LEVESON GOWER, John (1675-1709)

Sir John Leveson Gower was the beneficiary of the union of the old gentry Yorkshire Gower family with the former mercantile Staffordshire and Shropshire Levesons, the latter of whom commanded a powerful interest in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Wordie, 5-6; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 536. The Gowers had held land in Yorkshire since the twelfth century but had been largely content to maintain their position in society rather than seek to improve on it. The accidental coming together of the Gower and Leveson estates at the death of the Levesons’ direct heirs proved a turning point for the family. Sir John’s father, Sir William Leveson Gower, had started life as the son of a fairly modest country gentleman; by his death in 1691 he was the owner of 20,000 acres and possessed of an income in excess of £8,000 p.a. Wordie, 16-17. It was left to his son to make the final step onto the peerage ladder.

Leveson Gower was returned for his father’s seat at Newcastle under Lyme in 1692, and the same year he secured an advantageous match with Lady Katherine Manners. Negotiations between the families almost broke down when the Leveson Gowers demanded a portion of £20,000, but they eventually settled for the £15,000 proposed by the earl of Rutland. HMC Ancaster, 432. The marriage brought Leveson Gower into close contact with the influential Midlands families of Manners, Cavendish, Noel and Bertie. Leveson Gower’s own relations were no less prestigious and included the Granville earls of Bath, the Hyde earls of Clarendon and Rochester, and the Carterets.

An uncompromising Tory, Leveson Gower established his reputation in the Commons with his rejection of the proceedings against Sir John Fenwick^‡, his refusal to sign the Association and later by promoting the assault on the Whig Junto. HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 618-21. He moved the impeachment of John Somers, Baron Somers, in April 1700. The following year he was deeply involved in the impeachment of Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland. Closely associated with Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, the accession of Queen Anne improved Leveson Gower’s prospects. He was made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster in May 1702, an office that broadened his electoral influence considerably, and rumours of a peerage soon followed. CSP Dom. 1702-3, p. 487; Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 20 June 1702. Presumably referring to the imminent election at Preston in July, Gower assured Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, of his readiness ‘to perform everything on my part that either your lordship or the country can expect from me’, but although he was successful in supporting his uncle, Sir Cyril Wych^‡, he found that his interest was far from unchallenged. Add. 29588, f. 85; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 339. Gower faced problems closer to home in December when his father-in-law, Rutland, proved reluctant to admit a number of Tories to the commission of the peace in his lieutenancy. Galled by the queen’s insistence, Rutland resolved not to attend the coronation. Leveson Gower attempted to win Rutland round, emphasizing that the queen was ‘resolved not to follow the example of her predecessor in making use of a few of her subjects to oppress the rest’. He found a more potent means of persuasion by goading Rutland about his petulant behaviour, ‘Shall it be said my lord [Devonshire William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire], my lord [Carlisle Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Carlisle], and others could forget the affronts and disappointments they had met with, in their several countries, and that my lord Rutland alone would not?’ HMC Rutland, ii. 171-3; Lincs Hist. & Archaeology, vi. 86.

In March 1703 Gower’s Herculean efforts were rewarded when he was elevated to the upper House as part of a concerted effort to bolster the ranks of the Tories in the Lords. During the same month, he was closely involved with moves to promote his troublesome father-in-law, Rutland, in the peerage. HMC Rutland, ii. 174-5. Gower was not among the new peers taking their seats in the House on 22 Apr., possibly because he was incapacitated by poor health. Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D898/7/1b. He took his seat in the House on 6 Dec. 1703 introduced between his cousin, John Granville, Baron Granville, who had himself only recently been ennobled, and John West, 6th Baron De la Warr. Gower attended on 45 per cent of all sitting days in the session, during which he was named to 14 committees. In November he had been listed by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely supporter of the bill for preventing occasional conformity, and although Gower was absent from the House from 13 Dec. until the following January, a division list of 14 Dec. recorded him as having voted in favour of the bill by proxy, though the manuscript minutes do not record the use of proxies.

Gower resumed his seat in the House on 12 Jan. 1704. Two days later he entered a dissent against reversing the judgment in the case of Ashby v. White. On 3 Mar. he subscribed the dissent against the resolution to reveal the key to the ‘Gibberish letters’ only to the queen and those lords who were members of the committee examining the ‘Scotch Plot’. Nottingham included his name among those of other members of both Houses in a list which may indicate his support over the plot. On 16 Mar. he dissented again from a resolution to agree with the committee of the whole in removing R. Byerley’s name from the list of commissioners for examining public accounts and on the same day dissented once more from the resolution to replace Byerley and to name two more commissioners. Two days later, Gower reported from the committee of the whole appointed to consider the act for the better paying of annuities as fit to pass. On 21 Mar. he entered his protest at the resolution to pass the bill for raising recruits for the army and marines, and on 25 Mar. he dissented from the resolution concerning the failure to censure Robert Ferguson. The same day he dissented again from the resolution to put the question on the same matter.

Gower failed to attend the House for almost two years after 30 Mar., but he ensured that his proxy was registered for the 1704-5 session with his cousin, Granville. In spite of this apparent lack of activity, the election of May 1705 found Gower courted on several fronts by prospective candidates. At Lichfield Sir Henry Gough^‡ approached him for his interest, and it was thanks in part to Gower’s recommendation that Gough was returned unopposed. Ibid. Sutherland mss D593/P/13/4, Sir H. Gough to Gower, 31 Mar. and 16 May 1705; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 55. Matters ran less smoothly at Newcastle-under-Lyme, where the firm Anglican candidates Sir Thomas Bellot^‡ and Rowland Cotton^‡ were unseated on petition and in Gloucestershire where Gower employed his influence on behalf of John Grobham Howe^‡ and Sir Ralph Dutton^‡. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 536, iii. 948; Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D868/7/48a. In Shropshire, where the county was fairly evenly divided between the parties, Gower’s interest was sought by the Whig Sir Robert Corbet^‡. Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D593/P/13/5, Sir R. Corbet to Gower, 3 Apr. 1705. The sometime darling of the Whig party, Wriothesley Russell, 2nd duke of Bedford, professed himself ‘inclined to help those that Lord Gower approves’ for Middlesex, despite concerns that by opposing Sir John Wolstenholme^‡ he might prejudice his own interest in Bedfordshire. Ibid. Sutherland mss D868/7/2a, Bedford to Gower, 11 May 1705. In the event, Bedford ordered his agents ‘not to stir on either side’ and Wolstenholme and Scorie Barker^‡ were successful against the Tory candidates backed by Gower. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 372. With the patronage of the duchy of Lancaster at his disposal, Gower was in a much stronger position at Preston, where his candidate, Francis Annesley^‡, secured his seat with ease. Ibid. 339. James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], lord lieutentant of Lancashire, complimented Gower on recommending such a deserving man for the town. HMC 5th Rep. 188; Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D868/7/3a.

Absent once more from the opening of the new Parliament, Gower was excused at a call of the House on 12 Nov. 1705. It is not clear why he failed to sit, though disgruntlement with the Tories’ performance at the polls may be part of the reason. Wordie, 78. Reports that he was expected to be put out from the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster may also have sapped his enthusiasm. Add. 70075, newsletter, 13 Oct. 1705. Retirement from the House did not prevent him from maintaining a close interest in family business, and in December he sent his father-in-law, Rutland, a copy of a bill that had been presented to the House by Scrope Howe^‡, Viscount Howe [I]. Howe had been married to one of Rutland’s other daughters and members of the Manners family had an interest in its contents. Belvoir Castle, Letters xxi. Gower to Rutland, 11 Dec. 1705. As a result of Gower’s intervention, Howe agreed to put off the committee considering the bill and to confer with Rutland about the measure. Ibid. f. 247.

In January 1706 John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, replied to an approach made by Gower for support but found himself ‘unable to make any answer that is like to be agreeable.’ Marlborough explained that Gower could not:

but be sensible that both my lord treasurer [Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin] and myself have given sufficient proofs of our desire and inclination to serve you, and I believe I may answer for him and for myself that we were both very sorry when you and your friends thought fit to put it out of our power to continue doing so. HMC 5th Rep. 188.

Gower eventually returned to the House on 7 Feb. 1706, but he sat for a mere two days before once more absenting himself. Another lengthy absence ensued, during which time he was removed from the commission for the Union with Scotland and put out as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, as part of a broader replacement of Tories with Whigs. Cornwall RO, Antony mss CVC/Y/2/28; Wordie, 78; Post Man, 8 June 1706. Attempts to remove him from the latter post and to replace him with William Paget, 7th Baron Paget, had been made the previous year and perhaps contributed to the defeat of the reluctant Henry Fleetwood^‡ in the Preston by-election. Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D603/k/3/6, D593/P/13/10, H. Fleetwood to Gower, 18 May 1706; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 1047. His removal also elicited some confusion in the House’s business. William Cowper, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, was compelled to confirm with Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, whether Gower had indeed been put out, as he was still in the commission for proroguing Parliament and as Cowper worried, ‘it will not be proper to have him so styled under the great seal and read in the House of Lords if he be removed as is commonly said.’ Add. 70220, Cowper to Harley, 20 May 1706.

One of a number of notables to flock to Bath in the autumn of 1706, Gower was absent without explanation at a call held on 29 Jan. 1707, but he registered his proxy with Granville again on 1 February. Gower’s absence was almost certainly owing to ill health, but he was said to have ‘perfectly recovered’ by the beginning of March. HMC Portland, iv. 329; Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D868/6/25a, Granville to Gower, 23 Sept. 1707; Add. 61458, ff. 112-13. Even so, it was not until November that he returned to the House, attending on just two days on 18 and 19 Nov., after which date he failed to sit again. During that year Gower found himself at variance with Granville and other members of his family at the prospect of the forthcoming marriage of his nephew, Sir William Wyndham^‡, but in spite of Gower’s protestations the marriage proceeded the following year. Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D868/6/24b; HP Commons, 1690-1715, v. 941.

A printed list of the Parliament of Great Britain of May 1708 unsurprisingly recorded Gower as a Tory. The election for Newcastle-under-Lyme that year proved to be almost a repeat of the previous contest, with Gower complaining of ‘the villainy and roguery’ at play in the town. Once again the Tory members’ elections were overturned on petition, suggestive perhaps of Gower’s weakening influence in the area. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 537.

Gower was named one of the trustees of the agreement brokered in February 1709 between Ralph Montagu, duke of Montagu, and William Henry Granville, 3rd earl of Bath, to settle the long-disputed Albemarle inheritance. TNA, C9/193/46. He appears otherwise to have retired from public and political life, probably because of failing health. A sufferer from acute gout, Gower also appears to have been afflicted with some form of bowel disease, which eventually led to his death at his father-in-law’s house at Belvoir. The cause of his demise was variously described as being the result of ‘a suppression of urine’ and of ‘the gout in his stomach.’ Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 46, f. 105; Lincs. AO, Monson mss Mon7/12/137. Condoling with the dowager Lady Gower on her husband’s death, Baptist Noel saw some mercy in his demise, considering ‘how miserably afflicted poor Lord Gower was with the gout and what wracking tortures he endured whilst alive.’ Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D868/7/48b, B. Noel to dowager Lady Gower, n.d. In his will Gower gave direction for a private funeral ‘without show pomp escutcheons or any solemnity whatever’ and made provision for substantial sums for his surviving children comprising portions of £6,000 each for his unmarried daughters Katherine and Jane, and lump sums of £2,000 as well as annuities of £200 for his three younger sons. An inventory of Gower’s goods at Lilleshall Lodge in Shropshire valued them at £70 19s. 6d. HMC 5th Rep. 208. Gower was buried at Trentham on 10 Sept. and succeeded as 2nd Baron Gower by his eldest son, John Leveson Gower, later 1st Earl Gower, then aged just 15 years.