FITZROY, Charles (1683-1757)

A Whig in politics, Grafton sported a rather gruff persona, which accorded well with his principal passion as a committed fox hunter and student of horseflesh. Corresp. of the Dukes of Richmond and Newcastle 1724-50 ed. T.J. McCann, (Sussex Rec. Soc. lxxiii), 23. Macky thought him ‘a very pretty gentleman … zealous for the constitution of his country.’ But Swift annotated the entry with, ‘almost a slobberer, without one good quality’. It seems clear that there was more to Grafton than Swift implied. This was certainly the opinion of the nineteenth-century commentator, William Drogo Montagu^†, 7th duke of Manchester, who thought Grafton ‘shrewd, witty, and only seemingly simple’. Duke of Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 334. Grafton’s commitment to the thrill of the chase, combined perhaps with his rather coarse manner and stout frame, in time gained him the sobriquet, ‘Old Puff’. Richmond Newcastle Corresp. 209, 237.

Unlike most of Charles II’s illegitimate sons, Grafton’s father, the first duke, had been established with a considerable estate. This included the right to the reversion of the manor of Grafton in Northamptonshire and grants out of the excise and post office as well as the succession to the property of his father-in-law, Arlington, in Suffolk and Norfolk. CTB, 1689-92, pp. 3, 999; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 46, f. 139. Following the first duke’s early death at the siege of Cork, this substantial inheritance descended to his only son, who therefore succeeded to an estate worth nominally (by the 1750s) £18,000 a year. VCH Northants. v. 18-37. At least one part of the duke’s inheritance was, however, the subject of legal dispute. On 24 Nov. 1693 his mother and guardians petitioned the House for a writ of error as part of their efforts to secure his right to the office of protonotary of the court of king’s bench, formerly held by Sir Robert Henley, but which they considered had been appropriated by lord chief justice Holt, and was now challenged in the case Bridgeman v. Holt. The dowager duchess, it was reported, ‘solicits hard for her son’, but on 22 Dec., following a series of debates in the House, she and her fellow trustee, William Bridgeman^‡, requested leave to withdraw their petition. Verney ms mic. M636/47, John Verney to William Coleman, 6 Dec. 1693. Although this was granted, George Savile, marquess of Halifax, lodged his dissent and 11 other peers subscribed a protest against the resolution, angry that no order had been given for further information to be presented about the conduct of the judges in the case. Towards the end of the following reign, Grafton was again compelled to petition the House for a place he believed to be his, when he appealed to the queen to be recognized as housekeeper of St James’s Palace. Add. 70312, Grafton memorial, n.d. [aft. 17 July 1712]. A further complication for the duke in attempting to secure his position was that, until he attained his majority, stewardship of the Euston estates was controlled by his stepfather and political opposite, Sir Thomas Hanmer^‡. Also it was not until the death of Queen Catharine of Braganza in 1705 that he was able to assume full control of the manor of Grafton. VCH Northants. v. 18-37.

Early on singled out for advancement at court, Grafton was appointed master of the horse to Princess (later Queen) Anne’s son, William, duke of Gloucester, in 1698. At the close of that year he was packed off on a foreign tour. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 360, 465; Add. 75376, ff. 90-91. He had returned by the autumn of 1701 when it was mentioned that he was expected at Windsor in company with Mrs. Ramsey, his ‘inseparable’ companion. Add. 61455, f. 75. Over the following few years Grafton acquired a reputation as something of a lothario, his conquests said to have included Mary, duchess of Montagu (wife of the 2nd duke). Wentworth Pprs. 197. Conscious of the need to rationalize his estates, in 1702, in company with his guardians, Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin, Sir Stephen Fox^‡, and his mother, Grafton petitioned for a privy seal to permit him to suffer a common recovery of his lands in Middlesex centred on Arlington House, to enable him to sell them and purchase in their stead the manor of Grafton (then in the possession of the queen dowager). Although Grafton’s petition was successful and John Sheffield, marquess of Normanby (later duke of Buckingham), was willing to purchase Arlington House for £13,000, the scheme foundered on the unwillingness of Queen Catharine to relinquish her ownership of Grafton. CSP Dom. 1702-3, pp. 414, 487; VCH Northants. v. 18-37.

Grafton’s concern to secure his inheritance may have been connected with a scheme on foot towards the close of that summer for his marriage to one of the daughters of Colonel Godfrey, brother-in-law to John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, but in the event nothing came of the match. The following spring (March 1703) Grafton was granted a pass to travel overseas to join Marlborough as a volunteer at the siege of Bonn and was commissioned as a captain of horse for the campaign. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 212, 291; CSP Dom. 1703-4, pp. 334-6; Add. 70075, newsletter, 15 Apr. 1703. Military life seems not to have appealed, though, and he arrived back in England in mid October. Marlborough Godolphin Corresp. 248; Post Man, 12-14 Oct. 1703. Two months later he was granted a commission to raise a new regiment of dragoons but Marlborough commented dismissively soon after that, as the young duke had given orders to sell his equipage, he did not expect him to return for the next campaigning season. Even so, Grafton still attempted to make use of his interest to recommend one Robert Crow for a lieutenancy among the new recruits. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 372; Add. 61285, f. 163.

Grafton joined parties of Whig peers dining at the Queen’s Arms in Pall Mall on two occasions in March 1704. TNA, C104/116, pt. 1. He took his seat in the House later that year at the earliest possible moment: a day into the new session on his twenty-first birthday. He was then present on 52 per cent of all sitting days. Estimated a supporter of the Hanoverian succession in April 1705, the same month he was appointed to the lieutenancy of Suffolk to help bolster the Whig presence in the county. News of Grafton’s likely appointment had been in circulation since before February. It caused dismay among the local Tories, who feared that he would be able to use his interest to swamp them. W. Suss. RO, Winterton mss Ac. 454 ser. nos. 1044, 1062. Despite this, at the general election it was the Tory candidates, Sir Robert Davers^‡ and Lionel Tollemache^‡, earl of Dysart [S] (the former lieutenant), who were returned for the county, in spite of the strenuous efforts of Grafton and other local peers, Charles Cornwallis, 4th Baron Cornwallis, and John Hervey, Baron Hervey (later earl of Bristol), on behalf of the Whigs. Grafton had accompanied them to the poll accompanied by an entourage that according to one (Whig) source stretched for over a mile down the road. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 3, folder 163; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 544.

Grafton took his seat just over a fortnight after the opening of the new Parliament on 12 Nov. 1705, after which he was present on over 56 per cent of all sitting days. The following month he divided with the majority in concluding the Church to be in no danger. WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60. In October 1706, in his capacity as lord lieutenant of Suffolk, he introduced members of the corporation of Sudbury to the queen on presentation of their address. London Gazette, 10-14 Oct. 1706. He returned to the House at the outset of the following session on 3 Dec. but his level of attendance declined to 41 per cent of all sitting days. In February 1707 he divided with those favouring an early abolition of the Scots Privy Council. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, vol. 13, no. xvii. The following month, on 27 Mar., he reported from the conference concerning the Fornhill and Stony Stratford highway bill, business in which he perhaps had some local interest. Following the session’s close, he attended just one day of the brief April session before taking his seat at the opening of the first Parliament of Great Britain on 23 Oct., of which he attended approximately 56 per cent of all sitting days. In May 1708 he was listed as a court Whig. The same month he lent his support to the Whig candidates at Thetford, Thomas de Grey^‡ and Robert Baylis^‡, in opposition to his stepfather, Hanmer, and in spite of efforts made by the latter to arrive at an accommodation whereby the representation was shared between the two interests. Hervey Letter Bks. i. 234. On this occasion, Grafton’s influence proved the more potent but only after Baylis had expended about £3,000 wooing the voters. Hanmer was successful in securing his own return for Suffolk in partnership with Davers in the face of his stepson’s continuing hostility. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 425, 544.

Coinciding with his efforts in the 1708 elections, Grafton was said once more to be contemplating matrimony. The latest target of his interest was said to be a nonconformist called Mrs. Knight, worth £70,000. A report of April had noted that he was ‘very assiduous’ about her even to the extent of attending Nonconformist meetings on Sunday afternoons. Although his wooing failed to have the desired effect, his interest in ‘Widow Knight’ seems not to have diminished and a number of years later he was again thought to be on the point of marrying her. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, vol. 13, no. lxiv; Add. 75358, [countess of Burlington], to Burlington, 2 Nov. 1734.

Grafton was employed on a minor diplomatic assignment in September when he was sent to convey the queen’s compliments to the queen of Portugal on her arrival at Portsmouth. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 355. He also attempted to employ his interest with Marlborough on behalf of Colonel Honeywood. Add. 61459, ff. 107-9. Grafton took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708 (of which he attended about half of all sitting days), and in January 1709 he voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles from voting in the election for Scots representative peers. Following the close of the session he was present at a ‘great feast’ attended by Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax, and other Whig peers. Ibid. ff. 168-9. He took his seat in the ensuing session on 15 Nov. 1709 and in March of the following year (unsurprisingly) found Henry Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.

Grafton supported the candidacy of Sir Philip Parker^‡ for Suffolk in the 1710 elections, though both seats were again carried by Tory candidates (one of them being Hanmer). With neither of the sitting members prepared to stand again at Thetford he appears to have resolved not to involve himself there after the expenses incurred in the previous contest. Add. 70056, Sir Philip Parker to John ?19 Aug. 1710; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 425, 544. Grafton took his seat in the new session on 25 Nov. 1710 after which he was present on approximately 47 per cent of all sitting days. In advance of the session he had been reckoned an opponent by Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford. This did not prevent him from offering Harley ‘such assurances of his friendship as becomes his character’ in May 1711 after Harley had indicated his willingness to support his pretensions to the office of ranger of Whittlewood forest, which lay close to his Grafton estates. Add. 70199, A. Hammond to Harley, 5 May 1711. Besides this, Grafton remained closely aligned with those opposed to Harley’s ministry. On 9 Apr. 1711 he received the proxy of his former guardian, Godolphin, which was vacated by Godolphin’s return to the House on 9 May. The following month he also received the proxies of Henry Clinton, 7th earl of Lincoln on 17 May (vacated on 26 May) and Lionel Sackville, 7th earl (later duke) of Dorset on 19 May (vacated on 30 May).

Grafton came under assault from the Northamptonshire Tory members in August over his proposed appointment as chief ranger of Whittlewood forest. In a letter to Oxford (as Harley had since become) Sir Justinian Isham^‡ and Thomas Cartwright^‡ pointed out the undesirability of the appointment given the duke’s interest in the forest already and the influence he would be able to bring to bear on the elections in both the county and in the neighbouring corporations of Buckingham and Brackley. HMC Portland, v. 75. In spite of their concerns, Oxford bowed to pressure to allow Grafton the place the following year. Listed as a peer to be canvassed over the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion in December, Grafton took his seat in the House on 7 Dec. 1711 and the following day was listed among those in favour of presenting the abortive address containing it. Forecast as being opposed to permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], from taking his seat in the House as duke of Brandon on 19 Dec., the following day he voted against admitting Scots peers at the time of the Union from sitting by virtue of post-Union British titles.

Grafton treated Prince Eugene of Savoy to a sumptuous entertainment at his London residence early in January 1712. British Mercury, 9-11 Jan. 1712. The following month, on 14 Feb., Grafton registered his proxy with his Suffolk neighbour, Cornwallis. He registered the proxy again on 7 Mar., though it is unclear why he did so, as he appears to have been absent from the House without interruption between 13 Feb. and his return on 13 March. The following month there were further rumours that he was to marry imminently but once again the match failed to transpire. It was not until the following year that he finally put such speculation to sleep with his marriage to Lady Henrietta Somerset. Wentworth Pprs. 284.

Grafton was one of a dozen or so young lords who were noted to have abandoned the opposition at the beginning of June 1712 over the Whig-sponsored motion to amend the vote of thanks to the queen following her speech laying out the terms of the peace. Among those deserting with him were Dorset and Cornwallis. Grafton’s association with the latter continued on 13 June when Cornwallis registered his proxy with the duke, which was vacated by the close of the session. Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss 17, f. 329.

Grafton attended the House on five of the prorogation days between the close of the second session and opening of the third in April 1713. In advance of the new session he was listed by Jonathan Swift as a likely opponent of the ministry and on 9 Apr. he voted with the minority over the proposed amendment to the address in reply to the queen’s speech. Add. 72500, ff. 153-4; BLJ, xix. 164-5. In June he was estimated by Oxford as being opposed to ratification of the eighth and ninth articles of the French commerce treaty. His absence from the House during the debate on the malt tax was blamed (along with the absence of a handful of other Whig lords) by the Scots peers for failing to halt the passage of that measure. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 159-60.

Grafton took his seat in the new session on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on over 70 per cent of all sitting days. He covered his absence from the House between 11 and 31 Mar. by registering his proxy with Cornwallis on 13 March. Cornwallis then registered his own proxy with Grafton on 27 Mar. (before Grafton had resumed his seat), which was in turn vacated by Cornwallis’ return to the House on 5 April. Cornwallis’ mistake was presumably caused by a clerical error but technically invalidated both proxies. Grafton was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as opposed to the Schism bill in May. The same month (on 12 May) he registered his proxy with his Suffolk neighbour, Hervey, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 26 May. On 15 June he subscribed his protest at the passing of the Schism bill and on 28 June he registered his proxy with Francis Godolphin, 2nd earl of Godolphin, vacated by his return to the House two days later. On 8 July he subscribed a further protest at the resolution not to make representation to the queen stating that the benefits of the Asiento had been obstructed by certain individuals’ efforts to obtain personal advantages from the contract.

Grafton was present on just four days of the brief session that met in the wake of Queen Anne’s death in August, but on 2 Aug. he received Godolphin’s proxy, which was vacated two days later. The Hanoverian succession proved a turning point in Grafton’s career. Although he was initially named one of the gentlemen of the new king’s bedchamber, he was put out in 1717, but then benefited by Walpole’s re-emergence after 1722 and was rewarded with appointment as lord lieutenant of Ireland and then as lord chamberlain, a post he held until his death. During this period he was closely associated with the old corps Whigs, led by Thomas Pelham Holles, duke of Newcastle. Corresp. of dukes of Richmond and Newcastle ed. T.J McCann (Suss. Rec. Soc. lxxiii). 241-2. Details of the latter part of his career will be considered in the next phase of this work.

Grafton died on 6 May 1757 as a result an injury sustained earlier in the year from a fall. In his will he requested that he be buried ‘in the most private manner as the rest of my family have been’. Grafton fathered nine children with his wife before her death in childbirth in 1726, in addition to at least one illegitimate child, Charles Fitzroy Scudamore^‡, who was returned at Thetford in successive elections after 1733 on his father’s interest. HP Commons 1715-54, ii. 37; HP Commons 1754-90, ii. 436. Of the five legitimate children who survived infancy, only two, both daughters, outlived their father. He was, thus, succeeded in the peerage by his grandson, Augustus Henry Fitzroy^†, as 3rd duke of Grafton.