LUMLEY, Henry (c.1658-1722).

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. D. Hayton, E. Cruickshanks, S. Handley, 2002
Available from Boydell and Brewer



Feb. - Nov. 1701
1702 - 1705
1715 - 1722

Family and Education

b. c.1658, 2nd s. of Hon. John Lumley of Lumley Castle, co. Dur. (d.v.p. 1658, Richard, 1st Viscount Lumley [I]) by Mary, da. and coh. of Sir Henry Compton, KB, of Bambridge, Suss.  m. (1) Elizabeth, da. of Sir John Thimbleby of Lincs., wid. of Francis Cottington, s.p.; (2) Anne (d. 1737), da. of Sir William Wiseman, 2nd Bt., of Canfield Hall, Essex, 1da. d.v.p.1

Offices Held

Capt. 1 Drag. Gds. 1685, lt.-col. 1688, col. 1692–1717; brevet-col. 1689; brig.-gen. 1693; maj.-gen. 1697; lt.-gen. 1703; gen. of horse 1711; gov. of Jersey 1703–d.

Freeman, Harwich 1709.2

Commr. Chelsea Hosp. 1716–d.


Lumley obtained a commission in 1685 in the regiment with which he remained for the rest of his army career, and he followed his elder brother, the 1st Earl of Scarbrough, in supporting the Revolution. During William III’s reign, Lumley served throughout the war in Flanders, particularly distinguishing himself at the battle of Landen in 1693, when he covered the retreat and saved the King from capture. After the Peace of Ryswick his regiment was reduced, but not disbanded. Defeated at Morpeth in 1695, he entered Parliament for the first time in February 1701 when he was returned as knight of the shire for Sussex, where the Lumleys owned extensive estates. Unlike the rest of his family who were firm Whigs, Lumley inclined to the Tories in this period, standing on the Tory ticket at this and subsequent Sussex elections. Forecast in February 1701 as likely to support the Court in agreeing with the committee of supply’s resolution to continue the ‘Great Mortgage’, Lumley’s return to Flanders in the same month prevented him taking any further part in the proceedings of the House. For the second 1701 election he stood again for the county but was defeated. He was returned unchallenged in 1702 but because he remained on active service in Flanders throughout Anne’s reign, taking part in every major battle, he was not an active Member in the Commons. Lumley was forecast by Lord Nottingham (Daniel Finch†) in March 1704 as a likely ally in any attack in connexion with the Scotch Plot, voted against the Tack on 28 Nov. 1704, or was absent, and was listed as a placeman in 1705. Unsuccessful for Sussex in 1705, he wrote to the Duke of Ormond that he did not greatly regret his failure since he had ‘some interest in the last [Parliament] and doubts he would have forfeited the good opinion of his friends in this’.3

In the winter of 1707–8 Lumley was left in command of the troops in winter quarters in Flanders. At that time Hon. James Brydges*, paymaster of the forces abroad, and William Cadogan*, quartermaster-general, had evolved a scheme for making money out of the payments to the army. On hearing that Lumley would be in charge of the troops in the winter of 1707, Brydges wrote to Cadogan on 24 Sept. 1707, ‘I know your interest with him is such that if you speak he’ll very readily at your desire make everything as easy with the army as we could wish’. In fact Lumley was not as complaisant as Brydges anticipated. He complained that men were being paid at different rates, and ordered the methods of payment to be changed, although the new system only marginally reduced the profit made by Brydges and Cadogan. As a reward for his services, the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†) recommended in 1710 that the governorship of Jersey, which Lumley had been granted during pleasure in 1703, should be altered to a life appointment, which the Queen duly did. In 1711 and 1712 he was general of the horse in Flanders, and high in favour with the Tory ministers. Thus, on 9 Jan. 1712, Earl Rivers (Hon. Richard Savage*) wrote to the Earl of Orford (Edward Russell*) that, having recently dined with Henry St. John II*, he found ‘such as Henry Lumley are his favourites’.4

Lumley had for some years been a close friend of (Sir) Thomas Hanmer II*, one of the leaders of the Tory party in the Commons, and on 13 Oct. 1713 Baron Schütz, the Hanoverian envoy in London, wrote that he had persuaded Lumley to join with Cadogan in attempting to sway Hanmer to the Elector’s interest. That winter he was made commander-in-chief of the troops still left in Flanders after the peace. The following April there were unfounded rumours that, despite his support for the Tory ministry, he might lose his regiment. After the accession of George I, Lumley returned to Parliament, being listed as a Whig in a comparative analysis of the 1713 and 1715 Parliaments. He died on 18 Oct. 1722 and was buried at Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, a monument to his memory declaring that he had been loved ‘even by his enemies for his singular politeness and humanity’.5

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: Paula Watson


  • 1. Vis. Eng. and Wales Notes ed. Crisp, xi. 14–15.
  • 2. Essex RO, Harwich bor. recs. 98/5, f. 96.
  • 3. Clutterbuck, Herts. iii. 216; Stanhope, Reign of Anne, 147; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 487; HMC Ormonde, viii. 163.
  • 4. Huntington Lib. Q. xv. 27–28; Boyer, Pol. State, iii. 248; London Gazette, 5–8 Apr. 1712; Marlborough– Godolphin Corresp. 1462; HMC Portland, v. 136.
  • 5. Orig. Pprs. ed. Macpherson, ii. 507, 588; Add. 17677 HHH, f. 160; Hanmer Corresp. 103–8, 112–13, 151–2; Clutterbuck, 216.