SOMERSET, Henry (1684-1714)

Early life, 1684–1705

Beaufort’s father had died in a freak carriage accident in July 1698 leaving his 14 year-old son heir to the dukedom then held by his grandfather. When the latter died in 1700, the new duke was, at 15, still under age. During his minority the family interest was largely managed by his grandmother, the dowager duchess, who acted as his guardian, though administration of his father’s estate was in the hands of his mother, the dowager marchioness of Worcester (who subsequently married John Granville, later Baron Granville of Potheridge). Rivalry between the two women became apparent in February 1702 over the proposed marriage settlement between Beaufort and Lady Mary Sackville (both being underage): the settlement had the warm endorsement of the dowager duchess but was opposed by the dowager marchioness. On 25 Feb. Nathaniel Stephens wrote to Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, as Speaker of the Commons, drawing his attention to a bill to confirm the settlement, and asking him to facilitate its swift passage when it came the lower House. Add. 70259, N. Stephens to R. Harley, 25 Feb. 1702. On 4 Mar. Beaufort and his grandmother petitioned the House for leave to present the bill, but it was ordered that Beaufort’s mother should first have time to lodge her objections. Lady Worcester put in her answer accordingly on 9 Mar. but further proceedings in the matter were interrupted by the prorogation. Despite this, shortly after turning 18, Beaufort was married to Lady Mary at a ceremony at Knole in July, conducted by Henry Compton, bishop of London, and in September it was reported that Beaufort’s London residence, Beaufort House in Chelsea, was being prepared for the new duke’s arrival in town for the winter. Add. 70073–4, newsletter, 9 July 1702; Verney ms mic. M636/52, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 9 July 1702; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 209.

The opening of the new session provided a further opportunity for Beaufort and his grandmother to present the bill, and accordingly on 13 Nov. they petitioned the House once more for leave to bring it in. Permission having been granted, the bill received its first reading three days later. On 20 Nov. Lady Worcester petitioned to be given copies of several articles in the bill referring to previous settlements; ten days later it was ordered that she should be heard at the committee appointed to consider the measure. Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, reported from the committee on 23 Dec., recommending the bill fit to pass, subject to a number of amendments. It received the royal assent at the close of the session on 27 February.

Although Beaufort had inherited one of the foremost peerages in the country, with estates spread through Wales, Gloucestershire, the marches and Hampshire, and personal estate estimated to be worth £50,000, the deployment of the family interest was complicated by the 1st duke’s position as a non-juror and by Beaufort’s own reputed Jacobite sympathies, though the statement in The Complete Peerage that Beaufort’s sympathies led him to absent himself from court until the formation of a Tory administration in 1710 is untrue. The family interest was challenged frequently by rival magnates. In March 1703 Beaufort was compelled to go to law as a result of a dispute with Charles Berkeley, 2nd earl of Berkeley, over the constableship of St Briavel’s and the wardenship of the forest of Dean (both offices previously held by his grandfather). Tension with his Welsh neighbour and local rival John Morgan of Tredegar also surfaced at the beginning of 1705, when Beaufort accused Morgan of attempting to develop a separate interest, reneging on an agreement made between the two men at an earlier meeting. NLW, Tredegar mss, 53/94. In an effort to offset Morgan’s interest in the area, Beaufort sought the assistance of his step-father, Granville, to support the family’s presence in the county. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 p. 51. The duchess’s poor health prevented Beaufort from attending a gentry meeting at Usk in April but he communicated his preferences to William Lewis by letter, stressing that he now considered himself freed from any undertaking entered into with Morgan and proposing Sir Hopton Williams^‡ and Sir Thomas Powell^‡ for the county seats. NLW, Tredegar mss, 53/95, 96. Two months later, the duchess died in childbirth.

Staunch Tory, 1705–10

Having at last come of age, Beaufort took his seat in the House on 25 Oct. 1705 after which he was present on 57 per cent of all sitting days. On 13 Nov. he attended the committee for the address (being one of only eight peers present, all of them Tory). Nicolson, London Diaries, 302. On 30 Nov. he entered his dissent at the resolution not to provide additional instructions to the committee of the whole to which the bill for securing the queen’s person and the Protestant succession had been referred. On 3 Dec. he subscribed a series of protests, objecting to resolutions not to give second readings to riders to the same bill, which was intended to prevent the lords justices from giving the royal assent to any bill altering or repealing the Test Acts, the Habeas Corpus Act and the Act of Succession. He entered a final protest at the resolution to pass the bill itself the same day and on 6 Dec. protested again at the resolution that the Church was not in danger. On 28 Jan. 1706 he acted as one of the tellers for the division about adjourning the House during consideration of Cary and Natley’s bill (the motion to adjourn was carried by 11 votes) and three days later he entered a further series of dissents against resolutions over the wording of the bill for securing the Protestant succession.

Beaufort seems to have wasted no time in seeking out a new bride. In September 1705 Narcissus Luttrell^‡ had reported mistakenly that he was in negotiations for a match with one of the daughters of William Digby^‡, 5th Baron Digby [I]. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 596. The match in question was rather with Digby’s niece, Lady Rachel Noel, whom Luttrell believed to be in possession of a fortune of more than £60,000 (Lady Wentworth thought the sum was half that amount). Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 3; Wentworth Pprs. 45n. Writing in September, Digby considered the alliance ‘far above anything we could expect’ and the following month professed himself more than satisfied with the accounts he was provided with ‘of the duke’s good temper’, which gave him ‘hopes that my niece will be happy as well as great’. Badminton muns. FmF 1/5/12. The couple were married four months later, on 26 Feb. 1706. The same day Beaufort registered his proxy with Granville, which was vacated on 18 March.

Beaufort was at Bath in September 1706. HMC Portland, iv. 329. He took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec. (after which he was present on 62 per cent of all sitting days). On 3 Feb. 1707 he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to instruct the committee of the whole considering the bill for securing the Church of England to insert a clause declaring the 1673 Test Act to be ‘perpetual and unalterable’. On 10 Feb. the House considered a petition from Beaufort to present a new bill for settling his estate, which received its first reading on 21 Feb. and, having been reported as fit to pass with some amendments by Rochester on 10 Mar., was enacted following a relatively swift passage on the 27th. In the midst of this, Beaufort was actively engaged in attempting to forestall the passage of the Union bill. On 24 Feb. he acted as teller for those opposed to agreeing to the 22nd article of the treaty of Union (the motion to adopt the article was carried by 71 votes to 22) and three days later he dissented against all resolutions concerning the Union. On 4 Mar., having joined a minority voting in favour of adding a rider to the Union bill stating that the bill should not be construed as an acknowledgement of the truth of the Presbyterian manner of worship, he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the bill. Present on four of the ten days of the brief session that met in April 1707, on the 23rd Beaufort entered his dissent at the resolution to consider the following day the judges’ refusal to answer the question of whether existing laws were sufficient to prevent the fraudulent use of drawbacks for the avoidance of paying duties on East India goods.

Beaufort took his seat in the first Parliament of Great Britain on 19 Nov. 1707, after which he was present on almost 40 per cent of all sitting days. On 20 Feb. 1708 he reported from the committee for Stephens’ bill (concerning estates lying in Cheshire, Staffordshire and Gloucestershire), which the committee had found fit to pass without amendment. On the final day of the session (1 Apr.) he was named one of the managers for a conference concerning the waggoners’ bill.

Electoral concerns were at the forefront of Beaufort’s consideration at this point. In preparation for the election in Breconshire, he had been advised by his steward, Godfrey Harcourt, to prevail upon his uncle Lord Arthur Somerset^‡ not to stand for the county, where Sir Edward Williams’ interest was so strong as to ensure the support of at least three-quarters of the electorate. Badminton muns. FmH 4/2. Somerset accordingly did not attempt a challenge. Meanwhile Beaufort attempted to bring about a reconciliation between the various rival factions in Glamorgan; at Devizes, where the Child interest predominated, he co-operated with Sir James Long to ensure the return of sympathetic members. NLW, Penrice and Margam muns. L1443; HMC Portland, iv. 486.

Listed a Tory in an analysis of peers’ party allegiances in May 1708, Beaufort set up house in Chelsea the following month. Verney ms mic. M636/53, R. Palmer to Fermanagh, 15 June 1708. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 18 Nov. 1708, after which he was present on almost 55 per cent of all sitting days. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted to allow Scots peers with British titles to vote in the elections for Scots representative peers and five days later he acted as one of the tellers on the motion to adjourn pending further discussion of the question of the Scots peers (the motion was rejected by 51 votes to 40).

That summer Beaufort established a Tory drinking club, the Honourable Board of Loyal Brotherhood (which also seems to have been known as the ‘Blue Cap club’) and presided over its inaugural meeting on 7 July. Other peers present included Basil Feilding, 4th earl of Denbigh (the vice-president), and Nicholas Leke, 2nd earl of Scarsdale. Initially it met at the George in Pall Mall, but this was also used as a venue by Whig fraternities. Following a disagreement with the landlord during the meeting held on 21 July, the club changed its regular meeting place to the Queen’s Arms near St Paul’s. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 140; Add. 49360, ff. 2, 4. It was undoubtedly intended to rival the Whig Kit Cat, although its character was considerably more alcoholic and less focused on party organization than its counterpart. Pols. in Age of Anne, 22. It may be no coincidence that it was established at a time when Beaufort’s interest in Malmesbury was under assault by Thomas Wharton, marquess of Wharton. The strength of Wharton’s interest in the town was such that Beaufort had been compelled to write to the corporation stressing that he had no intention of relinquishing his own interest there. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Malmesbury corp. 1709.

Beaufort suffered the loss of his second wife in childbirth in September 1709. HMC Townshend, 336. The duchess’s death appears to have occasioned some concerns that it might result in the duke altering his party allegiance. In response to this George Granville, later Baron Lansdowne, assured Harley:

I will not fail to observe your directions in regard to the duke of Beaufort, and am much mistaken if this alteration in his condition should make any alteration in him. But you must give me leave to say I must have some assistance to confirm him in such notions as I may have opportunities to advance, by introducing him as occasion may happen to proper acquaintance. HMC Portland, iv. 527.

Beaufort took his seat in the new session on 15 Nov. 1709. On 16 Feb. 1710 he registered three dissents: at the resolutions not to require Greenshields to attend the House, not to adjourn, and to concur with the Commons’ address requesting that the queen despatch John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, to Holland at once. The following month, he proved to be a prominent defender of the embattled clergyman Henry Sacheverell, to whom he sent a hamper of claret and 50 guineas to ease the discomfort of his first evening under arrest. Holmes, Sacheverell, 95. On 14 Mar. he served as one of the tellers in the division whether to adjourn the House (which was rejected by five votes), after which he entered two dissents, first at the resolution not to adjourn (although listed as the second teller, he had presumably told for those in favour of adjourning) and second at the resolution that it was not necessary to include the particular words believed to be criminal in the articles of impeachment. Two days later he subscribed two further protests: at the resolution to put the question whether the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment and at the resolution to concur with the Commons on the issue. On 17 Mar. he protested again at the resolution that the Commons had made good the second, third and fourth articles against Sacheverell and the next day he protested at the resolution to limit the peers to a single verdict of guilty or not guilty. On 20 Mar. 1710, having previously spoken in the doctor’s favour, he found Sacheverell not guilty of the charges laid against him. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 558. He then entered his dissent against the guilty verdict. The following day, he acted as one of the tellers for the division about reducing the number of years for which Sacheverell was to be banned from preaching from seven to three. He then entered his dissent once again at the censure passed against the doctor.

Hard on the heels of the Sacheverell trial, on 21 Mar. 1710 the House received a petition from Beaufort’s grandmother Mary, dowager duchess of Beaufort, in response to a chancery decree awarded against her the previous month. During the summer of 1709 the family had been divided by the opening of a court action brought by Lady Granville and Lady Henrietta Somerset (Beaufort’s sister) against the dowager duchess over the distribution of parts of the 1st duke’s personal estate. On 24 Mar. the House moved that Beaufort and Lord Arthur Somerset should be heard by counsel to be included as respondents to the petition, but little more progress was made in the case for the time being.

Soon after the close of the session, Beaufort introduced Allen Bathurst, later Earl Bathurst, to the queen, with an address from the grand jury of Gloucester. The address communicated their intention of selecting members for the new Parliament ‘as the affairs of church and state seem at present to require’, but it was noted that ‘her majesty took little notice of’ it. Ibid. vi. 563. On 8 Apr. Beaufort waited on Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, to communicate his uneasiness about the address and his concern that it was a reflection on him that, although the queen had promised it should be mentioned in the Gazette, it had been so clearly ignored. He asked Shrewsbury to seek the interposition of Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset. Shrewsbury accordingly recommended him to Somerset as ‘very well disposed, and a man of so great quality and interest that he is well worth your gaining as you may easily do by giving him your help in this matter’. W. Suss. RO, Petworth House archives/14, Shrewsbury to Somerset, 9 Apr. 1710.

Beaufort survived a bout of smallpox contracted in May 1710. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 581; Add. 72495, ff. 6–8; Post Boy, 20 May 1710. On 12 May it had been proposed (and adopted) at a meeting of the Board of Loyal Brotherhood that the members should drink an additional bumper to Beaufort’s health, after the usual toasts had been drunk, until he recovered. Add. 49360, f. 26. He had rallied by June when he waited on Harley and Simon Harcourt, later Viscount Harcourt, as part of a concerted effort to secure some reward for his support. Harcourt reported to Harley that he believed Beaufort to be ‘as well disposed as you can wish him to be’, though ‘not without some apprehensions, which make him as well as many others very uneasy’. Beaufort appears to have been angling for a free gift of the command of a regiment, as well as for his appointment to the lieutenancy of Gloucestershire, which it was believed would soon be made available by the death of Berkeley, the current holder. HMC Portland, iv. 545–6. Accordingly, reports soon circulated that Beaufort would indeed be granted his coveted lieutenancy, though Berkeley seems to have done all in his power to forestall him. Bodl. Ballard 31, f. 84; Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, f. 9; W. Suss. RO, Petworth House archives/14, Berkeley to Somerset, 10 July 1710.

The 1710 elections

Early in July 1710 Beaufort predicted that Parliament was soon to be dissolved, though his assessment was questioned by William Jessop, who reckoned that the current Parliament would ‘abide some struggle’ before its dissolution. UNL, Pw2 138, Jessop to Newcastle, 4 July 1710. The creation of the new Tory ministry under Robert Harley encouraged Beaufort to return to court, supposedly declaring to the queen – in a manner that cannot have endeared him to her – that only now was she ‘queen in reality’. T. Smollet, Hist. of England (1816 edn.) i. 441. He had already demonstrated the extent of his willingness to support the new administration, having offered to lend the ministry £5,000 to release it from dependence on the Bank of England, principal members of which had attempted to prevent the dismissal of Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin, from the treasurership. Pols. in Age of Anne, 174.

The establishment of the new ministry encouraged speculation that Beaufort would soon be rewarded with a prominent place in government. He had certainly made an effort to improve his acquaintance with Harley. Add. 70293, Matthew Decker to Robert Harley, 24 Aug. 1710. Through August and September it was rumoured first that he was to replace William Cavendish, 2nd duke of Devonshire, as lord steward and then that he was to be made master of the horse (though reports relating to the second place had been current since the middle of April). Surr. RO, Midleton mss (Ref. 1248), vol. iii (1710–17), f. 9; Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 19–20; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 633; Wentworth Pprs. 118; WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/1020; Add. 61460, ff. 202–3. Making good use of his new-found importance to the ministry, on 25 Aug. he requested a delay in the appointment of a new custos rotulorum for Worcestershire until he had had an opportunity to speak with Harley about it. Add. 70257, Beaufort to Harley, 25 Aug. 1710.

Beaufort was feverishly active in marshalling candidates for the forthcoming elections in the numerous counties and corporations in which he had an interest. He conveyed dozens of missives to electoral allies and foes alike in an effort to secure the return of sympathetic members. This scattergun approach produced mixed results. He encouraged his local rival John Morgan to stand with Thomas Windsor, Viscount Windsor [I] (later Baron Mountjoy), for Monmouthshire, but when Morgan insisted on standing alone Beaufort still undertook to use his interest on both men’s behalf. NLW, Tredegar mss, 53/98, 99, 100. Morgan clearly doubted Beaufort’s commitment to his cause, provoking the duke to insist, ‘you must think me a base man should I set up anybody to oppose you, unless you should do anything … to deserve it’. Two days later (14 Sept.) tensions appear to have subsided and he expressed his ‘great pleasure’ at seeing ‘so good a correspondence between me and the house of Tredegar’. Beaufort also engaged his interest on behalf of Clayton Milborne^‡ for the town of Monmouth. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Morgan of Tredegar, 12 and 14 Sept. 1710; Beaufort to Lewis, 12 Sept. 1710; NLW, Tredegar mss, 53/102.

Beaufort’s efforts in the west country proved similarly mixed. Writing directly to the electors of Gloucestershire, he requested their voices for the Tory candidates, John Symes Berkeley^‡ of Stoke and John Howe, who had been selected at a meeting during the quarter sessions, for the county seats. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, p. 71. Although Berkeley was successful, Howe was forced into third place at the poll by the Whig Matthew Ducie Moreton^‡. At Midhurst Beaufort offered his backing to William Ward^‡ and attempted to establish an electoral pact between him and Robert Orme^‡; in the event, Ward chose not to contest the seat. Ibid. FmH 4/1, p. 5; HP Commons 1690–1715, i. 612–13. Likewise, Beaufort pressed Leonard Bilson^‡ to ensure as many second votes as possible for one Foxcroft, in an effort to oust Norton Powlett^‡ at Petersfield. He assured Bilson of Foxcroft’s commitment to desist should Bilson himself prove to be in trouble, though Beaufort was confident that ‘you are so hearty at this time that you will not endanger the having an ill Parliament when a little assistance from you might secure a good member to be joined with you’. Ibid. FmH 4/1, p. 2. Foxcroft seems not to have stood, though, and both seats went to the sitting members. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 241–2.

Writing to his steward for venison to be made available for the ‘mayor of Monmouth’s treat’, Beaufort also requested of him details of his holdings in Weymouth, where he hoped to employ his interest on behalf of one of his friends. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Cross, 14 Sept. 1710. The same day he appealed to one Albert to hold to his resolution of refraining from standing at Ludgershall, so that Thomas Pearce^‡ could be saved the expense of a contest. In return, Beaufort assured Albert that he would be ‘glad of an opportunity to show you with what satisfaction I should undertake to serve you in anything else’. Ibid. FmH 4/1, p. 4. Albert clearly ignored Beaufort’s offer but polled only 15 votes; the seats went to Pearce and one of the previous sitting members. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 676, 679. Beaufort advised Frederick Tylney^‡ not to contest Great Bedwyn but to confine himself to standing at Whitchurch and to make over his interest in the former to another of the duke’s circle. He seems to have had in mind Richard Lytton but it was another retainer, Thomas Millington^‡, who eventually secured the seat the following year when Charles Bruce, styled Lord Bruce (later 3rd earl of Ailesbury), chose to sit for Marlborough instead. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, pp. 2, 4.

Apologizing for begging a new favour from Henry Whitehead, just returned from Stockbridge, Beaufort asked him to return to the town to meet Robert Pitt^‡, who was to be there on behalf of George Dashwood^‡ and James Barry^‡, earl of Barrymore [I], ‘in order to keep their friends steady against a new attempt, that will be made on Monday by our adversaries’. Ibid. FmH 4/1, p. 6. The duke’s involvement was less appreciated by Robert Bruce^‡, who reported to Lord Bruce how he had waited on Beaufort but ‘found that he talked at his old silly rate and either could or would do nothing to serve you at Ludgershall’. James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, was similarly disdainful, laughing as he described how ‘Beaufort meddled much in these matters’. HMC 15th Rep. VII, 202.

Despite such unsympathetic responses to his efforts, the extent of Beaufort’s reach as a political broker in so many areas remained impressive and his authority in the Hampshire elections was boosted with his appointment to both the county lieutenancy and the wardenship of the New Forest. Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 33–34; Wentworth Pprs. 140. It was also rumoured that he would be made lord warden of the Cinque Ports. Add. 72495, ff. 19–20. On 20 Sept. 1710 he set out for Hampshire ‘with a noble equipage’ to settle the militia there, having, according to one report, ‘already put the lieutenancy into the hands of loyal churchmen and gentlemen of the greatest quality in the county’. Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 41–42. This was in spite of a delay in issuing commissions to deputy lieutenants, as Beaufort was forced to admit to William Legge, 2nd Baron, later earl, of Dartmouth, having been unable to secure a list from his predecessor, Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, p. 11. Apologizing to Shrewsbury for having left town without waiting on him, Beaufort assured the duke of the ‘great deal of satisfaction’ expressed by the people of Hampshire for being delivered from Bolton’s administration and of his conviction that they would ‘demonstrate their sense of it by their elections’. Ibid. FmH 4/1, p. 9.

Beaufort was received in the county ‘after the most extraordinary manner that ever lord lieutenant was’ and awarded the freedom of the city by the corporation of Winchester. Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 43–44; Post Boy, 23 Sept. 1710. He reported to Harley how

everything has a good face here, and every face full of joy to see themselves delivered from the management of the duke of Bolton, whose interest has been carried on more by that and the fear of suppression, by the help of his authority, than by any love or personal affection either sex have for him.

Warming to his theme, he continued to describe the threats and pressures exerted by Bolton’s allies in attempting to keep the people of Hampshire in a state of subjugation:

there is no lie that is possible to be invented that they don’t use, they are descended so low as to bully and threaten to stick people to the wall, if they will not vote for them, and tell them that they are confident, Robin the Trickster, which is the epithet they give you, will be turned out and his gang in a few months, and then they will hang and ruin all those that are not of their side. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, p. 8.

According to Beaufort, Bolton’s removal had changed all that. He reported confidently to Henry St John, later Viscount Bolingbroke, ‘I’ll answer this county [Hampshire] will return as many men of the same opinion as ever they did of the contrary at one time … everything goes here to our satisfaction and loyalty abounds in both gentry and commonalty.’ Ibid. FmH 4/1, p. 7.

Despite his claims, the duke’s appointment was not welcomed by all of the Hampshire folk. On 30 Sept. The Post Boy reported the confession of William Colbrook from Petersfield, who admitted slandering Beaufort by accusing him of involvement in plotting ‘that he was for pulling down the Bank, and that there were 30,000 men at Dunkirk, to assist in bringing in the Prince of Wales’. Colbrook admitted that his tale was false and that he had been ‘unadvisedly drawn in to speak those words to vilify his grace’s character’, begging Beaufort’s pardon for his offence, which appears to have been the end of the matter. Post Boy, 30 Sept. 1710.

With Hampshire thus settled to his satisfaction, Beaufort appealed to Harley to appoint him lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire as well, protesting that ‘if I have it not that county is undone’. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, p. 12. The following month he made for Monmouth by way of Bath and Gloucester. His warm welcome there inspired one newspaper to eulogize: ‘Never was any peer of this realm received here with such an universal satisfaction, or so great attendance.’ Post Boy, 7 and 10 Oct. 1710. Another commentator reported how ‘the poor Whigs looked so dejected that it is feared they make work for the coroner’. Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, f. 58. Beaufort’s own account of his reception at Gloucester matched these positive reports and he communicated to Harley how he had been ‘met with so handsome an appearance of gentlemen &c as never yet was seen together in the memory of the old men’. HMC Portland, iv. 611. His apparent popularity in the region emboldened him to repeat his request that he be appointed to the county lieutenancy, though in a letter to Shrewsbury he insisted that the design came from the people of Gloucestershire and not from himself:

all the gentlemen of Gloucestershire that are well wishers to her Majesty and the new ministry as they call it are so pressing to me to be zealous in getting the lieutenancy of that county, that should I neglect it I should disoblige them, really their case is very hard that when they made the first attempt of laying their hearts at her majesty’s feet with a resolution of standing by her hereditary title and all branches or her prerogative, they should be the only county in England that would at this time be again put into the hands of those people who have openly declared against it … Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Shrewsbury, 10 Oct. 1710.

For all his agitating, Beaufort remained unable to secure the post. Annoyed at the way in which he was being cold-shouldered he warned of the ill treatment likely to be meted out to the people of Gloucestershire by the incumbent lieutenant. He even threatened to retire to Badminton if he were to continue to be ignored. Ibid. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Shrewsbury, 19 Oct. 1710.

Beaufort, Harley and the search for office, 1710-13

In spite of such difficulties, Beaufort was assessed a supporter of the new ministry in October. The following month it was rumoured that he was to be made a knight of the garter (though this proved to be premature). Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 650. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, after which he was present on 84 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 7 Dec. the dowager duchess submitted a further appeal for her petition to be heard and on 18 Dec. the House resolved to reverse a chancery decree previously granted in favour of Lady Granville. Beaufort moved for an address of thanks to be drawn up in response to the queen’s message concerning the latest reversals in Spain on 2 Jan. 1711 and two days later he moved to address the queen to delay the departure of Charles Mordaunt, 3rd earl of Peterborough, so that he could assist with the Lords’ enquiry into the war. Nicolson, London Diaries, 528; Timberland, ii. 282. On 11 Jan. Beaufort acted as one of the tellers in a division held in a committee of the whole over the defeat at Almanza (the motion to concur with the explanation for the defeat being carried by 64 to 43). The following day he again participated in the debates on the conduct of the war. He voiced his wonderment that ‘any lord in the ministry should approve and direct an offensive war in Spain, at that juncture’, and made special mention of Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland. Timberland, ii. 319.

On 5 Feb. Beaufort entered a further dissent at the resolution to reject the General Naturalization Act. He reported from the committee on 26 Feb. 1711 on a bill for his fellow ‘Brother’, Other Windsor, 2nd earl of Plymouth, and on 1 Mar. he acted as one of the tellers for the division over whether to hear counsel in the cause Greenshields v. the Edinburgh magistrates (which was carried by 36 votes). On 9 Mar. he was nominated as one of the managers of the conference considering the safety of the queen’s person, from which he reported back the same day, as well as from the subsequent conference on the same business. Beaufort received the proxy of another ‘Brother’, Scarsdale, on 14 Mar. (which was vacated on 20 March). On 1 May he reported from the committee of the whole for the bill for preserving game and on 7 May from the committee considering the bill for Henry O’Brien*, 7th earl of Thomond [I], later Viscount Tadcaster, a distant kinsman. That month Beaufort was also one of eight peers to bear the pall at Rochester’s funeral. Worcs. RO, Hampton (Pakington) mss, 705:349/4739/1 (i)/55. In June he was included in a list of Tory patriots of the first session of the Parliament.

Beaufort’s activities that spring were not confined to parliamentary management. Towards the end of March he was also said to be deeply engaged with Henry Sacheverell in attempting to secure Tories places on the boards of both the Bank of England and the East India Company. NLS, Wodrow pprs. Wod. Lett. Qu. V, f. 181. His efforts at bolstering the Tories were also evident in more public displays. On 8 June 1711 he marked the admission of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] (duke of Brandon), to the ‘Blue Cap club’ by throwing a lavish entertainment on the river attended by Hamilton’s duchess and his mother, Lady Granville, ‘to make all grave’. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 140. The following day he wrote to Bishop Compton recommending ‘Dr’ Stanhope for a prebend’s stall at St Paul’s, vacant by the death of Thomas Felstead. Stanhope was accordingly installed later that year. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 p. 20; Fasti, 1541-1857, i. 48–49. Beaufort’s Jacobite sympathies may have induced him to join with Hamilton in standing bail for John Middleton, styled (improperly, as his father’s earldom had been rendered void by attainder) Lord Clermont [S] (later titular 3rd earl of Middleton [S]), and his brother, Captain Charles Middleton. Both had been taken aboard the Salisbury following the abortive invasion of 1708 and incarcerated in the Tower. The other sureties were undoubted Whigs, Wharton and Bolton. Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 257–8; Post Boy, 19 June 1711.

Within a year of the commencement of the Oxford ministry, Beaufort appears to have been dissatisfied with his lot. George Granville reported to Oxford in July how he had visited the duke ‘and endeavoured to satisfy him that he will find himself not neglected’. Add. 70288, G. Granville to Oxford, 3 July 1711. The same month, Thomas Osborne, duke of Leeds, approached the queen for a garter for Beaufort but without success, although it was reported in at least one newsletter that Beaufort was to join Oxford in receiving the honour. Add. 28041, f. 30; Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 267–8. Talk of Beaufort’s succeeding Shrewsbury as lord chamberlain also proved to be without foundation. Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 291–2. Beaufort was not the only member of the ministry to be discontented and towards the end of the month he offered his services to Shrewsbury (whom he thought best placed to heal any rift) to act as a mediator between the different factions. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, p. 27.

Leeds’s solicitation of the queen was no doubt connected to the negotiations in train during the summer of 1711 for a match between Beaufort and Leeds’s granddaughter Mary Osborne. Add. 28041, f. 30. In August news of Beaufort’s likely marriage to Lady Betty Osborne (presumably a slip) circulated and, although the marriage was delayed at the close of that month by the death of Leeds’s grandson William Henry Osborne, styled earl of Danby, preparations continued and the couple were married on 14 September. Add. 72491, f. 40; Longleat, Bath mss. Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 304, 317. The marriage proved to be a strikingly happy one, so much so that Lady Strafford later noted:

The duke and duchess of Beaufort are the fondest of one another in the world, I fear it is too hot to hold. He is never out after seven o’clock at night, and if he has any company he takes an opportunity to tell them they must be gone by that time; and if he comes home and the duchess is abroad he sends all the town over to fetch her home to keep him company. Wentworth Pprs. 256.

Happy with his new wife he may have been, but Beaufort was said to be ‘the most angry man of all the laity’ at the promotion of John Robinson, bishop of Bristol, as lord privy seal at the end of September. HMC Portland, vii. 61. Failure to secure what he considered his due recognition appears to have convinced him to retreat to Badminton. On 29 Sept. he wrote to one correspondent lauding the benefits of country air and asserting that:

I am quite of an opinion that retirement is much the happiest life. In the country you have no occasion of friends, for which reason you will never be betrayed nor deceived by dependence upon anybody, you have no politics to disturb your brain, you have no court to pay to faithless courtiers; you eat your own bread, drink your own drink, and lie with your own wife, everything pleases … Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 p. 31.

Despite his apparent cheerful resignation to live the life of a country squire, by November Beaufort was again voicing his disgruntlement at being frozen out by members of the ministry. Reluctant to agree to John Manley’s^‡ request to see him in town, he related how ‘it is now a common proverb, that to fail in getting any preferment one desires, is to make use of the duke of Beaufort’s interest’. Ibid. FmH 4/1 p. 35. To Leeds he complained how:

when about town I was always perplexed with some disgust given me by one or other of the ministry… I must confess to your grace, that my late usage from some of the ministry has given me a very cool respect for them, and has quite extinguished my ambition of being a courtier; in so much that a call to London, would be the most unwelcome news I could hear.

Undertaking to come to town should Leeds advise it, Beaufort otherwise resolved to remain a country gentleman in retirement for so long as ‘high-handed Tories sway the state’. Ibid. FmH 4/1 pp. 38–39. Writing to Manley again, Beaufort also insisted that he had ‘laid aside’ all thoughts of high office ‘or any hopes of advantage from this ministry’ and that he was now resolved to be satisfied with his lot. Ibid. FmH 4/1 pp. 42–45.

Beaufort’s disgruntlement was presumably the spur for Oxford (reputedly) to send him £1,000 in bank bills by messenger towards the end of November 1711. The duke refused to take the money, insisting that the messenger had made some mistake and that the money was surely meant for a Scots peer (another account of the incident had it that he refused the proffered money as ‘he was not a Scots lord’). It was rumoured at the same time that Beaufort had expended almost ten times that sum during the previous election, so Oxford may simply have been attempting to reimburse some of his expenses. Wentworth Pprs. 216; Haddington mss, Mellerstain Letters iv, Baillie to Montrose, 4 Dec. 1711. In December he was again listed as a supporter of Oxford’s ministry and later that month was again spoken of as a likely recipient either of the office of master of the horse or of the lord chamberlaincy. KSRL, Moore mss, 143 Ck, C. Vere to A. Moore, n.d.; Wentworth Pprs. 225, 233.

Although unwilling to accept Oxford’s money, Beaufort abandoned his threat of spending the whole winter in retirement. He took his seat at the opening of the new session on 7 Dec. 1711. The same day he received Leeds’s proxy (which was vacated by the latter’s return to the House shortly before the close of the session the following year on 7 June 1712) and on 8 Dec. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to present the address to the queen. Two days later he was noted as being in favour of the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion and on 19 Dec. he was forecast as being in favour of permitting Hamilton to take his seat as duke of Brandon. The following day he voted as expected against barring Scots peers in possession of post-Union British titles from sitting in the House.

Following the adjournment, news that Viscount Windsor was to be summoned to the Lords as one of Oxford’s dozen new peers encouraged Beaufort to propose James Gunter^‡ as his successor at Monmouthshire. NLW, Tredegar mss, 53/105; Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 p. 79. At the same time, Beaufort continued to benefit from Leeds’s efforts on his behalf. Recommending his young grandson-in-law to Oxford, Leeds stressed that ‘I think it the duty of every good subject … to preserve those few jewels which are left to the crown from being pulled out of it, especially at a time when it is so apparently struck at by some men.’ Add. 70250, Leeds to Oxford, 31 Dec. 1711. Ties between the Osbornes and Somersets remained tight during the session and on 12 Jan. 1712 Beaufort received the proxy of Peregrine Hyde Osborne, styled marquess of Carmarthen, later 3rd duke of Leeds (which was vacated on 7 March). The same day (presumably in response to Leeds’s recommendations) it was reported that he was to be rewarded with the office of captain of the gentlemen pensioners in place of Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans. Wentworth Pprs. 244. Other reports suggested that he was also to be appointed lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire (which happened accordingly the following month), to be granted command of a regiment and to succeed Shrewsbury as lord chamberlain. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters iv, Baillie to Montrose, 3 Jan. 1712; London Gazette, 28 Feb. 1712; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 710, 715; Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss, no. 229; Wentworth Pprs. 232–4; NLW, Ottley corresp. 2447. Beaufort himself appears to have set his cap at the office of master of the horse and was disappointed with the eventual offer of the captaincy of the gentlemen pensioners. Nevertheless, he resolved to submit to the queen’s pleasure and accept the place. Add. 70250, Leeds to Oxford, 10 Jan. 1712; Worcs. RO, Hampton (Pakington) mss, 705:349/4739/1 (i)/60.

Beaufort was successful in mobilizing his interest on behalf of Gunter for the Monmouthshire by-election in February 1712, securing the eventual support of Morgan and Thomas Lewis. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to James Gunter, 10 Jan. 1712. On 7 Mar. he received the proxy of Thomas Willoughby, Baron Midleton (vacated the following day), and on 25 Mar. he reported from the committee for Algernon Greville’s^‡ bill concerning the settlement made on Greville’s marriage to Beaufort’s cousin Mary Somerset. He hosted a meeting at his London residence at about the same time, at which Pitt announced his disinclination to stand for Hampshire at the next election. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Edward Lisle, 28 Mar. 1712. Beaufort rallied to the court at the end of May by voting against the opposition-led motion to address the queen to overturn the orders restraining Ormond from mounting an offensive against the French. PH, xxvi. 177–81. On 6 June he received Midleton’s proxy again (it was vacated ten days later). The following month he was one of several peers to be approached by William North, 6th Baron North and Grey, who was eager to secure the governorship of Dunkirk. Bodl. MS North, c.8, ff. 193–4. Over the course of the summer he oversaw the introduction of a number of local dignitaries from Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Warwick presenting addresses to the queen. London Gazette, 26 June, 12, 17, 19 and 26 July 1712; Post Boy, 26 June 1712.

Beaufort’s financial prospects were improved markedly by the death of his mother in July 1712. By it he recovered ‘a very good jointure of £2,500 per annum’, but the same month his own health was cause for alarm and it was reported that Dr John Radcliffe^‡ had declared him so sickly that ‘he can’t live a month’. The cause of the duke’s indisposition was attributed by Radcliffe to his former heavy drinking, which he believed had touched his lungs. Post Boy, 26 July 1712; Add. 72495, f. 83; Wentworth Pprs. 291. In defiance of the doctor’s prediction, Beaufort rallied and in November he was well enough to attempt to use his interest with John Poulett, Earl Poulett, to persuade him to abandon Sir James Bateman^‡ and allow a Mr Rymond to contest Ilchester in his stead. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Poulett, 10 Nov. 1712.

Beaufort wrote to Oxford on 19 Dec. 1712 to congratulate him on the marriage of his daughter to Beaufort’s ‘Brother’ Carmarthen. He regretted that he was unable to do so in person, but hoped to be in London within a week. On 1 Jan. 1713 he wrote to Oxford again to request that he would make no decision concerning an approach for the granting of a patent for forging halfpennies and farthings until Beaufort had had time to wait on him. The duke was also eager to inform Oxford of his disquiet at the discovery that his brother-in-law, Carmarthen, had been written to as captain of the gentlemen pensioners, ‘which I hope is no ill omen to me’. Add. 70257, Beaufort to Oxford, 19 Dec. 1712, 1 Jan. 1713.

Beaufort may have sought leave to travel overseas for his health around the turn of the year, but if so it seems unlikely that he made the trip, as he returned to London in time to be present in the House for the four prorogation days held in February and March 1713. TNA, SP 34/20/22. The death of James Gunter necessitated a further by-election in Monmouthshire, the seat eventually going to Thomas Lewis, who had stepped aside the year before in favour of Gunter. Beaufort’s tacit endorsement ensured Lewis’ unchallenged return. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 406.

The spring of 1713 found Beaufort caught up in a chancery suit concerning his marriage settlement of 1711. With the case still in train he took his seat in the new session on 9 Apr., after which he was present on almost 69 per cent of all sitting days. The same day he moved for an address to the queen in response to her speech, which resulted in a brief debate, and the following day he reported from the committee for drawing up the address. Timberland, ii. 392–3. A letter of 18 Apr. from Beaufort to Oxford hinted that their relationship had become strained once again. Beaufort was discontented at being asked to forego the usual fees on the admission of two recruits to the band of gentlemen pensioners and hoped that he had ‘done nothing yet to deserve less to be trusted either in the choice of gentlemen or to be sentenced to half pay, as a disbanded officer’. Add. 70257, Beaufort to Oxford, 18 Apr. 1713. His grumbling may have given rise to a rumour that he was once more to be bought off with his appointment as lord chamberlain that June (a rumour that was revived later in the year amid reports that Shrewsbury was to be sent to Ireland). Once again this failed to transpire. British Mercury, 16 Sept. 1713; Add. 72496, ff. 77–78. His loyalty to the regime remained sufficiently secure for Oxford to assess him on 13 June as a likely supporter of the French commerce bill but the following month Beaufort again gave vent to his frustration over an account that Bolingbroke was to be made master of the horse. He informed Ormond how he could not

express the disappointment it will be to me if it should be true … You are sensible of the many slights I have received from lord treasurer and I believe at this time he would repair them rather than have that interest drop in the country which he knows is of too great consequence for him to lose. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 p. 63.

The 1713 elections

In spite of his damaged pride, Beaufort was active once more in asserting his influence in Hampshire that summer. At Portsmouth he found himself involved in a struggle with North and Grey over their rival interests in the town. Add. 70250, North and Grey to Oxford, 22 July 1713; Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 p. 58. Squabbling within the corporation had led to the removal of the mayor (Smith) and his replacement by Alderman Reynolds. Beaufort demanded Smith’s reinstatement, while Reynolds appealed to North and Grey for his intercession. Bodl. MS North, c.9, ff. 48–49. When Beaufort approached North and Grey directly on Smith’s behalf, he received a very frigid response from his fellow ‘Brother’. North and Grey hoped that he would desist in espousing ‘so ill a man’. He was similarly dismissive of Beaufort’s efforts to control the elections in the borough: ‘How far your grace may think yourself obliged to meddle in the corporation elections of your county, I know not, but where I have the honour to serve her majesty as her lieutenant it would be thought a great encroachment on a corporation to act so.’ Bodl. MS North, b.2, f. 51. Beaufort professed himself ‘surprised’ by North’s response and hoped to meet with him to resolve their differences. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to North and Grey, 28 July 1713.

Despite these tensions, Beaufort informed Oxford of his confidence that both county and borough seats would return sympathetic members to the new Parliament. He insisted that ‘the church interest increases in Hampshire very much’ but also took the opportunity to draw to the lord treasurer’s attention problems in the New Forest. Appalled by the state of affairs at Lyndhurst, where he found the garden attached to the warden’s lodge ‘like a pig sty and is scarce large enough to be called a garden’, he complained to Oxford that his predecessor, Bolton, had left the stables ‘in so ruinous a condition’ that, although he had already expended £100 from his own pocket to pay for repairs, it would require more than twice as much to save them from collapse. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 pp. 59, 68; Add. 70257, Beaufort to Oxford, 3 Aug. 1713. Beaufort also appealed for Ormond’s intercession on his behalf to secure £500, which he considered very necessary to manage the repairs in the forest. Should he be refused this sum, he commented in a draft letter, ‘all the world would join with me in thinking I had hard usage’. The following week he penned a further letter to Ormond, again seeking his assistance. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1 pp. 61, 69.

Beaufort’s canvassing on the Isle of Wight contributed to Thomas Lewis^‡ and Sir Anthony Stewart^‡ defeating John Wallop and Charles Powlett^†, then styled marquess of Winchester, and later 3rd duke of Bolton, for the county seats. HMC Portland, v. 325. At Salisbury he was forced to beg Oxford’s assistance in his efforts to prevent Robert Pitt^‡ from being returned. Beaufort and Pitt had formerly been friendly but were now involved in a bitter feud over Pitt’s opposition to the French commercial treaty. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to George Pitt, 20 Aug. 1713; HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 694. Pitt was moreover attempting to turn out the landlord of The George from his office in the corporation for refusing him his vote. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Oxford, 29 Aug. 1713. Beaufort also appealed to the Catholic peer Henry Arundell, Baron Arundell of Wardour, asking him to employ his interest on behalf of Richard Jones^‡ in opposition to Pitt. Apparently stung by North and Grey’s reaction to his involvement in Hampshire, Beaufort continued in his missive to Arundel, ‘how far your lordship thinks proper to meddle in elections is not for me to ask but the long experience I have had of Mr Jones’s integrity and honour makes me beg the favour’. Ibid. FmH 4/1 p. 77.

Affairs in the other counties in which Beaufort was interested proved quite as taxing. At Bath he had been dismayed to discover that the sitting members (Samuel Trotman^‡ and John Codrington^‡), who both enjoyed his full support, were being challenged by John Radcliffe. Radcliffe had been set up by Beaufort’s friends, ‘without advising with me who to your knowledge has spent a great deal of money about their bill as I did since last election’. Ibid. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Mr Smith, 27 July 1713. Radcliffe appears to have backed down quietly, leaving the sitting members to be returned without contest. At Gloucester, Beaufort had been content to recommend Charles Coxe^‡ and Thomas Webb, only for Webb to withdraw under pressure. Add. 70319, Charles Coxe to Lord ?, 13 Oct. 1712. His departure from the contest resulted in some uncertainty as to whether Coxe should remain to contest Gloucester or Bathurst be prevailed on not to insist on his brother standing for Cirencester (Coxe’s former seat). In the event, Beaufort was able to secure Oxford’s support for Coxe standing at Gloucester along with a ministry nominee, John Snell^‡, while Webb was compensated with a place elsewhere. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Coxe, 8 Aug. 1713; HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 223. Tensions in the city were revealed by the distribution of a ‘scandalous letter’ about which Beaufort was forced to complain to the mayor of Gloucester. The duke made plain his determination to find out the perpetrators and (in spite of his reputed Jacobite sympathies) his own commitment to the Hanoverian succession:

I heartily wish the endeavours of discovering them may prove effectual that it might be openly known who they are that are averse to the Protestant succession and that they may be discouraged by authority who by fomenting of parties are endeavouring to weaken the security of the Protestant religion for which I take the succession in the House of Hanover next to her present majesty’s long life to be the chief guarantee. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, 8 Aug. 1713.

In Monmouthshire, Beaufort withdrew his support from Thomas Lewis^‡, who (he was disappointed to find) did not ‘answer’ his expectations, and transferred his interest to Sir Charles Kemys^‡, but he was unsuccessful in prevailing upon Morgan (the custos rotulorum) to do likewise. Morgan insisted on remaining true to his promise to Lewis and told Beaufort that he doubted many others would rally to Kemys either. Ibid. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Mr Curr, 11 July 1713; NLW, Tredegar mss, 53/107, 53/108. Although Beaufort insisted that he had ‘good hopes out of Monmouthshire’, he was forced to appeal to Harcourt for his assistance there, insisting that ‘if I do not succeed for Sir Charles Kemys this time I may despair for the future of ever having a Tory member for the county’. Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Milborne, 15 Aug. 1713. His proposed solution was to add the lord lieutenancy and place of custos rotulorum of Monmouthshire to his growing list of responsibilities, ‘as it would put us out of any doubt of success’. He also suggested the appointment of a new commission for sewers in the county. Ibid. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to Lord Harcourt, 15 Aug. 1713. Milborne added his voice to this request. He hoped that Oxford would see to it that Beaufort was granted the office before the election, which would ‘infallibly secure Sir Charles’ but by the beginning of September, with no word from Oxford, Beaufort was forced to write for a third time, underlining ‘the great loss it will be to the Church interest in Monmouthshire if I am not made lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum’. Add. 70203, Milborne to Oxford, 24 Aug. 1713; Add. 70257, Beaufort to Oxford, 6 Sept. 1713.

In mid-September, Beaufort desired Oxford to ask the queen’s pardon for his failure to wait on her at Windsor for some time. He pleaded the excuse of his business in the elections and emphasized his success in securing the return of sympathetic candidates. Even now, though, his task was not complete and he was heading back to Gloucestershire to oversee elections there. Add. 70257, Beaufort to Oxford, 18 Sept. 1713. By the following month, exhaustion appears to have set in and he wrote at length (probably to Ormond), setting out in detail how he wished to be rewarded for his work on behalf of the ministry. Eager to spend more time with his family, Beaufort indicated that he would be willing to lay down his place of captain of the gentlemen pensioners. While he insisted that he did not expect to be reimbursed for the sums he had laid out during the elections, he did desire security for himself and his family in the event of the queen’s death. Consequently, he requested a patent granting him the wardenship of the New Forest for life. He also enquired whether in addition he might not be made governor of the Isle of Wight and warden of Burley (‘as Sir John Coventry was’). Badminton muns. FmH 4/1, Beaufort to ?Ormond, 10 Oct. 1713. In November he renewed his application to be made custos rotulorum of Monmouthshire in place of Morgan and the same month took part in a heated gentry meeting in the county. He harangued those present ‘with an account of his steady adhering to the Hanover succession’ and accused Jones of attempting ‘to seduce him to the Pretender’s interest’ and of making ‘mischief between himself and my lady duchess his grandmother’. Ibid. drawer 19, Baron Jones to Anne, countess of Coventry, 22 Nov. 1713.

Last days, 1713–14

Beaufort and his duchess spent two days at Bath towards the end of November 1713. Bodl. Ballard 18, ff. 53–54. Preoccupied with a mountain of business at Badminton, in advance of the first session of the new Parliament Beaufort wrote to Oxford to confirm that it was indeed to commence on 16 Feb. 1714, in which case he undertook to be there, though he was eager to spend as long in the country as he could. Add. 70257, Beaufort to Oxford, 3 Feb. 1714. In the event, he was missing at the opening of the session, taking his seat a week later on 23 February. Even in London his constant stream of requests continued unabated, but he found Oxford hard to come at. Despairing of being able to see him in person, Beaufort wrote to Oxford on 6 May on behalf of his ‘poor cousin’ Somerset and undertook to wait on him before retiring into the country. He wrote again on 9 May, on behalf of Robert Gore, who sought a place in the customs house at Bristol, and on behalf of Webb, who was still awaiting recompense for standing down at Gloucester. Add. 70257, Beaufort to Oxford, 6 and 9 May 1714. Two days later he registered his proxy with Denbigh. Shortly after, he returned to the country, where he fell so sick that he was thought unlikely to recover. Various reports that Beaufort had been rendered speechless and that he was dead or dying circulated on 19 and 22 May. HMC Portland, v. 446; British Mercury, 19 May 1714; Add. 70232, A. Harley to Oxford, 22 May, 1714; Bodl. MS North c.9, ff. 74–75. Two days later he finally succumbed to his latest malady, which, according to one report, was a result of ‘inflammation caused by drinking small beer in a long journey which he rid in one day’. Lord Bathurst communicated a similar account, describing how Beaufort, ‘who was just got into the country, and after having heated himself a shooting in the morning he drunk a great quantity of small liquor, which made him vomit blood and he died in three days after’. Wentworth Pprs. 384.

Within days of Beaufort’s death, pretenders began soliciting Oxford for his offices. Add. 70252, Poulett to Oxford, 26 May 1714. In his will, the duke named his wife sole executrix but he entrusted the guardianship of his elder son to a triumvirate consisting of James Bertie^‡, Dodington Greville^‡ and Francis Clerk, with an instruction that they should seek Ormond’s advice about his upbringing from time to time (‘if anything of difficulty arises’). HMC Portland, v. 454. His younger son’s upbringing was entrusted to his sister, Lady Henrietta Somerset. Before his death, he had undertaken to entail a series of portraits of the members of his fraternity that had been presented to him by the other members, ‘as a memorial of the Loyal Brotherhood over whom I have the happiness to preside’. Bodl. MS North, c.9, ff. 100–1.

Beaufort was interred, at his request, at Badminton, having made provision for up to £200 to be expended on his funeral and £400 on a monument to his memory. Add. 70070, newsletter, 12 June 1714. The year after his death, his widow married John Cochrane, 4th earl of Dundonald [S]. The dukedom was inherited by both sons in succession: first by Henry Somerset* [289], 3rd duke of Beaufort, who succeeded as a minor, and then, following his death without male heirs, by his brother, Charles Noel Somerset^†, 4th duke of Beaufort.