OSBORNE, Peregrine Hyde (1691-1731)

Osborne’s early life was dominated by his paternal grandfather, Thomas Osborne, duke of Leeds. As head of the family, it was Leeds who dictated the education of his grandchildren, not least because of the unstable conduct of his son and heir. It was at Leeds’ behest that Osborne and his elder brother, William Henry, styled earl of Danby, left for Holland on 1 Dec. 1706 to continue their education abroad. The two brothers were based at Utrecht from January 1707, learning riding, maths, dancing, fencing and music. They travelled extensively in the United Provinces and in September 1710 paid a visit to the court of Hanover. Eg. 3339, ff. 12-13, 134-5; Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. ii. 198. Danby died of smallpox at Utrecht in August, a misfortune that caused Leeds to recall Osborne (now styled Lord Danby in his brother’s place) home. He had spent four years and ten months abroad and arrived back in Wimbledon in late September 1711. Add. 28041, ff. 30-31.

In January 1712 Leeds made a new settlement of his estate, which ensured that his wayward son was passed over in favour of his grandson. His will, made a few days later, confirmed his intentions. Add. 70273, ‘Abstract of ‘Leeds’s Settlement’, 19 Jan. 1712, Abstract of Leeds’s will 21 Jan. 1712. Leeds also paid off Danby’s accumulated debts to 25 Mar. 1712, and provided him with an allowance of £300 p.a. Add. 28041, f. 34. Meanwhile Danby continued his introduction into polite society, although there was one hiccup. On 6 Mar. 1712, Danby’s brother-in-law, Henry Somerset* , 3rd duke of Beaufort, proposed him for membership of Swift’s Society, only for Swift to oppose it successfully, on the grounds of his youth. Jnl. to Stella ed. Williams, 505. Another setback occurred at the end of April 1712, when he was diagnosed with smallpox, but he had recovered by mid May. Add. 28041, f. 34. When the old duke of Leeds died somewhat suddenly on 26 July 1712, with his grandson (now styled marquess of Carmarthen) still a few months shy of his majority, the response of the new duke was to ignore the settlement and to take possession of what his wife described as ‘what doeth in no wise belong to him’, especially Kiveton and its contents. Add. 70250, duchess of Leeds to Oxford, 23 Aug. [1712], Carmarthen to Leeds, 6 Oct. 1712.

The question of Carmarthen’s marriage now came to the fore. To Swift his merits as a spouse were clear: ‘the young fellow has £60,000 ready money; three great houses furnished, £7,000 a year at present, and about five more after his father and mother die.’ Jnl. to Stella, 584. His trustees were able to attract the attention of lord treasurer Oxford and to suggest Carmarthen to him as a potential match for his daughter, Elizabeth. In mid September 1712, Oxford’s brother, Edward Harley^‡, discussed it in the following terms: ‘as to estate, circumstances and the portion insisted on nothing equal can ever be expected if the character given by the bishop be just, the virtue and good disposition of the person may in some measure counterpoise the embroils that have been and must be expected from the father.’ Add. 70236, E. Harley to Oxford, 16 Sept. 1712. The marriage was brokered by Philip Bisse, bishop of St Davids, who had married Carmarthen’s aunt Dorothy Osborne, the widowed countess of Plymouth. HMC Portland, vii. 98; Add. 70211, Bisse to Oxford, ‘Friday 8 a clock’. On 12 Nov. 1712 Oxford sent a letter of congratulation on Carmarthen’s ‘coming of age.’ Eg. 3385A, ff. 33-34. A few days later news of the match began seeping into public consciousness. Verney ms mic. 636/55, Fermanagh to R. Verney, 18 Nov. 1712.

The problem for both Carmarthen and Oxford remained the necessity of persuading Leeds to accept the settlement of the family’s estates. After much effort on Oxford’s part, in which he denied any underhand dealings, Leeds accepted the match, presumably because Oxford promised his assistance in procuring a renewal of the 1st duke’s pension from the post office. Add. 70250, Oxford to Leeds, 10 Dec. 1712. The marriage took place on 16 Dec. 1712, in the presence of the queen in Lady Masham’s apartments at Kensington, the ceremony being conducted by Bisse. Verney ms mic. 636/55, W. Viccars to Fermanagh, 23 Dec. 1712, who mistook St David for St Asaph. Carmarthen’s father was also in attendance and behaved well according to all accounts.

Newly of age, with a legal title to the Osborne patrimony and with a close affinity to the lord treasurer, Carmarthen was an obvious candidate for bolstering the strength of the ministry in the Lords and a writ in acceleration was dated 29 Jan. 1713. HMC Lords, n.s. x. 28. As Oxford explained to Carmarthen on 1 Feb.,

tomorrow being Monday your Lordship’s writ to call you up to the House of Lords will be sealed. The Parliament will meet on Tuesday, but be prorogued for a very few days, so that if your Lordship come to town tomorrow you may kiss her majesty’s hands, though I believe Lord Keeper will not be able to come to the House so that your Lordship cannot be then introduced. Eg. 3385A, ff. 41-42.

In response Carmarthen proposed to wait on Oxford the following day, when Beaufort would be able to accompany him to thank Oxford for his ‘great kindness in advancing me to so unmerited an honour.’ Add. 70250, Carmarthen to Oxford, 2 Feb. [1713].

Carmarthen was eventually introduced at the prorogation on 3 Mar. 1713 by his brother-in-law, George Hay, Baron Hay, styled Lord Dupplin [S] (also the future 8th earl of Kinnoull [S]) and Samuel Masham, Baron Masham. He then attended the prorogations on 10 and 17 March. At about this time his name appeared on a list in the hand of Jonathan Swift, with Oxford’s additions, as one of those expected to support the ministry, and just prior to the session, on 3 Apr., he wrote to congratulate Oxford ‘on the success of this great and glorious work of yours the peace’. Ibid. 3 Apr. 1713. He was present when the 1713 session opened on 9 Apr., attending on 41 days of the session, 53 per cent of the total. By the time the parliamentary session formally opened, another significant honour had accrued to Carmarthen and one which emphasized that he, rather than his father, was in charge of the Osborne patrimony in Yorkshire. In March he was appointed as lord lieutenant of the East Riding and Hull. London Gazette, 7 Apr. 1713. Shortly afterwards, in May, he ordered a public entertainment at Wakefield, as lord of the manor, in honour of the peace. Post Boy, 2 June 1713. On 1 June he introduced the civic officials of Leeds to present an address to the queen in favour of the peace and did the like for those from Doncaster on 2 June 1713. London Gazette, 30 May, 2 June 1713.

On 13 June 1713 Oxford forecast that Carmarthen would vote in support of the bill confirming the 8th and 9th articles of the French commercial treaty but on that very day told him that he should not stir until he had recovered from an indisposition. Eg. 3385A, ff. 45-46. Carmarthen obeyed this injunction to the extent that he only attended on one occasion (15 June) between 9 and 23 June. Just what the indisposition was remains unknown, but from about this time it seems that his health became increasingly precarious. Ensconced at Wimbledon, he sent Oxford a missive on 18 June complaining that he found himself,

now under almost the same difficulties with my father as before I was happily allied to your Lordship, in whose power it has been long and is still (pardon my thinking so) to free me from, and make me as easy in my circumstances and affairs as you have made me happy in a wife. Add. 70250, Carmarthen to Oxford, 18 June 1713, ‘State’ of ‘Carmarthen’s affairs in relation to Keeton’.

Chiefly, his problems with his father revolved around his Yorkshire estate and the depredations of the followers Leeds had installed on the properties. Carmarthen hoped that Oxford would be able to remove these difficulties by judicious use of his power of patronage, in effect compensating Leeds from public funds with either the post office pension or some equivalent.

From at least as early as May 1713 a settlement was being negotiated between Leeds and his son (and Oxford). In June Oxford wrote to Carmarthen setting out the options: ‘you know the difficulty of treating with him, and there is but two ways, one by law, which will be very tedious and the other by treaty in which I have offered him great advantages.’ Eg. 3385A, ff. 47-48. Matters dragged on, leaving Edward Harley to comment in late September: ‘from what I have heard from the bishop of Hereford [Philip Bisse] here and what I perceived in London, I heartily wish matters could be settled for Lord Carmarthen it is pity he should be soured.’ Add. 70236, Edward Harley to Oxford, 26 Sept. 1713. Oxford’s own memorandum from August 1713 showed that he was still pondering two possible solutions: either Leeds could be ejected by law, or matters composed by way of a pension from the crown. Add. 70332, Oxford memo. 6 Aug. 1713. On 15 Dec. the lawyer involved, Henry Farrant, informed Oxford that at a meeting the previous day Leeds had given ‘his finishing stroke, for the establishing my lord marquess in his noble possessions, and (as I hope) for a lasting union in the family.’ Add. 70197, Farrant to [Oxford], 15 Dec. 1713. In return for possession of the family patrimony, Carmarthen agreed to pay his father £500 per quarter. Eg. 3385A, ff. 3-8. This was to be supplemented by the transfer of the 1st duke’s pension of £3,500 to Leeds.

The birth on 6 Nov. 1713 of a son, Thomas Osborne^†, the future 4th duke of Leeds, was a cause of great pleasure to Carmarthen and his father. Simultaneously, it was reported that ‘Mr Williams is in quiet possession of Kiveton, found everything much better than was expected ... the furniture is in good order.’ The death of his wife at Wimbledon on 20 Nov. 1713, following complications after the birth, left Carmarthen ‘the most dejected man living, does not care to see to speak to anyone’, and designing to take solace in Yorkshire. Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 7 Nov., 19 Dec. 1713. By 17 Dec. Carmarthen had recovered sufficiently to solicit Oxford on behalf of his cousin, James Herbert^‡, for the vacant post of surveyor general. He spent the beginning of 1714 at Kiveton, writing to Oxford on 22 Jan. that he was happy ‘that you should at last think me worthy of your assistance.’ Add. 70250, Carmarthen to Oxford, 17 Dec. 1713, 22 Jan. 1714.

Carmarthen attended on the opening day of the 1714 Parliament on 16 February. He attended on 37 days of the session, 47 per cent of the total. On 8 Apr. Lady Dupplin reported that ‘Lord Carmarthen has had a cold but is better’, but on 10 Apr. he registered his proxy with Beaufort. He next sat on 28 April. He then registered another proxy on 13 May with his father. He did not sit again until 30 June, spending part of his absence in the country and part on a visit to Windsor. Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 8 Apr., 5 July 1714; Eg. 3385A, ff. 77-78. Despite his absence, in late May or early June he was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as likely to support the schism bill. Carmarthen was still sufficiently close to Oxford to be one of the first to be informed of his loss of office in July. Eg. 3385A, f. 79.

At the time of Queen Anne’s death, Carmarthen was at Badminton but travelled to London for the Parliament taking his seat on 9 Aug. 1714. HMC Portland, v. 481. He attended on three days of the session, less than 18 per cent of the total. Carmarthen continued to suffer from poor health; in mid September 1714 he was reported to be ‘confined by his bile,’ and ‘in an ill way, his arm is to be opened again tomorrow. The surgeon says then he can make a judgment of it. It should have been done today but my Lord was unwilling to bear the pain. Add. 70033, ff. 102, 104. He was still in town at the end of September 1714. Carmarthen’s health remained fragile, although it was reported at the end of October 1714, that he ‘mends daily’. Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 30 Sept., 30 Oct. 1714. Having been reappointed lord lieutenant of the East Riding by the new regime in October 1714, he was superseded by the end of the year. British Mercury, 6 Oct. 1714; Sainty, Lords Lieutenants, 59.

Carmarthen continued to have a difficult relationship with his father, who spent some years in exile as a Jacobite, always imploring his son for more funds. He succeeded his father in 1729, but always susceptible to bouts of ill health he was an irregular attender in Parliament in his latter years. He died on 9 May 1731, at his house in Pall Mall, of a ‘consumptive illness’ and was buried at Harthill. Pol. State, xli. 543; Hist. Reg. Chron. 1731, p. 23. His widow married Charles Colyear^†, 2nd earl of Portmore [S], in 1732, and enjoyed a jointure of £3,000 p.a. for over 60 years. CP, vii. 513.