LUMLEY, Richard (c. 1650-1721)

Although originally a northern family with extensive interests in Durham and Northumberland that dated from before the Norman Conquest, the Lumleys also possessed significant estates in Sussex as a result of an inheritance from the Fitzalan family dating from the 16th century. Browning, Danby, i. 387; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 599. Lumley was also connected to the families of Spencer, Compton and Sackville. Shortly after the Restoration, Lumley inherited the Irish viscountcy of Lumley from his grandfather. The first Viscount Lumley’s date of death is uncertain but as he was cited in a chancery action in May 1662, it appears that Lumley inherited the title between that date and March of the following year, when his grandfather’s will was proved. TNA, C10/93/85; PROB 11/310. It had been a condition of the will that Lumley make Stansted Park in Sussex his principal seat and it was accordingly in Sussex that Lumley came to exercise the greatest of his political interest. TNA, PROB 11/310, f. 289. Despite holding the offices of lord lieutenant of both Durham and Northumberland for much of the period, Lumley appears to have been content to allow others to manage elections in those counties, though he may have had some hand in influencing the composition of Northumberland’s commission of the peace in the opening years of the eighteenth century, saving a number of Whig justices from the kind of purges experienced in other parts of the country. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 447; Glassey, JPs, 161-2. Having said that, politically, Lumley was difficult to categorize. While he tended towards the Whigs after the Revolution, he combined this stance with a thorough dislike of Dissenters and viewed matters relating to the great military conflicts of the period more through the prism of a professional soldier than that of a committed Whig placeman. Brit. Pols, 227n.

Irish peer and soldier, 1667-88

Raised a Catholic under his mother’s auspices, in 1667 Lumley was granted a licence to tour the continent for the following three years accompanied by his mother, brother, sisters and a dozen servants, on the understanding that he avoided contact with seminaries. CSP Dom. 1667, p. 508. He returned to England in 1672 and embarked on a military career. He served aboard Admiral Sir Joseph Jordan’s flagship during the third Anglo-Dutch war and he may have been present at the battle of Sole Bay, where Jordan earned notoriety for ignoring a plea for assistance from his immediate superior, Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich, so that he could protect James, duke of York, the commander-in-chief, whose ship was also under heavy fire. Jordan’s action contributed to the loss of Sandwich’s ship, and Sandwich’s own death. Verney ms mic. M636/25, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 18 Apr. 1672. Four years later, Lumley was himself the subject of controversy when he was indirectly involved with the death of a fellow peer. Lumley was one of those embroiled in an argument that erupted at court involving Charles Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun, William Cavendish, styled Lord Cavendish, later duke of Devonshire, and an Irish officer, Captain Power, as a result of which Mohun was mortally wounded in a subsequent duel. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F26, Lord Cavendish’s case relating to the death of Lord Mohun. Lumley escaped serious repercussions from the incident and in 1677, once more seeking military experience, he joined a number of English nobles, among them James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave, later duke of Buckingham and Normanby, serving as volunteers in the French army. Verney ms mic. M636/30, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 6 Aug. 1677.

Lumley’s return to town in November 1678, in defiance of the proclamation requiring all Catholics to remain away from London, prompted speculation that he may have abjured his religion and taken the oaths. His way of life had already been the cause of censure from members of the Catholic elite. He had responded unenthusiastically to efforts to persuade him to marry in the middle of the decade, being too taken up with the ‘loose and pleasurable condition he lives in’ during which he fathered at least one ‘illegitimate brat’. Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to Sir R. Verney, 21 Nov. 1678; TNA, PRO 30/53/7/121. Early in 1679, contradicting the former report, it was rumoured that he was to be committed as a papist for being in London without license. By then he appears to have resolved to abjure his religion and in April of that year he began attending Church of England services openly. It was also speculated that he was to marry one of the daughters of Charles Powlett, 6th marquess of Winchester, later duke of Bolton, though no such match resulted. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 6 Jan., 7 Apr. 1679. Early rumours of his elevation to an English barony circulated in October of that year and in November he accompanied York to Scotland. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 1679. The following year (1680) he joined the volunteers recruited by Mulgrave to reinforce the garrison at Tangier. Verney ms mic. M636/34, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 3 June 1680.

Lumley owed his eventual elevation to an English barony to the need for the embattled former lord treasurer, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds, to bolster his support in the House to free him from imprisonment. Danby was compelled to plead with the king to speed the process in spite of concerns that seem to have been voiced about the impropriety of advancing so recent a convert from catholicism. Writing in February 1681, Danby pointed out that:

Neither the pretence of his being a new convert nor the pretensions of others to new honours can be any real or good objections against him because he has given a sufficient testimony of his being a true convert… and everybody has so well known of his lordship’s having a warrant so very long that nobody can pretend to take any just exception to it. Add. 28049, f. 132.

In the event, in spite of Danby’s entreaty and reports from the second week of May 1681 that his promotion was imminent, Lumley’s advancement to an English barony was delayed until the end of the month: too late for him to attend the Oxford Parliament and assist Danby. Bodl. Carte 222, f. 300; Castle Ashby, 1092, newsletter to Northampton, 12 May 1681. The same month he was one of a number of lords to rally to the defence of another peer, subscribing the petition for the king to grant a pardon to Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, who was accused of being a party to the killing of William Sneeth. TNA, SP 29/415/192. He was also one of those to attend at king’s bench for the proceedings against Fitzharris. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 41; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 80-2.

Reports that Lumley was also to receive an Irish earldom proved inaccurate but the same year he was rewarded with further marks of distinction when he replaced Louis de Duras, 2nd earl of Feversham, as master of the horse to the queen. Verney ms mic. M636/35, J. to E. Verney, 2 May 1681; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 86. Lumley’s tenure as master of the horse proved brief and ill-tempered as a result of disputes with his counterpart, Charles Lennox, duke of Richmond, the master of the horse to the king, or more probably with Richmond’s mother, as Richmond was at that stage still a minor, and the commissioners responsible for discharging the office. Sainty and Bucholz, Royal Household, ii. 58. On his appointment, Lumley had insisted on being permitted a greater degree of independence of the king’s master of the horse than the place had hitherto been allowed but within a year reports circulated of tension existing between the two departments. Lumley was rumoured to be on the point of resigning his place in January 1682 and the following month Narcissus Luttrell^‡ reported that Lumley had laid down the office. Reresby mems. 247; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 167. Although this proved premature, two years later, in February 1684, Lumley was ordered out of Whitehall and removed from his post. HMC Portland, iii. 377; Add. 75361, Chesterfield to Halifax, 7 Feb. 1684; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 41, Yard to Poley, 15 Feb. 1684. The following month it was reported that he intended to travel to Flanders to join the prince of Orange’s army for the forthcoming campaign. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 43, Yard to Poley, 24 Mar. 1684. Lumley’s discomfiture at home proved short-lived, as in October he replaced Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, as treasurer to the queen. Notwithstanding his own travails, Lumley remained loyal to Danby whose efforts to be bailed in June 1682 and again in February 1684 he supported. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 200; Eg. 3358 F, petition of Danby, 1684. One of several adventurers to be reprimanded over unlicensed trading into the East Indies in February 1685, he nevertheless continued to invest actively in a number of trading companies, attracting further censures on occasion. Morrice, Entring Bk. ii. 507-8.

Lumley finally took his seat in the House at the opening of the first Parliament of the new reign on 19 May 1685 introduced between Thomas Colepeper, 2nd Baron Colepeper, and Richard Butler, Baron Butler of Weston, more usually known as earl of Arran [I], after which he was present on just under 40 per cent of all sitting days. He seems not to have taken a prominent role in the House’s business during the session and was not named to any committees. The following month, in response to Monmouth’s rebellion, he raised a troop of horse and in July he was instrumental in the capture of both Monmouth and his neighbour, Ford Grey, 3rd Baron Grey of Warke, later earl of Tankerville, following their defeat at Sedgemoor. Verney ms mic. M636/40, J. to Sir R. Verney, 15 July 1685; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 352-3. He later interposed with the king personally on two occasions to secure Grey’s pardon. HMC Lords, iv. 46-7.

Following the successful suppression of the rebellion, Lumley’s regiment was despatched to Holland in September 1685, but it seems unlikely that he accompanied it on campaign at this time. Verney ms mic. M636/40, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 22 Sept. 1685. Appointed one of the peers to try Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer, later earl of Warrington, in January 1686, by November of that year reports circulated both that Lumley had resigned his commission and had been put out of office. JRL, Legh of Lyme mss, newsletter, 9 Jan. 1686; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 294; NAS, GD 406/1/3375. Although these proved to be premature it is clear that by that time he had already developed connections with the opposition. In January 1687 he was listed among those opposed to repeal of the Test and the following month he finally relinquished his command. Add. 34526, ff. 48-56; Add. 34510, f. 12; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 393. In April Lumley’s brother Henry also converted to the Church of England and the following month Lumley was one of those peers to be assessed an opponent of the king’s policies. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs, 42, f. 157; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 398. Being, according to Macaulay, well aware that he was by now ‘abhorred at Whitehall, not only as a heretic but as a renegade’, Lumley proved a willing recruit to those plotting against the regime. In May he travelled to Holland to wait on the prince of Orange in company with Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, and he was later sought out by the prince’s envoy, Dijkvelt, during his mission to England. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 191-2; Macaulay, History, iii. 1053; Carswell, Descent on England, 94n. In November 1687 Lumley was again listed among those opposed to repeal. HR, xlv.118-20. The same month a report was lodged against Lumley again for trading in the East Indies in contravention of the king’s charter as a result of which Lumley was ordered to pay £300 to the East India Company. BL, OIOC, B/39 Court of Directors Minutes, p.77.

Listed among the opposition to repeal once again in January 1688, the same month Lumley was also included in a list compiled by Danby of those opposed to the king’s policies in general. Lumley’s connections within the army no doubt made him a useful recruit to the conspiracy within the officer corps hatched that year. Working with Shrewsbury, he was active in attempting to mobilize a petition on behalf of the seven bishops and he was also mentioned as a possible surety for Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Bristol, at the time of the bishops’ trial. Horwitz, Rev. Pols, 51; Bodl. Tanner 28, f.76; Add. 34515, ff. 77-8. Following their acquittal, Lumley secured his place in the mythology of the Revolution of 1688 by joining Shrewsbury and his kinsman, Henry Compton, bishop of London, as one of the ‘immortal seven’ signatories of the invitation to William of Orange to intervene in the country’s affairs. Kingdom without a King, 17.

Noted among those involved in meetings in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire in advance of the Revolution, on the news of William of Orange’s invasion Lumley was one of the first to rise against James’s regime in the winter of 1688. Bodl. Carte 130, f. 307; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 345-6. He joined Danby and a number of other peers at York, having evaded half-hearted attempts made to seize him by Henry Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, on the orders of James’s secretary of state, Charles Middleton^‡, 2nd earl of Middleton [S]. Eg. 3335, f. 74; Add. 41805, ff. 142-3, 212-13. The instability of the coalition that had been cobbled together as well as Lumley’s naturally quarrelsome nature was demonstrated by reports of Delamer and Hugh Cholmondeley, Viscount (later earl of) Cholmondeley, being discontented with Lumley and Danby’s leadership as well as by Lumley nearly coming to blows with Robert Bertie, styled Lord Willoughby de Eresby, later duke of Ancaster, during the rising. The two were forced to agree to arbitration to resolve their differences. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 356; Eg. 3336, ff. 1-2, 4-5. Lumley more than proved his worth for the rebels by making use of his contacts in the north-east to ensure the taking of Durham and Berwick, though he appears to have had less success at Newcastle in spite of early reports. Bodl. Rawl. letters 67, f. 4; Add. 34510, ff. 190-1; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 349; Verney ms mic. M636/43, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 5 Dec. 1688. As a former Catholic, his motives clearly excited local suspicion and one commentator, unconvinced of his sincerity, professed that ‘if King James bid him set up a golden calf, he would do it.’ Bodl. Rawl. letters 51, no. 166. He secured Durham, acting as well as a point of contact for members of the Scottish nobility rising in support of the Revolution, but before he could complete the operation in Northumberland, Lumley was despatched to convey the congratulations of the northern lords to the prince. Eg. 3336, f. 22; Browning, Danby, i. 416; Add. 18675, f. 48. He then took his place amongst the majority of the nobles gathered in the provisional government at the meeting in the queen’s presence chamber on 21 Dec. and the following day in the House of Lords. Kingdom without a King, 124; Bodl. ms Eng. hist. d. 307, ff. 12-13. On 24 Dec. in response to the debates about whether or not the House should read the king’s letter to Middleton, Lumley interposed that, ‘if it had been a public letter, it would have been communicated, otherwise it is not to be sent for.’ Kingdom without a King, 159.

The Reign of William III, 1689-1702

Despite his activities in the far north securing strategic locations for the prince, Lumley seems not to have exercised much interest in the northern boroughs during the elections for the Convention. Nor does he seem to have exerted himself in Sussex at this time. He took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689 (of which he attended approximately 47 per cent of all sitting days) and on 31 Jan. he voted in favour of the declaration of William and Mary as king and queen. He then registered his dissent when the Lords resolved not to concur with the Commons in declaring the throne to be vacant. On 4 Feb. Lumley again voted to concur with the Commons in employing the term ‘abdicated’, registering a further dissent when this, too, was rejected. Two days later he again voted in favour of employing the term ‘abdicated’ and the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’. He was nominated one of the managers of a conference concerning the Lords’ amendments to the declaration of William and Mary as king and queen on 9 February. Later that month, he was rewarded for his role in the Revolution and his support for the new king and queen with appointment to the Privy Council and to a place in the king’s bedchamber. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 532, v. 15; HMC Portland, iii. 428; Add. 70014, f. 155. Lady Lumley was appointed to the queen’s bedchamber. Redefining William III ed. E. Mijers and D. Onnekink, 247. Lumley was not, though, appointed to the office of treasurer of the household, to which he had been recommended by Gilbert Burnet, later bishop of Salisbury. Add. 32681, ff. 317-18. On 8 Mar. 1689 he was one of a handful of peers ordered to attend the king with the House’s thanks for his answer to their address. The same month he was appointed lord lieutenant of Northumberland. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 513. Further advancement followed in April with his appointment as colonel of the first troop of Life Guards and with a step in the peerage. Cheshire ALS, Cholmondeley mss, DCH/K/3/8. Following the king’s instructions, the patent for Lumley’s viscountcy was passed in time for him to attend the coronation of 11 Apr. in his new dignity. Two days later (on 13 Apr.) he was introduced in the House between Francis Newport, Viscount Newport, later earl of Bradford, and Thomas Thynne. Viscount Weymouth. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 57. On 10 May he received the proxy of his friend, Grey of Warke, which was vacated by Grey’s return to the House on 30 May. Granted leave of absence to go about the king’s affairs on 22 May, he registered his own proxy with Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney, later earl of Romney, the same day after which he was away from the House for two months. Engaged with lieutenancy business during this period, a report in June revealed that he was in the north ‘in pursuit of an association made in behalf of King James’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 130. He returned to the House on 2 July 1689, thereby vacating the proxy, and was then present through much of the remainder of the month and for six days in August and one in October. On 27 July he acted as one of the tellers in the division over whether to hold a free conference with the Commons to discuss the amendments to the bill for reversing Titus Oates’s sentence for perjury. The motion was rejected by 31 votes to 18 and the Lords instead appointed the conference to be held the following Monday. HMC Lords, ii. 261. Lumley returned to the House for the second session of the Convention on 23 Oct. 1689, of which he attended 62 per cent of all sitting days. Excused at a call five days later, he resumed his seat once more on 30 Oct. and on 11 Nov. he was added to the committee for inspections. On 28 Nov. he again received Grey of Warke’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session.

Reckoned as among the supporters of the court in a list compiled by the marquess of Carmarthen (as Danby had become) between October 1689 and February 1690, although one who needed to be spoken to, Lumley was reported to be one of those to be appointed a lord justice in the king’s absence at the beginning of 1690 and in March it was further speculated that he was to be appointed lord privy seal, though nothing came of this latter suggestion. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 411. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar, after which he was present on just under 80 per cent of all sitting days. Absent at a call on 31 Mar. he resumed his seat the following day and two weeks later he was advanced in the peerage once more as earl of Scarbrough. He took his place in his new dignity on 21 Apr., John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, and Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, introducing him. Later that month (April) the Commons sent for him, as lord lieutenant of Northumberland, to explain reports of unrest in the north. Verney ms mic. M636/44, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 16 Apr. 1690. Scarbrough accompanied the king to Ireland in June and the following month he was present at the Boyne as colonel of the 1st troop of Horse Guards. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 32. Although his conduct during the battle was called into question and, according to one (Jacobite) source, he was upbraided by the king for refusing to obey an order to advance against the enemy cavalry being rather too anxious to preserve his own skin, imputations of cowardice or incompetence were rapidly scotched and it was broadly accepted that ‘he acted according to the best of his judgment and conscience, and was no way defective in point of fidelity nor courage.’ HMC Finch, ii. 464; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 526.

For the remainder of the Irish campaign, Scarbrough may have acted as master of the ordnance in place of the previous holder of the post, Frederick Herman Schomberg, duke of Schomberg, who had been killed at the Boyne, but if so it proved a temporary expedient and the office was left vacant until 1693 when it was awarded to Romney. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 72. Scarbrough returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 9 Oct. after which he was present on 40 days of the 73-day session. On 29 Nov. he was added (along with two other peers) to the committee for the bill concerning the distressed orphans of the City of London and on 2 Jan. 1691 he acted as one of the tellers for the division concerning the adoption of a proviso within the bill for suspending the navigation acts, which was voted down by a single vote. HMC Lords, iii. 249. Three days later, the final day on which he sat in the session, he acted as one of the managers of a series of four conferences concerning the same business. Scarbrough accompanied the king on campaign again in May. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 233. The following month his quarrelsome nature again came to the fore when an argument with Bolton’s son, Charles Powlett, styled marquess of Winchester (later 2nd duke of Bolton), over the ‘good service to the government’ of Sir John Trenchard^‡ (which Scarbrough was eager to defend) resulted in a duel, during which Winchester was disarmed and slightly wounded. HP Commons 1690-1715, v. 185; Add. 70015, f. 101; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 246. Scarbrough took his seat in the House for the new session on 22 Oct. after which he was present on approximately 44 per cent of all sitting days. On 9 Jan. 1692 he received the proxy of Edward Clinton, 5th earl of Lincoln, which was vacated on 1 Feb., and on 12 Jan. he acted as teller for those opposed to receiving the divorce bill of his Sussex neighbour Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, though the House resolved in favour of receiving the bill by 51 to 43 votes (including proxies). HMC Lords, iv. 18. Absent from the House from 19 Jan., on 22 Jan. Scarbrough registered his own proxy with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham. He returned to the Lords on 17 February. His absence may have been the result of the birth of his third son, William, for whom the king stood godfather that month. HMC Hastings, ii. 338. Following the close of the session it was again rumoured that Scarbrough was to be appointed master of the ordnance. Add. 70289, f. 5. Although he was again unsuccessful in securing the post, he travelled to Flanders in April at the head of his regiment ‘having prepared a splendid equipage’. The following month he was promoted major-general. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 393, 395, 399, 416, 422, 456.

Scarbrough returned to England at the close of the campaign season in company with the king and took his seat in the new session on 4 Nov. 1692 (after which he was present on almost 73 per cent of all sitting days). Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 600. On 8 Nov. he was involved in a debate in committee of the whole House concerning a reduction in the ordnance. On 19 Nov. he acted as one of the tellers for the division over reversing a chancery decree in the cause Newton v. Ballett: the motion was rejected by 24 to 19 votes. HMC Lords, iv. 93. The following month, Scarbrough complained to the House that one John Slaughter, a plumber from Rochester, had counterfeited a protection in his name. Following further investigation of the matter, the House ordered Slaughter to be attached. HMC Lords, iv. 248; LJ xv. 135-6. Scarbrough acted as a teller again on 7 Dec. for the division over holding a conference with the Commons to consider the state of the nation, which proposal was rejected by 48 votes to 36, and the following day he acted as teller again following a vote in a committee of the whole on the question of whether to agree to a reduction in the ordnance, which was passed by three votes. HMC Lords, iv. 180-1. Scarbrough voted against committing the place bill on 31 December. In spite of his former opposition, he was forecast as a likely supporter of Norfolk’s second divorce bill the following month, the first having been thrown out by the House the previous year. The reason for his change of heart is uncertain, but on 2 Jan. 1693 he voted accordingly in favour of reading the bill. One of the other causes célèbres of the session was the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, in which Scarbrough took a close interest. On 31 Jan. he subscribed the protest at the decision not to proceed with the trial. On 3 Feb. he was one of several peers to submit queries to the judges on technical points surrounding the law of murder and the following day he found Mohun not guilty of murder. HMC Lords, iv. 296; State Trials, xii. 1048-9. On 15 Feb. he registered his proxy with Carmarthen, which was vacated when he resumed his seat on 21 February.

Scarbrough was rumoured to be one of two senior officers to be promoted lieutenant-general in February 1693. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 34. In March he was granted a post warrant to travel to Durham but the following month he returned to Flanders for the new campaigning season. CSP Dom. 1693, p. 79; Bodl. Tanner 25, f. 34, Carte 233, f. 93. He returned to England in time to take his seat in the House for the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on just over half of all sitting days. On 8 Dec, following the third reading of the bill for frequent parliaments, he acted as one of the tellers in the division over giving a third reading to a proviso, which was rejected duly by a margin of 18 votes. On 17 Feb. 1694 he voted in favour of reversing the court of chancery’s dismission of the case Montagu v. Bath. The same day he entered his dissent at the decision to dismiss the petition submitted by Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, and on 24 Feb. Scarbrough entered a further dissent at the order to dismiss Montagu’s petition for exhibits in the case to be produced. On 23 Apr., following debate in a committee of the whole, he acted as one of the tellers for the division over whether to allow a clause in the tonnage bill to stand apart but the motion was carried by 12 votes. The same month, Scarbrough was mentioned in correspondence between Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, and Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Carlisle, in which the duke commented that he had put a stop to Scarbrough’s design. It is unclear what he meant by this but it may have been related to their rival interests in Sussex. Castle Howard, J8/37/2.

Scarbrough returned to England from another campaigning season in early October, narrowly avoiding being drowned on his journey home. Bodl. Carte 79, ff. 645-7. He was finally promoted lieutenant-general that autumn and in December it was speculated that he was also to be appointed constable of the Tower, though this failed to transpire. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 410; Add. 17677 OO, f. 420. He delayed taking his seat for more than a month after the opening of the new session, only returning to the chamber on 21 Dec. 1694. Thereafter he was present on a further 65 days (55 per cent of the whole). On 21 Jan. 1695 he acted as teller following two divisions in committee of the whole concerning the treason trials bill. The first motion, to read for a second time an amended clause requiring that in the case of peers’ treason trials all peers with a right to sit should be summoned at least 20 days in advance of any trial, was carried by two votes and the second, that the clause should be adopted as part of the bill, was carried by a majority of seven. On both occasions Scarbrough acted as teller for those in favour of the motion. The clause was subsequently rejected by the Commons but insisted on by the Lords. The following day (22 Jan.), he again acted as teller in the same business, though this time on behalf of those opposed to a clause preventing prisoners from challenging the charges against them on the basis of scribal mistakes in the indictment. On this occasion, Scarbrough sided with the minority. HMC Lords, n.s. i. 418-19. Scarbrough’s efforts throughout the debates on this ultimately failed piece of legislation were governed by an interest in protecting the rights of those indicted from ‘arbitrary government’ which accords well with his justification for rebellion against the previous regime. Scarbrough was named one of the managers of a conference with the Commons considering the bill on 16 February. On 19 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the passage of the bill permitting the heirs of the sole surviving daughters of peers summoned by writ to a writ of summons and on 21 Mar. he acted as one of the tellers for the division over whether to allow the bill for foreign seamen to be reported to the House (which was approved by three votes). Scarbrough was again named a manager of a conference considering the bill to oblige Sir Thomas Cooke^‡ to account for money received from the East India Company on 13 April. Two days later he was again a manager of a further conference concerning the treason trials bill and of a subsequent conference on the same business on 20 April.

Present as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament on 18 June and 30 July, Scarbrough took his seat in the House for the new Parliament on 22 November. Bodl. Carte 239, ff. 19-20. Thereafter he was present on almost 68 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was nominated one of the managers of two conferences concerning the bill for regulating silver coinage on 3 and 7 Jan. 1696. On 10 Jan. he registered his proxy with Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat three days later. The following month (10 Feb.) he introduced his friend Grey of Warke as earl of Tankerville. Scarbrough again acted as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament on 28 July and during the recess was engaged in building work at Stansted. Add. 61456, ff. 24-5. He took his seat in the following session on 30 Oct. after which he attended approximately 68 per cent of all sitting days. Scarbrough took a prominent role during the debates on the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡, bt, responding to one speech made by Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, questioning the proceedings, by justifying the use of attainders in general and the Fenwick attainder in particular, as ‘there never was a fairer than this.’ WSHC, 2667/25/7. On 15 Dec. he acted as teller on the question of whether to read information concerning the case, which was passed by a majority of 20. On 23 Dec. the House was forced to interpose between Scarbrough and John Jeffreys, 2nd Baron Jeffreys, to prevent them from coming to blows in a heated exchange during the Fenwick debate. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 285. Unsurprisingly, Scarbrough voted in favour of attainting Fenwick the same day, acting as one of the tellers on the motion (presumably on behalf of those in favour of passing the bill). Add. 47608 pt. 5, f. 138; Staffs. RO, Persehowse pprs. D260/M/F/1/6, ff. 96-8.

Scarbrough was named one of the peers appointed to arbitrate in a long-running dispute between Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, and his heir, George Hastings, styled Lord Hastings, later 8th earl of Huntingdon, on 21 Jan. 1697. The following day both Scarbrough and Bishop Compton were ordered to attend the king with an address requesting that Fenwick’s execution should be delayed, following a petition to the House submitted by Lady Fenwick. Scarbrough reported the king’s answer on 23 Jan. communicating his somewhat grudging agreement to the House’s request. Scarbrough continued to be active during the session, being nominated a manager of a conference concerning the bill to prohibit India silks on 5 Mar. and on 19 Mar. he subscribed the dissent at the Lords’ insistence on their amendments to the order for restraining the wearing of wrought silks and calicoes. A few days before, on 9 Mar., he had received the proxy of Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle, which was vacated by Albemarle’s resumption of his seat on 17 March. He received the proxy once again on 19 March. It was vacated three days later. On 15 Apr, in a committee of the whole, Scarbrough told in favour of the motion for adopting a clause within the stock-jobbing restraint bill, though this was rejected by a single vote.

Scarbrough served as a commissioner for proroguing Parliament on 22 July, 26 Aug. 30 Sept and 23 Nov 1697. He then took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec. after which he was present on 57 per cent of all sitting days. On 10 Jan. 1698 he received the proxy of Thomas Wentworth, 2nd Baron Raby, later earl of Strafford, which was vacated by Raby’s return to the House on 21 June. On 7 Mar. Scarbrough was named one of the managers of the conference concerning the amendments to the bill for explaining poor relief and on 15 Mar. he voted in favour of committing the bill to punish Charles Duncombe^‡, subscribing the dissent of the same day when the House rejected the bill. On 12 May he reported from the committee of the whole on the malt bill, which was declared fit to pass, and on 30 June he received the proxy of William Henry Nassau de Zuylestein, earl of Rochford, which was vacated by the close of the session. The same month he was mentioned as one of several peers with an interest in blocking the progress of the Aire and Calder Navigation Act. Cumbria RO, D/Lons/L1/1/36/7.

Scarbrough was expected in Sussex towards the end of July 1698, where he employed his interest in the elections in the county along with Tankerville and Somerset. W. Suss. RO, Petworth House Archives/14, Tankerville to [Somerset], 20 July 1698. He returned to London for the beginning of the new session, riding with the king in his coach to the opening of Parliament on 6 December. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 458. Such cordial relations with King William no doubt encouraged rumours that circulated early the following year that he was to be appointed lord chamberlain. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 59; Bodl. Carte 228, ff. 281, 290. Having taken his seat he was thereafter present on 48 days of the 81-day session. Early in 1699 he was one of several ‘persons of note’ to withdraw their deposits from the Bank of England. Scarbrough was reported to have taken £3,000 out of the bank at that time, contributing to a significant decline in the bank’s stock. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 472. On 29 Mar. 1699 he reported from the committee considering the bill concerning Lordington Manor, an estate close to his lands in Sussex, which was considered fit to pass with amendments. Although Scarbrough’s regiment was exempted from disbandment at the time, he retired from the army in 1699. He sold his colonelcy to Albemarle for a reputed £12,000. Add. 61292, f. 1; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 492. Scarbrough was noted as being one of those present at entertainments hosted by Leeds (as Carmarthen now was) and Henry d’Auverquerque*, earl of Grantham, in the late summer of 1699. Bodl. Carte 228, ff. 325, 328. He returned to the House for the new session on 13 Dec. but was then present on just over a third of all sitting days. On 23 Feb. 1700 he voted against adjourning into committee of the whole House to discuss amendments to the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation.

The summer of 1700 found Scarbrough one of several local magnates hosting a series of political meetings at various seats in Sussex. Add. 72539, f. 71. In the subsequent election of January 1701 Scarbrough’s brother, Brigadier Henry Lumley, successfully contested Sussex with Somerset’s support, though it seems reasonable to assume that he was also able to call upon his brother’s local interest. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 596. Scarbrough took his seat in the first Parliament of 1701 on 11 Feb. (of which he attended a little under two thirds of all sitting days) and on 17 June he voted for the acquittal of the Junto peer, John Somers, Baron Somers. He also voted to acquit Edward Russell, earl of Orford, on 23 June. PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/36. Nominated that month to the committee for a union with Scotland, on 18 Sept. he acted as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 91.

Scarbrough joined Somers, Orford and three other peers in bearing the pall at the funeral of Charles Gerard, 2nd earl of Macclesfield, in November. Post Boy, 25-27 Nov. 1701. He then took his seat in the new Parliament on 19 Jan. 1702 after which he was present on 54 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 22 Jan. the House concurred with a recommendation made by Scarbrough and Charles Bodvile Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor, to recommend Colonel Baldwin to the king and on 2 Mar. the Lords upheld Scarbrough’s complaint against one John Batchelor, who had stolen one of the earl’s horses and absconded. Although Batchelor was ordered to present himself at the bar, a few days later he was discharged at Scarbrough’s request. LJ xvii. 59-62. Included among the managers of the conference appointed to consider the death of the king and accession of Queen Anne on 8 Mar, on 23 Mar. Scarbrough reported from the committee for Edward Mansell’s bill as being fit to pass with amendments. Towards the close of the session, on 4 May, he was then one of those appointed to lay before the queen a report concerning documents that were said to have been discovered among the late king’s papers to the prejudice of the queen’s succession.

The Reign of Anne, 1702-14

Although Scarbrough’s countess was preferred by being appointed to the queen’s bedchamber, it was rumoured that Scarbrough himself was to be removed from his lieutenancy shortly after the queen’s accession. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 14 Apr. 1702; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 163. In the event he maintained his position but the threat to his local office may explain his apparent intention of resuming his military career that summer and his request to be awarded a commission without pay. The request caused John Churchill*, earl (soon to be duke) of Marlborough, to comment caustically to Sidney Godolphin*, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, that, ‘I do not well see how the queen can refuse it, although it were much better that none had commissions but such as are proper to serve.’ Marlborough-Godolphin corresp. i. 84. Scarbrough took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Oct. 1702, after which he was present on half of all sitting days. On 17 Dec. he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the occasional conformity bill and about Jan. 1703 Nottingham noted him as doubtful over the measure. On 9 Jan. he was again a manager of a second conference considering the bill and on 16 Jan. he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the penalty clause. HR, xli.188-90. In the midst of his involvement with this bill, Scarbrough also took an interest in the bill for providing for Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, seconding an objection raised by Carlisle in a debate in committee of the whole, against part of the measure that it amounted to tacking. Nicolson, London Diaries, 165. Scarbrough’s association with the army appears to have revived at this time and in January he presided over the court martial of Sir Charles O’Hara, later Baron Tyrawley [I], who was subsequently acquitted of the charge of plundering the inquisitor general’s house at Cadiz. Add. 70075, newsletter, 9 Jan. 1703.

In advance of the new session, Scarbrough was assessed by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely opponent of the occasional conformity bill in two forecasts drawn up in November. Having taken his seat on 6 Dec. 1703 (after which he was present on approximately 58 per cent of all sitting days), he was again listed among those opposed to the measure in a further assessment compiled a few days later. The same day (14 Dec.), Scarbrough informed the House of the contents of a letter sent to his brother, Henry Lumley, by Boucher, who was one of a number of suspected Jacobites lately taken into custody. POAS, vi. 616-17. In response to the letter’s revelations, the House ordered the arrest of a number of other suspects and Scarbrough was subsequently one of the seven lords chosen by ballot to examine the Scottish prisoners, though he received the fewest votes of the seven. Add. 70075, newsletter, 21 Dec. 1703. He then joined with five of his colleagues in seeking to be excused from serving but the House overruled all of the excuses submitted and the entry was expunged from the minutes. HMC Lords, n.s. v. 300-1. On 19 Feb. 1704 he was one of eight peers nominated to examine William Keith and three days later was again one of a select committee appointed to examine the Scottish conspiracy. On 24 Mar. he subscribed the protest when the House voted not to put the question whether the information contained in the examination of Sir John Maclean was imperfect. Following the close of the session, Scarbrough travelled to his northern lieutenancy where he was presented with information that had been seized from a suspected Jacobite. Add. 70263, M. White to R. Harley, 26 May 1704. He seems to have returned to London by June when he was involved as a referee in a dispute involving James Stanley, 10th earl of Derby, and his sister-in-law, the dowager countess. Add. 61295, ff. 128-9.

Scarbrough took his seat in the new session on 23 Nov. 1704 (of which he attended approximately 43 per cent of all sitting days) and the same day he seconded Halifax’s motion for an adjournment. On 15 Dec. he joined with Thomas Wharton*, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, Charles Montagu*, Baron (later earl of) Halifax, Mohun and Somers in opposing giving the occasional conformity bill a second reading. Nicolson, London Diaries, 234, 254. Named to the committee appointed to consider the heads for a conference with the Commons concerning the Ailesbury men on 27 Feb. 1705, on 12 Mar. Scarbrough reported from the committee for the militia bill. The following day, he reported from the committee again and, having been nominated one of the managers of a conference concerning amendments to the militia bill, he reported the effect of the conference to the Lords. The same day he was also named a manager of the conference for the amendments to the act for naturalizing Jacob Pechels and others. The following month he was noted as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession. Stowe 224, ff. 330-1.

In spite of all his efforts on behalf of his brother standing for Sussex in the 1705 general election, Scarbrough’s ‘great interest’ combined with the active support of John Ashburnham, Baron Ashburnham, on behalf of ‘cousin Lumley’ was able only to secure 895 votes, while Richmond’s candidate, Sir Henry Peachey^‡ was forced into third place by Sir George Parker^‡ leaving the other seat to be taken comfortably by John Morley Trevor^‡. E. Suss. RO, ASH 845, Ashburnham to Scarbrough, 31 May 1705; W. Suss. RO, Goodwood ms 19. Scarbrough resumed his seat on 25 Oct. but the same day he registered his proxy with John Holles, duke of Newcastle, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 11 December. Thereafter he attended a further 36 of the 95 sitting days of the session, and on 19 Mar. 1706 he reported from the committee for the low wines bill as fit to pass. Named one of the commissioners for Union with Scotland that year, following the close of the session he was mentioned alongside Wharton by one John Bell as a friend, prepared to use his interest to enable him to move from collection of the salt duty to that of customs in Newcastle. Add. 70210, J. Bell to R. Harley, 27 Aug. 1706.

Scarbrough introduced William Carr^‡ to the queen with the loyal address from Newcastle-on-Tyne in August. London Gazette, 22-26 Aug. 1706. He then took his seat in the House on 9 Dec. 1706 after which he was present on 57 per cent of all sitting days in the session. Active in the discussions surrounding Union, on 3 Feb. 1707 he was one of several peers noted by William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, to pick holes in the archbishop of Canterbury’s bill concerning the status of the Church of England, taking the opportunity to lecture the House on various aspects of Anglo-Scottish history including Glencoe and the experience of the Darien company. Nicolson, London Diaries, 414. It has been pointed out since that the speech’s impact was undermined by Scarbrough’s muddling of John Hay, 2nd marquess of Tweeddale [S], (at whom he levelled much of the blame for the current ills of the Scots nation) with his father, the first marquess. Riley, Union of England and Scotland, 304. On 15 Feb. Scarbrough pushed for amendments to the five articles of the Union bill considered that day, though the House overwhelmingly rejected the motion to postpone the first article that provided for the union of the two kingdoms on 1 May. The following week (21 Feb.) he again expressed his reservations over parts of the bill, worried that the 18th article, relating to trade, would have an adverse effect on English manufacturing towns such as Halifax and Leeds, but he again found himself in the minority. Nicolson London Diaries, 418-19. On 28 Mar. he registered his proxy with Newcastle again, which was vacated by the close of the session. Absent for the entirety of the brief third session of April 1707 he took his seat in the new Parliament on 23 Oct. 1707 after which he was present on 71 per cent of all sitting days. In December, he was the only peer to voice his opposition to Somers’ ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion, desiring that:

it might be considered how lightly they run over a thing of the greatest moment. That this motion if approved by the House would tie up their hands from making peace, even though misfortunes of war should make it become our interest. That they had not yet debated whether a peace might not be made by dividing the Spanish monarchy, and that we should take care of involving ourselves too far, for that if our allies should ever think of peace by a partition, we should be obliged to comply, and eat our own words, or else obstinately carry the war on singly to our undoing.

Scarbrough’s objections were answered by Godolphin and Halifax. HMC Egmont, ii. 221; Holmes, British Politics, 77-8. Scarbrough reported from the committee for the Caldecott estate bill on 12 Feb. 1708 and on 23 Feb. he acted as teller for those in favour of hearing the remainder of the evidence in the case Bunker v. Cooke the following day. On 26 Mar. he reported from the committee for Sir Ralph Milbanke’s estate act.

Reckoned (unusually) a Tory in a printed list of peers’; political affiliations in May 1708, the following month Scarbrough again demonstrated his anti-Scots prejudice by laying the blame for the decision to bring up several Scottish lords as prisoners on their own countrymen rather than on the English peers as others had suggested. NAS, Mar and Kellie, GD124/15/831/31. In August he seems to have played host to the duchess of Marlborough at his house in Sussex. Add. 61456, ff. 134-5. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 16 Nov. after which he was present on approximately 70 per cent of all sitting days. Shortly after the session’s opening, Sir Henry Peachey’s decision to opt to sit in the Commons for Sussex, rather than Arundel left the way open for Scarbrough’s heir, Henry Lumley^‡, styled Viscount Lumley, to take Arundel at the ensuing by-election, assisted no doubt by his father’s interest in the borough. Lumley’s success marked the beginning of a 40-year dominance of the town by Scarbrough and his successors, who were able to secure at least one of Arundel’s seats at each election during that period. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 599. On 21 Jan. 1709 Scarbrough voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles from voting in the elections for Scots representative peers. The following month he appears to have joined with Godolphin in opposing the petition presented by the Scots representative peer, William Johnston, marquess of Annandale [S], about electoral malpractice in the recent elections. Add. 72488, ff. 49-50. On 4 Mar. he reported from the committee for the Smithfield cattle bill. Scarbrough continued to be an active member of the House for the remainder of the session. On 15 Mar. he acted as one of the tellers following a division held in the committee of the whole for the foreign protestants’ naturalization bill on the motion whether certain words should stand apart, which was carried by a majority of 30. On 28 Mar. 1709 he subscribed the protest at the decision not to give a second reading to a rider to the treason bill requiring that all those accused of treason should receive a copy of the indictment at least five days before the trial. On 8 Apr. he reported from the committee of the whole for the sewers bill and on 14 Apr. he acted as one of the tellers during consideration of the Union improvement bill on a Commons amendment to the bill. Four days later (18 Apr.) he reported from the committee of the whole on the Bank of England bill and on 21 Apr. he was nominated one of the reporters of a conference on the bill for the continuation of acts to prevent coining.

Scarbrough took his seat in the second session on 15 Nov. 1709, and attended approximately 63 per cent of all sitting days. In January he seconded Rochester’s motion for the Lords’ debate on the state of the nation to be adjourned owing to the indisposition of John Thompson, Baron Haversham, and on 16 Feb. 1710 he registered his dissent at the failure to require James Greenshields to attend the House before his appeal was received. HMC Downshire, i. 887; Add. 72491, ff. 2-3. Rebelling against his usual Whig sympathies though, Scarbrough rallied to the cause of the disgraced cleric, Henry Sacheverell, in March (one of only two Whigs to do so, the other being Shrewsbury). Holmes, Sacheverell, 226. The reason for his refusal to condemn Sacheverell is unclear but was presumably connected with his fierce dislike of Dissent. On 14 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the decision that it was unnecessary to include in an impeachment the actual words deemed criminal and the same day dissented at the resolution not to adjourn. Two days later he protested again, first at the decision to put the question whether the Commons had made good the first article against Sacheverell and second at the House’s concurrence with the Commons. On 20 Mar. Scarbrough found Sacheverell not guilty of the charges against him, entering a further dissent at the ensuing guilty verdict. Add. 15574, ff. 65-8. The following day he dissented again from the censure passed against the doctor. On 22 Mar. Scarbrough reported from the committee of the whole for the gaming bill, informing the House that the committee had made some progress but requested more time, which was granted accordingly, and on 27 Mar. he was nominated one of the managers of a conference concerning amendments to the act concerning Edward Southwell’s marriage settlement. The following day, responding to the aftermath of the poor harvest of the previous year, he moved for the prohibition of the exportation of corn and on 30 Mar. he was one of the managers of a conference concerning amendments to the Eddystone lighthouse bill. Nicolson London Diaries, 490.

Scarbrough was shaken by the premature death of his heir, Viscount Lumley, in April 1710. Both he and his countess were reported to be ‘in true affliction’ for their loss, which came just a year after the death of their younger son, Hon. William Lumley, while serving with the navy in the Mediterranean. Add. 61475, f. 8; Wentworth pprs. 91n. Scarbrough had recovered sufficiently to return to town by the beginning of November. Add. 61456, ff. 70-2. He then took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, in advance of which Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, had listed him as ‘doubtful’. Present on almost 54 per cent of all sitting days, shortly after the opening of the session he moved for an address of thanks to be drafted for John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, in acknowledgement of his services. The proposal was seconded by Richmond but opposed by other peers, notably by Marlborough’s rival John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S], sitting as earl of Greenwich, and it was later dropped by the advice of Marlborough’s friends. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters iv, Ballie to his wife, 28 Nov. 1710; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, f. 87; Wentworth pprs. 159; Timberland, ii. 281. Scarbrough spoke in the debate about the war in Spain on 9 Jan. 1711, urging that ‘the principal point which they ought to take into their consideration, and strictly examine into, were the council of war held in Valencia and the joining of the troops’ led by Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, with those commanded by Henri du Massue du Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I]. Scarbrough spoke again on 11 Jan. during the ongoing debates, demanding that the petitioners might be heard upon oath. Timberland, ii. 284, 312. He then subscribed the consequent protests at the resolutions to reject Galway and Tyrawley’s petitions and to agree with the committee that the defeat at the battle of Almanza had been occasioned by the opinions of Lords Galway, Tyrawley and General James Stanhope^†, later Earl Stanhope). The following day (12 Jan.) he protested again at the resolution to censure the conduct of ministers for approving an offensive war in Spain. On 1 Feb. he acted as one of the tellers following a division in committee of the whole concerning the state of the war in Spain and the following day acted as teller for those opposed to reading the House of Commons officers bill a second time, which was carried by 16 votes. On 3 Feb. he protested again first at the resolution to agree with the committee investigating the campaign that the failure of ministers to supply the deficiencies of men voted by Parliament amounted to a neglect of the service and second at the resolution that the two regiments on the Spanish establishment had not been properly supplied. On 9 Feb. he subscribed three further protests at the resolution to expunge part of the text of the previous protest. The following month, on 9 Mar. Scarbrough was nominated one of the managers of the conference for the queen’s security.

Scarbrough’s heir Richard Lumley^†, styled Viscount Lumley, was the focus of scandal in the autumn of 1711 when he was accused of fathering a child on the marchioness of Lindsey. Add. 22226, f. 25. Scarbrough returned to the House for the new session on 7 Dec. 1711, after which he was present on 80 per cent of all sitting days. Although he had been listed among the Tory patriots of the previous session in a pamphlet published during the summer, he was included in a list compiled by Nottingham in advance of the session, which was possibly an assessment of those thought amenable to joining Nottingham’s alliance with the Whigs. He was also one of several peers interviewed by the queen in an effort to shore up the government’s majority in the House. Gregg, Queen Anne, (2001 edn.), 344. The queen’s arguments, clearly, failed to sway him and on 8 Dec. he was reckoned to be in favour of presenting the address with the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion. On 15 Dec. he supported the motion to bring in the occasional conformity bill and on 19 Dec. he was forecast as being opposed to permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], from taking his seat in the House as duke of Brandon. The following day, predictably, he voted in favour of preventing Scots peers with post-Union British titles from sitting in the Lords. On 17 Jan. 1712 he raised a point of order objecting to a motion made by Edward Hyde, 3rd earl of Clarendon, for an address of thanks to be voted to the queen before the House had heard her speech. Wentworth pprs. 253. Absent for approximately a fortnight after 29 Feb. 1712, on 1 Mar. he registered his proxy with Charles Cornwallis. 4th Baron Cornwallis, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 13 March. He registered the proxy with Cornwallis again on 7 Apr, which was vacated by his return to the House a week later on 14 April. On 17 May he acted as teller for those opposed to reading the grants bill a second time, which was carried in favour of the motion by two votes, and two days later registered his proxy with Cornwallis once more, which was vacated the following day. On 28 May he voted in favour of the opposition motion for overturning the orders preventing James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from initiating an offensive strategy against the French. PH xxvi. 177-81. He then subscribed the protest when the motion failed to carry. On 7 June he protested again at the resolution not to amend the address on the queen’s speech concerning the peace. Two days later he received Orford’s proxy, which was vacated by Orford’s return to the House on 13 June. On 14 June he reported from the committee of the whole for the East India goods bill.

Scarbrough’s disgruntlement with the handling of the war presumably explains his ejection from the lieutenancies of Durham and Newcastle in the spring of 1712 and no doubt drove him further into the arms of the opposition. Post Boy, 29 Apr.- 1 May 1712. His behaviour caused Lady Strafford to wonder how ‘Lady Scarbrough keeps her place, for Lord Scarbrough opposes the Queen in every thing that’s in his power with all the violence in the world.’ Wentworth pprs. 280. In advance of the new session, Jonathan Swift listed Scarbrough as someone likely to oppose the ministry. He took his seat on 9 Apr. 1713, after which he was present on approximately half of all sitting days. In June he spoke in the debate on the state of the nation. On 8 June he subscribed the protest at the passage of the malt tax bill and on 13 June he was reckoned by Oxford to be opposed to the eighth and ninth articles of the French treaty of commerce. Scarbrough returned to the House for the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on 80 per cent of all sitting days. On 25 Feb. he registered his proxy with Sunderland, which was vacated by his return to the House on 19 March. At the beginning of May, Scarbrough submitted a petition for leave to bring in a bill to enable him to enclose land at Thormarton (or Farmington) in Gloucestershire. The bill was committed just over a week later, and on 28 May Halifax reported the bill fit to pass with one amendment. The same day Scarbrough reported from the committee for the bill confirming a mortgage made by Lord Howe, which was also passed with amendments.

In the midst of these proceedings, Scarbrough complained of a breach of his privilege by the arrest of one of his servants on a warrant issued by one of the Sussex justices, Richard Peckham. The matter was referred to the committee for privileges and on 27 May John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, reported that the committee had concluded in Scarbrough’s favour recommending that Peckham should be attached. Peckham was discharged soon after having petitioned for his release on the grounds of being ‘ancient, very infirm and in danger of his life.’ Scarbrough was estimated by Nottingham as being opposed to the schism bill at the close of May. On 4 June he acted as teller for those opposed to rejecting the dissenters’ petition against the measure and on 9 June he acted again as a teller for those opposed to the schism bill following a division in a committee of the whole. On 15 June he protested at the resolution to pass the bill and on 30 June he acted as one of the tellers for the division whether to read the accounts bill a second time (which was passed by 11 votes). On 8 July he entered a further protest at the resolution not to make representation to the queen stating that the benefit of the Asiento contract had been obstructed by the efforts of certain individuals to obtain personal advantages.

Scarbrough attended just two days of the brief August session that met in the wake of the queen’s death. In spite of his maverick tendencies and a report that circulated shortly after the coronation that he had been ‘turned out’, he prospered under the new regime. Having been appointed one of the lords justices at the commencement of the reign, he was later appointed chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster and vice treasurer of Ireland before his death from apoplexy at the close of 1721. NLS, Advocates’, Wodrow pprs. Wod. Lett. Qu. 8, ff. 146-7; Add. 70331, memorandum, 10 Aug. 1714; HMC Portland, vii. 205; W. Suss. RO, Goodwood ms 102/38. His heir, Richard, Viscount Lumley, was also preferred, being appointed master of the horse to George, prince of Wales, later King George II. Add. 61492, ff. 232-7. Four of his other sons later sat for Parliament. Full details of the latter part of Scarbrough’s career will be considered in the second part of this work.

In his will, Scarbrough made careful provision for his children, bequeathing £7,000 apiece to his younger daughters for their portions and providing for his younger sons out of his estates in London and interests in the Russia and Tobacco companies. He requested that he be buried at Chester-le-Street, close to the family seat of Lumley Castle, and that the cost of his funeral should not exceed £100. Execution of the will was entrusted to his widow, his son-in-law George Montagu^†, earl of Halifax, his brother, Henry Lumley, and his heir, Richard Lumley, who succeeded as 2nd earl of Scarbrough. By the time of his succession the new earl was already sitting as a peer following his summons by a writ of acceleration shortly after the beginning of the new reign.