SUTTON, Robert (1662-1723)

SUTTON, Robert (1662–1723)

suc. fa. 13 Oct. 1668 (a minor) as 2nd Bar. LEXINTON (LEXINGTON)

First sat 19 May 1685; last sat 5 Aug. 1714

b. 6 Jan. 1662, o. surv. s. of Robert Sutton, Bar. Lexinton, and Mary St Leger (d.1669). educ. travelled abroad (Italy) ?1677-8.1 m. Sept. 1691 (with £30,000), Margaret (d.1703), da. and heir of Sir Giles Hungerford‡ of Coulston, Wilts., 1s. d.v.p. 2da. (1 d.v.p.). d. 19 Sept. 1723; will 31 Jan., pr. 20 Nov. 1723.2

Commr., appeal for prizes 1695, trade and plantations 1699-1702; gent. of horse to Prince George, of Denmark 1690-3;3 gent. of the bedchamber 1693-1702; PC 1692-Sept. 1714.4

Capt. tp. of horse, 1685-6, col. regt. of horse 1694; envoy extraordinary, Prussia 1689, Spain 1690 (did not go), Denmark 1693, Vienna 1694-7; plenip. treaty of Ryswick 1697; amb. extraordinary, Germany 1698, Madrid 1712-13.

Recorder, Newark 1686-93; dep. lt., Notts. 1692-?;5 custos rot. liberties of Southwell and Scrooby 1689.6

Associated with: Averham (Aram), Notts.; Kelham, Notts.; St James’s St., Westminster and Cranbourne Chase, Windsor, Berks.7

Likenesses: Tomb effigy by W. Palmer, 1726, in St Wilfrid’s, Kelham, Notts.

Lexinton succeeded to the title as a minor in October 1668. The following year his mother, the dowager baroness, decided to take her children to France, but within a few weeks of their arrival she too fell sick and died. Orphaned at the age of seven, Lexinton was compelled to make the journey home with his mother’s corpse.8 For the remainder of his childhood Lexinton’s upbringing was overseen by his grandfather, the former royalist warden of the royal mint, Sir Anthony St Leger.9 Throughout his career Lexinton was associated with the Tories and (on occasion) with the Jacobites. Even so, during the reign of Anne he was sometimes listed as a possible Whig supporter. This may have been on account of long periods abroad which made his likely sympathies more difficult to glean, or simply because as a courtier and diplomat he was sometimes willing to align himself with the ministerial Whigs in spite of his usual voting habits.

In 1674 the family was disrupted by the abduction by John Darcy‡ and marriage of Lexinton’s ten-year-old sister, Bridget Sutton, who was entitled to a portion of £20,000 under her father’s will.10 St Leger petitioned the House on 23 Feb. but the case was interrupted by the prorogation and Bridget Sutton’s marriage was permitted to stand. The Darcys’ actions may have precipitated moves by Lexinton’s guardians to secure a suitable bride for him and, the following year, negotiations were opened with Henry Cavendish, styled earl of Ogle (later 2nd duke of Newcastle), for the marriage of the fourteen-year-old Lexinton to Ogle’s second daughter. Despite the apparent agreement of Ogle and Lady St Leger, the match did not take place, possibly on account of opposition from Ogle’s father, William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, though it is equally possible that the £3,000 portion offered by Ogle proved unacceptable to Lexinton’s guardians.11

Lexinton appears to have departed on a foreign tour three years later. In April 1682 he made his first attempt to acquire office, petitioning Edward Osborne‡, styled Viscount Latimer, for the office of Langton Arbour, one of the walks of Sherwood Forest.12 He appears to have been close to James, duke of York, and in early May was one of those to accompany him to his yacht prior to his departure for Scotland.13 For the remainder of the summer, Lexinton seems to have made the rounds of country seats, including Belvoir Castle and Kiveton.14 The accession of James II offered Lexinton greater opportunities for advancement. During the elections for the new Parliament in the spring of 1685, Lexinton was to the fore in championing anti-exclusionist candidates in Nottinghamshire. During the campaign he marched at the head of a body of men bearing a pole with a black box bearing the legend, ‘No black box, no bill of exclusion, no association.’15 He received his writ of summons in February 1685 and took his seat in the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May. Present on approximately 38 per cent of all sitting days, on 26 May he was noted as missing at a call of the House even though he had been marked present on the attendance list. Lexinton responded to the outbreak of the rebellion of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, during the summer by accepting a commission as a captain in one of the troops of horse being raised to counter the insurgency. He laid down his commission the following year when the troop was disbanded.16

In spite of his association with the king before his accession, in November 1685 Lexinton was one of a number of peers to give evidence on behalf of Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon (later earl of Macclesfield), at his trial for treason.17 The following year his London residence was consumed in a fire that was said to have destroyed eight or ten houses. He was later granted a pass to travel abroad for his health.18 In his absence Lexinton was estimated to be opposed to James II’s policy of repealing the Test Act in 1687, and he was listed by Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), as a member of the opposition grouping in the Lords.

It seems that Lexinton was still abroad during William of Orange’s invasion, but he had returned to England by the beginning of February 1689. He took his seat in the House on 4 Feb., following which he attended on approximately one third of all sitting days. Lexinton’s decision to vote in favour both of agreeing with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’ and with the resolution that the throne had been left vacant by the king’s flight attracted the opprobrium of Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, but Lexinton soon came to be associated firmly with the court Tories.19 On 15 Apr. he introduced Hugh Cholmondeley, Viscount Cholmondeley [I], as Baron Cholmondeley, and Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney (later earl of Romney), into the House. On 20 Apr. he was nominated one of the managers of a conference with the Commons considering the Lords’ amendments to the bill for abrogating the oaths of allegiance. He was then named to the committee for drawing up heads for a further conference on the same business and was again named a manager for the conference two days later. Lexinton appears to have caught King William’s eye early on, and the same month he was appointed envoy extraordinary to the Elector of Brandenburg.20 Before his departure Lexinton voted in favour of reversing the judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. During his absence he registered his proxy in favour of Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, which was vacated by the close of the session. The proxy was exercised in July in support of the resolution to adhere to the Lords’ amendments in reversing the judgments against Oates, which unlike his earlier vote, effectively amounted to a statement of belief in Oates’ perjury. Lexinton embarked for Holland in company with a number of other peers on 8 June.21 He was excused at a call of the House on 28 Oct., but he returned from his mission the following month.22 He took his seat in the new session on 9 Nov. after which he was present on a further 23 sittings (just under a third of all sitting days). On 19 Dec. he was given leave of absence from the House, and the following day he again registered his proxy in Rochester’s favour; it was vacated by the close of the session.

Despite his apparently clear support for the new regime, in March 1690 Lexinton found himself the subject of accusations of Jacobitism. Depositions taken at Grimsby the previous month mentioned Lexinton, Matthew Lister and a Mr Hilliard all indulging in ‘swearing at King William, and drinking to King James.’ No doubt eager to avoid escalating the affair, Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, to whom the depositions had been sent, passed the information onto Carmarthen (as Danby had since become). Lindsey was certain that Carmarthen would wish to ‘oblige my Lord Lexinton’ and was at pains to insist that Lister had been an early supporter of the Revolution.23 The affair appears to have been quietly laid to one side.24 Lexinton resumed his seat on 25 Mar. 1690 and was present on just 35 per cent of the whole. In May he was appointed master of the horse to Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, in place of Edward Hyde, styled Lord Cornbury (later 3rd earl of Clarendon), after Cornbury refused to accompany King William to Ireland.25 Lexinton had no such qualms and that summer he was present at the siege of Limerick.26 During his absence from the House he again registered his proxy with Rochester, which was vacated once more by the close of the session.

Lexinton returned to the House on 2 Oct. 1690 after which he was present on 47 per cent of all sitting days. Over the ensuing months rumours circulated of a possible marriage. Negotiations for the hand of Margaret Hungerford appear to have stalled during the summer of 1691 when she was also proposed as a potential bride for Charles Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea.27 In April Lexinton petitioned successfully to be granted a 99 year lease in reversion on two plots of land in St James’s, one of which was held by his cousin Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe.28 The following month he was appointed ambassador to Spain and warrants were made out for him to be paid £100 a week and to have £1,500 for his equipage.29 Lexinton never took up the post; instead in September he married Margaret Hungerford in a match that brought him significant influence in Wiltshire, though his primary interest remained with his family estates in Nottinghamshire.

Following his marriage Lexinton resumed his seat in the House on 22 Oct. 1691, after which he was present on just under 58 per cent of all sitting days. Towards the end of the year his name was included in a list drawn up by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, of peers thought likely to support Derby’s efforts to obtain restitution of lands lost in the Civil Wars and Interregnum. The division did not take place, and so Lexington’s attitude to the Derby claim remains uncertain.30 Early the following year, on 16 Feb. 1692, he entered his protest at the resolution not to allow proxies during the proceedings for the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk.

Lexinton appears to have spent the summer of 1692 in constant attendance upon Princess Anne, but by the beginning of August he seems to have fallen out with Lady Frescheville, another member of the Princess’s entourage. According to the princess, Lady Frescheville ‘railed at him mightily one day as she and I were going to church’. The cause of their quarrel is not clear, but later developments suggest that part of Lexinton’s resentment may have been owing to the increasing dominance of Lady Churchill (later duchess of Marlborough) in the princess’s household.31 Two months later Lexinton found himself embroiled in a potentially scandalous episode when a Mr Chester committed suicide in the Fountain Tavern in the Strand. Chester’s motive was said to have been ‘for love’, and he left letters addressed both to Lexinton and his Nottinghamshire neighbour Evelyn Pierrepont, 5th earl (later duke) of Kingston. Whether the two peers were the subjects of his unrequited affection or merely close friends to whom he directed his last wishes is unclear.32

Lexinton returned to the House for the new session on 4 Nov. 1692, after which he was present on approximately 47 per cent of all sitting days. In December he voted in favour of committing the place bill, and he also joined William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, in offering to stand bail for Charles Knollys, titular 4th earl of Banbury, who had been indicted for murder. Banbury’s wife was daughter to Lexinton’s former associate, Michael Lister. Their offer was refused.33 His support for Knollys was again evidenced when on 17 Jan. he entered his dissent at the decision not to hear all the judges regarding Knollys’ claim to the earldom. He also dissented at the resolution to dismiss Banbury’s claim to the earldom. Despite apparent earlier support for the measure, in January 1693 Lexinton voted against passing the place bill. In February Lexinton voted with the majority in finding Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder, following which he registered his proxy in favour of Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham. The same month Lexinton resigned or was removed from his position as master of the horse to Prince George of Denmark, having failed to persuade Princess Anne to dismiss Lady Churchill.34 In recompense he was appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber, and it was also said that he would be made treasurer of the chamber to the king in place of Sir Rowland Gwynne‡, an office worth £2,000 p.a.35 In the event, when Gwynne resigned his place in May, the office was left vacant. At the same time rumours circulated that Lexinton was to be made secretary of state, and in March it was reported that he was to succeed Richard Coote‡, earl of Bellomont [I], as treasurer to the queen.36 Lexinton resumed his seat in the House (thereby vacating the proxy) on 7 Mar. but sat on just two more days before the close of the session on 14 March.

In May 1693 Lexinton travelled to Flanders as a volunteer, and in August he was despatched to Hamburg to participate in negotiations over the disputed inheritance of Saxe-Lauenberg.37 Lexinton returned from his mission to Germany in time to take his seat on 14 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on 24 days in the session (18 per cent of the whole). Rumours of office continued to circulate, and whilst appointment as secretary of state eluded him, in January 1694 he was commissioned a colonel of horse, and in April he was given a prominent diplomatic mission as envoy extraordinary to Vienna.38 Lexinton set out for his embassy in May and remained abroad for almost four years. During his absence his financial affairs were left in the hands of his cousin, James Varey, to whom was entrusted the unenviable task of attempting to procure Lexinton’s promised expenses.39 By November 1694 Lexinton was reporting pecuniary embarrassment. He complained that his ‘merchant begins to grumble for want of my bills of extraordinaries’, but at the same time he worried that it might be thought ‘I had demanded what I should not, or more than it cost me.’40

Removed from events in England, Lexinton relied on a series of correspondents to provide him with news of developments at home, including the preparation for the queen’s funeral in early 1695.41 In November that year he speculated ‘that we shall have the vigourest disputes about elections that ever was known, for I reckon both Whigs and Tories will look upon this as a trial of skill’.42 Lexinton was initially disappointed in his hopes of being constituted one of the plenipotentiaries at Ryswick in 1696; his omission was explained as a result of the king believing that though ‘he may make use of your lordship at the congress, yet the service you do his majesty at Vienna is so considerable that he cannot at present spare you from thence without greater prejudice to his affairs.’43 Pressure from Sir William Trumbull‡ and Sir Joseph Williamson‡ eventually secured Lexinton the recognition he craved, and in January 1697 his name was added to the list of plenipotentiaries, though there was no expectation that he would actually participate at the congress.44

Lexinton’s lengthy absence engendered growing financial difficulties. In April Varey was compelled to inform his master that ‘here is no money to be had at the treasury nor no where else’, and later the same month he complained of Lexinton’s treatment, pointing out ‘how ill you are dealt with here’ being the only one of the plenipotentiaries not to receive his tallies’. Lexinton’s sister, Bridget Darcy, also weighed in on her brother’s behalf, angry that he ‘should be slighted so’.45 By June Lexinton was lamenting the extremity of his situation, fearing that with the loss of his credit he knew not ‘how to get bread, having stretched his credit and fortune as far as they will go, and sold his plate to stop his merchant’s mouth.’46 The birth of his son, William George, in Vienna that autumn was more auspicious and in spite of his comparative poverty, Lexinton’s good standing within the diplomatic community was indicated by the Electress Sophia agreeing to stand godmother.47 The good news coincided with reports that Lexinton was shortly to be recalled to England.48 In November 1697 the by now familiar rumours of his impending appointment as secretary of state in place of the ailing Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, again proved to be inaccurate. In December he reported suffering from a ‘fit of the stone’ so severe that he had feared he was ‘like to take a journey into the other world’, but having recovered from this latest indisposition, he left his post at Vienna later the same month.49 Towards the end of December he was making ‘all the haste possible’ to return to England where he arrived early in 1698.50

On 9 Feb. 1698 Lexinton took his seat in the House. He then sat for just six days before absenting himself after registering his proxy in favour of Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers. The proxy was vacated by Lexinton’s return on 30 Mar., after which he sat for a further three days before withdrawing for the remainder of the session. That spring rumours of office again circulated. It was variously predicted that he would replace Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, as ambassador to France or that he was to be nominated ambassador to Constantinople.51 On 20 June Lexinton registered his proxy in favour of another of the king’s favourites, Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle (vacated by the close of the session). In July he was appointed ambassador to the German princes.52

Lexinton departed for Holland in September 1698, but he was back in England by the beginning of the following year. He returned to the House on 18 Jan. 1699, after which he was present on 22 per cent of all sitting days. In June 1699 he was appointed to the council of trade and plantations.53 James Vernon‡ was dismissive of his abilities:

One of the last declarations the king made was for filling up the commission of trade, with my lords Stamford and Lexinton… The king had promised Lord Lexinton to make him of the council of trade, since he could not send him to Ireland; and he not being thought a very good chief, my Lord Stamford was taken.54

Lexinton attended the House as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament on 13 July. He took his seat at the opening of the 1699-1700 session on 16 Nov. 1699, after which he was present on almost 40 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Feb. 1700 he voted against discussing the amendments to the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation in committee, and on 10 Apr. he acted as a teller for two votes relating to the land tax bill: first on the question of whether to adhere to the amendments, which was rejected, and second whether to agree to the bill without amendment, which was carried by five votes. Further rumours that Lexinton was to be made secretary of state circulated in the summer, and at the same time his name was included on an annotated list of the peerage as a Whig supporter likely to be favourable to the new ministry.55 Yet, although Lexinton appeared to be at the pinnacle of his influence, from 1700 onwards he seems to have made efforts to retire gradually from public life. The decline may have been caused by continuing ill health or perhaps by financial strains: during that year he sold his estate at Cranbourne Chase, near Windsor to Richard Jones‡, earl of Ranelagh [I].56

Lexinton took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 6 Feb. 1701, after which he was present on over 60 per cent of all sitting days. On 17 Feb. he was appointed one of the managers of the conference concerning the Lords’ address to the king, and on 16 Apr. he subscribed two protests, the first at the resolution to appoint a committee to draw up an address asking that the king not punish the impeached peers until after they had been tried, and the second at the resolution to expunge from the Journal the reasons given in the former protest. On 8 May he delivered a number of papers to the House from the commissioners of trade in response to an order relating to the American colonies. On 3 June he subscribed two protests relating to the Lords’ answers to be given at a conference with the Commons concerning the impeached lords, and on 9 June he protested again at the resolution not to appoint a committee to meet with the Commons concerning the impeachments. On 17 June he subscribed further protests, first at the resolution to proceed to the trial of John Somers, Baron Somers, in Westminster Hall and second at the resolution to put the question to acquit the impeached peer. He then voted against acquitting Somers. Later that month, it was speculated that he was to come into office as lord privy seal.57

Lexinton was not present when the new Parliament opened on 30 Dec. 1701; he took his seat in February 1702 and attended on just 24 per cent of all sitting days. In spite of Lexinton’s apparently declining health, he rallied to employ his interest to obtain a recordership for William Cartwright (possibly William Cartwright of Ossington), but the king’s death further diminished Lexinton’s influence.58 Queen Anne made no effort to disguise her dislike for the man who had dared stand up to her favourite almost ten years previously.59 In April 1702 Lexinton acted as one of the tellers for the division on the land tax bill. The following month he resigned from the council of trade and plantations.60 Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, demonstrated that she too had not forgotten Lexinton, commenting to Sidney Godolphin, Baron Godolphin (later earl of Godolphin), on Lexinton’s resignation, ‘My lord Lexinton having a mind to quit his employment shows he thinks it is better for him to depend upon the Whig party, considering his behaviour to the queen and prince formerly, for I am sure self-interest is his first consideration, and I don’t think him very wrong in that choice’.61

Lexinton was active in the elections that summer.62 He took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Oct. 1702, after which he was present on a third of all sitting days. In January 1703 he was noted as being in favour of the bill for preventing occasional conformity, and on 16 Jan. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the penalty clause. This brief flurry of activity appears to have been brought to a temporary halt by the death of Lady Lexinton from breast cancer in mid-April, and over the next three years Lexinton’s attendance declined markedly.63

In or about November 1703 Lexinton was noted by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely supporter (though queried) of the occasional conformity bill, and this assessment was repeated by Sunderland in his second forecast. Although Lexinton attended the prorogation day on 4 Nov., he did not take his seat for the 1703-4 session until 12 Jan. 1704, and he was then present for only eight days (8 per cent of the whole). He attended the prorogation day on 19 Oct. before taking his seat for the 1704-5 session on 24 Oct., after which he absented himself again for the ensuing three months. Overall he attended just 12 per cent of sitting days in the 1704-5 session. In his absence he may have been among those noted as a likely supporter of the Tack the following month. He resumed his place on 9 Feb. 1705, and on 27 Feb. he was nominated to the committee to consider the heads of the conference with the Commons concerning the Aylesbury men. An otherwise undated letter from Rochester pressing him for his proxy may belong to this session.64

Lexinton failed to attend the first session of the new Parliament of October 1705, but he was excused at a call of 12 November. The following year he was said to have become a member of the Tory drinking society revived by John Cecil, 6th earl of Exeter, known as the Honourable Order of Little Bedlam.65 He resumed his seat in the House in the second session on 27 Jan. 1707, after which he was present on 35 per cent of sitting days but then retired for the remainder of the year. His next attendance was two months into the Parliament of Great Britain on 12 Jan. 1708, after which he was present on 41 per cent of all sitting days. His infrequent appearances in Parliament coupled with the queen’s distaste for him meant that his party affiliation must have seemed somewhat ambiguous. Despite his long-standing Tory associations, in May 1708 Lexinton was listed as a Whig in an analysis of the peerage.

Lexinton was again missing at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708, arriving for the 1708-9 session on 14 Dec. 1708, after which he was present on just under a third of all sitting days. In January 1709 he voted in favour of permitting Scots peers in possession of British titles to vote in the election of Scots representative peers. Missing once more at the opening of the following (1709-10) session, Lexinton resumed his seat on 16 Jan. 1710 and was present for the proceedings against Henry Sacheverell. On 14 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to adjourn the House, and over the next few days he registered a series of dissents and protests against the Lords’ resolutions accepting that the Commons had made good the articles against Sacheverell.66 On 20 Mar. he was one of the peers closely associated with the court to vote in favour of acquitting Sacheverell, and he then registered a further dissent at the guilty verdict. Some commentators were surprised at Lexinton’s decision, which is perhaps indicative of just how gradually he drifted from being perceived as a ministerial Whig towards association with moderate Tories and Whigs under the leadership of Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford.67

The establishment of Harley’s new ministry saw Lexinton again being considered for a return to office.68 In September Harley listed Lexinton as a peer ‘to be provided for.’ The following month Harley listed Lexinton as being likely to support his new ministry, and in December Lexinton was once more mentioned as being in line for office.69 Lexinton took his seat the opening of the new Parliament on 25 Nov., after which he was present on 39 per cent of all sitting days. In June 1711, following the close of the session, he was listed as one of the ‘Tory patriots’ of the 1710 Parliament. In July he was mentioned as a possible envoy to Vienna to attend the election of the new emperor, though Henry St John, the future Viscount Bolingbroke, had been informed that Lexinton could not ‘be persuaded to reside’ there.70 During the course of the year Lexinton inherited substantial estates in Wiltshire at the death of his mother-in-law, Lady Hungerford.71

Lexinton was urged to ensure his attendance at the opening of the new session by both Oxford (as Harley had since become) and Lady Rochester. In his letter to Lady Rochester he undertook to alter his plans and to hasten up, having noted the request with surprise,

for I thought myself so insignificant both to my friends and country, that I was resolved to cultivate my health, and enjoy my pleasure this winter in the forest. But you shall see how ready I am to obey your commands upon any occasion, by my expedition up, though it will be absolutely impossible for me to come by the day you mention, not receiving your letter till six a clock this evening and having a broken set of horses of my own at this time, so must be forced to send and hire.72

The same day he wrote in similar terms to Oxford, expressing his thanks ‘for the great honour you are pleased to do me in the offer of your friendship.’73 In spite of such assurances, Lexinton was included among the potential opponents of the court over the presentation of the ‘No Peace without Spain’ address. Such doubts proved misplaced. Having resumed his seat in the House five days into the new session on 12 Dec. 1711, after which he was present on approximately 64 per cent of all sitting days, a new list included Lexinton among Harley’s probable supporters, and the same month he was noted as being likely to remain loyal to the ministry on the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion. On 10 Dec. he was included among those office-holders who were presumed to have voted with the ministry on the issue. Lexinton was also listed as being in favour of allowing James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to sit in the House on 19 Dec. as duke of Brandon, and the following day he voted accordingly against barring Scots peers holding post-Union British titles from sitting. Lexinton was absent from the House after 20 Dec., but he ensured that his proxy was registered in favour of Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Rochester. The proxy was vacated by Lexinton’s resumption of his seat on 14 Jan. 1712.

Lexinton probably offered his support for his nephew, Richard Sutton‡, in the by-election at Newark in January 1712, occasioned by the elevation of Sir Thomas Willoughby, as Baron Middleton.74 Following the close of the session, Lexinton returned to his seat at Kelham, but he again wrote to Oxford assuring him of his willingness to come up should he be required.75 Towards the end of August Lexinton was again entrusted with a diplomatic posting, this time being sent as ambassador to Spain, where his responsibilities included, among other things, attempting to secure rights for the Catalans.76 He planned to set out early the following month, but his departure was delayed while he recovered from ‘a feverish indisposition and a defluxion upon his eyes.’77 Once in Spain Lexinton remained abroad for the best part of a year, and he was consequently absent for the duration of the following session. He soon found his new position unpalatable, and he complained frequently of the conditions there.78 By January 1713 he was fretting about not having heard from Oxford, making him fear ‘I may have been guilty of something that may have forfeited your lordship’s good opinion.’79 In February he was listed by Oxford as one of the peers to be contacted before the new session, and it was perhaps as a result of this that in March he endeavoured to send Oxford his proxy, though some hiatus appears to have prevented it being formally registered.80 Towards the end of April Lexinton wrote to Oxford hoping that the proxies had arrived but was concerned that they would not be usable because of a problem with the dates. He excused himself by explaining that he had, ‘signed them just as they were sent me without examining them, being in a hurry, but followed the direction, which was not to fill up the blanks’ and hoped that he would ‘have no need of them.’81 Lexinton was listed by Swift as a likely supporter of the ministry in March or April 1713, and in June he was estimated to be in favour of the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty.

Meanwhile, he continued to plead for his recall: ‘I must repeat to you my request of being delivered from this cursed place as soon as I have done what is proper … for I do protest that I have had neither pleasure, profit nor health since I have set foot in Spain.’82 Ill health and dislike for his posting appears to have clouded Lexinton’s diplomatic judgment. In pressing the claims of the Catalans, he overstepped the mark to the extent that the king of Spain ‘flew into some degree of passion’.83 Lexinton himself reported that the issue had led to his receiving ‘a great many reproaches both from the king, the queen, and the ministers, that I was too much inclined to the House of Austria by the long stay I had made formerly at Vienna and sometimes when I pleaded hard for the Fueros, that I spoke like a republican’.84 Lexinton was finally granted leave to return in July 1713, but before he could organize his departure, his aversion to Spain was confirmed by the death there of his only son, William Sutton. It was not until the middle of December that Lexinton was at last able to leave Madrid. He made the journey back to England with his son’s body concealed in a bale of cloth, concerned that his Protestant grave would be desecrated in Catholic Spain.85

Lexinton resumed his seat in the House on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on just over a third of all sitting days in the session. He registered his proxy with Rochester on 28 Apr., vacated at the end of the session. That spring there were rumours that he was either about to marry, or had already married, Lady Katherine Hyde. By the end of June it was reported that the marriage had been ‘put off a little’ and that Lexinton had redirected his attentions, unsuccessfully, to Lady Preston.86

Lexinton was predicted to be a supporter of the bill for preventing the growth of schism that May. Despite the disappointment he had encountered in Spain, he continued to petition for some reward for his service, appealing to Oxford to ‘put the queen in mind of me, if there was any room for her majesty to show me any mark of her favour, and that I was the only one of her plenipotentiaries who had not received some very considerable one’.87 Although Lexinton was increasingly identified with those ‘hot Tories’ who gathered around Viscount Bolingbroke in company with Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester, and James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, in mid-May it was speculated that he was to be the beneficiary of a resurgent Oxford by replacing Bolingbroke as secretary of state.88 The promotion failed to materialize, but on Oxford’s fall as lord treasurer Lexinton was once again spoken of with confidence as one marked for high office in a future administration.89

Lexinton attended just two of the days of the August session following the queen’s death. He sat for the final time noted in the Journal on 5 Aug. 1714 and on 7 Aug. registered his proxy with Rochester. The death of Queen Anne removed any possibility of a government post, and the following month Lexinton was omitted from George I’s new Privy Council. The following year he was condemned by Robert Walpole†, later earl of Orford, in his report to the committee of secrecy, though he avoided any serious consequences. He also suffered the loss of his younger daughter Eleanora Margaretta.

Despite his retirement from the House, Lexinton continued to exercise his interest at Newark where he was one of the foremost Tory peers in opposition to the Whigs headed by Thomas Pelham Holles, duke of Newcastle.90 In 1717 Lexinton’s remaining daughter, Bridget, married their distant kinsman, John Manners†, styled marquess of Granby (later 3rd duke of Rutland), a prestigious match that served to emphasize Lexinton’s continued influence in the midlands.91 By 1721, following the Whig schism, both Lexinton and Rutland appear to have adjusted their political stance, and in August Lexinton wrote to Newcastle to congratulate him on the termination of ‘so tedious and troublesome a sessions’ and, in unison with Rutland, to offer him his service.92

Although he seems never to have involved himself in any overt Jacobite intrigues, through his Oglethorpe cousins Lexinton was perceived to be sympathetic to the Jacobite cause.93 Lexinton wielded his interest successfully in the Nottinghamshire election of April 1722, and the same month he wrote to Newcastle to condole with him on Sunderland’s death.94 It was perhaps as a result of these signs of renewed interest that, in spite of his long retirement from public life and his questionable loyalty to the new regime, in May 1722 he received a clear offer of a step in the peerage from the king. Lexinton declined the offer begging Newcastle ‘to believe that no other reason moved me to decline so great an honour, so kindly and obligingly offered me, but what I alleged; for indeed my lord I did not think it would look well in the eye of the world to be seeking new honours, when I am [incapacitated], to enjoy even those that I have’.95

The following year, according to Edward Chandler†, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, Lexinton was one of the minority to vote in favour of examining George Kelly on oath concerning Atterbury’s role in Jacobite plotting.96 Lexinton’s name does not appear on the attendance list that day, so it seems likely that the bishop erred in his identification. If he was correct, it was almost certainly Lexinton’s last appearance in the House. He died in September 1723 and was buried in the vault constructed for him at Kelham.97 In his will, composed earlier that year, he left legacies of £100 to his sister, Bridget Darcy, and his nephews, Robert and Richard Sutton‡, and jewels valued at £5,000 to his former fiancée, Lady Katherine Hyde, in memory of ‘an unfortunate man that truly loved and honoured her’. The remainder of his estate passed to his daughter, Bridget, duchess of Rutland, whose husband was named sole executor.98 On his death the barony became extinct, though the duchess’s second son assumed the name and arms of Sutton, and his descendants were later ennobled as Viscounts Canterbury.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Add. 75365, H. Savile to Halifax, 9 Jan. 12 Apr. 1678.
  • 2 Borthwick; Notts. Archives, DD/T/17/21.
  • 3 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 51, iii. 37.
  • 4 TNA, PC 2/74; Luttrell, ii. 390.
  • 5 CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 276.
  • 6 TNA, C231/8, f. 225.
  • 7 Morrice, Entring Bk. iii. 160.
  • 8 CSP Dom. 1668-9, pp. 386, 408, 497, 536.
  • 9 C.E. Challis, New History of the Royal Mint, 281.
  • 10 CSP Dom. 1670, p. 268; HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 191.
  • 11 HMC Portland, ii. 151.
  • 12 Eg. 3338, f. 161.
  • 13 Reresby Mems. 263.
  • 14 Belvoir Castle mss Add. 18 (Bertie letters), no. 22; Eg. 3334, ff. 25-26, 32-33.
  • 15 Add. 75360, John Millington to Halifax, 23 Mar. 1685.
  • 16 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 381.
  • 17 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 66.
  • 18 Ibid. 160; CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 448.
  • 19 Clarendon Corresp. ii. 261.
  • 20 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 76; Add. 17677 II ff. 81-83.
  • 21 Bodl. Carte 79, f. 230.
  • 22 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 335.
  • 23 Eg. 3337, ff. 175-6.
  • 24 HMC 11th Rep. VII, 35; P.K. Monod, Jacobitism and the English People, p. 237.
  • 25 Clarendon Corresp. ii. 315; Verney ms mic. M636/44, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 3 June 1690.
  • 26 NAS, GD 406/1/10317.
  • 27 Add. 61456, ff. 6-7; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 555; HMC Finch, iii. 24, 111.
  • 28 TNA, E367/3533; CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 349.
  • 29 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 359.
  • 30 Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9.
  • 31 Add. 61415, ff. 11, 13.
  • 32 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 604.
  • 33 Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 14 Dec. 1692.
  • 34 Bodl. Carte 79, f. 473; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 37; An Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough, 86.
  • 35 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 40; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 143.
  • 36 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 44, 65; HMC Finch, v. 60; Bodl. Tanner 25, f. 8.
  • 37 HMC Finch, v. 144, 220; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 158; Northants RO, IC 1484.
  • 38 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 250, 290.
  • 39 Add. 46553, f. 1.
  • 40 Add. 46527, ff. 25, 60.
  • 41 Lexington Pprs. 15-16, 23-24, 52-53; Add. 46527, f. 47.
  • 42 Add. 28897, f. 369.
  • 43 Lexington Pprs. 234-5.
  • 44 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 174; Lexington Pprs. 239-40.
  • 45 Add. 46553, ff. 25, 29, 31.
  • 46 CSP Dom. 1697, p. 181.
  • 47 Lexington Pprs. 313.
  • 48 Add. 72486, ff. 200-1.
  • 49 Lexington Pprs. 319, 324-5; CSP Dom. 1698, p. 25.
  • 50 Add. 72538, f. 148; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 342; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 12 Feb. 1698.
  • 51 CSP Dom. 1698, p. 200; Add. 56541, f. 181; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 377; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 7 May 1698.
  • 52 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 403.
  • 53 CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 212, 217.
  • 54 Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 300.
  • 55 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 659; HMC Downshire, i. 799; CSP Dom. 1700-2, p. 90; Pepys Corresp. ed. J.R. Tanner, ii. 2; Leics. RO, DG 7, box 4950, bundle 22; Add. 72517, ff. 57-58.
  • 56 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 647, 685.
  • 57 Bodl. Ballard 33, f. 58.
  • 58 Add. 46542, f. 76; C. Brown, Lives of Notts. Worthies, 241.
  • 59 Lexington Pprs. 5.
  • 60 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 175; Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 21 May 1702.
  • 61 Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 62.
  • 62 Surr. Hist. Cent. Somers, 371/14/E22.
  • 63 Lexington Pprs. 5; HMC Buccleuch, ii. 659; Add. 70075, newsletter, 22 Apr. 1703.
  • 64 Add. 46541, f. 209.
  • 65 HMC 5th Rep. 399.
  • 66 LJ, xix. 109-11, 113.
  • 67 Brit. Pols, 389; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. iii. 1445-6; Add.
  • 68 Add. 70331, Robert Harley, memo, n.d. [June/July 1710].
  • 69 Luttrell, Brief Relation,vi. 664; Wentworth Pprs. 163.
  • 70 UNL, Pw2Hy/1408, Bolingbroke to Oxford, 7 July 1711.
  • 71 VCH Wilts. xiv. 216; viii. 236; x. 55.
  • 72 Add. 70267, Lexinton to Lady Rochester, 3 Dec. 1711.
  • 73 Add. 70259, Lexinton to Oxford, 3 Dec. 1711.
  • 74 HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 463.
  • 75 Add. 70259, Lexinton to Oxford, 30 July 1712.
  • 76 Add. 72495, ff. 165-6; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/6/239/3069.
  • 77 Add. 70259, Lexinton to Oxford, 1 Sept. 1712; Add. 70286, Bolingbroke to Lords Plenipotentiaries, 9 Sept. 1712.
  • 78 Lexington Pprs. 270, 273, 275-6, 285.
  • 79 Add. 70259, Lexinton to Oxford, 9 Jan. 1713.
  • 80 Lexington Pprs. 270, 273, 275-6, 285.
  • 81 HMC Portland, v. 285; Add. 70030, ff. 196-7.
  • 82 Lexington Pprs. 275-6.
  • 83 HMC Lords, n.s. x. 260.
  • 84 Ibid. 268.
  • 85 Add. 53816, f. 72; Add. 70031, f. 264; Add. 70070, newsletter, 26 Dec. 1713; HMC Portland, v. 371.
  • 86 Add. 61463, ff. 85-86.
  • 87 HMC Portland, v. 441; Add. 70032, f. 243.
  • 88 Brit. Pols, 270; Add. 72501, f. 122; Bodl. mss North c. 9, ff. 74-75.
  • 89 Lexington Pprs. 8; NLS, Pitfirrane mss 6409, no. 70.
  • 90 HP Commons, 1715-54, i. 300.
  • 91 HMC Portland, v. 538.
  • 92 Add. 32686, f. 177.
  • 93 Lexington Pprs. 8; HMC Stuart, vi. 288.
  • 94 UNL, PI/C/1/374, J. Cossen to Lord Harley, 7 Apr. 1722; Add. 32686, f. 215.
  • 95 Add. 32686, f. 217.
  • 96 Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss 22/212.
  • 97 Lexington Pprs. 7, 9.
  • 98 HMC Portland, v. 635; Borthwick; Notts. Archs. DD/T/17/21.