VILLIERS, Edward (c. 1655-1711)

VILLIERS, Edward (c. 1655–1711)

cr. 20 Mar. 1691 Visct. VILLIERS; cr. 24 Sept. 1697 earl of JERSEY

First sat 31 Mar. 1691; last sat 21 Aug. 1711

bap. 18 Nov. 1655, s. of Sir Edward Villiers (1620–89) and Frances, da. of Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk. educ. St John’s, Camb. matric. 1671; DCL Oxf. 1702. m. lic. 8 Dec. 1681 (with £10,000),1 Barbara (d.1735), da. of William Chiffinch‡ 3s. (?1 d.v.p.) 1da. d. 26 Aug. 1711;2 bur. Westminster Abbey; admon. 10 Sept. 1711 to wid.3

Master of the horse to Queen Mary 1689–95; kt. marshal 1689–1700; kpr. of Hyde Park 1692;4 envoy extraordinary at the Hague 1695–7, amb. to France 1698–9; PC 1697–1707; ld. just. Ireland 1697; ld. just. 1699,5 1700, 1701; sec. of state (southern dept.) 1699–1700; ld. chamberlain 1700–4; ld. privy seal 26 Aug. 1711.

Envoy extraordinary at the Hague 1695–7; amb. to France 1698–9.

Associated with: Squerries Court, Kent; St James’s Street, Westminster; Duke Street, Westminster; and High Lodge, Hyde Park.6

Likenesses: oil on canvas by Hyacinthe Rigaud, 1699, St John’s, Camb.

Villiers, the son of a household official and married to the daughter of the key court insider of the court of Charles II, rose to prominence in the service of William III and Mary II. Along with his sisters Barbara, Elizabeth, and Anne, he had been a childhood companion of Princess Mary, and with Elizabeth and Anne he accompanied her when she went to the Netherlands to marry the prince of Orange.7 Lampooned for possessing few qualities beyond his natural good looks, his continual preferment under William III has been attributed largely to his good fortune: one of his sisters, Elizabeth, later countess of Orkney [S], became the king’s mistress, and another, Anne, married the king’s favourite, Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland. John Churchill, earl (later duke) of Marlborough, thought Villiers and his wife ‘as designing, ill people as is possible’.8 John Macky concluded that

He has gone through all the great offices of the kingdom, with a very ordinary understanding; was employed by one of the greatest kings that ever was, in affairs of the greatest consequence, and yet a man of a weak capacity. He makes a good figure in his person, being tall, well shaped, handsome, and dresses clean.9

Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, commented more stridently that ‘it was one of the reproaches of the… reign, that he had so much credit with [King William]; who was so sensible of it, that if he had lived a little while longer, he would have dismissed him’.10

While he was an intimate of King William and Queen Mary, Villiers’s relations with Queen Anne proved far less amicable. He earned the then princess’s undying animosity in the year of his elevation for his behaviour towards her during her period of self-imposed exile from court at Sion House. Sarah, countess (later duchess) of Marlborough, described how, following Princess Anne’s frosty audience with the queen in February 1692 over the queen’s insistence that she remove Sarah from her service, ‘she met in the next room my Lord Jersey who at that time had not so much manners as to offer the princess his hand to open a door for her, or call her servants who by accident were out of the way’.11

The new peer, 1691–1702

As a reward for his loyal household service, Villiers was raised to the peerage in March 1691 as Viscount Villiers. He was introduced into the House within a few days of his elevation on 31 Mar. (a prorogation day) between Francis Newport, Viscount Newport (later earl of Bradford), and Charles Granville, styled Viscount Lansdown (who sat in the House as Baron Granville, and later succeeded as 2nd earl of Bath). He then resumed his seat at the opening of the 1691-2 session on 22 Oct. 1691, after which he was present on just over 60 per cent of all sitting days. On 27 Oct. he was ordered to wait on the queen to discover when the House might attend her with their address. On 4 Jan. 1692, the House took into consideration Villiers’s petition that his mother’s brother, Henry Howard, 5th earl of Suffolk, might be proceeded against for non-payment of money owing to his sisters. The case was referred to the committee for privileges, which considered it on 11 January.12 Bishop Burnet reported from the committee on 12 Jan. confirming Suffolk’s willingness to waive his privilege so that Villiers and his sisters could prosecute their case in the courts. The same day, Villiers’s bill for vesting some of his lands in trustees to be sold to raise funds for the purchase of alternative estates was read for a second time and committed. John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, reported from the committee considering the bill three days later, recommending that it be engrossed with some amendments. The following month, on 18 Feb. 1692, Villiers requested that his objections to the bill for recovering small debts in Westminster courts might be heard, having been unable to do so prior to the bill’s second reading. The House ordered that all concerned in the bill should be heard at the bar the following Saturday, though the Journal makes no mention of this having taken place.13 Villiers’s own bill was managed in the Commons by Edward Clarke‡ and received the royal assent on 24 February.14

Villiers resumed his seat at the outset of the following session on 4 Nov. 1692, after which he was present on just over 70 per cent of sitting days. On 12 Dec. the House considered a further bill to clarify certain aspects of his former act, which was later also managed in the Commons by Edward Clarke, returned to the Lords on 9 Jan. 1693 without amendment, and received royal assent on 20 January.15 On 3 Jan. 1693 Villiers voted against passing the place bill and the following month, on 4 Feb., he joined with the majority in finding Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder. He took his place at the opening of the following session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on 62 per cent of all sitting days. It was reflective of his favoured status that shortly after the close of the session a rumour circulated that he was to be promoted duke of Buckingham (vacant by the death six years previously of his kinsman, George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham), while his nephew was to be married to Lady Mary de Vere and ennobled as a viscount with the promise of an earldom on Villiers’s death.16 None of these things was realized.

Present again at the opening of the new session on 12 Nov. 1694 (of which he attended approximately 63 per cent of all sitting days), Villiers took a prominent role in Queen Mary’s funeral the following February, leading her horse in the procession, accompanied by four equerries.17 Later that year, he was sent as envoy extraordinary to the States General, setting out for his mission in mid-June 1695.18 He was in consequence absent from the House for the ensuing two sessions. Granted £1,228 to cover his expenses as envoy, he quickly earned a reputation for extravagance, organizing a lavish firework display to mark the king’s birthday.19 In spite of their apparently frosty relations, by August 1696 rumours were circulating that Villiers was ‘intriguing for the princess of Denmark’ (later Queen Anne) from his posting.20 He was absent from the House at the time of the attainder of Sir John Fenwick‡ but he wrote to Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, from The Hague to assure him of his support, hoping that, ‘the House of Commons has done everybody right and disposed of Sir John Fenwick as his new plot deserves, which I cannot treat seriously enough’.21

Appointed one of the plenipotentiaries to attend the peace congress at Ryswick early in February 1697, Villiers appears to have found the negotiations frustrating and griped at the constant prevarications.22 The secretary of state, Sir William Trumbull‡, lamented Villiers’s poor grasp of affairs, complaining that ‘the accounts Lord Villers gives are very imperfect’.23 Villiers was also occasionally criticized by the king for his poor decisions.24 Following the Treaty of Ryswick, some Whigs expressed fears that William was himself now sympathetic to a Jacobite restoration. Villiers is said to have confirmed that a proposal was mooted at one stage for the pretender (James Edward Stuart) to be educated in England.25 Despite Villiers’s perceived shortcomings, he was soon given another prominent appointment as one of the lords justices of Ireland along with Charles Powlett, styled marquess of Winchester (later 2nd duke of Bolton), and Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I].26 Villiers owed his appointment in part to Shrewsbury’s recommendation but he also thanked Charles Bertie‡ for his assistance in procuring him the position.27

In accordance with a promise made on Galway’s promotion to an earldom in May 1697, that summer, while the king was at Breda, Villiers was also advanced in the peerage as earl of Jersey, as a more appropriate dignity for his status as ambassador. Reports of his promotion circulated from mid-August.28 Towards the close of September he was said to be making his preparations for leaving The Hague and taking up his new post at Dublin, hoping to get there ‘before my Lord Galway has done all that is to be done’, but instead he returned to England in November with the king, content to leave the management of Irish affairs to his other partners.29

Villiers was introduced into the House in his new dignity as earl of Jersey on 3 Dec. 1697, supported by his uncle, Suffolk, and George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton. He was then present on 62 per cent of all sitting days in the 1697-8 session. After his experiences on the continent he found the House’s attitude to some subjects perplexing and complained of ‘our wise senators, who think English militia better than any French regulated troops’.30 Towards the close of the month, it was reported that Jersey was once more planning to take up his post in Ireland, though John Methuen‡ advised Galway that he spoke of his journey ‘in such a manner that I do not know what to think of it, and whether there be not some punctilio about his place in the commission’. Methuen clearly found Jersey difficult to make out, noting how he ‘solicits and attends much at court as though he minded some other matter, is looked on as a great favourite and some think he is capable of imagining he may come to Ireland alone, but I do not believe it’.31

Further reports of Jersey’s imminent departure for Ireland circulated at the beginning of January 1698 but these also coincided with rumours that he was to be appointed to the vacant office of lord chamberlain.32 Methuen continued to report Jersey’s irresolution and his belief that Jersey aimed ‘at something greater than lord justice of Ireland’. The destruction of part of Whitehall by fire early in January forced Jersey into temporary lodgings but he continued to prevaricate over his departure for Ireland, dissatisfied at his inability to procure his expenses. By March 1698, buoyed by his alliance with the king’s new favourite, Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle, he appears to have resolved on securing an alternative office. Methuen concluded once more that Jersey had ‘hopes of some great things and I believe if the king follows his own humour he will be secretary’.33

That March the business of the House was dominated by proceedings against Charles Duncombe‡. Aligning himself with the Whigs for the time being, on 15 Mar. 1698 Jersey voted in favour of committing the bill for punishing the disgraced official and registered his dissent when the House failed to do so. The following day he registered a further dissent at the resolution to grant relief to the appellants in the legal action between James Bertie‡ and Lucius Henry Cary, 6th Viscount Falkland [S]. Jersey’s situation remained uncertain. Poor relations with Galway made it impractical for him to take up his position in Ireland.34 In April 1698 he was appointed ambassador to Paris in succession to Portland, despite his own disinclination to accept the post, fearing that ‘the business as well as the people I shall have to do with are both too great’.35 He was also concerned by the expenses that he would incur.36 In the absence of a substantial landed estate, he relied heavily on his official salaries. He was in receipt of £1,500 for his equipage as ambassador to Paris, along with a salary of £100 a week. Nevertheless, fretting that if he took up the French embassy he would lose his salary as one of the lord justices in Ireland, he petitioned to retain it despite being absent from his post.37 The other two lord justices, Winchester and Galway, were appalled and appealed not to have to deliver up a third of their income to their non-resident colleague; Winchester explained that there was no precedent for delivering up the salary to an absentee and that he and Galway had already spent their income, ‘the time of the sitting of Parliament being very expensive’.38 Galway claimed that he was owed £66 from the treasury as it was and baulked at Jersey’s expectation of over £2,000:

If I had the wherewithal to pay back what I have received of the third part of the salary claimed by Lord Jersey, I would have given it at once to Mr Robinson, in order always to obey the king’s commands without questioning them. But the fact is I have not £20.39

Despite these appeals, Jersey was permitted to retain his salary and in May 1698 a warrant was issued for Galway and Winchester to yield up £2,871.40 In addition, the king assured Jersey that he would be allowed to overspend his ambassadorial allowance.41

Jersey set out for France in the middle of August 1698, arriving at his new posting the following month.42 He was consequently absent for the entirety of the first session of the 1698 Parliament. His public entry into Paris was described as being ‘extraordinary splendid’.43 When he left the post the following May, Matthew Prior‡ wrote to assure him that ‘people talk so of your magnificence and economy that when you are a duke, it shall be put into your patent’. When preparing to serve as ambassador to Paris in 1712, Shrewsbury cited Jersey’s expenditure of £12,000 to justify his own claims.44

Jersey’s mission to Paris was generally considered a success and in May 1699 he was recalled to England to take up a new appointment as secretary of state for the southern department on Shrewsbury’s resignation.45 The appointment had come in spite of calls by the Whig Junto for Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron Wharton (later marquess of Wharton), to be preferred. Jersey was lampooned in a political satire of July 1699, The Titles of Several Public Acts Agreed to in the Cabal. The 13th of these was ‘An Act to make the Lords Rum. [Henry Sydney, earl of Romney], and Jer[sey], two able ministers of state’.46 Another satirical piece assaulted both Jersey and his fellow secretary, James Vernon‡, declaring that

Vernon’s by all men believed a mere tool,
And Jersey’s acknowledged to have ne’er been at school.47

Despite the ribaldry in the press at their expense, one sensible departure agreed to by Jersey and Vernon was that the fees normally fought over by the two departments should be pooled and divided equally.48 Vernon was concerned that the arrangement would affront Jersey, but he appears to have accepted it with a good grace. He soon wearied of the pressures of the post, however, which was rendered more difficult by his frosty relationship with Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland.49

Jersey attended the House for the prorogation day on 1 June 1699 and he took his seat at the opening of the new session on 16 Nov., after which he was present for 46 per cent of the session. The closing days of the session found Jersey engaged in one of the most contentious issues of his secretaryship: the dispute between Lords and Commons over the Irish forfeitures bill, which was sent up from the Commons at the beginning of April 1700. Although Jersey, Portland, and Albemarle voted in favour of giving the bill a second reading, the House, stirred up by Wharton and the lord privy seal, John Lowther, Viscount Lonsdale, voted to remove one of the clauses in the bill excluding excise officials from the Commons, 56 to 33.50 The Commons rejected the Lords’ decision and the atmosphere became increasingly charged. Jersey, ‘frighted… out of his wits’, was given permission by the king to attempt to persuade the Lords not to insist on their amendment but Vernon reported that ‘some of the lords were offended that my Lord Jersey should pretend to influence them by a message’. Notwithstanding Jersey’s attempts to manage the House, only he and Romney appeared willing to allow the Commons to have their way. After the departure of several of the bishops, however, a new division found 39 agreeing with the Commons against 34 still opposing the bill.51

In the aftermath of the session there were renewed expectations of changes at court. Jersey attracted opprobrium for his botched attempt to relieve John Somers, Baron Somers, of the great seal. Having demanded it without a warrant, he was forced to return for one before Somers would agree to yield it.52 On another occasion Jersey attempted to order the new lord keeper, Sir Nathan Wright, to affix the great seal to a commission for ships of the East India Company to seize pirates. Vernon reported that Wright ‘boggles at it, and takes it to be illegal’. Following a month of rumours, towards the end of June 1700 Jersey replaced Shrewsbury as lord chamberlain. In spite of his wishes to the contrary, the secretaryship was left vacant.53 The same year, he bought Squerries, in Kent, from the Crisp family, enabling him to establish some influence in Kent politics.54

Shortly after his appointment as chamberlain, Jersey travelled to Holland to attend the king.55 From there he maintained close contact with various figures in England, operating as mediator between the king and the lord justices. In September he wrote to Marlborough that

If you think that the king’s being over early would be of any service to him, I wish you could so order it that the lords justices might say something of it when they write to know the time of the next prorogation of Parliament, for without some such stratagem I fear we shall not be at home so soon as we were last year…56

Jersey had returned to England by November 1700, by which time his influence was beginning to cause disquiet among some, it being said that he ‘grows very much a minister and is in a fair way of being very great’.57 The following month, Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, commented that Jersey ‘has more interest with the king than ever’.58 Others cautioned that he was the person at court ‘who obstructs all’.59

Jersey attended 62 per cent of sitting days during the only session of the first 1701 Parliament. On 17 Feb. he was nominated as one of the managers of the conference with the Commons concerning the Lords’ address to the king. The following month the countess of Jersey gave birth to a son, who was shortly afterwards baptized, with the king and Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, standing godfathers.60 The child probably died while still an infant. Having acted as one of the plenipotentiaries for the second Treaty of Partition, Jersey was fortunate to escape being impeached by the Commons during the session, an attempt by Sir John Thompson, later Baron Haversham, to have Jersey included being overruled by the Speaker.61 The House’s debates over the Partition Treaty were dominated by concerns that the plenipotentiaries had not been given proper instructions and they resolved to summon Jersey and Portland to attend.62 Jersey was said to have been affronted by the manner in which he was overlooked during the negotiations over the treaty and that this had led him into intriguing its failure with Albemarle.63 Despite his own good fortune in escaping censure, he showed no sympathy for Somers and, according to Macky, was ‘very active’ in driving on the impeachment of the Whig ministers.64 On 17 June he subscribed the protest at the decision to put the question to acquit Somers and then voted against acquitting him of the articles of impeachment.

Following the trials of the impeached peers in the summer of 1701, Jersey became embroiled in a dispute with Robert Bertie, 4th earl of Lindsey (later duke of Ancaster and Kesteven), who had recently succeeded to the lord great chamberlaincy. Jersey accused him of removing furniture that had been provided for the impeachment in Westminster Hall; Lindsey vigorously denied taking anything but ‘what belongs to me as great chamberlain of England’.65 Jersey took his seat at the opening of the first (1701-2) session of the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701, after which he was present on 43 per cent of all sitting days. The opening of Parliament coincided with rumours that he and several others were to be removed from office but in March 1702 he was still in post and he was one of those named to the commission for passing a number of bills while the king lay indisposed.66 Present at the king’s bedside during his last illness, Jersey wrote a stream of letters to Princess Anne informing her of his decline.67 Following the king’s death, he was quick to assert his right as lord chamberlain to a sizeable proportion of his late master’s furniture. Discovering that his counterpart in the United Provinces also expected to lay claim to what was left in the king’s Dutch houses, Jersey swiftly claimed these too.68 Marlborough criticized Jersey’s attempts to organize the mourning arrangements for the late king but, despite rumours that persisted into the summer that he was to be replaced as lord chamberlain, for the time being Jersey retained his post.69

Reign of Queen Anne

Jersey was reported to be ‘very much indisposed’ at the close of July.70 He rallied, however, in time to take his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Oct. 1702, after which he was present on 58 per cent of all sitting days. At the beginning of 1703 he was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as likely to support the bill for preventing occasional conformity and on 16 Jan. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ proposed amendments to the penalty clause. He attended on 65 per cent of sitting days during the 1703-4 session. In two forecasts drawn up by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, Jersey was listed as a likely supporter of the occasional conformity bill. As expected, he voted in its favour on 14 Dec. 1703 and he then went on to enter protests at the resolution not to give the bill a second reading and at its rejection. On 25 Mar. 1704 he registered two further dissents, first at the resolution to put the question that the failure to censure Robert Ferguson was an encouragement to the crown’s enemies and second at the passage of that motion. He was on a list of members of both Houses drawn up by Nottingham in 1704, which perhaps indicates support over the ‘Scotch Plot’.

Rumours of Jersey’s removal continued to circulate.71 His stance over the prosecution of the war and his objections to the much-vaunted visit of Prince Eugene offered his detractors renewed opportunities to press for his removal.72 Yet when he was finally dismissed in April 1704, the move came as a complete surprise, even to Jersey.73 He hurried to the lord treasurer’s to discover why he had been displaced, ‘but could get nothing laid to my charge but my herding and protecting some that took measures contrary to the queen’s service’. After leaving the lord treasurer ‘very civilly, and as an innocent person, though a much wronged one’, Jersey demanded an audience with the queen, explaining later to Richard Hill that ‘I argued my case a little with her majesty not for my staff, but for my own justification.’74 The queen remained unmoved and Jersey never enjoyed office again.

Even so Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, still regarded Jersey as a threat through an association with Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, and Abigail Masham. When Benjamin Hoadly†, later bishop of Worcester, was denied a vacant prebend at Canterbury, she blamed the decision on Jersey and Sir Charles Hedges‡. The queen denied that Jersey enjoyed any such influence and protested that ‘it was impossible to help being very much concerned, to find after all the assurances I had formerly given you that I had no manner of value for Lord Jersey, you still thought him one of my oracles’.75 The influence of Jersey and Nottingham in the Church continued to cause disquiet to the ministry. In a letter of November 1704 to the duchess of Marlborough, Elizabeth Burnet worried that John Sharp, archbishop of York, ‘hears too much of one side and Lord Nottingham and Lord Jersey are so indefatigable in some things with him, but of himself he would be much more reasonable’.76

Jersey returned to the House a little over a fortnight into the next session, on 11 Nov. 1704, after which he was present on 48 per cent of all sitting days. Earlier that month he had been included in a list of those thought likely to support the Tack. In spite of his previous service to William III and Queen Anne, his attitude to the succession remained the subject of debate. Many regarded him a Jacobite, though a list of about April 1705 included him among those whose loyalties were uncertain.

Following the elections for the new Parliament, Jersey returned to the House a few days after the opening of the new session on 31 Oct. 1705, after which he was present on half of all sitting days. In the months following his removal from office, he had done nothing to propitiate the queen and continued to support policies that courted her displeasure. On 15 Nov. he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to put the question for an address to be prepared inviting Electress Sophia to England and on 30 Nov. he registered his dissent at the failure to give further instructions to the committee of the whole House considering the bill for securing the queen’s person and the Protestant succession. On 11 Mar. 1706 he was one of a number of peers nominated to manage the conferences concerning the letter of Sir Rowland Gwynne‡ to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford.

After the end of the session Jersey wrote to Marlborough to congratulate him on his latest victory of Ramillies, rejoicing in the ‘glorious success of her majesty’s arms’.77 He resumed his seat in the following session on 9 Dec. 1706 (of which he attended 48 per cent of all sitting days). He then attended six days of the brief ten-day session of April 1707 that followed the passage of the Treaty of Union, registering a dissent on 23 Apr. at the resolution to consider the judges’ refusal to answer whether existing laws were sufficient to prevent the fraudulent avoidance of English duties. Omitted from the Privy Council in May 1707, three months later, in advance of the new Parliament, Jersey wrote again to Marlborough, hoping that his latest successes ‘will contribute to make an easy and quiet Parliament the next meeting’ and assuring the duke that he would ‘contribute towards it wherever it is in my power’.78 He took his seat in the House a fortnight into the new Parliament on 6 Nov. 1707, after which he was present on almost 68 per cent of all sitting days. Following the dissolution, Jersey was unsurprisingly marked a Tory in a list of peers’ party allegiances. He took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 23 Nov. 1708, after which he was present on 55 per cent of all sitting days; on 21 Jan. 1709 he voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles from voting in the election of Scots representative peers.

Jersey attended the 1709-10 session for 70 per cent of all sitting days. On 16 Feb. 1710 he registered two dissents, first at the decision not to require James Greenshields and the Edinburgh magistrates to attend the Lords and second at the decision not to adjourn. The following month he rallied to the cause of the impeached cleric Henry Sacheverell. On 14 Mar. he was one of a handful of peers to join with Nottingham in questioning whether all the words deemed criminal ought to have been entered in the indictment, subscribing the protest at the House’s agreement with the Commons that it was not necessary to do so.79 The same day he registered his dissent at the resolution not to adjourn the House. Two days later he subscribed two further protests, first at the putting of the question whether the Commons had made good the first article of the impeachment, and subsequently when the House decided to agree with the Commons. On 17 Mar. he protested again at the resolution that the Commons had successfully made their case for the second, third, and fourth articles and on 18 Mar. he protested against the resolution limiting the peers to a single verdict of guilty or not guilty. Two days later, unsurprisingly, he found Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, registering a further dissent at the guilty verdict.

The advent of the new ministry led by Harley and Shrewsbury offered Jersey the prospect of a return to favour. Between August 1710 and April 1711 his negotiations with the French agent Abbé François Gaultier built the foundations for the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.80 The majority of the cabinet was unaware of this dialogue in its early stages, though both Shrewsbury and Harley were closely involved: Shrewsbury was noted in Gaultier’s reports as Jersey’s ‘associé’.81 The ‘Jersey’ period of negotiations created an outline of the main agreement including the contentious determination to secure a separate peace irrespective of the wishes of Britain’s allies and holding out the possibility of engineering the Pretender’s accession on Anne’s death. Jersey’s central role in the discussions was underlined by Gaultier’s recommendation to the marquis de Torcy that Jersey be offered £5,000 per annum to ensure his continued good will. A payment of £3,000 was authorized in January 1711, though it is unclear whether Jersey ever received the money.82 No mention of it was made in the inventory of Jersey’s possessions following his death submitted by the dowager countess.83

As a reward for Jersey’s role in overseeing the peace negotiations, Shrewsbury and Harley strove to convince the queen to readmit him to office. His name was mentioned a memorandum of September 1710 indicating Harley’s intentions for a new admiralty commission.84 He also appears in another list by Harley of lords to be provided for. Although Shrewsbury warned that Jersey and a number of other Tory peers would remain dissatisfied unless measures were taken to please them, the queen remained unconvinced.85 Perhaps she was right, for Jersey canvassed actively on behalf of the ministry in the autumn elections. He advised William Legge, 2nd Baron (soon after earl of) Dartmouth, that Lionel Sackville, 7th earl (later duke) of Dorset, should be put out as warden of the Cinque Ports, warning that, otherwise, ‘what [he] has already done will have a very ill effect on the elections in the county by encouraging the choice of those who are entirely against the queen’s measures’. Nevertheless, he was later able to boast of his success, ‘notwithstanding the power and zeal of a lord warden and lord lieutenant [Lewis Watson, 3rd Baron (later earl of) Rockingham]’.86

Jersey’s increased activity in Kent may have been the source of a series of inaccurate reports that he had been made governor of Dover Castle and lord warden of the Cinque Ports, and was soon to be lord lieutenant of Kent.87 Harley noted Jersey a likely supporter of the ministry in October 1710. The queen, however, still refused to admit him to office. The following month, Shrewsbury reported that Jersey was barred from becoming first lord of the admiralty through the queen’s continued objections, ‘which are no ways to be overcome but by the sad reflection how few there are capable of that post’.88 Efforts to secure Jersey the place continued; in January 1711, Charles Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea, who was angling for the office himself, still believed that Jersey was likely to be appointed.89

Jersey took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, after which he was present on 84 per cent of all sitting days. The final months of his life witnessed an almost manic quest for office at all costs. In May 1711, the death of Rochester, offered Jersey a new opportunity to be admitted to the ministry, but although he wrote to Harley directly asking for his assistance in securing the now vacant place of lord president, he was unsuccessful.90 Such reversals did not prevent Jersey from making patronage requests.91 In July it was rumoured that he was to have been (at last) appointed to head the admiralty, but that the preferment had been prevented by the intervention of the Dutch, who objected to someone believed to be opposed to the Hanoverian succession holding that office.92 When the office of lord privy seal fell vacant on the death of John Holles, duke of Newcastle, Jersey turned to Oxford (as Harley had become) and Abigail Masham (‘your female solicitrix’) to urge his pretensions to the place. He assured Oxford ‘I wholly lay aside the merit of it, and shall entirely own the success of it where it is due, to your lordship’s particular friendship to me’.93 Soon afterwards he again begged Oxford to resolve his predicament, ‘either by fixing me here with some reputation, or sending me to my gardens in the country, where I shall have nothing to complain of but the uncertainty of the weather’.94 The queen continued to resist.95 Jersey fretted that rumours of his Jacobitism were standing in his way.96 The previous year he had been the subject of stories in the newspapers, setting ‘the parish bells ringing on [my] account’, and causing him to appeal to Dartmouth ‘to issue a warrant that his humble servant, for want of other news, may not be stuffed into a public paper’. In an effort to answer such criticisms, he again requested an interview with the queen, arguing that ‘I doubt not but I can give so many instances of my loyalty and dutiful behaviour towards her, that [it will] be impossible for any to give the least credit to a report, whose circumstances disprove itself, and that has no other foundation than the malice of my enemies.’97

Jersey attended the House for the final time on the prorogation day of 21 Aug. 1711. A few days later, wearied by months of petitioning, the queen eventually gave way to Oxford’s importunities and agreed to Jersey’s appointment as lord privy seal, but the final element of the increasingly farcical story of Jersey’s quest for office was yet to be played out. In the early hours of the very day that the appointment was due to have been made public, and having previously given no indications of poor health, Jersey promptly suffered a fit of apoplexy and died.98 According to Swift, he died ‘of the gout in his stomach, or apoplexy, or both’.99 An autopsy found his organs to be sound but his brain ‘vitiated and yellow’.100 His loss was greeted by Shrewsbury as being ‘very surprising and melancholy’, while Jersey’s sister, Lady Orkney, regretted that he and her brother had not been able to be reconciled before Jersey’s death.101

Jersey died intestate. Within days of his death, his widow appealed to Oxford for his assistance in recommending her to the queen.102 The dowager was a Catholic and open Jacobite who caused consternation by quitting England for France without leave in 1713, taking with her her youngest son, Henry. Matthew Prior speculated that she intended to convert the boy to Catholicism and perhaps enter him for the priesthood, despite the fact that he was being educated at Queen Anne’s cost at Westminster.103 The Pretender later created her countess of Jersey in the Jacobite peerage. Jersey’s eldest son, William Villiers, succeeded him as 2nd earl of Jersey.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Verney ms mic. M636/36, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 12 Nov. 1681.
  • 2 TNA, E 134/5 Geo 1/Mich 38.
  • 3 TNA, PROB 6/87, f. 98v.
  • 4 CSP Dom. 1691–2, p. 116.
  • 5 CSP Dom. 1699–1700, p. 208.
  • 6 E 134/5 Geo 1/Mich 38; Add. 22267, ff. 164-71; Daily Courant, 19 Apr. 1707.
  • 7 Gregg, Queen Anne (2001 edn), 74–75.
  • 8 Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 252–3.
  • 9 Macky Mems. 28.
  • 10 Burnet, v. 141–2.
  • 11 Gregg, Queen Anne, 88.
  • 12 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/5, 92.
  • 13 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, 87.
  • 14 CJ, x. 650, 656, 680.
  • 15 CJ, x. 764, 770.
  • 16 HMC Portland, ii. 167.
  • 17 Add. 29596, f. 138.
  • 18 CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 463; Bodl. Carte 239, f. 22.
  • 19 CTB, x. 1089; CSP Dom. 1695, p. 352.
  • 20 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 380.
  • 21 Ibid. ii. 423.
  • 22 Lexington Pprs. 234–5; Bodl. Tanner 114, f. 50; LMA, Acc 510/42, f. 96; Acc 510/56, f. 114.
  • 23 HMC Downshire, i. 738–9.
  • 24 HMC Hastings, ii. 289.
  • 25 Burnet, iv. 419.
  • 26 Add. 72486, ff. 87–88.
  • 27 Add. 18606, ff. 57–58, 61.
  • 28 LMA, Acc 510/53, f. 110; Lexington Pprs. 292.
  • 29 HMC Downshire, i. 765.
  • 30 LMA, Acc 510/72, ff. 142–3.
  • 31 Add. 61653, ff. 24-6, 30–31.
  • 32 Bolton Hall, Bolton mss mic 2063/0796; Add. 61653, f. 34; WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/278.
  • 33 Add. 61653, ff. 21-3, 35-7, 42-44, 48, 54-5; LMA, Acc 510/72 f. 142.
  • 34 LMA, Acc 510/73 f. 145.
  • 35 Add. 18606, f. 119.
  • 36 LMA, Acc 510/76, f. 78.
  • 37 CSP Dom. 1698, pp. 78, 215.
  • 38 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 610–11, 628.
  • 39 CSP Dom. 1698, p. 164.
  • 40 Add. 18606, f. 119; CSP Dom. 1698, p. 273.
  • 41 LMA, Acc 510/73, f. 145.
  • 42 Flying Post or the Post Master, 13 Aug. 1698; Add. 18449, f. 6.
  • 43 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 468.
  • 44 HMC Bath, iii. 348; i. 224.
  • 45 Add. 40774, f. 1; CSP Dom. 1699–1700, p. 173; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 517; Add. 75369, Sir G. Rooke to Halifax, 13 May 1699; Carte 228, f. 312.
  • 46 HMC Portland, viii. 63.
  • 47 POAS, vi. 222.
  • 48 Thomson, Secretaries of State, 147.
  • 49 Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 285–6, 435; iii. 80; HMC Bath, iii. 344, 349.
  • 50 Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 4–5, 9–10.
  • 51 Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 267–8; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 20, 24.
  • 52 HMC Portland, iii. 618; Bodl. Ballard 10, f. 40.
  • 53 Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 75–76, 80, 91–92, 101–2; HMC Portland, iii. 621; Add. 70207, Vernon to R. Harley, 24 June 1700; Add. 72517, ff. 57–58; Post Boy, 25 June 1700.
  • 54 HMC Portland, iv. 523.
  • 55 Add. 61363, f. 26; HMC Cowper, ii. 402.
  • 56 Add. 61363, f. 28.
  • 57 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 712; Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 278.
  • 58 Beinecke Lib., Manchester pprs. 1696–1732, Manchester to Halifax, 19 Dec. 1700.
  • 59 Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 278.
  • 60 Carte 228, f. 402; English Post, 24 Mar. 1701.
  • 61 Cocks Diary, 129–30.
  • 62 HMC Lords, iv. 222.
  • 63 Thomson, Secretaries of State, 10.
  • 64 Macky Mems. 28.
  • 65 PA, LGC/5/1/45.
  • 66 Add. 70073–4, newsletters, 30 Dec. 1701, 3 Mar. 1702.
  • 67 Gregg, Queen Anne, 129.
  • 68 Kent HLC (CKS), U1590/022/3; Add. 61363, f. 42.
  • 69 Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 35; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 224; Daily Courant, 30 June 1702; Add. 70073–4, newsletter, 14 Apr. 1702.
  • 70 Post Boy, 23 July 1702.
  • 71 Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 202–3.
  • 72 Add. 29589, ff. 121–2.
  • 73 Letters and Diplomatic Instructions of Queen Anne, ed. B.C. Brown, 144; Add. 61120, f. 86; Add. 70075, newsletter, 22 Apr. 1704; Add. 70140, R. to E. Harley, 22 Apr. 1704.
  • 74 LMA, Acc 510/94, f. 180; Pols. in Age of Anne195.
  • 75 Gregg, Queen Anne, 189.
  • 76 Add. 61458, ff. 33–4.
  • 77 Add. 61364, f. 154.
  • 78 Add. 61365, ff. 157–8.
  • 79 Wentworth Pprs. 114.
  • 80 Letters of Queen Anne, 317.
  • 81 Add. 34493, f. 3.
  • 82 EHR, xlix. 100, 103–4; Trevelyan, Peace and the Protestant Succession, 93, 177, 179.
  • 83 E 134/5 Geo 1/Mich 38.
  • 84 Add. 70333, Harley memo. 4 Sept. 1710.
  • 85 HMC Bath, i. 199.
  • 86 HMC Dartmouth, i. 297, 300.
  • 87 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 626; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 35–36.
  • 88 HMC Bath, i. 200.
  • 89 HMC Portland, iv. 654.
  • 90 Ibid. iv. 682–3.
  • 91 Add. 70261, Jersey to Oxford, 6 June 1711.
  • 92 Verney ms mic. M636/54, M. Lovett to Sir R. Verney, 7 July 1711.
  • 93 HMC Portland, v. 49.
  • 94 Add. 70261, Jersey to Oxford, 1 Aug. 1711.
  • 95 Add. 61125, ff. 100–1.
  • 96 HMC Portland, v. 69.
  • 97 HMC Dartmouth, i. 297.
  • 98 Boyer, Anne Hist. 382; NLW, Penrice and Margam, L703.
  • 99 Jnl to Stella, ed. Williams, 345.
  • 100 Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 13, ff. 188–9.
  • 101 HMC Bath, i. 207; Add. 70230, Lady Orkney to Oxford, 27 Aug. 1711.
  • 102 Add. 70261, Lady Jersey to Oxford, 13 Sept. 1711.
  • 103 TNA, SP 78/157, ff. 327, 333–6, 339, 357; Gregg, Queen Anne, 373.