LLOYD, Richard (?1696-1761), of Hintlesham Hall, Suff.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. ?1696, s. of Talbot Lloyd of Lichfield. educ. Lichfield sch.; St. John’s, Camb. 12 June 1713, aged 16; fellow 1718-23; M. Temple 1720, called 1723, bencher 1738. m. Elizabeth, da. of William Field of Crustwic, Essex, 2s. 1da. suc. fa. bef. 1713, and bro.-in-law to Crustwic. Kntd. 23 Nov. 1745.
K.C. 1738; solicitor-gen. 1754-6; serjeant-at-law 1759; baron of the Exchequer 1759-61; recorder, Harwich, Orford and Ipswich.
Little is known of Lloyd’s parentage or early career except that he was deputy recorder and legal adviser to the 1st Lord Egmont at Harwich between 1727 and 1734. By 1741 he was sufficiently eminent in his profession to be briefed as counsel for the government candidates when the Westminster election petition was heard at the bar of the House of Commons, acquitting himself extremely well, though eclipsed by his opponent, William Murray.1 In 1744 he is mentioned in a legal skit as aspiring to become solicitor-general.2
In 1745 the widow of the 3rd Earl of Winchilsea died at the age of 90, leaving Lloyd the whole of her estate and appointing him her sole executor; the will throws no light on her reasons for making him her heir. A month later he entered Parliament for a Cornish borough as a government supporter. At the end of the year he was knighted as one of a deputation from the bench and bar presenting a loyal address to the King. He was chosen to open the trial of Lord Balmerino and was one of the managers of Lord Lovat’s trial in 1746.
At the general election of 1747 Lloyd was returned for Maldon, where he had built up a strong interest.3 In 1748 he was suspected of trying to ‘steal’ the borough of Orford from the Treasury.4 In the House he spoke as one of the leading government lawyers on the Westminster election petition, the Anstruther case, the regency bill, and the repeal of the Jewish naturalization bill. He is reported to have spoken against Lord Hardwicke’s marriage bill in committee but to have afterwards voted for it, without assigning any reason for his change of opinion.5 He succeeded Murray as solicitor-general in 1754 but was not considered fit to succeed him as attorney-general in 1756, in the end having to content himself with a judgeship.
He died 6 Sept. 1761.