DONE, Thomas (c.1651-1703), of Park Street, Westminster

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

Constituency

Dates

1685 - 1687
1689 - 1698

Family and Education

b. c.1651, 7th s. of Sir Ralph Done of Duddon, Cheshire, being 3rd by his 2nd w. Elizabeth, da. of Sir John Savage of Clifton, Cheshire.  educ. L. Inn 1672; G. Inn 1672, called 1677.  m. lic. 2 July 1678, aged 27, Jane, da. of Sir Thomas Griffith, merchant, of Bishopsgate, London, 1s. 3da.1

Offices Held

Auditor of imprests 1677–d.; dep. searcher of customs, London 1677–?d; commr. inquiry into abuses in the Mint 1678.2

Biography

A Court Tory in the Convention, Done was returned again for Newtown in 1690, whereupon he was classed by Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†) as a Tory and Court supporter. In the first session he was a teller on four occasions: on 8 Apr. 1690, in favour of retaining the word ‘reverse’ in the motion for a bill to reverse the quo warranto judgment against the city of London; on 14 Apr., in favour of adjourning the House during the hearing of the Plympton election case; on 24 Apr., for the question that the words ‘in the lieutenancy of the City of London’ should stand in the motion to give thanks to the King ‘for the great care he has expressed of the Church of England, in the late alteration of the lieutenancy of the City of London’; and on 10 May, in favour of engrossing the bill for vesting forfeited estates in their Majesties. In December 1690 Done was listed as a probable supporter by Lord Carmarthen in the event of an attack upon him in the Commons. He told on 28 Nov. in favour of Sir Carbery Pryse, 4th Bt.*, in the Cardiganshire election. The following April he was classed by Robert Harley* as a Country supporter. In the next session he spoke on 3 Dec. 1691 during the debate on public accounts, when he claimed that William Harbord*, former paymaster-general, had only accounted for £4–5,000 of the £180,000 granted to him for buying provisions for the army. In a second speech, made on 29 Dec. 1691, he opposed a petition alleging that the Speaker (Sir John Trevor) and Sir George Hutchins*, when commissioners of the great seal, had discouraged a Middlesex j.p. from punishing those who sold produce on Sundays. On 23 Apr. 1694 he was a teller against a clause in the bill for licensing hackney and stage coaches to allow coaches to ply on Sundays. He was named on all the usual lists of placemen in this Parliament, except those by Grascome. Done had an enemy in the Whig chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Montagu*, who wrote to the Earl of Portland in the summer of 1695: ‘I have made a discovery how to humble Auditor Done as much as if he were turned out of place.’ The King intended to reduce the fees charged by the auditors and therefore the profits of the post, possibly in reaction to what Montagu claimed was £131,785 unaccounted for by Done.3

By the 1695 Parliament Done had moved into opposition. He was listed as a probable opponent of the Court in the divisions of 31 Jan. 1696 on the proposed council of trade, and voted against fixing the price of guineas at 22s. in March, and although his failure to sign the Association caused some surprise, he appears to have been suspected of Jacobite sympathies at this time. Doubtless this was a factor in the King’s decision in May 1696 to carry out the previous year’s plan to reduce as much as possible ‘the profits and exercise’ of Done’s office. He voted against the attainder of Sir John Fenwick† on 25 Nov. 1696. He did not stand for re-election in 1698, and afterwards was classed in a comparative analysis of the old and new House of Commons as a Country supporter. The appearance of his name on a list of placemen in the same year was without significance, since his patent as auditor of imprests was for life. In 1702 he unsuccessfully tried to surrender the office. Lord Treasurer Godolphin (Sidney†) wrote to Harley on 24 Dec.:

It’s above a month since Auditor Done gave in a petition at the Treasury to resign his place to Mr Drake. I then discouraged the expectation very much, but did not name your brother neither then nor never, but to the Queen and yourself. If I had given the least countenance to the request I am apt to believe they were ready to have made oath there was no money in the case, but I was unwilling to ask that question for fear of bringing the difficulty stronger upon me. By this and by other things I agree it looks as if he were not like to hold out long.

He was still auditor at the time of his death in January 1703.4

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: Paula Watson

Notes

  • 1. Ormerod, Cheshire, ii. 249; London Mar. Lic. ed. Foster, 411; PCC 5 Degg.
  • 2. Cal. Treas. Bks. v. 627, 641, 986.
  • 3. Luttrell Diary, 59, 94; Nottingham Univ. Lib. Portland (Bentinck) mss PwA 936, Montagu to Portland, 11/21 June 1695.
  • 4. Surr. RO (Kingston), Somers mss 361/14/J14, ‘things to be done at council’, n.d.; Portland (Bentinck) mss PwA 936, information of Peter Cooke, 12 June 1696; Cal. Treas. Bks. xi. 9; HMC Portland, iv. 54; PCC 5 Degg.