Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Aylesford, PC, KC (22 July 1719) was an English lawyer and statesman. Early life Finch was second son of Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham and the former Elizabeth Hervey (eldest daughter of Daniel Hervey). His paternal grandparents were Hon. Sir Heneage Finch, Speaker of the House of Commons (third son of Sir Moyle Finch, 1st Baronet and Elizabeth Finch, 1st Countess of Winchilsea) and Frances Bell (daughter of Sir Edmond Bell of Beaupré Hall). He was educated at Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he matriculated on 18 November 1664. Career In 1673, he became a barrister of the Inner Temple; king's counsel and bencher in 1677; and in 1679, during the chancellorship of his father, was appointed Solicitor General, being returned to parliament for Oxford University, and in 1685 for Guildford. In 1682, he represented the crown in the attack upon the Corporation of London, and next year in the prosecution of Lord Russell, when, according to Gilbert Burnet, and in several other trials afterwards, he showed more of a vicious eloquence in turning matters with some subtlety against the prisoners than of strict or sincere reasoning. He does not, however, appear to have exceeded the duties of prosecutor for the crown as they were then understood. In 1684, in the trial of Algernon Sidney, he argued that the unpublished treatise of the accused was an overt act, and supported the opinion of Jeffreys that scribere est agere (to write is to act). The same year he was counsel for James II in his successful action against Titus Oates for libel, and in 1685 prosecuted Oates for the crown for perjury. Finch, however, though a Tory and a crown lawyer, was a staunch churchman, and on his refusal in 1686 to defend the royal dispensing power he was summarily dismissed by James. He was the leading counsel in June 1688 for the Seven Bishops, when he strangely exposed and very boldly ran down the dispensing power, but his mistaken tactics were nearly the cause of his clients losing their case. He sat again for Oxford University in the convention parliament, which constituency he represented in all the following assemblies except that of 1698, until his elevation to the peerage. He was, however, no supporter of the House of Orange, advocated a regency in James's name, and was one of the few