suc. uncle 27 Dec. 1707 as 4th earl of SCARSDALE
First sat 8 Jan. 1708; last sat 28 Feb. 1735
b. 6 Nov. 1682,1 1st s. of Hon. Richard Leke and Mary, 2nd da. of Sir John Molyneux‡, 3rd bt., of Teversall, Notts. educ. travelled abroad (Austria, Germany and Italy) 1702-3;2 ?Oxf. DCL 26 Apr. 1706. unm. d. 17 July 1736; will 30 Aug. 1734, pr. 7 Dec. 1736.3
Ld. lt. Derbys. 1711-14.
Amb. to Vienna 1712 (did not go).4
Associated with: Sutton-in-Scarsdale, Derbys. and Duke Street, Westminster.5
Little is known of Leke prior to his succession to the earldom. Fatherless at the age of five, his upbringing was presumably left to his mother until her death in 1691, after which he was probably taken under the care of his uncle, Robert Leke, 3rd earl of Scarsdale. His maternal uncles, Sir Francis‡ and Thomas Molyneux‡, were active in Nottinghamshire and Lancashire politics, but they were on opposite sides of the political fence to Scarsdale, and as Leke’s inclinations were in sympathy with those of the latter it seems reasonable to assume that Scarsdale’s influence was the more important. At about the age of 20, Leke left England for a foreign tour to complete his education. He was present at a dinner hosted by the Prince of Liechtenstein in Vienna in December 1702, and he was probably the ‘Mr Leke’ noted as being in Berlin the following year.6 It also seems likely that he was the Nicholas Leake advanced DCL by Oxford in 1706. With the peerage he succeeded to estates in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, but his inheritance was significantly depleted by debt and encumbered with the payment of bequests amounting to £8,500 (including £3,000 each to his sisters, Frances and Lucy Leke).7
Scarsdale took his seat in the House on 8 Jan. 1708, midway through the first Parliament of Great Britain, after which he attended for much of the remainder of the session (approximately 44 per cent of all sitting days). On 7 Feb. he acted as teller for the contents for the division in the committee of the whole on the question of whether a proviso should be added to the bill for completing the Union, and on 31 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution that the committal of Marmaduke Langdale, 3rd Baron Langdale, was not a breach of privilege.
Following the dissolution, Scarsdale was noted as a Tory on a list drawn up in or about May 1708. In September it was reported that he had injured himself in a fall from his horse while drunk, but he recovered in time to attend the opening of the new parliament on 16 Nov. 1708 after which he attended on 76 per cent of sitting days.8 On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted in favour of permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the election of Scots representative peers and on 15 Mar. subscribed the protest at the resolution to commit the general naturalization bill. On 28 Mar. he acted as teller on the question of whether to read a rider to the union improvement (treason) bill a second time and protested when the rider was given a second reading. Scarsdale acted as teller again on 11 Apr. when he told for those in favour of committing the bill for Robert Bertie, marquess of Lindsey.
Following the prorogation, Scarsdale became one of the founder members of a club established by Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort, as a Tory rival to the Whig Kit Kat Club. Dubbed at first ‘the Uncaptious Brothers’, it was soon after renamed ‘the Board of Brothers’. Scarsdale continued to attend the meetings regularly over the following years.
Scarsdale took his seat at the opening of the 1709-10 session, after which he was present on 78 per cent of sitting days. On 16 Feb. 1710 he entered his dissent at the resolution to agree with the Commons in the address requesting the queen to order John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, to depart at once for Holland, and the same day he registered two further dissents at the resolutions not to adjourn and not to require Greenshields to attend the House. On 28 Feb. he acted as teller for the not contents on the question of whether to agree to a motion concerning the defence in the Sacheverell trial, and he continued to register a number of dissents over the course of the ensuing month. On 14 Mar. he dissented at the resolution not to adjourn and the same day subscribed the protest at the resolution that it was not necessary to include in an impeachment the particular words supposed to be criminal. On 16 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to put the question whether the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment against Sacheverell and on 17 Mar. at the resolution that the Commons had made good the second, third and fourth articles, then on 18 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to limit peers to a single verdict covering all the articles against him. On 20 Mar. Scarsdale, unsurprisingly, found Sacheverell not guilty and registered his dissent against the guilty verdict. On 21 Mar. he registered a further dissent at the censure passed against Sacheverell.
Scarsdale’s fellow member of the Board of Brothers, Beaufort, was at pains to employ his interest over the summer of 1710 in an attempt to secure the lord lieutenancy of Derbyshire for Scarsdale (‘who above all things desires it’).9 Although the lieutenancy remained elusive for the time being, Scarsdale was successful in employing his interest in the county elections on behalf of Godfrey Clarke‡ and John Curzon‡ to the disparagement of Thomas Coke‡.10 Coke, who had represented the county for the previous nine years, had supported the Sacheverell impeachment and now wrote plaintively to Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford and Mortimer, ‘I hope I shall not have the mortification to hear my Lord Scarsdale is our lord lieutenant.’11 Harley reckoned Scarsdale to be a likely supporter in October and in November included his name in a memorandum of people to be contacted.
Scarsdale resumed his seat at the opening of the 1710 Parliament and was present on approximately 81 per cent of sitting days during the 1710-11 session. Active in the debates in the House on 9, 11 and 12 Jan. 1711 concerning the conduct of the war, during which he was one of several peers to complain of the delays in acquiring information about the campaign, on 11 Jan. he acted as one of the tellers on the question of whether to reject the petition of Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I]. The following day, he proposed:
That it appears by the earl of Sunderland’s [Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland], letter to Mr Stanhope, that the design of an offensive war in Spain, was approved and directed by the cabinet-council, notwithstanding the opinion of General Stanhope [James Stanhope† later Earl Stanhope]) in case of an attempt upon France, which they knew was then concerted with the duke of Savoy; which contributed to our misfortunes in Spain, and to the disappointment before Toulon.12
Scarsdale’s motion provoked a heated debate, which was then continued in a committee of the whole chaired by Montagu Venables Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon (another member of the Board). On Scarsdale repeating his motion in the committee but altering the term ‘cabinet-council’ to ‘ministers’, his right to do so was challenged by the Whigs. Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrers, defended Scarsdale’s right to adjust the terminology, and Scarsdale himself explained that he had done so ‘because the word ministers is better known than that of a cabinet council.’13
On 29 Jan. 1711 Scarsdale acted as teller for the not contents again on the question of whether to agree to a reversal of the judgment in the cause of Paul v. Shaw, and on 5 Feb. he registered his dissent at the resolution to reject the bill for repealing the general naturalization act. Scarsdale was absent briefly from 14 to 20 Mar. but ensured that in his absence his fellow Brother, Beaufort, held his proxy. On 9 Apr. he reported from the committee considering Sir Jeffrey Palmer’s bill, and on 16 Apr. he reported from that considering Sir Henry Robinson’s estate bill. Scarsdale was the cause of a violent altercation at a meeting of the Board of Brothers held on 27 Apr. when Sir Cholmley Dering‡ claimed that another member, Richard Thornhill, had insulted Scarsdale. In the resulting duel, fought on 9 May, Dering was killed.14 Thornhill was subsequently convicted of manslaughter.
Scarsdale does not appear to have been a participant in the Thornhill-Dering duel, and the fight failed to interrupt his activity in the House. On the day that Dering was killed, Scarsdale was involved with the conference considering amendments to the act for repairing highways. The following day (10 May) he was involved with the conference considering amendments to the act for the preservation of pine trees in the American colonies, and on 12 May he was active in the conference over the bill for the preservation of game. The following day he reported from the committee considering the bill to enable James Griffin, titular 2nd Baron Griffin, and his son Edward Griffin, later 3rd Baron Griffin, son and grandson respectively of the outlawed Jacobite peer, Edward Griffin, Baron Griffin, to raise money for the payment of debts. On 17 May Scarsdale was active in another conference for the bill for the preservation of game, and the same day he reported from the committee of the whole considering the naval stores bill. On 31 May he was again involved with the conference concerning the bill for the preservation of game. The same month a warrant was passed appointing him lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of Derbyshire.15 In June he was included in a list of Tory patriots.
Following the prorogation, Scarsdale attended the single sitting day on 27 Nov. 1711, on which occasion he introduced Ferrers, newly promoted in the peerage as Earl Ferrers. He resumed his seat in the second session on 7 Dec. and was thereafter present on almost 79 per cent of all sitting days. In advance of the session he was noted as one of Oxford’s supporters and on 2 Dec. as one of those to be canvassed prior to the motion on no peace without Spain. Scarsdale protested at the resolution to present the address to the Queen on 8 Dec., and on 10 Dec. he remained loyal to the government in the vote on no peace without Spain. On 19 Dec. he was reckoned to be in favour of allowing James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as duke of Brandon and 20 Dec. acted as teller on the question of whether to refer Hamilton’s patent to the judges. Despite the prediction of support for Hamilton he voted in favour of preventing Scottish peers at the time of Union from sitting by virtue of post-Union British peerages.16
During the Christmas recess of 1711, Scarsdale was noted by Oxford as one of those to be contacted prior to Parliament reconvening in January. He returned to the House on 2 Jan. 1712 and was again prominent in its deliberations. When John Somers, Baron Somers, opposed the queen’s desire that the House should be adjourned on 4 Jan., Scarsdale replied, hoping that ‘nobody would mind what that lord had said, but comply with her majesty’s desire and adjourn forthwith.’17 On 8 Feb. Scarsdale acted as one of the tellers on the question whether to agree with the resolution of the committee for privileges that Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, should be granted privilege in his case with Hamilton over the disputed inheritance of the Gerard estates. On 29 Feb. he again acted as a teller on the question whether to commit the bill for limiting officers in the House of Commons.
Despite securing the coveted lieutenancy of Derbyshire, Scarsdale appears to have become increasingly discontented with his lack of recognition by the government, and in March it was reported that he was, ‘so angry that he has no place that he declares he’ll turn Whig, and as a mark of that he led the duchess of Marlborough out of the opera.’18 Irritation with the administration did not stand in the way of his continued participation in the House’s business. On 13 Mar. he acted as teller for the motion to reverse the decree in Conway v. Buckingham, and on 19 May he was again teller on the question put in the committee of the whole whether the words ‘exorbitant and other’ should stand part of the bill for commissioners to examine grants made since the revolution. His annoyance also failed to prevent him from dividing with the ministry on 28 May on the question of the ‘restraining orders’ that had been imposed on James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond.
Scarsdale’s grumbling paid off in August when it was reported that he was to be appointed ambassador to Vienna. Rumours of the appointment continued to circulate during the next two months, but although it was reported in October that he had kissed the queen’s hand for the place, he eventually requested to be released from it without ever having taken up the post.19 His appointment gave rise to a squabble in the press; one paper reported his audience with the emperor whilst another recorded that he had been seen by ‘five hundred persons, in and about this city [London]; where he still continues.’20 Besides Scarsdale’s evident reluctance to take up the place, diplomatic factors were also an issue. In December it was noted that he would not ‘set out on his embassy to the court of Vienna, till the issue of the negotiations at Utrecht be known.’21
With matters thus undecided, Scarsdale appears to have been content to while away the time in London and Derbyshire. He was also said to have entertained ‘Papists and Jacobites’ at his seat that year.22 Present in the House on nine of the prorogation days that followed the closing of the previous session, in spring 1713 Scarsdale was listed by Jonathan Swift as a likely supporter of the ministry, and he was again included in a memorandum prepared by Oxford in February 1713, possibly noting people he intended to see before Parliament reopened. Scarsdale was present on approximately two thirds of sitting days in the 1713 session. He spoke in the debate on the state of the nation on 1 June and on 4 June reported from the committee for the estate bill for Sir John Brownlow‡. On 13 June he was estimated as a likely supporter of confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French treaty of commerce. The following month, he was one of those deputed to greet the new French ambassador, the duc d’Aumont.23
Following the dissolution, Scarsdale attended the single sitting on 10 Dec. 1713 and then resumed his seat at the opening of the first session of the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714. Present for almost 89 per cent of all sitting days, towards the end of the month he received a letter from Oxford encouraging him to set out for Vienna. Oxford emphasized that he would ‘find your way made easy for your intended embassy’ and it was presumably in response to this that Scarsdale asked to be released from the appointment.24 On 15 Mar. he received the proxy of another member of the Board, James Cecil, 5th earl of Salisbury, which was vacated on 11 May. Scarsdale featured in another of Oxford’s memoranda on 2 April. On 13 Apr. he acted as teller for those in favour of inserting the words ‘and industriously’ to the address to the queen concerning the safeguarding of the protestant succession, and on 17 Apr. he was teller for those opposed to passing the House of Commons officers bill. Oxford wrote to Scarsdale again on 19 Apr., apologizing for missing ‘an opportunity of making your lordship my sincere and most respectful compliments before you went out of the House’ and hoping that he would ‘accept this letter to testify the sense I have of your services.’25 Scarsdale was teller on the question of whether to reverse the court’s decree in Roper v. Hewet on 1 May, and on 27 May he was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as being in favour of the schism bill. The same day, he reported from the committee for Simon Scroope’s bill. Scarsdale received Salisbury’s proxy again on 3 June (perhaps to be employed in the division of 5 June whether the House should read the malt bill a second time), which was vacated by Salisbury’s resumption of his seat on 15 June; on 7 June he was teller for those opposed to discharging Peckham from custody. Two days later he acted as one of the tellers in a division in a committee of the whole over the retention of the clause in the schism bill stipulating a penalty of three months’ imprisonment without bail. On 28 June he reported from the committee of the whole concerning Thomas Edwin’s bill. The same day he again received Salisbury’s proxy (vacated by the close of the session) and on 3 July that of another Board member, Other Windsor, 2nd earl of Plymouth, vacated by Plymouth’s return to the House on 8 July. The same month he was a supporter of the bill for the commissioners for accounts being given a second reading. Following the death of the Queen Anne, Scarsdale returned to the House for the brief 15-day session of August 1714. Present for 70 per cent of these, on 6 Aug. he again held Salisbury’s proxy from 6 Aug. to the close of the session.
Scarsdale was put out of his lieutenancy during the summer of 1714. Despite earlier threats to defect to the Whigs, he remained an assiduous member of the Tory opposition for the remainder of his life. Closely associated with a number of committed Jacobites, Scarsdale was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower during the 1715 rising; in 1728 he paid for the funeral of William Tunstall, one of those who had been captured at Preston during the rebellion but who was subsequently pardoned.26 The latter part of his career will be covered in the next phase of this work.
Scarsdale died, unmarried, ‘after a tedious indisposition of the gout’ on 17 July 1736 at his house in Duke Street.27 He left £500 apiece to George Henry Lee, 2nd earl of Lichfield, Rev. Thomas Feild and Henry Wood (his executors), and £200 to his surviving sister, Lucy Leke. The remainder of his estate was divided between two relatives, Nicholas Leke and Seymour Leke (then aged 15), who was being educated at Westminster at Scarsdale’s expense and intended for the Church.28 Scarsdale was buried at Sutton Scarsdale in Derbyshire on 4 August.29 Although it was reported that he left an estate worth an annual income of £7,000, he died massively in debt on account of his expensive building works at Sutton Hall, and in the absence of a direct male heir the peerage became extinct.30
R.D.E.E.- 1 Sutton-cum-Duckmanton Par. Reg. 1662-1837 ed. P. Kettle and P. Riden, (Derbys. Rec. Soc. xviii), 65.
- 2 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 2, box 9, folder 182, no. 137, George Stepney to Blathwayt, 2 Dec. 1702; UNL, Portland mss PwA/113.
- 3 TNA, PROB 11/678.
- 4 Stowe 750, f. 42.
- 5 London Mag. 1736, 400.
- 6 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 2, box 9, folder 182, no. 137, George Stepney to Blathwayt, 2 Dec. 1702; UNL, Portland mss PwA/113.
- 7 TNA, PROB 11/499.
- 8 HMC Egmont, ii. 230.
- 9 HMC Portland, iv. 546.
- 10 HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 131.
- 11 HMC Portland, iv. 612.
- 12 Timberland, ii. 318.
- 13 Ibid. 319.
- 14 HMC Portland, iv. 686.
- 15 Ibid. 694.
- 16 Add. 49360, f. 57.
- 17 Wentworth Pprs. 239.
- 18 Ibid. 282.
- 19 Ibid. 297; Add. 61461, ff. 187-8; Christ Church, Oxford, Wake mss 17, f. 340-1; British Mercury, 24 Sept. 1712; Post Boy, 2-4 Oct. 1712; British Mercury, 5 Nov. 1712; UNL, Portland mss Pw2Hy/972/1; Stowe 750, f. 42.
- 20 Examiner, 9-16 Oct. 1712.
- 21 British Mercury, 10 Dec. 1712.
- 22 Brit. Pols, 93.
- 23 Add. 22220, ff. 76-77; Wentworth Pprs. 341-2; London Gazette, 30 June-4 July 1713.
- 24 Stowe 750, ff. 42, 50.
- 25 Ibid. f. 53.
- 26 HJ, xx. 81; LJ, xx. 238; HMC Var. Coll. viii. 94.
- 27 Gent. Mag. vi. 424; London Mag. (1736), 400; London Evening Post, 15-17 July 1736.
- 28 Bodl. Rawl. Letters 45, no. 44; TNA, PROB 11/678, sig. 191.
- 29 Sutton-cum-Duckmanton Par. Reg. 77.
- 30 Daily Gazetteer, 19 July 1736.