Edward was die seun van Richard Wortley en Elizabeth Boughton.
(Foster, Joseph: Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire, Vol. 2, West Riding. London. 1874)
(The Visitation of Essex, 1612. P 303)
Sir Samuel Tryon, of Halstead, county of Essex,
baronet, son of Peter and Mary, was born in England and christened at Austin
Friars, Mar. 25, 1582. He was knighted by King James at Newmarket, Apr. 25,
1613, and was made a baronet on Mar. 28, 1620. He married Elizabeth Eldred,
daughter of John Eldred of London. Sir Samuel died at Boys Hall on Mar. 8,
1627, and was buried on the north side of the chancel of Halstead Church.
Elizabeth married second, Sir Edward Wortley, knight, and second son of Sir
Richard Wortley, of Wortley, county of York, baronet.
The last of the de Hency family was Sir John, who died in 1570. His daughter, Barbara, married George Nevile, who probably sold the Ordsall property with the Advowson to Samuel Bevercotes, and so he became possessed of the living. Na ‘n kort rukkie het dit in die besit van die Wortley family van Yorkshire gekom. Thomas Cornwallis married Anne, only daughter of Samuel Bevercotes, and he sold his Ordsall property to Lady Wortley, who became Countess of Devonshire on her second marriage. (http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/monographs/ordsall1940/ordsall10.htm) The Countess of Devonshire, settled it on her son, Sir Edward Wortley. The patronage of the Church went with the Manor, and this continued in the Wortley family for nearly three centuries. (http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/monographs/ordsall1940/ordsall21.htm)
Edward Wortley se biografie soos beskryf in: The history of parliament.
Constituency Dates
EAST RETFORD 1621; EAST RETFORD 1626
b. aft. 1591, 2nd s. of Sir Richard Wortley (d.1603) of Wortley Hall and Elizabeth, da. of Edward Boughton† of Cawston, Warws.; bro. of Sir Francis.
Educ. I. Temple 1612; travelled abroad (Low Countries) 1616. M. 2 July 1627, Elizabeth (d.1665), da. of John Eldred, merchant, of London and Great Saxham, Suff., wid. of Sir Samuel Tryon, 1st bt., of Boys Hall, Halstead, Essex, s.p.3 kntd. 6 Aug. 1621.4 d. by 21 Oct. 1661.
Offices Held
Freeman, Leicester, Leics. 1620; Commr. assessment, Notts. 1647-52, Militia 1648, J.P. by 1650-at least 1657.
Gent. of the privy chamber extraordinary by c.1641.
Wortley was the younger son of a prosperous West Riding knight. By 1610 his mother had remarried, taking as her second husband William Cavendish, 1st Lord Cavendish and subsequently 1st earl of Devonshire. Admitted to the Inner Temple in 1612, one of his pledges was Richard Dyott, whose step-mother was Wortley’s aunt. Wortley may initially have intended to pursue a legal career, but then thought better of it. Recommending him to the care of William Trumbull, the ambassador to Brussels, Samuel Calvert stated in 1616 that Wortley, “not being fit for the study of the law” had decided “to travel a while for his experience” Calvert described him as a “little volage, but very honest, loving and kind full of friends and great alliance. However his sister, the wife of Sir Edward Radcliffe, found him a woeful man to have to do with, so furious and everything must be as he list. Wortley’s admission to the freedom of Leicester in 1620 suggests that he was the unnamed son the countess of Devonshire nominated there for election to the 1621 Parliament. The corporation rejected her nomination but she was more successful at East Retford, where her influence was partly derived from that of her first husband. Wortley’s father had owned two manors, Babworth and Bollom, both within a couple of miles of East Retford. When he had settled the estate in 1597 these properties formed part of his wife’s jointre. In addition, the countess had recently purchased extensive properties at Ordsall, within a mile of East Retford, which she had settled on Wortley. Moreover the earl of Devonshire owned the advowson of East Retford parish schurch. Wortley made no recorded contribution to the proceedings of the 1621 Parliament. (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wortley-edward-1591-1661)
On Shrewsbury’s death in 1616 the Talbot estates were divided up between the earl’s three daughters. East Retford’s next high steward was thus not a peer but Sir Gervase Clifton who, ‘being a near neighbour’, was someone ‘from whom the town had received many favours’. However, despite a promising beginning, Clifton subsequently found it difficult to maintain the high steward’s parliamentary patronage in the borough, perhaps because of his lower social status. In 1620 he almost certainly nominated the Essex gentleman Sir Nathaniel Rich, a connection of his first wife, who took the senior seat. Sir John Holles, by now Lord Houghton, sought the remaining place for his eldest son, John, but warned the latter on 16 Nov. 1620 that William, 3rd earl of Pembroke, whose wife was one of Shrewsbury’s heirs, and Pembroke’s principal local agent George Lassells, had already ‘spoken to those of Retford for their burgess before I sent to them’. This strongly suggests that Pembroke had nominated Lassells for the seat, but if he did so then Lassells was either rejected or was defeated after a contest, as the place went to Edward Wortley, whose mother held considerable property in the neighbourhood in jointure and whose second husband, William Cavendish†, 1st earl of Devonshire, owned the advowson of the East Retford parish church. (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/constituencies/east-retford)
KNIGHTS BACHELORS
1610-11, Jan. 15. FRANCIS WORTLEY, of Co. Yorks. (at Theobalds).
1621, Aug. 6. EDWARD WORTLEY, of Co. York, (at Belvoir Castle).
1629, Sept. 24. THOMAS WORTELEY (at Hampton Court).
(Shaw, WM. A. ed.: The Knights of England. A Complete Record from the Earliest Time to the Present Day of the Knights of all the Orders of Chivalry in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of Knights Bachelors.)
1610-11, Jan. 15. FRANCIS WORTLEY, of Co. Yorks. (at Theobalds).
1621, Aug. 6. EDWARD WORTLEY, of Co. York, (at Belvoir Castle).
1629, Sept. 24. THOMAS WORTELEY (at Hampton Court).
(Shaw, WM. A. ed.: The Knights of England. A Complete Record from the Earliest Time to the Present Day of the Knights of all the Orders of Chivalry in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of Knights Bachelors.)
Wortley probably stood
again at East Retford in 1624, but was defeated by John Holles. He was
certainly a candidate at the subsequent election held on 9 Mar. after Holles
colleague (Sir) Nathaniel Rich plumped for Harwich, but he was defeated by John
Darcy. At the by election following Darcy’s death on 21 Apr, Wortley stood
aside for his elder brother Sir Francis, who was elected on that occasion and
again in 1625. (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wortley-edward-1591-1661)
In 1624 Clifton again nominated Rich, who was elected, according to the town clerk Robert Browne, with ‘not one voice dissenting’. However there was ‘great opposition’ for the other seat, indicating that John Holles was only chosen after a contest. The other candidate or candidates were not named in Browne’s account, but it is likely that Edward Wortley, now knighted, also stood. Following the election Rich agreed to serve for Harwich, where he had also been returned, at the request of the countess of Devonshire to make way for Sir Edward Wortley. However this private agreement cut across the rights of Clifton as high steward and consequently on 23 Feb., the day after Rich formally plumped for Harwich, Clifton’s messenger, a Mr. Saunderson, arrived in East Retford. Having determined that the bailiffs, who were unaware that Rich had been returned twice, had not already promised the vacant seat to someone else, Saunderson presented Clifton’s letter recommending John Darcy, the son of the 3rd Lord Darcy and nephew of Clifton’s close friend Sir Peter Frescheville. The bailiffs thereupon convened a meeting of the aldermen and freemen for the following day, at which Clifton’s letter was read out. According to Robert Browne, the assembly ‘generally approved’ of its contents, ‘not one burgess gainsaying’ the choice of Darcy. The next day, however, saw the arrival of the countess of Devonshire’s messenger, Philip Spurling, with her nomination of Sir Edward Wortley. On learning that the corporation had already committed itself to Darcy, Spurling refused to withdraw and ‘requested a fair election’. In order to accomplish this, however, he needed time in which to build up a party in the town for Wortley. Fortunately for him he possessed the means to delay the election as, before leaving Westminster, he had obtained the writ for the election which, naturally, he refused to hand over to the bailiffs, claiming that he was first owed a fee for its carriage. When the bailiffs refused payment, on the ground that no fee was due for writs conveyed on the king’s business, Spurling delivered the writ to the sheriff, whose precept did not reach the borough until 5 March. Consequently, the election was not held until 9 March. Between his arrival in East Retford on 26 Feb. and the date of the election Spurling succeeded in building up an impressive political machine which, if not successful in securing the election for Wortley, did seriously alarm Clifton’s supporters. The core of Wortley’s support came from townsmen connected to the countess of Devonshire and those disaffected with the corporation. The former group included the bailiff of the countess’ nearby property and the vicar, who used his Sunday sermon to sing the praises of his patroness, ‘naming the countess divers times …, pressing what good her honour had done to him and intended to the town’. In addition the family of Richard Elsam, a prominent supporter of Wortley, came from the manor of Ordsall, part of the countess’ property near the town. Wortley supporters also included Thomas Draper, who had been dismissed as alderman ‘for his miscarriage and evil government’ in 1622, and Richard Welch, a butcher who had long been in dispute with the corporation about commercial premises in the borough. Spurling used various forms of persuasion to reach beyond his core support. He argued that Darcy was too young to be elected, claiming that he was only 16, whereas he was probably 22. He also alleged that Clifton was actually indifferent to the outcome of the election, said that Clifton was not ‘great enough’ to act as patron for the borough, ‘for he could not speak to the king for the town if need be’, and questioned the legality of Clifton’s office, arguing that ‘the town had no power to make a high steward’. This was presumably a reference to the fact that the office of high steward was not actually mentioned in the 1607 charter. Furthermore, Spurling made various threats and promises on behalf of the countess of Devonshire. She would, he declared, establish a workhouse in the town to relieve the poor if Wortley were elected, but if she did not get her way any enclosures on property leased by freemen from the earl or countess of Devonshire would be levelled and actions brought for trespass. Moreover, the poor would lose their rights to glean in her fields and gather fuel in her woods. Although the poor had no vote, Spurling was clearly hoping to intimidate them into coercing the freemen. Spurling also used more direct inducements to influence the voters. According to Browne, the town clerk, Spurling’s faction ‘spent bravely and entertained their burgesses that they won with brave merriments at the tavern’, inviting their wives as well ‘to make their husbands faster’, and running up a bar bill of £40. Direct bribery was also used to buy the votes of the ‘poorer burgesses’, the going rating varying between £2 and £4 a vote, so that by the eve of the election the ‘common speech through the town’ was ‘ten pounds for three voices’. To prevent any backsliding, those whose votes were purchased were forced to sign an agreement and threatened with prosecution in Star Chamber if they broke their promise. Naturally, Wortley’s supporters subsequently cast doubt on the charge that they had bought votes, claiming that the allegation was ‘slenderly proved by persons of mean condition’, and that there was only one witness per each incident. To counteract Spurling’s threats and rumours the bailiffs convened a meeting on 1 Mar., at which Clifton’s messenger, Saunderson, reassured the freemen that Clifton was serious in his support for Darcy, and how ‘fearful Sir Gervase was to hazard my Lord Darcy’s honour and his son’s upon the strength of his letter now in absence’. In addition, the bailiffs and aldermen, ‘fearing that … the town should receive an incurable blemish to have a burgess place thus bought and sold’, tried to pack the electorate at this meeting by enrolling new freemen sympathetic to Clifton. The town clerk Browne claimed that all the new freemen were legitimately enfranchised, being the sons of aldermen, but in a paper apparently drawn up for the Commons’ privileges committee, Wortley’s supporters claimed that only one of the 11 new freemen created was a householder and thus eligible to vote: the rest were ‘foreigners and sojourners’. When Wortley’s supporters presented their own sons to be made free, they were rejected on the grounds that they had not given prior notice and had not brought proof of their sons’ dates of birth. The meeting ended in ‘a great uproar’ and the ‘bailiffs were enforced in all haste to adjourn the court and speed themselves away for fear of some mischief’. On the day of the election the town authorities took steps to maintain order and overawe Wortley’s supporters. The bailiffs posted a guard of 10 or 12 armed men to stand at the door of the Moothall. Sir George Lassells ‘and other gentlemen that were comed [sic] to the town as well wishers to Mr. Darcy’ were asked to patrol the market place during the election to ‘stay the multitude’. Lassells, presumably a relation of George Lassells, was a Nottinghamshire j.p. and friend of Clifton’s, who had been sued by Wortley’s elder brother Sir Francis in Star Chamber in 1620 for beating his servant. In addition the bailiffs and town clerk had the serjeant-at-mace arrest two prominent members of the Wortley party. Only the freemen were allowed into the hall, but then, according to Browne: just as it was plotted beforehand, all the poor of the town, with some others of the commons were brought into the market place accompanied with Vicar Watt and Welch his wife, who emboldened and encouraged them to cry ‘a Wortley, a Wortley’, telling them, that if were not ‘a Wortley’ they and all the town were undone. There upon begun a great cry and noise, with whooping and shouting so loud that we in the hall could not hear one word when the king’s writ was read. Indeed, the disturbance was so great that Browne was forced to stop reading the writ until the noise had died down. When he finally resumed he was again interrupted, this time by the noise from the market place. Nevertheless the bailiffs were eventually able to proceed to the election, and Darcy was returned, winning the seat by a margin precisely equal to the number of new freemen created by the corporation. In his account of the election, Browne constantly emphasized the poverty of Wortley’s supporters. This allowed him to emphasize the use of bribery and threats in Spurling’s campaign, which would have had more influence on the poor freemen, and to portray the Wortley campaign as socially subversive. However, while it is true that only two of the 12 aldermen voted for Wortley, the latter’s supporters included other prominent townsmen, among them at least three former bailiffs. In the aftermath of the election both factions considered how to continue their struggle. During the Easter recess Clifton wrote to the corporation thanking it for ‘preserving my reputation withal which hath ever been of more esteem with me then all I possess’. He also supported a proposal by Browne to have ‘some exemplary punishment … mediated, for avoiding this tumultuous and corrupt carriages of elections hereafter, and to reduce the inferior sort to terms of better conformity’. Browne seems to have been thinking along the lines of a prosecution in Star Chamber, probably because he considered that Wortley’s supporters were essentially guilty of riot. However, Clifton advised a petition to Parliament ‘because it is the proper court for complaints of that nature’. He may also have heard that Wortley’s supporters were preparing to petition the committee for privileges, and consequently wanted to bring a counter suit. The corporation agreed with Clifton, and borrowed £60 to fund their own petition, which was subsequently termed ‘the second or cross petition’ by Wortley’s supporters. One of the most interesting features of the Wortley petition is that its authors never claimed that their candidate had been rightfully elected. Instead they charged Browne with ‘divers misdemeanours’ and sought a new writ. Clifton himself acknowledged the importance of Browne’s ‘endeavours throughout the whole passage’, praising him as not merely ‘firm and cordial’ but also ‘ingenious’. Before the case could be heard, however, Darcy unexpectedly died. The committee nevertheless considered that ‘the misdemeanours, on either side, touching the undue preparation or disturbance of the election remained fully examinable’, and consequently it proceeded to a hearing. As well as complaining of the creation of the new freemen, Wortley’s supporters protested against the arrest of prominent members of their faction by the town serjeant, who apparently told one voter that ‘he would pull the flesh from his bones if he gave his voice for Sir Edward Wortley’. They also argued that the bailiffs had been openly opposed to Wortley and that the security measures adopted on election day had been unnecessary. The committee decided that offences had committed by both sides, but that three Wortley supporters, Spurling, Watt and Welch, were particularly culpable, as was the serjeant. This finding was reported by John Glanville to the Commons on 28 May, but he also recommended that as Darcy was dead, the session was drawing to an end and ‘the offences committed were not very enormous, nor proved for the most part, other than by single testimony’, it would be advisable to ‘pass by the matter’. According to Glanville’s own account the House agreed to these suggestions, but the evidence of the Commons Journal suggests rather that it was decided to let the matter sleep until the next session which, in the event, never transpired. The election of Darcy proved to be a pyrrhic victory for Clifton. At the by-election held to choose Darcy’s replacement Sir Edward Wortley’s elder brother Sir Francis was returned. Sir Francis was re-elected in 1625, and Sir Edward himself was returned again in 1626, when Sir Francis was a candidate in the Yorkshire county election. (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/constituencies/east-retford)
Wortley was re-elected in
1626, when Sir Francis was a candidate in Yorkshire, but once again he made no
impression on the surviving parliamentary records. Before the next election
Wortley followed his brother’s example in marrying a wealthy London widow. She
was sister-in-law to the regicide Miles Corbet. (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wortley-edward-1591-1661)
During the Civil War
Wortley resided peacefully in and around London, promising “to contribute his
proportion” to the parliamentary coffers “when his estate comes into his hands”
Under a settlement forced on his heavily indebted elder brother he succeeded
his mother in control of the Wortley estate when she died in 1642 together with
Sir Henry Crofts as trustees for his royalist nephew Francis.(http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wortley-edward-1591-1661)
It is remarkable that in the month immediately succeeding the death of the countess a warrant was issued by the Marquis Newcastle to Sir Francis Wortley, not only to disarm and disenable his brother, Sir Edward Wortley, who had been put into possession of the estates of their mother, for safety's sake, no doubt, and had espoused the side of parliament, which was gaining the upper hand; but also to imprison him, if he found cause, and he was himself to handle the lands and cause them to be tilled, manured, and sown, according to the course of husbandry, so that they might the better yield profits and contribute assessments to the king's commissioners. This order does not appear to have been executed, for it came from the weaker side. It was dated 25th November, 1643. 'The estates became sequestered under the common- wealth, and on the 4th April, 1646, Francis Wortley, the younger, took the national covenant and compounded for the lands to which he was heir. (https://archive.org/stream/wortleywortleysl00gatt/wortleywortleysl00gatt_djvu.txt)
In 1644 his stepson Peter Tryon had to appeal to the House of Lords to
force Wortley to surrender a collection of books, which Tryon had been
bequeathed by his uncle. The following year Wortley’s sister, now a widow,
described him as ”so unworthy and naught; hath not nor will not part with a
penny” He was appointed by Parliament to local office in Nottinghamshire from
1647, becoming a j.p. under the Commonwealth, though he resided in a large and
well-furnished house on Turnham Green. (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wortley-edward-1591-1661)
In
1648 information was given that Sir Edward Wortley, Bart, of Great St.
Bartholomew's, had in his hands a jewel worth "1,500, given by the
Countess of Devon to Sir Henry Griffith's lady, and for which Sir Henry had not
compounded. http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Records_of_St_Bartholomews_Priory_and_of_the_Church_and_Parish_of_St_v2_1000775768/405
He was still managing the family iron
interests in 1658.
(http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wortley-edward-1591-1661)
It is of course true that the Wortley estate had been important in iron working, but the signatory to a lease on Wortley Top Forge in 1658 is Sir Edward Wortley, not Sir Francis the younger. Maybe the family estate had been divided, but that would tend to spread more thinly the recovery from supposed poverty. (https://sites.google.com/site/wortleywalledgarden/Home/history/the-wortley-family-history)
John Spencer I (1600 – 1658) appears as lessee on the 1658 lease of Top Forge. The lessor was Sir Edward Wortley (Parliamentary supporter) rather than Sir Francis Wortley II. (https://www.topforge.co.uk/wortley-people-in-history/)
It is of course true that the Wortley estate had been important in iron working, but the signatory to a lease on Wortley Top Forge in 1658 is Sir Edward Wortley, not Sir Francis the younger. Maybe the family estate had been divided, but that would tend to spread more thinly the recovery from supposed poverty. (https://sites.google.com/site/wortleywalledgarden/Home/history/the-wortley-family-history)
John Spencer I (1600 – 1658) appears as lessee on the 1658 lease of Top Forge. The lessor was Sir Edward Wortley (Parliamentary supporter) rather than Sir Francis Wortley II. (https://www.topforge.co.uk/wortley-people-in-history/)
He died intestate soon after the Restoration. Administration of his estate was granted to his widow on 21/10/1661. (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wortley-edward-1591-1661) Sir Edward Wortley was buried at St. George's Chapel at Windsor. (https://archive.org/stream/wortleywortleysl00gatt/wortleywortleysl00gatt_djvu.txt)
(Long, Charles Edward: Royal Descents: A Genealogical List of the Several Persons Entitled to quarter the arms of the Royal houses of England, London, MDCCCXLV)
