LEY, William (1612-80)

Although Marlborough’s father, the first earl, had enjoyed a career which had elevated him to the lord high treasurership under James I and Charles I, he had amassed little landed wealth. Wilts. Arch. Nat. Hist. Mag. xci. 103-12. Much of what there was appears to have been parcelled out as marriage dowries for the earl’s eight daughters, while most of the core of the estate, in Wiltshire, was either seriously depleted by sale or, in the case of the principal landholding at Westbury, was effectively alienated from the family through the marriage in 1647 of the 1st earl’s widow to Colonel Thomas Wancklyn^‡. VCH Wilts. xi. 120; xv. 157-8; Add. 46376B, ff. 21-22. William Ley, the 4th earl, had been granted an annuity of £100 at his father’s behest in 1628, a source of income on which he relied heavily for the rest of his life. CTB, 1679-80, pp. 172.

Almost nothing is known of Ley’s early career. The Complete Peerage attributes him with an ensignship in ‘the Coldstream Guards’ in 1655 and appointment to the Privy Council on 22 Nov. 1662, but both seem improbable and the evidence for either is lacking. The death of his unmarried nephew, James Ley, 3rd earl of Marlborough, in the naval battle off Lowestoft brought him the title but little else except £500 under the terms of his nephew’s will. TNA, PROB 11/317. In a petition to the council in August 1669 the 4th earl stated that the family estate had been ‘consumed by loyal services during the rebellion’ and now consisted of only a small tenement worth £50 p.a. CSP Dom. 1668-9, p. 442. He possessed a small amount of land at Weston, near Bath, quite possibly a remnant of his father’s estate, where he lived in what he described as little more than ‘a poor thatched house and but little belonging to it’, and which on another occasion he likened to a ‘poor enchanted hermitage’. Eg. 3330, f. 101; Add. 46376B, f. 10.

A writ of summons to the Lords was issued on 15 Mar. 1670. HMC 8th Rep. I, 142. It seems highly unlikely that he himself would have actively sought this, especially as keeping himself in London in order to attend the House regularly was a financial impossibility. Yet the timing of the summons may be significant; in August 1669 Marlborough had been compelled to petition the council for payment of his annuity and ‘creation money’ which had fallen four years into arrears. CSP Dom. 1668-9, p. 442. The prompt acknowledgement of this debt may have been conditional on his support in the Lords. He was unsuccessful in obtaining payment of the ‘Caribbee pension’ to which he had become entitled on the death of his nephew. CSP Col. 1661-8, p. 451; CTB, 1669-72, p. 241.

Marlborough took his seat on 17 Mar. 1670 and attended sittings on the next two days, and again on 25 and 31 Mar., but his subsequent appearances were sparse. Further visits to London brought him to the Lords on isolated occasions, once in November that same year, once more on an adjournment day in April 1672, and for ten days during February-March 1673 (which amounted that session to 23 per cent of sittings). His primary need to retain ministerial goodwill and punctuality in the payment of his annuity kept him firmly on the side of the court. He safeguarded himself in this respect by entering his proxy in favour of peers whose loyalty to the court was not in doubt: on 5 Jan. 1674 and 8 Jan. 1677 to Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), on 12 May and 14 Oct. 1675 to John Granville, earl of Bath, and on 28 Oct. 1678 to Richard Arundell, Baron Arundell of Trerice. Unsurprisingly, he was recorded by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury as ‘vile’.

Marlborough’s chief support in his impoverished circumstances was his nephew John Harington^‡ (d.1700) whose seat at Kelston, Somerset, was a short distance from Marlborough’s modest residence. Harington appears to have played some part in the management of Marlborough’s straitened affairs, and was a convenient source of cash when his limited funds ran short. In his letters to Harington, Marlbrough usually made appeal as an object of pity by signing himself off as ‘your poor uncle and servant’. Preparing for a visit to London in September 1675, he offered to use his government connections, such as they were, to save Harington from nomination as high sheriff, but it is doubtful whether his voice could have carried any significant weight. Add. 46376B, ff. 5-12, 7. In April 1677 he wrote to Danby stating that ‘the titles I now bear I have found to be very ponderous to me unless I had a greater estate or some beneficial office to carry so great a burden’, to which purpose he asked if he might ‘upon reasonable terms’ relinquish his earldom and retain the barony of Ley. His intention was that the money raised from the sale of his senior title would allow him ‘to repurchase part of the estate that my relations sold away’, and he ventured to suggest that Danby’s son-in-law, Edward Cooke, might like to have first refusal. His wishes were either rejected or ignored. Eg. 3330. f. 101.

Having attended the Lords on a single occasion at the end of 1678, the first time since 1673, Marlborough was summoned to take the oaths and subscribe the declaration as required by the recently passed Test Act. Add. 46376B, f. 12. He duly attended on 27 Mar. and again the next day, but registered his proxy on the 29th. For the first time he did not nominate a courtier. It is possible that his choice of Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, to exercise his proxy was determined purely out of family loyalty (Essex being the great-nephew of Mary Capell, wife of his elder brother Henry Ley^†, 2nd earl of Marlborough). Yet it seems far more likely that his choice of a supporter of the country party had been prompted by Danby’s recent downfall and was intended to signify his general disenchantment with the court in the light of his own pitiful situation. Danby, too, in his calculations of support in anticipation of impeachment, was now uncertain of Marlborough, in one forecast noting him as a likely adherent, and in another as an opponent. Marlborough had always been careful to express his gratitude to Danby for the small scraps of favour he received, but the contrast between his own circumstances and those of the court was difficult to bear. Eg. 3352, f. 5; 3330, f. 101. More specifically, the non-payment of the £500 ‘Caribbee pension’ had evidently become a major grievance by this time, as in April or May it was petitioned for by his nephew’s executor, Sir George Carteret^‡; the explanation given in August was that the Caribbee revenues were required for the upkeep there of militia forces. CTB, 1679-80, p. 172.

By early May 1680 Marlborough had fallen seriously ill and had taken to imbibing large amounts of brandy, presumably to alleviate pain. Even before he was dead his wealthier relatives, the Longs of Draycot, Wiltshire, were concerned to scotch any suggestion of a funeral befitting the rank of earl, and on 8 May Marlborough’s nephew Sir James Long^‡ wrote to Harington suggesting that the burial be immediate and private. Administration of the estate, such as it was, was granted in June 1680 to his widow who herself was to die in poverty in 1713. Marlborough was buried at the parish church at Weston, the cost, it seems, borne chiefly by Harington. Add. 46376B, ff. 13-14.