POULETT, John (c. 1615-65)

Poulett inherited his barony in 1649, his earlier attachment to the royalist cause alongside his father having subsequently become uncertain as he pursued his friendships and family connections with leading parliamentarians. It had been through the intercession of his wife’s brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡ (later 3rd Lord Fairfax [S]) that the Pouletts’ extensive west country estate was saved from a crippling compounding fine. CCC, 1051–2; Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 37. In the 1650s the interregnal regimes assumed Poulett’s support for royalist conspiracies to restore the Stuarts, and on two separate occasions had him briefly imprisoned with other local cavaliers. Tradition has it that he joined the Stuart exiles on the continent, but, although both he and his son were issued with passes in 1658, they appear to have remained in England, and until the Restoration Poulett remained aloof from involvement in royalist initiatives. C.G. Winn, Pouletts of Hinton St George, 59–60; CSP Dom. 1657–8, pp. 551, 580; D. Underdown, Som. in the Civil War and Interregnum, 180–1, 188.

Poulett’s social and political prominence in post-Restoration Somerset rested on a considerable landholding in the county, the main focus of which was a concentration of manors in the area around Chard, and his country seat at Hinton St George. Som. Archs. Poulett mss DD/PT/S/1515/1, survey bks. 1651–59, 1659–77. A significant recovery in the annual rental income of his estates during the 1650s to their pre-Civil War level of £3,000, enabled him to undertake extensive alterations and improvements at Hinton House, including the construction of a new ‘banqueting house’. VCH Som. iv. 42. In addition, his continuing prosperity in the next decade allowed him to bequeath portions of £4,000 to two of his unmarried daughters when he composed his will in March 1663 or 1664. Hospitality was a particular preoccupation at Hinton and it was remarked by one militia officer, Colonel Edward Cooke, that Poulett ‘abounds not only in generosity in plentiful housekeeping, but also in very beautiful hounds and horses’. HMC 15th Rep. VII, 163. Such sociability was vital in underpinning Poulett’s leading role in the governance of the county, a role that he was quick to assume once the Restoration was a certain prospect.

During the elections to the House of Commons early in April 1660, he was pre-eminent in drawing together Cavalier backing to ensure the return of favourable county representatives, one of whom was his son-in-law Hugh Smith^‡. At a by-election in March 1662 his eldest son and heir, John Poulett, later 3rd Baron Poulett, was returned unopposed as knight of the shire. This lead in setting the tenor of political support for the restored Stuarts locally also entailed, almost by default, the more long-term practical responsibilities of policing and the maintenance of order. The inadequate structures of command between central and local government became exacerbated after the death of the lord lieutenant, William Seymour, 2nd duke of Somerset, in October 1660, and the failure to appoint a successor until 1662. HJ, xxxi. 790–1. The situation gave rise to a minor crisis of control in the county. With no new lieutenancy commission forthcoming, individual militia officers were powerless, and often refused to intervene in disturbances or take action to eradicate republican sedition, without authority from two deputy-lieutenants. In some situations Poulett was commanded from Whitehall to take action, or would seek authority to do so. Late in 1660 the lord chancellor, Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon, entrusted him ‘to render a true and particular account of the members of any rebellious families in Somerset, who had been employed in civil or military offices under the Usurper’, singling out John Harington^‡ as a prime example of those offenders who might be excepted from the king’s general clemency. Misc. Gen. et Her. n.s. iv. 33. Such threatened treatment of Harington may well have had the ulterior purpose of reminding Poulett of his new and important obligations at the head of his county, particularly in the light of his association with Harington during the Protectorate; Poulett had helped to procure Harington a royal pardon earlier in the year. Add. 46373B, f. 5.

In July 1661 Poulett was forced to petition the king for permission to proceed against one Whetham for unlawfully taking possession of the manor of Chard, which belonged to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, and it was almost certainly on this account that in February 1662 Poulett and his heir were appointed joint stewards of all the bishopric lands. CSP Dom. 1661–2, p. 35; HMC Wells, ii. 432. The organization of Somerset’s militia was finally regularized in December 1662 with the issue of a lieutenancy commission under a newly appointed lord lieutenant, James Butler, duke of Ormond [I] (and also earl of Brecknock in the English peerage), though owing to Ormond’s more pressing commitments in the governance of Ireland, it appears that Poulett retained de facto control, acting in effect as a joint deputy lord lieutenant alongside his cousin Francis Hawley^‡, Baron Hawley [I]. Poulett’s continuing supervision of the lieutenancy had been signalled a few months earlier in October, when he was charged by Secretary Edward Nicholas^‡ to co-ordinate a county-wide operation to put the militia in the ‘good posture required by the seditious practices of factious people’. CSP Dom. 1661–2, pp. 511, 589. The urgency behind these instructions was underlined by the immediate arrangements that were made for the oaths required under the Militia Act to be administered to him by several justices, one of them being his son-in-law Sir John Sydenham^‡. The problems confronting Poulett in this capacity remained of a serious order: in October 1663 Colonel Alexander Popham^‡, whose daughter had lately wed Poulett’s heir, reported on a meeting he had had with Poulett at Hinton and their agreement that ‘foot companies’ and ‘troops of horse’ be mobilized to forestall a threat of republican disturbance in the Malmesbury area of neighbouring Wiltshire. CSP Dom. 1663–4, p. 301.

In the spring of 1660, Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, noted Poulett as one of the peers ‘with the king’. He first attended the Convention on 21 May 1660. His mansion at Chiswick, which his family had earlier acquired through marriage, provided him with a base within easy reach of Westminster. He attended on 58 days of the Convention, before the adjournment on 29 Aug. 1660, nearly 60 per cent of the total available days after he took his seat. On 13 June he was added to the committee on petitions, to which he was soon to present a case. On 19 July Philip Herbert, 5th earl of Pembroke, reported Poulett’s case from the committee of petitions, whereupon it was ordered that the cause be heard at the bar, by counsel on both sides, and that a proviso be considered when the indemnity and judicial proceedings bills were taken into consideration. On 2 Aug., after the case had been considered, a bill was ordered for restoring Poulett and his heirs to the lands conveyed by himself and his father, and their wives, to the trustees for the town of Lyme. The bill was given a first reading on 7 Aug. and committed on 13 Aug. to the committee dealing with similar legislation on behalf of William Cavendish, marquess of Newcastle. It never emerged from committee. On 23 Aug. the Lords referred a dispute between the freemen and inhabitants of Exeter and the mayor and aldermen of the same to five peers, one of whom was Poulett. Although the Convention resumed on 6 Nov. 1660, Poulett did not attend until the 12th. Thereafter he was present on 21 days of the remainder of the session, nearly 47 per cent of the total.

Poulett was in attendance when the new Parliament assembled on 8 May 1661, being named on the 11th to the committees for privileges and petitions. On 8 June he was given leave of absence to go into the country. On the 15th he registered his proxy with Robert Sutton, Baron Lexinton, and he was last recorded as present on 17 June. In all he had attended on 26 days of the session before the adjournment at the end of July 1661, nearly 41 per cent of the total.

Poulett was present when the session resumed on 20 Nov. 1661 but missed a call of the House on the 25th. He attended on 28 days of the session, a little over 22 per cent of the total, but his attendance was concentrated at its beginning and end. He did not attend after the Christmas recess until 5 May, having been granted leave of absence on 14 Jan. 1662.

Poulett was not listed as present on the opening day of the 1663 session on 18 Feb., although he was named to the committee for privileges. He was excused a call of the House on the 23rd owing to sickness and was first listed as present on 21 March. On 13 July Wharton classed him as doubtful in his forecast about the attempt of George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Clarendon. He attended on 57 days of the session, two-thirds of the total and was named to a further nine committees.

Poulett was absent from the beginning of the 1664 session on 16 Mar. and was excused a call of the House on 4 April. He first attended on 26 Apr. and was present on 17 days of the session, 47 per cent of the total. He was absent from the 1664–5 session, being excused a call of the House on 7 Dec., it being recorded that he had registered a proxy, as indeed he had, on 24 Nov. with George Monck, duke of Albemarle.

Poulett’s absence from the House thereafter was almost certainly occasioned by failing health. In May 1665 Secretary Henry Bennet, Baron Arlington, was informed that he was too unwell to fulfil any of his county duties. CSP Dom. 1664–5, p. 344. He died later that year on 15 Sept. at his manor house at Court de Wyck, near Yatton, the Somerset residence he used during his father’s lifetime, and was buried at Hinton St George. The title and estates passed to his eldest son, John Poulett. In 1669 his widow married Sir John Strode^‡ of Chantmarle, Dorset.