LOVELACE, John (1672-1709)

Lovelace succeeded to the title on the death of his cousin, John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace. His predecessor left little but debts and acrimonious family disputes, which continued to trouble the family for more than a decade after his death. Add. 22190, ff. 139–43; VCH Berks. iii. 155; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 521; Post Boy, 10–13 Sept. 1698; London Gazette, 8–12 May 1707. The manor of Hurley was eventually sold by decree of chancery and bought by Vincent Oakley, who had previously married the dowager Viscountess Saye and Sele. VCH Berks. iii. 155; London Gazette, 7–10 June 1708. The other family seat at Water Eaton remained bound up in disputes between the dowager Lady Lovelace and Sir Henry Johnson^‡. Add. 22,190, ff. 139–43. The new Baron Lovelace was consequently reported to be extremely poor, a situation he failed to improve by his marriage to Charlotte Clayton in 1702. Lovelace’s poverty was apparent at the most basic level: even his chaise was said to be made of ‘a piece of wood which plays a good deal, and … must be … apt to break’. HMC Cowper, iii. 28. One of the few things that Lovelace appears to have inherited from his predecessor was a thorough commitment to the Whigs. Throughout his time in the House he proved to be a consistent upholder of the Whig interest, though he appears to have made little impact on the Lords, concentrating instead on his career in the army.

Lovelace took his seat at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, following which he was present on 45 per cent of all sitting days. On 17 Feb. he voted against overturning chancery’s dismission in the cause Montagu v. Bath. He returned for the following session on 20 Nov. 1694 but his attendance fell significantly, with him attending a mere 22 per cent of the total. There is little evidence of Lovelace having any interest to employ in the general election. He took his place in the new Parliament on 23 Nov. 1695, and was again lacklustre in his attendance, being present on just over 30 per cent of all sitting days.

In the spring of 1696, following the news of the Assassination Plot, Lovelace took the Association. Although far from assiduous as a member of the House, later that year he rallied, as expected, to the defence of the Whig ministers named by Sir John Fenwick^‡. Having returned to the House on 30 Nov. 1696, on 23 Dec. he voted in favour of Fenwick’s attainder.

Lovelace’s pattern of attendance continued in similar vein over the coming sessions. He was present for just 18 per cent of the session of 1697–8 and, although he attended the following two sessions with greater regularity, his rate of attendance remained under half of the total sitting days. On 23 Feb. 1700 he voted against continuing the East India Company as a corporation and in July he was noted among those Whigs thought potential supporters of the new ministry.

Lovelace took his place in the first Parliament of 1701 on 6 February. Once again, he proved willing to support his Whig colleagues and towards the end of the session, on 17 and 23 June, he voted in favour of acquitting the Whig lords John Somers, Baron Somers, and Edward Russell, earl of Orford, of the articles of impeachment against them. Lovelace returned to the House early the following year, on 12 Jan. 1702, but attended just 39 per cent of all sittings. He took his seat once more on 27 Oct. and early the following year he was noted by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as doubtful over the passage of the occasional conformity bill. On 16 Jan. 1703 he voted accordingly in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. Three days later he registered his protest at the resolution not to concur with the committee recommending the omission of a clause permitting George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, to continue to attend the House and serve on the Privy Council in the event of him surviving the queen, a vote that reflected concern about the status of other foreign-born peers rather than enmity towards Prince George.

Lovelace’s position on the occasional conformity bill remained consistent throughout the following session, of which he attended a third of all sitting days. In two assessments of November 1703 Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, noted Lovelace as an opponent of the measure and on 14 Dec. he voted with the majority to reject the bill. Two days later he was present at a dinner at the Red Lion attended by a number of other Whig peers, possibly a gathering connected with the business of the session. BIHR, xli. 188–91; TNA, C 104/116, pt. 1.

Lovelace continued to out for about a third of all days in the next two sessions (1704–5 and 1705–6) but he remained a fairly innocuous figure in Parliament, apparently concentrating instead on developing his military career, though with mixed results. In 1699 he had been commissioned as major and guidon of the Horse Guards in succession to Vere Fane, 5th earl of Westmorland, and in 1706 he was raised to a colonelcy. His new regiment was despatched to Ireland in November of the same year but his troops’ lack of equipment and training was roundly condemned and the unit was dismissed as ‘no regiment for service’. HMC Ormonde, viii. 261, 263.

Lovelace took his seat once more on 17 Jan. 1707 but he was present on less than 13 per cent of all sitting days. His attention was presumably concentrated on attempting to rectify the deficiencies of his command. The year also witnessed continuing efforts to achieve the sale of the family’s estates. John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, seems to have displayed some interest in the property but warned his duchess that ‘The particular you have sent of Lord Lovelace’s estate seems to be very unreasonable, but they will not be able to sell it till they bring it to a reasonable price.’ Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. ii. 902.

Lovelace attended just two days of the brief session of April 1707. He returned to the House for the first Parliament of Great Britain on 17 Jan. 1708, for which he was present on just over a quarter of all sitting days. In March he was at last successful in securing office with his appointment as governor of New York in succession to Henry Hyde, Viscount Cornbury (later 3rd earl of Clarendon). Lovelace’s appointment coincided with an upturn in Junto fortunes. His grandfather Francis Lovelace had been governor from 1668 to 1673, which may also help to explain the choice. Lovelace’s departure for his governorship was delayed until later in the year, possibly so that he could participate in the summer campaigning season that culminated in the battle of Oudenarde in July. Grant Wilson, ‘Lord Lovelace’, 274–5. He was reported to have left the capital in mid-September but his departure may have been delayed as he was noted present in the House on 16 November. Boyer, Anne Annals, vii. 243–4.

Having at last set out in late autumn, Lovelace and his entourage endured a tempestuous voyage and narrowly avoided being shipwrecked. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 386. He eventually landed in America on 15 Dec. and sent his first despatch describing his journey three days later. TNA, CO 326/27; New York (Colony) Council: Calendar of Council Minutes 1668–1783, ed. B. Fernow, 223. With him travelled the evangelical minister Joshua Kochertal and some 40 ‘poor Palatines’ who formed one of the first German communities in New York. The Privy Council had approved their accompanying Lovelace to New York, wishing to be seen to be assisting members of Protestant communities suffering from Catholic aggrandisement, while also reluctant to invite criticism from the Tories by allowing them to remain in England. APC Col. 1680–1720, ii. 553; BIHR, xl. 162. Lovelace earned Kochertal’s followers’ lasting gratitude by providing them with ‘bread, beef, beer, wood and habitations’. After his death the Council continued to provide towards their subsistence. Add. 61623, f. 35.

Lovelace arrived in New York to find the colony sharply divided between a ‘court’ faction that Cornbury had supported and an opposition grouping associated with the executed merchant Jacob Leisler. The new governor quickly identified himself with the latter. In April 1709 he dissolved the general assembly and convened a new, predominantly Leislerian one. The majority of the new assembly members who had resented the previous governor’s regime warmly welcomed Lovelace’s appointment. W. Smith Jr. History of the Province of New York, ed. M. Kammen, i. 131. Lovelace also appears to have made some attempt to restore confidence by returning suspended office-holders to their posts. Add. 61645, f. 141. His address to the assembly of New Jersey made it plain that he intended to alleviate the difficulties created by his predecessor but also emphasized the need to keep the administration properly supplied:

Her Majesty would not be burdensome to her people, but there being an absolute necessity that the government be supported, I am directed to recommend that matter to your consideration. You know best what the province can conveniently raise for its support, and the easiest methods of raising it. Smith, New York, i. 132; Add. 61647, f. 125.

The assembly agreed to raise £2,500 towards government expenditure, of which £1,600 was intended for Lovelace, but after Lovelace’s death they refused to make any further contributions. Smith, New York, i. 132; Add. 33028, ff. 22–23. With an apparently compliant assembly behind him, Lovelace turned his attention towards an expedition against Canada (a policy that again identified him with the Leislerians). This was generally welcomed by the New Yorkers but Lovelace’s eventual successor, Governor Hunter, found the militia in no fit state to undertake the operation, which also threatened to upset the colony’s delicate financial predicament. Add. 61645, f. 86; H.L. Osgood, American Colonies in the 18th Century, ii. 95.

Lovelace’s plans were brought to an abrupt halt by his sudden collapse. Weakened by the rough crossing from England and a perishing winter, on 6 May 1709 he succumbed to a fit of apoplexy. Two of his young sons also died at about the same time. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 46, f. 101; Post Boy, 27–30 Aug. 1709. Lovelace was buried in New York, leaving his widow to struggle to secure the £1,600 voted to him by the assembly in the face of spirited opposition mounted by his temporary successor, Colonel Ingoldsby. She also protested that, having laid out £4,000 in expenses, her husband had received only £400 in return. Ingoldsby was soon after removed from his post, in part because of his reputed ‘ill usages’ towards Lady Lovelace and her family. Unsurprisingly, Ingoldsby declared himself ignorant of any such wrongdoings. Add. 61623, f. 44; APC Col. 1680–1720, ii. 609–10; TNA, CO 326/27; HMC Ormonde, viii. 20.

Although Lovelace seems to have been respected as ‘a man of integrity’, his early death makes it impossible to judge how effective his governorship might have been. He was succeeded in the peerage briefly by his eldest surviving son, also John Lovelace, who died within a fortnight of his father. The young lord was in turn succeeded by his brother, Nevill Lovelace.