PAGET, Henry (c. 1663-1743)

Described by Abel Boyer as a man of ‘bright parts and spirits’, Paget was the sole surviving son of one of William III’s longest-serving diplomats. He owed his ultimate succession to the Paget barony to the untimely death of his older brother, William, in 1684, while his marriage two years later to the heiress of the Catesbys of Whiston brought him additional interest in Northamptonshire. Verney ms mic. M636/39, J. to Sir R. Verney, 11 Aug. 1684. His father’s almost continuous absence on foreign embassies during the 1690s meant that it was left to Paget to manage the family interest, concentrated in Staffordshire and Middlesex. Over the course of his life he built up further extensive landholdings in Staffordshire, Buckinghamshire and (in the last years of his life) in Wales. Despite being related to a number of significant political brokers in Staffordshire (including Philip Foley^‡, Richard Hampden^‡ and Sir Henry Ashurst^‡), Paget was not well known in the area (being resident for the majority of the time at the family seat of West Drayton), and initially he proved to be reluctant to stand for Parliament himself. He withdrew from the 1693 by-election but eventually stood successfully for the county in the 1695 election and was thereafter returned for the seat at each subsequent election until his elevation to the Lords. HP Commons 1690-1715, v. 56-61.

Paget soon distinguished himself in the Commons, speaking ‘beyond all others’ in one debate in May 1701 in defence of the Dutch and the safeguarding of Protestantism in Europe. TNA, PRO 30/24/20, no. 24. Having been appointed to the council of Prince George, of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, in April 1704, Paget was offered a foreign posting of his own in May 1705 when he was approached about the vacant office of envoy at Vienna. Add. 61120, f. 88. Like his father and three others, he refused the employment, which was eventually only accepted by the sixth choice candidate (Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland). Brit. Dip. Reps. 1509-1688, p. 30. Paget’s father’s reason for refusing to accept the mission was said to have been owing to the ministry’s refusal to offer him an earldom in return. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 415, 427.

In other areas Henry Paget and his father do not appear to have agreed so readily. While the 7th Baron was a close associate of the Whig party, Henry Paget meandered from the Whigs to the Tories, and in 1710 he accepted office in the ministry of Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, as one of the commissioners of the treasury. Some speculated that his appointment was truly intended as ‘recompense’ for his father, ‘who has been so long ambassador at Constantinople [and], who seems to desire none’, but he was also perceived to be a valuable bridge between the moderate Whigs and the Tories. Wentworth Pprs. 134; B. Hill, Robert Harley, 129. Both Harley and the queen hoped that his inclusion would be ‘agreeable’ to the lord privy seal, John Pelham Holles, by then duke of Newcastle, with whom Paget enjoyed a cordial friendship, though his acceptance of the place provoked William Cavendish, 2nd duke of Devonshire, to withdraw his support for Paget at the forthcoming election. HMC Portland, ii. 213, 215-6, iv. 572; Add. 61830, ff. 47, 49, 51. The same year Paget was forced to appeal to John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, to use his interest to secure the release of his son, Thomas Catesby Paget^‡, who had been seized by French troops while travelling through Germany and incarcerated at Luxembourg. Paget speculated whether it would be worth commissioning the young man so that he could be exchanged as an officer but his suggestion was rejected. Add. 61367, f. 165; Add. 61401, f. 46. The dissolution of the treasury commission in 1711 left Oxford (as Harley had since become) desperate to find places for the former commissioners and while at one stage it was rumoured that Paget was to be appointed secretary of state, in the event he was forced to be content with the seemingly innocuous post of captain of the yeomen of the guard (captain of the beefeaters as Ralph Bridges reported it dismissively) and a place on the Privy Council. Add. 72495, f. 74.

Newcastle’s death in 1711 involved Paget, one of his co-executors, in a protracted dispute with the duke’s widow and his daughter, Lady Henrietta Holles (later countess of Oxford) over the validity of the duke’s will. TNA, DEL 1/459, passim. The case persisted until 1719, when the remaining litigants finally accepted a compromise proposed by the principal beneficiary, Thomas Pelham Holles^†, duke of Newcastle. The crisis that faced the ministry in the winter of 1711-12 proved to be the catalyst for Paget’s early elevation to the Lords as one of the dozen new creations engineered by Oxford. His reputation as a man with both Tory and Whig associates perhaps also contributed to his selection. PH, xxiv. supp. 9-42. It might also have been significant that his kinsman and Staffordshire neighbour, Thomas Foley, was also ennobled at this time as Baron Foley.

On 1 Jan. 1712 Paget was created Baron Burton. He took his seat in the House the following day introduced between his contemporary, John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, and Charles Boyle, Baron Boyle (earl of Orrery [I]). Thereafter he attended on a further 73 days in the session until the prorogation in July (approximately 66 per cent of the whole). On 28 May he rallied to the ministry in voting against the address seeking the reversal of orders preventing James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from engaging the French.

The death of Burton’s father in February 1713 enabled him to assume his place as 8th Baron Paget at the upper end of the barons’ bench on 10 Mar. (a prorogation day). The 7th Baron had made clear his disagreements with his heir in his will by conveying the majority of his unentailed possessions to his nephew, Thomas Paget^‡, and his house in Bloomsbury Square to his housekeeper. Although the contents of his seats at Drayton and Beaudesert were bequeathed to his son, the 7th Baron stipulated that this bequest was conditional on his successor not making ‘any disturbance’ about the will. The former lord’s treatment of his son and grandson (who was left a niggardly £20) provoked scandal in society, but even so it was noted that the new lord paid scant attention to his father’s wishes and ‘seized on everything’. Verney ms mic. M636/55, Sir T. Cave to Fermanagh, 3 Mar. 1713.

Noted in a list compiled by Jonathan Swift as being likely to support Oxford’s ministry in March 1713, Paget took his seat at the opening of the new session on 9 Apr. 1713 after which he was present on approximately 73 per cent of all sitting days. On 17 Apr. the House heard the petition of George Ball, who was seeking the reversal of a chancery decree made in favour of Paget, Sir James Lane, 2nd Viscount Lanesborough [I], Henry Petty^‡, Baron (later earl of) Shelburne [I] and several others, relating to the control of a brass works at Esher, of which Ball was a former employee. Ball’s petition was dismissed a month later on 13 May. In the interim, on 29 Apr., Paget put in his answer to the allegations made by the dowager duchess of Newcastle in the continuing dispute over the duke’s will in the court of delegates, contradicting her assertions that the document was spurious. DEL 1/459, ff. 1435-41. Despite early expectation that he would remain loyal to the ministry, and Oxford’s own estimate that Paget would vote in favour of confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French treaty of commerce, Paget appears to have opposed the measure; though (if he did) unlike his colleague on the Privy Council, Hugh Cholmondeley, earl of Cholmondeley, he was not removed from office for his disobedience. Bucholz, Augustan Court, 197; Jones, Party and Management, 128. On 29 June Paget was successful in moving for a clause to be added to the opening of the address to the queen proposed by Thomas Wharton, earl of Wharton, requesting that she employ her interest to have the Pretender removed from the duke of Lorrain’s lands. Paget’s addition thanked her pointedly ‘for the care already taken.’ Wentworth Pprs. 342.

Paget wasted no time in making plain the price of his continued support for Oxford. As early as mid April he had written requesting promotion in the peerage to an earldom (something for which his family had been angling since at least 1705). Following the dissolution in August 1713, Paget repeated the request. He did so again six days later and at regular intervals over the summer. Although no progress was made in his promotion at this point, Oxford wrote to his brother, Edward Harley^‡, describing Paget as one ‘whose friendship you know is to be depended on’ and towards the close of the month Paget seems to have been satisfied with Oxford’s efforts on his behalf. In September Paget took the opportunity of again reminding Oxford of his promise and at the same time sought his interest in procuring a living for his son’s tutor, which was shortly to be vacated by the appointment of George Verney, 12th Baron Willoughby de Broke, to the deanery of Windsor. Add. 70030, f. 193; Add. 70251, Paget to Oxford, 8, 14, 30 Aug. and 18 Sept.1713; Add. 70140, Oxford to E. Harley, 13 Aug. 1713. Oxford proved non-committal on both points, and on the latter he merely remarked, ‘if Lord Willoughby be willing to part with it I hope you will find no difficulty though I seldom see the clergy easy to resign.’ Add. 61830, f. 53. The elections for Staffordshire of that month were uncontested, the two former Members standing aside in favour of two newcomers, Henry Vernon^‡ and Ralph Sneyd^‡. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 533. Paget, who appears to have been at Drayton for most of the summer, presumably acquiesced in their election, though he would later recommend in advance of the 1715 election that Vernon be put out from the commission of the peace for abusing his office by canvassing in favour of Tory candidates. Glassey, JPs, 245.

Paget took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714. He introduced his former colleague at the treasury, Robert Benson, as Baron Bingley and was thereafter present for a little under half of all sitting days. Three days after taking his seat, he sent Oxford a petulant missive enquiring once again about his promised earldom:

Your lordship having told me eight or nine months ago, that her Majesty had been pleased to consent to grant me the favour I had (by your kind promise) desired for myself, and your lordship having after that promised me your good offices for the dispatch of it, and very particularly in your letter from Wimple about six months ago, sent me word you would fix that matter at your return to Windsor from that place. I hope you’ll allow me to be surprised that I should at the distance of time have any occasion to solicit for what I thought would some time ago have been finished. But your lordship saying very little upon that subject to me when I saw you last at Windsor, and saying nothing about it since my coming to town, I cannot but think myself treated with great unkindness. Add. 70251, Paget to Oxford, 19 Feb. 1714.

Oxford’s continuing prevarication elicited yet another bad-tempered missive from Paget on 22 February. By now he was convinced that Oxford was playing him false: ‘since the queen … consented to grant what I desired so long ago, nothing but your forgetfulness of, and unkindness to me can prevent confirming the favour.’ Ibid. 22 Feb. 1714.

Despite their steadily worsening relations over Oxford’s inability or refusal to procure Paget his earldom, between April and May Oxford and Paget were involved in extended negotiations over Paget’s appointment to an embassy to Hanover aimed at preventing the electoral prince (George Augustus, later King George II) from taking his seat in the House as duke of Cambridge.Add. 72501, f. 111; Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters 6, George Baillie to wife, 15 Apr. 1714. Although Oxford wrote to his cousin, Thomas Harley^‡ on 13 Apr. announcing Paget’s nomination and despite his optimistic appraisal that ‘this quality and character must please’, a number of issues gave Paget pause in accepting the undertaking. The modest allowance he was to receive was one, though he insisted that he would ‘scorn to refuse going’ for that reason. Another was his demand that his mission should be of short duration, ‘otherwise my affairs won’t permit me to go’, but by far the most contentious sticking point was his continuing quest for promotion in the peerage, which he insisted should be conferred before his departure. HMC Portland, v. 419, 423, 432. Suspecting that members of the ministry opposed to his undertaking the mission were deliberately placing obstacles in his path, Paget once more gave vent to his exasperation in a letter to Oxford, in which he complained:

If I understand your lordship’s letter of last night, ill offices are doing me with her majesty to prevent my going in her service to Hanover, if that be the case though you call the persons doing it my familiar acquaintance they must since they must be ministers be more your lordship’s acquaintance than mine. I hope who ever they are that act that part, they will not be mean enough to represent me otherwise to the queen than as I am; one always proud to show the utmost duty to her commands; and pleased to be employed in her service. Ibid. 429; Add. 61830, f. 54; Add. 70032, f. 189.

Paget was correct in detecting a fissure within the ministry. While Oxford was eager that he should undertake the mission, Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, was determined to scupper the plan and it was openly reported that in this matter Bolingbroke had got the better of Oxford. Wentworth Pprs. 387; HMC Portland, ix. 398. The continuing impasse elicited another impatient letter from Paget at the beginning of May 1714 in which he complained, ‘none of your letters mentions anything about the title’, and on 8 May he let fly a further exasperated letter questioning why he had still not received the peerage, which he believed the queen had consented to months before. Another letter of the same day announced that his wife had fallen sick with smallpox, which would further impede his ability to set out on the embassy. Add. 70251, Paget to Oxford, 1 and 8 May 1714. Concern for his wife was clearly secondary and the following day he again laid out his grievances at large:

I am a good deal surprised that there is still difficulty made in granting me the title. ’Tis what I had never asked and what I as little thought there would have been need of great solicitation to have procured, for several reasons; but since ‘tis not done, and so much pains have been taken to make it talked of about the town as a thing done, I must be of opinion it is at this time refused purely to convince me ‘tis the desire of those who advise the queen that I neither have the favour of her majesty or the kindness of my friends about her, and in plain English telling me they refuse me these assurances that I may be obliged to desire not to go that service. HMC Portland, v. 437; Add. 70032, f. 227.

Despite this, on 11 May it was confidently predicted that Paget would still undertake the mission. Add. 70144, Lord Harley to A. Harley, 11 May 1714. Following further recriminatory letters over the course of the month, Paget at last decided against taking up the post, infuriated by Oxford’s eventual excuse that the promotion was not in ‘his province’ and that he ought instead to address his enquiries to the secretary of state, William Bromley^‡. Add. 70251, Paget to Oxford, 14 May 1714; Add. 61830, f. 55. Oxford claimed to be taken aback by the vehemence of Paget’s criticism, lamenting his ‘misfortune that when I study most to express friendship and service not to succeed’. Add. 70251, Oxford to Paget, 24 May 1714. Paget’s decision prompted the queen to write to Prince George explaining the delay in the arrival of the envoy as being owing to ‘an accident’ in Paget’s family but also offered her an opportunity of making plain her displeasure at his proposed journey, which she described as ‘dangerous to the tranquillity of my dominions’. Post Boy, 1-3 July 1714. Paget’s withdrawal then cleared the way for Bolingbroke to secure the appointment of his candidate, Edward Hyde, 3rd earl of Clarendon, to the Hanoverian embassy instead. Wentworth Pprs. 387.

Paget’s irritation with Oxford did not unreservedly throw him into the hands of the opposition, and on 27 May 1714 he was noted by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as doubtful on the question of the schism bill (perhaps a reflection of his Presbyterian roots and education at the hands of an ejected clergyman). The following month, on 22 June, Paget presented a petition to the House protesting against a new bill for making more effective a former act to make the river Trent navigable, perceiving it to be contrary to his and his tenants’ interests. Paget was well versed in the act having steered the original measure through the Commons in 1699 and overseen subsequent amendments. Theophilus Hastings, 9th earl of Huntingdon, whose family’s concerns Paget had been at pains to accommodate in the original bill, presented a similar petition. HP Commons 1690-1715, v. 57-58. On 28 June the House resolved itself into a committee to consider the bill but as no chairman could be found, it rose without conducting any business and, following a series of adjournments, the bill was lost at the prorogation. HMC Lords, n.s. x. 370; Failed Legislation 1660-1800 ed. J. Hoppit, 282.

Paget attended on nine days of the brief fifteen-day session that met in the wake of the queen’s death in August. His decision not to take on the Hanoverian embassy earlier in the year proved beneficial for his relations with the new regime, and on 19 Oct. he was at last rewarded with the earldom of Uxbridge: one of 14 coronation peerages. Despite this clear demonstration of royal favour, Paget rapidly distanced himself from the new administration. He resigned the captaincy of the yeomen of the guard in September 1715 and the lieutenancy of Stafford in October (to which he had been appointed only in May). He also resumed friendly relations with Oxford. Add. 70033, f. 146. For the remainder of his life he proved a consistent member of the opposition. Details of the second part of his career will be covered in the second phase of this work.

Uxbridge married for a second time in 1739, five years after the death of his first wife. The death of his only son and heir, Thomas Catesby Paget, (from 1713 styled Lord Paget) in 1742 meant that on Uxbridge’s own death the following year, it was his grandson, also named Henry Paget^†, who succeeded as 2nd earl of Uxbridge. In his will, composed in 1739, Uxbridge requested that he be buried at Hillingdon in a vault specially prepared for the purpose. Generous bequests of £12,000 apiece to All Souls and Worcester College, Oxford and of £10,000 to Captain Thomas Coram’s newly established Foundling Hospital and £2,000 to the hospital at Hyde Park Corner were all annulled in codicils that were appended between 1741 and 1743. The Oxford bequests were withdrawn entirely, while those to the Foundling Hospital and Hyde Park hospital were reduced to £2,000 and £1,000 respectively. Substantial sums of money and annuities were bequeathed to members of his family including grants of more than £6,000 to his wife in addition to the terms of her dower. Francis North^†, Baron North (later earl of Guilford), Sir Edmund Probyn and Sir Walter Bagot^‡ were appointed trustees, and Lady Uxbridge, Probyn and Uxbridge’s cousin, Sir William Irby^‡ (one of the principal beneficiaries of the will) were named executors.