CARTERET, George (1667-95)

Carteret’s family originated in Jersey, a cadet branch of the de Carterets of St Ouen’s Manor, one of the most prominent families on the island. Carteret’s grandfather, Sir George Carteret^‡, had made the move to England following his resolute service in the royal cause during the Civil War and Interregnum. Although he ended his career under a cloud following investigations into financial mismanagement, Sir George was rewarded shortly before his death in 1680 with the promise of elevation to the peerage. G.R. Balleine, All for the King: The Life Story of Sir George Carteret, 162; Société Jersiaise, Bulletin, xvii (1), 53, 61. He died before the patent was drawn up but the king insisted that the award stand. The following year Sir George’s grandson and heir, also George Carteret, was created Baron Carteret, as ‘a lasting mark of his [the king’s] esteem, upon the family of Sir George Carteret.’ London Gazette, 28 July 1681. The widowed Lady Carteret was granted the precedence of a baroness as if her husband had indeed lived to receive the honour. Balleine, 64.

Despite his grandfather’s reputed wealth, Carteret appears to have succeeded to a comparatively modest estate. HP Commons 1660-90, ii. 28. During his absence abroad, a legal action was initiated by his grandmother in an effort to determine the extent of his inheritance, which had been conveyed to his mother’s father, Sandwich, his wife’s father, Bath, Thomas Crew, 2nd Baron Crew, and others during his minority. Lady Carteret’s complaint made mention of lands lying in at least five counties; in 1689 in response to a request for a self-assessment Carteret declared that he had ‘no land that is not tenanted, nor money more than just to keep me out of debt.’ TNA, C10/215/16; Chatsworth, Halifax Collection B.34. His grandfather’s personal estate had been estimated at £2,151 4s. 9d., and Carteret inherited estates in the family’s native Jersey but the island of Alderney and Sir George’s rights in New Jersey had been placed in a debt trust. TNA, PROB 4/11390; Jersey Archives, D/AL/A/1/19-28. The new baron’s principal holdings thus appear to have comprised various properties in Bedfordshire which, with the rentals from his other estates, amounted to little more than £1,012 after the deduction of an allowance of £244 to his grandmother. VCH Beds. ii. 210, iii. 29; Pepys Diary, 221n.; Harris, Sandwich, 2; Beds. Archives, SA 839. Carteret was connected to several influential families, most notably the Montagus. In 1687 his marriage to Lady Grace Granville, which had been initiated when the couple were just eight and six years old respectively, was consummated formally. Verney ms mic. M636/28, J. to E. Verney, 7 Jan. 1675, Sir R. to E. Verney, 7 Jan. and 18 Mar. 1675; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42 f. 298.

In 1687, possibly while he was still abroad, Carteret was marked doubtful in a list of peers and their likely attitudes to James II’s policies. At the revolution he rallied to Princess Anne, who journeyed via Carteret’s manor at Hawnes in Bedfordshire on her way to Nottingham. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 405. On 21 Dec. 1688 he was one of those present in the meeting of the Lords in the queen’s presence chamber. The following day, he was present at the assembly held in the Lords, which he also attended on 24 and 25 December. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. d. 307, ff. 12-13; Kingdom without a King, 124, 153, 158, 165. Carteret took his seat in the House at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, and the following day he was named to the sessional committees for privileges and petitions. Curiously, he was not introduced formally until 30 January. The reason for the delay is unknown. It may have reflected a belief that the Convention was not a regular meeting of Parliament, but nomination to sessional committees prior to being introduced was technically a breach of procedure. The hiatus appears to have led to the House agreeing to recognize the validity of James II’s patent (probably issued on 3 Dec. 1688) creating Edward Griffin, as Baron Griffin in an effort to prevent the deposed king’s adherents from questioning Carteret’s rights. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 253.

Carteret was close to his father-in-law, Bath, whose political allegiances up until the moment of revolution had been solidly Tory. In the aftermath of revolution, however, Bath switched his allegiances, and the young Carteret followed his lead. He voted in favour of inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen on 31 Jan., and the same day he entered his dissent to the Lords’ refusal to declare the throne ‘vacant’. On 4 Feb. he again voted in support of the Commons’ employment of the term ‘abdicated’ and the same day dissented once more when the House failed to concur with that, or with the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant.’ Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 516. Two days later he again voted in favour of the Commons’ resolutions. Carteret was named to seven committees in March and April, but having attended just 39 per cent of all sitting days, he left the House after 7 June and was then absent for the remainder of the session. On 12 July he registered his proxy in favour of Bath, who employed it on 30 July to vote against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates. The reason for Carteret’s absence from the House is uncertain. On 27 July, in a despatch to the king, Frederick Herman Schomberg, duke of Schomberg, pointedly commended the French minister, Monsieur de Seignelay’s zeal and veracity over that of ‘Carteret’ and Sir Thomas Lee^‡ at the admiralty, opining, ‘I much regret that your Majesty is so ill served.’ CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 201. It seems likely, though, that this was a scribal error for John Vaughan, 2nd Baron Vaughan and 3rd earl of Carbery [I] as Carteret held no official post there.

Still absent at the opening of the second (1689-90) session of the Convention, Carteret was excused at a call of the House on 28 Oct. 1689. He took his seat two days later but was thereafter present on just 27 of the 73 sitting days, during which time he was named to five committees. He resumed his seat for the new Parliament on 27 Mar. 1690, after which his level of attendance improved. He was present on 74 per cent of all sitting days and was named to just four committees. On 13 May he protested at the resolution not to allow the Corporation of London more time to be heard by their counsel during the debates over the bill to restore the City’s charter. He resumed his place four days after the opening of the following session on 6 Oct. 1690. On that day, 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. Carteret’s attendance thereafter declined dramatically, with him present on a mere four days during the 76 day session.

Carteret’s attendance increased during the 1691-2 session. Present on almost 70 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to seven committees. Towards the end of the year he was included in a list compiled by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, as one of those peers who had opposed Derby’s previous attempt to be restored to various lands in Wales sold during the Interregnum. Carteret had been abroad and underage at the time so perhaps the list was indicative of Carteret’s intentions towards Derby’s renewed proposal, which was thrown out at second reading in January 1692. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. On 9 Feb. Carteret was entrusted with the proxies of both his father-in-law, Bath, and his brother-in-law, Charles Granville, styled Viscount Lansdown, who sat under a writ in acceleration as Lord Granville. Bath’s proxy was vacated at the close of the session; Granville’s by his return to the House on 17 February. Carteret’s attendance declined again during the 1692-3 session, when he was present for less than 20 per cent of all sitting days and during which he was named to just one committee. In spite of this he was again given his father-in-law’s proxy on 14 Jan., which was vacated two days later. Carteret did not attend the opening of the 1693-4 session and was excused at a call of the House on 14 Nov. 1693; he arrived a few days later on 27 November. His attendance thereafter was again sporadic; he was present for just 35 days out of the 132 day session. He was present, though, to vote against reversing the court of Chancery’s dismission in the Albemarle inheritance case (Montagu v. Bath) on 17 Feb. 1694, in which, through Bath, he had a personal interest.

Carteret resumed his seat for the 1694-5 session on 7 Dec. 1694 but he attended a mere three days before quitting the session and the House for the last time. He died intestate the following year on 22 Sept. 1695 aged just 28 and was succeeded by his young son, John Carteret, as 2nd Baron Carteret (later earl of Granville).