UVEDALE, Sir William (1581-1652), of Wickham, Hants, Covent Garden and Whitehall, Westminster.

The Uvedale family traced their ancestry to Norfolk, although they were resident in Surrey by the early fourteenth century, when they first appeared in Parliament, and at Wickham in east Hampshire by the start of the fifteenth century.49Surr. Arch. Colls. iii. 69-70, 74, 83. By the early seventeenth century, Uvedale’s father was a prominent justice in the latter county.50Sir Henry Whithead’s Letterbk. (Hants Rec. Ser. i). From the early years of James I, Uvedale himself (who is to be distinguished from a Dorset namesake who was sheriff in 1640 and who died in 1645) was a rising courtier.51PROB11/196/442. Benefiting from attractive looks and personality, the patronage of Robert Carr, 1st earl of Somerset and marriage into the Carey family, he acquired responsibilities in the privy chamber and kept them through the reign of Charles I.52Nichols, Progs. Jas. I, iii. 541; HMC Bath iv. 200; Cal. Irish Pat. Rolls, Jas. I, 250; C66/2133/8; Chamberlain Letters i. 606; ii. 125; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 291. His prominence and connections also helped him to secure return as Member of Parliament for various Hampshire constituencies between 1614 and 1628.53HP Commons 1604-1629.

During the 1630s Uvedale added to his collection of official posts the clerkship of star chamber, succeeding his kinsman Sir Humphrey May, to whose heir he was guardian.54Chamberlain Letters, i. 598; SP16/193, f. 55; Coventry Docquets, 182, 473. A justice of the peace and lord lieutenant of Hampshire in the 1620s and 1630s, he collected numerous other local appointments.55C231/4, f. 192v; C193/13/3; Add. 21922; Add. 26781; C181/3, f. 241; C181/5, ff. 170v, 189v; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 139; 1637, p. 474. Notably, in 1631 he was made constable of Portchester castle, which was about seven miles south of his seat at Wickham, and which played an important part in the defence of the south coast.56SP16/172, f. 129; Coventry Docquets, 181, 255.

When early in 1639 Charles I prepared for a campaign against his Scottish subjects, Uvedale was given a company of foot under the expedition’s commander, seasoned officer Sir Jacob Astley (26 Feb.).57CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 505. As treasurer of the chamber, with a logic doubtless reflecting the circumstances of the king’s personal rule, he was soon given the additional responsibility of being treasurer of the army. The formal commission was issued on 20 March, but the fact that a week later he had already received significant contributions suggests that he had been informally active in the role even before the first sign of his appointment earlier in the month.58CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 539, 540, 581; 1625-49, pp. 604-5; SP16/414, f. 368; Coventry Docquets, 209. The power conferred upon him was evident in a letter to the secretary of state, Sir Francis Windebanke*, from York dateable to 31 March, in which Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel, revealed that ‘we are here, in private be it spoken, without Sir William Uvedale or so much as one penny till he come’.59SP16/415, f. 211. He was soon paying out sums large and small.60CSP Dom. 1639, p. 191, 283, 308, 456; 1625-49, pp. 606-7; SP16/538, ff. 148-51, 159-62v.

His job title redesignated as treasurer at war, Uvedale was re-appointed for the next year’s campaigning and included on the council of war (Jan.-Feb. 1640).61CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 295, 332, 354, 364, 458, 461, 489. In subsequent weeks, Uvedale’s commitments in relation to the war effort probably absorbed much of his attention.62HMC 13th Rep. IV, 458; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 375, 382, 442, 451, 471, 504, 549, 595; 1640, pp. 16, 49, 53. After over a decade as a widower, at the end of February he made a financially advantageous second marriage to a very much younger bride, Victoria Cary, one of the sisters of Lucius Cary*, 2nd Viscount Falkland, whose acquaintance he may have pursued on the 1639 campaign.63N. and Q. cc. 406-7 In elections that spring, while Falkland gained a seat for the Isle of Wight, Uvedale was once again returned for Petersfield, the borough which he had represented in the previous three Parliaments, but left no trace on the records of the short session.

Uvedale’s company was in Yorkshire by July 1640 for the second bishops’ war, although at least at first he appears to have stayed in London to oversee the funding and equipping of the campaign.64CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 358, 462. On 11 July Sir Jacob Astley told Secretary Edward Conway, 1st Viscount Conway, of his hope to receive more money from Uvedale, ‘otherwise we shall be all broken in pieces’.65SP16/459, f. 162. But Conway, based in the north, understood the problems Sir William faced, explaining to Windebanke that Uvedale would have to pay ‘again’ to the treasurers of the navy the funds advanced by the corporation of Newcastle because it was ‘shipping money’ (Ship Money), the deployment of which for other purposes would have been highly controversial.66SP16/460, f. 70. It seems likely that Uvedale did not go north until the end of August, shortly after the Scottish invasion, when he was dispatched with £20,000 to pay the dangerously demoralised army.67CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 490, 589; 1640-1, p. 4; CCSP i. 203; He then seems to have remained there until after the signing of the Treaty of Ripon, in which an indemnity payment to the Scots was added to commitments to pay English arrears. In Newark on 2 November and Huntingdon on the 4th, he was back at his home in Covent Garden on the 7th, already ‘troubled’, in letters to Matthew Bradley, his deputy in the field, about the role of the newly-assembled Parliament (3 Nov.) in the implementation of military obligations.68SP16/471, ff. 10, 37, 43; SP16/472, f. 2.

Uvedale took his seat in what became the Long Parliament, having again been returned for Petersfield. Although confident money would eventually materialize from the City, he doubtless anticipated that he would soon be called to account.69CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 256 On 13 November he apparently volunteered to provide ‘a particular of the charges of the king’s army’, explaining to MPs in the meantime that it ‘cost him £20,000 a month, and that the army had been paid until the 10th of this month’, while there was a 14-day delay in getting cash to the place of distribution.70Procs. LP i. 131, 138. Taken up on his offer by a House which had resolved to take responsibility for the supply of the army, Uvedale, optimistic that money would be forthcoming in the end and ostensibly ‘commanded’ by Parliament, wrote that day to request precise information from Bradley.71CJ ii. 28b; SP16/471, f. 111. However, he presented an account to the Commons on 16 November without having received it.72Procs. LP i. 155, 159; SP16/471, f. 148. The next day he attended the fast sermon, and ‘returned very weary’ to repeat his plea to Bradley.73SP16/471, ff. 148v-149.

Named first on 21 November to the committee to consider the state of the army, that day Uvedale promised £1,000 towards the loan for its disbandment.74CJ ii. 34a; Procs. LP i. 226, 228, 232, 235. While the committee deliberated, he was nominated to another receiving petitions about the high constable and earl marshal’s court (23 Nov.), but military matters were to be his chief concern in Parliament.75CJ ii. 34b. On the 24th, acknowledging only in passing the ‘great affairs’ transpiring at Westminster and the ‘very heavy charge’ lodged against the lord lieutenant of Ireland, Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, he told Bradley that Parliament planned to announce the next day what sum would be available to them, ‘conjecturing’ that ‘there will not be less than £50,000 assigned to this service betwixt this and Christmas’. In the meantime, he commended Bradley for discreetly making loans to some soldiers in advance of arrears, revealing that ‘I have not yet made it known here but do keep the Parliament in an opinion that the army is utterly unpaid since the tenth of November’ – evidence that he was guilty of double-dealing with fellow Members, or at least economy with the truth, in pursuance of frightening them into a more prompt and generous provision for the army.76SP16/472, ff. 43, 44v. Despite his own worries that officers like Astley were incapable of keeping a secret, and the general implausibility that loans could be hidden, Uvedale continued to play this game, apparently without being exposed.77CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 431.

Appointed on 27 and 30 November to receive funds both for the army and the relief of the northern counties under Scottish occupation, Uvedale was ostensibly given authority over substantial sums.78CJ ii. 38b, 40a, 40b, 45b, 54a; Procs. LP i. 334, 356, 371. Exasperation set in quickly, however: on 1 December he complained to Bradley that ‘I am so confounded here with the orders of the Parliament House as I fear much shall not make myself understood’, while two months later he was still bemoaning the fact that he had ‘been all this day drudging to get monies for the army’.79SP16/473, f. 8; SP16/477, f. 27. Confined to his chamber in December by gout, in among receiving and dispatching thousands of pounds, he endeavoured to keep hidden from Parliament his alternative source of army funds which came from the king and which enabled loans to soldiers.80CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 296, 298, 302-4, 311-12, 316-7, 324-5, 327-8; Procs. LP i. 416, 417, 420, 423, 469, 472, 636, 655, 657-8 On 5 January 1641 he registered encouragement that the subsidy bill had passed, while on the 8th, still advising Bradley to ‘keep secretly by you’ the king’s money, he noted that ‘Lieutenant-colonel Ballard is to be heard today before the Lower House about the necessity army is in for want of money and the disorder by soldiers that arises out of it’, a contribution to proceedings unrecorded elsewhere.81CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 409, 414-5; Procs LP ii. 138n.

‘Lameness’ prevented Uvedale from being present in the Commons to hear Ballard put his case. It is not clear how often he attended the House in succeeding weeks, although he mentioned to Bradley, amidst his recital of multiple payments overt and covert made apparently in person to leading officers and to smaller fry, Parliament’s impeachment of Lord Keeper John Finch†, 1st Baron Finch, the vote that Ship Money was illegal, and the charges against Strafford and Archbishop William Laud.82CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 417-8, 424-5, 431-2, 452, 456. In close touch with Robert Scawen*, man-of-business to the commander-in-chief Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, he was hardly out of the political loop.83CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 461, 496, 520, 533, 546, 553, 557. After a gap of two months, he reappeared in the Journal of the House on 17 February, when he received a nomination to the committee for confirming grants made by the king to the queen. 84CJ ii. 87b. But his chief responsibility of that day was contained in an order responding to his worrying relation to MPs that only £2,100 of the £60,000 due in from the City of London was ready for dispatch to the army, which sent him forthwith to chivvy the common council of London into handing over the rest; orders regarding payments to be received and deployed by him constituted most of his subsequent appearances in that record.85CJ ii. 88a, 97b, 109a, 130b; Procs. LP ii. 469, 490, 479. By 23 February he was confident that he would that day have £20,000 from the City, which was just as well, since, as he told Bradley, he was ‘in a manner enforced by the Parliament to pay all such commanders as are Members of that House’; the nature of this pressure was not elucidated, but perhaps it was simply that he realised that support for enforcing the hand-over of monies entailed satisfying promptly the claims of his colleagues. 86SP16/477, f. 85v. By 1 March, having already made payments to such as Colonel George Goring* and Colonel William Ashbournham*, he was indeed able to send £25,000 to Bradley for distribution in the north, but he informed the Commons two days later that only two-thirds of the promised £60,000 had yet been delivered to him.87CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 486-8; Procs LP ii. 619. On 5 March, after he had declared he had £500 ready of his own money to lend to the cause, there was ‘some dispute’ in the House as to whether all the money raised should go through his hands before it was decided that the money to pay off the Scots should go instead through the English commissioners.88Procs. LP. ii. 628, 638, 641, 645. Despite Uvedale’s disconcerting revelation on 6 April that he had received intelligence from army commanders that ‘the sentinels of the Scotch and English lie so near one another that every night they talk to one another’ and the alarming information that ‘the Scots have given out threatening speeches that they will come into Yorkshire’, it evidently continued to be a relentless, uphill struggle to secure the funds.89 Procs LP iii. 417.

On 2 April Uvedale was among those nominated by John Pym* to serve as witnesses at Strafford’s trial, although with what effect does not appear.90CJ ii. 115b; Procs LP iii. 315, 320. On the day the bill for the earl’s attainder reached the Lords, Uvedale petitioned as one of his creditors to ensure he would not lose the £1,000 he was owed.91HMC 4th Rep. 60. The crowds of demonstrators around Westminster calling for retribution against Strafford – substantial citizens among them, as Uvedale remarked – troubled him, but here, as also in relation to some other business, his preference was for quick resolution so that Parliament’s attention would return to what concerned him most. ‘The king having signed the warrant for the execution of my Lord of Strafford’, he explained, ‘the mouth of the people is stopped, and so there will be an end of that great man, and I hope now I shall be sent down with money to cashier the army speedily’.92CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 557-8, 569; SP16/480, f. 16.

The next month the revelation of the army plot (3 May) reinforced the case for disbandment, although its potential for damning Uvedale by association was perhaps revealed when on the 6th, as the alleged plotters fled abroad, he was left out of the assessment commissioners for Westminster.93CJ ii. 137a. From 10 June there was a temporary block on his dispensing funds, although this seems to have been a step on the way to ensuring accountability: on 14 July it was clarified that, like Robert Rich†, 2nd earl of Warwick (replacing Northumberland, who was too ill to go north), payments to and by him were to be limited to those specifically authorized by Parliament.94Procs. LP v. 76-7, 105, 628-9, 234. In practice Uvedale continued with his business, keeping a close eye on the poll tax bill and maintaining his regular briefings to Bradley and his exhortations to conceal ‘the king’s money’; having demonstrated his loyalty to majority parliamentary opinion by taking the Protestation on 7 June, he was named on 12 July to a committee to prioritize business in the Commons.95Procs LP iv. 314; CJ ii. 146a, 169a, 172b, 173b, 202a, 207b, 210a, 212a, 217a-b, 218b-219a; CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 579, 580, 586-7; 1641-43, pp. 1, 5, 13-14, 21-3, 29, 45, 51-2. On 19 July he informed the House that he had received £27,800 ‘upon the bill of head money’, and the next day was heard to have said he was expecting imminently to have £50,000, but he privately confessed to frustration at the irresolution of Parliament over orders to allow him to spend it.96Procs LP vi. 9, 18, 26; CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 55-6. By the 26th he was able to report to MPs receipt of £45,000, and had the encouragement three days later of nomination to the committee of accounts of money due to the army.97CJ ii. 224b, 229a; Procs LP vi. 70; CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 60. Finally, he was authorized to assist Warwick in handing over the money for the Scots (31 July), given leave to go to the army (2 Aug.) and, with amplified instructions (5 Aug.), dispensed from the requirement of attendance in the House (7 Aug.).98CJ ii. 231b, 232a, 237b, 245a; Procs LP vi. 135, 172.

The continuing political sensitivity of Uvedale’s role required that he keep in regular contact with Parliament. When his letter of 16 August from York, arguing that the slow collection of poll money in the north would necessitate delays in disbandment, was read in the Commons on the 18th, it was noted that his analysis differed from that supplied by Essex three days earlier: the earl had promised that three regiments would be paid off on the 17th. This occasioned some debate, particularly on a suggestion from Sir William Waller* that money allocated for the garrison at Portsmouth be diverted north to supply the lack, and the letters were referred to committee for closer scrutiny.99Procs LP vi. 472, 475; CJ ii. 263a. While Essex was commended, further communications from Uvedale explaining his difficulties merely prompted a request for additional detail, drafted by John Pym, who was keen to expedite the process of disbandment (25, 26 Aug).100Bodl. Tanner 66, f. 146; CJ ii. 268a, 270b, 271a, 272b; Procs LP vi. 548-9, 552.

Uvedale probably remained in the north for some time to complete his work.101CJ ii. 275a, 279b, 280a. At the end of November the Commons ordered the audit of his accounts and referred them for consideration by the poll tax committee.102CJ ii. 326b, 336a-b. By the time further orders were issued instructing him to pay part of outstanding arrears (21, 24 Dec.), Parliament was facing the prospect of funding a new campaign against the Irish rebels.103CJ ii. 352b, 355b. On 24 January Uvedale received another rare committee nomination, to deploy his experience in drawing up an ordinance for payment to merchants transporting provisions to Ireland.104CJ ii. 391b. Thereafter, he disappeared from the Journal until the late spring, when he re-emerged having been replaced (by the king, before 1 Apr.) as army treasurer, but still engaged in resolving the financial claims of individual officers.105SO3/12, f. 223; C231/3, p. 156; CJ ii. 533b, 552a, 569b, 573b, 581a, 582b, 591b, 595a, 628a. Although a resolution on 18 June permitted him to go to Bath for the sake of his health, successive orders still channelled money to him for such payments.106CJ ii. 640b, 647a, 654b, 661a, 671a, 673a, 674b, 682a, 688b, 689b, 691b, 697a. This suggests that, as far as Parliament was concerned, he was for a time regarded as being still in some way in post, even if possibly absent from London, but on 30 July a committee was appointed to scrutinise Uvedale’s decisions regarding officers’ accounts, in order to prevent corruption.107CJ ii. 697a.

The correspondence of Secretary Nicholas reveals that by 9 August Uvedale was in York with the king, ostensibly ready to receive financial contributions to the royalist war effort, and on at least one occasion (10 Aug.) under his former designation as treasurer; he was also named a commissioner of array.108CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 368; HMC Hastings, ii. 87; Northants. RO, FH133, unfol. It is not clear exactly when Parliament registered this. A final order which may have been for payment through him was issued by the Commons on 10 August, although erasures in the Journal make it impossible to determine exactly what the entry denoted.109CJ ii. 698a, 712a. The same day Parliament confirmed the appointment of Sir Gilbert Gerrard* – nominated on 28 July – as treasurer of its new army under Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, but the fact that Uvedale had officially lost his post in a differently-constituted army several months earlier diminishes somewhat the significance of this coincidence.110CJ ii. 695a, 697b; LJ v. 249a; A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1641-3, pp. 369, 404. Some uncertainty and ambivalence as to Uvedale’s allegiance and intentions is suggested by a division on 17 August in which ‘fiery spirits’ Alexander Rigby* and Henry Marten* were roundly defeated in their efforts to call Uvedale to attend the House a fortnight later to make his account by MPs, only for Sir William to be summoned anyway, via former courtier and associate of Essex, Sir Henry Mildmay*.111CJ ii. 724b. On 19 August the House ordered that henceforth arrears payments were to be made according to his accounts, but not by him.112CJ ii. 728b.

A few days later Uvedale returned south. On 25 August he was dispatched from Nottingham, together with Sir John Culpeper* and moderate peers Edward Sackville†, 4th earl of Dorset (a fellow member of the privy chamber), and Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton (with whom Uvedale had worked closely in Hampshire) to present the king’s peace propositions to Parliament.113LJ v. 327b; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 417; CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 385. But it is by no means certain that he actually accompanied the deputation as far as Westminster. On arrival in London on the 27th, Culpeper – who unlike Uvedale had already transgressed Commons’ orders regarding attendance and was thus under penalty – communicated to Speaker Lenthall his intention to appear there with the message; in the debate which ensued there was no recorded mention of Uvedale.114PJ iii. 320, 323; CJ ii. 740a. According to Edward Hyde*, Uvedale had a dispensation to use the message as a pretext – ‘his majesty gave leave under that pretence to intend the business of his own fortune’ – but there is no indication there of why Uvedale received such indulgence or of the precise use to which he intended to put it.115Clarendon, Hist. iii. 206. Apparently accepted within Parliament’s quarters, on 10 September Uvedale was once again to be the recipient of money to pay arrears.116CJ ii. 762a. It was not until 23 September, however, that John Pyne* proffered the explanation that, as ‘Sir William Udall was going to [take the waters at] the Bath, he received letters from the king to attend him and thereupon went to York, and therefore desired to be entertained in our good opinion’. While such ready obedience to a royal summons in circumstances which might have excused it to the king (and perhaps did on 25 August) seems at best naive, Uvedale’s physical problems were incontrovertible. At the price of accepting a motion of John Glynne* ‘that he first declare what he will do in contribution’ to Parliament’s fund-raising, Uvedale’s request for leave to go into the country on grounds of his infirmity was accepted.117Add. 18777, f. 9v; CJ ii. 779b.

Over the next year and a half there were several orders for payment of arrears arising from Uvedale’s accounts, and he was named to several of Parliament’s commissions in Hampshire.118CJ ii. 794b, 926b, 964b. On the other hand, on 25 August 1643, at the height of military reversals for Parliament, he was named a commissioner for contributions to the royalist cause; that November he was listed as a member of the royalist council of war in Hampshire; and sometime in the mid-1640s he appeared on a list of delinquents in the county.119A. and O.; Hants RO, 44M69/G4/1/125; Add. 26781, f. 115. Yet none of these nominations are necessarily reliable indications of his having served. Meanwhile, the Oxford Parliament tried to claim him as one of their own in January 1644, listing him among those MPs whose duties in the king’s service elsewhere prevented them from attending their proceedings.120Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 575.

Having on 5 February 1644 respited his attendance until 1 April, on 28 March the Commons at Westminster requested the committee at Portsmouth to investigate the state of Uvedale’s health.121CJ iii. 389b, 439b. On 21 or 22 April, ‘having been absent from the House above a year and a half and being summoned to attend the House and to show cause of his so long absence’, Uvedale committed the procedural error of entering ‘into the House before he had been examined by the committee appointed for that purpose’, and was promptly ordered to withdraw pending that interview, ‘the rather because he was suspected to have sent money to the king’.122Add. 31116, p. 264. Following a report from the committee on 14 May by militant Member Denis Bond*, in which it emerged that Uvedale had been not only ‘at Nottingham when the king set up his standard’, but also ‘since at Oxford’, there was a division over his readmittance, but the matter was referred back to the committee.123Add. 31116, p. 274; CJ iii. 492a. A petition from Uvedale read on 28 October that year was again reported on by Bond (31 Oct.), this time prompting an order that he be re-admitted to the Commons.124CJ iii. 679b, 682a; Whitelocke, Mems. i. 324. When in the summer of 1647 charges were laid against Presbyterian leader Anthony Nicoll*, it was alleged that he had accepted a bribe of £100 or £150 in return for ‘misinformations to the House’, which had served to secure Uvedale’s re-admittance, but on further investigation the explanation that this was ‘altogether false and scandalous’ seems to have been accepted, the grace to Sir William occurring only ‘upon a solemn and serious debate’ which had nothing to do with Nicoll.125OPH xvi. 89, 152.

There was almost certainly then a delay before Uvedale reappeared in the chamber. His accounts were certified by a parliamentary committee in April 1645, and at the end of the month he took the Covenant.126CJ iv. 98a, 127b. He received no further committee appointments, however, and there is no other sign of an active contribution to proceedings. On 4 August 1645 he was granted leave to go into the country for five weeks, while on 6 April 1646 he again received leave for health reasons.127CJ iv. 229b, 501a. Absent but excused at the call of the House on 9 October 1647, on 23 December he was dispatched to Hampshire to collect assessment money.128CJ v. 330a, 400b. Similarly, in 1648 his absence was excused on 24 April and 26 September, and he was again named to collect Hampshire assessments on 25 November.129CJ v. 543b; vi. 34b, 88a. Perhaps local activity, whether there or in Covent Garden was more palatable: he seems to have kept his place on the commission of the peace more or less throughout, and he was named to a Presbyterian classis in December 1645.130King, Bor. and Par. Lymington, 262.

Uvedale was secluded at the purge in December 1648, but he was not removed from the commission of the peace, although continuing ill health may have precluded him from active service.131A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62). Wittingly or unwittingly he was drawn into a web of royalist intrigue: in a letter to Hyde in December 1650 Uvdale’s brother-in-law Patrick Cary, a Roman Catholic monk at Douai, asked for the answer to be sent via Sir William’s home at Wickham.132CCSP, ii. 75. He died late in 1652 and was buried in the parish church at Wickham on 3 December. His will, drawn up in December 1651, employed the language of an ‘unprofitable servant of God’, but he was able to bequeath a portion of £1,500 to both his unmarried daughters, funded by the sale of the manor of Chelsham in Surrey.133PROB11/241/64; Leveson-Gower, ‘Uvedale’, 179-80. His executrix was his young widow, Victoria, who in August 1653 married a Scot, one Bartholomew Price (d. 1681) of Linlithgow.134St Benet, Paul’s Wharf, London, par. reg.; Leveson-Gower, ‘Uvedale’, 130. Uvedale’s only surviving son and heir William – the second or third of his offspring to bear the name, another ‘deceased’ being also mentioned in the will – was almost certainly the youth admitted to Queen’s College, Oxford, in 1658, but he died before 1663.135Al. Ox.; VCH Hants, iii. 234. No further Uvedales sat in Parliament.