LOVELACE, John (c. 1641-93)

Reckoned by one contemporary commentator to be ‘hot headed’ and apt to ‘do the wildest things imaginable’, Lovelace was described more generously by Macaulay as being ‘distinguished by his taste, by his magnificence, and by the audacious and intemperate vehemence of his whiggism.’ Verney ms mic. M636/43, Sir R. to J. Verney, 15 Nov. 1688; Macaulay, Hist. of England, iii. 1144. A member of the Green Ribbon club and a notable supporter of Exclusion, Lovelace was prominent in the Revolution of 1688 as a participant in one of the few bloody exchanges of William of Orange’s invasion of England. As such Lovelace proved to be a contrast with earlier members of his family who had been firm upholders of the monarchy. Closely associated in politics with George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, Lovelace was also an adherent of Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. Robbins, The Earl of Wharton and Whig Party Politics, 30. He was likewise a partisan of Charles II’s bastard, James Scott, duke of Monmouth. V. Wyndham, Protestant Duke: A life of Monmouth, 88; HMC 13th Rep. VI. 23. Through his mother Lovelace was a cousin of Monmouth’s mistress, Lady Henrietta Wentworth, and after her death he was the eventual beneficiary of the majority of her estate. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 111; Add. 75375, f. 6; Verney ms mic. M636/40, A. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 27 Apr. 1686. An active force in Berkshire politics, where Lovelace commanded support in the environs of Windsor, towards the end of his life he also attempted to extend his influence into Suffolk. Halifax Letters, i. 183; Prideaux Letters, 165; Bodl. ms Eng. hist. d. 139 f. 109. In addition to these areas Lovelace also wielded hefty influence in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, his interest in the last bringing him into conflict with his Tory rival, James Bertie, 5th Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon).

While their political outlook may have differed, in common with his father Lovelace early on acquired a reputation as a drunkard and man of decidedly loose morals. He was closely associated with his equally dissolute neighbour, John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester; their antics in and around their Oxfordshire estates giving rise to all sorts of lurid gossip. VCH Oxon. xii. 448; J.W. Johnson, Profane Wit: The life of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, 245. Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, a regular visitor to Lovelace and his family, was clearly familiar with his host’s tendency for intemperance. He noted his successful avoidance of drunkenness during one visit to Woodstock when he ‘suffered no excess in drinking, using caution against it.’ Add. 18730, f. 14; HMC 13th Rep. VI. 266. A more typical episode that occurred towards the end of Lovelace’s career in 1691 was when, along with Richard Savage, styled Viscount Colchester (later 4th Earl Rivers), and the riotous Charles Livingston^‡, 2nd earl of Newburgh [S], he was reported to have been seen ‘scowring the streets’ and committing ‘some disorders’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 234. His extravagant lifestyle soon forced him into debt, and despite enjoying several lucrative offices he was never able to free himself of his financial embarrassments. S. Lysons, Magna Britannia, i. 299-300.

Lovelace succeeded to the title in the late summer of 1670 on the death of his father. With the peerage he inherited estates based on Water Eaton in Oxfordshire worth over £1,200 p.a. as well as lands centred on Hurley in Buckinghamshire. His inheritance also included the manor of Easthamstead in Berkshire, but within a year he was in debt to Richard Johnson of Reading, and by 1673 he had been forced to give up Easthamstead to Johnson. Add. 63465, f. 63; VCH Berks. iii. 78. Lovelace took his seat in the House on 24 Oct., after which he attended on a further 34 days (21 per cent of all sitting days in the session) and was named to seven committees. On 17 Jan. 1671 the House took into consideration a petition presented by Lovelace complaining of the actions of two bailiffs who had seized cattle from his estate contrary to privilege. The House ordered the two men to be attached and brought to the bar to answer for their actions; they were released on 31 January.

Lovelace failed to attend the House for the entirety of March 1671. He appears to have preferred to spend his time at Newmarket, where it was reported that he had lost £600 gambling. Verney ms mic. M636/24, H. to Sir R. Verney, 6 Apr. 1671. He had better fortune that September when he was able to resolve a dispute in chancery with his mother and sister over a case that presumably arose out of the settlement of his father’s estate. In spite of this early the following month, in a foreshadowing of the problems that were to dog him for the rest of his life, he was warned to do something ‘to reduce your very great expenses’, which were already thought to be running at three times his annual income. Add. 63465, ff. 63, 101.

Absent from the opening of the new session of February 1673, on 13 Feb. Lovelace was still missing without explanation at a call of the House. He resumed his place five days later, on which day he was added to the committee for Sir Ralph Banks’ bill. He then continued to attend on 39 per cent of all sitting days. He returned to the House later that year for the brief four-day session of October, of which he attended three days. He was then present again for the session of January 1674, attending on 20 days (almost 53 per cent of the whole) but was only named to the sessional committees. A week’s absence from 27 Jan. to 3 Feb. was covered by a proxy to Charles Fane, 3rd earl of Westmorland.

Having attended the prorogation day on 10 Nov. 1674, Lovelace took his place the following year on 26 Apr., but he was in attendance on just nine of the 42 sitting days in the session, and on 29 Apr. he was noted as being excused at a call of the House. On 4 June 1675 Lovelace informed the House that its privilege had been breached by the arrests of Sir John Churchill^‡ and Charles Porter^‡, lawyers involved in the jurisdictional dispute between the Houses. Neither were Members of the Commons at that time but both were in possession of protections from the Lords. The House ordered the arrest of the Commons’ sergeant at arms, the officer responsible for the outrage. Lovelace returned to the House that autumn when he was present on just over half of all sitting days, but he made little impact on the session being named to just one committee in addition to the sessional committees, though he did vote in favour of addressing the king to request a dissolution of Parliament.

Although Lovelace appears at this time to have been a relatively inactive member of the House, he remained a significant force in the counties where he held property. As steward of the manor of Woodstock and lieutenant of Woodstock Park, Lovelace commanded considerable political influence both there and in neighbouring Oxford. He aimed to keep Woodstock ‘solely at his devotion’, filling the electorate with non-resident partisans, among them Titus Oates. VCH Oxon. xii. 401-2. He also attempted to underwrite his interest in Woodstock by patronizing schemes such as the building of almshouses. E. Marshall, Early History of Woodstock Manor and its Environs, 232-4. His prominent position in the town was confirmed with the purchase of a seat in the parish church for him and ‘his heirs and assigns for ever’ in 1678. Add. 22190, ff. 99-100. His custodianship of the park was called into question in 1675 when he was ordered to put a stop to unauthorized tree felling; later that year Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), wrote to Lovelace and Rochester, who held the place of ranger of Woodstock, requiring them to investigate ‘the considerable waste of wood in the parks of Woodstock by under officers and others.’ CTB, iv. 316, 784. Lovelace’s relationship with Rochester, a neighbour and fellow graduate of Wadham, was occasionally strained and on one occasion seems to have broken out into an open quarrel. HMC 7th Rep. i. 494. Otherwise they appear to have co-operated closely in terms of their politics, their management of Woodstock and enjoyment of excess. C. Goldsworthy, Satyr: An Account of the Life and Work, Death and Salvation of John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester, 174-5. Equally active in Oxford, in 1676 Lovelace sought to prevent Sir Thomas Chamberlaine from being chosen sheriff. CSP Dom. 1676-7, p. 390. When Buckingham, lord high steward of the city, was invited to a celebration in his honour by the mayor and aldermen in 1677, Lovelace was a prominent member of his retinue. Ibid. 1677-8, p. 441.

Lovelace resumed his place in the House on 21 Feb. 1677, after which he was present on 28 per cent of sitting days and named to a dozen committees. On 13 and 15 Mar. he registered dissents at the progress of the bill for further securing the Protestant religion. Personal issues came to the fore on 4 Apr. when the House gave a first reading to a bill to enable Lovelace to raise money for payment of debts and for his daughter’s portion. It seems to have made no further progress before the close of the session. Add. 63465, ff. 114-42; HMC 9th Rep. pt. 1, p. 92.

Noted ‘worthy’ in an assessment drawn up by Shaftesbury that May, Lovelace seems to have spent part of the summer of 1677 at Woodstock, where he was observed among ‘much good company’ when his neighbour Anglesey visited the bowling green there. Add. 18730, f. 27. That December a fantastical rumour circulated that Lovelace had been killed in a brawl with one of his own servants. There is no evidence to confirm that, as reported, he had been run through with a roasting spit. Northants. RO, IC 1070.

Lovelace resumed his seat in the House on 18 June 1678 but was present on only seven of the session’s 43 sitting days, and he was nominated to just one committee. On 4 July he registered his proxy with John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, which was vacated by the close of the session. The following month, on 23 Aug., he dined with Anglesey. Add. 18730, f. 44. Later that summer he appears to have been involved in a quarrel with his neighbour, Norreys, presumably over local issues, but it was resolved by the interposition of lord treasurer Danby. Verney ms mic. M636/32, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 12 Sept. 1678.

Lovelace returned to the House on 22 Oct. 1678 after which he was present on 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Oct. he was named to the committee appointed to examine papers about the plot and the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey and the following day he was nominated to that for examining constables to determine whether or not they were papists. On 26 Oct. he informed the committee for examinations of the arrest of one suspected person and pressed for the suspect to be brought before them at once as he was currently waiting in the Painted Chamber where the press of people threatened to allow him the opportunity to abscond. HMC Lords, i. 54. From 14 to 21 Nov. his proxy was held by Arthur Capell, earl of Essex. On 26 Nov. he was named to one further committee, that considering the bill for raising the militia. On 20 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution to agree with the committee’s amendments to the supply bill, and on 23 Dec. he dissented from the resolution permitting Danby to remain in the chamber following the reading of the impeachment articles against him. Three days later he voted against insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill relating to the payment of money into the exchequer and then registered his dissent when the vote went against him. The following day he voted in favour of committing Danby and then registered his dissent at the resolution not to do so.

Following the dissolution Lovelace was active in campaigning on behalf of candidates in Oxfordshire and Berkshire. He was also called upon to assist with the election of Thomas Wharton, later marquess of Wharton, in Buckinghamshire, in spite of his unpredictable behaviour. Robbins, 36; Bodl. Carte 79 ff. 168-9. In alliance with Buckingham, Lovelace successfully achieved the election of two of Oxford’s leading Whigs, Brome Whorwood^‡ and William Wright^‡, as the borough representatives. VCH Oxon. iv. 152-3; Ath. Ox. lxxxviii. Lovelace’s identification with the opposition led to the loss of his places at Woodstock, which were conveyed instead to Edward Henry Lee, earl of Lichfield, husband of the king’s natural daughter, Lady Charlotte Fitzroy. VCH Oxon. xii. 401-2; CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 56; Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. Verney to J. Heron, 7 Feb. 1679; J. Heron to Sir R. Verney, 12 Feb. 1679.

Lovelace attended three days of the abortive session of March 1679 before resuming his place in the new Parliament on 15 March. Before the session he was assessed by Danby as a likely opponent in three forecasts (though one of March qualified the assessment with ‘unreliable’). Present on 57 per cent of all sitting days, Lovelace was missing from the House for the final week of March, but he ensured that his absence was covered by a proxy to Shaftesbury. He was listed as voting in favour of passing the Danby attainder bill on 4 Apr. but if so his vote must have been lodged by Shaftesbury as the proxy was not vacated until his return to the House on 5 April. Three days later his attention was distracted briefly when he was again involved in a privilege case concerning Robert Hicks, who had refused to answer a summons made out by Lovelace. Hicks was ordered to appear before Lovelace and make his submission. On 14 Apr. Lovelace divided in favour of Danby’s attainder by voting to agree with the Commons over the measure. The following month, on 8 May, he registered his dissent at the resolution not to agree with the Commons’ request for a committee of both Houses to consider the manner of proceeding against the impeached lords. Two days later he divided again in favour of appointing a committee of both Houses to consider the business and then registered his dissent when the motion was lost. On 13 May he dissented again this time at the resolution to allow the bishops to remain in court during capital cases until sentence of death was pronounced, and on 23 May he dissented twice more against resolutions insisting on the Lords’ decisions to proceed with the trials of the five Lords before that of Danby and to allow the bishops their places in court. On 27 May he registered a further dissent relating to the bishops’ rights in capital cases.

Following the dissolution Lovelace again proved active in campaigning in attempting to secure places for those in his interest at Woodstock. In July John Cary reported to Sir Ralph Verney^‡ how ‘the old contest is up already between my Lord Lovelace and Sir Thomas Spencer^‡, but who will carry it I know not.’ In the event the seats went to Sir Littleton Osbaldeston^‡ (possibly with Spencer’s assistance) and Nicholas Bayntun^‡, who seems to have been Lovelace’s candidate. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 358. Lovelace and Buckingham appeared at the Buckingham assizes in July in support of Sir Ralph Verney, an intervention that seems to have taken John Verney^‡ (later Viscount Fermanagh [I]) by surprise as he noted it was ‘more than I expected from him for I have been told he’s given to railing.’ Verney ms mic. M636/33, J. to Sir R. Verney, 31 July 1679. In September Lovelace called on Anglesey in company with the two new Woodstock burgesses and, as Anglesey complained, ‘lost me most of the day.’ Add. 18730, f. 61.

Lovelace attended two of the prorogation days in January and May 1680. During the interval he brought a case of scandalum magnatum at the Buckinghamshire assizes against a shopkeeper from Marlow, securing £500 in damages. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. Temple to Sir R. Verney, 17 Mar. 1680. Although the court had previously registered its displeasure with Lovelace by having him put out of the commission of the peace for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire at the beginning of the year, in July he was admitted a freeman of Oxford, his admission being celebrated with a toast ‘to the confusion of all Popish princes’. HMC Lords, i. 173, 174, 187 Bodl. Carte 228, f. 146; M.G. Hobson, Oxford Council Acts, 1665-1701, p. 126; VCH Oxon. iv. 123; Ath. Ox. ii. 450. He was also present, along with the two burgesses, when Monmouth was admitted to the freedom of the city in September. CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 31. Riding about the town Lovelace was heard to cry out that he was ‘for a protestant duke, no papist, and god damn him, he was for the protestant religion.’ HMC Ormond, n.s. v. 449.

He resumed his seat in the new Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680 after which he was present on almost 70 per cent of all sitting days. Nominated once again to the committee for receiving information about the plot, on 25 Oct. he was appointed along with Shaftesbury and Ford Grey, 3rd Baron Grey of Warke (later earl of Tankerville), to report back to the committee concerning a number of suspicious Catholic papers. HMC Lords, i. 146. The following month Lovelace voted consistently in favour of the Exclusion bill, entering a dissent to the decision to reject the bill on first reading. On 23 Nov. he joined with Buckingham, Monmouth and a number of other peers in voting in favour of appointing a committee of both Houses to consider the state of the kingdom and then subscribed the protest when the resolution was rejected. The following month he was, unsurprisingly, among the majority finding the Catholic peer, William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason. The same day (7 Dec.) he registered his proxy with Buckingham, which was vacated a week later (14 December).

The elections for the new Parliament found Lovelace again to the fore in attempting to employ his interest, though some of his efforts met with little success:

After he had drunk 3 days with all the rag tag of Woodstock, he found that he had gained so little to the end he designed, that, to avoid the disgrace of an open baffle, he took horse the night before the election and rode from them; and at Wallingford they have made an open protest against him that they will have nothing to do with him or any that belong to him, and unanimously resolved that Taverner Harris^‡, a factious gentleman in the neighbourhood, shall never be chosen to serve in Parliament for their town, because his Lordship recommended him. Prideaux Letters, 105.

In spite of such protests Harris was duly returned on Lovelace’s interest. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 134. Concerned that a similarly divisive election in Oxfordshire might have a harmful effect upon the general population, John Fell, bishop of Oxford, attempted to mediate between the partisans of Lovelace and Abingdon (as Norreys had since become) before the county elections. Bodl. ms Top Oxon. c. 325 f. 15. On this occasion Lovelace appeared ready to be conciliatory. He admitted to Fell that he was aware of his being ‘represented as a turbulent person’ and when Fell proposed a meeting of the local gentry to discuss the election ‘Lovelace with great calmness … assured me that he was convinced of the reasonableness of this procedure, and … would not fail to wait upon [Abingdon].’ Ibid. f. 15. Such an example of Lovelace’s more malleable disposition was rare. Lovelace attended each of the seven days of the brief Parliament that met in Oxford in March 1681. Before the session Danby assessed him as a likely opponent, and on 26 Mar. he joined with Monmouth, Shaftesbury and a number of other opposition peers in subscribing the protest at the resolution not to agree with the Commons’ impeachment of Fitzharris and to proceed against him by common law instead.

Opposition influence in Oxford remained strong at the time of the election of a new town clerk later that summer. Ibid. f. 7. Prince, the Whig candidate, was elected despite the efforts made by Thomas Baker, Abingdon’s nominee, to secure a majority in the council. CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 680. Abingdon did his best to ensure that Prince was foiled, advising Secretary Jenkins that:

as my Lord Lovelace, Mr Ford, Brome Whorwood and that clan have stickled with all violence for Prince and count it no small victory to have carried it so I presume it will not be thought for his majesties service to confirm him if he can avoid it … Bodl. ms Top Oxon. c. 325 f. 7.

Abingdon got his way. The king vetoed Prince’s appointment and, two years later, the government insisted that the place go to Baker. VCH Oxon. iv. 123.

In addition to his direct campaigning on behalf of his candidates, Lovelace also made use of his passion for horse racing to promote the Whig cause in Oxfordshire, instituting a regular competition to be held at Woodstock each September. Lovelace brought Titus Oates to the meet in 1679 and encouraged him to preach. A vigorous supporter of Oates, Lovelace pressed for his being awarded a DD at Oxford, though Wood noted that his support for Oates was motivated by pique at the loss of his office in Woodstock. Ath. Ox. lxxxvii. In 1680 the race was moved to Port Meadow in Oxford as a result of Lovelace’s rivalry with Abingdon. VCH Oxon. iv. 429; Prideaux Letters, 98-99. Permanently in financial difficulties, Lovelace was unable to maintain his support for the trophy, and in 1681 the competition had to be cancelled when Lovelace could not find anyone willing to stand him credit for the plate he had commissioned, so that: ‘… after all his huffing, he was forced to un-invite his company and carry away his race horses … and our blessed townsmen were deprived of the so much expected happiness of seeing the gracious duke [Monmouth], here again.’ Prideaux Letters, 98-99. Disappointment there did not prevent Lovelace from joining Monmouth at another race hosted at Quainton, though the turnout was said not to have been ‘so great as was expected.’ Verney ms mic. M636/35, Sir R. to J. Verney, 25 Aug. 1681.

By the summer of 1681 Lovelace’s identification with the opposition appears to have proceeded beyond mere campaigning. That August, along with Monmouth, Shaftesbury, and several others, he was named as being implicated in an abortive plot. CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 418. Although he turned the tables on his accusers and was reported to have been awarded £2,000 in damages following a successful action for scandalum magnatum at the Reading assizes in March 1682, in June he was put out of the deputy lieutenancy for Berkshire. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 171; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 226. The ministry’s efforts to restrain his influence met with considerable resistance. The following year Abingdon complained to Jenkins that Henley remained ‘full of men of those principles’ and that Adam Springall, whom he had cashiered from being a lieutenant in the Oxfordshire militia on account of his Whiggism, had been made a captain in that of Berkshire through Lovelace’s interest. CSP Dom. 1683, pp. 37-38. The year 1683 found Lovelace once more under suspicion, but although he was arrested for his expected involvement in the Rye House plot, under examination he ‘professed so much abhorrence’ for the conspiracy that the king agreed to his release. Sir Robert Sawyer^‡ was later credited with being instrumental in securing Lovelace’s discharge. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 375. Even so, he was required to provide a bond of £2,000 and sureties of £1,000 each to guarantee his keeping the peace. CSP Dom. 1683, p. 107; Add. 63776, f. 41. His rival Abingdon took the opportunity of his fall to remind Secretary Leoline Jenkins^‡ that Lovelace should be removed from the list of deputy lieutenants. CSP Dom. 1683, p. 162.

By the beginning of 1684 Lovelace’s fortunes were in sharp decline. He also appears to have been struck down with poor health. ‘Weak in body’ he made a will devising his estate at Hurley to his daughter, Anne, and his manor of Water Eaton to his second daughter, Martha. To his ‘beloved nephew’, Sir Thomas Noel, he left all his ‘horses mares and geldings fit for racing or hunting’ along with all of his hounds. Add. 31151, f. 18. Lovelace’s sickness did not prove fatal but the combination of political marginalization and illness meant that by the accession of James II in 1685, Abingdon effectively dominated Oxford, though he faced occasional challenges from Lovelace and other prominent opposition figures. VCH Oxon. iv. 152-3. When the Whigs, led by Lovelace and Wright, opposed surrendering the city charter in 1684, Abingdon’s interest proved stronger. CSP Dom. 1683-4, p. 205. Even so, Lovelace was able to persuade Abingdon not to proceed against Robert Pawlin, one of the city officials turned out when the charter was renewed, over some ‘scandalous’ and actionable words against Abingdon. Lovelace lived to regret his patronage of Pawlin, who refused to take up his place again on the restoration of the charter and made further insinuations about Abingdon. Following the Revolution Lovelace was reported to be so incensed at his former associate that, ‘he says he will never own him again and be so far from helping him to a place that he will hinder him all he can.’ Eg. 3337, ff. 107-8.

Lovelace’s declining interest appears to have driven him to more violent measures. In April 1685 he was summoned before king’s bench to answer charges that he had been involved in ‘encouraging and abetting’ his servant John Cole in beating Thomas Foster, one of the candidates for the county seat in Berkshire. Add. 22187 f. 100. The summons gave rise to unfounded rumours that Lovelace had once again been taken into custody. Bodl. Ballard 12, f. 9. When he attempted to join Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, in waiting on the king shortly after this affair, both men were denied an audience. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 341.

Lovelace took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685, but he attended just 11 of the 42 sitting days (26 per cent). On the opening day of the session Lovelace called for the clerk to be sworn, but he was overruled by the lord keeper (George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys) who insisted that he ought to have been sworn in the morning following prayers. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. c. 46, ff. 37-46. Missing without explanation at a call of the House on 26 May, Lovelace returned on 30 May. On 4 June he was nominated to the committee for the bill for exporting leather. The same day he registered his proxy with Anglesey after which he remained away from the House until November. Despite his previous close association with Monmouth, Lovelace avoided being implicated in the rebellion that summer and, no doubt eager to maintain a low profile, he seems to have remained in retirement in the country. Following the adjournment he was again absent at a call of the House held on 16 November. He resumed his seat the following day and on 18 Nov. was named to one further committee before the prorogation.

Listed as an opponent of the repeal of the Test at the opening of 1687, Lovelace was again the subject of investigation by the authorities in March when it was reported that he was to be reprimanded for his role in a misdemeanour involving a number of army officers at Reading. Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 42, f. 153. In May he was again included among those thought opposed to the king’s policies and the same month he stood bail for William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 55. Subsequent assessments consistently listed him as an opponent of the king’s policies. In February he was once more under suspicion and brought before the council to answer charges amounting to ‘a high misdemeanour’. UNL, PwA 2147/1-4. The investigation appears to have stemmed from Lovelace’s refusal to accept the order of a Catholic magistrate concerning the burial of an illegitimate child at Hurley. Rejecting the magistrate’s competence to act, and hence questioning the king’s dispensing power, Lovelace was said to have threatened to ‘wipe his breech with the warrant.’ When he was summoned before the privy council, apparently for the fifth or sixth time, he refused to answer the charge insisting ‘that he had not been informed of his crime; that there was matter of law in the case’. Lovelace was eventually dismissed and advised by James that if he believed he was the victim of perjured evidence he should pursue the witnesses with an action of scandalum magnatum. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 259-60; Add. 34515, ff. 51-53.

Although Lovelace does not appear to have been admitted to the private deliberations of the ‘Immortal Seven’, he may have played a role as a courier between the Prince of Orange and some opposition figures. In September 1688 he was granted leave to travel to Spa for his health. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 262. He took advantage of the opportunity to meet with the prince and on his return was careful to offload a servant bearing the prince’s instructions before his arrival in port. J. Childs, Army of James II, 160; Add. 41805 f. 46. The same month a warrant was again drawn up for his apprehension. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 285; HMC Le Fleming, 213. Having succeeded in evading his pursuers, Lovelace was one of the first peers to mobilize in support of William of Orange. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 337. He raised a troop of 100 horse, thereby honouring a promise he had made to the prince that summer, but was then waylaid by the local militia at Cirencester en route to the west country from Oxford. Following a brief skirmish the militia succeeded in capturing Lovelace,

the gentlemen [striving] to fight their way out one Mr Whitlock was shot through the belly and my Lord with two or three more taken, the rest are got off with the loss of their horses and baggage, my Lord is a little bruised with a pistol which his silk armour resisted, and is very cheerful as usually. Add. 41805, f. 194; CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 241; Eg. 2618 f. 152; CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 351; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 91, newsletter to Poley, 23 Nov. 1688.

Another account of the affray cast doubt upon the likelihood that Lovelace had truly exhibited such heroism noting that he was not renowned for his courage, ‘unless at a drinking engagement.’ Bodl. Carte 130, f. 303. Lovelace was imprisoned in Gloucester gaol, though the lord lieutenant, Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort, was concerned that it was ‘not fit for a man of his quality.’ Beaufort also worried that ‘there being no garrison in the town and in an ill neighbourhood enough … very probably a rescue will be attempted.’ Add. 41805 f. 196. News of Lovelace’s capture provoked Prince William to write to Beaufort warning him that he would answer for Lovelace’s safekeeping and even, according to another source, threatening to burn Badminton if his supporter were not released. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 343. The prince then took a number of Catholic prisoners to put pressure on Beaufort to set his troublesome charge at liberty. Bodl. Carte 130, f. 307. Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, imprisoned for adhering to James II, hoped that he might be exchanged for Lovelace. HMC Le Fleming, 221; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 476-7; HMC Hastings, ii. 195-6, 201. Beaufort’s concerns about the security of the prison were then proved right when Lovelace was sprung from gaol. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 351; Verney ms mic. M636/43, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 5 Dec. 1688. His rescuers were Captain Henry Bertie^‡, Abingdon’s brother, and a number of Gloucester citizens discontented with James II’s policies. HMC 7th Rep. 227-8; Macaulay, iii. 1180. On his release Lovelace was indulged with ‘a great treat’ courtesy of the dean of Gloucester before assuming control as quasi-governor of the city. He took command of the local troops to put down the disorders there before leading a detachment into Oxford in triumph. Bodl. Ballard 12, f. 42; Add. 34510, ff. 190-1, Add. 18675 f. 48, Eg. 2621, ff. 69-70; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 368; VCH Glos. iv. 115; HMC Le Fleming, 234. On his way he took advantage of his new superiority to descend on Woodstock and exact a minor revenge on John Cary (Lichfield’s man of business) by relieving him of ‘those few arms of swords and guns I had, upon an information that I sent after him to Eaton to cause him to be taken.’ Verney ms mic. M636/43, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 11 Dec. 1688. The arrival of his motley cavalcade of ‘myrmidons’ at Oxford and Lovelace’s ‘smart speech’ to the city was satirized in a poem by John Smith: Bloxam, Register of … Magdalen College, i. 105-7.

His horse wore a halter amongst all the rest,
Nor had the dull wight half the sense of his beast:
And he of the two deserved the rope best … Add. 64060 ff. 29-30.

Lovelace’s prominence in the Revolution appears to have encouraged him to reassert his interest in the elections to the Convention. A report circulated at the opening of 1689 that Lovelace meant to ‘interpose’ in the election for Buckingham. Although Sir Richard Temple^‡ protested at first that he could not believe it, a few days later he related a further report that Lovelace and Wharton meant to set up their interest in opposition to his candidature and that of Verney. In the event Lovelace’s influence proved unequal to the task and the two sitting members were returned unopposed. Verney ms mic. M636/43, Sir R. Temple to Sir R. Verney, 3 and 6 Jan. 1689; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 142. He enjoyed greater success at New Woodstock, though even here a bargain appears to have been struck with the Berties resulting in the return of Sir Thomas Littleton^‡ on Lovelace’s interest and Sir John Doyley^‡ who was probably the Bertie candidate. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 358-9.

Lovelace returned to London in time to take his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689. Present on 79 per cent of all sitting days, he was soon to the fore in the proceedings. Nominated to 30 committees during the course of the session, on 23 Jan. he was named to the committee appointed to investigate Essex’s death. Two days later having initially been among the most vehement in insisting that the former king’s most recent creation, Edward Griffin, Baron Griffin, should be prevented from sitting, he then performed a dramatic volte face and demanded Griffin’s formal introduction. The reason was believed to be the Whigs’ fear that George Carteret, Baron Carteret, might also be prevented from taking his place. Given his strong backing for the Revolution it is unsurprising that Lovelace was a firm supporter of awarding the crown to William and Mary. On 31 Jan. he voted in favour of inserting the words declaring the prince and princess king and queen and registered his dissent at the resolution not to agree with the Commons in using the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant.’ Lovelace’s enthusiastic embracing of the new state of affairs was not confined to the chamber. On 2 Feb. he presented the House with a petition demanding that William and Mary be proclaimed king and queen at once. On being asked who supported the petition, ‘Lord Lovelace withdrew the petition, saying it was not signed; but there should be hands enough to it.’ Lacking any signatures the Lords refused to consider the document. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 210, ff. 347-8; State Letters of Henry Earl of Clarendon, ii. 314. The petition was then passed about the coffee houses where it was rumoured it amassed some 10,000 signatures. Unwilling to be swayed by such unruly popular pressure, the prince was said to have ordered the petition to be suppressed by the lord mayor. Bodl. Rawl. D 1079 f. 7; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 210, ff. 349-50. In spite of such setbacks Lovelace’s boisterous support for awarding the throne to the prince and princess continued unrestrained. On 4 Feb. he voted to agree with the Commons in the employment of the term ‘abdicated’ and entered a further dissent when the House once more rejected the proposal. Two days later he again divided in favour of using the words ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is thereby vacant.’ Once the matter had at last been settled to his satisfaction, Lovelace was then closely connected with several of the Members of the Commons involved in drafting the Bill of Rights. L. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, 39, 279. He also appears to have put pressure on those not willing to accept the new state of affairs. At the end of March King William was reported to have cautioned Lovelace ‘not to be so severe upon the archbishop [William Sancroft, of Canterbury] about his absence from the House.’ Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 67.

Active in other matters before the Lords during the session, on 28 Feb. Lovelace informed the House of the activities of Robert Clarke who had travelled from France bearing suspicious messages. The House then agreed with Lovelace’s request for Clarke to be secured. On 21 and 23 Mar. he subscribed two protests in opposition to the resolutions refusing to add clauses repealing the 1673 Test or extending the time to be permitted for taking the Test to the bill for establishing new oaths. On 27 Mar. he acted as one of the tellers for a division concerning the case Roper v. Roper, and on 5 Apr. he protested once more at the rejection of an amendment to the bill for uniting the kingdom’s protestant subjects. Three days later he was nominated one of the managers of the conference convened to consider the bill for removing papists from Westminster. Lovelace was named to two further conferences considering the same business on 16 and 17 Apr., and on 23 Apr. he acted as one of the tellers on the question whether to agree to the resolution relating to the clergy in the abrogating oaths bill. On 27 Apr. he was entrusted with the proxy of Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, which was vacated on 1 May. On 17 May Lovelace registered his own proxy with Bolton, and on 22 May he was noted as missing at a call of the House. He resumed his seat, thereby vacating the proxy, on 6 June. That month he informed the House that he had ordered the arrest of a Catholic who had been overheard drinking toasts to the confusion of Protestants and how ‘he hoped to see all their throats cut.’ HMC Lords, ii. 135. Lovelace was named a manager of the conferences held on 20 and 21 June to consider the bill for enabling the commissioners of the great seal, and on 10 July he demonstrated his belief in the reality of the Popish Plot by registereing his dissent against ‘all the questions touching the bill concerning the reversal of the judgments against Titus Oates.’ On 15 July he was again entrusted with Bolton’s proxy, and the following day he was named a manager of the succession bill. Lovelace was absent from the House for the first vote on the reversal of Titus Oates’ conviction for perjury, but he returned in time to support his old comrade by opposing the Lords’ amendments to the bill on 30 July. He then protested against the resolution to adhere to the Lords’ amendments. The same day he was granted leave to be absent but he continued to sit until 20 August.

In spite of his reputation as the very loosest of cannons, Lovelace seems to have enjoyed some influence with the prince and was rewarded for his part in the Revolution with a number of offices. He interceded successfully on behalf of Capt. Edward Elliott, who had been taken in flight along with Richard Grahme, Viscount Preston [S], in 1688. Ailesbury Mems. 279. He was also successful in securing a pardon for a convicted murderer. HMC Finch, iii. 85. In February 1689 he was made captain of the band of pensioners (a post previously enjoyed by his father-in-law, Cleveland). CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 11. The same month he was awarded the highly prized office of chief justice in eyre of Trent south. He was also restored as a deputy lieutenant in Oxfordshire under his old foe Abingdon. Lovelace was accused posthumously of abusing his position as chief justice, Trent south. Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, told Abingdon, Lovelace’s successor, that, ‘I do believe your predecessor has been a great destroyer and therefore a restraint is necessary. But he put a restraint and in the mean time destroyed as much as he could.’ Bodl. ms. Eng. lett. e. 129 f. 116.

Lovelace’s rebellious temperament came to the fore in his assertion of his rights as chief justice. When his warrant for a buck out of St James’s Park was refused, he went to the park himself the following day and killed one. The queen, furious at his presumption reprimanded him severely, but she later relented and Lovelace’s impetuosity gained for him and his successors the right to take a doe and a buck from the park each season without warrant. HMC Lonsdale, 113-4. Impetuosity and impecuniousness were the two traits that marked out Lovelace throughout his career. He responded to the request for a self-assessment sent out that September by declaring that rather than being possessed of any personal estate he was ‘much in debt.’ Chatsworth, Halifax collection B.14.

Lovelace resumed his seat in the second session of the Convention on 28 Oct. 1689, after which he was present on 47 per cent of sitting days. That month Lovelace again demonstrated his unpredictability by offering to stand bail for Griffin, who had been committed to the Tower accused of being implicated in the ‘pewter pot plot’. Duckett, Penal Laws, 85-6. Lovelace was one of a dozen peers who protested on 23 Nov. at the failure to pass an amendment to the bill precluding parliamentary impeachment from being subject to royal pardon. Missing from the House for the final week of December, between 31 Dec. and 13 Jan. 1690, his proxy was held by Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough). During his absence the Commons took into consideration an election petition from the town of Abingdon, where the return was disputed between Sir John Stonhouse^‡ and John Southby^‡. Reports of the election noted that Lovelace had been responsible for splitting the Whig vote when he refused to countenance Southby. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 361-2.

Following the dissolution the general elections found Lovelace eager once more to assert his interest. In alliance with Wharton he was said to be intent on using his influence in Buckingham in opposition to Sir Richard Temple, while in Berkshire he was, unsurprisingly, a prominent opponent of Abingdon’s heir, Montagu Venables Bertie, styled Lord Norreys (later 2nd earl of Abingdon). Verney ms mic. M636/44, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 14 Feb. 1689; Newberry Lib. Chicago, Case mss, Clarendon to Abingdon, 16 Feb. 1690. Lovelace took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690. Present on just under three-quarters of all sitting days, in April he was said to have been so incensed by the actions of Sir William Whitelocke^‡, one of those in his interest, over the rejection of the abjuration bill that he swore he would ‘never use his interest for a lawyer again as long as he lives.’ Bodl. Ballard 22, f. 51. On 1 May he acted as one of the tellers on whether to refer the state of the London militia to a select committee, and on 2 May he acted as teller once again on whether to commit the security of the crown bill. The same day the House was forced to interpose to prevent Lovelace and William North, 6th Baron North, from coming to blows following an altercation, though the cause of the dispute is unknown. HMC Lords, iii. 40. On 3 May Lovelace told once more in the division held in a committee of the whole concerning the addition of a clause to the same measure. The question was rejected by three votes. From 7 May until his return to the House on 13 May Lovelace’s proxy was held by Bolton. On 13 May he protested against the resolution not to allow the corporation of London more time to be heard.

Lovelace attended two of the prorogation days that summer. The focus of his attention appears to have been Woodstock where he oversaw the appointment of Wharton as lieutenant of the park in July in place of the disgraced Lichfield. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 747. By doing so Lovelace seems to have acted without full authority as, shortly after he had displaced John Cary, Lichfield’s man of business, Lady Lichfield and her brother, Henry Fitzroy, duke of Grafton, arrived in the area armed with an order from the queen to stop Lovelace’s proceedings. By the end of the following month Lovelace appears to have conceded defeat and to have assured Grafton that he would make no further disturbances. By the close of the year Lichfield had successfully reasserted his rights in the park. Verney ms mic. M636/44, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 31 July , 23 Aug. and 6 Dec. 1690.

Lovelace took his seat in the House for the new session on 2 Oct. 1690. On 6 Oct. he voted against the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower. Present on just under 74 per cent of all sitting days in the session, on 31 Oct. he was granted leave of absence for a few days, but he resumed his seat on 3 November. On 11 Nov. he acted as one of the tellers for a division concerning the bill relating to the earl of Salisbury. On 1 Dec. the House ordered the arrest of Samuel Alstone, a printer, for publishing a libel against Lovelace entitled The Case of The Band of Pensioners. Alstone’s paper argued that members of the band could not be removed without the king’s consent but that since taking up his place as captain Lovelace had ‘turned out above half … without any cause assigned, to make way for friends of his own.’ HMC Lords, iii. 204-5. Alstone was ordered to answer at the bar of the House, but no further action was taken. Lovelace was again the subject of the House’s attention on 8 Dec. when he informed the Lords that he had ordered Black Rod to arrest a Catholic who had been found loitering in the court of requests. The man in question, Thomas Burdett, explained that he was there to present a petition from some of the market traders in London, and on 15 Dec. it was ordered that Lovelace (who was absent from the House that day) should be given notice to attend the following morning to settle the matter. He resumed his place accordingly on 16 Dec. when Burdett was discharged. HMC Lords, iii. 216-17. Lovelace continued to attend until the final day of the session on 5 Jan. when he acted as one of the tellers for a division on whether to agree to an amendment to the bill for prohibiting French trade.

Following the close of the session, Lovelace attended three of the prorogation days in April, May and June. In July he joined Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, in standing surety in £5,000 for Rochester’s brother, Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon. The incident may be indicative of Lovelace’s waning support for the new regime, though it may simply demonstrate his willingness to assist a neighbour. CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 354; HMC Finch, iii. 136; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 378. He resumed his seat in the new session on 22 Oct. 1691 but attended on just two days before absenting himself for the entirety of November. In November there were several reports of his death; all were erroneous. Add. 70081, newsletter, 14 Nov. 1691; Verney ms mic. M636/45, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 18, 19 and 25 Nov. 1691. Lovelace returned to the House on 7 December. He thereafter attended the remainder of the session without further interruption, being present on approximately half of all the sitting days. In January 1692 rumours circulated that he was on the point of being given additional preferment. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 344.

By several reports Lovelace, permanently drunk, fell downstairs and broke his arm in April 1692. Hearne, Remains, 125; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 433. He took his place for the 1692-3 session but was present on just over a quarter of all sitting days. Absent from 18 Nov. to 5 Dec., in the interval Lovelace was ordered to attend to account for a number of protections he had issued. His response was to request that all such protections be struck out and he undertook to make no more. Having attended just four days, on 8 Dec. Lovelace registered his proxy with Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, and on 3 Jan. 1693 the proxy was exercised against the resolution to pass the place bill. The proxy was vacated by Lovelace’s return to the House on 13 January. Although he was present for the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, in Westminster Hall on 4 Feb. (in which he found Mohun not guilty), Lovelace then failed to rejoin the Lords for their deliberations for which he was fined £100, though this was later remitted. Add. 70081, newsletter, 4 Feb. 1693. He sat for the last time on 16 Feb. 1693.

Lovelace found himself in increasingly difficult circumstances towards the end of his life. Fighting off his creditors, he mortgaged his estate of Water Eaton to Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington, but then sold the reversion to his son-in-law, Sir Henry Johnson^‡, without informing him of his arrangement with Burlington. By the summer of 1693, Lovelace’s affairs looked desperate. He relied upon his privilege as a peer to protect him from the bailiffs, but on 1 June he was facing a writ of ejection from Water Eaton, which had been awarded to Burlington. Add. 63465, f. 79. Lovelace wrote to Johnson appealing for help in raising the £1,200 necessary to save his estate but his other creditors were also losing patience and combined forces in an attempt to recover their debts. Add. 63466, ff. 29, 30. One of Lovelace’s agents, John Hungerford, wrote to warn him that his house in London in Suffolk Street was also ‘in manifest danger of being seized.’ At the same time relations with Johnson were breaking down. Add. 63465, ff. 75, 87, 91. Lovelace’s relations with other members of his family were just as fragile. On succeeding to the peerage in 1670, he had engaged in a law suit with his sister Dorothy, his brother-in-law Henry Drax and his mother, concerning disputes over his sister’s portion. He dropped the case the following year, but relations with his mother remained tense throughout his life. Ibid. f. 101.

By the beginning of September 1693 the vultures were circling around Lovelace. Premature reports of his demise encouraged Sir Stephen Fox^‡ to petition the queen to appoint him along with George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton, to one of Lovelace’s offices (probably the chief justiceship). Castle Ashby mss 1093, Sir S. Fox to Northampton, 4 July 1693. Reports continued to circulate that he had died. Add. 70081, newsletter, 4 July 1693; Verney ms mic. M636/47, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 5 July 1693. By 22 July it was thought that Lovelace had cheated death once again though Sir Henry Johnson cautioned him to ‘keep close to your physicians’ directions for a relapse is generally worse than the distemper.’ Add. 63465, f. 97. Johnson’s warning proved prescient, and five days later Lovelace succumbed, his demise said to have been accelerated by a broken heart over tensions with his only surviving daughter, Martha, and his son-in-law. HMC Ancaster, 434.

Shortly before his death Lovelace revoked his will of 1684, disinheriting his daughter and leaving what was left of his possessions to his godsons instead. Add. 31151, ff. 18, 23-30. Johnson clearly had no inkling that relations had deteriorated so much, for even after Lovelace’s death he wrote confidently to Colonel Charles Godfrey^‡, one of the numerous creditors, assuring him that he would honour his debt once the will made clear that he was the executor, ‘as I am apt to believe it will.’ Add. 63466, f. 42. Lovelace’s estate remained under siege from all those to whom he owed money. Godfrey attempted to take possession by force of the horses he was owed. Add. 63466, f. 37. Lovelace’s mother, the dowager baroness, insisted that the tenants of Water Eaton continue to pay rent to her. When one refused, Lady Lovelace and a posse of retainers forced their way into the house, pistols and blunderbusses in hand, and committed the tenant’s servants to Oxford gaol. Add. 22190, f. 158. Johnson continued to receive letters demanding payment years after Lovelace’s death, and in 1696 he agreed to waive his own parliamentary privilege to allow the creditors freedom to proceed against him for the recovery of their money. Add. 63466. f. 56. On Lovelace’s death the title passed to his cousin, another John Lovelace, who succeeded as 4th Baron Lovelace. The new peer inherited little more than his predecessor’s debts.