HUSSEY, Sir Edward, 3rd Bt. (c.1662-1725), of Caythorpe, Lincs.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning, 1983
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Constituency

Dates

28 May 1689
Dec. 1701

Family and Education

b. c.1662, 2nd s. of (Sir) Charles Hussey, 1st Bt. educ. Trinity Coll. Camb. adm. 18 May 1675, aged 13; M. Temple 1676. m. (1) by 1680, Charlotte (d. 30 Aug. 1695), da. and h. of Daniel Brevint, dean of Lincoln, 5s. d.v.p. 7da.; (2) 31 May 1698, Elizabeth, da. and h. of Sir Charles de Vic, 2nd Bt., of Guernsey, 3s. (2 d.v.p.) 1da. suc. bro. as 3rd Bt. Apr. 1680, cos. Sir Thomas Hussey of Honington as 3rd Bt. 19 Dec. 1706.1

Offices Held

J.p. Lincs. (Kesteven) 1682-Feb. 1688, Oct. 1688-?d.; freeman, Lincoln 1689; commr. for assessment, Lincs. 1689-90.2

Biography

Hussey presumably opposed exclusion, for he was appointed to the commission of the peace as soon as he came of age, and he was one of those who presented a congratulatory address from Lincolnshire on James II’s accession. The Earl of Lindsey (Robert Bertie I) in January 1688 expected him to be elected at Boston, but like his cousin he followed the lead of (Sir) Henry Monson in refusing consent to the repeal of the Test Act and Penal Laws. He was removed from local office, and is not known to have stood at the general election of 1689. But when Monson was expelled the House as a non-juror, Hussey quickly purchased the freedom of Lincoln and was elected in his place. An active Member of the Convention, he was appointed to 23 committees, and made two recorded speeches. On 12 Aug. he was named to the committee for the security bill. In the debate on the succession on 6 Nov. he said:

There is a clause in the bill that I do not understand. ‘That no Papist shall succeed to the crown, none of the Church of Rome, and no Protestant shall be put by’. Charles I was thought a Papist; Charles II by many was reckoned popishly affected; and I fear, as there was Spanish gold stirring in Court and Parliament in James I’s time, why may not these things happen again? I hear of no test to the King to distinguish him from a Papist; must the muzzle be set upon the King when the Council please? This may prevent a Lutheran from coming to the crown, because he comes not up to all the points of our religion. I fear it may be like the bill of oaths, which the greatest lawyers of England understand not. There is a clause in the bill ‘that the King shall not suspend laws, etc.’ What if a murder be committed and a man wrongfully condemned, shall he be