TYLNEY, Frederick (1652-1725), of Tylney Hall, Rotherwick, Hants.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
bap. 24 Nov. 1652, 1st s. of Francis Tylney of Rotherwick by Dorothy, da. of Robert Henley, of Bramshill, Hants and Henley, Som., chief clerk of Kb 1629–42, sis. of Sir Robert Henley*. educ. Queen’s, Oxf. 1669; G. Inn 1672; M. Temple 1681. m. lic. 7 Sept. 1688, Anne, da. of George Pitt of Strathfieldsaye, Hants, sis. of George Pitt*, 1da. suc. fa. 1684.1
Sheriff, Hants 1673–4; freeman, Southampton 1676, Portsmouth 1684, Winchester by 1695; commr. inquiring into encroachments in New Forest 1691–4.2
Commr. taking subscriptions to land bank 1696.
Originally from Norfolk, Tylney’s grandfather was the first of the family to settle in Hampshire, where he bought the manor of Rotherwick in 1629. His father seems to have supported the Parliamentarians during the Civil War and held local office under the Commonwealth and Protectorates. Tylney himself had been appointed to the deputy-lieutenancy of Hampshire at the time of the Exclusion crisis in 1680. He strengthened his ties with the Hampshire Tories by his marriage in 1688 into the Pitt family of Strathfieldsaye. However, in 1690, after successfully contesting the Winchester election, he was classed as a Whig by Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†), and in April 1691 he was noted by Robert Harley* as a Country supporter. Despite his lengthy parliamentary career, he remained an inactive Member. He was granted leave of absence on 20 Dec. 1692, in order to attend the funeral of a relation. As a man of some wealth, he made a loan of £2,000 to the government in December 1694, and was noted in the later stages of this Parliament as a Court supporter.3
Returned again for Winchester in 1695, Tylney was forecast in January 1696 as likely to oppose the Court on the proposed council of trade, though he was prompt in signing the Association. In March he voted against fixing the price of guineas at 22s, and in the next session voted against the attainder of Sir John Fenwick†. He was allowed further leave of absence on 17 Dec. 1696 and on 5 Mar. 1697, but during January–February 1698 he presented and reported on a bill for regulating the laws relating to highway robberies. He was returned once more for Winchester in 1698, and in September was listed as a Country supporter. Later that year he was classed as a probable opponent of the standing army, and in 1700 was noted as ‘doubtful’ or of the opposition. He lost his Winchester seat at at the first 1701 election, but in December obtained his return for the venal borough of Stockbridge. Classed at this time as a Tory by Harley, Tylney supported the motion for vindicating the Commons’ proceedings in relation to the impeachments of the four Whig lords.4
In the first election of the new reign Tylney was returned in a contested election for Southampton. He continued to feature inactively in the House. Early in 1704 he was noted as a supporter of Lord Nottingham (Daniel Finch†) over the Scotch Plot. At the beginning of the 1704–5 session he was forecast as a probable supporter of the Tack, though in the division on 28 Nov., possibly as a consequence of being lobbied for the Court, he either voted against it or was absent. In 1705 Tylney was defeated at the Southampton election, supposedly as a result of Whig party intrigues (see SOUTHAMPTON, Hants), but in January 1708 was able to re-enter Parliament upon a by-election at Whitchurch. A list compiled at about this time noted him as a Tory. However, his return was petitioned against on 23 Jan., and on 17 Feb. he was unseated. He was elected for the borough again at the general election in May, when his return was counted as a ‘loss’ for the Whigs by Lord Sunderland (Charles, Lord Spencer*), but on 21 Dec. he once again suffered the misfortune of being unseated on petition.5
It was reported in early September 1710 that the lieutenancy in Hampshire was ‘settled’ and ‘put into the hands of . . . the greatest men of that county’, Tylney being included among them. At the general election he was successful once more at Whitchurch, and although he was petitioned against, the matter was not pursued by the Whig disputant owing, evidently, to the deterrent effect of the Tory superiority now in the House. He was noted as a Tory in the ‘Hanover list’, and in 1711 his name appeared on a list of ‘worthy patriots’ who had detected the mismanagements of the previous administration. He was also noted as a member of the October Club. In the 1713 session he voted for the French commerce bill on 18 June. Although initially suggested as a potential candidate for the county for the 1713 election, Tylney was eventually returned unopposed for Whitchurch. He was classed as a Tory in the Worsley list. Defeated in 1715, Tylney returned to the House briefly in 1721 after winning a by-election. His expenditure on contested elections does not seem to have greatly impaired his fortune, since he was able to build a large mansion, Tylney Hall, at Rotherwick, buy two Hampshire manors, Minley and Borough Court, and give his only daughter, who was considered a great heiress, a dowry of £4,000 on her marriage to Lord Craven. Tylney also used his wealth to establish a number of scholarships at Oxford and augment several benefices, and was noted as a benefactor of Winchester city. He died on 2 Oct. 1725.6
Ref Volumes: 1690-1715
Author: Paula Watson
- 1. IGI, Hants; East Anglian Peds. (Harl. Soc. xci), 220–1.
- 2. CSP Dom. 1673–5, p. 249; Southampton RO, Southampton bor. recs. SC3/1/1, f. 235; R. East, Portsmouth Recs. 367; Hants RO, Winchester bor. recs. ordnance bk. 7, f. 128; Cal. Treas. Bks. ix. 1123, 1329, 1550; x. 140.
- 3. VCH Hants, iv. 99; CSP Dom. 1679–80, p. 393; Cal. Treas. Bks. x. 909.
- 4. Cocks Diary, 153–4.
- 5. Bodl. Rawl. D.863, ff. 89–90; NLW, Penrice and Margam mss, L592, William Earle to Michael Richards, 8 May 1708.
- 6. Scots Courant, 11–13 Sept. 1710; Beaufort mss at Badminton House, Beaufort to [–], 9 Apr. 1713; VCH Hants, 22, 93, 99; Hearne Colls. vii. 250; J. S. Davies, Hist. Southampton, 67.