SYDNEY, Henry (1641-1704)

SYDNEY (SIDNEY), Henry (1641–1704)

cr. 9 Apr. 1689 Visct. SYDNEY; cr. 14 May 1694 earl of ROMNEY (RUMNEY)

First sat 15 Apr. 1689; last sat 28 Mar. 1704

MP Bramber 1679, Tamworth 1689

b. c. Mar. 1641, 4th s. of Robert Sydney, 2nd earl of Leicester, and Dorothy, da. of Henry Percy†, 3rd earl of Northumberland; bro. of Algernon Sydney‡ and of Philip Sydney, 3rd earl of Leicester. educ. travelled abroad 1658-64 (Spain, Italy). unm. 1s. with Grace Worthley. d. 8 Apr. 1704; will 12 Apr. 1699-21 July 1702, pr. 18 May 1704.1

Groom of the bedchamber to James, duke of York, 1665; master of the horse to duchess of York 1665; envoy to France 1672, Hague 1679-81;2 master of the robes 1679-85;3 PC 1689;4 gent. of the bedchamber 1689-?1702; sec. of state (north) 1690-92; ld. justice [I] 1690; ld. lt. Ireland 1692-95; ld. justice 1697, 1698; groom of the stole 1700-1702.

Ld. lt. Kent 1689-92,5 1694-d.; v.-adm. Kent 1689-1702;6 ld. warden of the Cinque Ports 1691-1702;7 kpr. of Greenwich Palace and Park 1697-d.8

Capt. Holland regt. (the Buffs); gen. of British regts. in Dutch service 1681-5; col. 1st regt. of foot 1689-90, 1693-d.;9 maj.-gen. 1691; lt.-gen. 1694; master-gen. of the Ordnance 1693-1702.10

Associated with: Greenwich, Kent; and St James’s Sq., Westminster.11

Likenesses: oil on canvas, by ?Sir G. Kneller, 1700, NPG 1722; oil on canvas by Sir J.B. de Medina, Government Art Collection.

According to Macky Sydney was ‘the great wheel on which the Revolution turned’.12 He certainly owed his influential position at court in the aftermath of William of Orange’s invasion almost wholly to the close friendship he had fostered with the prince over a number of years.13 Their association commenced with Sydney’s employment as envoy to The Hague in 1679 and continued for the remainder of William’s life.

The key to Sydney’s success appears to have been his ability to charm, though some proved less susceptible to his qualities. Critics have deemed him lazy, incompetent or simply not very bright.14 Swift countered Macky’s eulogy by declaring that Sydney ‘had not a wheel to turn a mouse’ and dismissed him as no more than a ‘vicious illiterate rake’.15 Macaulay was so scornful of him that he doubted that the letter of invitation to William of Orange, though written in Sydney’s hand and conveyed to the prince by him, could possibly have been Sydney’s work.16 Others have criticized him for apparent abuses of power, particularly in Ireland, where he was accused of benefitting unduly from the sale of offices. He was also one of the Whig ministers to become entangled in the scandal arising from the Captain Kidd affair. More unpleasant was his unsavoury attitude towards women. He treated his mistress with disdain and it was even rumoured that he had been guilty of incest with his sister, Diana, who left him the bulk of her property on her death in childbirth. Some thought that he was the true father of her children.17

While few gave much credence to the more spectacular reports about his licentiousness even Gilbert Burnet*, bishop of Salisbury, admitted that Sydney was far from perfect. He conceded that ‘he may be too easy to those he loves and trusts, and too much carried away from business to pleasure,’ though Burnet continued to stress that &squo;it is a great happiness when all that is to be apprehended in a man of favour is an excess of gentleness and good nature.’18 Even here Sydney let himself down on occasion. He seems to have exhibited a degree of callousness in his personal relationships, notably in his refusal to acknowledge his son by his long-term mistress. Yet, an uncompromisingly unflattering portrayal of Sydney is unfair. Although he did not excel in the offices of lord lieutenant of Ireland nor as secretary of state, he was a talented diplomat and finally found his niche at court as both master of the ordnance (which appealed to his military interests) and as groom of the stole. In the latter role he was often the first point of contact for foreign dignitaries visiting England and as the mediator between the king’s ministers and king when the latter was absent in Holland he was able to make the most of his true métier as a courtier.

Court and opposition 1660-1688

As a younger son, Sydney had early on to make his own way in the world. His admission to the court was no doubt assisted by the close friendship he developed with his nephew (though contemporary), Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, with whom he had been brought up at Penshurst and travelled on the continent on two occasions in the late 1650s and early 1660s. Sydney was in Rome with Sunderland in 1664 but the following year had returned to England and was rewarded with a place in York’s household.19 Sydney’s tenure of this first position proved short-lived. In 1666 he was put out and banished from court amid allegations that he had indulged in a liaison with the duchess (though Sir John Reresby‡ thought another reason was behind Sydney’s removal at this time).20 Not long after this affair, Sydney seems to have taken up with Grace Worthley, a cousin of Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon, later earl of Macclesfield, who remained his mistress for more than 20 years.21 The death of Sydney’s father in 1677 proved the catalyst for a long-running and acrimonious lawsuit conducted between several members of the family over inheritance of the Leicester estate.22 Sydney is said to have revealed his insensitive side by giving orders for the felling of woods at Penshurst before the earl was even dead and by employing a decidedly ‘liberal interpretation’ of the meaning of ‘personal estate’ in securing what he wanted from the property. The prime mover of the legal proceedings was not Sydney, though, but his older brother Algernon and when Sydney eventually decided to come to terms with his other brother, Philip (now 3rd earl of Leicester), Algernon turned on both of them in his quest to secure what he considered to be his dues from the estate.23

By the close of the decade, Sydney’s position as an envoy had been bolstered by his connection to Sunderland as well as by his increasing attachment to the circle of Sir William Temple‡. The summer of 1679 saw him involved in a kind of shuttle diplomacy between the triumvirs, Sunderland, Sydney’s kinsman George Savile, earl (later marquess) of Halifax, and Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, and members of the opposition grouping. This was followed by a stint at The Hague as part of Temple’s efforts to forge an Orangist alliance. A subsequent mission to The Hague in 1680 helped to cement his burgeoning friendship with William of Orange and his increasingly close involvement with Dutch society, as did the subsequent period spent from 1681 to 1685 as commander of the Anglo-Dutch brigade.24 He was also said to have been ‘courting a Dutch lady worth 50 or £60,000.’25

With his attention increasingly focused on Holland, Sydney was reported to have been granted leave to sell his place as master of the robes to George Legge, later Baron Dartmouth, in 1681 but he seems to have retained the office until the accession of James II.26 The following year, Sydney’s mistress, Grace Worthley, threatened to pistol him for deserting her and disowning their son. She also made the first of a long-running series of allegations that he was involved in an affair with the countess of Oxford (Diana Kirke).27 Rather more dangerous to Sydney was the arrest, trial and execution of his brother Algernon following the Rye House Plot. Although the affair drove Sydney still further from the court, in other regards it proved oddly beneficial as his behaviour towards his brother, who had done so much to sunder the family with his incessant legal disputes, was regarded as admirably generous and forgiving.28 On James’s accession to the throne, Sydney was put out as master of the robes.29 He was also removed from his command of the Anglo-Dutch brigade. The following year, he and ‘his wife’ (presumably a mistake for his mistress) were granted permission to travel overseas.30

By the early months of 1688 Sydney was deeply involved with the invasion plot and was one of at least five prominent figures to be sent anonymous threatening letters from Catholic activists.31 A central figure in the army conspiracy against James II as well as being a signatory (and ostensibly the author) of the letter of invitation to the prince, Sydney was again granted leave to travel overseas to take the waters at Aix in August. Although the pass specifically forbade him from travelling to Holland, he ignored the restriction in order to deliver the letter of invitation personally. He was then commissioned a major-general in the army of invasion and was present with the prince at the landing at Torbay.32

Sydney’s central role in the planning and execution of the invasion and, more particularly, his reputation as a confidant of the prince made him a singularly important character in the post-Revolution regime. This importance appears to have been reflected both in his presence at a dinner presided over by Halifax in January 1689 and also in a list drawn up by Burnet at some point between December 1688 and the beginning of February 1689, suggesting the shape of the new administration. In this, Burnet recommended Sydney to a series of significant posts at court: that he should serve as either master of the horse or lord chamberlain, as a gentleman of the bedchamber and one of the commissioners of the Treasury.33 Although Sydney was made to wait a while for his reward, he was able to use his interest to secure Sunderland’s release from imprisonment at Rotterdam in March and he was thereafter instrumental in negotiating the return of Sunderland and his family to England from exile.34 The same month, it was rumoured that he was to be appointed paymaster general of the king’s forces, though this failed to come about.35

1689-99

Returned to the Convention for Tamworth, Sydney was soon after rewarded for his prominent role in bringing about the Revolution with his creation as Viscount Sydney. He took his seat in the House on 15 Apr. introduced between William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard, and Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton, and was thereafter present on 62 of the remaining days in the session (approximately 38 per cent of the whole). On 24 Apr. he was entrusted with his brother, Leicester’s proxy (which was vacated by the close) and the same day he was named to the committee for the bill to reverse his brother Algernon’s attainder. Sydney was present again the following day when the committee’s findings were reported back to the House by John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater. Sydney was entrusted with the proxy of Richard Lumley, Viscount Lumley (another of the signatories of the letter of invitation and later promoted earl of Scarbrough) on 22 May (which was vacated by Lumley’s resumption of his seat on 2 July). Three days later he joined five other peers in subscribing the protest against the resolution that the printed paper circulated by Titus Oates constituted a breach of the Lords’ privilege.36 On 20 and again on 21 June he was nominated one of the managers of the conferences held with the Commons concerning amendments to the bill for enabling the commissioners of the great seal to execute the offices of lord chancellor or lord keeper.

On 11 July 1689, Sydney’s nephew, Robert Sydney, later 5th earl of Leicester, was admitted to the House by a writ of acceleration. From this date until Sydney’s promotion to an earldom in 1694, two Lords Sydney sat in the House allowing for occasional confusion about the activities of each man, but it was undoubtedly Viscount Sydney who was named one of the managers of the conferences held with the Commons concerning the succession on 12, 20 and 31 July and who was also nominated a manager of the conferences concerning the bill for a duty on tea and coffee on 25 and 27 July.

Sydney took part in the military preparations that summer, entertaining the king in his tent on Hounslow heath on one occasion, before taking his seat in the second session of the Convention on 23 Oct. 1689.37 He was then present on approximately 68 per cent of all sitting days and on 31 Dec. he received the proxy of Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, which was vacated by the close of the session. On 14 Jan. 1690 he joined Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, in subscribing the protest against the resolution to insist on the right of peers to be tried only in full in Parliament but it seems likely that it was his nephew, Sydney, who subscribed the protest of 23 Jan. at the resolution to agree with the committee of the whole in omitting certain words from the bill for restoring the corporations.

Reckoned as a supporter of the court (although one to be spoken to) in a list prepared by Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen, later duke of Leeds, between October 1689 and February 1690, Sydney was one of a number of peers who accompanied the king at a ‘debauch’ held at the house of Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, in January 1690. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar, after which he was present on almost 65 per cent of all sitting days. In May, Sydney’s former mistress, Grace Worthley, approached Halifax for news of her son, Henry, who had been sent to Holland for his education and who she was concerned ‘is either dead or murdered’. Repeating accusations that she had made the previous year, Worthley rehearsed her fears that Sydney had settled his estate on the countess of Oxford’s bastards (who she took to be his), one of whom was said to be on the point of marrying Algernon Capell, 2nd earl of Essex.38 Worthley’s complaints against the cruelty of her former lover and her efforts to secure a maintenance from him continued for much of the rest of his life.

Sydney accompanied the king to Ireland that summer, where he distinguished himself at the battle of the Boyne and at the siege of Limerick. He then remained in Ireland to preside as one of three lords justices.39 From there he wrote to Portland in protest at reports that some of the former king’s adherents were to be restored to office, declaring ‘if they come off with their lives and estates, I think they have reason to be very well contented, for they are certainly guilty of high treason.’ He also appealed for English judges to be sent out to the province as the Irish ones were deemed to be too partial to their own countrymen.40

Sydney was away from the House for the opening of the new session in October while he continued to grapple with the problems of Ireland. Towards the end of the month he approached Portland once more, this time on his own behalf to request an additional grant of lands from the king.41 Sydney’s preoccupations with Irish matters were curtailed in December when he was recalled to London to take up office as one of the secretaries of state.42 His promotion earned him a congratulatory message from Charles Berkeley, styled Viscount Dursley, later 2nd earl of Berkeley, for ‘coming out of so unhealthful a country as Ireland and into [so] great an employment as secretary of state,’ but his fellow justice, Thomas Coningsby†, later earl of Coningsby, worried that Ireland would ‘suffer extremely’ as a result.43 Sydney returned to the House on 23 Dec. 1690, after which he continued to attend on 10 of the session’s 76 sitting days.

Sydney’s appointment as secretary of state was viewed askance by some and even the king appears to have conceded that the selection of his ill-suited favourite was only a temporary expedient.44 Temporary or not, Sydney’s attention in the early months of 1691 was taken up with dealing with reports of disaffected individuals and with the aftermath of the trial of Richard Grahme†, Viscount Preston [S]. Writing to Nottingham in January Sydney initially recommended that Preston should be granted clemency, observing that he appeared ‘very unwilling to lose his life and will endeavour to deserve it. I think he will do you more service than his head is worth.’ Specifically, it was hoped that he might have ‘useful things’ to discover about the involvement of Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, Francis Turner, bishop of Ely, and William Penn in Jacobite intrigues. By the beginning of February, amid rumours of a new plot, Sydney briefly hardened his attitude convinced that Preston ‘ought to do something more for his life’ but a few days later he again recommended that Preston’s life should be spared.45 By March, Sydney appears to have lost his patience with at least some of his colleagues, in particular with Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, who it was believed was on the brink of resigning. Complaining to the king directly, Sydney decried his fellow minister’s performance declaring, ‘What Lord Godolphin does in the treasury I cannot tell; but I see his proceedings in other places are not with that zeal for your service, as might be expected from him. He scarcely ever comes to Council, and never to committees.’46 In spite of such frustrations, in April Sydney’s portfolio was added to when he was entrusted with the lord wardenship of the Cinque Ports. That month, he introduced the rehabilitated Sunderland to the king and in May, he accompanied the king to the Netherlands where he remained for the next few months.47

Sydney’s absence from England failed to stifle rumours of divisions at court with Sydney noted as a prominent member of the faction standing in opposition to Carmarthen.48 Proximity to the king during the summer did much to enhance Sydney’s reputation. By the autumn, he was said to be ‘a very great favourite’ and the decision to free Preston in November was credited to Sydney’s successful wielding of his interest on Preston’s behalf. Sydney had returned to England by 20 Oct. 1691.49 He took his seat in the new session two days later, after which he was present on approximately 72 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Oct. he was again entrusted with Leicester’s proxy, which was vacated by the close, and the following day with that of Sunderland, which was vacated on 11 Jan. 1692 by Sunderland’s resumption of his seat. Towards the end of October he was noted as one of three likely contenders for the post of lord lieutenant of Ireland but, in spite of Sydney’s apparently burgeoning interest at court, he was unable to extend his influence to secure the return of his kinsman, Robert Smythe‡, in the by-election for one of the county seats in Kent held in November.

Reports that Sydney either was to be or already had been appointed to the Irish lieutenancy persisted well into the new year.50 It was also suggested that he was to be promoted to an earldom.51 Although the promotion in the peerage failed to materialize for the time being, in March 1692 Sydney was accordingly commissioned lord lieutenant of Ireland.52 The same month he was also appointed joint lord lieutenant of Kent, in partnership with Vere Fane, 4th earl of Westmorland. The king took the opportunity of relieving Sydney of the seals of office as secretary of state, leaving the position unfilled for the time being.53

Sydney attended four of the prorogation days that followed on from the close of the session while he awaited preparations for his journey to Ireland. In the meantime complaints were levelled against him by Sir Rowland Gwynne‡, who accused Sydney of selling places on the Irish establishment. In response, Sydney lodged a complaint against Gwynne for making such disparaging remarks. The council subsequently found in Sydney’s favour while Gwynne was upbraided for his ‘groundless and scandalous’ allegations, details of which were ordered to be inserted in the next issue of the Gazette.54 Gwynne was also dismissed from his lucrative household office as treasurer of the chamber.55 Sydney’s departure for Ireland continued to be delayed over the next few months. In July he was forced to respond to criticism made by the king about his failure to set out, explaining that he had been ready to leave ‘at an hour’s warning’ but had been prevented by lack of funds and by awaiting production of the bills for the Irish parliament.56

While he waited on these developments, Sydney and other members of the council took command of the projected descent on France. At the end of May he joined Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, and others aboard the Admiral for a council of war in advance of the operation and at the beginning of August he was again a member of a party from the council to travel to Portsmouth for a further meeting with Admiral Edward Russell, later earl of Orford.57 The result, from Sydney’s point of view, was wholly unsatisfactory and he concluded that when the public discovered that Russell had opposed following up his recent naval victory with a descent he would ‘pass his time very scurrily.’58

Shortly after this disappointing meeting, Sydney finally set out for Ireland. He was accompanied on the first stage of his journey by ‘most of the prime nobility’ as well as a guard of honour provided by the earl of Oxford’s regiment of horse.59 He took with him three bills to be laid before the Irish parliament, which he hoped would prove to be ‘enough for the first transmission’. Adverse weather further impeded his progress but, having finally arrived at his post in the middle of August, he remained there for almost a year and was consequently absent for the entirety of the new session that met at the beginning of November.60 On 21 Nov. he was excused at a call of the House.

Sydney’s tenure of the lieutenancy proved not to be a success. He rapidly found himself thoroughly out of his depth in trying to handle an already difficult situation with the Irish parliament. By mid-November it was reported that he was to return home, but in the event he remained at his post well into the next year.61 Although Sydney reported in December that proceedings in the Irish parliament were progressing more smoothly than its English counterpart and the king subsequently sent him a letter commending his ‘excellent conduct and behaviour’, there was no covering up the rupture between the Irish and English establishments at the time. Many of the problems encountered by Sydney came to be associated with the Irish determination to overturn Poyning’s Law and to insist on ‘their undoubted right to draw up bills and lay it where they thought fit.’62

News of Sydney’s likely recall persisted through the early months of 1693 while he struggled to defend his actions, arguing that he had done nothing but assert the king’s prerogative.63 Still confident of the king’s support he rejected reports that he was to be brought home protesting that he would surely have been informed by his friends if there was any substance to such rumours.64 He continued to seek advice about how best to cope with his predicament, blaming the insolence of certain members of the Irish parliament for his travails.65 His efforts availed him nothing and in April it was said that he was to be recompensed for the loss of his place with a step in the peerage.66 The following month he finally received his well-trailed letters of recall by which time his authority in the province was thoroughly compromised by complaints that he had been too lenient towards the Catholic population, prone to corruption as well as having overseen a particularly unsuccessful parliamentary session. Sydney seems to have been more than content with being relieved of his awkward responsibility and claimed to be fully in support of the plan to establish a commission to manage Ireland in his stead. Even so it was still not until July that he finally quit the island.67 He arrived at Hampton Court not long after accompanied by ‘a considerable train’.68 He also laid on a lavish entertainment at Barnet for ‘all such as went out to fetch him into town’, which was said to have cost him more than £300.69

Although he had failed to impress as secretary of state or lord lieutenant of Ireland, Sydney retained the king’s confidence. At the close of July (bearing out rumours to that effect that had been current since early spring) he was appointed master of the ordnance.70 His responsibilities varied from the extremely mundane, such as providing spades and axes for the colony at New York, to more entertaining projects: developing new weaponry and indulging in firework displays.71 Later that year, following the death of Charles Schomberg*, 2nd duke of Schomberg, he also added the colonelcy of the 1st regiment of foot guards (the Grenadiers) to his new responsibilities, a unit he had previously had command of in 1689.72 Meanwhile his continuing importance as a mediator between the king and other members of the administration was demonstrated once more when it was suggested that he had been entrusted with carrying over to the king a scheme for bringing Shrewsbury, Sunderland and John Churchill, earl (later duke) of Marlborough, back into office.73

After an absence of more than a year and a half, Sydney took his seat in the House for the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on approximately 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 28 Nov. he was again entrusted with Leicester’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session. Following the close, it was reported that Sydney was to spend the summer in residence at Dover Castle and in May 1694 it was rumoured that he was to be advanced in the peerage as earl of Canterbury.74 That month he was created earl of Romney rather than Canterbury: one of seven peers receiving promotions at that time. The award was a further clear signal of the king’s continuing loyalty to his friend. Romney spent the early part of summer surveying the Cinque Ports, before attending the first of two house parties held at Althorp in August, along with Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester, and Henry Guy‡. The following month, he fell seriously sick with colic or a fever, but in spite of early fears the illness proved short-lived.75

Romney took his seat in the House in his new style on 12 Nov. introduced between Bridgwater and Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford. He was thereafter present on almost 68 per cent of all sitting days in the session. That month it was discoursed that he was to be given the additional distinction of being appointed constable of the Tower and in December it was reported that he was to go over to Flanders as a general with the cavalry under the command of James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond.76 Neither appointment proved forthcoming. He continued to attend the session until its close in May 1695 and on 16 Jan. he was again the recipient of his brother, Leicester’s proxy, which was again vacated by the close.

Following the close of the session, Romney played host to a meeting attended by several of the principal naval commanders in anticipation of an attempted assault on Dunkirk and in June he was one of six new lieutenant generals to be appointed.77 He hosted further entertainments at Windsor and in St James’s Square later in the summer.78 Romney attended a conclave at Althorp in the middle of September, where he noted Portland’s friends were ‘in mightly [sic] good humour’.79 The meeting was presumably in preparation for the new elections that autumn. Romney was one of a number of senior officials to predict that a new Parliament was likely to be summoned and in October he was active on behalf of his nephew in Kent, where he was able to make use of his local interest to good effect.80 He was similarly successful in securing a seat for John Pulteney‡ at Hastings. Towards the end of October, Romney survived a botched attempt by the Irish Parliament to impeach him for alleged corruption during his tenure of the lieutenancy.81 His survival was in part owing to the inability of the Irish to decide who they wished to concentrate their fire on, but was also no doubt because, as Thomas Brodrick‡ explained to Shrewsbury, that he was:

of opinion that my Lord Romney’s intentions were perfectly just and true to the Protestant interest of this kingdom. However he was persuaded by some… to do what I believe was contrary to his inclination.82

Romney entertained the king at his house in St James’s Square on 13 Nov. 1695, an event that was rounded off with the by now usual display of fireworks.83 Just over a week later (22 Nov.) he took his seat in the new Parliament, after which he was present on approximately 48 per cent of all sitting days, and on 14 Dec. he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the address opposing the establishment of the Darien Company. On 24 Jan. 1696 he presented to the House a list of the army in English pay and on 14 Mar. he was one of three peers to sign the Association that day. Romney played host to the Venetian ambassadors in May and the same month travelled to Margate with Shrewsbury to greet the king on his arrival.84

Romney attended the three prorogation days in June, July and September during the summer. He then enjoyed mixed fortunes in his efforts to make use of his interest in the Cinque Ports to manage two by-elections that autumn. Having successfully deflected Sir George Rooke‡ from contesting Queenborough in order to secure the return of Thomas King‡, his plan to have Rooke returned for Winchelsea was thwarted when the corporation refused to renege on their commitment to return the outgoing member’s nephew.85

Romney took his seat in the new session on 20 Oct. 1696, after which he was present on 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Dec. he voted in favour of passing the bill of attainder against Sir John Fenwick‡.86 In spite of his less than successful experience in Ireland, as a major landholder in the province and former lord lieutenant Romney remained interested in its affairs. In January 1697 it was reported that both he and his fellow former lord justice, Coningsby, were in favour of the appointment of James Vernon‡ as lord chancellor of Ireland following the death of Sir Charles Porter‡, in preference to John Methuen‡. The situation was complicated by Vernon espousing Methuen, who was in turn supported by Sunderland and Portland, and in the event it was Methuen who was appointed to the vacant place.87

Shortly before the close of the session, Romney added to his burgeoning number of offices by purchasing the rangership of Greenwich from Charles Sackville, 6th earl of Dorset. Lacking a substantial seat of his own, Romney made use of the Queen’s House as both a country retreat and a place where he could entertain dignitaries. Named one of the lords justices during the king’s absence that summer, in July he hosted yet another entertainment for his fellow justices at Blackheath.88 At the close of the month, along with Sunderland, Coningsby and Lord Edward Russell‡, he joined Marlborough at dinner before returning the favour for both Marlborough and Godolphin at Penshurst the following day.89

Romney’s motivation for this latest round of socializing was no doubt in part an effort to shore up the court interest. In September he had warned Portland of the mood in the country, cautioning that, ‘if you don’t bring home a peace with you, I don’t know what will become of us.’ He speculated that public disappointment at such failure might spill over into the next session of Parliament.90 He may also have been keen to secure support for a bill relating to his Irish lands which had been the subject of opposition by Ormond in the Irish Parliament. On 19 Nov. 1697 John Somers, Baron Somers, noted that the bill had been ‘amended as was desired’ but the following day Bishop King commented from Dublin that he assumed ‘now the bill of attainder is passed that it (Romney’s bill) will not be necessary.’91 The day before the opening of the new session, Romney played host to the king at St James’s Square, which was followed by (yet another) display of fireworks.92

Romney took his seat in the House at the opening of the session the next day (3 Dec.) after which he was present on approximately 60 per cent of all sitting days. The following day witnessed further discussion relating to his bill, after which it was determined that he and Ormond should arrive at an understanding about the matter. Romney’s design (in partnership with Coningsby) to secure rights to the Irish copper pence and half pence also threatened to cause dissension, with Methuen warning that ‘if it go on it will put the kingdom in a flame.’ Methuen later reported that he had ‘absolutely gained the point with the king to confound the design of the brass money’, thereby presumably stymieing Romney and Coningsby’s plans. Later reports indicated that the king remained opposed to their scheme and he was also said to be annoyed with Romney and Coningsby for giving ‘countenance’ to complaints made by Colonel Eyre. Methuen alerted Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle, to Romney and Coningsby’s machinations as well, who was said to have declared himself ‘proof against all they could do.’93

The early months of 1698 were characterized for Romney with a familiar round of court entertainment combined with occasional forays into political manoeuvring. Romney’s ongoing rivalry with Ormond was apparent in rumours that circulated in January 1698 that the duke was to succeed Romney as master of the ordnance while Romney took up the lord chamberlaincy. In the event nothing came of it.94 That month, Romney joined the king, Albemarle and Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, in visiting Czar Peter during his stay in England.95 In March both Romney and Albemarle chose to quit the House in advance of the vote over Charles Duncombe‡.96 Two months later, Romney played host to the French ambassador and a number of his fellow peers at Greenwich.97 On 10 June, he was entrusted with the proxy of his nephew, Sydney, who had recently succeeded as 4th earl of Leicester. The proxy was vacated on 27 June by Leicester’s resumption of his seat. Three days later, Romney was again entrusted with that of Sunderland, which was vacated by the close. Romney was named one of the managers of the conference concerning the impeachment of Goudet and others on 2 July and two days later, he was named to the committee appointed to inspect the Journals for 1640 and 1641 for material relating to the attainder of Thomas Wentworth†, earl of Strafford.

Romney took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present on almost 62 per cent of all sitting days. Towards the end of February 1699 he was one of seven peers to be excused from attending the trial of Edward Rich, 6th earl of Warwick, on the grounds of poor health.98 He had rallied by the following month when he laid on lavish entertainment for the junior officers of the Dutch foot guards prior to their embarkation for Holland.99 The same month he discussed with Shrewsbury a project for importing wine from France. Although Romney thought the scheme ‘a very good one’ he cautioned that, ‘if there be no better there than the French ambassador have here, where I am going to dine, it will be scarce worth our while.’100 Later that month, both Romney and Dorset’s efforts to secure pardons for two newly convicted felons were rejected by the king: Vernon was certain that both peers would ‘desist when they find these persons are unworthy.’101

Final years 1699-1704

In April 1699 Romney was involved in attempting to coax his kinsman Sunderland back into the ministry, proffering him the office of lord chamberlain.102 Shortly after, it was rumoured that Romney was to succeed the increasingly disgruntled Portland as groom of the stole.103 Although by the middle of May Portland was said to have been reconciled with the king, later reports suggested that in spite of Romney’s efforts Portland and Albemarle remained at daggers drawn.104 Romney joined Ormond and other members of the nobility at a dinner given to the king by Richard Jones‡, earl of Ranelagh [I], in May and the following month he accompanied the king once more to Holland.105 He was, consequently, omitted from the list of lords justices appointed to oversee affairs during William’s absence. The king’s unshakeable faith in Romney did not protect him from being one of the victims of a satire published in July that listed (among other things) the drawing up of a bill for making Romney and Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, ‘two able ministers of state’.106 His continuing preferment was no doubt the inspiration for reports that circulated that autumn that both he and Richard Boyle, 2nd earl of Burlington, were either to be promoted to dukedoms or to be both dukes and admitted to the order of the Garter.107 In the event, neither award proved forthcoming for either man.

Romney was still in Holland in August, which enabled him to introduce William Byron, 4th Baron Byron, and Thomas Mansell, later Baron Mansell to the king at Dieren.108 He returned to England by the end of October and, having attended the prorogation day of 24 Oct., took his seat in the new session on 16 November. Thereafter he was again present on approximately 62 per cent of all sitting days. In December he was one of the ministers named as having been involved in commissioning the notorious buccaneer, Captain Kidd, but he escaped serious censure for his role in the scandal.109 Romney was forecast as being likely to support the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation in February 1700. In April he and Jersey changed sides over the Irish resumptions bill: defections that helped see the Commons’ unaltered bill pass the House.110 The same month it was rumoured that he and the majority of the administration were to be turned out.111

Romney officiated as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament on 23 May 1700. That month it was speculated that in the expected redistribution of offices he would be ‘disappointed’ but the following month rumours had Romney succeeding as groom of the stole, a role that he had effectively managed since Portland’s falling out with Albemarle.112 In July the reports were repeated with the additional gloss that he intended to sell his house at Greenwich to Ormond.113 In September it was rumoured that he was to be awarded the Garter left vacant by the death of the duke of Gloucester.114

Romney took his seat in the new Parliament on 10 Feb. 1701, after which he was present on almost 70 per cent of all sitting days. On 9 Mar. he wrote to the duchess of Portsmouth (Louise de Keroualle) in response to a petition from her, undertaking to speak to the king on her behalf but lamenting:

I am afraid what was done in parliament concerning the banquiers will not prove of much advantage to you, which I am sorry for, both for your own sake and my own, for I am also concerned in some measure in that matter.115

According to one rumour, Romney played host to Captain Kidd on the latter’s return to Newgate from his hearing before the Commons on 27 March. If the meeting took place Kidd gained nothing from it as neither Romney nor any of his other backers roused themselves to prevent his conviction and execution later that year.116 On 16 Apr. 1701 Romney was ordered to attend the king in company with William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, lord steward, to present the House’s address requesting that he would refrain from passing any censure against the impeached Whig peers until they had been tried. The following day, he reported the king’s reception of the address and on 6 and 10 June he was nominated one of the managers of the conferences concerning the impeachments. He then found in favour of acquitting Somers, on 17 June but was excused his attendance at the trial of the earl of Orford (as Admiral Russell now was) on the grounds of ill health.

Romney was again mentioned as a possible recipient of one of the Garters that were expected to be awarded that year.117 Following the close of the session, he travelled to Holland once more but had returned to England by the end of August.118 The following month, he was constrained to turn down a request from Portsmouth that he might lend her his yacht, explaining that it had been withdrawn from service by the Admiralty as an austerity measure. He warned her further against travelling to England, explaining to her ‘as a friend you take a very ill time, for I believe the nation will be at present in a very extraordinary temper.’119

Romney entertained the king at his seat at Greenwich in November.120 He then took his place in the House for the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701. Present on just over half of all sitting days, on 21 Jan. 1702 he was nominated to the committee for drawing an address to the king on behalf of Colonel Leighton regarding debts that were owing to him. Aside from his attendance in the Lords, Romney also appears to have been eager to remain informed about developments in the Commons. James Lowther‡ noted how he was occasionally sent for by Romney ‘into his bedchamber to be informed of the business of the House and the office.’ 121 The death of King William in March effectively overturned the last vestiges of interest that Romney commanded. Romney was present at the king’s bedside and with the king passed his own authority at court. Lowther commented that, ‘if my Lord Romney continues in our office, all will do well’, but there seemed little prospect of his remaining employed in the administration.122

Soon after Queen Anne’s accession, it was reported that Ormond would succeed Romney at the ordnance and it was also remarked upon that neither he nor the four impeached lords had been summoned to council since the king’s death.123 Further predictions that Romney would be ‘out’ persisted into April though in May it was reported that Marlborough, rather than Ormond, might have the mastership of the ordnance.124 That month, the queen wrote to the duchess of Marlborough explaining that she had decided to allow Romney to retain much of the plate that he had enjoyed in his various offices seeing that, ‘it is better not to take anything of that kind from him, since he will be out of all employments (except being lord lieutenant of Kent) when the prince is admiral.’125 In June Romney was accordingly replaced as warden of the Cinque Ports by the queen’s consort, Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland.126 A rumour that Romney was not even to hold onto his lieutenancy of Kent and a separate report that he would be compensated for his losses with the office of master of the horse both proved inaccurate.127 Responding to this last piece of speculation, Henry St John, later Viscount Bolingbroke, noted how:

Lord Romney, who has had almost all the places a king of England can bestow in their turns, without capacity enough to make a good parish clerk, is now to be master of the horse, a post of great profit I believe still, as well as honour.128

Such reports of Romney’s likely ouster and compensation were finally concluded in the middle of July with the announcement that he was to have a pension of £3,000 per annum in lieu of his former offices.129

Romney took his seat in the House for the new Parliament on 20 Oct., but he was then present for just 36 per cent of all sitting days. In January 1703 he was estimated by Nottingham as being likely to oppose the occasional conformity bill and on 16 Jan. he voted as expected in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. Absent from the House after 5 Feb., Romney was reported to be sick towards the end of the month. He was still indisposed in mid-March, which presumably explains his failure to attend any further days in the session.130

In advance of the new session, Romney was noted by his great-nephew, Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as remaining opposed to the occasional conformity bill. Sunderland repeated the prediction in a second assessment later that month. Romney took his seat in the House on 9 Nov., after which he was present on 48 per cent of all sitting days, and on 14 Dec. he voted once more to throw out the occasional bill. Two days later, he was ordered by the House to appoint a file of musketeers to guard Sir John Maclean while he was being ushered to and from his examinations.

Romney attended for the final time on 28 Mar. 1704 (five days before the close). On 6 Apr. it was reported that he was dangerously sick with smallpox and the following day his case was believed to be hopeless.131 He died on 8 April.132 In his will he named as executors his nephews Henry Pelham‡ and Thomas Pelham, later Baron Pelham of Laughton, and John Sydney, later 6th earl of Leicester, the last of whom was added in a codicil but appears to have taken upon himself the bulk of the business of settling Romney’s affairs as he later described himself as being ‘in a manner sole executor’. He was also Romney’s principal beneficiary inheriting substantial estates in Kent.133 Romney left gifts of £150 apiece to the poor of three parishes in Kent and Middlesex as well as making provision for £1,000 to be given to Captain Henry Worthley, his (disputed) son by Grace Worthley. He also left his former mistress an annuity of £80. After lying in state for a few days, Romney was buried in St James’s church close to the scene of so many of his lavish displays of pyrotechnics.134 At his death the peerage became extinct but the title of Romney was later revived as a barony for Sir Robert Marsham†.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 TNA, PROB 11/477.
  • 2 Bodl. Carte 222, f. 314.
  • 3 Kent HLC (CKS), U1475/O102.
  • 4 Bodl. Carte 79, f. 743.
  • 5 Kent HLC (CKS), U1475/O103.
  • 6 Kent HLC (CKS), U1475/O104.
  • 7 Kent HLC (CKS), U1475/O107.
  • 8 CSP Dom. 1697, p. 68.
  • 9 CSP Dom. 1693, p. 404.
  • 10 CTB, 1693-96, p. 1322.
  • 11 Verney ms mic. M636/48, E. Adams to Sir R. Verney, 12 Nov. 1695; Evelyn Diary, v. 223; Dasent, History of St James’s Sq., app. A.
  • 12 Swift, v. 258.
  • 13 Pepys Diary, vi. 301-2.
  • 14 Horwitz, Parl. Pols., 91; J. Scott, Algernon Sydney and the Restoration crisis, 1677-1683, 96.
  • 15 Swift, v. 195, 258; POAS, vi. 65.
  • 16 Macaulay, iii. 1053.
  • 17 The Whirlpool of misadventures: Letters of Robert Paston, 1st earl of Yarmouth 1663-1679 ed. J. Agnew (Norf. Rec. Soc. 76), 103.
  • 18 Sidney Diary, i. xxxv; Foxcroft, Supplement to Burnet’s History, 284.
  • 19 Kenyon, Sunderland, 5-6, 7.
  • 20 Pepys Diary, vi. 301-2, vii. 8.
  • 21 Sidney Diary, i. xxvii.
  • 22 Add. 75362, Sir W. Coventry to Halifax, 1 May 1680.
  • 23 Scott, Algernon Sidney, 94, 96-7.
  • 24 Childs, The Army, James II and the Glorious Revolution, 147.
  • 25 Bodl. Carte 222, f. 314.
  • 26 Castle Ashby ms, 1092, newsletter to earl of Northampton, 8 Sept. 1681.
  • 27 Sidney Diary, i. xxxiii-xxxiv.
  • 28 Morrice, Ent’ring bk. ii. 418.
  • 29 HMC 5th Rep. 186; Morrice, Ent’ring bk. ii. 512.
  • 30 CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 446.
  • 31 Add. 28053, ff. 345-6; UNL, Portland mss, PwA 2139/1-2.
  • 32 Childs, 148; UNL, Portland mss, PwA 2177/1-2; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 462.
  • 33 Morrice, Ent’ring bk. iv. 471; Add. 32681, f. 317.
  • 34 Sidney Diary, ii. 295; Kenyon, Sunderland, 228, 232.
  • 35 Morrice, Ent’ring bk. v. 42.
  • 36 LJ xiv. 221.
  • 37 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 570.
  • 38 Add. 75366, G. Worthley to Halifax, 7 May 1690.
  • 39 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 101-2.
  • 40 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1320/1-2, 1321.
  • 41 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1328.
  • 42 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 195.
  • 43 Berkeley Castle Muniments (BCM), select series 36(B), ff. 13-14; UNL, Portland mss, PwA 306/1.
  • 44 Horwitz, Parl, Pols, 66; Sidney Diary, i. xxxvi; Thomson, Secretaries of State, 8.
  • 45 CSP Dom. 1690-1, pp. 228, 238, 245, 248, 252.
  • 46 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 295.
  • 47 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 216; Add. 72516, ff. 132-3; HMC Finch, iii. 108, 290; Present State of Europe or the Historical and Political Mercury, 1 May 1691.
  • 48 Bodl. Tanner 26, f. 59.
  • 49 HMC Downshire, i. 380-1; Verney ms mic. M636/4, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1691; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 296.
  • 50 Add. 70119, R. to Sir E. Harley, 2 Feb. 1692; Add. 29578, f. 290; Bodl. Ballard 20, f. 171; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 348-50.
  • 51 HMC Hastings, ii. 342.
  • 52 CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 161.
  • 53 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 378, 397.
  • 54 TNA, PC 2/74; Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 9 Apr. 1692; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 404, 407, 412.
  • 55 HP Commons 1690-1715, iv. 143.
  • 56 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1340.
  • 57 Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 1 June 1692, M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 3 Aug. 1692.
  • 58 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1349.
  • 59 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 537.
  • 60 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1350-1.
  • 61 Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 16 Nov. 1692.
  • 62 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1352; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 616, 625.
  • 63 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1354; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 59.
  • 64 CSP Dom. 1693, p. 6.
  • 65 CSP Dom. 1693, p. 69.
  • 66 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 80.
  • 67 Add. 70081, newsletter, 4 July 1693.
  • 68 Add. 70235, Sir E. to R. Harley, 14 July 1693.
  • 69 Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 20 July 1693.
  • 70 Bodl. Tanner 25, f. 46, Carte 233, f. 228; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 60, 101.
  • 71 CSP Dom. 1700-02, p. 184.
  • 72 Add. 72482, f. 145; Add. 17677 NN, ff. 346-8.
  • 73 Add. 61455, ff. 18-19; Verney ms mic. M636/47, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 31 Aug. 1693.
  • 74 HMC Portland, ii. 167.
  • 75 Bodl. Carte 79, ff. 519, 622; UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1379; HMC Buccleuch, ii. 135.
  • 76 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 400; Verney ms mic. M636/48, J. to Sir R. Verney, 6 Dec. 1694.
  • 77 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 481.
  • 78 Bodl. Carte 239, f. 51; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 522; UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1362/1-2.
  • 79 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1363.
  • 80 Add. 72486, ff. 6-7.
  • 81 HMC Downshire, i. 574-6.
  • 82 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 260.
  • 83 Verney ms mic. M636/48, E. Adams to Sir R. Verney, 12 Nov. 1695; Evelyn Diary, v. 223; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 550.
  • 84 Add. 72486, ff. 29-30.
  • 85 Add. 75369, Sir G. Rooke to Halifax, 27 Aug. 1696.
  • 86 Staffs. RO, Persehowse pprs. D260/M/F/1/6, ff. 96-8; Add. 47608, pt. 5, f. 138.
  • 87 Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 46 (V-S Letterbook i) no. 54; HP Commons 1690-1715, iv. 801-2.
  • 88 Verney ms mic. M636/50, J. Stewkeley to Sir J. Verney, 13 July 1697.
  • 89 Add. 75369, R. Crawford to Halifax, 1 Aug. 1697.
  • 90 UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1368.
  • 91 Add. 61653, ff. 11-12; TCD MS 750/1, pp. 132-4.
  • 92 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 313-14.
  • 93 Add. 61653, ff. 42-4, 47, 51-3, 66-8.
  • 94 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 44, f. 16.
  • 95 CSP Dom. 1698, pp. 29-30.
  • 96 Beinecke Lib. Osborn collection, Blathwayt mss, Box 19.
  • 97 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 383.
  • 98 LJ xvi. 390.
  • 99 Bodl. Carte 228, f. 293.
  • 100 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 621.
  • 101 CSP Dom. 1699-1700, pp. 121-2.
  • 102 Bodl. Carte 228, ff. 299, 301.
  • 103 Add. 75369, Sir G. Rooke to Halifax, 13 May 1699; Add. 75368, Nottingham to Halifax, 14 May 1699.
  • 104 Leics. RO, DG 7 box 4950, bundle 22, Leeds to daughter, 25 Apr. 1699.
  • 105 Bodl. Carte 228, f. 313; CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 217.
  • 106 HMC Portland, viii. 62-3.
  • 107 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 560, 562, 573.
  • 108 Post Man and the Historical Account, 17 Aug. 1699.
  • 109 Bodl. Carte 130, f. 403.
  • 110 Vernon-Shrewsbury letters, iii. 24.
  • 111 Bodl. Ballard 10, f. 40.
  • 112 Add. 72517, ff. 57-8; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 659.
  • 113 CSP Dom. 1700-02, p. 90.
  • 114 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 691.
  • 115 W. Suss. RO, Goodwood MS 5/6/10.
  • 116 R.C. Ritchie, Captain Kidd and the war against the pirates, (1986), 204.
  • 117 HMC Rutland, ii. 67.
  • 118 English Post with News Foreign and Domestick, 27-29 Aug. 1701.
  • 119 WSRO, Goodwood MS 5/6/14.
  • 120 London Gazette, 3-6 Nov. 1701.
  • 121 Cumbria RO, D/Lons/W2/2/5, J. to Sir J. Lowther, 10 Feb. 1701/2.
  • 122 Ibid. same to same, 14 Mar. 1702.
  • 123 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 14, 17 Mar. 1702.
  • 124 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 174.
  • 125 Add. 61416, ff. 3-5.
  • 126 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 179.
  • 127 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 4, 25 June 1702; Daily Courant, 27 June 1702.
  • 128 Add. 75375, f. 47.
  • 129 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 194, 251.
  • 130 Add. 70075, newsletter, 25 Feb. 1703; Post Boy, 16-18 Mar. 1703.
  • 131 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 411; Add. 61120, f. 76; Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS 1, Box 3, folder 149, newsletter, 7 Apr. 1704.
  • 132 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 45, f. 63; Add. 70075, newsletter, 8 Apr. 1704; Daily Courant, 10 Apr. 1704.
  • 133 Add. 61295, f. 50.
  • 134 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 45, ff. 69-70; Add. 70075, newsletter, 18 Apr. 1704; Daily Courant, 20 Apr. 1704.