NORTH, Francis (1673-1729)

NORTH, Francis (1673–1729)

suc. fa. 5 Sept. 1685 (a minor) as 2nd Bar. GUILFORD (GUILDFORD)

First sat 20 Nov. 1694; last sat 14 May 1729

b. 14 Dec. 1673, 1st s. of Francis North, Bar. Guilford; bro. of Hon. Charles North‡. educ. Winchester 1685;1 Trinity, Oxf. (matric. Feb. 1689, MA 1690);2 travelled abroad (Holland, Germany, Italy) 1691-?1694.3 m. (1) 1695 Elizabeth (d.1699), da. of Fulke Greville, 5th Bar. Brooke, s.p.;4 (2) by 8 July 1703 Alice (Alicia), da. and coh. of Sir John Brownlow‡, 3rd bt.,5 3s. ?1da. d.v.p.6 d. 17 Oct. 1729; will 24 Sept. 1703-23 Sept. 1717, pr. 22 Oct. 1730.7

PC 1712-14;8 commr. trade and plantations 1712-14;9 ld. of trade 1713-14.10

Dep. lt. Oxon by 1702-?1706;11 ld. lt. Essex 1703-5.12

Freeman, Hamburgh Co. 1694;13 mbr. SPG 1701.14

Associated with: Wroxton Abbey, Oxon.; Arlington Street, Westminster15 and Albemarle Street, Westminster.16

Likenesses: oil on canvas by T. Murray (circle of), c.1700, sold at Bonham’s, 19 July 2012.

According to Sir Ralph Verney‡, writing in the spring of 1683 on the occasion of the promotion of Lord Keeper North to the barony of Guilford, ’all the Norths are happy, and like to be exceeding rich, both by wives, trade, law and otherwise.‘ The first baron’s good fortune inevitably extended to his heir and may have been the inspiration for John Cary, master of the buckhounds, to order his niece (and heir), Elizabeth Willoughby, to marry the young Francis North (then aged just 12) within three years ‘or else to lose the estate’. Cary’s scheme failed to take effect resulting ultimately in a rancorous stand-off between Cary’s adopted heir, Lucius Henry Cary, 6th Viscount Falkland [S], and his niece’s preferred spouse, James Bertie‡.17

The young man who proved so reluctant to involve himself in the Cary match succeeded his father in the barony of Guilford while underage and still a student at Winchester. Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, thought him promising; Jonathan Swift later dismissed him as ‘a mighty silly fellow’.18 With the barony he inherited an interest at Banbury in Oxfordshire based on his maternal family’s estate of Wroxton. However, for all his inherited wealth and his connection to a number of noble families, he was thought by some to be an awkward member of the society into which he had been born. Lady Wentworth for one dismissed him as an ugly little man.19

Following his father’s death, Guilford’s upbringing and management of the North estates at Wroxton and in London was entrusted to his uncles Dudley North‡, Montagu and Roger North‡.20 Guilford presumably played no role in the Revolution of 1688 but his connection to the nonjuring Church of England interest was indicated by a letter from George Hickes, the nonjuring dean of Worcester, in February 1689, in which Hickes lamented that he was forced to remain in his parish at nearby Alvechurch and was thus unable to invite Guilford to join him for Easter at Worcester.21 In 1689 Guilford’s uncles replied to a demand for a self-assessment on his behalf insisting that he had no money that was not tied up in land and securities. His personal effects were said to comprise no more than a small quantity of old furniture inherited from his father.22

Guilford remained at Oxford until the end of 1690, the year in which an attempt was made to impeach his father posthumously. Arthur Charlett, Guilford’s tutor at Trinity, likened the action to the effort to excommunicate the 3rd century theologian Origen post-mortem, but the dubious proceedings failed to secure sufficient support and the scheme was abandoned.23 Nevertheless, reports of the former lord keeper’s apparent malpractice continued to circulate well into the decade.24 Having taken his MA, Guilford left Oxford in December 1690 in order to join William III in his journey to Holland and from there he seems to have embarked on a tour of the continent. He was in Germany by autumn 1691, where he caught smallpox, but was considered in no danger and planned to continue his tour into Italy.25

Guilford returned in time to take his seat in the Lords on 20 Nov. 1694, just over a week after the opening of the new session and shortly before his 21st birthday. He was then present on about 87 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Jan. 1695 he entered the first of many dissents when he registered his objection to the resolution to postpone implementation of the provisions of the treason trials bill to 1698. The following day he dissented once more at the resolution to add a clause to the same bill; and on 18 Feb. he subscribed the protest at the resolution commending the judges involved in the Lancashire plot trials for having done their duty according to the law. Alongside his activities in Parliament, Guilford was engaged with personal affairs. In February 1695, having turned his back on the projected marriage with Elizabeth Willoughby, he married Elizabeth Greville instead. The reason for his choice is unclear. It seems, though, to have been Guilford who refused to comply with the Cary match rather than the other way around and his decision appears to have been disapproved of by at least some of his relatives, who seem to have considered Elizabeth Greville an insufficient fortune by comparison.26

Guilford returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695, after which he was present on 65 per cent of all sitting days. On 25 Nov. he introduced Thomas Wentworth, 3rd Baron Raby (later earl of Strafford) and on 5 Dec. he was nominated one of the managers of the conference considering the ill state of the coinage. On 7 Jan. 1696 he lodged his proxy with Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, though this was vacated by his return to his place the following day. On 31 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution to pass the bill for encouraging the bringing in of plate to the Mint.

Guilford was missing from the opening of the new session and on 23 Nov. the House ordered him to be attached, along with William Fiennes, 3rd Viscount Saye and Sele, and Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton.27 It is not clear whether the order was carried out and by 27 Nov. he had resolved the situation by taking his place in the House. On 30 Nov. he was named to the committee for Hanham’s bill but on 8 Dec. he was granted leave of absence for a week. He returned to the House promptly on 15 Dec. in time to participate in the proceedings against Sir John Fenwick‡. The same day he registered his dissent at the resolution to read Goodman’s information and on 18 Dec. he did so again at the resolution to give the Fenwick attainder bill a second reading. During the proceedings that day, when Fenwick insisted that he had received no direction since appearing at the bar, Guilford, having perhaps inherited his father’s talent for being pernickety, intervened to ask whether he had received any before. On being pressed further, Fenwick, disinclined at first to answer the question, eventually revealed that he had received advice from Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough).28 On 23 Dec. Guilford found Fenwick not guilty and subscribed the protest at the guilty verdict.29

If Guilford was at odds with the regime in its pursuit of the assassination plotters, he appears slowly to have developed a role for himself within the House as an active committee-man. On 4 Mar. 1697 he reported from the committee for Samuel Trotman’s bill, relating to the sale of lands in Kent and Essex. Four days later, he was entrusted with the proxy of Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, and on 16 Mar. with that of Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrers.

Guilford returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. 1697. Soon after the opening, the House took into consideration the dispute arising from Guilford’s earlier refusal to marry Elizabeth Willoughby. As a result of the failed arrangement, her uncle’s estates were directed to descend to Viscount Falkland, but Willoughby and her new husband contested the decision, which had been upheld by the courts. According to the complainants, Guilford had declined the match leaving Elizabeth with no choice but to seek a husband elsewhere. The Lords baffled legal opinion by arriving at ‘an equitable construction’ and found in favour of the Berties. Their decision may however have been influenced by Falkland’s notorious adherence to the exiled royal family as well as by rumours that Bertie’s father, James Bertie earl of Abingdon, was determined to appeal if the case went against his son.30 In March 1698 Guilford unsurprisingly rallied to the support of Charles Duncombe‡, registering his dissent at the resolution to read the bill for his punishment a second time. Later in the session he reported from three committees in April and a further committee in May.31 That month he was also named a manager of two conferences. On 29 June he was entrusted with his father-in-law’s proxy and on 1 July he subscribed the protest at the resolution to give a second reading to the bill for establishing the two million fund.

Guilford took his seat once more on the first sitting of the 1698 Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present on 91 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Feb. 1699 he registered his dissent at the resolution to offer to assist the king in maintaining his Dutch guards. On 24 Feb. he reported from the committee for George Penn’s bill and over the next two months he reported from two more committees. Guilford was said to have been one of those present at Lambeth in July when the deposition was read out against Thomas Watson, bishop of St Davids.32 He then attended four prorogation days between July and October before taking his seat in the new session on 19 Dec. (about a month after the opening). The reason for his delayed return may well have been the death of his wife in childbirth in November. John Evelyn recorded that Guilford ordered his chaplain, Philip Horneck, to preach a panegyric emphasizing the late Lady Guilford’s role in persuading him to change ‘ the course of his life, which was before in great danger of being perverted and following the mode of that dissolute age’.33 Having taken his seat he then proceeded to attend on 63 per cent of all sitting days. At the beginning of February 1700 Guilford was forecast as likely to support continuing the East India Company as a corporation and on 8 Feb. he registered his dissent at the resolution to put the question whether the Scots colony at Darien was inconsistent with the good of England’s colonial trade. On 23 Feb. he voted in favour of adjourning into a committee of the whole to discuss amendments to the East India Company bill. The following month, on 8 Mar. he joined with a number of other Tories in registering their dissents at the resolution to give the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, a second reading and on 12 Mar. he dissented once again at the resolution to pass the bill.

There were several reports in the spring of 1700 that Guilford had remarried. Guilford himself seems to have been surprised by the rumours that matched him with ‘several small fortunes’ but his kinsman, Montagu North, reported confidently to Robert Foley that Guilford was wiser now than when he contracted his first marriage and would not settle for anything ‘but the best.’34 He was still unmarried when he took his seat once more at the opening of the new Parliament on 6 Feb. 1701. He was assiduous in his attendance (present on 85 per cent of all sitting days) and over the next few months registered a series of dissents and protests over resolutions concerning the partition treaty and (from mid-April) over the attempted impeachments of the Whig peers associated with the treaty. On 16 Apr. he registered his dissent at the resolution to appoint a committee to draw up an address to the king not to pass any censure against the impeached lords until they had been tried. The same day he acted as one of the tellers for the division whether the first reason in the protestation should stand and then dissented once more when the vote went against him. On 10 June he was again one of the tellers on the motion to adjourn during consideration of Hyde’s bill. The resolution was rejected by 22 votes to 30. A week later, on 17 June, he voted against acquitting John Somers, Baron Somers. In the midst of such high political issues, Guilford continued to ply his trade as a chairman of committees. He presided over two committee sessions on 4 June and the following day reported back to the House relating to one of these: the act for appointing assay masters for a number of regional centres.35

Guilford was present in the House for the prorogation day of 30 October. The following month he travelled to Warwickshire and was present at the meeting convened on 25 Nov. in Warwick to agree on candidates for the forthcoming election.36 He returned to London in time to take his seat in the new session on 30 December. On 20 Feb. 1702 he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the bill of attainder against the former queen (Mary Beatrice) and four days later protested again at the passage of the bill for the further security of the king’s person. The king’s death soon after may have given Guilford renewed confidence and in March he was one of a clutch of peers who were quick to round on Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Carlisle, when he objected to a section of the queen’s speech which he believed reflected unfairly on the late monarch.37 In April he reported from two select committees, including that considering a curious experimental act for ascertaining the proportion of water in fruit, and on 29 Apr. he reported from the committee of the whole concerning the act for the relief of Colonel Luttrell. The following month he was named a manager of three conferences and reported from one more select committee and from a further committee of the whole House.38 On 16 May he was entrusted with the proxy of Other Windsor, 2nd earl of Plymouth.

Guilford took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Oct. 1702 after which he was present on two thirds of all sitting days. Three days later he wrote to his old tutor, Arthur Charlett, excusing his failure to write sooner as he has been ‘mightily taken up with politics’ but undertaking to do what he could to employ his interest on Charlett’s behalf.39 The following month he was one of the delegates sitting on the case about the dowager countess of Coventry assuming spurious arms and on 25 Nov. he was one of only five lords to bother to turn out for prayers in spite of an order of the previous day commanding all members of the House to be present.40 On 9 Dec. he acted as one of the tellers for the division over the declaration on tacking, which was carried by 17 votes. At the beginning of 1703 Guilford was reckoned a likely supporter of the occasional conformity bill and on 16 Jan. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the penalty clause. A month later, on 16 Feb. he was one of the tellers for the division over giving a second reading to the MPs’ qualification bill. The teller on the other side on this occasion, as he had been in the December division, was Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun. This time the resolution was rejected by two votes, including proxies.

In March 1703 Guilford benefited from the death of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, by being appointed to the lieutenancy of Essex.41 He had not been in post in Essex long before he became implicated in a dispute concerning the queen’s consort, Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, and the high stewardship of the notoriously fractious town of Colchester (an office which had formerly been held by Oxford). The prince’s nomination had been challenged by some members of the corporation who promoted one of their MPs, Sir Isaac Rebow‡, instead. At the close of April, Rebow was duly elected. This was subsequently challenged by Prince George’s supporters but Rebow maintained the place.42 Guilford’s sin appears to have been that he was suspected of having acted along with the Tories in the town in promoting the prince’s candidacy even though Prince George had declared his unwillingness to have his name put forward in such circumstances. The queen professed herself unable to believe the gossip emanating about Guilford. She announced that she was convinced that ‘he is certainly a very honest gentleman, though I believe some sort of people don&rsquot think so’ and in another letter about the same matter asserted:

I will not contradict what Mr Churchill says of Sir Thomas Cooke‡, but I will venture to say he is mistaken as to Lord Guilford, because I had his character from [the] lord treasurer [Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin]… I remember when he spoke to me [about the lieutenancy of Essex] I said he was an odd figure and that I had been told he had no extraordinary understanding, he said he had more in him than people thought, that he was an honest man and very useful in the House of Lords.43

Away from his unsettling introduction to Essex borough politics, Guilford spent the summer of 1703 finalizing arrangements for his second marriage, which seems to have taken place by the end of the first week of July. His second wife, one of the coheirs of Sir John Brownlow, brought with her an interest in Lincolnshire as well as her share of her father’s fortune of £40,000 (shared between five daughters). Narcissus Luttrell‡ believed that Alice Brownlow brought with her £30,000 but was presumably confusing the total estate shared between the coheirs with the new Lady Guilford’s own fortune.44 Lady Wentworth thought her ‘pretty’ but later concluded that she was ‘mad’. 45

In advance of the new session and again in the middle of November, Guilford was forecast by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely supporter of the renewed effort to pass the occasional conformity bill. Guilford voted in favour of passing the measure on 14 December. He continued to develop his role as a committee manager. On 1 Dec. he presided over the committee considering ways to prevent irregularities in hearing claims at the bar of the House, reporting the committee’s conclusions on 6 December. On 14 Dec. he chaired the committee for the estate bill of William Henry Granville, 3rd earl of Bath, and on 26 Feb. 1704 reported from the committee for Ambrose Andrews’ bill.46 The following month, on 21 Mar., he subscribed the protest against the passage of the bill for raising recruits for the army and marines. Four days later he registered his dissent twice over the resolutions relating to the failure to pass a vote of censure on Robert Ferguson. (His name was included in a list of members of both Houses drawn up by Nottingham sometime in 1704 which may indicate support for him over the ‘Scotch Plot’.)

Guilford attended the prorogation day of 19 Oct. 1704 before taking his seat at the opening of the new session on 24 October. Two days later, he was entrusted with the proxy of John Cecil, 6th earl of Exeter. At the beginning of November he may have been one of the peers listed as a likely supporter of the Tack, though the annotation mark lay in between two names so may have referred to another member of the House. On 14 Dec. he was again entrusted with Brooke’s proxy and the following day he registered two dissents following the failure to secure the passage of the occasional conformity bill. Later that month, Guilford allowed his aesthetic sensibilities free rein when he joined with a number of peers in voicing their discontent with the alterations to the Lords’ chamber overseen by Sir Christopher Wren‡, which had resulted in the construction of galleries to provide additional seating. Guilford thought the new structures unsightly and on 21 Dec. he proposed that the galleries be pulled down. He was seconded by Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, though Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, interjected that the correct motion should have been for an adjournment. Guilford accordingly acted as one of the tellers for the motion, which was carried by nine.47

Guilford was one of those approached by Thomas Watson, the former bishop of St Davids, at the beginning of 1705 to present his petition to the House but appeared at first reluctant to undertake the task. By 12 Jan. he had clearly decided in favour of assisting Watson and presented the petition in the chamber.48 Four days later he reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill for continuing the excise on malt, mum, perry and cider for a further year and on 17 Jan. he subscribed his protest at the resolution to give a first reading to the earl of Bath’s estate bill. Towards the close of the month he acted as teller on two divisions involving bills seeking reversals of judgment: in both cases the motions to reverse were rejected. He acted as a teller again the following year on 13 Feb. 1705 during a division held in the committee of the whole considering the promissory notes bill.

Guilford was named to the committee to consider the heads of a conference with the Commons over the Aylesbury men at the close of February and on 3 Mar. he acted as a teller once again in the division in the committee of the whole concerning the incorporation of an amendment within the bill for continuing various acts of Parliament. On 12 Mar. he was again involved with his favoured project of pulling down the new galleries but in the division that day, in which he acted as one of the tellers, the Lords resolved by just one vote to retain Wren’s controversial eyesores.

Soon after the close of the session, Guilford was an early casualty of the Whigs’ resurgent interest over the administration. He was removed from his post as lieutenant of Essex and replaced by Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers.49 On 13 Apr. he was marked ‘u’ (presumably uncertain) in relation to the succession.

Guilford attended the prorogation day of 14 June before taking his seat once more on 25 Oct. 1705. On 30 Nov. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to offer additional instructions to the committee of the whole considering the succession bill. The following month, on 3 Dec., he put his name to three protests all resulting from the refusal to allow readings for several riders to the succession bill. Three days later he voted in favour of the motion that the Church was in danger and then subscribed the protest when the motion failed to carry.50 Along with his by now familiar tendency to protest, Guilford continued to act as a chairman of committees. On 18 Dec. he both chaired and then reported from the committee for the bill for Sir Thomas Cave‡.51 He reported from a further committee in February 1706 and from two more in March. All were concerned with the settlement or sale of estates. March also found him protesting once again. On 6 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution to pass the recruiting bill and on 9 Mar. he dissented from the resolution to concur with the Commons’ assessment that the letter from Sir Rowland Gwynne‡ to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, had been libellous. Two days later he was engaged as a manager of the conferences resulting from the same business. In the midst of the session, on 26 Jan., he was also entrusted with the proxy of Christopher Vane, Baron Barnard.

Guilford appears to have been a deputy lieutenant in Oxfordshire since at least 1702 but in May 1706 he refused to be continued in the commission under John Churchill*, duke of Marlborough. In his letter to Marlborough explaining his decision, he insisted that he meant no disrespect and suggested rather hollowly that he thought it difficult to accept an inferior position having formerly served as lieutenant of another county.52 Guilford’s true reason was more probably political and the following month it was revealed that he was one of only two local grandees who had refused to serve with the duke: both of them Tories.53

Guilford returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. 1706, after which he was present on 59 per cent of all sitting days. For Guilford the focus of the session was on his opposition to the Union and throughout February he set his hand to a series of protests resulting from the articles agreed with the Scots. His concerns covered the security of the Church of England, the financial settlement and the level of Scots representation at Westminster. Having already subscribed five protests, therefore, on 4 Mar. he voted in favour of adding a rider to the Union ratification bill and registered his dissent when the rider was rejected. He then protested once again at the resolution to pass the bill.54

Aside from his concerted opposition to the passage of the Union, Guilford maintained his commitment to managing committee work. On 16 Dec. 1706 he presided over and then reported from the committee for the act for naturalizing Maria Margaret, Baroness North and Grey, and on 22 Jan. he reported from the committee of the whole for the felons bill.55 He reported from a further committee of the whole the following month concerning the bill for preventing escapes from the Queen’s bench and Fleet prisons.56

Guilford proved active in exercising his interest at Banbury for the forthcoming elections for the new British Parliament. In March 1707 in an attempt to prevent Chamberlayne Dashwood from upsetting the balance in the county by challenging Godolphin’s son, he offered the young man his interest at Banbury instead and instructed his brother, Charles, the sitting member, not to contest the seat. The result of Guilford’s intervention, combined with pressure placed on Dashwood by Montagu Venables Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon, was Dashwood’s resolution not to stand ‘to the amazement of several honest gentleman.’ Dashwood’s withdrawal left Charles North free to be returned at the 1708 election once more.57 Having failed to attend the brief April session, Guilford took his seat just over a month into the new Parliament on 18 Nov. 1707 and proceeded to attend on 74 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Dec. he acted as one of the tellers for the division over whether to receive the appeal in the case Radnor v. Childe and on 6 Mar. 1708 he was one of the tellers for the division over the reversal of judgment in Pole v. Gardiner. On 15 Mar. he chaired and then reported from the committee for Christopher Lister’s bill and on the final day of the month reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill for continuing duties on coffee and other commodities.58 He reported from a further committee of the whole for the same business the next day and also from the select committee for Henry Mayne’s bill.

Guilford was, unsurprisingly, noted a Tory in a list of party classifications of May 1708. He returned to the House for the new session on 18 Nov. after which he was present on 89 per cent of all sitting days. By the beginning of 1709 he appears to have aligned himself with a loose alliance of peers of all colours who wished to prevent Scottish peers from securing additional benefits. Thus on 21 Jan. 1709 he voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the elections of Scots representative peers. It is worth noting that a decade later, Guilford reversed his opinion and spoke in favour of allowing Charles Douglas, 3rd duke of Queensberry [S] to take his seat as 2nd duke of Dover.59 On 23 Feb. he reported from the committee considering the Pierpont charities bill (over which he had presided the previous day) and two days later both chaired and reported from that for the Cecil estate bill.60 On 22 Mar. he reported from the committee considering a bill to enable Plymouth to sell lands to pay debts. On 1 Apr. he represented the findings of another committee considering a bill seeking authorization for land to be sold so that debts could be cleared.

In the midst of these activities, Guilford subscribed the protest of 15 Mar. at the resolution to commit the general naturalization bill. On 26 Mar. he sought to secure an amendment to the Union improvement (treasons) bill by the addition of a clause permitting those accused to have five days notice of those witnesses to be called against them. The amendment was rejected after the votes were found to be equal. Two days later he pressed his amendment again, which was thrown out. He then subscribed the resulting protest.61 He then protested once more when it was resolved to pass the bill.

Guilford took his seat in the new session on 15 Nov. 1709. By the beginning of the following year it was clear that the temporary alliance with the Junto was no longer operational. He rallied to the related causes of Greenshields and of Dr Sacheverell, registering his dissent on three occasions on 16 Feb. 1710. Two of these related to Greenshields, the third was in response to the House’s concurrence with the Commons’ address to the queen requesting Marlborough’s immediate departure for Holland. The following month he registered a series of dissents against resolutions concerning the conduct of the Sacheverell trial and on 20 Mar. he surprised no one by finding Sacheverell not guilty of the charges against him. He then registered his dissent against the guilty verdict and against the resulting vote of censure.62 With the Sacheverell trial completed, Guilford turned his attention once again to the more mundane business of the House. On 5 Apr. he reported from two committees of the whole and on 18 Apr. he was one of five lords to sign off the Journal entry for 25 February. This would appear to have been the only occasion on which Guilford played an active role on the committee for the Journal. The significance of the occasion is not clear.

Guilford’s high-standing among the Tories was no doubt the reason for him being recommended by Michael Warton‡ to Robert Harley, (later earl of Oxford), as a candidate for the new board of trade.63 The following month, Harley noted Guilford a likely supporter of the ministry. Having attended two prorogation days during July, Guilford took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 25 November. He was thereafter present on 69 per cent of all sitting days. On 22 Dec. he reported from the committee of the whole for the land tax bill. Guilford was absent from the session for just over a fortnight between 3 and 19 February 1711 but on 5 Feb. he covered his absence by registering his proxy with Heneage Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea. Having returned to the House, Guilford was entrusted with the proxy of his kinsman, William North, 6th Baron North, on 9 Mar., and on 15 Mar. he reported from the committee of the whole for the bill for repealing the act prohibiting the importation of French wine. The following day he reported from a further committee of the whole considering the same business and on 1 May he reported from the committee of the whole for the wagonners’ bill.

In June 1711 Guilford was included in a list of the Tory patriots of the previous Parliament. He took his place in the new session on 13 Nov. and the following month was included in one of Oxford’s memoranda as one of those to be canvassed over the ‘No Peace without Spain’ question. On 18 Dec. he was entrusted with Exeter’s proxy and the following day he also received that of Barnard. The same day he was thought likely to support James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], in his efforts to be permitted to sit as duke of Brandon and on 20 Dec. he voted as expected against barring Scots peers with post-Union British titles from sitting in the Lords.

Guilford’s firm support for Oxford’s ministry was made apparent after the brief Christmas recess by his willingness to introduce two of the new dozen peers, Thomas Windsor, Viscount Windsor [I], as Baron Montjoy, and Allen Bathurst, as the new Baron Bathurst, both on 2 Jan. 1712. On 29 Feb. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill for limiting the number of officers permitted to sit in the Commons and on 14 Apr. he reported from a further committee of the whole concerning the continuation of various laws. On 6 May he was one of the tellers (the other being Nottingham) for the division held in a committee of the whole over whether to add an amendment to the county elections bill. On 28 May he remained firm to the ministry by voting against the address requesting the orders restraining James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from launching an offensive against the French.64

Guilford’s support for Oxford’s ministry was rewarded with his appointment as one of the lords of trade during the summer and in August he was present at a meeting of the board discussing the Spanish commercial treaty.65 Guilford took his seat in the new session on 6 Nov. but was then absent for the remainder of the year, only resuming his place on 13 Jan. 1713. In the intervening period he had the embarrassment of having one of his servants sought out on suspicion of involvement in a burglary at the house of Sir James Brookes in Red Lion Square. Having resumed his seat, Guilford was prominent in the House in his capacity as a trade commissioner. Between 21 May and 25 June he presented a series of papers to the House from the board of trade and plantations. Now in the ministry, he was noticeably absent from lists of dissents and protests and on 13 June he was estimated a likely supporter of the French treaty of commerce.

Following the dissolution, Guilford was active in promoting the election of Sir Jonathan Cope‡ at Banbury, after Guilford’s brother, Charles, resolved not to contest the seat again probably on the grounds of ill health.66 Later the same month Guilford presented the Rutland address to the queen.67 That autumn it was reported mistakenly in at least one newspaper that Guilford was on the point of marrying the countess of Newburgh. The reason for the mistake is unknown. Guilford was engaged with attempting to employ his interest on behalf of his former tutor, Charlett. In November he tried to procure the archdeaconry of Oxford for Charlett (by now master of University College) but while White Kennett†, later bishop of Peterborough, professed himself keen to help, he warned that he would be unlikely to be able to secure the place for him.68

Guilford returned to the House for the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714. On 5 May he was again entrusted with the proxy of his kinsman, North, and on 28 May with that of Barnard. At the close of the month he was also noted by Nottingham as a likely supporter of the schism bill. For Guilford the focus of the session once more was on his role as a trade commissioner. In June he presented the House with further material from the trade commissioners. On 24 June he reported from the committee of the whole for the canvas bill and on the 30th he acted as one of the tellers for the division whether to give a second reading to the bill for examining accounts. The following month he intervened when Arthur Moore‡ presented evidence to the House about bribes having been offered to ease the passage of the Spanish commercial treaty to stop Moore from incriminating himself.69 Evidence provided by Robert Monckton‡ suggested that Guilford may also have been implicated, even if only by turning a blind eye to the bribes that had been offered to members of the board. When he related that he had heard Guilford speak of a letter in which a douceur had been offered, Guilford interrupted to say that he had never seen any such letter. Rather than back down, Monckton appears to have become more emphatic that Guilford had spoken to him about the document. Unsurprisingly, his performance was not taken well by Guilford, though he kept his place during the latter parts of Monckton’s testimony.70

The prorogation on 9 July saved Moore (and perhaps Guilford too) from censure. The queen’s illness and death soon after spelled the end of Guilford’s career in the administration. He attended 12 days of the brief session that met in August. The same month he was put out of office. It was no doubt indicative of his weakened position that in advance of the elections for the new Parliament he complained of certain ‘factious spirits’ at Banbury who were determined to challenge Cope’s continued occupation of the parliamentary seat even though, as Guilford insisted, Cope had ‘acquitted himself as an honest gentleman, with due regard to the true interest of his country.’71

Guilford continued to play an active part in the House under the new regime, details of which will be considered in the second part of this work. He benefited from windfalls resulting from the deaths of his brother, Charles, in the winter of 1714 and one of his sisters in 1722, by which he inherited chambers in Essex Court and a reputed £8,000.72 Guilford died in the autumn of 1729. In his will, composed between 1703 and 1717, he left a number of bequests totalling in excess of £1,000. The accompanying schedule, some of which no doubt represented repayment of debts and which included some very precise sums such as £37 10s., also made reference to Guilford’s travels overseas. There were small legacies for the consul at Venice and other of his acquaintance from Germany, Holland and Italy. There was a bequest too of £30 left to a younger brother of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, who had had, according to Guilford, ‘the misfortune to kill his brother in France.’ Guilford bequeathed annuities of £25 and £5 respectively to two of his own servants. Guilford’s heir, Francis North†, succeeded to his barony, additionally became 7th Baron North in 1734 and was created earl of Guilford in 1752.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 R. North, Life of Lord Keeper North, ed. M. Chan (Lampeter, 1995), 217; Add. 32500, f. 83.
  • 2 Wood, Life and Times, iii. 346-7.
  • 3 Add. 32500, f. 119.
  • 4 Bodl. North mss. c. 25, f. 70.
  • 5 Northants. RO, IC 2201.
  • 6 Bodl. North mss. c. 25, ff. 15, 70.
  • 7 TNA, PROB 11/640.
  • 8 Post Boy, 11-13 Dec. 1712.
  • 9 Post Boy, 5-8 July 1712; London Gazette, 24-27 July 1714.
  • 10 HMC Portland, v. 335.
  • 11 CSP Dom. 1702-3, p. 391; Add. 61365, f. 53.
  • 12 Add. 70075, newsletter, 16 Mar. 1703; London Gazette, 15-18 Mar. 1703.
  • 13 Add. 28079, ff. 59-60.
  • 14 CSP Dom. 1700-2, p. 358.
  • 15 Daily Courant, 1 May 1711; Add. 70282, Guilford to [R. Harley], n.d., Add. 22267, ff. 164-71.
  • 16 Add. 70350, Oxford's account book, 1 Jan. 1723.
  • 17 Verney ms mic. M636/37, Sir R. to J. Verney, 16 Apr. 1683, M636/40, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 28 Oct. 1685.
  • 18 Swift, v. 260.
  • 19 Wentworth pprs. 95.
  • 20 TNA, PROB 11/380.
  • 21 Bodl. Ballard 12, f. 43.
  • 22 Chatsworth, Halifax collection B84.
  • 23 Bodl. Ballard 12, f. 55.
  • 24 CSP Dom. 1698, pp. 588, 590-1, 593.
  • 25 Wood, Life and Times, iii. 347.
  • 26 Add. 32500, f. 196.
  • 27 Add. 29574, f. 527.
  • 28 WSHC, 2667/25/7.
  • 29 Staffs. RO, Persehowse pprs. D260/M/F/1/6, ff. 96-8.
  • 30 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 44, ff. 23-4; CSP Dom. 1698, p. 162.
  • 31 LJ xvi. 258, 262, 265, 305.
  • 32 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 533.
  • 33 Evelyn Diary, v. 365-6.
  • 34 Add. 32500, f. 196.
  • 35 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, p. 177.
  • 36 WCRO, CR1368/iii/98.
  • 37 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 14 Mar. 1702.
  • 38 LJ xvii. 93, 97, 109, 143, 145.
  • 39 Bodl. Tanner 305, f. 41.
  • 40 Badminton, Coventry pprs. FMT/B1/1/1/19; Nicolson, London Diaries, 133.
  • 41 Add. 70075, newsletter, 16 Mar. 1703, Add. 40803, f. 98; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 277.
  • 42 HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 189-90.
  • 43 Add. 61416, ff. 83-4, 91-4.
  • 44 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 315.
  • 45 Northants. RO, IC 2201; Wentworth pprs. 208.
  • 46 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 345, 402.
  • 47 Nicolson, London Diaries, 257.
  • 48 Nicolson, London Diaries, 266, 275.
  • 49 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 538.
  • 50 WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60.
  • 51 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, p. 102.
  • 52 Add. 61364, f. 142.
  • 53 Add. 61131, ff. 173-4.
  • 54 Bodl. Ballard 31, f. 61.
  • 55 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, p. 198.
  • 56 LJ xviii. 242-3.
  • 57 Bodl. Ballard 31, f. 60; Hearne, Remarks and Collections, ii. 2; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 474.
  • 58 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, p. 315.
  • 59 Add. 72488, ff. 47-8; HMC Portland, v. 591.
  • 60 NLW, Plas yn Cefn, 2775; PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, pp. 339-40.
  • 61 Nicolson, London Diaries, 473, 489.
  • 62 LJ xix. 106-7, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 118; State trial of Dr Henry Sacheverell, ed. B. Cowan, 74, 88, 89, 92, 99, 100.
  • 63 Add. 70208, Sir M. Warton to R.Harley, 27 Sept. 1710.
  • 64 PH xxvi. 177-81.
  • 65 Add. 72500, f. 112; KSRL, Moore mss, MS 143A, f. 2.
  • 66 HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 474.
  • 67 London Gazette, 18-22 Aug. 1713.
  • 68 Bodl. Ballard 7, f. 128.
  • 69 Add. 72501, ff. 143-4.
  • 70 Wentworth pprs. 399.
  • 71 Cake and Cockhorse, iii. pt. 4, 55.
  • 72 Add. 70149, Lady A. Pye to A. Harley, 4 Mar. 1722.