suc. fa. 1 June 1628 (a minor) as 5th Bar. DE LA WARR
First sat 16 Feb. 1647; first sat after 1660, 26 Apr. 1660; last sat 24 Aug. 1687
b. 30 Jan. 1626,1 o. s. of Henry West† (1603–28), 4th Bar. De la Warr, and Isabella (1607–79), da. and coh. of Sir Thomas Edmondes‡, treas. of the household. m. 15 Sept. 1642, Anne (d.1703), da. of John Wilde‡ of Droitwich, Worcs., sjt.-at-law, 3s. (2 d.v.p.) ?3da.2 d. 22 Dec. 1687; admon. 2 Jan. 1688.
Capt. Lord Gerard’s regt. of Horse 1666.3
Associated with: Wherwell, Hants.
West was apparently two years, four months and two days old at the decease of his father, giving a birth date of 30 Jan. 1626. He was probably baptized in April 1626, at the house of his paternal grandfather, with Charles I being named as one of his godfathers.4 His maternal grandfather’s estates were settled on his mother, while a widow, following the death of her brothers and the disinheritance of her sister.5 However, by her will of November 1679, De la Warr was left only the rent and arrears of a manor in Hampshire; the remainder of the estate went to his sister Mary and her husband, William Orme.6 De la Warr first sat on 16 Feb. 1647 and attended Parliament from his coming of age until 9 Nov. 1648. At some point before the Restoration he joined the royalist cause, being imprisoned on account of the rising of Sir George Booth, the future Baron Delamer.7
As a former parliamentarian, De la Warr was an obvious choice for re-admittance into the Lords once the Convention had been called. It may have been with an eye to future developments in the spring of 1660 that Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, included him on a list of peers, probably compiled with a view to their attitude to presbyterian peers, as a peer who had sat previously. On 19 Apr. 1660, John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt, wrote to Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon, including De la Warr among the number of those lords who had sat in 1648 who would be admitted on the first day of the Convention.8 On that opening day (25 Apr.) a letter was dispatched to De la Warr requesting his attendance, and he was present the next day. On 27 Apr. he was named to a committee to draw up the heads for a conference with the Commons on settling the nation.
On 3 May 1660 a precedency dispute between De la Warr and George Berkeley, 9th Baron (later earl of) Berkeley, was referred to the committee for privileges, to which De la Warr was added on 7 May. The committee reported on 27 June and a hearing at the bar was ordered for 17 July, but this was repeatedly postponed. De la Warr was named to a further four committees during the session, before the adjournment on 13 Sept. 1660; he sat for the last time on 16 August. Before the adjournment he had attended on 69 days, 59 per cent of the total. He was absent when the House resumed on 6 Nov. 1660, first sitting on 19 November. He then attended on 15 days, a third of the total, being appointed to one committee. On 7 Dec. his precedency cause with Berkeley was ordered to be heard at the bar on the 14th, but nothing happened thereafter.
De la Warr was present at the opening of the Cavalier Parliament on 8 May 1661. He attended on 42 days of the first part of the session before the adjournment at the end of July, 65 per cent of the total, and was named to six committees. On 11 July he was listed as a supporter of the claim of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to be lord great chamberlain. On 17 May the lord chamberlain put before the House the petition that Berkeley had sent to the king renewing his claims of precedency against De la Warr, and a hearing was ordered for 24 May. De la Warr was then absent for the next two sittings, including a call of the House on the 20th. On the 21st he was present, at which time the cause was put off to the 30th; he was then absent until the 28th. After hearing counsel on the 30th, the House put off the cause until 7 June, when De la Warr’s contention that the matter had already been settled by a ruling under Elizabeth I was overruled. Following some debate ‘it was agreed between the counsel on both sides, to state the evidence and the case amongst themselves’ and then the House would appoint a further day to hear the business. On 14 June it was ordered that, if De la Warr’s counsel had not met with their counterparts by 20 June, the House would proceed with a hearing at the bar. However, nothing happened for the remainder of the session. Meanwhile on 26 July De la Warr attended the committee for privileges when it considered the complaint of a breach of privilege against Theophilus Clinton, 4th earl of Lincoln.9
De la Warr was absent from the beginning of the second part of the session when Parliament reconvened on 6 Nov. 1661. He was also absent from a call of the House on 25 Nov. and did not sit until 15 Feb. 1662. He attended on 36 days of this part of the session, a little over 28 per cent of the total. On 19 May he entered his protest against the decision of the House to leave out two provisos from the highways bill which asserted the rights of the Lords to initiate or amend any bill that charged money for repairing or paving of highways, for mending of bridges or for other public use.
De la Warr was present on 18 Feb. 1663, the opening day of the 1663 session but on 23 Feb. he was absent from a call of the House. He attended on 43 days of the session, half the total, and was named to five committees. On 13 July Wharton classed him as doubtful on his forecast of the probable division on the attempt of George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Clarendon.10
De la Warr missed the opening of the 1664 session on 16 Mar., first sitting on 2 April. He attended on 18 days of the session, 50 per cent of the total. He was present on 24 Nov. for the opening of the 1664–5 session, attending thereafter on 23 days of the session, 43 per cent of the total. On 26 Jan. 1665 he complained to the House that his servant Thomas Williams had been arrested and detained as a prisoner in the Poultry Compter, contrary to parliamentary privilege. Williams was released and George Waterman, one of the sheriffs of London, ordered to attend. Waterman had refused to release Williams despite a letter from De la Warr, on the grounds that he did not know the peer’s handwriting. The Lords discharged Waterman on 28 Jan. after suggesting that he ought to have sent to De la Warr in order to verify his hand.
In the session of October 1665, De la Warr attended on six days, 32 per cent of the total. He also attended the prorogations on 20 Feb. and 23 Apr. 1666. In the brief invasion scare of June-July 1666 he was appointed a captain of a troop of horse to be raised in the regiment commanded by Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon (later earl of Macclesfield).11 He was absent from the beginning of the 1666–7 session, first sitting on 22 Oct. and thereafter attending on 29 days of the session, 32 per cent of the total. On 14 Jan. 1667 he protested against agreeing with the Commons in the use of the term ‘nuisance’ in the bill prohibiting the import of Irish cattle.
In May 1667 it was reported that De la Warr was to be appointed lord lieutenant of Hampshire, possibly jointly with another peer, but Charles Powlett, styled Lord St. John, the future duke of Bolton, was appointed instead.12 He did not feel able to offer De la Warr a deputy lieutenancy in case he refused it.13 De la Warr did not attend the Lords on 25 and 29 July 1667 when the king announced the conclusion of the peace. He also missed the opening of the 1667–9 session, first sitting on 17 Oct. 1667. He attended on 31 days of the first part of the session from October–December 1667, 61 per cent of the total, and was appointed to five committees. He attended on the second day, 10 Feb. 1668, after Parliament reconvened on the 6th. In all he was present on 20 days of that part of the session, 30 per cent of the total and was appointed to three committees.
De la Warr attended on only 8 and 9 Dec. of the session of October–December 1669, 5.5 per cent of the total. On the latter day he was excused from a fine of £40 imposed upon him by the House for his absence. He was present on 14 Feb. 1670, the opening day of the 1670–1 session. Thereafter his attendance before the adjournment on 11 Apr. was much higher than previously, at 33 days, 82.5 per cent of the total; he was also named to seven committees. Following the adjournment, De la Warr was engaged in a treaty to marry one of his sons, presumably his eldest, Charles‡, to Letitia Popham. Bulstrode Whitelocke‡ was employed and ‘took pains in perusing the long conveyances of the Lord De la Warr’s estate’, including the jointure of De la Warr’s mother. Although Whitelocke pronounced De la Warr ‘just and honourable’, the negotiations were terminated by Miss Popham.14
De la Warr was missing when the session reconvened on 24 Oct. 1670, first sitting on 4 Nov., the day upon which the House met to consider the petition of 31 Oct. presented on behalf of his mother for a breach of privilege in having her house invaded by bailiffs. The House found the action a breach of the privilege of peerage and the privilege of Parliament, the bailiffs having forcibly entered her house, made an inventory of her goods and uttered vilifying language against her, and they were ordered into the custody of Black Rod. De la Warr was missing from a call of the House on 14 Nov. 1670. Nor was he present on the 15th when it was ordered that the exigent and outlawry against his mother and all proceedings on them be vacated, and the committee of privileges ordered to consider the fittest way to achieve that end. He next attended on 22 November. On 5 Dec. 1670 those pursuing his mother were served with an order to appear on 8 Dec. before the committee for privileges.15 De la Warr was also present on 8 Dec. when Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset reported that, having consulted judges of the court of common pleas, they found that the exigent and outlawry against his mother could be vacated by the directions of the judges of that court, whereupon the Lords ordered the judges to give directions for so doing. On 19 Dec. De la Warr was present when the bailiffs were ordered to be brought before the bar the following day, whereupon they were released.
Meanwhile, also on 19 Dec., the Lords ordered that Berkeley be heard by counsel on 10 Jan. 1671 as to his claim to precedency. After several postponements, the cause came on to be heard on 14 Feb., whereupon De la Warr was granted until 14 Apr. to search for records pertaining to the case. At that date he again asked for, and was granted, more time to gather evidence in the case. In all, De la Warr had attended on 43 days of the session, 34 per cent of the total, and been named to three committees.
De la Warr was absent from the beginning of the February–March 1673 session; he first sat on 1 Mar., attending in all on 24 days of the session, 58.5 per cent of the total, and being named to four committees. Berkeley renewed his claims of precedency against De la Warr and on 18 Feb., since De la Warr was absent and no-one appeared for him, it was ordered that the Lords would proceed to give judgment therein on 3 March. On 26 Feb. De la Warr was again granted more time, until 11 Mar., because he was ‘sick in the country’. Despite his regular attendance after 1 Mar., on the 7th the case was further postponed until 26 Mar., ‘on the joint consent’ of De la Warr and Berkeley. On 26 Mar., with counsel on both sides ready, the House postponed the case until the ‘second Thursday after the recess’, whereupon, once again, nothing happened.
De la Warr did not attend the short session of October–November 1673. He was also absent at the beginning of the session of January–February 1674. He first sat on 3 Feb., attending on 10 days of the session, 26 per cent of the total, and being named to a single committee. On 13 Feb. five bailiffs of the sheriff of Hampshire were ordered into custody for arresting his servant. He did not attend Parliament in 1675, being excused on 29 April. Nor did he attend the first part of the session. However, he was present for the last part of the 1677–8 session, from January to May 1678, first sitting on 28 January. Thereafter he attended on 32 days of this part of the session, 52.5 per cent of the total, and was named to three committees. On 28 Jan. he was named as one of the peers deputed to ask the king when he would be attended by the House with their address of thanks for the marriage of Princess Mary and William of Orange. On the analysis of lay peers in 1677–8 compiled by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, De la Warr was classed as ‘worthy’.
The marriage of De la Warr’s son Charles to Mary Huddlestone in February 1677 had provided for the payment of a £10,000 portion to such as De la Warr should appoint for the payment of his debts. He directed the money to Sir John Cutler‡, but lacked witnesses to prove it, so that after the death of his daughter-in-law he had to resort to chancery in February–March 1678. In June, Heneage Finch, earl of Nottingham, gave the parties three days to come to an agreement, saying, ‘if I were the Lord De la Warr I would not exact the whole and if I were Mr. Huddlestone I would be thankful for any abatement’. Although De la Warr offered to accept £6,000, Huddlestone was not ready to pay or to offer security for payment; thereupon Nottingham ‘decreed the £10,000 and interest’, but also ordered that if £6,000 were ‘paid or secured within a year’ that would end the matter.16 This case was followed closely by Cary Gardiner, who was originally misled into declaiming that ‘my Lord Chancellor is much clamoured on for overturning a decree the Master made between my Lord De la Warr and Mr. Holston [Huddleston], as married his daughter to my Lord’s son … all believes corruption in the case and he to be faulty’. However, she quickly retracted her criticism to note that ‘the whole value of [the] ten thousand [was] made to my Lord to secure the £6,000’.17 His son Charles referred to the dispute in his will, and the lack of satisfaction that he had received from his father and Cutler, which had made him take the case to chancery. At his death in 1684 he instructed his wife, his sole executrix, to revive the suit.18 Cutler subsequently paid the £6,600 and interest to Mrs Huddlestone and her administrator.19
De la Warr was absent from Parliament at the beginning of the session of May–July 1678, first sitting on 10 June. He attended on 16 days of this part of the session, just over 37 per cent of the total, and was named to three committees. On 20 June he entered his protest against the resolutions passed by the House over the claims to the peerage of Robert Villiers, who styled himself Viscount Purbeck. De la Warr was absent from the beginning of the winter 1678 session on 21 Oct., first sitting on 6 December. In total he attended on just 11 days, 18 per cent of the total. On 27 Dec. he voted against the motion to commit Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds).
De la Warr did not attend the first Exclusion Parliament until 3 Apr. 1679. His absence was noted in Danby’s forecasts around this time, where he was reckoned as a likely supporter. Indeed, on one list this assessment of support was qualified with a note that he was absent – which was in turn crossed through, probably because he had taken his seat. He attended on 28 days of the session, just over 46 per cent of the total, and was named to two committees. On another list Charles Bertie‡ was detailed to canvass his support. De la Warr’s name appears on two further lists around March–April 1679, again as a likely supporter of Danby. He went on to vote against the attempt to attaint Danby, and when the bill passed on 4 Apr. he entered his protest against it. He was also listed on 14 Apr. as against agreeing with the Commons on the bill. On 10 May he voted against appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached Lords and four days later he dissented from the resolution to pass the bill regulating the trials of peers. On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.
De la Warr attended the prorogations on 26 Jan., 1 July and 23 Aug. 1680, but was present on only two days (21 and 23 Dec.) of the second Exclusion Parliament and was thus absent from the division of 15 Nov. on the Exclusion bill. On 9 Mar. 1681 he wrote to Danby that he would ‘hasten’ to Oxford at the beginning of the Parliament to be held there, adding that the earl’s long confinement was ‘a great injustice to the king’s royal prerogative’.20 This no doubt explains his presence on Danby’s pre-sessional forecast of 17 Mar. on a possible division over granting him bail from his imprisonment in the Tower among ‘such as I conceive will be for my bail if they are there’. Danby was correct to add the caveat about De la Warr’s presence for on 23 Mar. Danby’s son, Edward Osborne‡, styled Viscount Latimer, reported that De la Warr had not yet arrived in Oxford.21 Nor did he arrive before the end of the session on 28 March.
De la Warr was present on the opening day of James II’s Parliament on 19 May 1685, when, together with William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard, he introduced the lord keeper, Sir Francis North, Baron Guilford, into the Lords. Later on, with William Paget, 7th Baron Paget, he performed the same function for John Bennet, Baron Ossulton. He attended on 28 days of the session before its adjournment on 2 July, just over 90 per cent of the total, being named to six committees. He also attended on the last day of the resumed session, 20 Nov. 1685, nine per cent of the total, as well as the prorogations on 22 Nov. 1686 and 28 Apr. 1687.
In March 1687 De la Warr applied for and was granted a royal licence and dispensation to appoint his heir John West, the future 6th Baron De la Warr (his heir apparent Charles having predeceased him in 1684), to the prebend rectory of Wherwell, ‘notwithstanding he is not a priest in orders’.22 However, he had reckoned without Peter Mews, bishop of Winchester, who on 22 June informed William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, that
Lord De la Warr is creating me a very great one [trouble], there being a rural prebend (which was never yet held but by a clergyman) now vacant which he hath a design to settle his eldest son in, who is not in order[s]: and having obtained a dispensation under the Broad Seal to hold it, and in that dispensation an injunction to the Bishop of Winton to give him institution and induction his son demands of me. But I refused it, telling him that institution was an ecclesiastical act, and a layman was incapable of it. For this I am not a little threatened.23
The king may have used this as a bargaining chip in soliciting De la Warr’s support for his policies. On one list of peers in 1687, the peer’s attitude to the repeal of the Test Act was uncertain. In about May 1687 he was classed as a possible supporter of James II’s plans, but another list of about November indicated that he had not made his opinion known on the repeal of the Test Act. It is unclear whether it was De la Warr or his son who consented to all three of James II’s questions.24
De la Warr died on 22 Dec. 1687 and was buried at Wherwell, Hampshire. Although he managed to retain his precedency, thereby showing that the Lords only recognized baronies by patent, not by tenure, his main legacy was a debt to Sir John Cutler‡, amounting, according to Cutler, to £35,000.25 He was succeeded by his son John, who was left to attempt to clear up this financial mess.
S.N.H.- 1 TNA, WARD 7/78/95.
- 2 Berry, Hants Gen. 202–3.
- 3 CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 557.
- 4 TNA, E351/544, rot. 205.
- 5 HP Commons, 1604–29, iv. 176.
- 6 TNA, PROB 11/361.
- 7 Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 66.
- 8 Bodl. Clarendon 71, ff. 305–6.
- 9 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 66.
- 10 Bodl. Carte 81, f. 224.
- 11 CSP Dom. 1665–6, p. 557.
- 12 Carte 222, ff. 154–5.
- 13 CSP Dom. 1667–8, p. 92.
- 14 Whitelocke Diary, 754–5.
- 15 NAS, GD 406/1/9900, B. Chancy to G. Digby, 8 Dec. 1670.
- 16 Nottingham’s Chancery Cases ed. D.E.C. Yale (Selden Soc. lxxix), 612–13, 746, 751.
- 17 Verney ms mic. 636/33, C. Gardiner to Verney, 4 and 7 Dec. 1679.
- 18 PROB 11/376.
- 19 CJ, x. 600–1.
- 20 Add. 28053, ff. 249–50.
- 21 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 425.
- 22 CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 393; HMC Lords, ii. 301.
- 23 Bodl. Tanner 29, f. 38.
- 24 Duckett, Penal Laws, 423.
- 25 Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 134.