LEIGH, Thomas (1652-1710)

Leigh’s father died in 1662, leaving his upbringing to his grandfather, Thomas Leigh, Baron Leigh, who was formally appointed his guardian in 1666. Roger Boyle^‡, earl of Orrery [I], discussed with Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, the benefits of sending Leigh to Oxford, commenting that, ‘such places often teach debauchery instead of learning; one unruly youth will infect more by his example than ten tutors will reclaim by their precepts.’ CCSP, v. 545. In spite of Orrery’s concerns, Leigh was sent to Christ Church, where he took his MA in 1667.

Two years later, Leigh married the heiress Elizabeth Browne. The match was engineered by his grandfather eager to resolve his own and his grandson’s financial predicament. The marriage was not a success and wrangling over the marriage settlement broke out almost at once. In 1670 Leigh’s grandfather introduced a bill to enable the sale of lands in Staffordshire to finance portions and to pay off debts. Elizabeth Leigh, concerned that it was prejudicial to any children she might have, opposed the bill and accused Leigh of attempting to debar her from her dower by conveying Stoneleigh and other manors fraudulently. VCH Warws. vi. 234; SCLA, DR 671/10. In spite of the support of John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, the bill was dropped in committee. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, 369.

In 1672, the year in which Leigh succeeded to the barony, he petitioned for his three sisters to be granted precedence as daughters of a baron, a status denied to them by the premature death of their father. Leigh argued ‘that it may be of some advantage to them in point of preferment, considering that their portions by reason of the great debts which their father contracted through his sufferings in the late wars … are like to be but small.’ Add. 38141, f. 181. The request was permitted ‘in recognition of the many services of their father and grandfather.’ CSP Dom. 1672, p. 285. Leigh’s sisters had been left £4,000 between them by the 1st baron, but in 1674 on the marriage of the eldest sister, Honora Leigh, to Sir William Egerton^‡, one of Bridgwater’s younger sons, Leigh undertook to provide security to pay a portion of £4,500 in return for which Honora Leigh resigned her claims to any other part of the Leigh estate. SCLA, DR 18/13/9/5; DR 18/13/1/10.

In 1673 Lady Leigh suffered a miscarriage; supported by her mother, she submitted a petition to the Privy Council not long after complaining of her husband’s maltreatment. Isham Diary, 195, 196n. A reconciliation proved to be temporary. SCLA, DR 671/10; Isham Diary, 209; HMC 9th Rep. 88-89. In 1674 Lady Leigh tried to exhibit articles of the peace against her husband, but in a landmark ruling Sir Matthew Hale^‡ approved a husband’s right to chastise his wife by ‘confinement to the house in case of her extravagance.’ Viner’s Abridgment (2^nd edn. 1791), iv. 172. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, Hale’s judgment failed to improve matters.

Leigh was marked (inaccurately) under age at a call on 12 Jan. 1674. A few days later he received his writ of summons, and on 26 Jan. he took his seat in the House for the first time, after which he was present on almost 16 per cent of all sitting days. Although Leigh’s presence in the House served to give his domestic dispute an increasingly parliamentary focus, he was absent from proceedings after 3 February. The following day he registered his proxy with his Warwickshire neighbour, James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, which was then vacated by the close.

Leigh was said to be recovering from smallpox late in 1674. His poor health seems to have made little impact on his continuing legal tussle with his baroness, which resumed in February 1675. Northants. RO, IC 869, 881, 888. That year, Dean Prideaux noted how John Fell, bishop of Oxford, head of Leigh’s Oxford college had travelled ‘to the Lord Leigh’s to reconcile him and his wife if possible.’ His efforts were in vain. Leigh attended just one day of the first session of 1675 (7 June). He was missing at the opening of the following session in October 1675. On 22 Oct. he registered his proxy with Bridgwater, which was vacated by his arrival on 20 November. He was then absent again for the remainder of the session.

He returned to the House one day into the 1677-8 session, after which he was present on 32 per cent of all sitting days and was named to a number of committees. Once again his marital dispute formed the focus of his activities. In spite of the family connection with Bridgwater, Leigh appears to have possessed little influence in the House or knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Before the session he sought advice, stating that he would prefer to answer before the bar of the House rather than see the case referred to a committee which he feared could be packed with her supporters. SCLA, DR 671/10. Both Lady Leigh and her mother had already appealed directly to the king, claiming that she had been forced to seek a writ of habeas corpus when Leigh imprisoned her in her chamber. Ibid. DR 671/10. They blamed ‘the malevolent influence’ of Sir William Bromley, Leigh’s uncle, for many of Lady Leigh’s woes and detailed the manner in which Leigh demonstrated ‘the highest aversion to her, publicly exposing her to contempt, and endeavouring to make her condition insupportable.’ Leigh was reported to have treated his wife, ‘with all manner of opprobrious language’, called her ‘whore’, severed her contact with her family and denied her a fair allowance. Leigh denied imprisoning his wife or denying her proper maintenance and, while he admitted that he had called his wife ‘slut’ and ‘his little whore’, he claimed only to have done so ‘in the highest caresses of affection.’ Besides, Leigh stated that his wife was ‘of a loose deport, frequently overtaken in drink’ and gave ‘her lord provocations insupportable.’ Ibid. DR 18/17/8/41; HMC 9th Rep. 88-89. In spite of his mother-in-law’s much vaunted interest at court, Leigh remained confident that his wife’s petition would be dismissed commenting that,

I am informed it’s very libellous, but hope that a wife shall not be countenanced to libel her husband, or that her petition will be admitted till the affair comes by appeal into the House (and the house having voted against original causes to be brought thither) I hope this cause will not be allowed there. SCLA, DR 671/10.

On 27 Mar. 1677 Lady Leigh presented her petition to the House complaining of ‘her rigorous usage’ by her husband and of how she was denied any remedy because of his privilege. When Leigh replied that he was willing to waive his privilege to allow his wife’s complaint to be heard in the lower courts, the House dismissed the petition. Four days later Lady Leigh submitted a bill seeking the voiding of a fine levied by Leigh during his minority, and on 3 Apr. the House ordered that a committee be assembled to seek to reconcile the two. Lady Leigh’s bill struck at the heart of the matter as the real issue of the case appears to have been a difference over the original marriage settlement driven by Lady Leigh’s mother, Mrs Temple. One witness provided an affidavit stating that Mrs Temple had attempted to have Leigh assassinated and that Lady Leigh, far from fleeing Leigh’s maltreatment, was engaged in an affair with John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester. Ibid. DR 671/10; DR 18/17/8/41.

With the matter entrusted to referees, the Leigh dispute retreated into the background. Widespread knowledge that Lady Leigh was not expected to live long may equally have persuaded the House not to waste any further time on the matter. In December 1677 the dispute was settled, the final manoeuvrings taking place at a meeting held at the home of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey. Add. 18730, f. 32. As a result Leigh parted from his wife, a decision that inspired the publication of at least one scandal sheet. As part of the agreement, Leigh agreed to pay his wife’s uncle £250 towards her maintenance during their separation and to pay the costs for both parties. Any further wrangling was brought to an abrupt close by Lady Leigh’s death in July of the following year. In spite of the brouhaha occasioned by the proceedings, Leigh and his wife’s relations appear to have achieved some measure of reconciliation by the end of 1677, and Leigh contributed £200 to her funeral expenses. SCLA, DR 18/1/2073; DR 671/10; DR 18/1/2076. The following year Leigh remarried.

Freed from entanglement in his matrimonial dispute, Leigh appears to have taken the opportunity to retreat from regular attendance of the House. In May 1677 he had been noted by Antony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, as twice worthy, perhaps reflecting his perceived opposition to Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds). On 16 Feb. 1678 he was excused at a call, but the following month the lord keeper, Heneage Finch, Baron Finch (later earl of Nottingham), wrote to Leigh requiring his attendance in the House to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. SCLA, DR 18/17/24/29. Leigh chose instead to register his proxy with Bridgwater once more, and he was absent for the entirety of the session of May to July 1678. It was not until 28 Nov. that he returned to the House. Present on a quarter of all sitting days, he left on 21 Dec. and two days later registered his proxy with George Booth, Baron Delamer, for the rest of the session.

Leigh took his seat in the new Parliament on 12 Apr. 1679, after which he was present on just over 51 per cent of all sitting days in the 61-day session. In advance of the session he had been noted as a likely opponent in a series of forecasts drawn up by Danby. On 10 May he was one of those to vote against appointing a committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords, and on 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to remain in the House during consideration of capital cases. Absent at the opening of the new Parliament the following October, he was excused as being en route to London on 30 Oct. 1680 and eventually took his seat on 13 November. He was then present on 23 per cent of all sitting days in the session. Two days after taking his seat, he voted against the Exclusion bill. The following month he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason.

Prior to the summoning of the Oxford Parliament the following year, Leigh agreed to support Danby and his efforts to secure his bail from the Tower, though his letter made it apparent that there were limits to his willingness to assist,

Your lordship’s letter … is now arrived me, and I cannot read it without regret, to consider your lordship should have the occasion of the service of so inconsiderable a person as my self … I shall … render myself in Oxford the first day of the sitting of the parliament: with resolves to serve your lordship (according to my judgment) as far as justice and honour enlargeth; & further (I presume) your lordship expects not … Add. 28053, f. 245.

Danby’s own list estimating his supporters reflected this lukewarm response, and he included Leigh among his ‘doubtful’ supporters. Reflecting more positively on Leigh’s offer, Edward Conway, Viscount (later earl of) Conway, a man for whom Leigh was said to have had ‘a great honour’, assured Danby that Leigh had ‘promised as much for your lordship’s service as any man.’ CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 522; Add. 28053, f. 190. Leigh took his seat in the House on 22 Mar. and he then attended on six of the session’s seven sitting days.

The close of the session at Oxford and four-year interlude before the summoning of another Parliament gave Leigh some opportunity to develop his local interest in Warwickshire. In 1685 he was counted as a supporter of the Whig Sir Richard Newdigate^‡ in attempting to forestall the attempt by Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, to impose court candidates on Warwickshire. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 62. The majority of the local gentry rallied to Sunderland, though, and Newdigate lost his seat. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 134. In spite of his support for Newdigate, Leigh’s sympathies were, for the most part, Tory and his refusal to fall into line with Sunderland was almost certainly owing to religious scruples. The Tory peer William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, also reckoned Leigh to be doubtful when he compiled an assessment of those he thought likely to support his bill for the recovery of estates that had been alienated following the Civil War. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. Leigh took his seat in the new Parliament on 19 May 1685, after which he was present on just 21 per cent of all sitting days.

Leigh’s support for the Church of England left him opposed to the king’s policy of toleration for Catholics, but his opinions were either poorly known or ambiguous for he was listed as both an opponent and doubtful in a listing of lords and their likely attitudes to repeal of the Test compiled at the beginning of 1687. In the late summer of that year he was one of the Warwickshire peers to wait on the king during his progress in the county. Sherborne Castle, Digby mss ii. f. 319. Rather than opposition to the king’s policies, Leigh’s principal concern during the latter part of James II’s reign seems to have involved his efforts to protect his family’s exclusive rights to their coat of arms. In 1687 a case was brought before the court of chivalry against a Mr Lees, a former secondary of London, and a heraldic painter called Howells, who were accused of usurping the family’s name and arms. Lees’ defence for appropriating the arms was that his own family was more ancient than that of Lord Leigh; he claimed descent from a thirteenth-century landed family, while Leigh’s pedigree only reached back to the Tudors. HMC Downshire, i. 270, 274-5; Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 42, f. 322.

Leigh was noted as being ‘undeclared’ on the question of repeal in November 1687. By the beginning of the following year Danby included him in a list of peers opposed to the king’s policies, though another assessment drawn up at the same time merely listed Leigh as ‘absent.’ As difficult to pin down as Leigh’s reaction to James’ policies was, his activities during the Revolution are equally uncertain. He was not one of the peers to assemble in London during the proceedings of the provisional government. Nor was he one of those to be summoned to attend William of Orange on 28 December. He took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 23 Jan. 1689 and was then present on just 13 per cent of all sitting days. On 29 Jan. he supported the establishment of a regency, and on 31 Jan. he voted against inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen. On 4 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons’ employment of the word ‘abdicated’ and two days later divided again with those opposed to declaring the throne to be vacant. He then registered his dissent when the question was carried in the affirmative.

Although Leigh was clearly dissatisfied with the establishment of William and Mary on the throne, he did not join some of his colleagues in boycotting the House. He was classed by Carmarthen (as Danby had become) as a supporter of the court in a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690: Carmarthen added that he was to be approached by James Bertie, earl of Abingdon. Leigh was, though, tardy in taking his seat in the second session, not returning to the House until 16 Nov. 1689. He was thereafter present on 22 per cent of all sitting days. Missing at the opening of the new Parliament in March 1690 he did not take his seat until 11 Apr., after which he was present on almost 39 per cent of all sitting days. Leigh’s attendance remained dilatory, and he was regularly noted as being absent at a series of calls over the next few years, but although he remained a distinctly inactive member, he continued to employ his interest in his native Warwickshire. Following the close of the session, he wrote to his neighbour Gilbert Coventry, later 4th earl of Coventry, assuring him that he had done all he could to prevail upon Coventry’s father, Thomas Coventry, 5th Baron (later earl of) Coventry, to help settle a dispute within the family, though he was forced to conclude that he was unable to do any good in the affair. He continued to interest himself in Coventry’s affairs over the following years. Cornwall RO, Antony mss CVC/Y/1/10, CVC/Y/1/26; Badminton House, Coventry pprs. FMTA4/3/16.

Leigh failed to attend the following two sessions, and it was thus not until 20 Dec. 1692 that he reappeared in the House. He was then present on just under 30 per cent of all sitting days. On 31 Dec. he voted in favour of committing the place bill, and on 3 Jan. 1693 he voted in favour of passing the measure. Prior to this, on 1 Jan., he was assessed as being opposed to permitting Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, to divorce, and the following day he voted against reading Norfolk’s bill. Leigh joined the majority in finding Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder on 4 Feb., but he was then one of four peers fined £100 for failing to return to the House following the trial. Add. 70081, newsletter to R. Harley, 4 Feb. 1693. He was absent once again for the ensuing two sessions, failing to return to the House until December 1695.

Leigh’s lacklustre record of attendance persisted into the following year. He returned to the House a month after the opening of the new Parliament on 23 Dec. 1695, after which he was present on just seven days (5 per cent of the whole). By this point he appears to have become reconciled to the Revolution Settlement, if grudgingly, and on 17 Mar. 1696 he signed the Association but only after the House summoned him to do so. Browning, Danby, iii. 192. He continued to attend until 24 Mar. and on 9 Apr. registered his proxy with John Holles, duke of Newcastle. He resumed his place in the House in the second session on 27 Nov. 1696, after which he was present on approximately 30 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Dec. he voted against passing the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick^‡ and protested against it. Absent from the final two months of the session, on 13 Mar. he registered his proxy with Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, which was vacated by the close.

Leigh failed to attend the 1697-8 session; on 11 Apr. 1698 he again registered his proxy with Bolton. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Dec. 1698 and was thereafter present on 44 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Feb. 1699 he voted against offering to assist the king in retaining his Dutch guards. Leigh did not attend the 1699-1700 session but towards the end of 1700 was active in the preparations for the ensuing elections by convening the gentry in Warwickshire in association with Richard Verney, 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke. Warws. CRO, CR 1368/iii/40. Although he failed to attend the first Parliament of 1701, he was again active in his locality as one of those present at an election meeting held at the Swan in Warwick on 25 November. Ibid. CR 1368/iii/98.

Leigh took his seat in the new Parliament on 3 Feb. 1702 and was thereafter present on 22 per cent of all sitting days. The accession of Queen Anne failed to inspire Leigh to improve his attendance but the altered political balance increased his influence, and during the last decade of his life he came to be associated with those peers willing to co-operate with his cousin, William Bromley^‡. Brit. Pols, 277. Bromley was also appointed a trustee by Leigh’s will. Despite this, Leigh was again absent for the first two months of the opening session. He finally took his seat on 17 Dec. 1702 but was recorded as attending on just one more day before quitting the chamber for the remainder. At the beginning of 1703 Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, estimated him a likely supporter of the occasional conformity bill, and on 16 Jan. 1703 Leigh was included among those voting against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause although his name does not appear on the attendance list for that day.

Leigh was absent for the entirety of the 1703-4 and 1704-5 sessions when his frequent absences were normally excused on the grounds of ill health. Boyer, Anne Annals, ix. 428. He was nevertheless included (as a likely supporter of the occasional conformity bill) in two forecasts composed by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in November 1703. On 14 Dec. he was included among those who had divided in favour of the bill by proxy. On 2 Dec. 1704 he entrusted his proxy to Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester.

Leigh was again excused at a call on 12 Nov. 1705. He finally returned to the House on 15 Nov., after which he was present on a fifth of all sitting days. His motivation in resuming his place appears to have been family business. In December he petitioned the House to allow him to bring in a bill concerning the marriage settlement of his eldest son, Edward Leigh, later 3rd Baron Leigh, and Mary Holbech, both being under age. SCLA, DR 18/17/8/61. Leave was granted but no further progress was made in the measure.

Leigh was missing once again at the opening of the following session in December 1706. He was absent without explanation at a call of the House on 29 Jan. 1707, and it was not until 10 Feb. that he resumed his place, after which he was present on 30 per cent of all sitting days. On 4 Mar. he voted in favour of the rider to the Union bill declaring that nothing in the measure should be construed as supporting presbyterianism as a true form of worship. Leigh attended on four of the nine days of the April 1707 session. He was present on just ten per cent of all sitting days during the first (1707-8) session of the new British Parliament.

Leigh was absent from the first four months of the 1708 Parliament. A somewhat unclear marking in a printed list of lords’ party affiliations probably noted Leigh among the Tories. He took his seat once more on 19 Feb. 1709 but then quit the chamber again on 4 Mar. having attended on just four days. He was missing again at the opening of the following session in November, but despite suffering from gout, his high Church principles led him to surprise the House by taking his place on 10 Jan. 1710 in preparation for the proceedings against Dr Sacheverell, ‘that he might have an opportunity of showing his zeal for the Church.’ Boyer, ix. 428; Holmes, 252. On 20 Mar. he voted, unsurprisingly, in favour of acquitting Sacheverell. Having sat for the last time on 24 Mar. he was then one of several Warwickshire peers to entertain Sacheverell during his progress through the county later that summer. Add. 70421 (newsletters), 13 June 1710.

Leigh was reckoned by Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, as a likely supporter of the new administration in October 1710. A little over a month later, on 14 Nov., a newsletter communicated that Leigh was ‘dead or dying having been given over some days past by his physicians.’ Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 75-76. By then he was already dead, having died two days previously ‘by a mortification in his foot.’ Boyer, ix. 428; Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 77-78; Evening Post, 14-16 Nov. 1710; British Mercury, 15-17 Nov. 1710. In his will he requested that £800 be raised from his estates to provide for a school and schoolmaster for Stoneleigh, and he gave £50 towards the building of a new church in Birmingham. SCLA, DR 18/13/7/2. Leigh’s younger son, Charles Leigh^‡ defeated the Greville interest to be elected for Warwickshire in the month following his father’s death, while his eldest son, Edward, succeeded as 3rd Baron Leigh.