MORDAUNT, John (1599-1643)

Aged ten when his father died in February 1609, Mordaunt became a ward of the crown. He inherited estates principally in Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire, with Drayton House in Northamptonshire and a residence at Turvey in Bedfordshire. The latter was occupied by his mother during her widowhood, and it is likely that Mordaunt spent at least part of his childhood there; however, as an adult he seems to have mostly used Drayton House.19 HENRY MORDAUNT; ‘Discovery of the Jesuits’ College at Clerkenwell’ ed. J.G. Nichols, Cam Misc. ii (Cam. Soc. lv), 60. The purchasers of his wardship included Henry Somerset^*, Lord Herbert (subsequently 1st marquess of Worcester) for £1,040.20 WARD 9/162, f. 67. (Herbert’s father, Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester, a notorious Catholic, was one of the parties to an indenture which Mordaunt’s father, also Catholic, had devised to settle his estate shortly before his death.) However, it seems likely that Herbert was acting for Mordaunt’s uncle, William Compton^*, 2nd Lord Compton (subsequently 1st earl of Northampton), who claimed to be in possession of the wardship in August 1610.21 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 231-2.

Shortly before the sale of the wardship on 21 Nov. 1609, Compton wrote from Turvey to the lord treasurer, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, about his nephew’s estate, which he described, somewhat misleadingly, as ‘unsettled and small’. Compton appealed to Salisbury to lift several extents for debt issued against Mordaunt’s lands.22 SP14/48/85. These extents were the result of the fact that Mordaunt’s father had been fined 10,000 marks by Star Chamber in 1606 for his unlicensed absence from Parliament when the Gunpowder Plot was discovered. This absence had been suspicious, not merely because the 4th Lord Mordaunt was Catholic, but also because he had had close connections with several of the conspirators. Moreover, his widow, Compton’s sister, who initially retained custody of her son, was ‘a zealous, as well as a public professor’ of the Catholic religion.23 Halstead, 404. As no part of the fine was ever paid, Compton’s appeal was presumably successful.

Given Mordaunt’s Catholic parentage, and his father’s connection to the Gunpowder Plot, it is not surprising that James I became interested in the education of the young lord. On 30 July 1610 he ordered Mordaunt to be placed in the custody of George Abbot^*, then bishop of London and subsequently archbishop of Canterbury.24 SO3/4, unfol. (30 July 1610); HMC Hatfield, xxi. 36; xxiv. 188-9. This brought forth a protest from Compton, who argued that this implied that he was unworthy to have charge of his nephew.25 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 231-2. Mordaunt’s mother also objected, claiming that her son was too sick to be taken out of her care, but was thwarted after the king sent one of his physicians to examine the boy.26 Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xii), 269. Subsequent events suggest that Abbot failed to convert his charge to Protestantism.

Introduction at court and the later Jacobean parliaments, 1614-25

According to his son, who penned an account of his father’s life, Mordaunt was sent to Oxford after spending time in Abbot’s household. Although there is no other evidence that Mordaunt attended university, the same source also states that Mordaunt was the ‘star of the university’ until James I ‘coming to the Oxford in a progress’ (presumably a reference to the king’s 1614 visit) ‘took him from that place to follow the court’.27 Halstead, 404.

Mordaunt was certainly at court by the time Prince Charles (Stuart^*) was created prince of Wales in November 1616, when he was made a knight of the Bath and participated in running at the ring.28 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 215. The following month one well-placed observer reported that ‘my Lord Mordaunt is now in speech to ascend the next in grace’ in place of the king’s favourite, George Villiers^*, Viscount Villiers (later 1st duke of Buckingham). The same writer believed that ‘if his Majesty once place his affection there, the young lord will be able to hold it longer and better than the former, for he hath many excellent natural powers in him’.29 SP14/89/68.

Six years younger than Villiers, Mordaunt certainly had several advantages, for his son described him as ‘very beautiful, ingenious, affable and applicable to all [that] was good and useful’. The following year James took Mordaunt to Scotland, ‘during which, that gracious king gave him so many particular marks of his favour and kindness: as to standers-by, fortune and occasion never seemed to present themselves to any with more fairness to be taken hold upon, than to this young lord’.30 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 476; Halstead, 404. However, Mordaunt never managed to oust Villiers from the king’s favour, a failure which his son attributed to ‘a humour he had, which was averse to constraint, and indulgent to all his own passions’.31 Halstead, 404. It is also possible that, like William Monson^‡, another candidate for James’s affections, continuing questions about his religion counted against him.32 HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 357. That being said, there is no firm evidence that Mordaunt ever sought to supplant Villiers, with whom he had a ‘familiarity’ thanks to his mother, the sister of Villiers’ stepfather, Sir Thomas Compton. Indeed, Sir Thomas had been one of the trustees appointed by Mordaunt’s father in 1609.33 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 321; Halstead, 631. Villiers was nevertheless wary about advancing Mordaunt. Although in 1620 he helped secure his pardon for the 1606 Star Chamber fine, he evidently never tried to secure for him a position at court.34 SO3/7, unfol. (Feb. 1620).

In October 1618 it was rumoured that Mordaunt had married Venetia Stanley, mistress of Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, and ‘a notorious gentlewoman for beauty and other special qualities’. However, the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain subsequently admitted that this was erroneous ‘country’ news. On 10 Mar. 1621 Chamberlain reported that Mordaunt had agreed to marry Elizabeth Howard, daughter of William Howard^*, Lord Howard of Effingham, and granddaughter of the former lord admiral, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham. Mordaunt’s Catholicism had evidently proved an obstruction, but Chamberlain reported that ‘the greatest difficulty of his religion is removed by receiving communion with her on Sunday last’. The marriage took place early in the following month.35 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 171, 174, 349, 361. In converting to Protestantism to secure a good marriage, Mordaunt was following the precedent set by Buckingham’s wife, Katherine Manners, daughter of Francis Manners^*, 6th earl of Rutland, who had done the same the year before.

Mordaunt proved dilatory when the Privy Council demanded a benevolence from the nobility for the defence of the Palatinate in October 1620. One of the peers to whom a messenger was sent on 28 Nov. to demand a response, he replied that he would write to the Council. He also ‘made no doubt but to satisfy their honours’ expectation’, but there is no evidence that he ever made payment.36 APC. 1619-21, p. 293; SP14/117/42; 14/118/42. In that same month the third Jacobean Parliament was summoned. As Mordaunt had by now come of age, he took his seat in the Lords when the session started on 30 Jan. 1621. He was recorded as attending 19 of the 44 sittings before Easter, 43 per cent of the total. Excused on 13 Mar., he returned for the House’s next meeting on the 15th. His attendance deteriorated after Easter, when he was marked as present at only 12 out of 43 sittings before the summer adjournment, although there is no evidence that he was licensed to be absent. He was excused when the session resumed on 20 Nov. and, although he took his seat on 4 Dec., it was reported the following day that he had leave. He was not subsequently recorded as attending the House before the dissolution.37 LJ, iii. 43b, 182a; Add. 40086, f. 11.

Mordaunt made no recorded speeches during the 1621 Parliament. However, on 8 Feb. he was named to consider bills against the export of artillery and to compel militiamen to buy better weapons. Exactly a month later he was also appointed to committees on bills to enforce the observance of the Sabbath and reform abuses in procuring writs of certiorari.38 LJ, iii. 13a, 39b. His sole appointment after Easter was on 24 May, when the committee for the bills concerning the Sabbath and writs of certiorari was instructed to confer with the Commons. However, Mordaunt was not recorded as present that day.39 Ibid. 130b.

In February 1621 Mordaunt signed the petition of the English peerage, which sought to bar those Englishmen who had purchased Irish and Scottish titles from enjoying precedence over English barons, such as Mordaunt himself.40 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 187. The principal promoter of the purchase of Irish and Scottish peerages was Buckingham, who regarded the petition – which was never adopted by the upper House - as a plot directed at him. Mordaunt’s willingness to sign this document suggests that Mordaunt placed more importance on his status as a baron than on his connection to the favourite.

On 18 Apr., the day after Parliament resumed sitting following the Easter recess, Chamberlain reported that there had been a ‘brabble’ earlier that week between Mordaunt and Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford. However, aside from the fact that both men ‘came off without hurt’, no further details of the dispute are known.41 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 364. On 12 May one Edward Shereborne was brought before the bar of the House, having been arrested despite claiming to be Lord Mordaunt’s servant. However, it emerged that Shereborne was, in fact, a servant of Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, the recently disgraced former lord chancellor. St Alban, having been found guilty of corruption, had been expelled from the upper House, which meant that his servants were no longer covered by parliamentary privilege. This presumably explains why Shereborne named Mordaunt as his employer. Whether Mordaunt was aware of this ruse is unknown, but he was conveniently absent when Shereborne was brought before the House.42 LJ, iii. 120a.

On 4 Dec. Mordaunt was named to the committee for the bill concerning pleading of the general issue.43 Ibid. 181a. The following day parliamentary privilege was successfully claimed on behalf of two men claiming to be his servants, namely Capt Henry Lucy, who had been arrested by the sheriff of London, and Henry Cooper, arrested by the mayor of Banbury. Lucy at least seems to have been a mercenary in the service of the Habsburgs, and had been arrested by Prince Charles’ agent for the pre-emption of tin for failing to honour a bill of exchange from Venice; his connection with Mordaunt may, therefore, have been slight.44 Ibid. 182a, 187a, 192a, 196b; Add. 40086, f. 49; D.C. Worthington, Scots in Habsburg Service, 72.

Sometime before February 1623 Mordaunt drafted a petition which Buckingham recommended to the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex. The petition has not survived, but it evidently concerned the grant of a large area of commons at Middleham, a crown manor in Yorkshire, which Mordaunt already leased. In January 1624 Buckingham pressed Middlesex for a reply, only to receive a very discouraging response from the lord treasurer, who argued that the grant was unlikely to prove profitable, and would be unpopular among the local inhabitants, who claimed ownership of the lands themselves. Middlesex added that he thought that the timing of the suit was particularly inappropriate because of the forthcoming fourth Jacobean Parliament, which assembled in February.45 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent., U269/1/OE108, Buckingham to Middlesex, 19 Jan. 1623[/4]; Middlesex to Buckingham (draft), 24 Jan. 1623[/4]; R. Hoyle, ‘Reflections on the Hist. of the Crown Lands’, Estates of the Eng. Crown ed. R.W. Hoyle, 429-30; CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 575-7.

Early in the new Parliament it was reported that Mordaunt was one of several Catholic peers who ceased attending the Lords because they refused to take the oath of allegiance.46 William Whiteway of Dorchester: his Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 60. In fact, Mordaunt was never barred from taking his seat, and was marked as attending 42 of the Lords’ 92 sittings, 45 per cent of the total. Although not recorded as having taken the oath in either this Parliament or the previous one, he may have done so outside Parliament, possibly at the time of his marriage, when he would have needed to prove his Protestant credentials. He made no recorded speeches and was appointed to only three of the 105 committees established by the upper House in 1624. These were for bills to prevent levying fines in other men’s names and against infanticide, as well as a private measure to confirm a grant to the Scottish courtier, John Ramsay^*, earl of Holdernesse, of land in Kent forfeited from a recusant.47 LJ, iii. 303b, 305b, 372a. In addition, Mordaunt appears to have been nominated to consider a private bill for Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu, a Catholic peer who, like Mordaunt’s father, had come under suspicion for being absent from Parliament at the time of the Gunpowder Plot. However, his name was deleted from the committee list.48 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 31v. On 27 Apr. Thomas Wentworth^*, 4th Lord Wentworth (subsequently earl of Cleveland) successfully claimed parliamentary privilege for one of Mordaunt’s servants, Goodyer Hopton, perhaps a relative of Wentworth’s wife.49 LJ, iii. 323a; THOMAS WENTWORTH, EARL OF CLEVELAND.

Following the Parliament Mordaunt continued to lay claim on Buckingham’s patronage. In December 1624 the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), complained to the duke about a clergyman on whose behalf Mordaunt had been lobbying Buckingham for the deanery of York. Williams alleged that the minster concerned was a gambler, heavily in debt and ‘of not fitting conversation for a churchman; but of very mean parts, either of learning or government’. He was also, allegedly, a drunk.50 Cabala (1691), i. 279. Mordaunt’s willingness to promote such an unsuitable candidate was perhaps a symptom of the fact that his own allegiance to the Church of England remained shaky. Indeed, by 1625 he had apparently rejected even nominal conformity to the Church of England and was presented as a suspected recusant in Northamptonshire.51 Add. 61481, f. 23.

Early Caroline parliaments and conversion to Protestantism, 1625-9

Mordaunt attended only the first two sittings of the 1625 Parliament, on 18 and 20 June. This may have been because, on 22 June, the Lords resolved that all members should take the oath of allegiance. If so, it would indicate a strengthening of Mordaunt’s commitment to his Catholic faith. He appointed as his proxy a fellow Northamptonshire peer, the firmly Protestant Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer, and was excused attendance when the House was called on 23 June.52 Procs. 1625, pp. 39, 47, 591.

In November 1625 Mordaunt, hoping to convert his wife, arranged for a debate to be held between a Jesuit priest - probably Robert Rookwood - and James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, who had been nominated for this purpose by Lady Mordaunt. The disputation was held at Mordaunt’s house at Drayton, ‘where there was a great library [so] that no books of the ancient fathers were wanting’. However, after three days, Rookwood suddenly made his excuses and withdrew. This angered Mordaunt who, notwithstanding, continued to discuss the matters raised with Ussher. He was thereby converted ‘and became a Protestant, and so continued to his last’.53 N. Bernard, Life and Death of the Most Reverend and Learned Father of our Church, Dr. James Usher (1656), 54-6; Works of Ussher ed. C.R. Elrington, i. 67-8.

Sometime during the 1626 Parliament, Mordaunt gave his proxy to the lord president, Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester, brother of Mordaunt’s Northamptonshire neighbour, Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu. As neither Montagu was closely connected to him it is likely that Mordaunt selected Manchester because he was a senior privy councillor and an ally of Buckingham.54 Procs. 1626, iv. 11; E.S. Cope, Life of a Public Man, 122. However, it seems unlikely that Manchester made much use of this proxy, as Mordaunt was recorded as attending 43 of the 81 sittings, or 53 per cent of the total, and never seems to have missed more than eight sittings in succession (obtaining leave of absence on four occasions).55 Procs. 1626, i. 65, 201, 265. William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids and later archbishop of Canterbury, included Mordaunt among Buckingham’s supporters in his classification of members’ loyalty in the 1626 upper House.56 E. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 169.

Mordaunt was named to seven of the 49 committees appointed by the Lords in 1626. He was added to the committee for petitions on 20 Feb., when he also took the oath of allegiance. His other appointments included the committee for defence and another established to examine the evidence relating to the king’s charges against John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, and Bristol’s defence. In his capacity as a member of the latter body he signed the witness statements taken from Sir Dudley Digges^‡ and Endymion Porter^‡. In addition, on 1 Apr. Mordaunt, with Thomas Cromwell^*, 4th Lord Cromwell, formally introduced to the House Mordaunt’s cousin, Spencer Compton^*, Lord Compton (subsequently 2nd earl of Northampton), who had been summoned in his father’s barony.57 Procs. 1626, i. 61, 110, 240, 541, 597, 599.

On 1 Mar. Mordaunt was ordered to be given notice of a bill promoted by Charles Howard^*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, uncle to Mordaunt’s wife. This measure was intended by Nottingham to secure control over the property which had formerly belonged to his elder brother, Lady Mordaunt’s father. This property was then in the possession of Lady Mordaunt’s mother but would pass to Mordaunt and his wife on her death. However, it was rejected in committee on 15 March.58 Ibid. 86; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 283.

Five days later Giles Johnson, a servant of Mordaunt’s, petitioned the Lords claiming he had been arrested on the warrant of a Buckinghamshire magistrate contrary to the privileges of Parliament. He accused the arresting officers of ‘using many uncivil and disgraceful speeches concerning his said lord and in derogation of the power and authority of the honourable House of Parliament’. On 30 Mar. the constable responsible appeared and told the House that Johnson had been arrested for getting a woman pregnant, that he had failed to mention he was employed by Mordaunt until an hour after his arrest, and that he ‘neither showed protection or other note to testify the same’. The constable and those who assisted him were discharged, prompting a further petition from Johnson accusing his adversaries of ‘saying that they care not a fart for the petitioner’s lord or what the Parliament could do unto them’. He also alleged that they had threatened ‘to strike him with a cudgel for saying he was the Lord Mordaunt’s servant’. However, this second petition was rejected.59 Procs. 1626, i. 184, 187-8, 227-8, 229, 246.

In the Commons Mordaunt was initially included in the petition of the lower House against recusants holding public office. However, on 3 May John Pym^‡ recommended that Mordaunt should be omitted ‘in respect of divers testimonies of his inclination to conform himself to our religion’. This suggests that the result of the disputation at Drayton was only slowly becoming known. Eight days later the Commons resolved that Mordaunt’s name should be left out of the petition.60 Ibid. iii. 139, 229.

Shortly after the dissolution, Mordaunt quarrelled with Sir Edward Stradling^‡, the son of a Welsh baronet. On 3 July Secretary of State Edward Conway^*, Lord Conway (later 1st Viscount Conway), ordered Mordaunt not to accept Stradling’s challenge. Unlike Mordaunt, Stradling was summoned to appear before the Council, suggesting that the Council blamed him for the quarrel, the cause of which remains unknown.61 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 366; APC, 1626, p. 53.

In late 1626 Mordaunt was appointed one of the commissioners for the Forced Loan in Northamptonshire. In January 1627 the privy councillors sent to initiate collection of the unparliamentary levy in that county reported that Mordaunt had co-operated in minimizing local opposition.62 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 15. However, he himself was slow to pay; indeed, he was listed as a refuser in a manuscript tract against the Loan, and was one of the peers to whom the Council wrote on 18 July demanding payment within ten days.63 APC, 1627, p. 420; SP16/54/82I. He nevertheless retained his local offices, suggesting that he eventually fell into line. His reluctance to comply, though, may help to explain why his attempt in the summer of 1627 to purchase Geddington woods, part of Rockingham forest in Northamptonshire, was blocked. Instead, these woods were bought by Lord Montagu. Mordaunt succeeded only in purchasing Farming woods, also part of Rockingham forest, at a cost of £1,150. (He also secured the reversion to the forestership of Farming woods, but there is no evidence that he ever enjoyed that office).64 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 318, 321; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 532, 573; E401/1388, rot. 38; Coventry Docquets, 247-8. However, the following July Mordaunt also purchased the timber in Farming woods, probably for significantly less than its true worth.65 APC, 1628-9, p. 11; P.A.J. Pettit, Royal Forests of Northants. (Northants. Rec. Soc. xxiii), 69.

By 27 Feb. 1628 Charles had resolved to make Mordaunt an earl. On that day Buckingham informed the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, that the king had decided that Mordaunt’s earldom should be ranked below those to be granted to William Cavendish^*, Viscount Mansfield (later 1st duke of Newcastle) and Henry Carey^*, Viscount Rochford. As a result, Mordaunt’s patent making him earl of Peterborough was not issued until 9 Mar., after Mansfield had been made earl of Newcastle and Rochford earl of Dover.66 ‘Additional State Pprs. Dom. for Chas. I from the Docquets of Lord Kpr. Coventry (1625-40) in the Birmingham City Archives’ ed. J. Broadway, R. Cust and S.K. Roberts Archives, xxxi. 149, where the relevant document (a letter from the attorney general to the lord keeper) is misdated 1627. See Coventry Docquets, 737. All three new earls were reportedly strong supporters of Buckingham, but they owed their new honours to purchase rather than to the duke’s favour. Mordaunt’s motives for buying an earldom are unclear, but he may have wanted to extinguish any lingering disfavour over his slow payment of the Forced Loan. He may also have wished to prevent his neighbour and rival, Lord Montagu, from gaining pre-eminence over him.67 HMC Skrine, 142.

Peterborough was recorded as attending only 28 of the 94 sittings of the 1628 session, 30 per cent of the total. He was excused on 21 Mar. and 5 May, but returned to the House after three days on the first occasion, and after a fortnight on the second. He last attended on 3 June.68 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 80, 87, 379. He made no recorded speeches and received no committee appointments, although he was initially nominated, on 17 Apr., to consider an estate bill for Henry Neville^*, 2nd or 9th Lord Abergavenny, whose heir, Sir Thomas Neville, had married Peterborough’s sister. His name was deleted from the committee list in the scribbled book, presumably because, as a trustee mentioned in the bill, he was not considered impartial.69 Ibid. 258, n.17; Collins, Peerage, v. 169; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1627/3C1n11.

On 17 Apr. 1628 Peterborough was named by the Commons as a witness to words allegedly spoken by Theophilus Howard^*, 2nd earl of Suffolk, who was accused of having said that John Selden^‡, a Member of the Commons, deserved to be executed. However, there is no evidence that Peterborough subsequently provided testimony.70 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 256. In the 1629 session Peterborough was again recorded as attending 30 per cent of the Lords’ sittings, seven out of 23. He received one appointment, in his absence, on 21 Feb., when he was named to the committee for defence, possibly because he had served on the same committee in 1626. He left no other trace on the parliamentary records.71 LJ, iv. 37b.

Later life, 1630-43

In July 1631 Peterborough purchased the encroached lands in Middleham in fee farm. However, he was soon embroiled in litigation with the tenants and, in 1639, secured permission to surrender the property back to the crown.72 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 108; 1638-9, pp. 575-7; Coventry Docquets, 253; HMC Cowper, ii. 70. In June 1636 he reportedly quarrelled in a London tavern with Sir James Hamilton, and prepared to go abroad to fight a duel, but nothing more is known about the dispute.73 C115/108/8608. From 1635 he became a victim of the stricter enforcement of the forest laws. In June he was presented, along with his Northamptonshire neighbours, Thomas Brudenell^*, Lord Brudenell (subsequently 1st earl of Cardigan) and Sir Lewis Tresham, for felling trees in Farming woods. They were fined £5,000, but there is no evidence that the money was ever paid, presumably because Peterborough pointed out that he had purchased the timber seven years earlier. However, the claims by the crown law officers that Rockingham forest was much larger than previously supposed obliged Peterborough to pay £800 for the disafforestation of his Northamptonshire properties in 1639.74 C99/60/4; Pettit, 87-8, 90, 118.

On being summoned in January 1639 by Charles I to York to fight the Scottish Covenanters, Peterborough protested that ‘three parts of my estate … is not yet come into my hands’. This was possibly a reference to the fact that his mother was still living and to the fact that his wife’s mother had died only a few months ago. However, he may well have been exaggerating his poverty in an attempt to evade the service as he had not previously been short of money. He offered to provide eight horses, but inquired whether there was ‘any other way, wherein I may better serve my master’. He ended up paying £500 instead.75 SP16/412/124; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 605.

According to his son it was as a result of his wife’s influence that Peterborough supported Parliament when the Civil War broke out in 1642. That year he served as general of the ordnance in the army of Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex. However, he died intestate the following June ‘of a consumption’, and was buried at Turvey, the Mordaunts’ ancestral home in Bedfordshire, on the 24th.76 Halstead, 405; W.M. Harvey, Hist. and Antiquities of the Hundred of Willey, ped. bet. pp. 186-7. There is no evidence that letters of administration were issued for his estate, his widow having refused to request them.77 HMC 5th Rep. 103.