FERMOR, William (1648-1711)

The Fermor family, traditionally of Welsh descent, settled at Easton Neston in the sixteenth century and within 25 years of making Northamptonshire their home were sending Members to Parliament. The family held extensive lands in Bedfordshire and Dorset, but it was the Northamptonshire estate that formed the foundation for their political influence. TNA, PROB 11/525, ff. 86-91; E134/6Anne/East2. Besides Easton Neston the family also owned substantial property in the town of Northampton itself. HMC Portland, ii. 290. Following the fire that devastated the town in 1675, Fermor and Sir William Langham^‡ headed the list of commoners subscribing to the rebuilding fund, pledging £100 each. On completion of the new church of All Saints in August 1680 Fermor’s local prominence was again made apparent by the offer of a pew ‘until he shall build a seat for himself.’ Records of the Borough of Northampton ed. Markham and Cox, ii. 407.

Fermor’s father had sided with the royalists in the Civil War, serving as a captain of horse before compounding for £1,400. Collins, Peerage (1812 edn) iv. 204-5. He lived to see the monarchy restored but was unsuccessful in contesting Brackley shortly before his death. The Restoration enabled Fermor to reassert his manorial rights over Towcester, which adjoined his estate. TNA, E134/18Chas2/Mich25. In 1670 he stood for Northampton against Henry O’Brien^‡, styled Lord Ibrackan [I], at the by-election triggered by the succession of Christopher Hatton, to the peerage as 2nd Baron Hatton. When the second seat also fell vacant on the death of Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, both Fermor and Ibrackan were returned without a contest. HMC Portland, ii. 289.

Fermor appears to have been an inactive Member of the Commons. In April 1674 he was issued a pass to travel to France. CSP Dom. 1673-5, p. 217. He remained abroad for the following three years, and it may have been during this tour that he developed his lifelong passion for collecting antique curios. Northants. RO, FH 4336; Add. 22911, f. 77. Marked ‘vile’ by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, in 1677, after his re-election for Northampton in 1679 Fermor was recorded as being ‘worthy’, but he remained an inactive Member and he did not stand again.

In June 1682, almost a decade after the death of his first wife, Fermor remarried. Two years later his influence over Towcester was extended when he was granted a cattle market and three annual fairs there, but his interests from about this time until its completion in 1702 were centred about the new house and gardens at Easton Neston. CSP Dom. 1683-4, p. 275; K. Downes, Hawksmoor, 31-32; J. Heward and R. Taylor, Country Houses of Northamptonshire, 192. Fermor’s second marriage may have been one of the reasons for rebuilding the house and may also have provided the necessary capital. VCH Northants. v. 114. It is certainly noticeable that work stopped shortly after Lady Fermor’s death in 1687. Architectural Hist. xxx. 50-51. Fermor relied too on the help of his Northamptonshire neighbour, Hatton, both for building materials and garden supplies, in return for which he promised Hatton his assistance in local affairs. Add. 29562, f. 377, 379. The whole served as a showcase for Fermor’s prized exhibits, the Arundel marbles, which he purchased for £300 from Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, in 1691. Downes, Hawksmoor, 36; Architectural Hist. xxx. 63.

The accession of James II brought about a brief decline in Fermor’s fortunes. He refused to answer the three questions, and in 1687 he was deprived of his deputy lieutenancy. Fermor’s activities at the time of the Revolution are uncertain, but following the king’s overthrow he was once more drawn into the political arena by his marriage to Carmarthen’s daughter, widow of the son of his old political rival Ibrackan. Add. 29578, f. 290. To coincide with this new alliance Fermor was raised to the peerage. The warrant for his barony was issued on 19 Feb. 1692, but early in March it was rumoured that the patent for creating him baron or earl of Towcester had been stopped. CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 158; Bodl. Carte 76, f. 69. Another report suggested that he was to be created both an English baron and Irish viscount. Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 3 Mar. 1692. It is not clear why it was decided to alter the style of the barony to Leominster rather than Towcester, a town with which Fermor was closely connected. The creation was seen as a reward for Carmarthen and throughout his career in the House, Leominster proved a faithful adherent of his father-in-law. Shortly after his elevation, plans for Leominster’s house at Easton Neston appear to have undergone further alterations to reflect his new status. Heward and Taylor, 189.

Leominster took his seat in the House on 11 July 1692, introduced between John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, and Robert Lucas, 3rd Baron Lucas, but he was then absent at the opening of the new session on 4 November. On 21 Nov., following a call of the House, his presence was requested. In reply to the House’s demand, the postmaster at Towcester wrote to explain that Leominster had left Easton Neston and that he was expected to be in town on 25 November. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/447/603. He actually took his place on the following Monday (28 Nov.) and was thereafter present on 62 per cent of all sitting days. On 31 Dec. he voted against committing the place bill. At about the same time he was predicted to be an opponent of Norfolk’s divorce bill and voted against it on 2 Jan. 1693. A few days later, on 9 Jan., Leominster was named to the committee considering the River Nene navigation bill. Local knowledge may have been one of the reasons for his nomination, but there is no evidence of his being an active member of this or any other committee to which he was named. On 17 Jan. Leominster entered his dissent over the resolution not to hear all the judges over Charles Knollys’ claim to the earldom of Banbury, and the following month he found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.

Leominster resumed his seat for the 1693-4 session on 2 Dec. 1693, after which he was present on 45 per cent of all sitting days. Local loyalties may have influenced his decision, on 17 Feb. 1694, to vote in favour of the appeal of Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, against the chancery ruling in the Albemarle inheritance case (Montagu v. Bath). Leominster registered his proxy with his father-in-law, Carmarthen, on 26 Feb. which was vacated on his return to the House just over a month later on 31 March.

Over the following few years Leominster continued to attend the House without making any great mark on its proceedings. He resumed his seat for the 1694-5 session, attending just under half of all sitting days. He attended the first (1695-6) session of the new Parliament for just 21 (of 124) days. On 17 Mar. 1696 the House ordered that letters should be sent to three absent peers, Leominster being one of them, demanding that they attend or (if unable to do so through sickness) sign a copy of the Association. Leominster delayed returning for a further fortnight. He registered his proxy with Leeds (as Carmarthen had since become) on 30 Mar. and resumed his seat the following day when he also subscribed the Association. He then absented himself once more for the remainder of the session. He returned to the House for the 1696-7 session, attending 55 per cent of all sitting days). The following month he opposed the move to attaint Sir John Fenwick^‡, entering his dissent on 15 and 18 December. On 23 Dec. he voted against the attainder. He then entered another protest against it.

Leominster resumed his seat on 14 Dec. 1697 and in March 1698 again followed his father-in-law’s lead by voting against the resolution to commit the bill to punish Charles Duncombe^‡ for corruption. Present on half of all sitting days in the session, he received the proxy of his brother-in-law, Peregrine Osborne, styled marquess of Carmarthen (later 2nd duke of Leeds), on 14 June 1698. It was vacated three days later when Leominster also absented himself from the House; Leominster registered his own proxy with another member of the Leeds clan, Charles Dormer, 2nd earl of Carnarvon.

Absent for the first four months of the new Parliament, Leominster finally took his seat on 3 Jan. 1699, after which he attended a further 18 days in the session (22 per cent of the whole). Along with his father-in-law, on 8 Feb. Leominster voted against the committee resolution offering to assist the king in retaining his Dutch guards, subscribing his dissent when the resolution was carried. During the 1699-1700 session he was forecast as being a likely supporter of the East India Company bill. In Feb. 1700 he supported the resolution to adjourn into a committee of the whole to consider two amendments to the bill, and on 8 Feb. he registered his dissent at the resolution that the Scots colony at Darien was inconsistent with the good of England’s trade. The following month, on 8 Mar., Leominster protested against the second reading of Norfolk’s divorce bill.

Absent for the entirety of the first Parliament of 1701, Leominster resumed his a month after the opening of the second 1701 Parliament. He was thereafter present on just 19 per cent of all sitting days. He returned to the House for the new Parliament on 9 Dec. 1702, attending almost 20 per cent of all sitting days for the 1702-3 session. In January 1703 he was assessed by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham as a likely supporter of the bill for preventing occasional conformity, and on 16 Jan. 1703 he voted accordingly to reject the resolution to adhere to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. On 22 Feb. he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to commit the bill requiring that all Members of the Commons meet a property qualification.

Leominster failed to resume his seat for the opening of the new session in November 1703, but he was recorded in both of the estimates compiled by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely supporter of the occasional conformity bill; on 14 Dec. he was noted as having voted for the measure by proxy, though no proxy records survive for this session (Boyer’s list of the lords voting for and against the measure makes no mention of proxies). Leominster returned to the House on 19 Feb. 1704. His stance as an upholder of the Anglican Church appears to have been reflected again in his subscribing the dissent, on 21 Mar. 1704, at the resolution not to read a rider to the bill for raising recruits for the army, which required that church wardens and overseers of the poor in parishes from which the new recruits were to be raised should give their consent. He then put his name to the protest at the resolution to pass the measure. Four days later (25 Mar.) he subscribed two further dissents at the rejection of the resolution that the failure to pass a censure on Ferguson was an encouragement to the Crown’s enemies. Lempster was included by Nottingham in a list of members of both Houses drawn up in 1704 which may indicate support for him over the ‘Scotch Plot’.

Leominster’s attendance of the House slumped during the 1704-5 session which he attended on just two days. Even so, he was included in a list of those thought likely to support the Tack and, following the close of the session, he was reckoned as being a supporter of the Hanoverian succession.

Despite his reputation as a stalwart Anglican, Leominster failed to attend the first session of the 1705 Parliament and was thus not in attendance for the Church in Danger debates. That he drew up a will in March of the following year suggests that poor health was the reason for his absence. Still missing at the opening of the second session in December 1706, he finally resumed his place on 17 Feb. 1707, attending on just four occasions before retiring once again. Leominster failed to attend the brief third session in April 1707. He returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 23 Oct. 1707 but attended for only six days before again absenting himself.

During the summer of 1708 Leominster was, unsurprisingly, included among the Tories in a list of the Lords’ party affiliations. Following the successful (unchallenged) return of both sitting members for Northamptonshire he was able to confine himself to pleasant social activities before returning to London early in the second week of December. Verney ms mic. M636/53, Sir T. Cave to Fermanagh, 16 Aug. 1708; Add. 28041, f. 18. He then resumed his seat a month into the new Parliament on 16 Dec. 1708, after which he was present on a fifth of all sitting days in the session. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the elections for Scottish representative peers.

Leominster seems to have suffered from cripplingly bad health in 1709. Add. 28051, f. 237. He appears to have recovered by the end of the year and returned to London in December 1709. Add. 28041, f. 21. He took his place on 10 Jan. 1710, after which he was present on a third of all sitting days. His motivation was the trial of Dr. Sacheverell. On 14 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to adjourn the House and then subscribed the protest at the resolution that it was unnecessary to include the particular words deemed criminal in the articles of impeachment. On 16 Mar. he entered two further protests against the resolution that the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment and on 18 Mar. he protested again at the resolution to limit the peers to a single verdict of guilty or not guilty. Two days later Leominster found the doctor not guilty, entering his dissent against the guilty verdict and against the censure passed on Sacheverell. Taciturn as ever, he does not appear to have made any contribution to the debates.

Leominster attended the House for the final time on 18 April. That summer, he appears to have sought the interest of his second wife’s kinsman, John Poulett, Earl Poulett, over a dispute with a Captain Ryder, who was said to have caused ‘great havoc’ in Whittlewood Forest. Leeds assured Poulett that gratifying Leominster in this would be ‘more pleasing to his lordship than any employment the queen could give him.’ HMC Portland, iv. 577; Add. 70026, f. 127. Noted by Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, as a likely supporter of his new ministry in October, the following summer (1711) Leominster was included in a list of Tory patriots. By then it was apparent that he was critically ill. His son-in-law, Sir John Wodehouse^‡ visited Easton Neston to take his leave of the dying lord in May, and in August Leominster ‘very ill of a dropsy’ journeyed to London. Add. 70027, f. 148; Add. 28041, f. 31. The reason for this final exertion is uncertain, but it may be significant that, still clinging to life at the beginning of December, he was included in a list of peers to be canvassed in advance of the crucial vote on ‘no peace without Spain.’

Leominster finally succumbed on 7 Dec. 1711 and was buried at Easton Neston. His will specified that his funeral be conducted ‘without a sermon’ and with ‘no mourning put up in the church nor chancel nor any room in the great house.’ He left substantial portions (£5,000 each) to his three unmarried daughters (a fourth daughter, Bridget, is not mentioned, presumably having died in infancy), raising them by means of a codicil to £6,000 following the death of Sophia Fermor. He also bequeathed £20,000 to Mary, Lady Wodehouse, Leominster’s daughter by Katherine Poulett, in the event of both his sons dying. He was succeeded by his son, Thomas Fermor, a minor, as 2nd Baron Leominster (later earl of Pomfret). Leominster’s widow continued to live in the house he had created, and it was there in 1712 that her father Leeds also died.