HUSSEY, Sir Thomas, 2nd Bt. (1639-1706), of Honington and Doddington, Lincs.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
bap. 14 Jan. 1639, 2nd but 1st surv. s. of Thomas Hussey† of Honington, by Rhoda, da. and coh. of Thomas Chapman of Soper Lane, London. educ. Wormley, Herts. (Mr Lovelace); Christ’s, Camb. 1655, MA 1656. m. 21 Feb. 1661, Sarah (d. 1697), da. of Sir John Langham, 1st Bt.†, of Crosby Place, Bishopsgate, London and Cottesbrooke, Northants., 6s. d.v.p. 4da. (1 d.v.p.) suc. fa. bef. 1641; gdfa. as 2nd Bt. 22 Mar. 1648.1
Freeman, Lincoln 1664; sheriff, Lincs. 1668–9.2
One of the most reluctant of the Lincolnshire Tories to rally to William III at the Revolution, Hussey was classed as ‘doubtful’ by Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†) at the outset of the 1690 Parliament. He was active in the first session, telling on 13 May in favour of reading a proviso for the bill for encouraging the manufacture of white paper. His interest in issues of a commercial kind was also apparent when he was first-named to the committee on the bill to discourage imports of thrown silk. Such preoccupations may be attributed to his wife’s metropolitan links, as well as to the City property which he had inherited from his maternal grandfather. He continued to immerse himself in mercantile affairs in the next session, when he was the first nominee for a committee on the petition of vinegar-makers in the London area (27 Oct. 1690), and was also named to the drafting committee on the bill to employ foreign seamen (31 Oct.). Soon after the end of the session he was listed by Robert Harley* as a Country supporter, but, in contrast to his cousin Sir Edward Hussey, 3rd Bt.*, he was inconspicuous in the remainder of the Parliament, failing to make any significant contribution to Commons’ business. Indeed, his only mention in the Journals concerned leave of absence which he obtained in February 1694 to attend to his sick wife.3
Hussey successfully contested Lincolnshire in 1695 and was forecast as a probable opponent of the Court for a division on 31 Jan. 1696 on the proposed council of trade. He signed the Association the following month, but then voted against the government on fixing the price of guineas at 22s. In the next session he revealed an interest in social legislation, and was named on 31 Oct. 1696 to a committee to assess the statutes relating to the poor and to draft new legislation to improve poor relief. He did not stand in 1698, but was retrospectively classed as a Country supporter. Thereafter he does not appear to have played any significant political role before his death on 19 Dec. 1706. At his demise his estates were divided among his three surviving daughters, the youngest of whom went on to marry Richard Ellys*, while the baronetcy passed to his cousin Sir Edward.4
Ref Volumes: 1690-1715
Authors: Paula Watson / Perry Gauci
- 1. R. G. E. Cole, Doddington, 99, 101, 107–8.