GREVILLE, Fulke (c. 1643-1710)

‘A well-bred and fair-complexioned nobleman’, Brooke inherited an extensive estate with lands in several counties. T.W. Whitely, Parliamentary Representation of the City of Coventry, 109. By 1686, the value of the whole appears to have been some £15,826 p.a. WCRO, CR 1886/TN 1497. Most significant were the Greville lands in Warwickshire, where ownership of Warwick Castle lent the family unrivalled influence in the town of Warwick itself and where Brooke himself served as a Member of the Commons from 1664 until his succession to the peerage. In addition to his lands in Warwickshire Brooke stood to gain from other sources too. In a post-nuptial settlement of 1665, Brooke’s father-in-law, Francis Dashwood, and Dashwood’s son Samuel undertook to pay Brooke £1,000 in the event of the birth of a third child to the couple, while in May 1678 Brooke was said to have been the beneficiary of an annuity of £1,000 by the death of Francis Seymour, 5th duke of Somerset. WCRO, CR 1886/2279; Verney ms mic. M636/31, J. to Sir R. Verney, 9 May 1678. Brooke’s marriage to Sarah Dashwood served also to consolidate his already extensive connections in the county, she being sister-in-law to Andrew Archer^‡, with whom Brooke was on close terms. SCLA, DR 37/2/Box 88/72, 73.

Reckoned ‘a man of pleasure’ and (like his brother) ‘a gambler’, Brooke made little impression in the Commons in the Cavalier Parliament. HP Commons 1660-90, ii. 438. On his elevation to the Lords he was initially similarly detached but gradually proved to be a far more conscientious member than he had been of the lower House. He succeeded to the title two days after the opening of the session in February 1677. He took his seat in the Lords on the last day prior to the May adjournment, though his name was not included on the presence list for that day. He then absented himself from the House until November of the following year.

Brooke continued to exercise the Greville’s traditional patronage in Warwick and was confirmed in the office of recorder in succession to his brother. His influence in the town was sufficient to dissuade Richard Booth^‡ from standing for the seat made vacant by his succession to the peerage, and he was successful in securing the return of Robert Digby^‡, 3rd Baron Digby [I]. The following year, Booth determined to stand at the by-election occasioned by Digby’s death, but he was again placed at a disadvantage by the strength of the Greville interest against him. Booth suspected foul play and asserted that, ‘though I do not make the commons my friends with strong beer, yet shall do that I hope that will be a real kindness to the town, and be of more good use than all the hogsheads of beer.’ WCRO, CR 1886/2668, 2670, 2673. Yet Booth’s inability to recruit Brooke’s support ensured his defeat and the successful return of Brooke’s preferred candidate, Sir John Bowyer^‡, nephew of Brooke’s ally Sir Henry Puckering^‡.

Brooke was missing at a call of the House of 16 Feb. 1678, but it was noted that he had sent up his proxy, which had been registered on 19 Jan. with Francis Newport, Viscount Newport (later earl of Bradford). The proxy was vacated by the close of the session. Brooke failed to attend the subsequent session and it was not until 11 Nov. that he took his place once more after which he was present on 40 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Nov. he voted in favour of disabling papists from sitting in Parliament.

Brooke returned to the House a fortnight into the new Parliament’s second and substantive session on 31 Mar. 1679. Present on 46 per cent of all sitting days, on 9 May he was excused at a call of the House as he was en route to London following a few days’ absence. Although he had previously been noted as an opponent of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), he appears to have supported Danby at this time. HP Commons 1660-90, ii. 439. Danby listed him as a likely supporter in a series of forecasts drawn up in early March. Brooke was noted among the absent opposition peers on 12 Mar. but early the following month he proved Danby right by voting on 1 and 4 Apr. against passing the bill of attainder. On 14 Apr. he voted against agreeing with the Commons’ motion on the issue. On 10 May Brooke’s name appeared on both sides of the division whether to appoint a committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords. His name was then erased from the list of not contents, so it seems that he voted in favour of the resolution. He entered his dissent when the motion failed.

Brooke’s drift towards the court was underscored by his activities at the two 1679 general elections when he employed his interest at Warwick on behalf of the anti-exclusionist candidates Sir John Clopton^‡ (in February) and Thomas Lucy^‡ (in August). Sir Richard Newdigate^‡ incurred Brooke’s anger by standing against them. CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 284. By August 1680 Edward Conway, earl of Conway, recommended Brooke to Danby as being once more a likely supporter in the forthcoming sessions. Add. 28053, f. 179. Although Brooke rather lamely excused himself from responding to a letter from Danby directly, he assured Conway that he ‘would not fail the attendance of the Parliament at the first opening of it,’ which persuaded Conway to assure Danby of Brooke’s ‘steadyness’ on his behalf. WCRO, CR 1886/8463; Add. 28053, f. 197. In the event Brooke proved to be far from dependable, failing to return to the House until 3 Nov. 1680. His late return may have been connected with the burning down of his sister-in-law’s house during the summer. Add. 28053, f. 179. Having taken his seat he was present on 35 per cent of all sitting days in the session. By this point he appears to have weakened in his resolution to stand by the court and, in spite of his support for anti-exclusionist candidates at Warwick, Brooke voted against putting the question to reject the exclusion bill at first reading. He then voted against throwing the bill out on 15 November. On 23 Nov. Brooke voted in favour of appointing a committee to consider the state of the kingdom and entered his dissent when the resolution was not adopted. On 7 Dec. he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason.

Brooke was understood to be in favour of Sir Charles Holte^‡ and Sir John Mordaunt^‡ standing for Warwick in January 1681 but Thomas Coventry, later earl of Coventry, was returned for the town, probably with Brooke’s concurrence, partnered by Thomas Lucy. The contest for the county seat found Thomas Archer pressed to stand by Conway, but Archer expressed his willingness to desist should Brooke wish to prefer someone else and in the event Archer seems not to have stood. Add. 34730, ff. 66, 71. A pre-sessional forecast of the peers’ likely responses to a division on bailing Danby in March suggested that, should Brooke not continue to support the imprisoned earl, he would be neutral on the issue. In the event he failed to attend the 1681 Parliament at all.

Following the revelation of the Rye House plot Brooke persuaded the corporation of Warwick to surrender its charter. In 1682 Brooke’s continuing interest in the county had been underscored by his election as recorder of Coventry. Brooke’s election there had been endorsed by the dissenters and was initially opposed by the government. CSP Dom. 1682, pp. 8, 35, 39. The corporation, which had returned court opponents to all three Exclusion Parliaments, responded with disgust to the Rye House Plot and acquiesced in Brooke’s advice that they too should surrender their charter. Brooke relayed to Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, that in both Warwick and Coventry the people were ‘much satisfied in the belief that they were frighted by knaves or fools about the loss of their ancient rights which now they understand to be only subjecting their governors to his Majesty’ and reported the ‘satisfaction’ with which the new charter was received. The government came to appreciate Brooke’s influence within the city. Such trust enabled Brooke to ensure that no outsiders were foisted on the corporation in the new charter, though some assessed as ‘very obnoxious’ were put out of their places. Add. 41803, ff. 33, 39; CSP Dom. 1683-4, pp. 5, 158. In the case of Coventry, Brooke displayed a supremely balanced response to the challenges presented by the traditionally awkward city, reporting to Sunderland that, ‘I am not confident of the citizens of Coventry in so high a measure as I wish and yet I think it is his Majesty’s interest not too much to take notice of some things which are not so well amongst them as is to be desired.’ HP Commons 1660-90, i. 430.

In January 1685 Brooke was one of the trustees of a marriage settlement between William Pierrepont, 4th earl of Kingston, and Brooke’s niece Lady Anne Greville. The settlement provided for the raising of a portion of £20,000, while the new countess of Kingston was to receive a jointure of £2,500 a year. Eg. 3526, ff. 2, 5. The accession of James II threatened to erode Brooke’s authority in Warwickshire. Brooke’s earlier sympathy for exclusion no doubt earned him the king’s distrust, as did his staunch defence of the Church of England. In spite of this, Brooke managed the court interest in Coventry in the 1685 election, selecting Sir William Craven and Sir Roger Cave^‡ as candidates, but when Craven refused to stand Sir Thomas Norton^‡ was substituted. Digby’s younger brother, Simon Digby^‡, 4th Baron Digby [I], probably enjoyed Brooke’s backing when he was returned for Warwick with Thomas Coventry the same year as did Sir Charles Holte^‡ and Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, for the county. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 72. Digby’s early death necessitated a by-election in 1686 and despite Sunderland’s desire that ‘Beau’ Feilding should get the vacancy, no attempt was made to overturn Brooke’s decision to nominate Sir John Mordaunt,^‡ a further indication of the strength of the Greville interest in the town. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 88.

Brooke was assessed as a likely opponent of repeal of the Test Act in January 1687 and again in subsequent assessments of November and January the following year. A list drawn up in or about May 1687 noted him as an opponent of James II’s policies in general. Unwilling to offer the king his support, he was sidelined and towards the end of the year, it was reported that he had been removed from his local offices in Warwick and Coventry. Verney ms mic. M636/42, newsletter, 6 Dec. 1687. In spite of his clear loss of face under James II, Brooke’s activities at the time of the Revolution are somewhat unclear. He appears to have rallied to Princess Anne at Nottingham, along with Philip Stanhope, 2nd earl of Chesterfield, and his Warwickshire neighbours, Thomas Leigh, 2nd Baron Leigh, and William Digby^‡, 5th Baron Digby [I], but he refused to sign the Association until the king’s flight had been confirmed. Add. 19253, f. 162. Once this had been established and he expressed his willingness to subscribe, he was prevented by the other peers who had already signed. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 409. Even so, Brooke’s ambiguous behaviour does not appear to have damaged his influence over Warwick, and in the 1689 election Digby was returned having secured Brooke’s all-important backing. HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 878.

Brooke took his seat three days into the Convention on 25 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on just under 20 per cent of all sitting days. The early manoeuvrings surrounding the settlement of the crown found Brooke firmly in favour of James’s continuation as king in name and on 29 Jan. he voted in favour of the establishment of a regency. Two days later he voted against inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen and on 4 and 6 Feb. divided against the motion to agree with the Commons’ employment of the terms ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is now vacant.’ He then entered his dissent when the motion to agree with the Commons was carried. Brooke was absent from the House from mid-February until 8 Apr. He quit the session on 11 May and on 22 May he was marked absent without excuse at a call of the House. Brooke took his seat in the second session on 11 Nov. but attended for just 14 days (19 per cent of the whole) before quitting the chamber once more. On 18 Dec. he registered his proxy with Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, who held it until the close of the session. Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classed him as an opponent of the court in a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690.

Brooke failed to take his seat at the opening of the new Parliament, not arriving until 3 Apr. 1690. Present on 46 per cent of all sitting days in the session, he failed to attend after 14 May but ensured that his proxy was registered with his nephew by marriage, Kingston. Brooke was absent for the entirety of the second session but returned to his place shortly after the opening of the third session on 7 Nov. 1691, after which he was present on almost 57 per cent of all sitting days. Towards the end of the year he was noted by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, among those whom Derby thought likely to support him in his efforts to recover lands lost during the Civil War. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. Brooke returned to the House two weeks after the opening of the fourth session in November 1692 but his attendance declined once more to just over 36 per cent of all sitting days. Absent for the entirety of December, he again registered his proxy, this time with Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, with whom he was on close terms. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 26, f. 262. Weymouth exercised the proxy to vote in favour of the place bill on 3 Jan. 1693. During his absence Brooke faced a damaging suit brought against him in the House by his nieces’ husbands, Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, and William Pierrepont^‡ (who had married the widowed countess of Kingston). Both claimed that Brooke had failed properly to distribute the 4th Baron’s personal estate. LJ, xv. 134. Brooke was ordered to put in his answer by 10 Jan. Brooke did not return to the House until 20 Jan. but was present on 28 Jan. to witness the report of the privileges committee, which concluded that though Brooke’s title to the personal estate was disputable at law, he should be allowed his privilege. On 4 Feb. Brooke found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.

Brooke took his seat a week after the opening of the subsequent session on 14 Nov. 1693. He was thereafter present on just 18 per cent of all sitting days. Local matters once again dominated Brooke’s attention in the late summer of 1694 following the devastating fire that gutted much of the centre of Warwick on 5 September. The cost of the damage to the town was estimated at some £120,000. Brooke was prominent in leading the task of reconstruction. Great Fire of Warwick 1694: The Records of the Commissioners ed. M. Farr, xii. 1-2. He convened a meeting of town notables the day after the fire and headed a subscription for the relief of those who had lost property in the blaze with a contribution of £40. HMC Portland, iii. 555. Over the ensuing years Brooke continued to take a leading role in rebuilding the town, acting as one of the commissioners established by Parliament and making donations towards the restoration of St Mary’s church, the burial place of several members of his family. Great Fire of Warwick 1694, xxviii.-xxix. 470, 480.

Brooke returned to the House just over a fortnight into the new session on 29 Nov. 1694, after which he was present on just under 48 per cent of all sitting days. His improved level of attendance was no doubt connected to a new threat, one that emanated from one of his Warwickshire neighbours, Sir Richard Verney, over the disputed title of Brooke. James I had conferred the barony of Brooke of Beauchamps Court on Sir Fulke Greville^† with a special remainder conveying the peerage to his cousin Robert Greville^† but Sir Fulke had also possessed a claim to the barony of Willoughby de Broke and at his death without direct heirs this peerage descended to the Verney family via his sister, Margaret, suo jure 6th Baroness Willoughby de Broke. After her death the peerage remained dormant and her grandson, Sir Richard Verney, petitioned the House for a writ of summons. The challenge to Brooke lay not in Verney’s right to the barony by descent, which Brooke conceded, but in the style to be adopted. Verney wished to be summoned as Baron Brook, a pretension supported by at least one expert, while Brooke’s advisers argued that he should be styled Willoughby de Broke or Verney of Brook and expressed alarm at Brooke’s apparent lack of zeal in defending his rights. The matter was further complicated by the lawyers’ apparent ignorance of the rules in such cases. Despite their concerns, the House resolved on 10 Jan. 1695 against allowing Verney’s claim to a writ of summons. Brooke had, presumably, mobilized what influence he could to prevent the troublesome questioning of his title and the House, no doubt unwilling to invite further irksome demands, appears to have been only too happy to support him on this occasion. WCRO, CR 1886/9159, 9160, 9162, 9165; Lexington Pprs. 27.

With the matter apparently settled satisfactorily in his favour, Brooke absented himself from the House from the end of January until 1 Mar. 1695 during which time his proxy was held once more by Rochester. Brooke’s resumption of his place then may have been prompted by the continuing debates in the House over Verney’s pretensions. The case precipitated lengthy consideration in the House of the rights of peers claiming their baronies by writ, and on 19 Mar. Brooke was one of ten peers to enter their protest at the resolution that if a peer summoned by writ were to die leaving two or more daughters and only one of the daughters were to have offspring, that issue would have a right to a writ of summons. Brooke’s objection was clearly in response to Verney’s suit.

The close of the session found Brooke active once more in preparing for elections in his locality. In October 1695 on the eve of the general election he played host to the king at Warwick Castle during his progress through the Midlands. HMC Portland, iii. 573; Lexington Pprs. 139. Once again Brooke’s preferred candidates were returned for Warwick with William Colemore^‡ desisting ‘out of respect to my Lord Brooke and Mr. Greville,’ while William Bromley and Andrew Archer were returned for the county. Bodl. Ballard 25, f. 20.

Brooke returned to the House shortly after the opening of the new Parliament on 2 Dec. 1695, after which he was present on 48 per cent of all sitting days. Although he was noted as being present on 9 Jan. 1696, Brooke presumably left the chamber for the remainder of the day as he is also recorded as having registered his proxy with Rochester. The same day witnessed a renewed attempt by Verney to secure his writ of summons, perhaps explaining Brooke’s eagerness to ensure that his proxy was held during his absence. Brooke resumed his place on 10 January. A week later, on 17 Jan., a number of peers entered their protests at permitting Verney’s counsel to be heard at the bar of the House, but perhaps significantly, Brooke was not among them. Verney’s right to a writ of summons was recognized finally on 13 Feb. after which he took his seat in the House as 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke. Brooke was absent again from 10 March. On 21 Mar. he registered his proxy with Rochester once more, which was vacated by the close of the session.

The almost unanimous signing of the Association at Warwick in response to the Assassination Plot against the king elicited warm satisfaction of the town’s loyalty, which reflected well on Brooke’s continuing influence over the corporation. CSP Dom. 1696, p. 103. Even so, he failed to take his seat in the new session for over a month after its opening in October 1696, and he was thereafter present on just 11 days (approximately ten per cent of the whole). His poor attendance may well have been the result of dissatisfaction with the proceedings against Sir John Fenwick^‡ for on 23 Dec. he voted against passing the bill of attainder.

Brooke returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. 1697, after which he was present on 31 per cent of all sitting days. The 1698 election for Warwick was the occasion of Brooke again striving to enforce his supremacy over the town. His eldest son, Francis Greville, did not stand for re-election and Digby’s opposition to the Association made his retirement from the Commons inevitable. Their absence enabled Brooke to propose his second son, Robert Greville^‡, and Admiral Sir George Rooke^‡ in their place. When a number of assistant burgesses supported Sir Thomas Wagstaffe^‡ in opposition to the Greville candidates, their offices were ‘arbitrarily and corruptly discontinued’ by Brooke. Trans. Birm. Arch. Soc. lix. 42-43. But in spite of Brooke’s heavy-handedness, Wagstaffe was returned along with Robert Greville, and Rooke was pushed into third place. In July 1699 Robert Greville died of smallpox while travelling in France. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 535. His seat was secured in turn by his younger brother, Algernon^‡.

Brooke attended just one day of the first session of the new Parliament. The reason for his absence is not known. He returned to the House a month into the second session on 11 Dec. 1699, after which he was present on 52 per cent of all sitting days. Throughout the 1690s Brooke had invested heavily in the East India Company and in February 1700 he voted in favour of its continuation as a corporation. Following the dissolution, Brooke’s brother-in-law, Sir Samuel Dashwood^‡, was one of the East India Company directors to consider standing for election for the City of London, though in the event Dashwood withdrew before the poll. EHR, lxxi. 232. In the election for Warwick in January 1701 Brooke’s interest again proved to be strong and he was successful in securing the return of his son, Francis. Brooke took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 6 Feb. 1701, after which he was present on half of all sitting days. The following month he wrote to his neighbour, George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton, to recommend Thomas Woolmer, ‘a very ingenious honest careful sober man’ for the office of clerk of the peace for Warwickshire. Castle Ashby, marquess of Northampton mss, 1091, Brooke to Northampton, 15 Mar. 1701. He failed to attend the meeting of the gentry to select candidates for the second general election of that year but wrote to the corporation thanking them for their support and declaring that,

I can’t, gentlemen, but take this free offer of yours very kindly, and am very much pleased to find my self not forgot by those for whom I have ever had a cordial and sincere respect and whose interest (however I may have been misrepresented) I have and shall constantly advance and promote. WCRO, CR 1368/iii/98; CR 1618/W21/3.

The strength of the Greville interest was again made apparent in the November election with the return of both Francis Greville and another of Brooke’s sons, Algernon^‡.

Brooke was again present at the opening of the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701, though his level of attendance declined to just 36 per cent of all sitting days. In the summer of 1702 his youngest daughter was married to the Wiltshire magnate, Sir James Long^‡. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 11 June 1702. Brooke took his seat in the new Parliament on 9 Nov. 1702, after which his attendance improved once more to approximately 56 per cent of all sitting days. Despite his father’s dissenting background and the Greville family’s continuing toleration for dissenters in their areas of local influence, in January 1703 Brooke was reckoned by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as likely to support the bill for the prevention of occasional conformity. JBS, xvi. 47. On 16 Jan. he voted accordingly against adhering to the House’s amendment to the penalty clause.

Brooke failed to attend the second session of November, 1703 but he was assessed in advance of the session by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as one of those likely once more to support to the occasional conformity bill. Sunderland repeated the assessment later in the month and on 14 Dec. Brooke was listed among those voting in favour of the measure by proxy, but as no proxy book survives for this session the name of the proxy holder is unknown. His name was included in a list of members of both Houses drawn up by Nottingham in 1704 which may indicate support for him over the ‘Scotch Plot’.

Brooke took his seat once again at the opening of the third session of Queen Anne’s first Parliament on 24 Oct. 1704 but proceeded to attend on just four occasions between then and 12 December. On 1 Nov. he was listed as being thought likely to support the Tack but can have made little impression on proceedings before once more absenting himself. On 14 Dec. he entrusted his proxy to his son-in-law, Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford, which was vacated by his brief return to the House for a single day on 17 Jan. 1705.

Brooke’s rather ambiguous political proclivities were reflected in an assessment of April 1705 that marked his attitude to the succession as uncertain. Although he continued to press his interest on behalf of individuals, his interest in Warwickshire was challenged severely during the 1705 election when he found himself ranged against his Whig in-laws during the elections for Warwick, Coventry and the county. Add. 61289, ff. 39, 41. When George Lucy of Charlecote attempted in turn to persuade Brooke’s brother-in-law, Sir Francis Dashwood^‡, and Dashwood’s son-in-law, Sir Fulwar Skipwith^‡, to stand in the Whig interest, Dashwood approached Brooke on Skipwith’s behalf but was rebuffed as Brooke was already engaged in support of the sitting Tory members. Other families found themselves similarly divided, with William Craven, 2nd Baron Craven, also supporting the Tory cause against his brother-in-law, Skipwith. Lucy persevered in support of Sir John Burgoyne in Warwick in opposition to Brooke’s sons, Francis^‡ and Dodington^‡, and predicted confidently that they had secured sufficient support to ‘put out one of the two Mr Grevilles’. Lucy claimed to have ‘had the start of my lord Brooke for three days’ and to have made such inroads that some of the leading citizens of Warwick had actually sent to Brooke to request that he content himself with the return of just one of his sons. Brooke’s determination to maintain his control over the corporation remained unbowed, and he responded with a vigorous campaign to secure his sons’ election including the payment of ‘a crown for two votes and half a crown for one vote’. Add. 61496, ff. 84, 85-86, 87. In spite of all that Lucy could do in response, both Grevilles were returned.

After his exertions in the election, Brooke failed to take his seat in first session of the new Parliament and it was not until 3 Dec. 1706 that he returned to the House once more. He was thereafter present on just 15 per cent of all sitting days and was then absent again for the subsequent session of April 1707. Brooke took his seat a fortnight into the first Parliament of Great Britain on 10 Nov. but his attendance was again low with him present on just over a quarter of all sitting days.

Brooke was classed as a Tory in a list of May 1708. By this time his interest in Warwick appears to have been seriously compromised. He refused to confirm his son’s candidacy for the county to Sir John Mordaunt and William Bromley^‡ but agreed to accompany them to Warwickshire ahead of the election. SCLA, DR 37/Box 87/163. In the event Mordaunt was returned for the county with Andrew Archer, while Brooke’s sons Francis and Dodington were returned for Warwick. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 618, 632.

Brooke’s attendance in the House declined markedly after this point. Although he was present at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708, he attended on only five days (just over five per cent of the whole). The following year he was present on just eight days of the session that began in November 1709 (nine per cent of the whole). Brooke was noted as being sick at the time of the Sacheverell trial. He resumed his place shortly after on 25 Mar. and sat for the last time on 28 Mar. 1710. The following month he joined with Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, in introducing members of the corporation of Warwick to the queen with their loyal address. Post Boy, 22-25 Apr. 1710.

Brooke was noted by Harley as a likely supporter at the beginning of October 1710, but by 8 Oct. Brooke was so ill that he was reported to have died. The report was quickly corrected but his case remained desperate and he succumbed two weeks later at his house at Twickenham aged 67. He was predeceased by his heir, Francis, who died following a fit of apoplexy and convulsions while apparently suffering from smallpox just a few days before his father. WCRO, CR 1368/iii/62; Add. 70026, f. 222; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, f. 164. The date of Brooke’s death was mistakenly noted by Boyer as 22 Sept. rather than 22 Oct. Boyer, Anne Annals, ix. 423-4. Brooke left a considerable estate estimated to be worth some £10,000 p.a. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, f. 164. In his will he named his sons, Algernon and Dodington Greville, as joint executors. He was succeeded in the peerage as 6th Baron Brooke by his grandson, also Fulke Greville, who was still under age.