson‡, who had previously acted as one of Wharton’s managers in the Commons.
Wharton returned to the House for the new Parliament on 21 Mar. 1690 but was then absent for the following 10 days. He resumed his seat on 31 Mar. after which he was present on approximately 72 per cent of all sitting days in the session. Named to just one committee, on 2 May he contributed a brief interjection to the debate at the second reading of the abjuration bill, pressing for information to be heard before any resolutions were taken, and on 13 May he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to allow the Corporation of London more time to be heard by their counsel.
The (long-expected) death of Lady Wharton in August 1692 may perhaps explain Wharton’s absence from the opening of the following session of November.
A year after the death of his third wife, Wharton appears to have contemplated marrying again. The initial object of his interest seems to have been a Welsh heiress and on her death rumours circulated that he had redirected his attentions almost at once to the widow Ludlow, ‘who he took for her hair’.