|
ALINGTON, Giles (1680-91) |
<p><strong><surname>ALINGTON</surname></strong>, <strong>Giles</strong> (1680–91)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 1 Feb. 1685 (a minor) as 2nd Bar. Alington |
|
Never sat. |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. 4 Oct. 1680, 2nd but 1st surv. s. and h. of William Alington*, Bar. Alington, and his 3rd w. Diana, da. of William Russell*, 5th earl of Bedford and wid. of Sir Greville Verney, bt., of Compton Verney, Warws. <em>educ</em>. Eton. <em>unm.</em> <em>d</em>. 18 Sept. 1691.</p> |
|
|
<p>Alington was four years old when he succeeded to the title. Rather surprisingly, Alington was said to have been one of the Lords questioned by James II in 1688 after a copy of the Prince of Orange’s declaration was found.<sup>1</sup> He died of smallpox at Eton on 18 Sept. 1691, his mother having carried him to the school ‘to see him placed there, and left him dead before she returned’.<sup>2</sup> On his death the English title became extinct. He was buried with his father and grandfather at Horseheath on 22 Sept. 1691.</p> |
A.C./S.N.H. |
|
ALINGTON, William (1634-85) |
<p><strong><surname>ALINGTON</surname></strong>, <strong>William</strong> (1634–85)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>bro. 20 Mar. 1660 as 3rd Bar. Alington [I]; <em>cr. </em>5 Dec. 1682 Bar. ALINGTON. |
|
Never sat. |
|
MP Cambridge 28 Mar. 1664-81 |
<p><em>bap</em>. 25 June 1634,<sup>1</sup> 3rd but 2nd surv. s. of William, Bar. Alington of Killard [I] of Horseheath, Cambs. and Elizabeth, da. of Sir Lionel Tollemache<sup>‡</sup>, 2nd Bt. of Helmingham, Suff. <em>educ</em>. Padua 1652. <em>m</em>. (1) Catherine (<em>d</em>. 19 Nov. 1662), da. and h. of Sir Henry Stanhope<sup>‡</sup>, <em>styled</em> Ld. Stanhope, 1da. <em>d.v.p</em>.; (2) lic. 30 July 1664, Julianna (<em>d</em>. 14 Sept. 1667), da. of Baptist Noel*, 3rd Visct. Campden, 1s. <em>d.v.p</em>. 1da.;<sup>2</sup> (3) 15 July 1675, Diana (<em>d</em>. 13 Dec. 1701), da. of William Russell*, 5th earl of Bedford, wid. of Sir Greville Verney, of Compton Verney, Warws. 3s. (2 <em>d.v.p</em>.) 2da. <em>d</em>. 1 Feb. 1685; <em>will</em>, 16 May 1684, pr. 6 May 1685.<sup>3</sup></p> |
<p>Commr. corps. 1662-3, foreign plantations 1670-2, trade and plantations 1672-4.</p><p>Col. of foot 1667, 1677, 1678-9, maj. gen. 1678; capt. indep. regt. foot in the Tower; constable of the Tower, Dec. 1678-<em>d</em>.</p><p>Dep. lt. Cambs. c. Aug. 1660-81; recorder, Cambridge 1679-<em>d</em>.; ld. lt., Tower Hamlets 8 June 1679-<em>d</em>.; ld. lt., Cambs. 9 Mar. 1681-<em>d</em>.</p> |
|
<p>The Alington family had held lands in Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire since the fourteenth century, and several members sat in Parliament for Cambridgeshire, including two Speakers of the House of Commons.<sup>4</sup> Alington’s father was created Baron Alington [I] of Killard, County Cork, in July 1642, presumably to encourage his support for the crown. The family’s royalist credentials ensured their exclusion from office during the Interregnum. Giles’s brother (1633-60), the 2nd Baron Alington, was briefly implicated in royalist plotting in 1655.<sup>5</sup> William Alington was said to have been ‘bred in France and Italy’, and in January 1658 was reported as being gone to Germany.<sup>6</sup></p><p>Alington succeeded as 3rd Baron Alington of Killard, on 20 Mar. 1660, following the death of his brother Giles (1633-60). The construction of a grand house at Horseheath in 1663-4, designed by Sir Roger Pratt and described by Evelyn as ‘seated in a park, with sweet prospect and stately avenue’, cost around £20,000 and left Alington in debt for the rest of his life.<sup>7</sup> Pepys’s thought of him in 1667 as ‘a young and silly lord’ soliciting a posting in Tangier, and had ‘offered a great sum of money to go’; it was said that he would ‘put hard for it, he having a fine lady and a great man would be glad to have him out of the way’, though the identity of the man with designs on his second wife was not mentioned.<sup>8</sup> In his search for office, Alington’s widowed mother’s marriage to the much admired Sir William Compton<sup>‡</sup>, master of the ordnance and a commissioner for Tangier, may have been of some assistance, though Compton himself died in 1663; probably more helpful was his first wife’s mother, the countess of Chesterfield, who had been deeply involved in royalist conspiracy in the late 1650s, and her third husband, the quintessential Restoration courtier Daniel O’Neill. Alington in 1668 and 1673 requested a Tangier posting or anything similar from Henry Bennet*, earl of Arlington.<sup>9</sup> Alington was also appointed to various commissions relating to foreign plantations, and to military and political offices within Cambridgeshire. In 1673 he advised the king on possible developments in the Dutch War and travelled to Cologne to join the forces under the Prince de Conde or Turenne, whoever was ‘likely to be first in action’.<sup>10</sup></p><p>Alington was elected to Parliament for Cambridge in 1664, replacing his stepfather, Compton. His second wife having died in childbirth, Alington began to court his third wife, a daughter of the earl of Bedford, it being noted in April 1673 that ‘Lady Diana Verney will not yet have Lord Alington’.<sup>11</sup> Their courtship was presumably interrupted by his departure for the continent that summer. He was present at the siege of Maastricht, where it was noted that he received a slight wound (the source mistakenly attributing this to Arlington, with whom Alington was in correspondence at the time). Two years later, Alington and Diana Verney were married, his wife being accorded precedence as a daughter of an earl, rather than as the wife of a baron.<sup>12</sup></p><p>In debt and reliant on government handouts, Alington’s consistent support for the court throughout the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis received its reward in his appointment as constable of the Tower and lord lieutenant of Cambridgeshire. In March 1679 it was rumoured that he would be part of the treasury commission which succeeded Danby.<sup>13</sup> His elevation to the English peerage, on 5 Dec. 1682, came shortly after the release of Anthony Ashley Cooper*, earl of Shaftesbury, who had been so strongly supported by Alington’s brother-in-law, William Russell<sup>‡</sup>, styled Lord Russell, and was perhaps designed to underline the contrast with his own loyal service and support during the Exclusion Crisis. Alington, however, had no opportunity to take his seat in the Lords as there was no Parliament in being before his death on 1 Feb. 1685. He died suddenly of ‘an apoplexy’ at the Tower and was buried on 17 Feb. at Horseheath.<sup>14</sup> He left all his lands and goods to his son and heir Giles Alington*, 2nd Baron Alington. In September 1689, his widow responded to a query from Halifax about a self-assessment of her son’s personal estate with the comment that ‘my son being underage and I left sole guardian for his estate I believed it most proper for me to give you this assurance that my lord left his estate engaged for daughters’ portions. Therefore that being not yet paid I have no more to trouble you with’.<sup>15</sup></p> |
A.C./S.N.H. |
|
ANNESLEY, Arthur (1614-86) |
<p><strong><surname>ANNESLEY</surname></strong>, <strong>Arthur</strong> (1614–86)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 22 Nov. 1660 as 2nd Visct. Valentia [I]; <em>cr. </em>20 Apr. 1661 earl of ANGLESEY |
|
First sat 8 May 1661; last sat 10 Feb. 1686 |
|
MP Radnorshire 1647; Dublin (English Parliament), 1659; Carmarthen 1660 |
<p><em>b</em>. 10 July 1614, 1st s. of Sir Francis Annesley<sup>‡</sup>, Visct. Valentia [I], and 1st w. Dorothy (<em>d</em>.1624), da. of Sir John Philipps<sup>‡</sup>, 1st bt. of Picton Castle, Pemb. and Anne Perrot. <em>educ</em>. private tutors; Hadley School, Mdx. (Mr. John Vade);<sup>1</sup> Magdalen, Oxf. c.1628-33;<sup>2</sup> L. Inn 1633, called 1640, bencher 1659; travelled abroad (Italy, Switzerland, France) 1634-6.<sup>3</sup> <em>m</em>. 24 Apr. 1638, Elizabeth (<em>d</em>. Jan. 1698), da. and coh. of Sir James Altham<sup>‡</sup> of Oxhey, Herts., and Elizabeth, da. of Sir Richard Sutton, Acton, Mdx., 7s. (2 <em>d.v.p</em>.) 6da. (3 <em>d.v.p.</em>). <em>d</em>. 6 Apr. 1686; <em>will</em> 23 Feb., pr. 18 June 1686.<sup>4</sup></p> |
<p>Commr. Irish affairs 1645, 1647, obstructions 1648-9, trade Nov. 1660-72, plantations Dec. 1660-70, prizes 1666-?<sup>5</sup>, Union with Scotland;<sup>6</sup> Admiralty 1673-9, Tangier 1673-84;<sup>7</sup> pres. Council of State 25 Feb.-31 May 1660; PC 31 May 1660-85; v. treas. [I], Aug. 1660-7; treas. of the navy 1667-8; ld. privy seal 1673-82.<sup>8</sup></p><p>Commr. for oyer and terminer, Wales 1661; dep. lt. Carm., Pemb. and Rad. 1661-?74; bailiff, Bedford level 1665-6, 1669-<em>d</em>., conservator 1667-9; steward of crown manors, Rad. 1675-82; freeman, Oxford 1681.<sup>9</sup></p><p>Capt. of horse [I], 1661-aft. 1664.<sup>10</sup></p><p>Asst. R. Adventurers into Africa 1668-70;<sup>11</sup> FRS 1668-85.<sup>12</sup></p> |
<p>Likeness: oil on canvas, aft. J. M. Wright, c.1676, NPG 3805.</p> |
<h2><em>Civil Wars, Interregnum and the restoration of the monarchy</em></h2><p>The Annesleys were an important Anglo-Irish family, having left Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, for Ireland in the sixteenth century.<sup>13</sup> Annesley’s father was a client of Arthur Chichester<sup>†</sup>, Baron Chichester, the Ulster planter and lord deputy of Ireland and a victim of the Irish policies of Thomas Wentworth<sup>†</sup>, earl of Strafford. He was sentenced to death by court martial in 1635, but the sentence was never carried out, although the legal consequences, which left the family deprived of their Irish estates, were not finally resolved until after the Restoration.<sup>14</sup> By the time Annesley was born on Fishshamble Street, Dublin, his father was already a substantial Irish landowner and political figure, as indicated by the choice of Chichester as his godfather.<sup>15</sup> Annesley was always a substantial figure in Irish politics and society. His marriage settlement referred to the property he held in 12 Irish counties, and by about 1675 he held an estimated 144,546 acres in Ireland, second only to James Butler*, earl of Brecknock, better known by his Irish peerage as duke of Ormond (and later also duke of Ormond in the English peerage).<sup>16</sup></p><p>During the Civil Wars, Annesley was initially supportive of Parliament. After election to the English House of Commons for Radnorshire in 1647, he subscribed to the National League and Covenant on 23 Feb. 1648, but was excluded from the House during Pride’s Purge. In 1659 he was returned for Dublin to the Parliament of Richard Cromwell<sup>‡</sup> where he became an active member and argued for the ‘indispensable rights’ of the ‘old peers’ to be summoned to the Lords as an essential constituent part of the legislature. He also argued that although the constitutional positions of Ireland and Scotland were different, they had the same right as the people of England to hold a free parliament.<sup>17</sup></p><p>From the early weeks of 1659 Annesley had been in contact with the exiled Charles II. In March 1659 Charles II gave Annesley the authority to negotiate on his behalf with key political figures in England. With his knowledge and contacts in Ireland and England Annesley was in a pivotal position to influence political developments. He began working actively for the Restoration. Edward Hyde*, later earl of Clarendon, referred to Annesley as the virtual leader of Ireland at this time, and recalled that Annesley was ‘very well contented that the king should receive particular information of his devotion, and of his resolution to do him service.’<sup>18</sup></p><p>After the Rump Parliament was restored in May 1659, Annesley was the chief protagonist for the return of the secluded members.<sup>19</sup> He was eventually reinstated, along with the other secluded members, in February 1660 after the intervention of George Monck*, later duke of Albemarle. Annesley was elected to the council of state and became its president, which placed him at the centre of political developments before and during the Restoration.<sup>20</sup> He was returned to the Convention for Carmarthen and was a particularly active member, being effectively leader of the Presbyterians in the House of Commons.<sup>21</sup> As such, in the months before and after the Restoration Annesley was either the chair or a member of every crucial Commons committee dealing with the impending settlement.<sup>22</sup></p><p>After the Restoration of Charles II in May 1660 the Annesleys’ Irish lands were legally reinstated; when his father died in November 1660 Annesley succeeded to his Irish honours and inherited estates in Ireland and England. He was also appointed to his father’s old office of vice-treasurer of Ireland, a key role reputed to be worth £6,500 per year.<sup>23</sup> On 1 June 1660 he was sworn a member of the Privy Council, the body that replaced the council of state, from where he counselled restraint and conciliation rather than revenge, and argued for freedom of conscience and toleration in church and state, proposing that the Declaration of Breda should become law. On 19 June 1660, Samuel Pepys<sup>‡</sup> noted that Annesley ‘above most men’ was engaged to the families of Edward Montagu*, earl of Sandwich and his father-in-law, John Crew*, later Baron Crew, both Presbyterian servants of the previous regime.<sup>24</sup> He played a key role as a layman on the Presbyterian side in the Worcester House debates in October 1660, and was selected, with Denzil Holles*, later Baron Holles, to be one of two assessors to settle some of the outstanding points at issue.<sup>25</sup></p><h2><em>The early years of the Restoration 1661-5</em></h2><p>Annesley was created earl of Anglesey on 20 Apr. 1661. Although he sat on both 8 and 10 May, he was not officially introduced into the Lords until 11 May by Ormond and Algernon Percy*, 4th earl Northumberland. In the first part of the 1661-2 session (which ran until 30 July 1661), Anglesey attended on 62 days (95 per cent of the total). On 11 May, as would become customary, he was named to the usual sessional committees (privileges, petitions and the Journal) as well as a further 25 committees, reporting from one, on 27 May 1661, for the naturalization of Sir William Throckmorton and others. He reported the bill to repeal the act preventing persons in holy orders from exercising temporal jurisdiction or authority from the committee of the whole House on 18 June. He was listed on 11 July as being against the case of Aubrey de Vere*, 20th earl of Oxford, for the great chamberlaincy.</p><p>In the second part of the 1661-2 session (which began on 20 Nov. 1661), Anglesey attended on 121 days of the session (95 per cent of the total). He was named to a further 43 committees (excluding those mentioned below). On 7 Dec., he was appointed to manage a conference touching witnesses to be sworn at the bar in the Lords in the case of vacating fines levied by Sir Edward Powell. On 14 Dec. he was named to report a conference on the bill for confirming private acts passed during the Interregnum, and did so later in the day. On 19 Dec. he was named to a conference on the proper response to the fear of a plot against the government. He was appointed on 4 Feb. 1662 to manage a conference on the bill for the execution of attainted persons. He entered a protest on 6 Feb. against the passage of the bill restoring the estates of Charles Stanley*, 8th earl Derby. On 2 Apr. he chaired the committee on Bushell’s bill, reporting it on 4 April.<sup>26</sup> On 8 Apr. he was named to a committee to draw up a proviso (intended as a concession to the ejected clergy) for the bill of uniformity, which he duly reported on the following day. On 15 Apr. he chaired the committee on the bill confirming an award made by the king for settling the differences between John Paulet*, 5th marquess of Winchester and his son Charles Powlett*, the future 6th marquess.<sup>27</sup> He was appointed on 10 May to manage a conference on the bill confirming two acts and to give the Commons the reasons why they did not agree to the bill confirming the naturalization of Francis Hyde and others. On 13 May he was named to a committee of five to draw up a clause on the militia bill, and on the 14th this committee was named to manage a conference on the bill. Also on 14 May Anglesey was named to a conference on the Norwich stuffs bill, reporting from it later in the day. On 16 May he was appointed to prepare another proviso to the militia bill, and was named to a conference on the bill on 17 May, which he managed with George Villiers*, 2nd duke of Buckingham, and John Robartes*, 2nd Baron Robartes and later earl of Radnor.<sup>28</sup> Also on 17 May he was named to manage a conference on the bill distributing money to officers who had served the king and to report from a conference on the highways bill and on the bill for the relief of the poor. On 19 May 1662 he was named to manage further conferences on the highways bill, the poor bill and the bill to restrain disorderly printing and he also entered his protest against dropping two provisos from the highways bill.</p><p>Anglesey’s knowledge of Ireland was particularly useful, and he was appointed to the standing committee of the Privy Council for Irish affairs. This, in turn, secured him a significant role in the Restoration settlement in Ireland.<sup>29</sup> He worked alongside Ormond and with his associates in Ireland, who included Roger Boyle<sup>‡</sup>, earl of Orrery [I], Sir Charles Coote, earl of Mountrath [I], and Sir John Clotworthy, Viscount Massereene [I], to secure a settlement favourable to the Protestant interest. Throughout the early 1660s he sought to reassure Irish Protestant leaders as the process of discussion and decision continued and the legislation was drafted.<sup>30</sup> Charles II appointed Anglesey along with Orrery and others to a commission for the implementation of the king’s declaration for the settlement of Ireland, issued in November 1660, a role with a salary of £500 a year. Agents for the Irish Catholic interest complained to the king that Anglesey was both a judge and a party to the settlement; sentiments which the king apparently recognized, but Anglesey’s position was too strong to dispense with his services.<sup>31</sup> Ormond, the lord lieutenant, relied on Anglesey’s financial and legal expertise, especially in his role as Irish vice-treasurer.<sup>32</sup> When Ormond returned to Ireland in early 1662 Anglesey was ordered to stay at Whitehall until the Irish Act of Settlement was finalized.<sup>33</sup> He was certainly a beneficiary of that settlement and in a later assessment of Anglesey’s estate, ‘new purchases’ since the Restoration were estimated to be worth £2,400 per year, or approximately one fifth of his total estate.<sup>34</sup> Anglesey, with the help of Orrery (with whom he left his proxy for the Irish parliament in May 1662) and Sir James Shaen, obtained Irish lands that had been previously confiscated from rebels and was allowed to keep lands under the Act of Settlement, including the forfeited estates of the regicides Edmund Ludlow<sup>‡</sup> and John Jones<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>35</sup> All the regicides’ former Irish lands had been granted to James Stuart*, duke of York, and it was a measure of Anglesey’s political importance, and perhaps his personal connections, that James paid £1,000 per year from his Irish revenue to Anglesey, the same amount given to colonel Richard Talbot, later earl of Tyrconnell [I].<sup>36</sup> Anglesey also acquired land in England, including the manor of Farnborough, which appears to have been purchased shortly after the Restoration.<sup>37</sup></p><p>Anglesey was in Dublin by December 1662, and therefore absent from London during the discussions over the Declaration of Indulgence and the controversial bill to give effect to it that preoccupied the English Parliament when it met for the 1663 session on 18 February. Anglesey was excused attendance accordingly.<sup>38</sup> Anglesey was undoubtedly keen on moderating the religious settlement. His own religious observance is meticulously catalogued in his diaries. His regular practice was to attend an Anglican service on a Sunday morning followed by a service by his own chaplain (usually a Nonconformist minister) in the afternoon.<sup>39</sup> He always took time to prepare for receiving the sacrament which he did several times a year, and at least five times in 1673. However, his use of nonconformist chaplains was disliked by Anglicans like Clarendon, who criticized him in August 1662 for taking Edward Bagshaw to Ireland as his chaplain.<sup>40</sup> (Bagshaw had caused trouble earlier in the year with his controversy with George Morley*, bishop of Worcester: Bagshaw’s publications had been delivered to Anglesey’s house.)<sup>41</sup> Anglesey’s wife was much more openly committed to the dissenting cause. On 10 Jan. 1663 she informed her husband that ‘despite the declaration to favour tender consciences, [Edmund] Calamy is in Newgate for preaching once at his church and your Bagshaw is in the Gatehouse.’<sup>42</sup> Together with Anglesey’s step-mother she was noted as attending a conventicle in August 1664.<sup>43</sup> Nor did his wife’s zeal lessen over time for in January 1684 she was one of 19 people arrested for attending ‘the meeting that was formerly Dr Owen’s.’<sup>44</sup></p><p>Anglesey was not in good health while in Ireland, Ormond writing to Clarendon on 12 Mar. that he had ‘lately been very infirm’ and might even have to relinquish his office.<sup>45</sup> He had recovered sufficiently for Clarendon to write on 18 Apr. that he was ‘very glad all the alarums of your frequent indispositions are over, you had need of a very confirmed health, for you have many labours to struggle with, and of a more troublesome and exorbitant nature, then those difficulties we wrestle with here.’<sup>46</sup></p><p>Nevertheless, Clarendon saw the usefulness of Anglesey being in England, opining on 4 July 1663 that ‘I long for few things more than to see some good expedient for the … settlement of Ireland, and therefore must long for my Lord Anglesey’s arrival.’<sup>47</sup> Anglesey first sat in the Lords in 1663 on 22 July and attended on the last five days of the session, being named to a single committee. On 24 July he entered his protest against the passage of the bill for the encouragement of trade, legislation which included a prohibition on the import of fat cattle from Ireland, and on which he ‘represented as effectually as I could the mischiefs thereof’ to the king. Many hoped that Anglesey’s presence in London would strengthen the arguments being made from Ireland for this legislation to be amended in the next session.<sup>48</sup> Once Parliament was prorogued Anglesey became heavily involved in the Council’s work on Irish affairs, and particularly the bill of explanation relating to the Irish land settlement.<sup>49</sup> Not everyone appreciated his efforts: Sir Alan Brodrick<sup>‡</sup> wrote on 8 Aug. 1663 that the bill had been ‘so altered by Anglesey (who is naturally dishonest) that neither English nor Irish Papist nor Protestant will vote for it.’<sup>50</sup></p><p>Despite the failure of the 1663 bill of indulgence Anglesey was ever ready it seems to push the case for a more tolerant attitude to moderate, law-abiding dissenters. On 11 Aug. 1663 he noted some discussions with Clarendon on ‘extending such liberty as may be safe to men of peaceable spirits, though they differ in judgment. It’s to be doubted uniformity hath been pressed with too much earnestness, many ministers are subdued by it, but the people seem to be rather provoked than conquered.’<sup>51</sup> Nevertheless, Anglesey was comfortable in the company of the Anglican hierarchy: on 31 Aug. he attended the installation at Lambeth of Gilbert Sheldon*, as archbishop of Canterbury, being ‘nobly entertained.’<sup>52</sup></p><p>In the second half of 1663 Anglesey was also much concerned to protect Ormond’s position as lord steward from the projected retrenchment of expenditure in the royal household and was trusted by the duke to view his new property at Moor Park and to help negotiate the financing of it.<sup>53</sup> Ormond clearly appreciated Anglesey’s talents, describing him in July 1663 as ‘a man of worth and ability and of good use for the king’s service’, and ‘an extraordinary fit minister in his province’.<sup>54</sup> In October 1663 Anglesey noted that the bill of explanation, and attendant lobbying, would keep him in England longer than he had official licence for from Dublin. On 19 Dec. he wrote of the seemingly interminable discussions on the bill of explanation and his inability to influence them because ‘I hath not those evening opportunities and familiarities which others have and abuse.’<sup>55</sup> Ormond was unsympathetic, and despite their close working relationship by March 1664 there were signs of future strains. As the bill of explanation was debated at length in Whitehall Ormond told Clarendon that Anglesey’s relentless questioning did nothing to advance their cause and remarked that ‘nobody gains by delay but those that drive the trade of bribery’.<sup>56</sup> Only a few months earlier, on 26 Dec. 1663, Ormond had felt it necessary to warn Anglesey that the king and duke of York</p><blockquote><p>are, and have been, much unsatisfied with your deportment in Parliaments and Councils, and have observed that upon all questions wherein nonconformists are concerned, you have always inclined to their favour, and cast difficulties in the way to all means that have been proposed to reduce them to conformity, or to secure the peace of the kingdom against them.</p></blockquote><p>Ascribing Anglesey’s actions to ‘a charitable desire to do good offices, or from a belief that moderation and lenity is the likeliest way to gain Dissenters and to establish tranquillity’, he nevertheless noted that it ‘may also bear a worse construction … especially when you are single in the opinion, or supported by very few.’<sup>57</sup></p><p>In February 1664 Anglesey was afflicted with the gout, which severely restricted his outdoor activities, although he did manage to attend a Council committee meeting on Irish affairs.<sup>58</sup> A few days before Parliament met on 16 Mar. 1664, Anglesey received a letter from the disgraced George Digby*, 2nd earl of Bristol, ‘enclosing one of submission to his majesty, sealed with a copy thereof for me to peruse.’ Anglesey rose from his sickbed, took it to the king and then returned it to Bristol unopened. Anglesey informed Ormond of this incident because he felt some people would use it against him, whereas the duke knew ‘what passed in the Lord’s house between me and my lord of Bristol, in your presence, [and] can easily judge whether I am likely to hazard my lord chancellor’s friendship for my Lord Bristol’s compliment.’<sup>59</sup></p><p>In the next session of Parliament, Anglesey’s attendance rate was over 94 per cent and he missed only two days of the session. He was named to the sessional committees and to nine other committees. On 22 Apr. he was named to a conference on foreign trade. He chaired a committee on 5 May on the hearth tax, and on five consecutive sitting days served on the subcommittee on the conventicle bill.<sup>60</sup> On 13 May he was named to manage a conference on the bill, reporting from it later that day. He reported subsequently from conferences on the bill on 14, 16 May (twice), when he also reported a proviso that had been drawn up, and on 17 May, the day on which Parliament was prorogued. He also attended the prorogation on 20 Aug. 1664.</p><p>When Parliament sat again, for the session which began on 24 Nov. 1664, Anglesey attended on 23 days (43 per cent of the total). He was again named to the sessional committees and to several select committees. He was absent from 20 Dec. 1664 until 18 Feb. 1665, without a recorded excuse. He chaired sessions of the committee on the bills to prevent delays upon extending statutes and to prevent arrests of judgment, reporting both bills on 1 March. Also on 1 Mar. he chaired the committees on Wildmoor Fen bill (which was adjourned with no discussion).<sup>61</sup> On 1 Mar. he was appointed to report a conference on the estate bill of Nicholas Tufton*, 3rd earl of Thanet.</p><h2><em>Irish Cattle and the crisis of 1665-8</em></h2><p>By this date, it was clear that Anglesey was a man of business, prepared to take part in every day parliamentary activities and to undertake the onerous task of routine administration. His temperament appealed to an administrator like Samuel Pepys<sup>‡</sup>, who described Anglesey in December 1664 as ‘a grave and serious man’.<sup>62</sup> In February 1665, Pepys recorded the chaos of Privy Council committees, in which men came and went, noting that Anglesey had said ‘I think we must be forced to get the king to come to every committee, for I do not see that we do anything at any time but when he is here’.<sup>63</sup> When Parliament was prorogued on 1 Aug. 1665, in the absence of both Clarendon and a commission from the king, Anglesey was chosen Speaker for the occasion.</p><p>In mid-August 1665 Anglesey wrote to Archbishop Sheldon signifying his consent should an application be received for a marriage licence for his daughter Elizabeth and her future husband, Alexander Macdonnell, brother of Randal Macdonnell, earl of Antrim [I], a leading Catholic.<sup>64</sup> This was a significant match, and may have been a reward for Anglesey’s support for a clause favouring Antrim in the bill of explanation.<sup>65</sup> Later it would help to produce an impression that Anglesey was sympathetic to Catholicism. Indeed, if the marriage of one’s daughters is an indication of religious tolerance, it should be noted that his eldest daughter, Dorothy, was already married to the Catholic Richard Power, Baron Power, the future earl of Tyrone [I], whilst his widowed daughter Lady Frances Wyndham would marry the nonconformist sympathizer John Thompson*, later Baron Haversham, in 1668. Two later incidents reveal more about Anglesey’s religious sympathies. On the 10 Nov. 1672 he spent ‘two hours in the evening in dispute with Mr Holland the priest at Lady Waldegrave’s’, and on 19 Nov. he recorded the death of John Wilkins*, bishop of Chester as ‘a great loss to religion and learning’.<sup>66</sup></p><p>Anglesey’s usefulness in the king’s service probably explains the series of rewards he received around this time. A treasury warrant was issued to him for £400 for ‘secret services’ in May 1665, and in June he was given a patent confirming his lands in Ireland.<sup>67</sup> In August 1665 the king instructed Ormond to grant Anglesey lands in Ireland not appropriated by the Acts of Settlement and Explanation to the value of £500 per year fee-farm rent, and to enroll an additional pension to Anglesey of £600 per year for life out of the Irish revenue.<sup>68</sup></p><p>Anglesey was absent from the session of October 1665, being excused attendance on the 23rd as he was on the ‘king’s business’ in Ireland. His proxy had been registered with Edward Conway*, 3rd Viscount Conway on 11 October. Ormond’s correspondence reveals that Anglesey was also in Ireland on business for York and on a mission to procure ‘his majesty’s bounty’ for Henry Bennet*, Baron (later earl of) Arlington.<sup>69</sup> Anglesey returned to England probably in response to a plea from his recently widowed daughter, Lady Frances Wyndham, but also charged with reinforcing the views of the Irish ministers against the Irish cattle bill in the hope that the king would use his authority to prevent the bill’s passage.<sup>70</sup></p><p>At this date Anglesey seems to have been in the market for land in England.<sup>71</sup> During the course of the year Anglesey purchased Bletchingdon from Charles Stuart*, 3rd duke of Richmond.<sup>72</sup> Only seven miles north of Oxford and close to Woodstock this was to prove a pleasurable summer or autumn retreat for Anglesey. By about 1667 Anglesey’s estate was estimated at £11,360 p.a.<sup>73</sup></p><p>Anglesey missed the first five days of the 1666-7 session, sitting first on 27 September. Overall he attended on 83 days of the session, 91 per cent of the total, and was appointed to a further 22 committees. Anglesey was also the recipient of two proxies: that of Henry Jermyn*, earl of St Albans (24 Oct.) and that of Thomas Colepeper*, 2nd Baron Colepeper (22 Dec.). On 12 Oct. 1666 Anglesey was named to a committee to prepare reasons for a conference over the prohibition of trade with France, which he reported on the 15th. He then reported the resultant conferences on 17 and 23 October. On 29 Oct. Anglesey and Anthony Ashley Cooper*, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury), were deputed to add the Lords’ concurrence to the Commons vote on the matter, which Anglesey reported. Finally, Anglesey reported the resultant conference with the Commons on the 30th, and was named as one of the peers to present to the king the joint address against the importation of French commodities.</p><p>Irish matters bulked large in this session of Parliament. Anglesey, with the backing of Ormond and his son, Thomas Butler*, styled earl of Ossory [I], and Baron Butler of Moore Park in the English peerage, was engaged in opposition to the bill to prohibit the importation of Irish cattle.<sup>74</sup> Anglesey was expected to ‘employ his interest with particular friends in both Houses.’<sup>75</sup> Indeed, Ormond and the Irish Privy Council had written to the king in August deputing Anglesey as one of the peers to lobby him over the matter.<sup>76</sup> As early as 29 Sept. Anglesey had correctly perceived that</p><blockquote><p>it is impossible to stop the torrent or rectify the mistakes that are in that House [of Commons], in this affair … and I see also that his majesty takes it for granted that the bill cannot be opposed in that house with any success but that we must beg for it in the House of Lords and at conferences, and in conclusion his majesty is well resolved against it.<sup>77</sup></p></blockquote><p>On 10 Nov. Arlington noted that he had dissuaded Anglesey from offering</p><blockquote><p>a proviso relating to free trade in that kingdom … assuring myself from the temper I observe in the House it will not be admitted, and will by consequence be offered with more disadvantage hereafter to his majesty when it shall be thought seasonable, and his Lordship seemed convinced by my reasons therein.<sup>78</sup></p></blockquote><p>On 17 Nov. Anglesey was named to the committee to draft a proviso to the bill stipulating the form in which the Irish offer of beef for the City of London in the wake of the Fire of London would be distributed. On 23 Nov. Anglesey entered his dissent to the passage of the Irish cattle bill. With thoughts moving on to how to block the bill altogether, on 27 Nov. Conway pointed out that although Anglesey ‘is a man of excellent parts … his interest at court is not answerable.’<sup>79</sup> On 14 Dec., when the bill was before the Commons, Anglesey was named to report a conference on the subject, which he did on 17 Dec. He was then named to prepare reasons to be offered at the next conference on the bill, reporting them on 29 December. He reported from further conferences on the bill on 3 and 12 Jan. 1667. On 14 Jan. Anglesey entered his protest against agreeing with the Commons on the Irish cattle bill, particularly objecting to the term nuisance. As he wrote to Ormond,</p><blockquote><p>yesterday unexpectedly proved a fatal day to Ireland by the passing of the bill against importation of their cattle, when we were generally resolved to have cast it out, and had certainly done so, if we had been left free to our own judgment ... The duke of York had that very morning expressed great resolution against it; and the archbishop of Canterbury, who had two proxies, came purposely to ... oppose it ... But his majesty met the duke at my lord chancellor’s, and ... as I understand, against my lord chancellor’s mind, it was resolved the Lords must yield to the Commons.’<sup>80</sup></p></blockquote><p>As was by now the pattern, Anglesey continued to be active in a wide range of other parliamentary business. He was involved in conferences on the poll bill and public accounts (22 Nov., 29 Dec. 1666, 3, 12 and 24 Jan. 1667), the Canary Company (19 Dec. 1666) the impeachment of John Mordaunt*, Viscount Mordaunt (3 Jan., 4 and 7 Feb. 1667) and the plague bill (1 and 4 February). According to the diary of Richard Boyle*, earl of Burlington, he was the chief manager for the Lords at the conference on 7 Feb. regarding Mordaunt’s impeachment.<sup>81</sup> The committee book shows that he was equally active chairing committees; he reported from the committee on the bill for the relief of poor prisoners on 1 Feb. and on 6 and 7 Feb. he chaired the adjourned committee on the bill settling taxes on Bedford Level, presenting a ‘draught of what shall be proposed’ to the committee on the 8th.<sup>82</sup></p><p>According to Ormond, at the beginning of April 1667 a bedridden, gout-suffering Anglesey was ‘not unmindful of the danger he supposes his interest may undergo by his absence from here,’ presumably demonstrating his unease over the investigations by commissioners into the Irish land settlement.<sup>83</sup> Anglesey had been quite ill, for on 4 May Lady Ranelagh had written to Burlington that he had ‘been nearer going into another world than to Ireland since you went … he is yet weak but mending and for Ireland when he is able.’<sup>84</sup></p><p>Anglesey remained a heavy presence in the Privy Council where he proved keen to absolve himself from any blame for the naval disasters against the Dutch, taking care to inform Ormond on 15 June 1667 that, nine months previously, he had argued in the king’s cabinet for a fleet to be put to sea and the consequences of not doing so.<sup>85</sup> In the debates in the Privy Council around 20 June, Anglesey was in favour of calling a new Parliament, but the views of Sheldon and Clarendon prevailed to the contrary.<sup>86</sup> On 24 June Pepys recounted an intervention at the Privy Council by Anglesey to the effect that their purpose in meeting was ‘to enquire what was or could be done in the business of making a peace, and in whose hands that was and where it was stopped or forwarded; and went on very highly to have all made open to them.’<sup>87</sup></p><p>By this date opposition to Clarendon and Ormond was increasing, chiefly orchestrated by Buckingham, assisted by Orrery. Pressure was exerted on Anglesey to join them through the threat of an investigation into the Irish treasury. Anglesey responded by obtaining the king’s reluctant permission to swap offices with the equally beleaguered treasurer of the navy, Sir George Carteret<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>88</sup> James Thurston thought that the exchange was a clever manoeuvre by which the king would respond to some of the demands insisted on in the last parliamentary session, one of which was Carteret’s removal as treasurer of the navy.<sup>89</sup> Pepys was pleased, noting at Anglesey’s first meeting of the navy board on 9 July: ‘he is a very notable man and understanding, and will do things regular and understand them himself, not trust Fenn [John Fenn, the navy paymaster] as Sir George Carteret did, and will solicit soundly for money.’ Others were not so sanguine, Sir Hugh Cholmley<sup>‡</sup> remarking that Anglesey was ‘one of the greatest knaves in the world’.<sup>90</sup></p><p>Anglesey attended Parliament on both 25 and 29 July 1667, a short session designed to allow the king to announce the conclusion of a peace. His administrative skills were utilized on 29 July when he was named to a committee of the Council charged with the retrenchment of expenditure.<sup>91</sup> He remained supportive of Ormond’s position, and kept Ormond informed throughout the autumn of 1667 on matters relating to the Irish settlement and Clarendon.<sup>92</sup></p><p>The 1667-9 session opened on 10 Oct. 1667, after Clarendon’s dismissal from office. Within weeks Anglesey had warned Ormond that he was now the focus of opposition.<sup>93</sup> Anglesey was characteristically active in the first part of this session (October to December) attending on 39 days, 76.5 per cent of the total. On 14 Oct. he was added to the committees for privileges and the Journal, having been absent when they were nominated on 11 Oct. and he was added to the committee on petitions on 31 October. Also on 31 Oct. he informed the House that a committee of the Commons on the miscarriages in the late war had desired him to provide them with information on the tickets given to seamen. After referral to the committee for privileges to examine precedents, on 12 Nov. Anglesey was given leave to do as he pleased in the matter. Presumably he cooperated, at least in part, because the Commons read a paper from Anglesey on 28 Feb. 1668, relating to the inconveniencies and abuses which occurred when mariners were discharged by tickets. He was named to a further 16 committees during this part of the session. The committee book again testifies to his activity, including his role chairing the committee on the estate bill of Gilbert Holles*, 3rd earl of Clare, on seven occasions in October and November 1667.<sup>94</sup> On 15 and 19 Nov. he was named to manage conferences over the commitment of Clarendon but on 21 Nov. he protested against granting another conference on the matter, in part because he viewed it as an invasion of the Lords’ privileges, and so was not named to manage it. The following day he was nevertheless named to draft heads of a conference concerning the procedures used during the discussions over Clarendon, and on 23 Nov. he attended and reported back from the subsequent conference. On 25 and 27 Nov. he was named to manage further conferences on Clarendon’s case. Pepys recorded that when the conference was held on 28 Nov. it was said that ‘my Lord Anglesey doth his part admirably.’<sup>95</sup> Other diarists noted that he and his fellow managers, Holles and Ashley, rejected the precedents advanced by the Commons and that Anglesey argued that the precedents should be disregarded as they were ‘new, and that new precedents were not so binding and authentic as those that were more ancient.’<sup>96</sup> Anglesey apparently believed that the Commons would yield to the Lords and when the Commons voted that the Lords had not allowed them justice by failing to commit Clarendon, he told Pepys that</p><blockquote><p>should the Lords yield to what the Commons would have in this matter, it were to make them worse then any justice of the peace (whereas they are the highest court in the kingdom); that they cannot be judges whether an offender be to committed or bailed, which every justice of the peace doth do. And then he showed me precedents plain in their defence.<sup>97</sup></p></blockquote><p>On 4 and 6 Dec. he was named to manage conferences on Clarendon’s ‘scandalous and seditious’ petition to the Lords. When, on 5 Dec., James Compton*, 3rd earl of Northampton, introduced ‘a bill for the honour and privilege of the House and mercy to my Lord Clarendon’ Anglesey opposed it, arguing that mercy could only be shown under the law to those already convicted of a crime, but the bill, actually to banish Clarendon, was given a first reading.<sup>98</sup> Despite his opposition, he was added on 9 Dec. to the committee for the bill. On 14 Dec. he was named to draw up reasons why the Lords did not agree with the Commons’ address for a proclamation summoning Clarendon to his trial. On 24 Dec. Anglesey wrote to Ormond that the bill for banishing Clarendon,</p><blockquote><p>which went very bad from the House of peers was much amended in the House of Commons, and imports no more now but a summons to render himself to one of the secretaries or lieutenant of the tower by the first of February under pain of banishment with assurance of a trial in parliament if he come.<sup>99</sup></p></blockquote><p>Meanwhile, on 6 Dec. 1667 Anglesey had come under attack in the Privy Council for altering payments in course set by the council. According to Sir William Coventry<sup>‡</sup>, this was merely an excuse to seek revenge on Anglesey for his conduct over Clarendon. Just after Christmas, there were rumours at Whitehall that Anglesey would be removed from the Privy Council because he had resisted the king’s will against Clarendon, although York was intent on resisting such a move.<sup>100</sup> Anglesey summed up the situation on 4 Jan. 1668, writing of the ‘sad and declining state affairs are in; all confidence among men so broken, by late intrigues and cabals, that there are scarce any two that dare trust one the other’; instead of ‘love, and friendly converse; now, there is nothing but practice to undermine and supplant one another.’<sup>101</sup> Anglesey defended himself vociferously, Pepys recording on 5 Jan. an alleged conversation between Anglesey and one of his opponents, in which Anglesey asked the question:</p><blockquote><p>what are we to look for when we are outed; will all things be set right in the nation? … will you and the rest of you be contented to be hanged, if you do not redeem all our misfortunes and set all right, if the power be put into your hands? I and the rest of us that you are labouring to put out, will be contented to be hanged if we do not recover all that is passed, if the king will put the power into our hands and adhere wholly to our advice.<sup>102</sup></p></blockquote><p>Also in January 1668 Anglesey was critical of the new act setting up a commission of accounts, which he said the Lords had passed ‘because it was a senseless, impracticable, ineffectual and foolish act’, and ‘a thing that can do nothing considerable for all its great noise.’<sup>103</sup></p><p>When the 1667-8 session resumed on 6 Feb. 1668, Anglesey attended on 36 days, 55 per cent of the total. He was named to further eight committees. On 9 and 16 Mar. he entered his dissent to resolutions in the case of <em>Morley v. Elwes</em>. On 3 Mar., Anglesey had reported that the threat of impeachment proceedings against Ormond was receding but on 17 Mar. he noted that</p><blockquote><p>the extravagant petition of the Adventurers was read in the House of Commons yesterday. The petitioners are to be heard, at bar, upon it that day month. … Some here are countermining this design which would overthrow the Settlement, and make Ireland slave to England. ... The new arrow is aimed more at his grace, than at any else.<sup>104</sup></p></blockquote><p>On 1 Apr. Anglesey informed the House of a breach of privilege against him, by a summons in connection with a case in King’s Bench. The culprits were summoned to attend on the following day, but the Journal is silent on what happened. Having been added on 10 Apr. to the committee concerning the Hamburg Company and its creditors, on 23 Apr. he chaired the committee attempting to mediate between them.<sup>105</sup> On 24 Apr. he was named to manage a conference over the impeachment of William Penn, which he reported later in the day. On 29 Apr., ‘upon a speech of the earl of Anglesey’s’ the bill from the Commons for continuing the act suppressing conventicles was laid aside.<sup>106</sup></p><p>Anglesey was also involved in the most important constitutional wrangle of the session, the case of <em>Skinner v. the East India Company</em>. On 5 May he was named to a conference on the case.<sup>107</sup> On 6 May, in the committee for privileges, it was decided that Anglesey and Holles would draft the Lords’ case and that Anglesey would be one of the peers deputed to respond to the arguments offered by the Commons. On 7 May he offered ‘what his Lordship hath prepared by way of introduction for the conferences’ together with the relevant precedents and this was then reported to the House. He was then designated to speak ‘to modern records’ at the conference with the Commons on 8 May. Several accounts survive detailing his defence of the Lords jurisdiction.<sup>108</sup> Yet Anglesey failed to convince himself. He told Pepys that the</p><blockquote><p>Lords may be in error, at least it is possible they may, in this matter of Skinner; and he doubts they may, and did declare his judgment in the House of Lords against their proceedings therein, he having hinder[ed], a hundred original causes being brought into their House, notwithstanding that he was put upon defending their proceedings; but that he is confident that the House of Commons are in the wrong in the method they take to remedy any error of the Lords, for no vote of theirs can do it; but in all cases the Commons have done it by petition to the king, sent up to the Lords and by them agreed to and so redressed.<sup>109</sup></p></blockquote><p>This ties in with a comment of Sir Roger Twysden<sup>‡</sup> in June, that the counter-arguments of the solicitor general, Sir Heneage Finch*, later lord chancellor and earl of Nottingham, had proved so effective that it ‘put the earl of Anglesey, who was to reply to it, into some distemper.’<sup>110</sup></p><p>Anglesey was still a lynchpin in the government’s administrative machine. However, his activity could cause resentment as at the end of June 1668, when he offended York by complaining in the Council of disorders in the navy, rather than taking his concerns directly to the duke.<sup>111</sup> A document of September 1668 shows that Anglesey was a member of two standing committees of the Privy Council, one concerning the admiralty, navy, military matters, fortifications, and the other with trade, foreign plantations, Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Tangier, although he was omitted from the key committee for foreign affairs.<sup>112</sup></p><h2><em>Loss of office 1668-70</em></h2><p>Meanwhile, Anglesey came under attack for his role in the Irish administration. Once again the real target was Ormond and part of the purpose of the accusation was to pre-empt criticism in the next session of Parliament. The attack was led by Buckingham and Arlington, but caused tensions between the two. Arlington, it was said, ‘would like to ruin milord Anglesey, who is his enemy, and the best head there is in the council. But the duke of Buckingham, to whom this milord once showed partiality, will not consent to his downfall, and would very much like to acquire him.’<sup>113</sup> Ossory attributed much of the political manoeuvring to Orrery and this is confirmed by other accounts.<sup>114</sup> Anglesey was suspended as treasurer of the navy by the king acting in Council on 28 Oct. 1668.<sup>115</sup> On 7 Nov., he was also suspended from attending Council, probably because of his failure to acquiesce in the decision to hand over the administration of the navy treasurership to Sir Thomas Littleton<sup>‡</sup> and Sir Thomas Osborne*, the future earl of Danby: ‘the former a creature of Arlington’s, and the latter of the duke of Buckingham’s.’<sup>116</sup> On 9 Nov. 1668 Colbert informed Louis that upon Anglesey’s loss of office and suspension from the Council ‘Milord Arlington rejoiced quite publicly, drinking the health of these commissioners and letting it be seen that this change could be attributed to him.’<sup>117</sup> Anglesey, who probably had the support of the duke of York, petitioned the king, arguing that he had ‘a legal estate’ for life in the office and making a barely concealed threat to raise it as a matter of privilege of peerage unless he were given an opportunity to argue his case before the council and the judges. The petition was rejected on 11 Nov. when the king replied that Anglesey was not prevented by the king’s actions from ‘taking the benefit from his laws’, but that ‘His majesty hath reason to suspect very great miscarriages in the management of that revenue which passed through the petitioner’s hands in Ireland to the damage of himself and his subjects there, and therefore doth not think fit to trust the treasure of his navy in the same hands, till he hath received better satisfaction’.<sup>118</sup></p><p>Anglesey petitioned the king again on 5 Dec. 1668 asking how he could give better satisfaction over his Irish accounts and hence return to exercising his navy office.<sup>119</sup> By the summer of 1669, the commissioners were able to report back to the king. They stated that initially they had had difficulty tracking down Anglesey’s detailed accounts but when they did they found they were ‘kept in so ill a method’ that anything could be concealed in their confusion and perplexity. Daniel Bellingham, an officer of the Irish treasury, had not been sworn in and considered himself accountable only to Anglesey and not to the king. They estimated that the king was owed approximately £34,000 but the current balance was only £7,150.<sup>120</sup> Despite these criticisms no further action was taken against Anglesey, perhaps because Ormond, who had been the key target, had been removed from office in February 1669 or because the king had no wish to open a legal battle with Anglesey when there were more important matters in hand. Nevertheless, Anglesey remained suspended from office.</p><p>Anglesey attended the adjournment of the House on 11 Nov. 1668 and the prorogation on 1 Mar. 1669. He attended on 34 days (94 per cent) of the 1669 session. On the opening day, 19 Oct., he was named to four select committees. On 21 Oct. Sir Heneage Finch revealed in a speech to the Commons something of Anglesey’s views on the issues raised by the Skinner case when he noted that ‘I am clearly of the earl of Anglesey’s mind that votes will not end this matter nothing but a bill can do it.’<sup>121</sup> On 15 Nov. a complaint was made that Sir Maurice Eustace had breached the privilege of the House by procuring a hearing of a cause against Anglesey, for which he was ordered to appear at the Bar on the following day. The House ordered a stop to proceedings, and Eustace was discharged at Anglesey’s request. Anglesey registered his protest on 25 Nov. 1669 and his dissent on 29 Nov. in the case of <em>Bernard Granville v. Jeremy Elwes</em>.</p><p>On 18 Nov. 1669 Anglesey took his case over the treasurership of the navy to the Lords, particularly alleging that the commissioners appointed to examine his Irish accounts were influenced extra-judicially.<sup>122</sup> The following day, it was referred to the committee for privileges, where Anglesey had the matter suspended.<sup>123</sup> On 24 Nov. he petitioned the king; he asked for the profits of his office, as a pledge that Charles II ‘has not cast me off.’<sup>124</sup></p><p>Anglesey was absent from the first two days of the next (1670-1) session. He first sat on 21 Feb. 1670, when he was added to the committees for privileges and petitions. He missed only one further day (11 Mar.), attending on 37 days of the session before the adjournment on 11 Apr., 93 per cent of the total of this part of the session. He was also on hand to support the divorce bill of John Manners*, Lord Roos, the future 9th earl of Rutland, whose sister was married to his son. On 22 Feb. he informed Roos’s mother that ‘now will be the time for your ladyship and my lord ... to come about my Lord Roos’s his business; all things going smooth in Parliament, and the two houses agreed this day’, a reference to the Skinner case.<sup>125</sup> He spoke and acted as a teller in favour of giving the Roos divorce bill a second reading on 17 March. At the third reading on 28 Mar. he offered a proviso allowing Lady Roos £400 p.a. maintenance, which was not allowed as the bill had already been read three times. However, Anglesey, Ashley and Roos’s father, John Manners*, 8th earl of Rutland, ‘undertook the substance of the proviso should be made good to her.’<sup>126</sup> As Andrew Marvell<sup>‡</sup> concluded: ‘Anglesey and Ashley, who study and know their interests as well as any gentlemen at Court, and whose sons have married two sisters of Roos, inheritrixes if he has no issue, yet they also drive on the bill with their greatest vigour. The king is for the bill.’<sup>127</sup></p><p>On 21 Mar. 1670 he was named to draft an address to the king about the ancient freedom of peers from the impost on wines, which he reported the same day. He was named to a further 26 committees in this part of the session. On 26 Mar. he entered his dissent against the passage of the conventicle bill. As in previous sessions he was active in committee, chairing meetings of four committees on 30 Mar., one of which (the dean of St Paul’s bill) he reported later that day and another (the malicious burning of houses bill) on 4 April.<sup>128</sup> He was also named to manage several conferences: the Guzman et al. naturalization bill on 30 Mar.; the conventicle bill (reporting on 2 and 5 Apr.); repair of Great Yarmouth harbour (reported on 5 Apr.); and on 9 Apr. he was named to that for preventing the delivery of merchant ships (named 9 April). From 2 Apr. he held the proxies of both Rutland and Edward Montagu*, 2nd Baron Montagu. On 11 Apr. he reported from the committee for privileges on the case of <em>Henry Slingsby v. William Hale</em><sup>‡</sup>. On 9 Apr. Anglesey had been named to a committee to consider grievances arising from the rules and practices that governed law suits. While the House stood adjourned Anglesey was an active member of a subcommittee on this subject.<sup>129</sup></p><h2><em>Return to favour 1670-78</em></h2><p>The adjournment of the House saw Anglesey’s political prospects rise. A newsletter writer noted on 19 Apr. that ‘Anglesey is restored to the council, he made an excellent speech in the House of Lords in behalf of the Lord Roos’s bill but I do not say that is the cause.’<sup>130</sup> Sir Ralph Verney<sup>‡</sup> reported that he was also ‘in good esteem with the king, and is in no small hope of being restored to his office of treasurer of the navy, or compensation for it.’<sup>131</sup></p><p>Another indication of Anglesey’s return to favour, or at least a willingness by the king to use his talent for business, was his appointment as a commissioner for negotiating a union with Scotland, meetings of which took place between September and November 1670. Significantly, on 22 Sept. he was one of those named to a joint committee with the Scots charged with drawing up the intended articles of union. This committee met at Anglesey’s house on 23 Sept. and drafted the preliminary articles, which he reported back to the commissioners for England on the following day before they were considered by the full commission.<sup>132</sup></p><p>Anglesey was present on 24 Oct. 1670 when the House reconvened after the adjournment. He attended on 113 days, 90 per cent of the total. He was named to a further 44 committees during this part of the session, chairing several of them, and reporting from the committee on the Falmouth church bill on 21 Nov. and that on the bill against the malicious burning of houses on 22 November. He was active in committee in other ways too: on 10 Dec. the committee on the bill to prevent frauds in the export of wool accepted a clause he had drafted.<sup>133</sup></p><p>Meanwhile, on 11 Nov. 1670 Anglesey argued ‘mightily’ on behalf of Sir Robert Nugent in his complaint against Richard Talbot, whereupon the House ordered a hearing for later in the month.<sup>134</sup> On 1 Dec. he argued for granting relief to Ann Fry in her appeal from a chancery decree in favour of George Porter, but without success.<sup>135</sup> On 2 Dec. Anglesey entered his dissent against the passage of the general naturalization bill. As was by now usual he was deeply involved in managing and reporting conferences. These ranged from issues of national concern, such as the Commons petition to the king for the prevention of the growth of popery (reported on 10 Mar. 1771) and the additional excise bill (named 6 Mar.), to matters of more localized interest such as the Boston navigation bill (named 13 Mar.) and the bill to prevent abuses at Smithfield market (named 18 and 20 April). On 9 Mar. Anglesey protested against the failure to commit the bill concerning privilege of Parliament ‘because I conceive there is no colour of law to claim a privilege of freedom from suits; and for many other reasons’. He likewise entered his dissent against the failure to order the bill to be engrossed. On 15 Mar. he entered his protest against the suspension of judgment against John Cusack in the case against William Usher, ‘because the defendants were never yet summoned nor heard and are not parties to the judgment’. On the following day he entered his dissent against the suspension of judgment for two months.</p><p>Having been involved in the conference on preventing the growth of popery, Anglesey went on to chair the committee on the resultant bill. On 13 Apr. 1671 he was also named to the subcommittee ‘to draw up such a test or oath according to the debate of the committee this day which being taken, may obtain a mitigation of the penalties of the law following conviction to such recusants’.<sup>136</sup></p><p>In April 1671 Anglesey became involved in the controversy arising from the bill imposing an additional duty upon foreign commodities over the Lords’ claim to amend money bills. He reported on a conference on the bill and the general point about the upper House amending money bills on 22 April. The Commons’ refusal to accept the right of peers to amend financial legislation caused the bill to be lost and prompted Anglesey to write a widely copied manuscript tract, eventually published in 1702 as <em>The Privileges of the House of Lords and Commons Argued and Stated</em>.<sup>137</sup></p><p>With Ormond out of office in Ireland some of those patronized by him looked to Anglesey for assistance in 1670, especially as he was now active again in the Privy Council. The pro-French and ‘Catholic’ policy of the king and the Cabal had resulted in the reinstatement of the Catholic church hierarchy in Ireland. As a result Peter Talbot, titular Archbishop of Dublin, was able to use his position to persecute the clergy who had subscribed to the loyal oath promoted by Ormond and Father Peter Walsh in 1661.<sup>138</sup> In the summer of 1670 Anglesey was reading Walsh’s pamphlets and papers in order to understand the issue and present a petition to the Privy Council.<sup>139</sup> More generally, when Richard Talbot presented a petition to the king and council requesting a review of the Irish land settlement, Anglesey’s position was ambiguous. He had been an architect and beneficiary of the settlement but now agreed that it had been unjust in some respects towards Irish Catholics.<sup>140</sup> Anglesey was appointed to a commission to investigate the Irish settlement which was overwhelmed in hearings, recriminations and paperwork for the next few years.<sup>141</sup></p><p>From May 1671 Anglesey’s diary details his daily activities, revealing an extraordinary level of involvement in a range of governmental bodies, his commercial interests in the Gambia Company and Fen Corporation, and his religious life. It also demonstrates, albeit partially, his contacts with the main political players of the day. On 4 June, for example, Ashley, Buckingham ‘and others’ came to dine with him at Kensington, while on the 18th he dined with Lord Chamberlain St Albans at Windsor.<sup>142</sup> Anglesey’s diary also helps to explain the convoluted proceedings over his office of treasurer of the navy in the summer and early autumn of 1671. On 22 Sept. the king decided to appoint Osborne as the sole treasurer of the navy, in effect making Anglesey’s suspension perpetual. Negotiations continued for many months and at one point Charles II offered Anglesey the mastership of the rolls instead of the treasurership of the navy, ‘if I would accept it, and clear all for time past. I said I was willing to serve … and liked better to be among lawyers, as I was bred, than in any other course.’<sup>143</sup> After many delays on 5 Sept. Anglesey was granted the fees of the office from the date of his suspension until June 1672, and then £3,000 p.a. in lieu of his fees from the treasurership.<sup>144</sup> Even then there were further delays, and a fresh grant had to be issued on 14 October.<sup>145</sup> This settlement did not prevent Anglesey from continuing to press for justice over his accounts for the vice-treasurership of Ireland, claiming that if anything the king owed him money.<sup>146</sup></p><p>Anglesey was still being courted by other ministers. On 19 July 1671 he joined Ashley for dinner at Twickenham, the residence of John Berkeley*, Baron Berkeley of Stratton, the lord lieutenant of Ireland, where Buckingham suggested that Anglesey was his preferred candidate for chancellor. By 25 Aug. Buckingham seemed to be suggesting Anglesey as lord president but the following day Berkeley assured him that only Osborne opposed him being lord keeper, and Ashley offered his support for the post.<sup>147</sup> On 11 Nov. Anglesey dined with Ashley, Lord Roos and others at the Sun Tavern in London.<sup>148</sup> From 3 Dec. until 9 Jan. 1672 Anglesey was bedridden with gout but on 2 Jan. 1672 he rose from his sickbed to attend an extraordinary council meeting where he failed to prevent the Stop of the Exchequer.<sup>149</sup></p><p>On 23 Jan. 1672 Anglesey had a long private meeting with the king, who told him ‘all his designs against the Dutch and for liberty [of conscience].’ From late February until mid-April 1672 Anglesey was ill of the gout, although he occasionally roused himself to attend council, as he did on 15 Mar., ‘where I spoke my mind freely to the Declaration offered by the king for indulgence; observing the Papists are put thereby into a better and less jealoused state than the dissenting protestants,’ and on the 17th when he ‘spoke my mind to the Declaration against the Dutch, and proposed the last treaty might be observed in not seizing of merchants’ goods’, but giving time to withdraw if war were judged necessary.<sup>150</sup> Anglesey had long been a supporter of liberty of conscience. His pamphlet on the subject, entitled <em>The King’s Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matters, with the Equity thereof, asserted</em>, was published in 1688. It was not so much the Second Declaration of Indulgence therefore that concerned him in 1672, but the absence of Parliament, the general direction of court policy, war with Holland and developments in Ireland.<sup>151</sup></p><p>In June 1672 the mutual antipathy between Anglesey and Orrery boiled over. On 11 June, at the king’s command, Anglesey handed over to him a letter from Orrery about Ireland.<sup>152</sup> According to Conway, ‘Lord Orrery is totally ruined by a letter which he wrote to Lord Anglesey, who carried it to the king. I know not which is most condemned, the indiscretion of the one or the treachery of the other.’<sup>153</sup> By the same post Arlington wrote on the king’s behalf commanding Orrery to ‘moderate his zeal’ on security matters and to stop inflaming matters in the wake of the king’s declaration of his indulgence towards allowing the Roman Catholics to live in corporate towns.<sup>154</sup></p><p>On 25 Nov. 1672, Sir John Coplestone reported that Anglesey might be about to be made lord privy seal.<sup>155</sup> On 30 Nov. Anglesey recorded that the king had offered him encouragement which ‘I should quickly see by him employing me in some place of trust’. Arlington advised letting ‘things rest so keeping all private and all would go well,’ and so Anglesey bided his time. Meanwhile, Anglesey was working hard at the social aspects of power, accompanying first the new chancellor of the exchequer, Sir John Duncombe<sup>‡</sup> (23 Nov.), and then the lord treasurer Thomas Clifford*, Baron Clifford (5 Dec.) to be sworn in the exchequer. His care to attend the court saw him on hand to note on 25 Dec. that although the king received the sacrament, the duke of York did not.<sup>156</sup> Early in the new year, Anglesey was revealed to be one of the protectors (the other being Shaftesbury, as Ashley had now become) of Marvell’s <em>The Rehearsal Transpros’d</em>.<sup>157</sup></p><p>Anglesey was present when a new session opened on 4 Feb. 1673. He was excused attendance on 13 Feb. because of ill health, and was absent until he attended the committee for privileges on the afternoon of 24 February.<sup>158</sup> Otherwise he attended on 32 days of the session (78 per cent of the total), and was named to a further 15 committees. Throughout March he was deeply involved in the debates over the growth of popery. He was named to a conference on the matter on 6 Mar. and in response to the suggestion of the lord treasurer, produced a draft clarification of the king’s powers in matters ecclesiastical on 7 March.<sup>159</sup> On 8 Mar. when Shaftesbury announced the withdrawal of the Declaration of Indulgence with the king in attendance, and the House passed an address against popery, Anglesey recorded it as ‘a strange day in Parliament’.<sup>160</sup> On 15 Mar. he was named to a subcommittee to draw a clause for the Test bill.<sup>161</sup> On 24 Mar. he was named to a conference on the bill, reporting it later in the day. He was then named to prepare reasons against the clauses in the bill concerning the queen, which led to another conference on the 25th. On 29 Mar. he was named to report a conference on the bill for the ease of Dissenters, and to manage the resultant conference. As usual he also chaired committees on a variety of subjects.<sup>162</sup> On 28 Mar. he entered his dissent to the resolution dismissing the petition of James Percy, a claimant to the earldom of Northumberland. After the end of the session, on 8 Apr. 1673 Anglesey recorded his attendance at ‘the committee for the Lords Journal.’<sup>163</sup></p><p>Anglesey had undoubtedly helped the king to negotiate a difficult parliamentary session and was rewarded on 11 Apr. when the king informed him in private of his decision to appoint him lord privy seal.<sup>164</sup> On 21 Apr. he ‘found that some had been undermining me with the king and shaken him so far as that he told my Lord Arlington that it was not reasonable I should have my £3,000 pension and the privy seal both’, whereupon he went to the king and persuaded him otherwise.<sup>165</sup> A later assessment suggested that ‘the king being pressed by factions, and charged with introducing popery and arbitrary power, made him privy seal, as a man that had always been in opposition to both, and yet one he thought might be useful to him in the House of Peers, being very knowing in records and precedents of Parliament, of a good tongue and one who had an excellent faculty in writing.’<sup>166</sup></p><p>On 29 May 1673 Anglesey attended a committee of council to discuss the implications of the cancellation of the Declaration of Indulgence on 7 Mar. 1673, particularly that the licences were ‘snares’ to those that had taken them out, and that ‘somewhat ought to be signified for quietness sake till the Parliament met, yet with so much caution as neither to suspend the laws in force, nor give authority to the licences.’ An attempt to draw up a letter for the Privy Council in June 1673 proved beyond Anglesey’s powers of legal finesse, it being a ‘nice narrow patch that could hardly be hit.’<sup>167</sup> He was also responsible for the summoning of Oxfordshire justices before the council on 13 June. At Easter the justices had declared in quarter sessions that the penal laws were in force as the king had no power to suspend them.<sup>168</sup></p><p>Following York’s resignation from office, on 17 June the king informed Anglesey that he had ‘put me in the commission for the admiralty and depended chiefly on my care and skill therein’.<sup>169</sup> Although his commission was dated 9 July, his diary records entries on admiralty business from 26 June when he discussed the commission with the king. On 22 July Anglesey attended the committee for Ireland, ‘where I differed almost wholly about the rules of corporations in Ireland,’ and on the following day at the full council he ‘singly opposed the corporation rules’. On 20 Aug. 1673 Anglesey described being ‘in the junto council’, presumably a reference to the foreign affairs committee. He now carried sufficient weight to secure an Irish earldom for his son-in-law Richard Power, who was created earl of Tyrone in October. On 15 Oct. Anglesey recorded that he had spent three hours ‘at my Lord Arlington’s chamber, the king and most of the junto present upon great affairs.’<sup>170</sup></p><p>Anglesey attended the prorogation on 20 Oct. 1673, and attended all four sittings of the ensuing short session. On 31 Oct. during a debate on the king’s speech in the Commons he was attacked by Henry Powle<sup>‡</sup> as ‘the contriver’ of the Declaration of Indulgence, who had since been made lord privy seal, the third office in the kingdom, or as Sir Christopher Musgrave<sup>‡</sup> put it, one who had ‘declared the declaration for liberty of conscience lawful’.<sup>171</sup> Despite references to the ‘juncto’ and being singled out for attack by the Commons, involvement in key meetings was rare for Anglesey. So much so that when he attended Parliament on 4 Nov., the day on which the king unexpectedly attended to prorogue Parliament, ‘I found the king there and many of the lords in their robes having no notice of it before I saw them.’<sup>172</sup> That month, following Shaftesbury’s dismissal as lord chancellor, Anglesey was said to be ‘much disappointed’ not to succeed him.<sup>173</sup></p><p>Anglesey was present on 7 Jan. 1674, when the next parliamentary session opened, attending on 28 days, 74 per cent of the total. On the opening day of the session, Verney reported that, together with Charles Howard*, 2nd earl of Berkshire, Anglesey spoke in vindication of Buckingham following a complaint about his conduct with the countess of Shrewsbury.<sup>174</sup> On 8 Jan., when he stayed until 3 p.m., Anglesey was one of three peers (the others being York and Northampton) to vote against an address to the king for the removal of papists from London during the sitting of Parliament.<sup>175</sup> From 13 Jan. to 3 Feb. he recorded ‘I was most of the time very ill of the gout and some days kept bed, yet other days went to the Parliament.’<sup>176</sup> On 14 Jan. Theophilus Hastings*, 7th earl of Huntingdon, registered his proxy with Anglesey. That month, when the Commons attacked Buckingham and Arlington, Verney expected them to broaden their attack to question Anglesey, ‘who is the least beloved man in England.’<sup>177</sup> He was named to a further six committees of the House as well as to two conferences with the Commons, one on 3 Feb. relating to their address advising the king on a treaty with the States-General, and another on 11 Feb. on giving thanks to the king for response to the address. He chaired the committee for privileges, on the question of whether the sons of peers had privileges, reporting on 11 February.<sup>178</sup> He reported from the same committee on 18 Feb. on the claim of Arthur Capell*, earl of Essex, to the earl of Northumberland’s estate.</p><p>Anglesey must have been worried by the Commons debates in February 1674, which resulted in the appointment of a committee on 20 Feb. to inspect the state of the Irish revenue, the state of religion, and the militia and armed forces. It was perhaps this hostility in the lower House that prompted Verney to write on 12 Feb. of his belief that Anglesey was ‘much abated in his power’ of influencing appointments.<sup>179</sup> On 27 Mar., after council, Arlington attacked Anglesey for passing a grant for John Wilmot*, 2nd earl of Rochester, saying that ‘I understood not the duty of my place; that he never looked for better from me, that by God I served everybody so, and would do so to the end of the chapter.’<sup>180</sup></p><p>Anglesey’s private life remained busy. On 7 Apr. 1674 his daughter, the countess of Tyrone, died and on 7 May another daughter, Philippa, married Charles Mohun*, 3rd Baron Mohun. Meanwhile, Anglesey became entangled in a legal dispute over his title to Bletchingdon, from which he was only saved by the death of his opponent, Edward Lewis<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>181</sup> For most of October and much of November Anglesey was again ill with a severe attack of gout.<sup>182</sup></p><p>The religious settlement continued to play a prominent part in Anglesey’s political actions. On 29 Jan. 1675 he attended the council, ‘where the king communicated the proceedings at Lambeth for reformation [the meeting of the bishops with Danby and other councillors on 21 Jan.], which we debated a while but desired time if our advice was expected it being as I conceived a weighty affair.’ On 3 Feb. he was ‘was with the king long in private about the declaration’ (the declaration embodying the chief points originally agreed in the meeting in January, concerning measures against Catholics and nonconformists), and in council that afternoon ‘the declaration was mended and the day lengthened till the 25th of March and so passed with a proclamation.’<sup>183</sup> Verney reported these conciliar debates as being very warm, with Anglesey, Holles, George Savile*, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax, and Charles Howard*, earl of Carlisle, ensuring that the proclamation would ‘contain very large directions for prosecution of papists. But concerning the Protestant dissenters there is to be nothing more or less than that the king (from Lady Day next) hath taken off his licences.’<sup>184</sup></p><p>Between 5 and 24 Mar. 1675 Anglesey was again ill. What aroused him from his sickbed was a family crisis which erupted on 25 Mar. when ‘false, bold, ungrateful daughter Decies went to Lord Ossory.’ Lady Decies was his barely teenage granddaughter-in-law and heiress to a large estate, who now claimed that she had been forced into a contract of marriage and had been ‘restrained and hindered from manifestation of my dislike and dissent’ to it. Despite seeking the king’s assistance and a referral to the council, Anglesey was unable to compel her return.<sup>185</sup> The following year, she married Edward Villiers, the heir of George Villiers, 4th Viscount Grandison [I], and cousin of the still powerful Barbara Villiers, duchess of Cleveland.</p><p>Parliament reassembled for the 1675 session on 13 April. Anglesey was present on each of the 41 days that the Lords sat; he was named to 13 select committees. His name appears on several lists as a supporter of the non-resisting test in April-June 1675 but this disguises Anglesey’s more nuanced position. On 19 Apr. Anglesey attended ‘by the king’s command at lord treasurer’s where [there] was [the] lord keeper &c about the new test. ... I urged many arguments against the test or new oath.’ He spent most of the following day in Parliament ‘on the new test &c.’<sup>186</sup> On 24 Apr. Dr William Denton reported on the retention the previous day of the ‘Test bill’ or ‘no alteration oath’, by one voice, noting that Anglesey</p><blockquote><p>hath left this sting in the tail of it by a memorial openly in the House to the bishops of the reasons why they were cast out of the Lords’ House before, and how that this Parliament brought them in again so that they now sit not on any old foundation but by an Act of Parliament, and therefore did advise them to be cautious least they tricked themselves out of it again.<sup>187</sup></p></blockquote><p>On 26 Apr. Anglesey spent from nine in the morning to after nine at night in Parliament, presumably mainly for the debates on the test bill. On 30 Apr. he ‘spent the morning with good success in Parliament,’ when he chaired a committee of the whole on the test bill, and an amendment was passed that no oaths imposed on peers would result in them losing their seats, thereby reassuring those peers who were concerned that the oath proposed in the bill might constitute a breach of their privileges. He reported a further eight times from the committee, the last occasion being 31 May (on which day he recorded ‘being in the chair upon the test till near 12 at night’), before the bill was eventually submerged in a privilege dispute between the Houses.<sup>188</sup></p><p>Meanwhile, on four days in April 1675 Anglesey chaired the committee on the bill explaining the act preventing the danger from popish recusants, reporting it on 4 May, and taking the resultant oaths on 31 May.<sup>189</sup> On 23 Apr. he reported from the committee of privileges concerning the manner in which the clerk had entered two votes from 13 Apr. in the Journal. On 5 May he recorded being at the committee of privileges, when the matter of <em>Dr Thomas Sherley v. Sir John Fagg</em><sup>‡</sup> was under consideration.<sup>190</sup> He chaired many other committees too, three of which he also reported: the bill vesting the site of St Trinity the Less in the trustees of the Augustine Protestant German congregation in London (31 May); the bill for the better payment of church duties, small tithes and other church duties (18 May); and that for the estate of William Lewis.<sup>191</sup></p><p>On 10 May 1675 he entered his protest against the resolution not to affirm the decree in the cause of <em>Dacre Barrett v. Viscount Loftus [I].</em> On 12 May he recorded attending Parliament all day until after nine in the evening, though quite what the business was that detained him so long is unclear.<sup>192</sup> On 14 May he entered his dissent (along with Christopher Monck*, 2nd duke of Albemarle) to the resolution of the House exonerating his son-in-law Mohun, who had forcibly taken a warrant of the Commons for the arrest of Dr Sherley. He was nevertheless named to a conference on the matter on 17 May, and presumably attended the subsequent conferences on the matter, reporting from one held on 21 May. On 26 May he was the sole peer to enter his dissent to the reversal of the judgment in the case of <em>John Streater v. Abel Roper et al</em>. On 27 May he was named to report a conference on the privilege dispute between the houses in the case of <em>Sir Nicholas Stoughton v. Arthur Onslow</em><sup>‡</sup>. The Lords’ insistence on restricting the subject matter of the conference, in order to protect their claim to judicature, led to the failure of the Commons to attend. Anglesey was then one of four peers nominated on 31 May to draw up heads for another conference on the matter, which he reported later that day. Privilege issues continued to be a concern for Anglesey, and on 1 June he was one of those peers appointed to draw up reasons for the release of the four counsel appointed by the Lords to defend Sir Nicholas Crisp in his cause with Thomas Dalmahoy<sup>‡</sup>, but who had been taken into custody by order of the Commons. Anglesey reported the resultant conference on 2 June and later in the day reported from a committee of the whole that a small committee should draw up reasons to be offered at a conference on the subject. On 3 June Anglesey reported from this committee and from the subsequent conference. On 5 June Anglesey ‘morning and afternoon sat in Parliament but did nothing the king having used us ill, the Lord prevent confusion. We did attend the king in the Banqueting House.’ On 11 June, after the prorogation, he spent the morning ‘at Mr Browne’s, clerk of the Parliament, to examine the Lords Journal.’<sup>193</sup></p><p>During July 1675 he noted that cousin ‘Pereg.’ (Peregrine Bertie) ‘assured me of lord treasurer.’ This intelligence was somewhat gainsaid on 7 Aug. when John Granville*, earl of Bath, ‘told me of [the] lord treasurer’s jealousy of me about telling the king of privy seals for secret service.’ On 17 Sept. Anglesey recorded that in the afternoon he was ‘at the junto till late.’ Similarly, on 11 Oct. he recorded a meeting of ‘the junto about preparations for the Parliament.’<sup>194</sup></p><p>When the next session of Parliament opened on 13 Oct. 1675, Anglesey attended on each of the 21 days on which the Lords sat and was named to a further nine committees. On 18 Oct. he registered the proxy of Henry Pierrepont*, marquess of Dorchester. On that day he ‘was with them that met at [the] lord treasurer’s’, presumably to discuss the proceedings in the Commons on the king’s speech, when Danby’s allies had tried to get the lower House to prioritize religious matters ahead of supply.<sup>195</sup> He was active in the debates on the case of <em>Sherley v. Fagg</em>, noting on 26 Oct. that ‘I satisfied the whole House in the morning about our judicature,’ and on the following day that he spent the morning in Parliament ‘to general satisfaction.’ On 4 Nov. he was the sole protester against the resolution of the House to order the hearing of <em>Sherley v. Fagg</em> for 20 Nov., noting that Bristol and Essex ‘would have had me to the bar for being of a different mind, but they did but show their teeth.’<sup>196</sup> On 10 Nov. Anglesey was named to a conference on a joint address to the king to renew the prohibition on soldiers serving in the French army, from which he duly reported. He also chaired several committees in November, including (on seven occasions) the committee investigating the publication of <em>A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country</em>. Some of the committees may have been for bills in which friendship played a part, such as those for the dowager countess of Warwick or that for settling the estates of William Maynard*, 2nd Baron Maynard; others, like the revived bill on behalf of the Augustine Protestant German congregation, may reflect personal interests or previous expertise.<sup>197</sup> On 19 Nov. he was named to report a conference on preserving a good correspondence with the Commons. On 20 Nov., he was one of the chief speakers against the motion to address the king to dissolve Parliament, spending ‘all day till near nine at night in Parliament to prevent the dissolution.’ On the day after the prorogation he again recorded being present ‘at the committee for the Journal book.’<sup>198</sup></p><p>Anglesey was still deeply involved in the business and minutiae of patronage. One of those he assisted was Thomas Cartwright*, the future bishop of Chester.<sup>199</sup> At council on 28 Jan. he ‘spoke my mind freely, yet with submission, against the scheme of suspension or retrenchment.’<sup>200</sup> In Westminster Hall on 30 June, Anglesey was one of six peers to vote Charles Cornwallis*, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, guilty of manslaughter.<sup>201</sup></p><p>On 11 Aug. 1676, Anglesey began his summer journey to Bletchingdon. He returned to his house in Kensington at the beginning of October.<sup>202</sup> Although there is no record of the exchange in the Privy Council minutes, on 24 Nov. Anglesey recorded that he had given ‘a sound reprimand to the City for their petition to the King’, presumably that promoted at the end of October by Jenks and Player for the redress of grievances.<sup>203</sup></p><p>At the end of December 1676 Anglesey fell ill of the gout, which kept him bedridden until the parliamentary session began on 15 Feb. 1677. On the opening day he was carried to Westminster and stayed till seven at night. Thereafter, until 11 Apr. ‘he was carried or went to the Parliament most days, but sometimes was so ill of the gout I could not and some days went to the council table also.’<sup>204</sup> He spoke on 15 Feb. 1677 in support of the lord chancellor and the lord treasurer and against the view expressed by Buckingham, Shaftesbury, Wharton and James Cecil*, 3rd earl of Salisbury, that Parliament had been dissolved. Anglesey apparently then spoke for an hour against the move to bring those four lords to the bar, arguing that it would take away the freedom of Parliament to punish them for their opinions. He was then involved in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade Salisbury to ask the pardon of the House. All four were sent to the Tower, at which Anglesey was reported to be ‘much troubled’, arguing that ‘this violence will make things worse to the king, but he was so ill and tired by Thursday’s attendance that he could not be there to moderate on Friday.’<sup>205</sup> He was then absent for the next five days. After a solitary day in attendance on 22 Feb., he was absent until 12 March. Thereafter, in the first part of the session (before the adjournment on 16 Apr.) he attended on a further 29 days of the session (making in all 63 per cent of the total) and was named to a further 18 committees.</p><p>Despite being absent from the House, on 2 Mar. 1677 Anglesey was able to defend his privilege as a peer and secure the release from custody of his servant Robert Meldrum. Back in the House, on 12 Mar. he was named to draw up reasons to be offered at a conference on a joint address to the king for the preservation of the Spanish Netherlands, and was duly named on 13 and 15 Mar. to manage the resultant conferences. On 13 Mar. he entered his dissent to the resolution to engross the bill for further securing the Protestant religion, and on 15 Mar. he entered his dissent to the bill’s passage, noting on the latter occasion that he forbore to enter his particular reasons ‘in humble deference and submission to the major vote by which the bill was carried.’ On 4 Apr. he was named to a conference on the bill for the naturalization of the king’s foreign born subjects. On 13 Apr. he was named to a conference on the Lords’ amendments to the supply bill and was then named to the committee to draw up the heads of what was to be insisted upon at the next conference on the matter. On 16 Apr. he was named to draw up an address to the king, asserting the right of the Lords to amend supply bills, which he duly reported to the House. On 18 Apr. he helped to verify the entries in the Journal. When Parliament met again for five days in May 1677, Anglesey attended on each day, and again two days after the adjournment, on 30 May, to check the Journal.<sup>206</sup></p><p>Having spent the morning of 16 Oct. 1677 in the company of the Prince of Orange, on the 22nd Anglesey was one of the council appointed by the king to assist in drafting the articles for his marriage to Princess Mary.<sup>207</sup> Anglesey attended the adjournment of the House on 3 Dec., around which date Shaftesbury classed Anglesey as twice ‘worthy’ in his analysis of lay peers, an assessment perhaps coloured by Anglesey’s vain attempt to keep Shaftesbury out of the Tower in the previous session.</p><p>Anglesey was present on 15 Jan. 1678, when the king adjourned Parliament to 28 January. He was then afflicted by the gout, remaining in bed for the next few weeks, although it was reported on 27 Jan. that he had attended the entertainment following the consecration of Archbishop Sancroft.<sup>208</sup> He did not attend Parliament until 5 Feb., when ‘I was carried to hinder the horrid bill about Sir Ralph Bankes’s<sup>‡</sup> estate.’ Anglesey then chaired the committee on the bill on five occasions in February, as he did Sarah Clifton’s estate bill on three occasions in the same month, before reporting it on 15 February.<sup>209</sup> Missing again on 6 Feb. he then attended on the remaining 53 days of this part of the session (making 90 per cent of the total), being named to a further 17 committees. Once again he was active in chairing committees, including those on the countess of Warwick’s bill, restoring the title and dignity of Baron Audley to James Tuchet*, 13th Baron Audley and 3rd earl of Castlehaven [I] (reported 26 Feb.) and, on 17 separate days, the committee examining the security of prisons, which also considered the bill discharging poor prisoners for debt (reported on 15 and 27 Mar.) and the petition from the prisoners in the Fleet and legislation drafted by the chief justices. He also chaired committees on the bills to enable creditors to recover their debts from executors and administrators (reported 11 Mar.) and for fines and recoveries (reported 12 March).<sup>210</sup> On 6 Mar. he reported from the committee of privileges concerning the method of trying Philip Herbert*, 7th earl of Pembroke. Also on 6 Mar. he was named to present a resolution to the king on behalf of John Frescheville*, Baron Frescheville, reporting the fact on the following day. On 8 Mar. he was named to a conference on the bill for regulating fishing, which he reported on the 9th and 19th. He reported from committees of the whole House on the poll bill (11 and 12 Mar.) and on the address for war with France (16 and 18 Mar.). On 22 Mar he entered his dissent to the decision to hear the attorney general on Viscount Purbeck’s claim to the peerage. Later in the day he reported the conference with the Commons on the address for war with France. On 23 Mar. Anglesey presented the petition of his daughter, Lady Mohun, to the House, claiming a breach of privilege over a quarrel during a game of cards, but the case was subsequently thrown out and left to the law.<sup>211</sup> On 30 Apr. he was named to a conference called to consider the remedies for the growth of popery. On 4 Apr. Anglesey attended Pembroke’s trial, and was one of a handful of peers to find him guilty of murder. Outside Parliament, Anglesey accompanied several other ministers on 9 Apr. 1678 on a successful visit to ‘the common council to get money for the king’.<sup>212</sup> He also continued to be a regular attender at council.</p><p>Anglesey attended every day bar one of the session which began on 23 May 1678. He was missing on 29 May (the king’s birthday), ‘having been ill in the last night’.<sup>213</sup> On the opening day, he was named to the usual sessional committees and to a further 27 committees. Towards the end of the previous session, on 10 May 1678, Anglesey had ‘got Mr Cottington’s appeal read’ in the Lords.<sup>214</sup> This was an appeal from the court of delegates concerning the validity of Cottington’s marriage to Angela Margerita Gallina, which had been referred to the committee for privileges to determine whether the cause might be brought before the House. The case was again referred to the committee for privileges on 23 May. On 2 June, the day before the committee was due to discuss the matter, ‘Mrs Cottington came and spent an hour with me to inform me in her cause and beg my justice. We discoursed all the time in French and Italian. She seems a witty understanding woman. If her cause appears as just tomorrow she need not fear me.’ The case raised important and contentious constitutional issues, since the Lords had not established that its judicature extended to the spiritual courts, for which delegates wielded ultimate appellate jurisdiction. Anglesey attended the committee on 3 June, recording ‘a brave debate’. He attended again on 10 June, staying until nine in the evening. The committee reported on 12 June against hearing the appeal but the matter was reserved for a full debate, with the assistance of the attorney general, the judges and the keeper of the records, on 17 June. On that day the appeal was dismissed, Anglesey noting that ‘whilst I went to get a short dinner, leaving the House reading the precedents in Cottington’s case, a hasty vote was made and the House risen before I got back.’<sup>215</sup></p><p>On 28 May 1678 Anglesey noted that ‘the Lords gave an unjust judgment in favour of Sir Alexander Frazier’, a royal physician, when they dismissed the appeal from chancery of Frances Denyes; ‘I and many others were against it but the cause was laboured since it was heard last sessions’.<sup>216</sup> Anglesey reported from the committee for privileges on 30 May regarding the keeping of good order in the Lords and its surroundings. On 1 June he noted that ‘we saved the settlement of Ireland by dismissing Cusack’s cause’ – an appeal from the court of claims in Ireland.<sup>217</sup> He again chaired committees on a variety of bills, including that for burying in woollen (reported 3 June), the estate of Sir Trevor Williams<sup>‡</sup> (reported 4 June), Childes’ and Thoresby’s bills (reported 27 and 28 June respectively) and the measurement of keels (reported 9 July).<sup>218</sup> He attended the debates on the claim of Robert Villiers*, to be Viscount Purbeck, entering protests against proceeding as a whole ‘upon complicated and accumulative questions’ on 7 and 20 June. On 14 June he reported from the committee of the whole on the bill against the clandestine marriage of minors. On 25 June he reported a conference on the supply bill for disbanding the army and was named to draw up reasons why the Lords disagreed to the proviso about the timing of the disbandment, a committee which he chaired, reporting it on the 26th.<sup>219</sup> He then reported on four conferences on the matter held in the days following. He chaired the committee on the bill for the measurement of keels, reported it on 9 July, and was named to a conference on the bill on 13 July.<sup>220</sup></p><p>On 5 July 1678 Anglesey noted that ‘this day till six at night spent in Parliament judged Mr Darell’s case again.’<sup>221</sup> On 8 July, he opposed the appeal of Louis de Duras*, earl of Feversham, against a decree in chancery in favour of Lewis Watson*, the future 3rd Baron Rockingham, and his wife. According to Finch, Anglesey ‘spoke so doubtfully that it was hard to understand on which side he was till he came to vote and then he voted for the defendant [Watson].’<sup>222</sup> After what appears to have been a contentious debate Feversham won his case, spurring Anglesey to enter protests against the judgment on 8 and 10 July. He protested with Northampton on 9 July against the passage of a vote to petition the king for leave for a bill to be brought in against Purbeck’s claims, writing the six reasons in his own hand. However, as lord privy seal he was one of those charged with delivering the petition to the king, and reported the king’s acquiescence on 11 July. Also on 11 July he was named to a conference on the bill for burying in woollen. On 13 July he was named to a conference on methods of returning bills between the Houses, which he reported later in the day. On 18 July, he introduced the agents from New England to kiss the king’s hand, apparently refusing a gratuity of 200 guineas from them.<sup>223</sup></p><p>Anglesey remained busy on a myriad of tasks outside Parliament, not least providing for his family. Doubtless as a result of his sterling work in trying to reconcile Thomas Leigh*, 2nd Baron Leigh and his wife, on 15 June 1678, Leigh’s uncle, the second son of the 1st Baron, proposed a match for his daughter with Anglesey’s second son, Altham. After attending the prorogation on 1 Aug. 1678, ‘being one of the commissioners for that end’, Anglesey left London on 6 Aug. with a promise from the king for an Irish peerage for Altham in view of his imminent marriage to a ‘lady of good estate,’ a promise he recorded as being fulfilled on 12 Jan. 1681, when ‘the king gave order for Altham’s barony.’<sup>224</sup></p><h2><em>The popish plot and exclusion 1678-80</em></h2><p>After his usual round of summer visits, dinners and entertainments, Anglesey set out for London again on 27 September. Later that day he attended the council and ‘had discourse with the king about the two Oxfordshire lords’, namely a commission to reconcile Rochester and his nephew, James Bertie*, Lord Norreys (later earl of Abingdon).<sup>225</sup> The following day Anglesey was ‘at council about the Popish Plot and the gout took me as before’, although he may well have missed the virtuoso performance from Titus Oates as he attended the christening of his grandson in the afternoon.<sup>226</sup> For the next few days Anglesey struggled to attend the council and the prorogation on 1 Oct., before succumbing to the pain and taking to his bed from 2 October.<sup>227</sup></p><p>Anglesey was still bedridden when the next session of Parliament opened on 21 Oct. 1678, being absent until the 24th, when he was added to the usual sessional committees as well as the committee to examine papers regarding the Popish Plot and Godfrey’s murder. Thereafter he attended on every day that the House sat. He was named to a further seven committees, excluding those relating to conferences. On 29 Oct. he was in Parliament, ‘where the duke of York was concerned upon Coleman’s examination taken by the Lords the two last days, but nothing was done’, and on 2 Nov. ‘was in Parliament morning and afternoon, the duke of York being moved against.’<sup>228</sup> On 2 Nov. he was named to a conference on the structural defects of both Houses, which he reported. He was also named to several conferences whose subject matter arose directly or indirectly from consideration of the Popish Plot: confirming the reality of the Plot (1 Nov.), administration of oaths to papists (11 Nov.), the address on the militia and the bill for disabling papists (both on 23 Nov.), the safety of the king and government (28 Nov.) and the refusal of the Lords to agree to an address for the removal of the queen from the king’s presence (29 Nov.). On 15 Nov. he voted against putting the declaration against transubstantiation under the same penalty as the oaths. On 19 Nov. he was the sole dissenter from the resolution to commit Francis Smith*, 2nd Baron Carrington, into custody. After sitting in the Lords on the morning of 22 Nov. he spent ‘the afternoon at council and committee for sorting the evidence for Coleman’s trial.’<sup>229</sup> On 6 Dec. he entered his protest against agreeing with a joint address with the Commons to the king for a proclamation disarming all Catholics convicted of recusancy. On 9 Dec. he was named to prepare heads for a conference on the disbandment of troops before those from Flanders arrived, subsequently reporting from the conference. When the supply bill providing for the disbandment was amended by the Lords, Anglesey reported the resultant conference on 26 Dec., voted in favour of the Lords adhering to their amendment concerning the payment of the money into the exchequer, and on 28 Dec. reported the reasons for insisting on the amendment and reported the subsequent conference. He was then named to draw up a proviso for the bill, but it was rejected by the House, before the bill was lost at the prorogation.</p><p>As the attack on Danby gathered pace, on 23 Dec. 1678 Anglesey noted that ‘a new thing was done in the lord treasurer’s not being ordered to withdraw but sitting in his own case being accused by the Commons of treason.’<sup>230</sup> On 27 Dec. he voted against the motion to commit the impeached Danby. On 30 Dec. Anglesey recorded that ‘the king made a short speech and prorogued us to Feb. 4, by whose advice God knows’, incidentally revealing again his exclusion from the king’s inner counsels.<sup>231</sup></p><p>Worried by the implications of the Popish Plot for Ireland, on 20 Nov. 1678 Anglesey wrote to Ormond suggesting that he rebuild the strength of the Irish Protestant militia in order to protect the military strong points and avoid another Irish rebellion.<sup>232</sup> The committee of the Lords investigating the Plot was wound up on 12 Dec. but earlier in the month the Privy Council revived its own committee of ‘examinations’, which, for example, Anglesey attended on 7 Dec. before attending Parliament later in the morning.<sup>233</sup> On 31 Dec. the king declared he would have this committee sit daily, recommending it to the care of Anglesey, Bridgwater and Essex; Anglesey spent much time during January at the committee.<sup>234</sup> On 19 Jan., after the sermon at Whitehall, Anglesey ‘delivered a letter of humble advice to the King.’ If this referred to the dilemma of whether to dissolve Parliament, it may have had some effect, for at the council meeting on 24 Jan., ‘the king, without asking any advice, declared the Parliament dissolved and ordered writs for a new one’, for 6 March.<sup>235</sup></p><p>From 16 Feb. to 21 Mar. 1679 Anglesey was stricken by the gout, and as such missed all of the short parliamentary session of 6-13 March.<sup>236</sup> At the beginning of March Danby calculated that Anglesey was likely to be an opponent in any proceedings against him. He was still absent when the parliament resumed on 15 Mar. 1679, missing the first six days of the session, and first sitting on 22 March. He attended on 54 days of the session, 88.5 per cent of the total. The attendance lists in the Journal suggests that he missed only one further day (28 Mar.) but his diary recorded that he did attend that day.<sup>237</sup> On 22 Mar. he was added to the committee examining into the Plot and on 29 Mar. he was added to the usual sessional committees. He was appointed to a further 12 committees during the session. By this time Danby seems to have reassessed Anglesey’s position, recording him on one list as an unreliable opponent, and on another as doubtful. On 25 Mar. he entered his protest against the committal of the bill disabling Danby, because it went against ‘essential forms of justice’, and was ‘a dangerous precedent against all peers.’ Nevertheless, he voted in favour of the early proceedings of the attainder bill against him, speaking in favour of the bill on 2 Apr. as he could ‘see no ground against the committal of the bill for any exceptions that are made to it’, although he would ‘be glad to find him as innocent as the prince has said him to be’.<sup>238</sup> He voted for the bill on 4 Apr. and was then named to a committee to consider what to impart to the Commons at a conference on the bill, and to manage the conference, which he reported. On 8 Apr. he reported another conference on the Danby attainder bill, as he did on 10 Apr. (twice). He also voted on 14 Apr. to agree with the Commons in the attainder bill. He was then one of the peers deputed to ask the king to pass the bill quickly given the timescale in the bill for Danby to surrender himself, duly reporting back on 15 April.</p><p>On 3 Apr. 1679 Anglesey presented to the House, at the request of Lincoln’s Inn, a list of Catholics belonging to their society. On 9 Apr. he reported to the House that he was commanded by the king to complain of the reprinting of dangerous books written by William Prynne<sup>‡</sup>, now given new titles, the House ordering him to renew the motion on 12 Apr. (when nothing happened). On 17 Apr. he was one of the peers named to ask the king to instruct the lord lieutenant of Ireland to put the laws against papists more vigorously into execution, reporting the king’s consent on 22 April. On 24 Apr. he was named to a conference on the answers of the five Catholic peers to their impeachment. On 25 Apr. he chaired a meeting of the committee on the habeas corpus bill.<sup>239</sup> On 29 Apr., together with Thomas Belasyse*, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg, he was appointed to ask the king for a pardon to quash the conviction of the countess of Portland for recusancy in 1674, reporting the king’s agreement on 7 May. Also, on 29 Apr., he attended ‘a very secret council’, presumably to discuss how the king should respond the vote of the Commons that the prospect of York succeeding to the throne had encouraged popish plotting.<sup>240</sup> Following the king’s offer to accept expedients to divert the Commons from the proposal for the exclusion of York from the throne he was named on 30 Apr. to thank the king for this speech. On 2 May he complained about the arrest of his servant John Fenn by the under-sheriff of Middlesex, and secured an order for his release. On 3 May he was named to a conference on the habeas corpus bill, which he reported on 5 May. Probably on 6 May he intervened in the debates on whether the bishops should be allow to try cases involving blood, defending their right to sit on the grounds that they were called by the same writ as temporal peers and ‘in point of law may judge as well as you. If you should vote they should not sit, it doth not conclude them. They may sit if they will.’<sup>241</sup> He was again active in managing and reporting conferences: the supply bill for disbanding the army (8 May); amendments to the habeas corpus bill (9 and 22 May); Danby’s petition (10 May). He was also involved in the negotiations over arrangements for the trial of the five Catholic peers, managing conferences on the subject on 8, 9, 10, 11 and 26 May, voting against the resolution to appoint a joint committee of both Houses on 10 May, being named on 11 May to a committee of Lords to consult with a committee of the Commons and reporting from the committee on the Journal concerning the trial on 22 May. On 14 May he entered his dissent to the passage of the bill regulating the trials of peers. On 15, 17 and 19 May he chaired a committee on the bill for confirming a conveyance made to trustees by James Scott*, duke of Monmouth and Francis Newport*, Viscount Newport, which never emerged from committee.<sup>242</sup> On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.</p><p>Anglesey’s response to the king’s decision to prorogue Parliament on 27 May 1679 was ‘God avert dangers by it.’ The following day he ‘opposed most of the first business at council about priests and the trials &c.’ Two days later, in the council ‘by many arguments I opposed bloodiness again.’ On 2 June he approached the king directly, armed with two proclamations from the reign of James I ‘for exile of priests, jesuits &c,’ as an alternative policy.<sup>243</sup></p><p>Meanwhile, by virtue of his office as lord privy seal, Anglesey had retained his place on the Privy Council following the dissolution of the old body by the king on 20 Apr. 1679, and the constitution of a new one. He was also named to the subcommittee dealing with Irish affairs.<sup>244</sup> Suspicions of Anglesey’s pro-Catholic sympathies were voiced by Thomas Bennett<sup>‡</sup>, Shaftesbury’s lieutenant in the Commons, who thought that the new council would not produce any good results as long as Anglesey and John Maitland*, earl of Guilford and duke of Lauderdale [S], were retained as members, implying that the former had masses said daily for him in Ireland.<sup>245</sup> Henry Sidney*, the future earl of Romney, recounted on 27 June that the business at the Privy Council was the (temporary) reprieve of the Catholic barrister, Richard Langhorne, noting that Anglesey ‘doth even plead for the Catholics; Lord Shaftesbury is the most violent against them.’<sup>246</sup> This ties in with Anglesey’s later recollection that he pleaded for clemency towards not only Langhorne, but also Archbishop Plunkett (executed 1681).<sup>247</sup></p><p>A desire to avoid judicial bloodshed did not equate to a disbelief in the Plot itself, and during the summer of 1679 Anglesey was much involved in the investigations, proving himself a tenacious interrogator of suspects.<sup>248</sup> He retained an impressive capacity for business. On 16 June Anglesey attended the council, ‘where all but I were mealy mouthed in duke Lauderdale’s concern,’ probably a reference to the political problems and the unrest in Scotland caused by attempts to enforce a religious settlement opposed by the majority Presbyterians. On 26 June Anglesey dined with Shaftesbury and Henry Somerset*, 3rd marquess of Worcester, after council ‘and after dinner we agreed on the justices of the peace for Wales.’ On 3 July Anglesey attended the council meeting at Hampton Court, where ‘weighty matters’, namely the dissolution, were debated. On 6 July he was sent for to Windsor by the king where he ‘had large discourse with him about the dissolution and opposed.’ Later in the day when the council convened he joined Arlington and Finch in arguing against the dissolution, the contrary point of view being put by Essex and Halifax. He attended the council again on the 10th when the dissolution was announced by the king. On 12 July he wrote to Ormond: ‘God send good success herein and guide the people to make a wise and moderate choice, or else I doubt we are out of the frying pan into the fire by a new Parliament.’<sup>249</sup></p><p>Anglesey remained anxious about the future, for on 17 July, he wrote to Sir John Nicholas<sup>‡</sup>, the clerk of the Privy Council, to ask him to send word if it was true that the king had again dissolved the council.<sup>250</sup> On 6 Aug. he left London, taking a circuitous route to Bletchingdon, but when he learned of the king’s illness on 26 Aug., he raced back to Windsor and remained there or at nearby Farnborough until 1 September.<sup>251</sup> As usual there was much convivial activity, including Woodstock races and a visit from the newly elected Members for Woodstock.<sup>252</sup> On 11 Sept. Anglesey wrote to assist John Swinfen<sup>‡</sup> in his candidature for Radnor promoting him as ‘my old acquaintance, and having been several times of the House of Commons with him, I know him to be a wise and moderate man, and we need men of healing spirits in the present condition of the kingdom.’<sup>253</sup></p><p>Anglesey returned to London on 8 Oct. 1679 and on 13 Oct. went to visit York, who had returned to London on the previous evening.<sup>254</sup> At least one contemporary thought that Anglesey had been ordered by the king to inform York of his illness.<sup>255</sup> Anglesey attended the prorogation of Parliament on 17 October. For the next three weeks, until 9 Nov., he was afflicted with gout, ‘but went to the council in the evening, where I dealt very freely with the king and council as need required.’<sup>256</sup> Following the removal of Shaftesbury from the Privy Council in mid-October, it was rumoured that Anglesey would lose his place as well, but at the end of the month he was being touted by some as a replacement for Finch as lord chancellor.<sup>257</sup> On 1 Nov. Ossory offered his assessment of Anglesey’s recent conduct ‘which has been with all the vigour and steadiness imaginable in the House of Lords and elsewhere upon the occasion of the king’s service and the right of the crown and the lawful succession.’<sup>258</sup></p><p>Following Monmouth’s return to London on 27 Nov. 1679, Anglesey attempted to mediate between the king and his son. Having met Monmouth secretly on 29 Nov., the following day he ‘had long private discourse with the king in favour of the duke of Monmouth, wherein he was very open to me, after dinner, having the king’s leave, I went to the duke of Monmouth.’<sup>259</sup> The following evening Monmouth paid him a visit, but Anglesey’s efforts were in vain and Monmouth lost all his posts.</p><p>On 6 Dec. 1679, in the committee of council for Irish affairs, Anglesey helped to ‘cast out unanimously the Irish pretended bill of confirmation of estates, but really destructive to the English.’ He was in attendance on 10 Dec. ‘when the king against the full advice of his council declared that fatal and dismal resolution of proroguing this Parliament till November the 11th. The Lord save England.’<sup>260</sup> It was reported that even though Parliament stood prorogued, the Plot would nevertheless still be examined vigorously, with Anglesey named as one of the committee of the Privy Council charged with the responsibility to do so.<sup>261</sup> He attended the prorogation of Parliament on 26 Jan. 1680, arriving early to swear in about 100 Members before the prorogation was delivered and then ‘with great sadness’ attending a ‘committee of council’ in the afternoon.<sup>262</sup></p><p>During the winter Anglesey was kept busy by a multitude of concerns. On 18 Feb. 1680 he tackled Charles II about the payment of his salary, ‘laid plainly open my condition and ill usage desiring him I might be better dealt with after 20 years faithful service, he came not off so frankly as I had reason to expect and painfully deserved, but in the close said he would speak with the commissioners of the treasury about paying me and confessed I had pressed him least of any for money and served him well.’<sup>263</sup> On 20 Feb. he attended the committee for Irish affairs,</p><blockquote><p>in the business about the earl of Tyrone &c, where against my clear reasons and opinion the committee did mad and illegal work concerning two peers and some commissioners of Ireland, and contrary to the order of reference to them, and so without authority, which was only for them to examine and to report to his majesty in council.<sup>264</sup></p></blockquote><p>On 8 Mar. he ‘went with the countess of Warwick to Sir Francis Pemberton’s about her brother, the earl of Manchester’s [Robert Montagu*, 3rd earl of Manchester] suit against her and to advise about one from her against him and others for discovery of the Warwick estate.’<sup>265</sup></p><p>On 13 Mar. 1680 Anglesey ‘went to see Totteridge, Sir Robert Atkyns’<sup>‡</sup> house and dined there.’ This presaged the purchase of the house, albeit in his son Altham’s name, it being conveniently situated a mere nine miles from Charing Cross while giving him easy access to such places as Hatfield.<sup>266</sup> He attended Parliament on 15 Apr., swearing in Members before acting as a commissioner to prorogue it. From late April to the beginning of June Anglesey had an attack of the gout so severe that he feared for his life. He was unable to attend the prorogation of the Parliament on 17 May, but attended on 1 and 22 July, on the second occasion noting there was ‘a very little appearance of both Houses.’<sup>267</sup> He left London in August, returning on 1 October.<sup>268</sup></p><p>During October 1680 Anglesey was one of the majority in council who argued that York should remain in England when Parliament sat. He recorded that on 16 Oct. the king ‘turned cat in pan’, that is reversed himself so that he could tell his brother that he had not favoured his withdrawal. On 19 Oct. Anglesey took his leave of the duke and duchess of York upon their departure for Scotland.<sup>269</sup> Two days later he was present at the opening of the 1680-1 session, arriving early to swear in Members.<sup>270</sup> On 23 Oct. he was named to the usual committees as well as the committee on the Plot. Also on the 23rd, when Halifax brought in a bill ‘against popery’, nobody said a word against it apart from Anglesey, ‘who was laughed at and sat down again.’<sup>271</sup> Anglesey missed only three days of the session (5 Nov., 21 and 22 Dec.), very little business being transacted on the first and last of these, and on all of which he had gout.<sup>272</sup> He attended on 56 days, 95 per cent of the total, and was appointed to a further eight committees during the session.</p><p>Anglesey’s perceived pro-Catholic sympathies brought allegations of complicity in plotting. In October 1680, in testimony before the Commons, Thomas Dangerfield accused Anglesey of ‘corresponding with and encouraging the lords in the Tower’ and Algernon Sydney<sup>‡</sup> recorded that there were ‘many terrible accusations come in against Anglesey.’<sup>273</sup> On 4 Nov. Anglesey was in the Lords to hear the report and testimony concerning an Irish Plot. In the course of the day Hobert Bourke presented evidence against Anglesey’s son-in-law, Tyrone, and also testified that Anglesey and York were often prayed for at Catholic masses in Ireland. Further evidence on 6 Nov. also implicated Anglesey. Thomas Samson claimed to have seen letters from Anglesey to Tyrone saying that York was well pleased with their plans; John MacNamara recalled a meeting at which Anglesey was named as a ‘person of quality’ who consented to their scheme. It was said that Anglesey was to help prevent Parliament from prosecuting Roman Catholics.</p><p>Despite these allegations, on 8 Nov. Anglesey was named to a conference with the Commons on the Irish Plot, which he reported later in the day. He recorded in his diary that he had sat in the morning till late ‘and did good things’, which may have been a reference to moves in favour of Dissenters and against Catholics. He made the same comment on 11 November. On 15 Nov. he voted against the decision to put the question that the exclusion bill be rejected on first reading, voted against rejecting it, and for good measure signed the protest against its rejection. After this vote the House took information from Dangerfield which implicated Anglesey in dealings with William Herbert*, earl of Powis, and Mrs. Cellier. Anglesey simply noted: ‘all day in Parliament till ten at night ... The Lord help’ and on 21 Nov. that he spent the afternoon ‘drawing up my vindication’.<sup>274</sup> Daniel Finch*, the future 2nd earl of Nottingham, in a letter written two months later, ascribed Anglesey’s vote for exclusion to being ‘frightened into it by an accusation of him brought into the House of Commons by Mr Dangerfield for having had a hand in some of the Popish conspiracies.’<sup>275</sup> On the other hand, given Anglesey’s survival in office long after other exclusionists, and his ability to obtain further favours from the king during this time, one possible explanation is that he was able to explain away his vote as merely supporting the convention that bills from the Commons should not be rejected at first reading, as at least one peer explicitly noted in the protest.</p><p>On 8 Dec. 1680 Anglesey noted the arrival of Tyrone, which presaged more investigations into the Irish Plot.<sup>276</sup> On 4 Jan. 1681 Anglesey was the only peer to oppose the resolution that there was a Catholic conspiracy in Ireland.<sup>277</sup> Upon reading the depositions of MacNamara, Fitzgerald and Nash on 6 Jan., when it was again suggested that prayers were being said at Catholic masses in Ireland for York and Anglesey, the Commons impeached Tyrone for high treason.<sup>278</sup> They postponed consideration into their report on the Plot in Ireland, and Anglesey’s involvement until 8 Jan., and then to the 10th when Parliament was prorogued. Anglesey continued to give succour to Tyrone and when he was eventually released in November 1681, Anglesey acted as one of his sureties.<sup>279</sup></p><p>Contemporaries remained perplexed by Anglesey’s survival in office. One of Ormond’s correspondents wrote on 25 Jan. 1681 that Anglesey had ‘appeared for’ the exclusion bill, but also noted that the Commons on 7 Jan. had intended to remove Anglesey, Nottingham, Radnor, Halifax and Laurence Hyde*, the future earl of Rochester, as evil counsellors, but having began with the two latter ‘others were by accidental motions introduced against the sense of the managers, whereby the three first escaped’.<sup>280</sup> These Privy Councillors were attacked for advising the king to insist on the rejection of the exclusion bill. This suggests a further possible explanation for Anglesey’s survival in office after the vote on exclusion: that the king wished to avoid being seen as bowing to pressure from the Commons to dismiss his ministers.<sup>281</sup> Alternatively, as Ormond later opined, the reason for his longevity in office may have been that ‘nothing keeps him in so long, but competitions for his place’.<sup>282</sup></p><p>Anglesey continued to be active in the House during the session on a variety of business. On 16 Nov. 1680 he chaired a committee of the whole considering heads for securing the Protestant religion, reporting from it on 16, 17, 19, and 23 November. Thereafter the judges were ordered to draw up a bill based on the heads agreed to by the House. When the House considered the resultant bill, Anglesey again chaired the committee of the whole on it on 8 Jan. 1681, duly reporting some clauses for the judges to draw into legal form.</p><p>On 19 Nov. 1680 Anglesey was the sole peer to enter his dissent on the proceedings of the legal cause between Challoner Chute and Lady Dacres. On 23 Nov. he voted against appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the state of the kingdom. On 23 and 24 Nov. he chaired the committee on the Association, another of the expedients discussed following the loss of the exclusion bill.<sup>283</sup> On 25 Nov. he was the sole peer to enter his protest against the rejection by the House of another petition from James Percy, on the grounds that it denied him recourse to justice. On 26 Nov. he reported from the committee of privileges considering the method of proceeding in the trial of William Howard*, Viscount Stafford. On 30 Nov. was ‘at Lord Stafford’s trial most of the day’, as he was on the following days.<sup>284</sup> On 7 Dec. he voted for the attainder of Stafford, despite misgivings over the testimony of the witnesses.<sup>285</sup></p><p>During November 1680 Anglesey chaired the committee concerned with Protestant dissenters. Having heard the complaints of various Dissenters that the laws passed against papist recusants were being enforced against them, on 8 Dec. the committee decided that Anglesey should draft a bill to rectify this abuse. The bill was presented to the committee the following day.<sup>286</sup> Shaftesbury then presented it to the House later that day as the bill for distinguishing Protestant dissenters from popish recusants.</p><p>On 9 Jan. 1681 Anglesey attended a council in the evening ‘about proroguing the Parliament for a few days’. On 16 Jan. he ‘was with the king and argued hard for the Parliament’s sitting.’ Two days later, at council, Anglesey recorded that ‘his majesty declared without asking (yea refusing to take) their advice, his dreadful resolution of dissolving the Parliament and calling another to meet at Oxford.’ Anglesey spent the next day ‘melancholy’ at home. On 25 Jan. he was in attendance on the king when Essex presented a ‘bold’ petition to the king for the Parliament not to sit at Oxford.<sup>287</sup> On 5 Feb. 1681, Anglesey obtained the lucrative deanery of Exeter for his son, Richard. Rather ironically he then hosted a dinner for Monmouth, Ford Grey*, 3rd Baron Grey of Warke, Henry Herbert*, 3rd Baron Herbert of Chirbury, William Howard*, 3rd Baron Howard of Escrick, Thomas Thynne<sup>‡</sup>, Sir Thomas Armstrong<sup>‡</sup> and other leading opponents of the court.<sup>288</sup></p><p>On 15 Feb. 1681 Anglesey recorded that he had been ‘with the king and gave him good advice.’ Six days later he succumbed to an attack of the gout which lasted until the middle of May, thus missing the brief Oxford Parliament.<sup>289</sup> His name did, however, appear on a pre-sessional forecast of 17 Mar. as one of those peers likely to be in favour of granting bail to Danby. Anglesey’s illness did not render him entirely inactive. At the end of April he sent the king a long missive concerning the dispute between Lord Colepeper and his siblings, which Anglesey, Ormond, Essex and Bath had attempted to solve five years previously, and which Colepeper had revived. Anglesey advised the king to let the matter take its course at law.<sup>290</sup> However, his prolonged absence did generate speculation that he would be replaced with Edward Seymour<sup>‡</sup> who was often touted as his successor.<sup>291</sup></p><p>Anglesey seems now to have been intent on acting as an intermediary between the court and its opponents. On 28 May 1681 he recorded visits to William Russell*, 5th earl of Bedford, and to Salisbury (Essex and Shaftesbury not being at home). Such fraternization did not prevent him from expecting royal favours. On 16 June Anglesey recorded that ‘on much importunity’ the king had finally acceded to his request for a Scottish viscountcy for his son-in-law Thompson, although the promise was never honoured. On 28 July Anglesey received leave to go into the country but in the early hours of 7 Aug. he was summoned back to Windsor, where, on the 10th the king ‘required my not being at the commission of oyer and terminer’ for the trial of Stephen College.<sup>292</sup> Presumably the court believed that Anglesey’s presence on the bench might derail the prosecution. By now it seems likely that York regarded Anglesey as one of his opponents: in August 1681, York’s chaplain Francis Turner*, the future bishop of Ely, referred to Anglesey as ‘entering into the faction against the duke’.<sup>293</sup></p><p>Meanwhile, Anglesey was embedding himself into Oxfordshire politics. In 1679, according to Thomas Hearne, Anglesey had tried to buy ‘the great house standing in the entrance into Grampole over against the lower end of Christ Church,’ Oxford.<sup>294</sup> He certainly cultivated good relations with the corporation. On 23 Sept. 1681 Anglesey was visited at Bletchingdon by the mayor and aldermen, who offered him the freedom of the city.<sup>295</sup> According to Humphrey Prideaux this was due to the ‘sole contrivance’ of the dowager Lady Lovelace, as part of the townsmen’s struggle against Lord Norreys, and specifically as a counterweight to him at court. In return they allegedly promised him the recommendation to one of the city’s parliamentary seats. Prideaux stated that Anglesey took the honour, whilst insisting that he would not challenge Norreys’ interest.<sup>296</sup> Anglesey performed several important services for the corporation, including in January 1682 introducing the mayor to the king in order to present a petition.<sup>297</sup> Anglesey left Bletchingdon on 29 Sept. 1681 and arrived back at Drury Lane on the following day.<sup>298</sup></p><h2><em>Flirting with the opposition 1681-6</em></h2><p>Anglesey may now have been the most significant opposition sympathizer left in office. Throughout October and November 1681 he continued to see the king and to act at council. Yet during those months he was also regularly dining with Monmouth. His diary also records dining with Shaftesbury, Monmouth and Lord Herbert in March 1682.<sup>299</sup> On 29 Mar. Danby used a letter to Anglesey as one of his channels to the Privy Council in an attempt to secure his release from the Tower. According to Danby, Anglesey thought it would be legal for the king to release him.<sup>300</sup></p><p>At the beginning of April 1682 there were further rumours that Anglesey would be replaced as lord privy seal by Halifax or Seymour.<sup>301</sup> Nevertheless, Anglesey continued to play the part of the courtier assiduously. According to Francis Aungier<sup>‡</sup>, earl of Longford [I], when York returned from Scotland in April 1682, Anglesey was the first to kiss his hand and was with the duke again on the following morning.<sup>302</sup> Narcissus Luttrell<sup>‡</sup> reported that Anglesey ‘met with a cold reception’, but Anglesey himself merely recorded kissing the duke’s hands on 11 Apr. and then being called into the king’s closet for a long discourse in which he was told that ‘my enemies in Parliament were the same still against me.’<sup>303</sup> Perhaps Anglesey’s real views were contained in a memorandum for Charles II penned on 27 Apr. 1682 (which he probably never showed to the king) in which he argued that it was ‘the perversion of the duke of York … in point of religion’, which was the ‘cause of all our mischiefs … and which, if not by wisdom antidoted, may raise a fire which will consume to the very foundations.’<sup>304</sup></p><p>In the middle of May 1682 Anglesey again fell a victim to the gout, which confined him to bed at both Totteridge and London until the middle of July. However, on 23 June he was forced to leave his bed to be ‘carried’ to the council ‘to defend myself against duke of Ormond as I did God assisting to his shame.’<sup>305</sup> This controversy had begun late in 1680 with the publication of <em>The Memoirs of James Lord Audley earl of Castlehaven, his engagement and carriage in the wars of Ireland, from the year 1642 to the year 1651</em>. Anglesey responded with <em>A Letter from a person of honour in the country written to the earl of Castlehaven</em>, which reviewed Castlehaven’s account of events in the 1640s, but in so doing cast aspersions on the role of Ormond and Charles I. Anglesey had encouraged Castlehaven’s literary enterprise, probably out of a desire to prove his own historical commitment to the Protestant interest in Ireland, and possibly to highlight Ormond’s role in the wars. Ormond responded with a critique of the work in November 1681, and ensured that the king saw a copy. Anglesey published it, together with a response, <em>A Letter from ... Ormond ... Printed from the original, with an answer to it</em>.<sup>306</sup></p><p>Ormond complained to the Privy Council on 17 June 1682, that Anglesey had printed ‘letters to his prejudice’ and that despite being friends for over 20 years, this had questioned Ormond’s loyalty to the crown and his Protestantism.<sup>307</sup> The potential danger to Anglesey in Ormond’s action was obvious to Longford, who noted on 17 June that ‘a man without the danger of being accounted a witch may presume to foretell, that the consequence will be that his lordship will be removed both from the council and his privy-seal’s place.’<sup>308</sup></p><p>On 23 June Anglesey presented a written response to the council. Longford reported that Anglesey had represented his merits in the Restoration ‘wherein he magnified himself that degree as if he had contributed much more to it then the late duke of Albemarle’ and that he denied Ormond’s assertions. Anglesey had tried to deny printing of the book and to deny certain passages which he said were not in his letter to Castlehaven, gave assurances of loyalty and requested time to answer. Meanwhile, Longford had tried to procure Anglesey’s original letter from Castlehaven, who could not find it.<sup>309</sup> This at least bought Anglesey time, for Ormond had written on 18 July ‘I presume it has been long resolved to ease my Lord of Anglesey of his privy-seal, and place in council’.<sup>310</sup> On 27 July Anglesey attended the council at Hampton Court ‘where I defended myself against Ormond but was unjustly used by the council.’<sup>311</sup> At that meeting Charles II declared Anglesey’s published reflections on Castlehaven’s memoirs and his reply to Ormond to be ‘scandalous and a libel on the late king’.<sup>312</sup> The consequence of the king’s opinion, according to Colonel Fitzpatrick, was that ‘it’s believed that by the next council he will be put out of all his employments’ but Longford accurately predicted that Anglesey would keep fighting.<sup>313</sup> Anglesey complained about the decision to vote his work a scandalous libel, for ‘I find no clauses whereon such judgment is grounded’, insisted that the council had no jurisdiction to try a peer for libel, pointed out that the passage which seemed to offend the king was not one of the particular charges he had been asked to answer, and queried the failure to censure Ormond for the ‘scandalous pamphlet which he owned at council to have published against me.’<sup>314</sup> He did not attend the council meeting on 3 Aug. but sent a letter instead which ‘was read in council but nothing done on it, but some fretted.’<sup>315</sup> That same day, William Douglas, marquess of Queensberry [S], noted that Anglesey was ‘certainly broke.’<sup>316</sup> Another commentator thought that ‘all things concurred to Anglesey’s ruin, for besides the strength of his enemies and his having no friends, the court wanted his privy seal for the Lord Halifax who had done it such service.’<sup>317</sup></p><p>On 9 Aug. Anglesey recorded that he had delivered up the privy seal, ‘The Lord be praised I am now delivered from court snares.’ He was now even more open to the blandishments of the opposition. On 25 July Longford had reported that ‘there is of late a great league between my Lord Anglesey and the earl of Essex, who have had several meetings within this fortnight.’<sup>318</sup> The day before he relinquished the seal, Anglesey found the time to dine with Monmouth.<sup>319</sup></p><p>On 29 Aug. 1682 Anglesey began his usual journey to Bletchingdon. During his sojourn in Oxfordshire, he attended the mayoral election at Oxford and dined with the former Member of the Commons, William Wright<sup>‡</sup>, a supporter of Monmouth. He left Bletchingdon on 26 Sept. 1682, but embarked on a series of excursions to dine with prominent opposition peers, including Monmouth.<sup>320</sup> Anglesey also sought to vindicate his reputation. On 13 Sept. 1682, John Brydall reported that ‘Anglesey since his discharge from the office of the lord privy seal for revenge sake, has attempted to expose some papers of his to the world, but his lordship was happily prevented, for all the papers were seized at the press, by a warrant from Whitehall.’<sup>321</sup> The publication concerned was <em>A True Account of the Whole Proceedings betwixt his Grace James Duke of Ormond and the Rt. Hon. Arthur Earl of Anglesey</em> which had reached the booksellers by October 1682.<sup>322</sup> Anglesey commenced a suit against Ormond for non-payment of debts, possibly in relation to the cost of the education of James Butler, Ormond’s illegitimate son for which Anglesey would later threaten another suit.<sup>323</sup></p><p>From the end of January to the end of April 1683, Anglesey was again bedridden, although ‘I did business often and received visits almost every day. In all this time I was carried out but once to take the air.’ By early May he was fit enough to commence a new round of dinners with leading opposition peers.<sup>324</sup> By this date the government was putting financial pressure on Anglesey. As early as August 1682, his grant of stewardship of manors and towns in Radnorshire had been revoked.<sup>325</sup> The government re-opened the investigation into his accounts as vice-treasurer in Ireland, whereupon Anglesey countered that the king owed him money, presumably a reference to his £3,000 p.a. In January 1683 he was ordered to be prosecuted in Ireland, and by June he had been declared a debtor to the king and some of his Irish estates seized.<sup>326</sup> On 5 June Anglesey attended the treasury ‘having been with Lord Rochester also in the morning, but though I cleared the remain of my account I could get no justice, nor so much as respite of the unjust proceedings in Ireland.’<sup>327</sup> However, on 12 June it seems that the case against him was suspended by the king.<sup>328</sup> As Roger Morrice noted after Anglesey’s death, his financial troubles were partly self-inflicted because ‘he might in several junctures of time for the 12 last years of his life had his quietus from the crown upon all accounts whatsoever, and he knew very well they did charge him with £22,000 about the Irish affairs, and some other sums but when he could have been discharged he was mindless of it, and when prosecution was revived he would have been discharged but could not.’<sup>329</sup></p><p>Anglesey paid a visit to London on 28-30 June 1683, ‘but found so many new plots and confusions that in the evening I returned to Totteridge without seeing the king, which I came to town purposely to do.’<sup>330</sup> Following the discovery of the Rye House Plot a warrant was on 1 July issued to search his house in Drury Lane for ‘persons mentioned in the late proclamations’, one of the targets being Monmouth.<sup>331</sup> As Anglesey recorded: ‘I understood next day that my house at London had been rudely searched at midnight and most of my doors broken open and papers, writings and books disordered and pendulum broken by warrant pretended from the king, but they would give no names nor copy of warrant.’ On 13 July he ‘was a witness at my Lord Russell’s trial, which I heard.’ He remained irked by his treatment from the king, recording on 9 Aug. that ‘this day was twelvemonth the king sent for the privy seal, the Lord incline his heart to do me right from this day for my long faithful service.’<sup>332</sup></p><p>On 21 Nov. 1683 he ‘was from 8 in the morning till near 7 at night at Mr [Algernon] Sydney’s trial and was a witness for him,’ to prove that Howard of Escrick had previously said that there was no plot and that Sydney was innocent.<sup>333</sup> On the following day he attended ‘my cousin Arnold’s trial’ for <em>scandalum magnatum</em>. Almost certainly in response to these trials, on 25 Nov. he ‘resolved of writing the sum of our laws and liberties and against the oppression of the times in causes of life members and liberties’, noting in particular for use the statute of ‘1 and 2 of Phil. & Mary cap. 3 &c., Magna Charta, the rights of Parliament, the freedom of members, the king’s legal title and prerogative wisdom, the gravity and moderation of former judges and the courage of learned council.’<sup>334</sup></p><p>Anglesey clearly had his doubts about the Rye House Plot, at least as far as it concerned his Whig friends. In early January 1684 he was called before the council for ‘charging the Lord Howard for accusing the duke of Monmouth falsely’<sup>335</sup> and for saying that Russell had been murdered. According to Roger Morrice, Howard had instigated the investigation in order to disprove Monmouth’s assertion that there had been no plot. Anglesey responded to questions about it by asking to be excused from revealing to any but the king alone, ‘a private discourse’, that was not penal or criminal and held in his own house.<sup>336</sup></p><p>Although increasing afflicted with gout, Anglesey maintained an interest in public affairs, especially relating to Ireland and the land settlement there.<sup>337</sup> By mid June 1684 a further reaction to the times had manifested itself in a resolution to,</p><blockquote><p>write a complete history of England ... to show in a continued discourse the bravery of the English monarchs and people how tenaciously they were always of their liberties even in popish times opposing the Romish tyranny and refusing to submit to that yoke, and in all my time and ever since the Reformation showing themselves zealous for the true Christian religion and freedom against popery ... and show the miserable end of those that have oppressed or betrayed their country or its well settled government or endeavoured to enslave them. That the clergy have been the worst in that kind in all times.<sup>338</sup></p></blockquote><p>Anglesey was assiduous in attending James II, following his accession to the crown.<sup>339</sup> Although he was absent from the opening day of James II’s Parliament, 19 May 1685, he attended the next sitting on the 22nd, when he was again named to the usual committees. He attended on 27 days of the session up to the adjournment on 2 July, 90 per cent of the total, and was named to a further eight committees. On 22 May he was one of six peers who voted against the resolution that all impeachments fell by the dissolution of a Parliament.<sup>340</sup> He then entered his protest to the resolution that the order of the Lords of 19 Mar. 1679 should be annulled, which effectively dismissed the impeachments still hanging over Danby and the surviving popish peers. On 25 May he was the sole peer to enter his protest against the resolution not to proceed with the suit between Elizabeth Harvey and Sir Thomas Harvey, because it was a ‘heavy and an unprecedented obstruction to judicature and appeals.’ On 26 May he was excused attendance during a call of the House, being ‘not well.’ On 3 June he was the sole peer to enter his protest against the decision to engross the bill reversing Stafford’s attainder, there being ‘no defect in point of law alleged as a reason for the reversal of the attainder’, and he also entered his protest against the bill’s passage on the following day.<sup>341</sup> On 4 June he received the proxies of both Ormond and Lovelace. On 15 June, according to Gilbert Burnet*, the future bishop of Salisbury, Anglesey made ‘some small opposition’ to the bill attainting Monmouth of high treason ‘because the evidence did not seem clear enough for so severe a sentence.’<sup>342</sup> On 19 June Anglesey petitioned the Lords complaining of a breach of privilege by Anthony Philpot, ‘who hath vilified him in a scandalous manner’, by calling him ‘a base rogue’ for opposing the bill of attainder against Monmouth.<sup>343</sup> Philpot was ordered into custody and had to beg Anglesey’s pardon on his knees at the bar of the House to secure his release on 1 July, but only after offering sureties in the court of King’s Bench for his future good behaviour. Having chaired the committee on the bill for conveying fresh water to Rochester on 27 June, he reported it later in the day.<sup>344</sup></p><p>Anglesey attended the adjournment of the House on 4 Aug. 1685, and when the House resumed on 9 Nov. he was in his place. To do this he had been forced to borrow a horse, for the receiver-general of the hearth tax had distrained one of his coach horses at Bletchingdon. He duly complained to the treasury of a breach of privilege, prompting Henry Guy<sup>‡</sup> to ask ‘can any Member of Parliament have any privilege against the king when he is indebted to the king?’<sup>345</sup> Anglesey attended on each of the 11 days that Parliament sat before the prorogation on 20 Nov., being named to one committee. On 9 Nov. he supported William Cavendish*, 4th earl of Devonshire, in promoting the petition to the House of Henry Booth*, 2nd Baron Delamer, complaining of his imprisonment, and suggested that the Lords answer the petition themselves without reference to the king.<sup>346</sup> On 14 Nov. he was the sole dissentient to the decision to affirm the decree in the case of <em>Eyre v. Eyre</em>. On 18 Nov., together with Bishop Compton, he was said to have seconded a sharp speech by Devonshire ‘about standing to the Test’, but this may be an error possibly confusing the events of 18 Nov. with those of the following day.<sup>347</sup> On 19 Nov., along with Halifax, he ‘vehemently’ seconded Devonshire’s motion that the king’s speech be taken into consideration, but only managed to secure an order for it to be considered on the 23rd, by which time Parliament had been prorogued.<sup>348</sup></p><p>On 26 Nov. 1685 Anglesey was examined as a character witness at the trial for high treason of Charles Gerard*, styled Lord Brandon, the future 2nd earl of Macclesfield.<sup>349</sup> On the same day it was reported to Sir William Trumbull<sup>‡</sup> that the king having pardoned all the Roman Catholic officers in the army, ‘before the pardon was sealed my Lord Anglesey brought an action against Mr Bernard Howard (who is one of those officers) and intends to try to recover the fine they incurred by the Test Act, but of this I am not certain.’<sup>350</sup> A newsletter of the 26 Nov. also supported this statement, suggesting that Anglesey had acted the previous day.<sup>351</sup></p><p>Anglesey attended the prorogation on 10 Feb. 1686, the last day upon which he sat. On 8 Mar. Anglesey recorded a private meeting with Robert Spencer*, earl of Sunderland, and then a meeting with the king at William Chiffinch’s<sup>‡</sup> ‘who was very kind, free and open in discourse. Said, he would not be priest-ridden; read a letter of the late king, said I should be welcome to him.’<sup>352</sup> According to Luttrell and John Tucker he kissed the king’s hand on 16 Mar. 1686, although the latter expected Trumbull to be ‘surprised by the news.’<sup>353</sup> It was reports such as these that led to rumours of Anglesey’s return to favour and possibly high office.</p><p>Anglesey died on 6 Apr. 1686 of ‘a kind of quinsy’, or as Dr James Fraser put it ‘of a mixed distemper, betwixt the gout and squinary,’ and was buried at Farnborough on 14 April.<sup>354</sup> He was succeeded by his eldest son James Annesley*, 2nd earl of Anglesey. At least one report suggested that ‘Anglesey died of a sudden. They did not apprehend him in such danger a few hours before’.<sup>355</sup> It was widely reported that he had told Dr John Sharp*, the future archbishop of York, that ‘he ever was of the Church of England, and would die so, and said he was willing to receive the sacrament but could not swallow’.<sup>356</sup> Thomas Windsor*, earl of Plymouth, evinced surprise, writing to Halifax on 13 Apr. ‘that he declared himself to have been always of the Church of England is more than I did expect.’<sup>357</sup></p><p>Rumours abounded following Anglesey’s death, including one suggesting that he had desired to speak with the king and delivered up to him a bundle of papers. Another wrote that Anglesey ‘was become so great a favourite that he failed not to be at the king’s levee and … had [he] lived but one fortnight longer he been chancellor so that death proved a great disappointment to him.’<sup>358</sup> Even Henry Hyde*, 2nd earl of Clarendon, in Dublin, picked up these rumours: ‘letters which bring the news of Lord Anglesey’s death, say, ’twas pity he died, for had he lived but a little time, he would have been a very great man, and have done much good for the poor Irish: Good God!’<sup>359</sup> Verney sombrely recorded ‘I am sorry for the death of my Lord Anglesey, he will be much wanted in the Lords’ House.’<sup>360</sup></p><p>Anglesey had composed his will on 23 Feb. 1686, when ‘of sound mind and memory … though weak and decaying in body’, and because he had ‘seen and considered the disquiets and unnatural differences that do arise and the ruin of families that doth follow upon the dying intestate or by the want of or imperfect or unadvised settlements of estates.’ His house in Drury Lane with its contents together with the ‘silk gold coloured bed and all the furniture of the room called the golden chamber at Blechingdon’ was bequeathed to his wife. He gave his daughter Lady Frances Thompson £1,500, with the significant proviso that his executrix ‘be not sued, molested or troubled’ for it by her husband. Another daughter, Lady Anne Wingate, received the £2,000 part of the portion of £4,000 still owing to her from her marriage. He also gave £1,100 with interest for the redemption of a mortgage for his late son-in-law, Lord Mohun, the money having been borrowed from Sir John Baber. The rest of his real estate in Ireland was to be divided into three parts and bequeathed to his three youngest sons Richard, Arthur and Charles, in remainder after the death of his second son Altham, at that time a widower without children. His executrix was encouraged to apply to the king for ‘those great sums which are due to me from the crown as the only rewards of long service,’ a reference to the sum of £3,000 p.a. for ten years ‘payable out of the inheritable part of the excise, for surrendering his vice-treasurership of Ireland’ to Sir George Carteret.<sup>361</sup> The need to raise money to pay debts may explain the auctioning of his library, reputedly the largest private library in England, consisting of 30,000 volumes, shortly after his death, which Andrew Marvell may have made use of in his own work.<sup>362</sup> His own memoirs, published in 1693 were generally regarded as more the work of Sir Peter Pett than himself.<sup>363</sup></p><p>In 1681 Anglesey had summed himself up as a man of ‘prudence and moderation’, whose consistent aim had been ‘a moderator between factions and parties, never addicted or enslaved to any but striving to make all one.’<sup>364</sup> Around the same time, in January 1681, he wrote to Laurence Hyde that he thought the government of England ‘so wisely and artificially framed that the pulling out or so much as altering any one pin but by common consent of Parliament may dissolve and overturn the whole fabric, in the preserving and upholding which I have now spent above fifty years with knowledge and industry.’<sup>365</sup></p><p>Anglesey has been described as ‘a kind of opposition figure within the inner circle of government, a cultivated but unlikeable figure.’<sup>366</sup> Burnet recalled him as ‘a man of a grave deportment’, with a ‘faculty of speaking indefatigably upon every subject: but he spoke ungraciously; and did not know that he was not good at raillery, for he was always attempting it.’<sup>367</sup> In the Lords his legal expertise, together with his intellectual and financial abilities, made him an important figure; but despite his links to prominent politicians like Holles and Shaftesbury he seems to have made no attempt to create a personal following or to promote himself as a factional leader. A man of business, his industry made him useful in the administration of the state and no doubt ensured his longevity in the public service. On the way, he made the most of his opportunities to advance his personal wealth and his family members.</p> |
A.C./S.N.H. |
|
ANNESLEY, Arthur (c. 1678-1737) |
<p><strong><surname>ANNESLEY</surname></strong>, <strong>Arthur</strong> (c. 1678–1737)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>bro. 18 Sept. 1710 as 6th Visct. Valentia [I], Bar. Mountnorris [I], 5th earl of ANGLESEY |
|
First sat 25 Nov. 1710; last sat 11 May 1736 |
|
MP Camb. Univ., 1702-10, New Ross [I], 1703-10. |
<p><em>b</em>. 27 Sept. 1678,<sup>1</sup> 3rd s. of James Annesley*, later 2nd earl of Anglesey, and Elizabeth (<em>d</em>.1700), da. of John Manners*, 8th earl of Rutland; bro. of James Annesley*, later 3rd earl of Anglesey and John Annesley*, later 4th earl of Anglesey. <em>educ</em>. Eton, c.1693-7; Magdalene Camb., admitted 4 Feb. 1697, matric. 1697-8, MA 1699, fell. 1700. <em>m</em>. 7 Jan. 1702,<sup>2</sup> Mary (<em>d</em>.1719), da. of Sir John Thompson*, Bar. Haversham and Frances Annesley, da. of Arthur Annesley*, earl of Anglesey. <em>d.s.p</em>. 31 Mar. 1737;<sup>3</sup> <em>will</em> 18 Feb. 1735, pr. May 1737.<sup>4</sup></p> |
<p>Gent. of the privy chamber 1691; PC 1710-<em>d</em>.; ld. justice 1 Aug. 1714-18 Sept. 1714.</p><p>Jt. v.-treas. and treas. at war [I], 1710-16; PC [I], 1710; gov. co. Wexford [I], Nov. 1727; high steward, Camb. Univ. 9 Feb. 1722-<em>d</em>.<sup>5</sup></p> |
|
<p>Annesley was baptized on 28 Sept. 1678, by his uncle Richard Annesley, the future dean of Exeter: his godparents were his grandfather, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, Lord Chief Baron William Montagu<sup>‡</sup> and the countess of Warwick.<sup>7</sup> His marriage to his cousin, Mary Thompson, was evidently intended to alter the family settlements, for on the death (18 Jan. 1702) of his eldest brother James, it was reported that James had ‘given all his Irish estate which is about £6,000 p. annum to his third brother [i.e. Arthur], who lately married the Lord Haversham’s daughter, as he would have done his English estate too, which is about £1200 p. annum had he lived to the term to cut off the entail.’<sup>8</sup> This led to litigation with his older brother, John, and also with the widow of the 3rd earl, who claimed that Arthur Annesley, his brother John and Haversham had seized all the real and personal estate of her deceased husband. The dispute between the brothers was still unsettled in 1705.<sup>9</sup></p><p>Annesley was an active Member for Cambridge University 1702-10, and an associate of Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state and a leading high church Tory. After Nottingham’s dismissal in 1704, he became a fierce critic of the ministry speaking out in support of the bill against occasional conformity and against the settlement proposed for John Churchill*, duke of Marlborough. In popular literature he became a Tory caricature and in one poem his rhetorical style was compared to that of Billingsgate fish market.<sup>10</sup> He negotiated a reconciliation between Nottingham and Robert Harley*, later earl of Oxford, which smoothed relations between the high church and moderate Tories. Annesley opposed the impeachment of Dr Sacheverell and further attempts to elevate Marlborough, whom he described as a ‘man whose pride was already intolerable’.<sup>11</sup> His career in the Commons would have continued but for the untimely death of his brother in September 1710. The fourth earl’s wife was expecting a child at the time of his death and there was some talk that the birth of a son would raise questions regarding the peerage succession. The situation, however, did not arise and Anglesey was using the title when writing to Nottingham on 1 Oct. 1710.<sup>12</sup></p><p>Even before the death of his brother, Annesley was in line for preferment, his name being included on several of Harley’s memoranda, as he had been in 1708.<sup>13</sup> At the end of September 1710 Anglesey was given his brother’s office of vice-treasurer and treasurer at war of Ireland, estimated to be worth £6,000 a year.<sup>14</sup> On 3 Oct. he was listed by Harley as a likely supporter of the ministry, and on the 19th, together with Henry Hyde*, styled Lord Hyde, the future 2nd earl of Rochester, he was named to the Privy Council.</p><p>Anglesey took his seat in the Lords on 25 Nov. 1710, taking the oaths on that day. He attended on 99 days of the session, 88 per cent of the total sittings, and was named to 19 committees. On 16 Jan. 1711, John Elphinstone*, 4th Baron Balmerinoch [S], wrote that together with Alexander Montgomerie*, 9th earl of Eglinton [S], he had been with Anglesey about the case of James Greenshields, noting that Anglesey ‘was a very good speaker in the House of Commons but has not yet spoken in ours.’<sup>15</sup> On 24 Jan. Anglesey was keen to ensure that the action of Viscount Galway [I], in yielding the post of the queen’s troops to the Portuguese, was voted an act contrary to the honour of the crown, rather than merely derogatory to it.<sup>16</sup> On 5 Feb. he spoke in favour of the bill repealing the general naturalization act and entered his dissent to the resolution to reject it.<sup>17</sup> On 9 Mar. he was appointed to manage a conference with the Commons on the safety of the queen’s person. According to Swift, on 6 Apr. Anglesey joined in soliciting ‘admirably’ while lobbying the Commons against a bill imposing a duty on Irish yarn, and Swift attended him again on the same business on 9 April.<sup>18</sup> On 16 May a bill to enable Anglesey and Lord Hyde to take the oath of office for their Irish posts in England passed through all its stages in the Lords.</p><p>At the beginning of May 1711 Anglesey supported the land grants bill, an attempt by the Tories to reverse certain grants made by William III.<sup>19</sup> His influence in high church circles was demonstrated by the observation of the Rev. Ralph Bridges on 21 May that Anglesey persuaded Henry Compton*, bishop of London, to appoint Sir Thomas Gooch<sup>†</sup>, the future bishop of Ely, as his chaplain.<sup>20</sup> On 1 June Anglesey spoke in defence of Irish interests in the debate on the Scottish linen bill, part of which prevented the export of Scottish linen yarn, much of which was destined for Ireland.<sup>21</sup> Anglesey was identified as a Tory patriot during the 1710-11 session.</p><p>Anglesey was in Dublin by 7 July 1711, when he wrote a letter of introduction to Lord Treasurer Oxford on behalf of Thomas Keightly, Rochester’s brother-in-law.<sup>22</sup> On 9 July Anglesey (as Viscount Valentia [I]) and his cousin, Arthur (as Viscount Altham [I]) took their seats on the opening day of the session of the Irish parliament.<sup>23</sup> On 12 July he wrote to Oxford offering to collect evidence of the misdeeds of Thomas Wharton*, earl, later marquess, of Wharton, the previous lord lieutenant, in case such material could prove useful in curbing Wharton’s effectiveness as a politician in England.<sup>24</sup> His campaign against Wharton prompted Archbishop King of Dublin to write to Swift on 28 July, ‘you will observe several reflections that are in the addresses on the late management here [i.e. Wharton’s], in which the earl of Anglesey and I differed.’<sup>25</sup></p><p>Whilst in Ireland, Anglesey obviously made a favourable impression on some of the populace, being described in November 1711 as the ‘darling of the church party.’<sup>26</sup> On 5 Dec. 1711, Anglesey had not yet returned from Ireland, with the parliamentary session imminent.<sup>27</sup> However, he was back in the chamber for the opening day of session on 7 Dec., having ‘that morning travelled above 30 miles’. During the debate on the address he supported the need for peace, further suggesting ‘that we might have enjoyed that blessing soon after the battle of Ramillies, if the same had not been put off by some persons, whose interest it was to prolong the war,’ an obvious reference to Marlborough who responded to it.<sup>28</sup> Having spoken on the Tory side of the debate, as Nottingham noted when he revealed to his wife ‘his great grief’ that he and Anglesey ‘differ in the matter of the peace', he probably did not vote for the inclusion of the ‘No Peace without Spain’ clause in the Address.<sup>29</sup> However, on 8 Dec. 1711, when there was an attempt by the ministry to reverse that vote, Anglesey forced a division on whether the words should stand as part of the address and had been listed as one of those likely to do so. <sup>30</sup></p><p>Anglesey attended on 78 days of the 1711-12 session, 74 per cent of the total. On the issue of the rights and privileges of the Scottish peers, Anglesey was noted as having left the House on 19 Dec. 1711 when the question was put that no patent of honour granted to any peer of Great Britain, who was a peer of Scotland at the time of the Union, entitled him to sit and vote in Parliament. Given this abstention, Oxford listed him on 29 Dec. as one of the peers to be contacted during the Christmas recess. Meanwhile, on 20 Dec. he had seconded Nottingham when the latter went to meet Members of the House of Commons to ensure that the committee added a penalty clause to the occasional conformity bill ‘without which the bill would have been certainly useless.’<sup>31</sup></p><p>By January 1712, there is evidence from Swift that Anglesey was of sufficient importance to be one of those invited to dine with Oxford on a Saturday, ‘his day of choice company’.<sup>32</sup> Family matters did, however, produce tensions with another Tory grandee: on 17 Jan. Anglesey and John Sheffield*, duke of Buckingham, exchanged ‘hard words’ in the Lords and almost came to blows over the guardianship and custody of the countess of Buckingham’s daughter by her first husband, Anglesey’s brother, James, 3rd earl of Anglesey.<sup>33</sup> The Lords found in favour of Anglesey in this case, the latest in a long series of lawsuits arising from the will of the 3rd earl.<sup>34</sup> A proxy was registered in his favour from William Stawell*, 3rd Baron Stawell, on 4 Mar. and from William North*, 6th Baron North, on 7 April. Anglesey registered his own proxy in favour of John Poulett*, Earl Poulett, from 21 to 28 May 1712 and again on 13 June 1712. On 12 Apr. Anglesey acted as a teller for the division on committing the bill restoring rights of Scottish ecclesiastical patronage. Also, on the 12th he reported to the House from the committee of the whole on the bill on behalf of Agmondisham Vesey. On 5 May he reported from committees on the bill for regius professors of universities and the bill uniting the parishes of Horndon and Ingrave in Essex. He was present on 28 May to support the ministry against the Whig attack on the ‘restraining’ orders given to Ormond, both speaking and voting in their favour.<sup>35</sup></p><p>On 12 Dec. 1712 Anglesey was reported to have told Gooch that ‘upon the sitting down of the Parliament, we shall have our peace.’<sup>36</sup> He attended the prorogation on 3 Feb. 1713, and in a list of mid-March to early April 1713, in the hand of Jonathan Swift with additions by Oxford, Anglesey was marked as expected to support the ministry. The day before the delayed session convened, Anglesey told Oxford that he had come to town to receive his commands, and he was duly in attendance when the session opened on 9 Apr.<sup>37</sup> In total he attended on 47 days of the session, 71 per cent. In or about mid-June 1713, Oxford classed him as likely to oppose the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty, and his name appears on a list of 12 peers expected to desert the court over the issue. It was also noted that, if the bill had reached the Lords, Anglesey had already declared his opposition to it, as he had declared against it in the Lords on 17 June.<sup>38</sup> Indeed, following the bill’s defeat in the Commons on 18 June, some commentators ascribed its fate to Anglesey and Sir Thomas Hanmer<sup>‡</sup>, ‘which two had a consultation with several Members about it.’ Robert Monckton<sup>‡</sup> also ascribed the defeat of the French commercial bill to ‘the defection of Sir Tho[mas] Hanmer and a great number of the Tories instigated principally by my Lord Abingdon and Anglesey’. Certainly, Anglesey, Hanmer and Montagu Venables Bertie*, 2nd earl of Abingdon, provoked anger on both sides by their whimsical behaviour.<sup>39</sup> L’Hermitage reported on 18 June that Anglesey was ‘determined to drive the lord treasurer to extremities, and has been, for some time, in strict connection with’ John Campbell*, duke of Argyll [S]. He continued, ‘this earl is one of the greatest Tories, and is not a good tempered man. He is very haughty, and very ambitious. He is one of the most active men in the world, and does not deviate an inch from what he hath once undertaken.’ L’Hermitage also linked Anglesey’s opposition to the Pretender to his possession of extensive Irish lands.<sup>40</sup> On 30 June Anglesey supported Wharton’s motion for an address requesting that the queen secure the Pretender’s expulsion from Lorraine.<sup>41</sup></p><p>However, this did not mean an irreconcilable break with the lord treasurer, and by the end of June 1713 Anglesey was attending Oxford’s levee, to ‘make his compliment.’<sup>42</sup> At this stage in his life Anglesey was considered to be a peer with significant influence, but it was unclear how he would use it.<sup>43</sup> His support for the Tories and his commitment to what he called the ‘Church interest’ was evident from his correspondence with Swift. He was being courted constantly by the Whigs, L’Hermitage noting on 4 July that ‘Anglesey unites himself more and more with the Whigs, and they concert measures together for promoting something in Parliament.’ To that end ‘he had an interview yesterday’ with Charles Montagu*, Baron Halifax, and others.<sup>44</sup> In September 1713 Nottingham outlined his hopes to Sunderland of having Anglesey’s assistance:</p><blockquote><p>the libel on him clearly instigated by the ministry, another bill of commerce, and the transactions abroad this summer should and I hope will incite him to exert himself to prevent some things which I know he fears, and if the majority of the commons should be such as he esteems his friends, as is very probable, he will be freed from some apprehensions which fettered him to the present ministry and he will have the greater honour.<sup>45</sup></p></blockquote><p>On 14 Sept. Sunderland wrote to Nottingham suggesting that in the forthcoming Parliament ‘a great deal will turn on the part Lord Anglesey, and Sir Thomas Hanmer will act; I don’t much doubt the first from his good sense, after what passed at the end of last session’.<sup>46</sup></p><p>On 4 Sept. 1713, in the middle of the election campaign, Anglesey was on his way to his ‘country house’ to dine with James Barry<sup>‡</sup>, Lord Barrymore [I], and Richard Shuttleworth<sup>‡</sup>, two of the Members over whom he was believed to exercise some influence.<sup>47</sup> Also in September 1713 the duchess of Marlborough commented on the rumours that Anglesey would succeed as lord lieutenant of Ireland: ‘I suppose it will please him, but how he can be made secure of his great estate in that country that belongs to so many Roman Catholics, I can’t imagine.’<sup>48</sup> At about the same time, William Berkeley*, 4th Baron Berkeley of Stratton, felt that the best card held by the incumbent lieutenant, Charles Talbot*, duke of Shrewsbury, was the threat of Anglesey being sent in his place if he failed, noting that Anglesey was ‘more of a party than is liked in that kingdom’, and that he had been ‘long intriguing for that government, tho’ he pretends an averseness to it, and at some time or other will certainly have it.’<sup>49</sup> Interestingly, in November 1713 it was reported that Argyll had referred to Anglesey as ‘the fittest man to be a prime minister, and he shall live to see him so.’<sup>50</sup></p><p>Anglesey was in Ireland before the opening of the parliamentary session in Dublin and attended on the opening day on 25 Nov. 1713.<sup>51</sup> He kept a close eye on events in England, writing to Oxford on 21 Nov.:</p><blockquote><p>I am extremely pleased to hear the treaty of commerce is likely to come to so fair a conclusion, and I doubt not that it is under your lordship’s eye, but that all objections which have been raised against it will be removed to the great satisfaction of all her majesty’s faithful servants.<sup>52</sup></p></blockquote><p>Anglesey came to the aid of the Irish lord chancellor, Sir Constantine Phipps, on 18 Dec. 1713 assisting in the passage of an address by the Irish house of lords that he had ‘acquitted himself with honour and integrity’, although Alan Brodrick<sup>‡</sup> noted of Anglesey’s contribution that ‘at the time of his speaking I observed a want of that vivacity and presence of mind which at other times appears in him’.<sup>53</sup> A newsletter at the end of December 1713 recorded that on this occasion Anglesey had ‘made a very excellent speech wherein he told them it was hard that so worthy a minister should be attacked and those who were concerned for the government stood silent and much more to that effect which words seem to point at another great person in that kingdom.’<sup>54</sup></p><p>On 5 Jan. 1714 Thomas Thynne*, Viscount Weymouth, informed James Grahme<sup>‡</sup> that the British Parliament would sit on 16 Feb. and that the Parliament in Dublin would be prorogued before it ‘and our friend Anglesey be here’.<sup>55</sup> On 16 Jan. Anglesey informed Swift that he was preparing for his journey to England, assuring the dean that ‘steady and vigorous measures’ would strengthen their position both in Ireland and England.<sup>56</sup> In this he was encouraged by a long missive from Henry St John*, Viscount Bolingbroke, on 25 Jan. which urged him to return ‘as soon as possibly you can; your friends here are ready to concert freely and honourably with you; and I am persuaded that we may act, through the whole session as one man, and if we once find this art, the opposite faction is undone.’<sup>57</sup></p><p>If anything, Anglesey’s visit to Ireland seemed to bolster his support for the English ministry. On his return he felt able to rebuff all attempts by the Whigs and their allies to entice him into open opposition. In particular, he opposed Nottingham’s suggestion that measures should be concerted to invite George*, duke of Cambridge (the future George II), to reside in England, his presence being widely seen as enabling Anglesey to break with the court.<sup>58</sup> As the Hanoverian envoy, Schütz, remarked at the end of February 1714, Anglesey ‘is a great deal more cool than he was before he went to Ireland, and he declines hitherto, to enter into what our friends propose to him.’<sup>59</sup> The duchess of Marlborough found him quite a puzzle,</p><blockquote><p>… who I don’t know at all, I believe I have never seen him. He may have some talents but sure a man of judgment could not have done what he did in Ireland to support the chancellor and be, as I think he is really, against the P. of W. and yet the refusing to vote against the Popish decree is agreeable to his friendship to the Irish chancellor.<sup>60</sup></p></blockquote><p>Even after the Parliament met his position with respect to the court was still unsure.<sup>61</sup></p><p>Anglesey had arrived by the beginning of the session on 16 Feb. 1714. He attended on 63 days of the session, 83 per cent of all sittings and was named to 16 committees of the House. On 19 Mar. in the committee of the whole debating the state of the nation, Anglesey came to the aid of the ministry which was facing attack over the fate of their wartime allies, the Catalans. He observed that these proceedings had been initiated ‘merely out of spleen and envy’ and that the conduct of the previous ministry should be inquired into so as to be compared with the present one.<sup>62</sup> No doubt in connection with this, on 21 Mar. William Bromley<sup>‡</sup> reported to Oxford a meeting he had held the previous day at which Anglesey’s chief aim had been to ‘be furnished with materials to make good his challenge against the old ministry, being determined as far as he is able to support you in your administration. I think him very sincere in these assurances.’ Bromley hoped that a dinner with Oxford on the 23rd would allow Oxford to ‘be so explicit with him as may confirm and fix his resolutions to serve you.’<sup>63</sup> A memorandum written by Oxford on 22 Mar. may refer to this meeting: ‘Lord A - I have no views. I have and will do all I can. I will tell you when I cannot. I will attack, or not - will not vary, do not this because I want, for I desire to be out &c.’<sup>64</sup></p><p>By late March 1714 Anglesey seemed to be wavering in the face of Whig blandishments.<sup>65</sup> On 26 Mar. it was reported that Argyll ‘outdid himself’ in his attempts to influence Anglesey.<sup>66</sup> On 1 Apr. Anglesey met with Argyll, and the Hanoverian Tories, Nottingham, Hanmer and William Dawes*, archbishop of York, at which the chief article agreed was to concert measures with the Whigs to ensure the Protestant succession and the defeat of the Pretender.<sup>67</sup> Anglesey’s next parliamentary intervention was on 5 Apr. when he launched a vigorous attack on the ministry in which he was said to have ‘ripped up the peace’ and spoken ‘with the greatest violence and virulency imaginable’.<sup>68</sup> The Whig attack on the peace of Utrecht that day led to the Court proposing a motion that the Hanoverian succession was not in danger, to which Simon Harcourt*, Baron Harcourt, the lord chancellor, added the words ‘under her majesty’s administration’. As Robert Wodrow was informed, it was Harcourt’s amendment which provoked Anglesey to</p><blockquote><p>a flaming speech, in which he told the House that he had been drawn into the peace from the assurance he had that it was most honourable for Great Britain that satisfaction and security had been thereby obtained to our allies that we were to have a treaty of commerce, by which the nation would gain two millions per annum. And he appealed to their lordships whether one title of those things were true in fact. But on the contrary our allies abandoned and even what we had obtained for ourselves left to bona fide of the French king. No guarantee for the succession but the French king and the king of Sicily. That he was amazed at the words offered by the noble lord to be added to the question. Did the ministry want to be screened by these words (of her majesty’s government). Did they lie under an imputant of contributing to the danger of the Protestant succession that they want to be justified by a side wind. If they thought themselves reflected upon by the question as it was first moved, let them have a day to vindicate themselves from it but (said he) I will follow any minister, be who he will, from the queen’s closet to Tower Hill, that shall have done, or shall do any thing to weaken that Succession.<sup>69</sup></p></blockquote><p>In another account from a newsletter, Anglesey</p><blockquote><p>opposed it violently and fell a railing against all the proceedings of the peace. He said he had been one of those who was for vindicating the suspension of arms not for any reasons he had heard within doors but for some he was told without, viz, that there was a peace concluded advantageous to this nation and secure to all the allies, that the protestant succession was effectually secured by it and that we should have such a trade as would bring in 2 millions p.a. What there was of this that proved true their Lordships could now judge. He said a good deal more with a great deal of warmth and concluded that if the succession was not in danger before, this vote would make it so.<sup>70</sup></p></blockquote><p>The Court managed to add Harcourt’s amendment, but their majority sank to fourteen. Although the Whigs let the main question through, they passed several other votes for an address to the queen for a proclamation to apprehend the Pretender ‘dead or alive’ and for expressing their disquiet at the duke of Lorraine’s failure to expel him.</p><p>If Anglesey’s intention had been to force himself to the ministry’s attention, he certainly succeeded. On the evening of 5 Apr. 1714 he was invited to dine with Bolingbroke, and on the 7th he attended Oxford’s levee, leading some to conclude that he had been bought off by the promise of the lieutenancy of Ireland.<sup>71</sup> He also had a lengthy interview with the queen.<sup>72</sup> The upshot of all this was that when the Lords came to consider the report of the address on the Pretender on 8 Apr. Anglesey and several other ‘straggling’ Lords returned to the ministerial fold and several amendments were passed which allowed the queen to decide when to issue the proclamation against the Pretender and to offer a reward for bringing him to justice not just for his head.<sup>73</sup></p><p>Anglesey was in the country and unavailable for consultation before Schütz asked Harcourt for a writ of summons for the duke of Cambridge. However, upon his return to London on the evening of the 12 Apr. he concurred with the plan.<sup>74</sup> On 13 Apr. when the House came to debate the queen’s answer to their address of the 8th on the Pretender, Wharton proposed a further address which was amended by the court. On the main amendment Anglesey narrowly failed to secure the rejection of the term ‘and industriously’ when referring to the fears and jealousies which had been ‘universally’ spread about the threats to the protestant succession. The insertion of these words was carried for the ministry by two proxy votes.<sup>75</sup> On 14 Apr. Anglesey acted as a teller on the committal of the place bill, and on 17 Apr. he acted as a teller in a division in the committee of the whole and as a teller on the motion to pass the bill. On 15 Apr., when the Commons debated the motion that the Hanoverian succession was not in danger, one contemporary recorded that those against the ministry included ‘all my Lord Anglesey’s interest.’<sup>76</sup> On 16 Apr. when the Lords came to consider the Spanish treaties, Anglesey was one of the ‘revolters from the Church Party … smoked out’ by voting against an address ‘in favour of the peace and the ministry’.<sup>77</sup> Interestingly, Henry Brydges recorded that on 21 Apr. he had met Anglesey at the home of Francis Atterbury*, bishop of Rochester.<sup>78</sup></p><p>In a letter of 7 May 1714 to the Electress Sophia, Anglesey said he was obliged by duty, his own inclination and ‘the same principles of loyalty and obedience’ which made him a ‘faithful’ and ‘good subject to her majesty’, to be a ‘firm and zealous servant to the Hanoverian Succession’ and to ‘secure and preserve to these nations our invaluable constitution in Church and state’.<sup>79</sup> However, at the same time William Cadogan<sup>†</sup>, the future Earl Cadogan, was enunciating his fears to Bothmer that unless the electoral prince was sent over, Anglesey, Dawes, Hanmer and their friends would ‘leave us soon, for they declare publicly enough that the succession cannot be secured but by the presence of the prince’.<sup>80</sup></p><p>On 22 May 1714, a correspondent of Lord North revealed the machinations going on in the ministry, with Anglesey suggested as a candidate to replace Bolingbroke, or that both Oxford and Bolingbroke would be removed and that ‘there is a party cooking up that would gladly rout the present set of ministers, the Speaker [Hanmer], and Mr Hill and Lord Anglesey are of that number, upon the dismission of the Parliament we shall see something done.’<sup>81</sup> At the end of May 1714, John Vanbrugh informed Marlborough that Anglesey was suspicious of the duke being in the Pretender’s interest.<sup>82</sup></p><p>Given Anglesey’s conviction that the Presbyterians posed one of the greatest threats to the constitution, in late May or early June 1714, Nottingham confidently predicted that he would support the schism bill. His assessment was correct: on 4 June Anglesey spoke in the debate for four hours which ended in an unopposed motion for a second reading of the schism bill.<sup>83</sup> He remarked that ‘the Dissenters were equally dangerous both to church and state’, making reference to their conduct under James II when ‘in order to obtain a toleration, they joined themselves with the papists.’ Furthermore, they were unworthy of the ‘indulgence’ granted them at the revolution because they had endeavoured ‘to engross the education of youth’ by setting up schools and academies ‘to the great detriment of the universities and danger of the established church.’<sup>84</sup> On 11 June he acted as a teller in favour of a motion that the committee of the whole on the schism bill be allowed to receive a clause extending its provisions to Ireland, a measure which Thomas Coningsby<sup>†</sup>, the future Baron Coningsby, later interpreted as part of a conscious design by the Church party to weaken the English interest in Ulster.<sup>85</sup> Peter Wentworth described it more triumphantly as carrying ‘a clause that the House of Commons did not think fit to send up to the Lords for fear of the loss of the whole bill.’<sup>86</sup></p><p>On 15 June 1714 Anglesey brought into the Lords a bill ‘against popery’, which aimed to make more effectual an act of James I’s reign against recusants and also an act of William and Mary to vest the presentation of benefices belonging to papists in the two universities.<sup>87</sup> On 30 June Anglesey defended the bill for examining public accounts at its first reading in the Lords, noting that ‘tho’ there had not yet been any considerable discoveries made, yet since it was probable there might be, and the burthen to the nation was but twelve thousand pounds, it was his opinion to be continued’, a view which the House narrowly endorsed.<sup>88</sup> On 5 July Anglesey was opposed to any censure of Bolingbroke during the debate on an address to the queen over naming the ministers who had advised the ratification of the articles of the Spanish commercial treaty, which was attributed by many to offers of high office on the fall of Oxford. On the following day Charles Ford was predicting Bolingbroke’s triumph and consequently Anglesey’s appointment to the Irish lieutenancy; rumours which had been current for some time.<sup>89</sup> On 8 July Anglesey moved the House to address the queen to thank her for the part of the asiento she had given to the South Sea Company, to which Nottingham added that what remained vested in her should be applied for the public.<sup>90</sup> The queen’s response on 9 July that she would dispose of it as she saw fit ‘put the House into the greatest fury’; her physician recorded that he had been told by William Cowper*, Baron (later Earl) Cowper that her response had provoked Anglesey and Wharton to ‘hot speeches’.<sup>91</sup> In particular, Anglesey noted that he could not support an order for printing the address and the queen’s reply ‘there having never been known such an answer returned to that House’. Furthermore, he would have acquiesced if the queen had ‘given them a flat denial’. She had, however, prefaced her refusal by saying ‘she always regarded their addresses at the same instant that she did not regard them was what he could not let pass without taking some notice of a thing so strange.’<sup>92</sup></p><p>Meanwhile, in response to a legal opinion on the election of the lord mayor of Dublin delivered to the council on 16 July 1714, Anglesey was reported to be railing against Harcourt.<sup>93</sup> On 21 July James Johnston<sup>‡</sup> wrote to Sir William Trumbull<sup>‡</sup> that ‘my Lord Anglesey, who was to have his share, is now in no great understanding with Bolingbroke and has broke with the chancellor [Harcourt].’<sup>94</sup> Although he was still reported to be angry with Harcourt on 24 July, this feeling did not extend to Bolingbroke.<sup>95</sup> Nevertheless, an antagonistic Anglesey was inconvenient for Bolingbroke as he plotted the dispositions of a new ministry.<sup>96</sup> Following the news of Oxford’s fall, on 29 July it was rumoured that Anglesey would be lord lieutenant of Ireland.<sup>97</sup></p><p>Meanwhile, Anglesey had left for Ireland on 26 July 1714, charged with purging the Irish army of Whig supporters, ‘being dispatched thither by the new modelled juncto of the late ministry’ to remodel the forces there and bring in popery and the Pretender.<sup>98</sup> He had already embarked for Ireland before an express reached him informing him of the death of the queen on 1 August.<sup>99</sup> Having been named as a regent by George I, he was forced to return to London.<sup>100</sup> According to a memorandum by Oxford he was still absent on 10 Aug., but Charles Ford noted his arrival in London on that day.<sup>101</sup> He first sat on 13 Aug. and attended only four sittings of the session of August 1714, an attendance rate of 24 per cent. Nevertheless, he was keen to impress the new king, allegedly spending ‘three hours every morning learning French to tease him with.’<sup>102</sup></p><p>Despite rumours in October 1714 that he would be displaced as vice-treasurer of Ireland, Anglesey remained in place and was listed as one of the Tories still in office on 26 Jan. 1715.<sup>103</sup> However, as Sir Christopher Musgrave<sup>‡</sup> wrote in early December 1714, Anglesey was one of those ‘hard pursued’ by the Whigs for their places, and Anglesey himself told Bolingbroke that war had been declared on the ‘whole Tory party’.<sup>104</sup> Eventually, he was replaced as vice-treasurer in March 1716 but retained his place on the privy council.</p><p>For the remainder of his career Anglesey remained a Tory loyal to Hanover, although over time his attendance on the House dwindled. He died on 31 Mar. 1737 and was buried at Farnborough.</p> |
A.C./S.N.H. |
|
ANNESLEY, James (c. 1645-90) |
<p><strong><surname>ANNESLEY</surname></strong>, <strong>James</strong> (c. 1645–90)</p> |
<em>styled </em>1661-86 Ld. Annesley; <em>suc. </em>fa. 6 Apr. 1686 as 3rd Visct. Valentia [I] and 2nd earl of ANGLESEY |
|
First sat 10 May 1686; last sat 21 Jan. 1690 |
|
MP Waterford [I] 1666, Winchester 1679 (Mar.)-1681. |
<p><em>b</em>. c.1645, 1st s. of Arthur Annesley*, earl of Anglesey, and Elizabeth Altham. <em>educ</em>. Christ Church Oxf; <em>matric</em>. 4 Dec. 1661; travelled abroad (Italy) 1665. <em>m</em>. (settlement 17 Sept. 1669, with £9,000)<sup>1</sup> Elizabeth (<em>d</em>.1700), da. of John Manners*, 8th earl of Rutland, and Frances da. of Edward Montagu*, 2nd Bar. Montagu of Boughton, 3s. 2da. <em>d</em>. 1 Apr. 1690; <em>admon</em>. 6 June 1690.<sup>2</sup></p> |
<p>Capt. of horse [I] 1666-72;<sup>3</sup> col. militia ft. Hants ?1675-81.</p><p><em>Custos rot</em>. Hants 1676-81; freeman, Portsmouth 1676,<sup>4</sup> Winchester 1677,<sup>5</sup> Oxford 1681;<sup>6</sup> dep. lt. Hants by 1680-1.<sup>7</sup></p><p>FRS 1663-82.<sup>8</sup></p> |
|
<p>Annesley was born in Dublin, probably in 1645, as he was 16 when he matriculated at Oxford in December 1661. By this date his father was a prominent politician having played a significant role in the restoration of Charles II, for which he received an English earldom. Annesley’s initial public role seems to have been in Ireland, where for a few months in 1666, before its prorogation, he sat as member for Waterford in the only Irish Restoration parliament. At some point around this date he received a commission in the Irish army ‘by resignation of his father,’ which had been disposed of by 1672. In 1667 he was undertaking commissions for his father in Ireland.<sup>9</sup> According to Lady Elizabeth Livingston he had courted her for three years before his father’s opposition to the match forced him to withdraw his affection.<sup>10</sup> In 1669 he married Lady Elizabeth Manners, who brought with her a substantial portion, although there appears to have been a problem in securing maintenance for the couple. In 1670 Annesley seems to have been granted £1,400 p.a. by his father, but money still seems to have been a problem as he was seeking to sell his troop of horse in April 1670.<sup>11</sup> At some point Annesley was settled on his father’s estate in Farnborough, becoming a justice of the peace for Hampshire in 1674, a militia colonel, deputy lieutenant, and custos in April 1676 (for which he had lobbied Gilbert Sheldon*, archbishop of Canterbury in March promising that ‘I shall ever be a most faithful subject to my king, and a most obedient son of the Church’).<sup>12</sup></p><p>After several vain attempts to find a seat in the Cavalier Parliament, including the possibility of standing for Leicester and Radnorshire in 1677, Annesley was returned to the Exclusion Parliaments for Winchester.<sup>13</sup> His political fortunes in the Commons were wrapped up with those of his father, and as those declined so did Annesley’s.</p><p>Following his father’s death in April 1686, Anglesey was introduced in the Lords at the prorogation on 10 May 1686. In July 1687 Anglesey’s house at Farnborough was destroyed by fire.<sup>14</sup> It had not been rebuilt by September 1689 when, in response to a letter about self-assessment for taxation purposes, it was noted that ‘he hath no personal estate, not having so much as either coach or horse. And that his own house being burnt down his Lordship is obliged to remain at a neighbour’s till the same be rebuilt.’<sup>15</sup> While Parliament stood prorogued Anglesey’s name appeared on four lists compiled in 1687, all of which classed him as an opponent of James II’s policies, and, more specifically, of his attempts to repeal the Tests. Anglesey, like his father, was probably particularly opposed to the Irish policies promoted by Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnell [I]. Anglesey subscribed the petition for a free Parliament presented to the king on 17 Nov. 1688, and his name appears on two lists as so doing.<sup>16</sup> During the crisis caused by the flight of James II, Anglesey attended the assembly of peers which acted as a provisional government on 12-15 Dec. and again on 25 Dec. and was even a signatory to some orders to the English navy.<sup>17</sup></p><p>Anglesey was absent from the beginning of the Convention, and was excused attendance for sickness on 25 Jan. 1689 (he seems to have inherited his father’s affliction of the gout). He first attended the Lords on 4 Feb., whereupon he was appointed one of the managers of a conference with the Commons to discuss the wording of the bill formally establishing the reign of William and Mary. The Lords could not agree with the wording proposed by the Commons and Anglesey voted against using the word ‘abdicated’ rather than ‘deserted’ with reference to James II’s actions. On 5 Feb. the same managers were appointed to the conference when the Lords set out the reasons why they could not agree with the Commons. Crucially, he stayed away from the Lords on 6 Feb. and was listed as absent when the Lords voted to agree with the Commons that the king had ‘abdicated’ and that the throne was therefore ‘vacant.’ He took the oaths on 5 March.</p><p>On 15 Apr. 1689 Anglesey was ordered to attend the Lords the following day in order to hear the petition of his wife concerning the non-payment of a rent charge to her on lands at Bletchingdon. The question of whether she had breached the earl’s privilege in writing to one of the tenants concerning these rentals was referred to the committee of privileges on 16 April. The report from the committee on 18 Apr. left the issue of privilege to the House itself, which opted to appoint a group of peers to mediate between Anglesey and his wife. He again received leave of absence for ill health on 22 May, having only attended on one occasion between 18 Apr. and 29 July. On 30 July Anglesey voted to agree with the Lords proposal to reverse the judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. In total, he attended on 27 days of the session, 17 per cent of sittings of the House, and was named to three committees. Neither Anglesey, nor his brother, Altham Annesley, Viscount Altham [I], attended James II’s Irish parliament in May 1689.<sup>18</sup></p><p>Reckoned an opponent of the court in a list drawn up by Thomas Osborne*, marquess of Carmarthen, between October 1689 and February 1690, in the second session of the Convention Anglesey attended on 12 occasions, 16 per cent of the sittings, and was named to three committees. Anglesey was absent from the opening session of the 1690 Parliament and was excused attendance on grounds of ill health on 31 March. He died the following day on 1 Apr. 1690, reportedly of an apoplexy.<sup>19</sup> At the time of his death Anglesey’s English and Irish estate was estimated at £4,000 p.a.<sup>20</sup> He left three sons who all inherited the peerage: James Annesley*, 3rd earl of Anglesey; John Annesley*, 4th earl of Anglesey; and Arthur Annesley*, 5th earl of Anglesey, and a daughter, Elizabeth (1673-1725) who married Robert Gayer<sup>‡</sup> of Stoke Park, Buckinghamshire. His widow died on 7 Dec. 1700, leaving the bulk of her estate to her second son John, whom she made her executor. In a codicil of November 1700 she also bequeathed to John, Irish lands lately conveyed to her by her brothers-in-law Richard Annesley, 2nd Baron Altham [I] and Arthur Annesley, possibly following the death of Altham’s heir, James George Annesley.<sup>21</sup></p> |
A.C./S.N.H. |
|
ANNESLEY, James (1674-1702) |
<p><strong><surname>ANNESLEY</surname></strong>, <strong>James</strong> (1674–1702)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 1 Apr. 1690 (a minor) as 3rd earl of ANGLESEY and 3rd Visct. Valentia [I]. |
|
First sat 22 Nov. 1695; last sat 24 June 1701 |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. 11 July 1674,<sup>1</sup> 1st s. of James Annesley*, 2nd earl of Anglesey and Elizabeth, 4th da. of John Manners*, 8th earl of Rutland; bro. of John Annesley*, later 4th earl of Anglesey and Arthur Annesley*, later 5th earl of Anglesey. <em>educ</em>. Dyer’s sch. at Chelsea, c.1680;<sup>2</sup> Christ Church, Oxf. 1690; travelled abroad (with Mons. de Rasigarde) 1692,<sup>3</sup> (Germany, Italy and France) 1696-8.<sup>4</sup> <em>m</em>. 28 Oct. 1699 (with £17,000)<sup>5</sup> Catherine Darnley, da. (illegit.) of James II and Catherine Sedley, countess of Dorchester, separated (by act of Parliament), 12 June 1701, 1da. <em>d</em>. 18 Jan 1702; <em>will</em> 14 May-9 Dec. 1701, pr. 13 Mar. 1702.<sup>6</sup></p> |
|
|
<p>As the heir to his grandfather, Arthur Annesley*, earl of Anglesey, who possessed vast estates in England and Ireland as well as considerable personal wealth, Annesley was well placed to play a significant role in the political life of both kingdoms. He was baptized on 13 July 1674 by John Tillotson*, then dean of Canterbury and later archbishop of Canterbury, his godparents being his grandmother, the countess of Anglesey, John Manners*, Lord Roos, the future duke of Rutland and Edward Montagu*, 2nd Baron Montagu.<sup>8</sup> On 19 Oct. 1677 the young Annesley was touched by the king, perhaps an early indication of poor health.<sup>9</sup></p><p>Anglesey took his seat in the Irish House of Lords in August 1695 where Henry Capel*, Baron Capell, reported that he was ‘perfectly embarked with the sole right men, and entirely in the interest of my lord chancellor [Sir Charles Porter<sup>‡</sup>]’. Capell also reported that Anglesey had proved to be something of a troublemaker: ‘he has been at the head of all the embroilments, and likewise in those that have [been], like to happen between the two Houses.’<sup>10</sup> Anglesey left Ireland for England towards the end of October 1695, possibly in response to his writ of summons to the English Parliament for which he was now eligible to sit. He was in attendance on the opening day of the session on 22 Nov. 1695 but was not formally introduced until the following day. He was present on 72 days of the session, 58 per cent of the total. On 4 Dec. he was named to a committee to draw up an address on the ill state of the coinage, which in turn served to manage a conference with the Commons on the same issue on the following day. On 9 Dec. he was reportedly involved in a duel in which the other principal, Sir John Dillon, was wounded, the dispute being about Anglesey’s adultery with Dillon’s wife.<sup>11</sup> On 9 Jan. 1696 he was named to draw up reasons for the Lords insisting on their amendments to the bill regulating the silver coinage. Some of these related to the rights of the peerage, and he was named as a manager of the ensuing conference which was held the following day. Surprisingly, in view of his own family history and his close association with Sir John Thompson*, later Baron Haversham, who urged that non-subscribers be expelled from the Commons, he refused to sign the Association on 27 Feb. despite being in the House on that day.<sup>12</sup> On 31 Mar. he acted as teller against agreeing to a clause in the committee of the whole on the recoinage bill and subsequently entered a dissent to the passing of the bill. On 14 Apr. he was named to a committee to prepare reasons for the Lords insisting on their amendments to the bill for continuing the acts prohibiting trade and commerce with France, but these proceedings did not result in a conference. He was named to a further ten committees during the session. On 30 Apr. 1696, just three days after the end of the session, he obtained a pass to travel abroad to study in Germany and Italy.<sup>13</sup></p><p>According to Narcissus Luttrell<sup>‡</sup>, Anglesey was one of those who stood bail in October 1697 for Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun, but he did not attend Parliament during the 1697-8 session, and it is not clear whether he had returned from his foreign tour.<sup>14</sup> He was in Paris in April 1698, where he was carefully watched by Mathew Prior<sup>‡</sup>, who informed Arnold Joost van Keppel*, earl of Albemarle, that Anglesey was mixing with people of Jacobite sentiments and emphasized that because Anglesey’s loyalty could go either way it would be necessary to ensure a favourable reception for him when he returned to the English court in order to win him over to the cause of William III.<sup>15</sup></p><p>Anglesey next attended the House on 3 May 1698 and was present almost every day of the remaining two months of the 1697-8 session, a total of 37 days, representing 27 per cent of the total. On 24 May he was named as one of the managers of the conference considering the bill for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness and on 28 June as one of the managers of the conference considering the impeachments against John Goudet and others. On 1 July he acted as a teller against giving a second reading to the bill establishing the two million fund and settling the East India trade. Having lost the division he entered a protest at the decision. He was named to a further 12 committees during the session.</p><p>Anglesey attended the prorogation on 29 Nov. 1698 and was present when Parliament convened on 6 December. He attended on 53 days of the session, 62 per cent of the total, and was appointed to 14 committees. On 10 and 11 Feb. 1699 he acted as a teller in divisions on the case of John Fitch against the attorney-general. On 29 Mar. he entered a dissent to the resolution to request the king to send for the bishop of Derry in custody, a matter relating to a clash of jurisdictions between the English and Irish houses of lords. On 20 Apr. he was appointed one of the managers of the conference on the bill restoring Blackwell Hall and on 21 Apr. one of the managers for the conference on the Billingsgate Market bill. This committee then drew up reasons for adhering to their proviso on 25 Apr., and he was appointed to another conference on the bill on 26 April. On 27 Apr. he entered a protest to the passage of the supply bill providing for the disbandment, because of a clause tacked to it appointing commissioners to inquire into Irish land grants. On 3 May he was named as one of the managers of the conference considering the bill on the paper duty.</p><p>In October 1699 Anglesey added to his already considerable wealth by marrying Catherine Darnley, the illegitimate daughter of James II and Catherine Sedley, now countess of Dorchester. Despite the dislocation that must have been caused by her father’s exile, she was a wealthy young woman with a portion of £17,000 plus jewellery worth another £3,000.<sup>16</sup> Significantly, in February 1700 a certificate was issued under the sign manual that he had married with the sovereign’s consent.<sup>17</sup> The death of his mother in December 1700 saw her jointure fall to him.<sup>18</sup></p><p>Anglesey attended the opening day of the session of 1699-1700. He was appointed to the committee of privileges, and to a further six committees during the session. He was present on 48 days of the session, 53 per cent of the total. In February 1700 he was forecast as one of those peers who would support the East India Company bill. On 23 Feb. he voted in favour of adjourning the House, so that it could go into a committee of the whole on the East India Company bill. On 4 Apr. he acted as a teller against a second reading of the land tax and Irish forfeitures bill and then protested on constitutional grounds against the decision to proceed with the bill. On 9 Apr. he was named to manage a conference on the bill and was then appointed to draw up reasons for adhering to their amendments. Following several more conferences, on 10 Apr. he acted as a teller in favour of the Lords adhering to these amendments and then as a teller against passing the bill without their amendments. He then entered a protest against the resolution not to insist on the Lords’ amendments to the supply bill, having, as one observer noted, spoken ‘extremely pertinently’ on the rights of the peerage in these debates.<sup>19</sup> Anglesey attended the prorogation on 23 May 1700.</p><p>At the beginning of the 1701 session, Anglesey was recorded as being named to the committee for privileges on 10 Feb., although his name does not appear on the attendance lists until the 11th, when he also took the oaths. He was appointed to three other committees during the session. It was by now clear that the young peer was extremely ill; he was variously described as being ‘deep in a consumption’ and as suffering from ‘a complication of diseases’.<sup>20</sup> Despite his illness he managed to attend on 52 days of the session, some 48 per cent of the total. This was probably impelled as much by personal considerations as by political ones.</p><p>On 12 Feb. 1701 six people rushed into his house and kidnapped Anglesey’s wife. He reported this immediately to the lord chief justice, Sir John Holt<sup>‡</sup>, only to discover that the kidnapping had been engineered by his wife in order to provide her with an opportunity to go before Holt and accuse her husband of cruelty. As a result of her accusations, Anglesey was bound over to keep the peace in a bond of £8,000. On 13 Feb. he reported this to the House and asked to be freed from the terms of the bond. The following day he demanded that the House issue a warrant to search for his wife and cancel the bond so that he could go abroad for his health. Holt told the House that he had not only received Lady Anglesey’s complaint in person but had seen her bruised arms. The House questioned Lady Dorchester who was waiting at the door to defend her daughter’s actions. She denied knowing her daughter’s whereabouts but took advantage of the opportunity to put Lady Anglesey’s case for some form of maintenance agreement. Clearly embarrassed at becoming involved in so personal an issue, the House dismissed Lady Anglesey’s petition for her husband to waive his privilege so that she could institute proceedings for a separation in the ecclesiastical courts and ordered that nothing should be entered in the journals.<sup>21</sup></p><p>If the Lords were hoping that the issue would go away, they were sadly mistaken. On 25 Feb. 1701 Lady Anglesey petitioned that her husband might waive his privilege, or for leave to bring in a bill to make it legal for her to live apart from him without fear of being forced to return and with an adequate maintenance. Significantly she did not ask for a divorce: several divorces had been sought by act of Parliament since the Roos case of 1670 but all had been brought by men alleging adultery by their spouses. Lady Anglesey’s case was very different. Despite her mother’s notoriety she was regarded as a modest and affectionate wife who had done nothing to deserve ill treatment at her husband’s hands. She was so frightened of her husband’s violence that she had lived secretly ever since leaving him as Anglesey’s insistence on his privilege prevented her from seeking redress in the ecclesiastical courts. Her bill simply asked Parliament to afford her the same protection as any other woman suffering from marital abuse. The House considered her petition on 25 and 27 Feb., refused to reject it and adjourned the matter on the latter date without answering it, while asking Anglesey to name some peers to mediate with her and ask her to return. Anglesey nominated four peers: Haversham, Laurence Hyde*, earl of Rochester, Robert Shirley*, Earl Ferrers, and John Somers*, Baron Somers. On 3 Mar. Rochester informed the House of her reasons for refusing to return to her husband. Anglesey was then heard in response. He did his cause little good by demanding that his wife be sequestrated to keep her from the influence of her mother for three or four days. Various motions were put forward to adjourn the debate and then to give leave for a bill and then that Anglesey guarantee her safety. Anglesey resolutely stood on his privilege, whereupon the House read her petition, and a motion to reject it was lost. Leave for a bill was given, with Haversham entering a lone and somewhat garbled dissent to the decision.<sup>22</sup></p><p>The bill was presented on 4 Mar. 1701 with the countess of Dorchester acting as an advocate for her daughter and ensuring that she was granted the protection of the House. The evidence that unfolded during the passage of the bill provided entertainment in abundance for society gossips. The king himself attended the House on 13 Mar. to get the story first hand.<sup>23</sup> The hearing of evidence and legal arguments was not completed until the end of April, with the countess being heard herself on 11 Apr. when a committee of the whole considered the bill. On at least one day (25 Mar.) the peers were kept in the House ‘fasting’ until 4 p.m.<sup>24</sup> Observers were left in little doubt that Anglesey was, in the words of Charles Townshend*, 2nd Viscount Townshend, ‘a very barbarous fellow.’<sup>25</sup> Lady Anglesey had been locked up, kicked and pinched. According to one witness she had had to give birth in the dark because Anglesey did not want the midwife to see her injuries. A shocked Lord Chief Justice Holt, describing her bruises, declared that ‘I never saw the like before.’ Anglesey added psychological humiliation to physical abuse. Witnesses described how he had refused to allow his wife to have her hair dressed, saying that ‘it was sluttish and he would not have his lady such a slut’ and had insisted that ‘I will make my wife humble. She is a king’s daughter, but I will make her as humble as a kitchen wench.’<sup>26</sup></p><p>Haversham published his arguments against the bill. According to him Lady Anglesey’s allegations were nothing but ‘an artifice to procure a separation when my lord grew ill and consumptive.’ They ‘derived from nothing but a malicious fancy; my lady’s wishing my lord dead, that she might live at Tunbridge, and where she pleased’. Furthermore the bill created a precedent for ‘any designing wife’.<sup>27</sup> The bill passed the Lords on 29 Apr. and was then sent to the Commons, where the earl petitioned against it on 3 May. A committee of the whole considered the evidence on 22 May. Clearly believing that the countess had been barbarously used and that although the earl had waived his privilege he could resume it, they ‘easily went through the bill.’<sup>28</sup> It passed the Commons without amendment on 24 May, receiving the royal assent on 12 June. Referring back to Anglesey’s affair with Lady Dillon in 1695, Sir Richard Cocks<sup>‡</sup> observed apropos the bill to allow Sir John Dillon to divorce his wife that ‘Lord Anglesey was the occasion of two divorces this sessions of his own from his lady by his barbarous and villainous ill usage and he was the man that first took my Lady Dillon from Sir John.’<sup>29</sup> Although he is listed as having been present in the House on 17 June 1701, Anglesey ‘being sick’ was excused attendance at the trial of Somers. He last attended the House on 24 June, the day it was prorogued.</p><p>Over the summer of 1701 Anglesey stayed at his house in Farnborough where he was visited daily by doctors and nurses. There is little doubt that he was genuinely ill, but there were also increasing suspicions about his mental state. In the course of litigation after Anglesey’s death Haversham insisted that Anglesey had been of sound mind and advanced his activity in the House of Lords in the spring and early summer of 1701 as evidence of this, but others expressed serious doubts about Anglesey’s mental capacity. Several of his servants testified that although he had been able to settle his accounts and even to keep court in his manor at Farnborough, he was ‘not right in his senses’ and that he was irrationally and unpredictably violent. He ascribed an imaginary smell to the presence of the devil who ‘followed him about to plague him’, accused a visiting timber merchant of being a devil because he had warts on his hands, and he beat his horse about the head with an oak stick because it nodded at him. He complained that ‘I have no friends’ and became increasingly dependent on Haversham who seems to have supplied a relative to act as Anglesey’s household chaplain.<sup>30</sup></p><p>By November 1701 Anglesey was reported to be ‘in a dying condition’ and to have given as much of his estate as he could to Haversham.<sup>31</sup> He was excused attendance at the call of the House on 5 Jan. 1702. He died on 18 Jan., apparently attended by his wife, who ‘some weeks be[fore] his death upon his desire she performed her last duty in attending him after a tender manner to his last breath, like a loving and virtuous wife.’<sup>32</sup> Anglesey left an estate of about £7,000 p.a. at his death.<sup>33</sup> A newsletter described his will:</p><blockquote><p>Anglesey has given all his Irish estate which is about £6000 p. annum to his 3rd brother [Arthur], who lately married the Lord Haversham’s daughter, as he would have done his English estate too, which is about £1200 p. annum had he lived to the term to cut off the entail, but that with the honour is all that his 2nd brother [John] has. He returned his lady her jewels which is valued at £4000 and has left his only daughter, a child, £12,000 for her portion for her education and £400 p. annum for her education and maintenance till her marriage.<sup>34</sup></p></blockquote><p>His daughter’s £400 a year was to be used by Haversham, as guardian, with the specification that she was not to be permitted any contact with either her mother or her maternal grandmother and that Haversham need never account for its expenditure. Legacies of £1,000 were left to each of Haversham’s six younger unmarried daughters. Haversham, Arthur Annesley and Justice Coote were named as trustees and executors of the will. Since Arthur Annesley was also Haversham’s son-in-law, it was scarcely surprising that rumours that the two men had exercised undue influence emerged very quickly. A coloured print, on sale at two guineas, depicted the whole sorry story:</p><blockquote><p>His lordship is seated on a necessary stool, his younger brother [Arthur], is holding a bason to him with one hand, and picking his pocket with the other hand. His Lady is led in hanging sleeves and a slobbering bibb; Lady Haversham stands by Mr Annesley holding up her apron to receive the money he picks out of my Lord’s pocket. Sloane the counsellor, is making his will, and Lord Haversham stands looking over him and directing him what he shall write; the parson and Mrs Annesley are holding the door to hinder his brother [John] and sister [Elizabeth] coming to him.<sup>35</sup></p></blockquote><p>The terms of the will led to extensive litigation. Lady Anglesey, who later married John Sheffield*, duke of Buckingham, complained that the brothers’ dispute over the estate prevented her from receiving the maintenance settled under the separation act.<sup>36</sup> Haversham’s daughters and other legatees complained that their legacies had gone unpaid.<sup>37</sup> Anglesey’s successor in the title, his brother John, claimed that the estate was his by virtue of an entail created by their grandfather, the first earl, and that without it he was unable to support the dignity of his peerage.<sup>38</sup> Aspects of the will were still unsettled in 1712 when Buckingham and Arthur Annesley, by then 5th earl of Anglesey, almost came to blows in the House over the guardianship of Lady Buckingham’s daughter.<sup>39</sup></p><p>In 1718 Anglesey’s daughter, Katherine (born about September 1700), clandestinely married William Phipps, son of the former Tory lord chancellor of Ireland, Sir Constantine Phipps, reportedly with £16,000 and the prospect of £100,000 should the 5th earl of Anglesey die without children.<sup>40</sup> The son of this marriage, Constantine Phipps, became Baron Mulgrave [I], in 1767.</p> |
R.P./S.N.H. |
|
ANNESLEY, John (1676-1710) |
<p><strong><surname>ANNESLEY</surname></strong>, <strong>John</strong> (1676–1710)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>bro. 21 Jan. 1702 as 5th Visct. Valentia [I], and 4th earl of ANGLESEY. |
|
First sat 3 Feb. 1702; last sat 18 July 1710 |
|
|
<p><em>bap</em>. 18 Jan. 1676, 2nd s. of James Annesley*, 2nd earl of Anglesey, and Lady Elizabeth (<em>d</em>. 7 Dec. 1700), da. of John Manners*, 8th earl of Rutland; bro. of James Annesley*, later 3rd earl of Anglesey, and Arthur Annesley*, later 5th earl of Anglesey. <em>educ</em>. ?Mr. Dyer’s sch. in Chelsea c.1681.<sup>1</sup> <em>m</em>. 21 May 1706, Henrietta Maria (<em>d</em>. 26 June 1718), <em>suo jure</em> Baroness Strange, da. of William George Richard Stanley*, 9th earl of Derby, and Lady Elizabeth Butler, 1da. <em>d.s.p.m. </em>18 Sept. 1710; <em>will</em> 14 June 1708, pr. Sept. 1710.<sup>2</sup></p> |
<p>PC 10 July 1710-<em>d</em>.<sup>3</sup></p><p>V.-treas. [I], 1710; recvr. gen. and paymaster of HM forces [I], 1710.</p> |
|
<p>Annesley was baptized at the family seat of Farnborough. Little is known of his early life and education, although his grandfather, Arthur Annesley*, earl of Anglesey, recorded in October 1681 that he and his elder brother, James ‘went to school’, presumably to Mr. Dyer’s establishment in Chelsea.<sup>5</sup></p><p>When Annesley became 4th earl of Anglesey in January 1702 he did not inherit all of his late brother’s estate. His brother had left all the estate he could to his younger brother, Arthur Annesley*, later 5th earl of Anglesey, who had married Mary, the daughter of his friend John Thompson*, Baron Haversham. As one newsletter put it the new earl had lost the family’s Irish estates worth about £6,000 p.a. but had retained the English estates worth about £1,200 p.a.<sup>6</sup> This resulted in a legal dispute in which the 4th earl claimed the bequest was illegal.<sup>7</sup> Interestingly, there is no record that the 3rd earl ever took his seat in the Irish house of lords.</p><p>Anglesey first took his seat in the Westminster House of Lords on 3 Feb. 1702. He was an active member from the outset, being present at 63 sittings in the session of 1701-2, 63 per cent of the total, and 83 per cent of those for which he was eligible to sit. Anglesey brought two cases of breach of privilege before the House on 25 Feb. 1702. One concerned the illegal possession of his house in Bletchingdon, Oxfordshire, for five days from 29 Jan. 1702 by Charles Barret ‘for Mr. Annesley, after the said earl was in quiet possession’, the second concerned Henry Cole’s demand for the payment of rent from Anglesey’s Irish tenants, after the earl had discharged them from so doing. Both these issues were related to Anglesey’s dispute with his brother Arthur.<sup>8</sup></p><p>In the session of 1702-3, Anglesey was present at 60 sittings of the House, an attendance rate of 90 per cent. Anglesey was appointed on 17 Dec. to manage a conference with the Commons on the bill to prevent occasional conformity. Following some discussion of the amendments to this bill, on 18 Dec. he was named to the committee to search for precedents of bills with penalties begun in the Lords and also of bills whose penalties had been altered by the Lords; William Nicolson*, bishop of Carlisle, recorded him attending the committee on 23 December.<sup>9</sup> In about January 1703, Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, predicted that Anglesey would support the bill to prevent occasional conformity, and on 16 Jan. 1703 he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause in the bill, a Whig wrecking amendment. On 12 Feb. 1703 Anglesey acted as a teller against reversing the judgment in the case of Thomas Wharton*, 5th baron Wharton, v. Robert Squire.</p><p>In March 1703 the dowager countess was in litigation in chancery in order to secure her jointure of £2,000, during which she claimed that Anglesey, Haversham and Arthur Annesley had taken possession of her husband’s real or personal estate, the latter amounting to £30,000 made up of plate, cash debts and £14,000 of her own. She also claimed they had taken all the writings with intent to defraud her and that although the earl and Arthur Annesley were in dispute, they had both assured her that her jointure was safe.<sup>10</sup> This matter was accommodated in April 1703 following a hearing in Chancery.<sup>11</sup> Haversham claimed in a deposition that both Anglesey and his brother had gone to Ireland in 1702 to take possession of the Irish lands.<sup>12</sup> The dispute between Anglesey and his younger brother appears to have been settled in or before 1705.<sup>13</sup></p><p>Anglesey was absent from the beginning of the 1703-4 session on 9 Nov. 1703, attending first on 7 December. Nevertheless, he was present on 69 days, an attendance rate of 71 per cent. In or about November 1703 Charles Spencer*, 3rd earl of Sunderland, forecast that Anglesey would favour the renewed attempt to pass the bill against occasional conformity, an assessment Sunderland reinforced in late November or early December. Anglesey duly voted for the bill on 14 Dec. 1703. On 18 Dec. he reported from the committee appointed to count the ballot for selecting peers to examine Bouchier and Ogleby over the ‘Scotch plot’. His name was included on a list of members of both Houses drawn up by Nottingham in 1704, which may indicate support for him over the plot. On 16 Feb. 1704 Anglesey acted as a teller on the question of whether to reverse the judgment in the case of <em>Hassell v. Knatchbull</em> and again on 25 Feb. on the question of whether to reverse the decree in the case of <em>Rowe v. Cockayne</em>. On 21 Mar. he acted as a teller on the question of whether to adjourn the proceedings on the recruiting bill, following which the bill was passed and Anglesey joined in signing the protest against it. On 24 Mar. he acted as a teller on a division on the motion that part of Sir John Maclean’s narrative relating to his examination on the ‘Scotch plot’ by Nottingham was imperfect.</p><p>Anglesey was absent from the beginning of the 1704-5 session on 24 Oct. 1704, attending first on 4 November. He attended 75 days of the session, which was 75 per cent of the sittings. Anglesey was listed as a likely supporter of the Tack in about November 1704.<sup>14</sup> On 15 Dec. he argued for giving the bill against occasional conformity a second reading, replying to a point made by Charles Montagu*, Baron Halifax, that Queen Elizabeth had discountenanced being hard on the Puritans, with the hope that ‘care would be taken that our religion might be transmitted to posterity <em>semper eadem</em>.’<sup>15</sup> He duly acted as a teller in favour of the bill’s second reading and on 27 Feb. 1705 was named to the committee to prepare heads for a conference with the Commons on the Aylesbury case. On the question of the succession in April 1705 he was thought to be ‘Jacobite’ in his views.</p><p>In the general election campaign of 1705, Anglesey wrote to James Hamilton*, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], in support of the successful candidate for Preston, his cousin, Francis Annesley<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>16</sup> During the 1705-6 Parliament Anglesey attended on 70 days, over 95 per cent of sittings and was named to many committees, including the committee on 12 Nov. 1705 to draw up an address to the queen regarding progress towards an Act of Union with Scotland (which Nicolson recorded him attending on the following day).<sup>17</sup> On 15 Nov. he supported Haversham’s ‘Hanover motion’ for the heir presumptive to be invited to England.<sup>18</sup> He protested against the Lords’ decision on 30 Nov. not to give further instructions to the committee on the regency bill. On 3 Dec. he protested against the rejection of a rider to prevent the lords justices from giving the royal assent to bills for repealing laws against papists or a bill repealing the act for settling the succession to the throne. He spoke on 6 Dec. in the debate on the Queen’s speech to support the motion of John Sharp*, archbishop of York, that instructions be issued to the judges to enquire into the laws governing dissenting seminaries and duly protested against the resolution of the House that ‘the Church of England was not in danger’.<sup>19</sup> On 31 Jan. 1706 Anglesey acted as a teller on the regency bill, probably over whether to insert the word ‘repeal’ instead of ‘regulated and altered’ in the Commons’ amendment.</p><p>Anglesey attended on 53 days of the 1706-7 session, 62 per cent of total. He protested on 3 Feb. 1707 against the Lords’ decision to reject a motion for a bill to prevent dangers that could arise from popish recusants. On 15 Feb. he argued for the postponement of the first article of the Union because he felt he needed to know what the Union was to consist of before he agreed to it in principle and duly acted as a teller for that motion.<sup>20</sup> Also on the Union, on 4 Mar., Anglesey entered his dissent against the rejection of a rider that acceptance of the bill should not in any way be taken as an acknowledgment that the established Presbyterian Church of Scotland was the ‘true protestant religion’. He also entered his dissent against the passage of the bill. On 11 Mar. he acted as a teller on the second reading of the game bill.</p><p>Anglesey was also involved in legal proceedings in the House in this session, as a consequence of his marriage the previous year to Lady Henrietta Maria Stanley. This marriage involved Anglesey in litigation with her uncle, James Stanley*, 10th earl of Derby. On 7 Feb. 1707 Anglesey’s mother-in-law, the dowager countess of Derby, petitioned the Lords relating to a legal dispute over her jointure and the current earl of Derby waiving his privilege. Bishop Nicolson commented on 10 Feb. 1707 that the ‘waiving of privilege was adjusted ‘twixt the earls of Derby and Anglesey’.<sup>21</sup> On 5 Mar. Anglesey, his wife and his sister-in-law petitioned that Derby not be allowed to resume his privilege, which Derby agreed on 8 March. The suit between the daughters and coheirs of the 9th earl and the current earl was heard in Lancaster in April 1707, with both Anglesey and Derby present.<sup>22</sup> In July Anglesey complained to the privy council about the use by Derby, as the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, of the duchy seal in the dispute between them.<sup>23</sup></p><p>In the short session of April 1707 Anglesey attended four of the nine sittings of the House, 44 per cent of the total. In the 1707-8 session Anglesey’s attendance in the Lords dropped to 31 days, 28 per cent of the total, and he was named to seven committees of the House. On a printed list of the members of the first Parliament of Great Britain in May 1708 Anglesey was noted as a Tory.</p><p>James Johnston<sup>‡</sup> in December 1708 referred to Tory leaders criticizing ministers: one of them was Anglesey, who when ‘speaking of augmentations and recruits said all was good for filling great men’s pockets’; however, it is not clear when he said this as he was not listed as attending the House until later in the session.<sup>24</sup> Anglesey was present on only four occasions in the 1708-9 session, sitting on four consecutive days in March, an attendance rate of 4 per cent. He first attended on 15 Mar. when he protested against committing the bill for the naturalization of foreign protestants.</p><p>Anglesey was again missing from the opening of the 1709-10 session, attending first on 1 Feb. 1710. He was present at 35 sittings, 34 per cent of the total. He protested on 16 Mar. against the question that the Commons had proven the first article of their impeachment against Dr Sacheverell. On 20 Mar. he voted Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, duly protesting against the verdict. On 21 Mar. he protested against the sentence passed against Sacheverell. The Rev. Ralph Bridges listed Anglesey along with Henry Compton*, bishop of London, Thomas Osborne*, duke of Leeds, and John Sheffield*, duke of Buckingham, as Tories who were critical of Sacheverell’s indiscretion, but believed that his actions did not merit an impeachment.<sup>25</sup> On 1 Apr. he acted as a teller on a motion to adjourn the House when it was considering the amendments made by the Commons to the bill for making more effectual the act for rebuilding Eddistone lighthouse, the failure of which led to the Lords declining to insist on their amendment to the bill.</p><p>Anglesey was a key player in the schemes of Robert Harley*, the future earl of Oxford, for a remodelled ministry, mainly as a means of satisfying the Tories. Arthur Maynwaring<sup>‡</sup> picked this up in May 1710, writing that ‘anyone that had seen the fulsome joy and greatness that appeared between Lady Hyde and Lord Anglesey would have been sick’, and that he expected Sunderland to be replaced as secretary by Anglesey.<sup>26</sup> Ralph Bridges also picked up this hope among Tory sympathizers on 22 May.<sup>27</sup> Several of Harley’s memoranda drawn up during this period mention Anglesey: one dated 20 May asked the question: ‘Lord Anglesey can you do less to please them’?<sup>28</sup> John Poulett*, Earl Poulett, on 7 June was still pressing Harley very strongly on Anglesey’s behalf, pointing out that Harley had named him as a possible alternative to Poulett.<sup>29</sup> It was still being suggested on 18 June that Anglesey would succeed Sunderland, but this proved not to be the case, owing to opposition from the queen buoyed up by arguments from Charles Seymour*, 6th duke of Somerset, Leeds and Buckingham.<sup>30</sup> William Legge*, 2nd Baron Dartmouth, thought that the Whigs were too averse to Anglesey for him to be appointed secretary at this time.<sup>31</sup></p><p>Anglesey’s appointment to the ministry was described by Sidney Godolphin*, earl of Godolphin, on 9 July 1710 as ‘another very disagreeable alteration.’<sup>32</sup> He was appointed to the English Privy Council, replacing Thomas Coningsby<sup>†</sup>, Baron Coningsby [I], as vice-treasurer of Ireland and receiver general and paymaster of her majesty’s forces in Ireland, posts said to be worth £6,000 per annum.<sup>33</sup> As John Erskine*, 22nd earl of Mar [S], wrote on 8 July, Anglesey’s appointment in place of Coningsby was ‘to make amends for his being baulked of being secretary, and a good equivalent it is.’<sup>34</sup> On 27 July Anglesey wrote to Sir Thomas Hanmer<sup>‡</sup> to solicit his interest for Heneage Finch<sup>†</sup>, the future 2nd earl of Aylesford, and Sir Francis Vincent<sup>‡</sup> in the Surrey county election.<sup>35</sup></p><p>Anglesey, Harley and Poulett were summoned to the cabinet on 13 Aug. 1710, a crucial set of appointments which led to the cabinet being balanced owing to the absence of Wharton and John Holles*, duke of Newcastle, until Anglesey fell ill in September. He attended his last cabinet on 7 Sept. 1710.<sup>36</sup></p><p>At the end of August 1710 John Ward<sup>‡ </sup>expected Anglesey to be travelling to Ireland soon, presumably as Wharton’s replacement as lord lieutenant. The duchess of Roxburghe told her father, Nottingham, that Harley was triumphant at having brought both Anglesey and Dartmouth into employment rather than the leaders of the high Tories, Nottingham and Laurence Hyde*, earl of Rochester.<sup>37</sup> Anglesey had the advantage of being independent of these Tory chieftains, while retaining friendship with them. Indeed, White Kennet<sup>†</sup>, the future bishop of Peterborough, later recorded being told by Thomas Gooch<sup>†</sup>, the future bishop of Norwich, that Anglesey would have been the chief minister in ecclesiastical affairs had he lived.<sup>38</sup> His death was undoubtedly a blow to Harley’s plans, as James Brydges*, later duke of Chandos, acknowledged when he noted that ‘for quickness of parts, solidity of judgment and all the improvements reading could give him [he was], inferior to none in the nation.’<sup>39</sup> Swift concurred, noting him ‘the great support of the Tories.’<sup>40</sup> However, George Lockhart<sup>‡</sup> claimed that at the time of his death Anglesey was entirely in the interest of the Pretender.<sup>41</sup></p><p>Anglesey died unexpectedly at noon on 18 Sept. 1710 ‘of a very high fever, this being the 11th day’, and was buried at Farnborough.<sup>42</sup> He left only a daughter living, although as his wife was allegedly pregnant at the time of his death, his younger brother, Arthur, had to wait for confirmation of his succession to the earldom.<sup>43</sup></p><p>In his will Anglesey left his estate in England and Ireland to his brother Arthur, now the 5th earl, subject to the payment of £1,000 to his wife, £200 to his cousin Francis Annesley, £100 to Vincent Oakley of the Middle Temple and an annuity of £500 to his sister Lady Elizabeth Gayer. His widow subsequently married John Ashburnham*, earl of Ashburnham, in 1714, as his second wife.</p> |
A.C./S.N.H. |
|
ARUNDELL, Henry (1608-94) |
<p><strong><surname>ARUNDELL</surname></strong>, <strong>Henry</strong> (1608–94)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 19 May 1643 as 3rd Bar. ARUNDELL of WARDOUR |
|
First sat 21 May 1660; last sat 24 Oct. 1678 |
|
|
<p><em>bap</em>. 23 Feb. 1608, s. of Thomas Arundell<sup>†</sup>, 2nd Bar. Arundell of Wardour and Blanche, da. of Edward Somerset<sup>†</sup>, 4th earl of Worcester. <em>educ</em>. Univ. of Padua 1658; G. Inn 1669 (hon. admiss.). <em>m</em>. (settlement c.1629),<sup>1</sup> Cicely (<em>d</em>.1676), da. of Sir Henry Compton KB of Brambletye, Suss. and Cicely, da. of Robert Sackville<sup>†</sup>, 2nd earl of Dorset, wid. of Sir John Fermor of Somerton, Oxon. 2s. 1da.<sup>2</sup> <em>d</em>. 28 Dec.1694; <em>will</em> n.d., pr. 12 Aug. 1695.<sup>3</sup></p> |
<p>PC 1686-9; ld. privy seal 11 Mar. 1687-8.</p><p>Dep. lt. Cornw. July 1688; ld. lt. Dorset July 1688.<sup>4</sup></p> |
<p>Likenesses: oil on canvas by Sir G. Kneller, sold by Christies, 8 June 1995.</p> |
<p><em>Before the Restoration</em></p><p>Arundell of Wardour represented an ancient Catholic family whose extensive estates were based in the west country around the family seat of Wardour Castle in Wiltshire and extending into Somerset, Dorset and Devon as well as Hampshire and Middlesex. Even before the Civil War these estates were said to have been heavily encumbered.<sup>6</sup> During the Civil War he was an active royalist who was so dedicated to the king’s cause that after he recaptured Wardour Castle in March 1644 he destroyed it to prevent it being recaptured and used as a fortress by the rebels. It is possible, though, that he was grateful for the opportunity of doing away with a building that he may by then have been hard pressed to maintain. He subsequently moved the family residence to nearby Breamore on the Hampshire/Wiltshire border, a house owned by the Dodington family. The loss of his two sons as captives to the parliamentarians in 1643, threats to educate them at a dissenting academy in Essex and the need to negotiate their release from the custody of Sir Edward Hungerford<sup>‡</sup> as part of an exchange of prisoners in the summer of 1644, provided powerful incentives for him to secure his own rehabilitation with the Cromwellian regime, especially as he must have realized that the royalist cause was lost.<sup>7</sup> The threat of forfeiture of lands no doubt also concentrated his mind. An undated petition amongst his papers (probably drawn up as part of the proceedings in the Commons in the summer of 1652) reveals that he claimed to have been ‘only engaged one summer in the first war’ and stressed his good conduct towards the rebels including his ‘good fortune’ in saving the life of his opponent General Edmund Ludlow<sup>‡ </sup>at ‘the hazard of his own’. After a brief sojourn overseas he had returned to England where he lived ‘in a humble conformity to the government’. Arundell’s good offices towards Ludlow and his subsequent retirement from royalist activity appear to have provided the basis for his successful claim to be exempted from the act authorizing the forfeiture of lands to the Commonwealth.<sup>8</sup> Two manors in Oxfordshire that were forfeited were bought back on his behalf by his maternal aunt’s husband, Humphrey Weld<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>9</sup></p><p>Arundell was involved in at least one high-profile scrape during the Interregnum; he was convicted of manslaughter in 1652, after acting as second in a duel which led to the death of his brother-in-law Colonel Henry Compton (he appears to have been acting against Compton in the fray).The House of Lords having been abolished, he was refused privilege and had to fall back on benefit of clergy to save his life.<sup>10</sup> He, and his partner in the action, James Brydges<sup>†</sup>, 6th Baron Chandos, were in consequence subjected to the standard sentence of being burnt in the hand and imprisoned for one year.</p><p><em>From the Restoration to the Popish Plot, 1660-78</em></p><p>Arundell took his seat in the Convention on 21 May 1660. He was present on just over 94 per cent of the remaining sitting days of the session prior to the September adjournment (79 per cent of the whole), but was appointed to only two committees. It is possible that he was present on a higher proportion of days than the attendance lists suggest. For example, although his name does not appear in the attendance list that day, on 19 June he was named to the committee to inspect acts and ordinances. Arundell clearly had personal reasons for participating in parliamentary business. On 30 June he obtained orders from the House to enable him to recover goods taken away during the wars. Later that same day he obtained an order specifically authorizing him to search the premises of Colonel Ludlow, Lady Hungerford, and Mr. Stroud, and to break open ‘any doors, trunks, chest, or box, that shall not be opened in obedience to this order’. During the session he also introduced a bill to restore him to his estates. The Journal notes a second reading for the bill on 30 Aug. but this is perhaps an error since no first reading is recorded. Arundell returned to the House following the September adjournment on 6 Nov. and was again assiduous in his attendance, being present on 80 per cent of all sitting days. Either the bill first introduced in the previous session for the restoration of his estates or a similar bill received a second reading on 6 Nov. and the royal assent on 29 December.</p><p>At the beginning of 1661 Arundell was noted as one of those peers yet to pay his contribution to the poll bill. He does not seem to have exercised any obvious interest in his native Wiltshire in the elections to the new Parliament. He took his place in the first session on 8 May and was then present for just over 91 per cent of sitting days. On 26 May he was entrusted with the proxy of fellow Catholic, Edward Vaux*, Baron Vaux, who had been granted leave of absence at a call a few days earlier.<sup>11</sup> On 21 June when the House intended to debate the sanguinary laws against Catholics, Arundell presented a paper from and on behalf of the Catholic community. The House then heard a recital of the statute of Elizabeth concerning the oath of supremacy and ‘fell into a long debate’. When the debate was resumed a week later, on 28 June, the House resolved ‘that nothing hath been offered to this House to move their Lordships to alter any thing in the said oaths’ and referred the question to a select committee. Although Arundell was named to the committee, along with other prominent Catholic peers such as George Digby*, 2nd earl of Bristol, and John Belasyse*, Baron Belasyse, they were more than outnumbered by conventional Anglicans and Dissenting sympathizers, including Philip Wharton*, 4th Baron Wharton, whose notes suggest that he had led the debate against Arundell.<sup>12</sup> Nevertheless, on 16 July Arundell was named to the committee to prepare a bill repealing certain parts of the penal laws against Catholics. The committee’s proposals, which would have brought a considerable measure of Catholic relief, were never implemented. According to Edward Hyde*, earl of Clarendon, they failed because of divisions amongst the Catholics; for their part the Catholics blamed Clarendon. The French ambassador agreed with them; so it seems did the king.<sup>13</sup> If a pamphlet that was circulated at this time can be identified with Arundell, it suggests that although he wanted toleration for Catholics his support for toleration for Dissenters was decidedly lukewarm, for the writer described Presbyterians as men ‘whose phrenetical [sic], giddy zeal, will be confined within no circle of order’.<sup>14</sup></p><p>Despite the failure of the committee’s attempts to reform the penal laws, his participation in its work seems to have marked Arundell’s arrival as a parliamentary figure of some note. On 18 July he was named to the committee considering the bill for regulating corporations. Earlier that month he had been thought to be a supporter of the bid by Aubrey de Vere*, 20th earl of Oxford, for the great chamberlaincy.</p><p>Arundell returned to his seat in the House following the summer recess on 21 November. He may have been suffering from poor health as on 25 Nov., although he was present on the attendance list for that day, he was later noted missing at a call of the House. If he was sick, it did not impair his attendance significantly and he was back in his place the following day. On 24 Jan. 1662 he was named to the committee for drawing up a bill to repeal acts of the Long Parliament. Over the course of the whole session Arundell was named to over 26 committees, including those to consider bills for Sir Edmund Powell and Charles Stanley*, 8th earl of Derby. Both bills sought to use the legislative power of Parliament to overturn earlier land sales. Presumably his voice was not always heard at committee, for on 26 Feb. 1662 he entered a dissent to the passage of Derby’s bill, arguing that it was wrong to use the law to overturn a valid and voluntary transaction. He chaired one session of a select committee on 1 Mar. 1662; he then chaired meetings of the committee considering Thomas Peck’s bill on 26 Mar. and 2 Apr., before reporting it on 9 April.<sup>15</sup> He was also named as one of the mediators in the bill to confirm the king’s award for composing the differences between John Paulet*, 5th marquess of Winchester, and his eldest son Charles Powlett*, then styled Lord St. John (later duke of Bolton). On 26 Apr. he was added to the committee considering the distribution of £60,000 among commissioned officers who had served in the former royalist army. It was perhaps an indication of Arundell’s standing at court that some months after the close of the session, in October 1662, Gilbert Sheldon*, bishop of London, felt obliged to write to John Cosin*, of Durham, warning him that his ‘severity’ against Arundell’s son ‘will not well comply with the lenity of his Majesty’s government’.<sup>16</sup></p><p>Arundell was present on just under 77 per cent of sitting days in the 1663 session. He was named to the committees for privileges and petitions and to 11 other committees, including that to review and repeal acts of the Long Parliament and for the bill to compose differences between Winchester and his son (in which he was again named as one of the mediators). He was named one of the commissioners for the assessment of peers and was also appointed one of the mediators in the dispute between George Nevill*, 11th Baron Abergavenny, and his wife. He held the proxy of the superannuated Thomas Brudenell*, earl of Cardigan, from 5 Mar. and that of Marmaduke Langdale*, 2nd Baron Langdale, from 12 March. The impetus to hold the proxies was probably related to the debates of that month over the king’s powers in ecclesiastical affairs – a subject about which Arundell’s detailed but undated notes still survive.<sup>17</sup> Later in the session Wharton thought that he intended to use the proxies in support of Bristol’s abortive attempt to impeach Clarendon.<sup>18</sup></p><p>Arundell was present on every day of the short spring session of 1664. He was named to the committees for privileges and petitions and to three select committees considering the bills for transportation, for the sale of Sir William Armine’s lands in Lincolnshire and for the prevention of ‘deceitful, disorderly and excessive gaming.’ His attendance remained high during the following (1664-5 session) when he was present for 81 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committee for privileges and to five select committees for bills in which he may well have had a personal interest. They related to legislation promoted by fellow Catholic Philip Smythe<sup>‡</sup>, 2nd Viscount Strangford [I], by Arundell’s kinsman, Nicholas Tufton*, 3rd earl of Thanet, and by his fellow anti-Clarendonian, Sir Robert Carr<sup>‡</sup>. One of the remaining two bills concerned a matter of local interest, the navigation of the River Avon. The only bill in which he had no obvious interest was that relating to Deeping Fen, although it is possible that this related to his activity in relation to the estate of Sir William Armine in which a fellow Catholic peer, Belasyse, certainly did have an interest. Arundell held the proxy of William Stourton*, 11th Baron Stourton, for the whole of the session. Stourton was not only his Wiltshire neighbour, he was a fellow Catholic and also an opponent of Clarendon.</p><p>Arundell attended only two days (though three sittings) of the autumn 1665 session in Oxford. He was then present on 70 per cent of sitting days of the following (1666-7) session during which he was nominated to the committee for privileges. He again held Stourton’s proxy for the whole of the session. He was also named to nine select committees: to naturalize the wife of Denzil Holles*, Baron Holles, to prevent atheism and swearing, for Bedford Level (to which he was added on 5 Feb. 1667), for the rebuilding of London and for the estates of Leicester Grosvenor, Henry Mildmay (to which he was added on 8 Jan.) and Sir Seymour Shirley. He was also named to the committee to examine the French merchants and to wait on the king to represent the ‘sad condition’ of his kinsman Edward Somerset*, 2nd marquess of Worcester, and his wife.</p><p>During the troubled session 1667-9, Arundell was present on 91 per cent of sitting days and was again named to the committee for privileges. He held Stourton’s proxy throughout. On 7 Dec. he was also added to the committees for privileges, and the Journal. The same day he was named to the committee for the bill for banishing Clarendon. Between the opening of the session in October and the end of the year he was named to 13 committees. Some, such as those to consider the Irish cattle bill, the banishing of Clarendon and public accounts were of major political importance; others may have reflected personal interests and alliances. On 9 Dec. he was one of five peers (four of them Catholic) to be added to the committee for Sir William Juxon’s bill. His nomination to the committee for adventurers in the fens may have reflected expertise gained on earlier bills. He was also nominated to the bill for Sir Richard Wiseman: Wiseman had entered Parliament on the recommendation of James*, duke of York; he drew up the heads of accusations against Clarendon; and was or was about to become a client of Henry Bennet*, Baron (later earl of) Arlington. However, he was also nominated to the committee for the bill for William Palmes, who entered Parliament the following year and subsequently proved to be an anti-Catholic and a supporter of the Test Act. During 1668 he was named to a further 11 committees. Again some, such as the bills for the inspection of acts, additional hearth money and for the prevention of robberies, were of national importance. Others, such as Sir John Weld’s bill, probably had personal significance. Weld was a kinsman by marriage. He was also a Wiltshire neighbour, having bought the manor of Compton Bassett in 1663; he was a prominent Catholic with close ties to the impoverished Catholic peers, Stourton and Thomas Parker*, 15th Baron Morley.<sup>19</sup></p><p>According to James II’s account, Arundell was present at a meeting on 25 Jan. 1669 to discuss what was to become known as the secret treaty of Dover. The reliability of this account has been called into question since although James claimed to have been present himself, another source suggests that he did not learn of his brother’s intentions until the following March.<sup>20</sup> Whatever the truth of the matter, Arundell was clearly deeply in the king’s confidence and was entrusted by him to negotiate with the French. His instructions made it clear that secrecy was all-important so that although Arundell travelled to France that autumn for preliminary negotiations, the true purpose of his visit was cloaked by his appointment as one of the commissioners for overseeing the winding up of the estates and arranging the funeral of the Queen Dowager Henrietta Maria.<sup>21</sup> He was not able to stay there long for fear of ‘giving a strong jealousy’ that would betray the secret.<sup>22</sup></p><p>Arundell was back in England in time to attend the opening of the 1670-71 session on 14 Feb. 1670. He was thereafter present on nearly 77 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committees for privileges and petitions, to the committee to enquire into the plight of poor prisoners for debt and, when its proposals were incorporated in a bill, to the committee responsible for considering the measure. During the course of the session he was also nominated to 20 other select committees, including that to consider ways of preventing the growth of popery (to which all present were nominated) and two committees responding to the problems of poor prisoners. On 17 and 18 Mar. 1670 he entered protests against the passage of the Roos divorce bill and in May he was one of the signatories to the secret treaty of Dover. He again held Stourton’s proxy for the whole of the session. On 24 Oct., the day on which Parliament resumed after the summer recess, he joined with Arlington in introducing his co-religionist, Henry Howard*, as Baron Howard of Castle Rising (the future 6th duke of Norfolk).</p><p>Arundell again stood sponsor to a prominent new Catholic peer on 30 Oct. 1672 when he introduced Thomas Clifford*, as Baron Clifford of Chudleigh. When Parliament resumed in February 1673, attitudes towards Catholics, prompted by opposition to the declaration of indulgence, had hardened. Some moderate Catholics had foreseen just such a reaction. Together with Protestant opponents of the Declaration they blamed the king’s actions on the influence of Arundell and Clifford, who were too ‘furious’ in their pursuit of toleration.<sup>23</sup> Yet according to James II’s memoirs, his brother had used Arundell and Clifford as intermediaries in an attempt to persuade him to take the Anglican sacrament at Christmas 1672.<sup>24</sup> Arundell was present on nearly 78 per cent of sitting days. He was not named to the committee for privileges, though he was named to that for petitions. On 13 Feb. he was named to the committee for Sir Robert Berkeley’s bill and on 14 Feb. he was named to the committees for Sir Ralph Banks’ bill and for the bill for regulating the multiplicity of attorneys. On 28 Feb. 1673 the Commons voted in favour of an address to the Crown for the suppression of popery and for the preparation of a bill incapacitating all persons from public office who refused the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and who failed to take the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England.<sup>25</sup> A week later, on 5 Mar., in what must have seemed to have been a direct and deliberate retaliation, Arundell was named to the committee to prepare a bill of advice to the king in response to the Commons’ complaint over the Declaration of Indulgence. Arundell’s position of trust at court made him an obvious target for the anti-Catholic opposition and on either 15 (according to Grey’s <em>Debates</em>) or 17 Mar. 1673 (according to the Commons Journal) Robert Thomas sought to include ‘the hazard of the king’s person, by having the Lord Arundell of Wardour, Father Patrick, and Colonel Talbot near about him’ included in the Commons’ list of grievances.<sup>26</sup> Perhaps significantly, Arundell was named to no more committees that session.</p><p>Arundell was present for three of the four sitting days of the autumn 1673 session during which he was named to the committees for privileges and petitions; his attendance dropped to a little under 24 per cent in the 1674 session (nine days of a possible 38), but as he was present at the opening of the session he was again named to the committees for privileges and petitions. He was named to just one other committee – that to consider the bill for encouraging manufactures. His enemies were clearly growing in confidence and began a prosecution against him for recusancy. Arundell was not present on 28 Jan. 1674 when the House ruled that as he was not a convicted recusant he was entitled to privilege and that any indictment brought against him should be brought before king’s bench by a writ of <em>certiorari</em>, in which event it was ordered, ‘the king’s attorney shall enter a <em>non</em> <em>pros</em>. upon the same.’ Belasyse’s proxy was registered to him on 14 Feb. but its use must have been limited as Belasyse was listed as present both on 14 Feb. and the next sitting day, Monday 16 February.</p><p>Arundell was present on all but two days of the sittings during the April-June 1675 session. On 29 Apr., although he was present on the attendance list, he was noted missing at a call of the House and he was also noted as one of the Lords yet to take the oath of allegiance. As usual he was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. He was, though, named to no select committees at all. During the bad-tempered autumn 1675 session he was present on all but two sitting days and was again named to the committees for privileges and petitions. He was named to two select committees: for the bills to prevent frauds and perjuries and for Alexander Davies. On 20 Nov. 1675 he voted in favour of the address to the crown to dissolve Parliament as the only solution to the impasse over <em>Sherley v. Fagg</em>.<sup>27</sup></p><p>During the 1677-8 session Arundell was present on every day. He was named to the committees for privileges and petitions and to 16 select committees, including the committee to enquire into the authorship and publication of the pamphlet <em>Some Considerations upon the Question, whether the Parliament is dissolved by Prorogation for Fifteen Months</em> and for the bills concerning church rates, the prevention of incestuous marriages and Ledbury Vicarage. He held Langdale’s proxy from 10 Mar. 1677 for the remainder of the session. Not surprisingly Anthony Ashley Cooper*, earl of Shaftesbury, listed him as triply vile. On 4 Apr. he voted with the majority to find Philip Herbert*, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter.</p><p><em>Arrest and imprisonment 1678-84</em></p><p>Arundell attended every day bar one of the May-July 1678 session. He was named to the committees of privileges and petitions and to seven select committees, including that considering the bill to prevent abuses in returning jurors. Arundell was then present for the opening of the autumn 1678 session on 21 Oct., when he was nominated to the committees for privileges and petitions. If he had hoped that his nomination to select committees in the previous session signalled the end of fears of his Catholicism, he was sadly mistaken. He continued to attend the House until his arrest on the evening of 24 Oct. on a charge of high treason, having been named by Titus Oates in information provided to the Commons the previous day as one of the chief conspirators in the Popish Plot. He also featured prominently in the testimony of Oates’s allies. According to Oates, Arundell was to be lord chancellor in the regime to be established after the king’s assassination. Bedloe later further elaborated that Arundell was to be one of five Catholic peers entrusted with the running of the country in the event of York refusing to accept the throne. Another informant emphasized how close Arundell was to York.<sup>28</sup> It was perhaps symptomatic both of the standing of the Arundells and of the generalized suspicions that were evoked by the depth of their commitment to Catholicism that Arundell now found himself the third generation of his house to be accused of leading a Catholic plot against the Crown.<sup>29</sup></p><p>The investigation into the Popish Plot had little difficulty in establishing that Arundell was in frequent contact with Edward Coleman and a search of his papers corroborated Oates’ allegation that Arundell’s grandson was being educated at St. Omer – a piece of information that was almost certainly already well known.<sup>30</sup> Exaggerated rumours spread very readily. ‘It is whispered’ wrote Dr. William Denton ‘that opening Lord Arundell of Wardour’s trunks the first thing they lighted on was a draft of an act of Parliament for the suppressing the Protestant religion.’<sup>31</sup> On 5 Dec. 1678 Arundell was formally impeached – a move that may well have been designed to wrong-foot the court. It certainly surprised Henry Somerset*, 3rd marquess of Worcester (later duke of Beaufort), who had expected a trial in the court of the lord high steward on the indictment that had been returned by the Middlesex grand jury on 3 December.<sup>32</sup> The court of the lord high steward, consisting as it did of nominated peers, would have been far more amenable to royal pressure than a trial in the whole House. It could also be held when Parliament was not in session.</p><p>On 13 Jan. 1679, as a result of information provided to the committee examining the plot by Stephen Dugdale, Arundell was ordered to be kept a close prisoner. One of his servants, George Messenger, was also implicated as one of the supposed assassins. On 21 Jan. Arundell was examined in the Tower (as were the other imprisoned peers). Asked whether he knew the Jesuit, Ireland, he replied that he did but insisted that he had been in Wiltshire throughout September (when secret meetings were supposed to have taken place) and that having returned to London at the close of September he almost at once set out for Newmarket. Further evidence in his favour was provided by the imprisoned William Howard*, Viscount Stafford, who insisted that he was unlikely to be caballing with Arundell as they had been on poor terms since 1654 when Arundell had sided with Henry Howard*, who had since succeeded as 6th duke of Norfolk, against Stafford in a family quarrel.<sup>33</sup></p><p>After this brief flurry of activity, the progress of the impeachment slowed as the Commons had become convinced that it was necessary to deal with the trial of Thomas Osborne*, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds) first. The dissolution of 24 Jan. 1679 would under normal circumstances have put paid to the impeachment process, but on 19 Mar. 1679 the House voted, contrary to former practice, that ‘the dissolution of the last Parliament doth not alter the state of the impeachments brought up by the Commons in that Parliament.’ By early May it was reported that ‘although every body is weary of this plot yet we cannot get rid of it’ and that the trials would go ahead, but when on 27 May 1679 Arundell and the other Catholic peers were brought to the House to take their trials, continuing disputes between Lords and Commons about procedural issues led instead to prorogation.<sup>34</sup></p><p>In November 1680 with the campaign for exclusion in full swing and as Arundell began the third year of his imprisonment, he was dismayed to learn of a threat to remove his four Catholic servants from him and replace them with Protestants. He petitioned the House to have some consideration for his old age – he was by now 72 – but the petition was not read and the fate of his servants remains unknown.<sup>35</sup> In the meantime the case against him continued to build as witnesses came forward prepared to testify that Arundell had offered them money to assassinate the king.<sup>36</sup> Nevertheless, Arundell retained considerable influence as exemplified by his correspondence in May 1682 with William Sancroft*, archbishop of Canterbury, recommending a candidate for promotion in the church.<sup>37</sup> Arundell made several petitions for release and although in one draft speech he claimed to be ‘a weak old man totally ignorant in the law and unskilled in the method and management of a defence of this nature’, his surviving papers demonstrate the contrary. The prospect of martyrdom for the Catholic faith (embraced by Stafford) clearly held no attractions and Arundell put together a careful and well-thought-out case for the defence. He drew up a detailed account of his whereabouts on every day between his departure from London on 29 July 1678 until his arrest. He also compared Titus Oates’ evidence as given on different occasions and produced a list of contradictions. A further extensive set of notes, amounting to a brief for the defence, lists point by point those facts that Arundell sought to prove (including Oates’ homosexuality) and the witnesses that it would be necessary to produce for the purpose. The notes also indicate the questions that he intended to put to Oates and include observations from counsel on issues to be proved at trial and how to prove them. There are several working drafts of the speech that he would make in his own defence, in which he stressed his past service to the Crown and the malice of his accusers (‘such obscure men whose faces I never saw nor whose names I never heard of but upon this occasion’). So complete was his case that it is difficult to believe that Arundell could have been found guilty. Yet he himself was far from confident of the outcome of the trial: the papers also include several versions of his dying speech.<sup>38</sup></p><p>Arundell’s prolonged imprisonment without trial, punctuated as it was by three dissolutions, raised important constitutional issues about parliamentary judicature in which the ordinary courts were clearly reluctant to meddle, but on 12 Feb. 1684 the then lord chief justice of king’s bench, George Jeffreys*, later Baron Jeffreys, probably at the instigation of the government, admitted Arundell and the other impeached peers to bail. Arundell clearly knew in advance that bail would be granted and approached James Butler*, duke of Ormond, on 2 Feb. to stand as one of his sureties.<sup>39</sup> Perhaps he was refused for on the day his sureties were Charles Sackville*, 6th earl of Dorset, Robert Leke*, 3rd earl of Scarsdale, John Granville*, earl of Bath, and Henry Hyde*, 2nd earl of Clarendon.<sup>40</sup> All four were close to the court. Three months later, on 22 May, the House of Lords voted to overturn its previous resolution that impeachments were not vacated by dissolution, thus enabling the impeached peers to be discharged.</p><p><em>From the accession of James II to death, 1685-94</em></p><p>By now 76 years of age and barred from the House of Lords by the Test Act, Arundell might have been expected to have been content to retire into obscurity. Instead his friendship with York propelled him once again into public life. With the duke’s accession as James II in February 1685 his position as a trusted Catholic elder statesman was assured. In 1686 Arundell was in receipt of letters patent that enabled him, in common with other Catholics, to attend court without taking the oath of supremacy.<sup>41</sup> In July of that year he was one of four Catholic peers to join the Privy Council. It did not go unnoticed that all four had been under suspicion at the time of the popish plot. He was also a member of the ‘particular cabinet council’ that met under the auspices of Robert Spencer*, 2nd earl of Sunderland, every Friday to decide what matters should be debated before the king.<sup>42</sup> Rumour suggested that Arundell would be promoted still further. In November he was tipped to become deputy lord lieutenant of Ireland, and in December lord treasurer.<sup>43</sup> By January it had become clear that he would be appointed lord privy seal.<sup>44</sup> His role within government, however, was clearly contentious. On 28 Apr. 1687 he was named as one of the commissioners to prorogue Parliament, as were Henry Mordaunt*, 2nd earl of Peterborough, and Belasyse, whilst, equally controversially, some protestant peers in the Privy Council were left out of the commission. Some thought it fortunate that the three Catholic peers chose not to attend the House for the prorogation as it ‘would have occasioned some debate if they had been present or come to the House of Lords.’<sup>45</sup> During 1688 Arundell was one of the regulators of corporations and in June 1688 he presented an address from English Catholics thanking James II for his Declaration of Indulgence.<sup>46</sup> He was also present at the birth of the prince of Wales. The gossips referred to Arundell and Father Petre as Sunderland’s Catholic counsellors.<sup>47</sup> Arundell was more attuned than Father Petre to the political turmoil being created by James II’s catholicizing policies, though, and was listed amongst the ‘moderate Catholic lords of large estate and great influence’ who advised moderation over the case of the Seven Bishops in the summer of 1688.<sup>48</sup></p><p>With the deterioration in the political situation Arundell was ‘stepped aside’ in December 1688.<sup>49</sup> Not surprisingly he took no further part in government after James II’s flight. It must have been John Arundell*, 2nd Baron Arundell of Trerice, rather than Arundell of Wardour who was intended in a list compiled of those peers who had voted against the motion that James had abdicated and the throne was vacant.<sup>50</sup> Arundell of Wardour’s last public act appears to have been in May 1691 when his evidence about the date on which a warrant in favour of Roger Palmer, earl of Castlemaine [I], was sealed established that Castlemaine might have a legitimate claim to a grant of plate worth some £4,000.<sup>51</sup> Arundell’s reputation as a staunch supporter of the now exiled king kept him under perpetual suspicion until his death shortly before his 87th birthday in December 1694.<sup>52</sup> Having settled his estates during his lifetime (possibly in a debt trust) his will was a short and simple one leaving generous legacies to two servants, £500 to his younger son Henry and the remainder of his property to his heir, Thomas Arundell*, who succeeded as 4th Baron Arundell of Wardour.</p> |
R.P./R.D.E.E. |
|
ARUNDELL, Henry (?aft 1659-1726) |
<p><strong><surname>ARUNDELL</surname></strong>, <strong>Henry</strong> (?aft 1659–1726)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 10 Feb. 1712 as 5th Bar. ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR. |
|
Never sat. |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. ?aft. 1659, s. of Thomas Arundell, 4th Bar. Arundell of Wardour, and Margaret, da. of Thomas Spencer of Ufton, Warws, wid. of Robert Lucy of Charlecote, Warws; <em>educ</em>. unknown. <em>m</em>. Aug. 1691 Elizabeth (<em>d</em>.1700), da. of Col. Thomas Panton of St Martin in the Fields, Mdx., gamester, and Dorothy, da. of John Stacy of London, 2s. 1da. <em>d</em>. 20 Apr. 1726; <em>admon</em>. 13 June 1726 to s. and h. Henry Arundell<sup>†</sup>, 6th Bar. Arundell of Wardour.<sup>1</sup></p> |
|
|
<p>Arundell’s date of birth is unknown. A calculation based on a stray reference in a letter about his mother’s approaching death suggests that his parents married in or about 1659 so it is inferred that his birth was after that date.<sup>2</sup> Like his father he was a committed Catholic and hence barred from the House by the Test Acts. It is likely that he was a Jacobite sympathizer, but there is no evidence to confirm this. He is known to have supported the interests of the Tory, Henry Somerset*, 2nd duke of Beaufort, at Salisbury in 1713, but information about his political activities beyond this is non-existent.<sup>3</sup> He was granted a passport to travel to Spa on 27 July 1715 and is known to have been in Paris in November of that year.<sup>4</sup> He did not return to England until mid-November 1716.<sup>5</sup> It is unlikely therefore that he could have had any direct involvement in the 1715 Jacobite uprising.</p><p>By 1720, although he was at most only 60 years of age, he was suffering from dementia. He had lost his memory and was ‘uncapable of doing much business.’<sup>6</sup> By 1723 ‘my lord by reason of his age and infirmities is reduced to dotage’, and his son and heir, also named Henry Arundell, began proceedings to have his father declared a lunatic. He was warned that such a procedure would not necessarily protect the family estate since ‘commissioners of lunatics have no authority to commit waste or to meddle with the estate’, and such proceedings were in any case very slow.<sup>7</sup> Arundell of Wardour died on 20 Apr. 1726.</p> |
R.P. |
|
ARUNDELL, John (1649-98) |
<p><strong><surname>ARUNDELL</surname></strong>, <strong>John</strong> (1649–98)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 7 Sept. 1687 as 2nd. Bar. ARUNDELL OF TRERICE. |
|
First sat 22 Jan. 1689; last sat 6 June 1698 |
|
MP Truro, 2 Oct. 1666, 1685 |
<p><em>bap</em>. 1 Sept. 1649, o. surv. s. and h. of Richard Arundell*, Bar. Arundell of Trerice, and Gertrude, da. of Sir James Bagge of Saltram, and widow of Sir Nicholas Slanning<sup>‡</sup> (d. 1643); half-bro. of Sir Nicholas Slanning<sup>‡</sup> bt. <em>educ</em>. Wadham, Oxf. matric. 13 June 1667. <em>m</em>. (1) lic. 10 May 1675 (with £8,000), Margaret (<em>d</em>.1691), da. of Sir John Acland, 3rd bt. of Killerton, Devon, sis. and h. of Sir Arthur Acland, 4th bt., 1s. 1da.; (2) 14 Feb. 1693, Barbara (<em>d</em>.1722), da. of Sir Thomas Slingsby<sup>‡ </sup>2nd bt. of Scriven, Yorks., wid. of Sir Richard Mauleverer, 4th bt. of Allerton Mauleverer, Yorks., 1s. <em>d</em>. aft. 6 June, bef. 21 June 1698; <em>will</em> 1 Dec. 1695, pr. 27 June 1698.<sup>1</sup></p> |
<p>Ensign, Pendennis Castle 1666-81, capt. lt. and dep. gov. 1681-7, gov. 1689-<em>d</em>.; lt. col. militia ft. Cornw. by 1679; capt. earl of Bath’s Regt. (later 10th Ft.) 1686-Apr. 1688.</p><p>Commr. assessment, Cornw. 1667-80, recusants, Cornw. 1675; alderman, Tregony and Truro 1685-7; freeman, Bodmin, Liskeard, Mitchell and Penryn 1685-Sept. 1688.</p> |
|
<p>Still a teenager when he was elected to the Commons following the death of his uncle Nicholas Arundell<sup>‡</sup>, John Arundell proved to be an inactive Member of that House. Apart from an occasional flash of independence he was considered to be a loyal court supporter and was consequently listed by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury as triply vile. His major mark on public life was a personal matter. In 1673, in pursuit of a wife, Arundell found himself in competition over an heiress with a fellow Member of the Commons, Thomas Wharton*, the future 5th Baron and marquess of Wharton. Arundell won the subsequent duel but relinquished the lady to Wharton, allegedly because he was impressed that Wharton, unlike his father, who had acquired a reputation for cowardice at Edgehill, had had the courage to fight.<sup>2</sup> It is perhaps more likely that Arundell’s finances damaged his chances as a suitor. The settlement drawn up at the time of his first marriage indicates that the family estate was much encumbered by debt, thus obstructing the implementation of arrangements for a jointure and either delaying or preventing payment of the portion of £8,000 agreed by the Acland family.</p><p>The various lists of peers compiled in 1687-8 indicate that, as might be expected from a staunchly Protestant family, John Arundell and his father both opposed the catholicizing policies of James II. The family commanded considerable political influence in the West Country, but opposition to James II meant that most of Arundell’s military and local government offices were terminated in 1688. Arundell’s loss of favour may have been evident as early as the spring of 1687 when the king and his Privy Council refused to intervene on behalf of his father in a law suit resulting from the long running dispute over Sutton Pool; at his father’s death later that year neither he nor his half-brother, Sir Nicholas Slanning, were appointed to replace him as governor of Pendennis.<sup>3</sup> By late October 1688, John Granville*, earl of Bath, who was both anxious and angry about the changes being forced on him by the court, alerted Robert Spencer*, 2nd earl of Sunderland, of the dangerous situation created by sidelining Arundel, warning that,</p><blockquote><p>should an enemy possess himself of it [Pendennis Castle], he would be absolute master of Falmouth Harbour and force a compliance of all the country west from Plymouth. Since Lord Arundell’s death it has been commanded by a private captain … which signifies very little towards its defence; and how little assistance so small an officer, being a stranger, is like to receive from the country.<sup>4</sup></p></blockquote><p>Arundell took his seat in the Lords on the first day of the 1689 Convention and then attended on 28 per cent of sitting days of that session, during which he was named to only two committees. His opposition to James II’s policies did not translate into automatic acceptance of the new regime. He voted in favour of a regency and against the resolution to declare William and Mary king and queen and refused to agree with the Commons that James II had ‘abdicated’ rather than ‘deserted’ the throne and that the throne was ‘thereby vacant’. His conscience was, nevertheless, easily assuaged and on 18 Mar. 1689 he took the oaths to the new monarchs. He was absent for much of April and almost the whole month of May, presumably through illness as he was excused for this reason at a call of the House on 22 May. He returned to the House on 31 May 1689 in time to vote against the bill to reverse the judgments of perjury against Titus Oates and in July voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill. In a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690, Thomas Osborne*, marquess of Carmarthen and later duke of Leeds, classified him as among the supporters of the court.</p><p>Arundell’s attendance dropped markedly in the following session when he was present on only 11 per cent of sitting days. He did not attend at all during the first three sessions of the 1690 Parliament. His next appearance in the House was on 4 Nov. 1692; he then attended 45 per cent of sittings that session. He supported the place bill and entered a protest on 3 Jan. 1693 against the Lords’ decision to reject it. A zealous Anglican, he was listed by Thomas Bruce*, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, as an opponent of the attempt by Henry Howard*, 7th duke of Norfolk, to divorce his wife. On 19 Jan. 1693, following a conference with the House of Commons, Arundell dissented not only from the Lords’ decision not to refer their amendment to the land tax bill to the committee for privileges but also from their subsequent decision to withdraw the proposed amendment. His second marriage in February reinforced his Tory ties, although that same month he found himself in predominantly Whig company when he voted Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.</p><p>The 1693-4 session saw Arundell present on 48 per cent of sitting days. On 17 Feb. 1694 he voted in support of the decision of the court of chancery to dismiss the appeal of Ralph Montagu*, earl (later duke) of Montagu, in the Albemarle inheritance case, thus favouring his powerful west country neighbour, Bath. He did not attend the following (1694-5) session at all, covering his absence with a proxy to Ailesbury that was registered on 26 Dec. 1694, possibly for use in divisions on the treason trials bill in January 1695.</p><p>Arundell attended on 31 per cent of sitting days during the first (1695-6) session of the 1695 Parliament. Along with his friend Ailesbury and other prominent Tories in March 1696 he refused to sign the Association.<sup>5</sup> His attendance the following (1696-7) session was uncharacteristically high at 56 per cent. The early part of the session was dominated by proceedings against Sir John Fenwick<sup>‡</sup>. Arundell consistently opposed them. On 15 Dec. 1696 he entered a dissent against the Lords’ decision to allow Goodman’s information to be read; on 18 Dec. he protested against the second reading of the bill and on 23 Dec. he both voted against the third reading and entered another protest at its passage.</p><p>Arundell’s attendance remained comparatively high, at 42 per cent, during the 1697-8 session. On 15 Mar. 1698 he appears to have voted against committing the bill for punishing the banker Charles Duncombe<sup>‡</sup>, although a mark on the list suggests he had initially been thought to have voted in its favour. Arundell’s last reported attendance in the House was on 6 June 1698; by 21 June he was dead. In his will he left lands in Newlyn as surety for his wife during her lifetime together with their house in St James’s, Middlesex and all his goods and chattels. He also directed the disposal of lands in Cornwall and Devon in order to raise a portion of £6,000 for his daughter, Gertrude Arundell. He was succeeded by his eldest son, also named John Arundell*, 3rd Baron Arundell of Trerice; his widow married Thomas Herbert*, 8th earl of Pembroke, in September 1708.<sup>6</sup></p> |
A.C./R.P. |
|
ARUNDELL, John (1678-1706) |
<p><strong><surname>ARUNDELL</surname></strong>, <strong>John</strong> (1678–1706)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 21 June 1698 (a minor) as 3rd Bar. ARUNDEL OF TRERICE |
|
First sat 11 Feb. 1701; last sat 30 Dec. 1701 |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. 25 Feb. 1678, s. and h. of John Arundell* 2nd Bar. Arundell of Trerice, and Margaret Acland. <em>educ</em>. unknown. <em>m</em>. Jane (<em>d</em>.1744), 6th da. of William Beaw, bishop of Llandaff, and Frances Bowsie, at least 2s. <em>d</em>. 24 Sept. 1706; <em>will</em> 13 July, pr. 3 Dec. 1706.<sup>1</sup></p> |
<p>Dep. lt. Cornw. bef. 1702-<em>d</em>.<sup>2</sup></p> |
|
<p>Arundell came of age in time to take his seat at the opening of the first session of the 1698 Parliament. He did not do so. He did not attend any sittings of that Parliament at all. He attended just four days of the first 1701 Parliament and a single day (the opening of the session on 30 Dec.) of the second 1701 Parliament. Whether his absences were caused by a lack of political ambitions and interests or poor health is unknown. Unusually for a peer he chose to marry a bishop’s daughter rather than a fellow aristocrat. Nevertheless, his death at the age of only 28 in 1706 was allegedly caused by self-imposed starvation resulting from his anguish when his mistress married another.<sup>3</sup></p> |
A.C./R.P. |
|
ARUNDELL, John (1701-68) |
<p><strong><surname>ARUNDELL</surname></strong>, <strong>John</strong> (1701–68)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 24 Sept. 1706 (a minor) as 4th Bar. ARUNDELL OF TRERICE. |
|
First sat 6 Dec. 1722; last sat 4 Apr. 1755 |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. 21 Nov. 1701, o.s. of John Arundell*, 3rd Bar. Arundell of Trerice, and Jane, da. of William Beaw*, bp of Llandaff. <em>educ</em>. Balliol Coll. Oxf. <em>m</em>. 2 June 1722 Elizabeth (<em>d</em>. 1750), da. of Sir William Wentworth of Ashby, Lincs., sis. of Thomas Wentworth* earl of Strafford,<sup>1</sup> <em>s</em>.<em>p</em>. <em>bur</em>. 13 Aug. 1768.</p> |
|
|
<p>Arundell succeeded to the peerage shortly before his fifth birthday. His marriage in 1722, shortly after leaving Balliol, Oxford, to a woman ‘almost old enough to be his mother’ caused some amusement, he being 20 and she over 40 (the marriage certificate optimistically gave her age as 25). Otherwise, he appears to have made little impact and his death was not noted by the London newspapers until more than four months after his demise.<sup>2</sup></p> |
R.D.E.E. |
|
ARUNDELL, Richard (c. 1616-87) |
<p><strong><surname>ARUNDELL</surname></strong>, <strong>Richard</strong> (c. 1616-87)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>23 Mar. 1665 Bar. ARUNDELL OF TRERICE. |
|
First sat 31 Oct. 1666; last sat 15 Feb. 1687 |
|
MP Lostwithiel Apr. 1640, Nov. 1640-22 Jan. 1644; Bere Alston 26 June 1660; 29 Jan. 1662-23 Mar. 1665. |
<p><em>b</em>. c. 1616, 2nd but 1st surv. s. of John Arundell<sup>‡</sup> of Trerice (<em>d</em>. 1654) and Mary, da. of George Cary of Clovelly, Devon; bro. of John Arundell<sup>‡</sup> and Nicholas Arundell<sup>‡</sup>, bro.-in-law of John Trevanion<sup>‡</sup>, stepfa. of Sir Nicholas Slanning<sup>‡</sup>, 1st bt. <em>educ</em>. L. Inn 16 Nov. 1633, called 18 Nov. 1640. <em>m</em>. c. 1645, Gertrude (<em>d</em>. 1691) wid. of Sir Nicholas Slanning<sup>‡</sup> of Marystow, Devon, da. of Sir James Bagge<sup>‡</sup> of Saltram, Devon, and Grace Fortescue, 2s. (1 <em>d.v.p</em>.). <em>d</em>. Sept. 1687;<sup>1</sup> <em>admon</em>. Anthony Trethewy, June 1688, Aug. 1692.<sup>2</sup></p> |
<p>Master of horse to the queen mother by 1665–9.<sup>3</sup></p><p>Lt. col. of ft. (royalist) by 1646; col. of militia ft. Dec. 1660–<em>d</em>.</p><p>Gov. Pendennis Castle Sept. 1660–<em>d</em>.; commr. for assessment 1661–5; dep. lt. Cornw. 1662–<em>d</em>.; commr. for corporations 1662–3, loyal and indigent officers 1662, oyer and terminer, Western circuit 1665; stannator of Tywarnwhaile 1663; freeman, Plymouth 1684, Liskeard, Bodmin, Mitchell and Penryn 1685.</p> |
|
<p>The Arundell family had been resident at Trerice since the fourteenth century and generations of intermarriage meant that they had extensive kinship links within the local political elite. Before the civil wars the family owned lands in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, enabling them to exercise a degree of political influence throughout the west country, but with more immediate electoral interests in the Cornish constituencies of Truro, Mitchell, Penryn and Bere Alston.</p><p>As a younger son, Richard Arundell was originally intended for the law but the events of the civil wars changed his destiny. He, his father and his brothers all took the king’s side and were noted for their courage and loyalty to the crown. His older brother, John Arundell, was killed in January 1644, leaving Richard as the heir to the family patrimony. Richard Arundell was commander of the trained bands and the garrison at Pendennis Castle where his father was governor. It was from this royalist refuge, one of the last strongholds to fall to the Parliamentary forces, that the Arundells ensured the escape of Queen Henrietta Maria to France and Charles II to the Scilly Isles, services that would forever endear them to the crown.<sup>4</sup> The Arundells finally surrendered Pendennis in 1646. In 1650 they were declared delinquent and as a result Arundell and his father jointly compounded for the family estates at £10,000.<sup>5</sup> Arundell nevertheless continued to be active in royalist risings and conspiracies.<sup>6</sup></p><p>Edward Hyde*, earl of Clarendon, described Richard Arundell as a ‘gentleman as well known by what he had done and suffered in the late time, as by the eminency of his family, and the fortune he was still master of after the great depredation’. He had apparently been promised a peerage as a reward for his and his family’s exertions on behalf of the king but, according to Clarendon, the actual grant was postponed until Arundell could recover sufficient wealth to support the dignity.<sup>7</sup> A courtier and ally of John Grenville*, earl of Bath, Arundell nevertheless occasionally found himself at odds with Bath’s other ally, George Monck*, duke of Albemarle. Monck initially secured the governorship of Pendennis Castle for his cousin Sir Peter Killigrew<sup>‡</sup> and Arundell had to lobby for its restoration under the terms of an old royal patent.<sup>8</sup></p><p>Arundell also became involved in a long-running and expensive fight with the presbyterian-dominated corporation of Plymouth over the farm of Sutton Pool (Plymouth’s internal harbour), staking his own claim under the rights of the king as duke of Cornwall against a Commonwealth grant. The king’s decision to back Arundell and oppose the corporation not only sent a clear political message about Dissent but also had financial ramifications since it enabled Arundell to extract fees for the use of Sutton Pool.<sup>9</sup> Arundell won substantial costs against the corporation in 1664 but the dispute was still active in 1671 when he was forced to bring a case of breach of privilege of Parliament against those who still questioned his title.<sup>10</sup></p><p>As a key supporter of the crown’s west country interests, with a strategic military role as well as useful electoral influence, Arundell occupied a pivotal place in the chain of patronage. His own rewards included the rectory of Newlyn, as well as leases of Restormel Park, Tregeare and Burnere.<sup>11</sup> As governor of Pendennis Castle, he had control of large sums of money and lucrative supply contracts.<sup>12</sup> In July 1662, for example, he received £2,000 for payment of the garrison, although, like so many other courtiers, he struggled at times to secure payment from the Treasury.<sup>13</sup> Family, friends and clients also benefitted: John Clarke was granted the contract for the Plymouth and district postal service; Arundell’s stepson Sir Nicholas Slanning was appointed captain of Pendennis Castle and granted the governorship in reversion after Arundell’s death.<sup>14</sup></p><p>Following the Restoration, it did not take long for Arundell to recover his estates and financial position. Accordingly he informed the king that he was ready to ‘receive his bounty’ and in March 1665 was created Baron Arundell of Trerice.<sup>15</sup> He would have been eligible to take his seat during the brief October 1665 session but did not do so, waiting until the following session in 1666–7. He was introduced on 31 Oct. 1666 between John Belasyse*, Baron Belasyse, and Charles Gerard*, Baron Gerard of Brandon, and placed next to John Frescheville*, Baron Frescheville, who had been elevated to the peerage a week earlier than Arundell. Frescheville and Arundell either were already or would soon become friends and political allies. They had much in common: both had served as royalist commanders in the civil wars, both had legal training and both were later allied to Frescheville’s nephew, Sir Thomas Osborne*, best known as earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds). During this session, Arundell attended 79 per cent of possible sittings and was named to nine committees including, on 2 Jan. 1667, the committee for the act to restore Francis Scawen in blood. There was almost certainly a local interest here: the originating petition for the bill was presented by Arundell’s west country neighbour, Albemarle, and Francis Scawen was the son of Robert Scawen<sup>‡</sup>, a London attorney of Cornish origin. On 24 Jan. 1667 Arundell was also appointed a commissioner for public accounts.</p><p>The next (1667–9) session opened in the aftermath of Clarendon’s dismissal. Arundell’s attendance and workload increased significantly. He attended 93 per cent of sitting days and was named to a total of 23 committees. He was also named to the committee for privileges and the committee for petitions, and on 24 Apr. 1668 was appointed as one of the Lords’ representatives at a conference with the Commons on the impeachment of Sir William Penn<sup>‡</sup>. A rare glimpse into Arundell’s spiritual life comes from a comment made in June 1668 by Gilbert Sheldon*, archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote that Arundell was a ‘person who hath eminently showed himself a true friend of the Church’.<sup>16</sup> (Hardly any family papers survive to illustrate his role as a loyal courtier and Anglican more fully.)</p><p>The brief autumn 1669 session saw Arundell present for 66 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the usual sessional committees as well as to three committees. In Jan. 1670, in what may have been an indication of financial problems as well perhaps as resentment at insufficient recognition, Arundell tried to surrender his lease of Sutton Pool. His offer was referred to the Treasury Commissioners ‘to hear any propositions of the petitioner, the king wishing to recognize his loyalty and good services’. A ‘free gift’ of £3,000 from the king to Arundell the following May in recognition of his services and suffering for Charles II and his late father probably resulted from this incident.<sup>17</sup></p><p>During the 1670–1 session Arundell attended only 27 per cent of sittings, his lowest attendance rate for any session of Parliament. He was again named to the usual sessional committees and to 13 others. On 28 Mar. 1670, in an otherwise rare indication of Arundell’s political activity, he joined the protest at the passage of the Roos divorce bill. His concern with local issues was apparent in his involvement in the opposition to the bill to make the recently built Falmouth church parochial. The bill was opposed by the inhabitants of Truro and Penryn, who resented the successful development of Falmouth by Sir Peter Killigrew into a rival port. It nevertheless passed, smoothed perhaps by Killigrew’s own relationship with the Crown and by his tactful decision to dedicate the church to King Charles the Martyr.<sup>18</sup></p><p>A further indication of Arundell’s financial difficulty came in Feb. 1671 when he was involved in a chancery case with Roger Palmer, earl of Castlemaine [I] regarding a bond of £5,000, entered into ‘for his majesty’s service’, which Arundell had failed to pay.<sup>19</sup> Meanwhile, throughout the spring he was involved in organizing the defences of the west country against the French fleet.<sup>20</sup> Later that year he opened negotiations for the marriage of his son to ‘a young lady of considerable fortune’, offering to provide a jointure of £2,000 a year.<sup>21</sup> The young lady in question was probably the west country heiress Elizabeth Cabell but the young John Arundell*, later 2nd Baron Arundell of Trerice, lost out to Thomas Wharton*, the future 5th Baron (later earl of) Wharton.<sup>22</sup></p><p>Arundell attended only 50 per cent of sittings of the February–October 1673 session and was named to only two committees. It seems likely that he opposed the Declaration of Indulgence but there is no evidence to confirm this. His son’s marriage prospects continued to be a matter of concern. The young Arundell now paid suit to Anne Lee, granddaughter of the dowager countess of Rochester. Once again he found himself pitted against Wharton, whose negotiations to marry Elizabeth Cabell had broken down. Anne Lee was said to prefer John Arundell but, in another indication of Arundell’s financial status, her trustees preferred the security of the Wharton fortune to the Arundell debts.<sup>23</sup></p><p>The very short session of October-November 1673 saw Arundell present every day. He also attended 92 per cent of sitting days in the equally short session of January-February 1674. His decision to do so was probably linked to the disintegration of the Cabal and the appointment of the future earl of Danby as lord treasurer in June 1673. Arundell was not only politically sympathetic to Osborne but also became a recipient of the latter’s much-needed financial largesse. In 1674 he was granted a pension of £1,000 for 21 years charged on the duchy of Cornwall, and appeared on Danby’s list of excise pensioners.<sup>24</sup> That such injections of money were crucial is suggested by the financial arrangements for his son’s marriage to Margaret Acland in or about May 1675, which declare that Arundell’s estate was ‘charged and encumbered for the payment of divers sums of money which for the present cannot be paid and satisfied without apparent prejudice and loss to the estate of the said Richard Lord Arundell’ and then go on to list debts of just over £11,000 that were to be settled before payment of the bride’s portion.<sup>25</sup></p><p>Not surprisingly, as the next session of Parliament (the first of 1675) approached, Danby calculated that Arundell was likely to support the non-resisting test. Arundell attended 98 per cent of sittings and was named to 15 committees, including the routine sessional ones. His attendance was similarly high (95 per cent) for the second 1675 session, when he was named to eight committees of the Houses, again including the usual sessional committees. On 19 Nov., during the disputes over <em>Sherley v. Fagg</em>, he was appointed as one of the reporters of a conference with the Commons on preserving a good understanding between the Houses. The following day he opposed the address for the dissolution of Parliament. Afterwards ‘some angry words’ passed between Arundell and Anthony Ashley Cooper*, earl of Shaftesbury, causing the House to intervene and caution them to allow no ‘further proceedings’ in the matter.</p><p>When the next session of Parliament opened on 15 Feb. 1677, George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, argued that the long prorogation amounted to a dissolution; Arundell seconded Freschville’s motion that Buckingham be called to the bar of the House and disciplined.<sup>26</sup> He was also involved in an attack on Shaftesbury alleging that the earl had spoken words ‘of a dangerous nature’ during his case before the king’s bench. Another of Danby’s allies, James Bertie*, 5th Baron Norreys, registered a proxy in favour of Arundell on 26 Feb. 1677, vacated at the end of the session on 15 July 1678. This proxy may have been used during crucial divisions in January 1678, when Arundell voted against the inclusion of a declaration against transubstantiation in the oaths and against Danby’s arrest. Not surprisingly, in Shaftesbury’s analysis of lay peers Arundell was referred to as ‘thrice vile’. In what was by far Arundell’s busiest session in the Lords, he attended 98 per cent of sitting days and was named to 39 committees, as well as the committee for privileges. His committee nominations included matters of high political moment such as the enquiry into the publication of <em>Some Considerations upon the Question, whether Parliament is Dissolved by Prorogation for Fifteen Months</em> on 16 Feb. 1677, as well as the defence of local interests as in the Stannaries bill on 9 Apr. 1677.</p><p>At this time, Arundell was also concerned with exploiting his relationship with central government for his own business and financial interests. He and one of his Cornish associates, Samuel Enys, discussed the merits of the proposed farm of the coinage duty, said to be worth £6,000.<sup>27</sup> When, in 1673, the king had farmed the whole excise of England and compensated the former farmers, Arundell (who seems to have had the farm of the excise in Cornwall) was overlooked. In October 1677 he petitioned that ‘he likewise may partake of his majesty’s bounty’.<sup>28</sup> On 4 Apr. 1678 he voted to find Philip Herbert*, 7th earl of Pembroke, not guilty in his trial for murder.</p><p>After a short prorogation the next session of Parliament opened on 23 May 1678. With pressure mounting on Danby and the king, Arundell attended 93 per cent of sitting days in the Lords and was named to six committees, including the committee of privileges and the committee for petitions. Listed by Danby as a solid court supporter and presumably hoping to extract financial benefit from his allegiance, in Sept. 1678 he petitioned the lord treasurer for a lease of a ‘great waste or barren ground called Exmoor, or the Forest of Exmoor’, close to one of his manors in Somerset.<sup>29</sup></p><p>During the following session, which opened on 21 Oct. 1678 and was dominated by the Popish Plot scandal, Arundell held the proxies of William Ley*, 4th earl of Marlborough, from 28 Oct., and Charles Howard*, 3rd earl of Nottingham, from 6 November. Both were vacated at the end of the session. Arundell maintained a high level of attendance, being present on 95 per cent of sitting days, and was named to the usual sessional committees. He continued to be a reliable supporter of Danby, opposing the inclusion of a declaration against transubstantiation in the new oaths. When the opposition linked disarmament and disbanding of the army to the supply bill, the strategic importance of both Arundell’s and Bath’s regiments in Pendennis Castle and Plymouth respectively was recognized and they were exempted.<sup>30</sup> Accordingly, in December 1678 Arundell was content to support the Lords’ amendment requiring the payment of money into the exchequer to fund the disbandment of the army.</p><p>When the short first Exclusion Parliament met on 6 Mar. 1679 Arundell’s support for the court and Danby remained solid. He attended every sitting bar one in the second session, beginning 15 Mar., and again held Nottingham’s proxy. On 21 Mar. when the Lords debated the Commons request for Danby’s arrest, Arundell and his allies Frescheville and Thomas Colepeper* spoke in Danby’s favour.<sup>31</sup> The following day he opposed the resolution to appoint a committee to prepare a bill for banishing and disabling Danby. By April 1679 Danby was in custody in the Tower but Arundell was still calculated to be a supporter and likely to vote against any proposal for his attainder. As predicted, on 1 April he was not content to agree with the Commons on Danby’s attainder and on 4 April he voted against it. Arundell may even have given Danby legal advice; he certainly forwarded a paper on a possible bail application to him.<sup>32</sup> On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.</p><p>In the second Exclusion Parliament Arundell attended 98 per cent of sitting days; his support for the king and opposition to Exclusion remained firm. He was not content to appoint a committee to consider the state of the kingdom along with the Commons, and he was one of the few peers to vote William Howard*, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason.<sup>33</sup> In the Oxford Parliament in March 1681 he attended 71 per cent of sittings. When James Bertie*, 5th Baron Norreys, presented Danby’s petition for bail to the king at Oxford on 24 March, Arundell spoke in support.<sup>34</sup></p><p>With the exclusion issue apparently resolved Arundell looked for his reward. His pension of £1,000 per annum was in arrears and in a letter to the king he stated that he had been ‘encouraged to make use of the pay for the soldiers in Pendennis Castle’ to make up the shortfall. With money still not forthcoming for his pension or to pay the soldiers at Pendennis, Arundell offered to surrender the patent for the pension if the king would only pay what was due to the soldiers. His request was ignored and in a subsequent letter Arundell claimed that the non-payment had been ‘not only his ruin but his disgrace’. He later offered to surrender his post as governor of Pendennis Castle, as well as his pension, if the king would take care of the garrison’s pay. The £1,200 offered to the garrison had been refused and the soldiers were mutinous. According to Arundell’s calculations he was personally owed over £4,800, which left him unable to pay the £2,859 he owed. Eventually he was ordered to disband the foot company under his command and the treasury commissioners, Thomas Starsmore and Giles Draper, were sent to pay off the soldiers.<sup>35</sup></p><p>In 1684, as the corporations were purged and new charters issued, Arundell was made one of the ‘first and modern free burgesses’ of the borough of Saltash, a freeman of Liskeard and a burgess of Penryn.<sup>36</sup> In the 1685 session of James II’s Parliament he attended on 80 per cent of sitting days and was named to the usual sessional committees and 12 others. On 19 May he and Charles Butler*, Baron Butler of Weston, introduced Ralph Stawell*, Baron Stawell. In January 1686 he was one of the peers summoned to try Henry Booth*, 2nd Baron Delamer, although he appears not to have attended as he is not listed in the account in <em>State Trials</em>.<sup>37</sup> In the spring of 1686 problems over Sutton Pool again re-emerged. The corporation had been remodelled in 1684 and claimed that their new charter confirmed their jurisdiction and right to levy certain taxes on properties in Sutton Pool. Arundell challenged this by means of a quo warranto but the corporation appealed over his head to the king and Privy Council, who effectively tossed Arundell’s years of loyalty aside and, in consideration of ‘the loyalty of the present magistrates’, blocked his action by a <em>nolle prosequi</em>.<sup>38</sup></p><p>Although Arundell and his family had been staunch royalists, Arundell found himself in opposition to James II’s policies and opposed the repeal of the Test Acts. He did not live long enough to see his loyalty tested by the events of the revolution. He died in September 1687 and was succeeded by his son, also named John*, as 2nd Baron Arundell of Trerice. James II’s refusal to assist Arundell over Sutton Pool had left him financially stranded. So great were the debts he had incurred in the course of a quarter of a century in defending the king’s rights that he was forced to mortgage his interest in Sutton Pool to Anthony Trethewy and it was Trethewy who took out letters of administration after Arundell’s death and gained possession of that and possibly other properties.<sup>39</sup></p> |
A.C./R.D.E.E. |
|
ARUNDELL, Thomas (1633-1712) |
<p><strong><surname>ARUNDELL</surname></strong>, <strong>Thomas</strong> (1633–1712)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 28 Dec. 1694 as 4th Bar. ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR. |
|
Never sat. |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. 1633, son of Henry Arundell*, 3rd Bar. Arundell of Wardour and Cicely, da. of Sir Henry Compton of Brambletye, Suss., wid. of Sir John Fermor of Somerton, Oxon. <em>educ</em>. unknown. <em>m</em>. c.1659 Margaret (<em>d</em>. 23 Dec. 1704), da. of Thomas Spencer of Ufton, Warws., wid. of Robert Lucy of Charlecote, Warws., 3s. (1 <em>d.v.p</em>). <sup>1</sup> <em>d</em>. 10 Feb. 1712.</p> |
|
|
<p>Like his father, Thomas Arundell, 4th Baron Arundell was a committed Catholic. Barred from the House of Lords by the Test Acts, he was widely believed to be a Jacobite sympathizer and was constantly under suspicion. Uncertainty about his loyalties was reinforced by memories of his father’s long public career and by the knowledge that his aunt had taken the veil. The events of the Revolution of 1688 brought even higher levels of suspicion. When he was arrested in January 1689 he was described as ‘a very active papist’, and for Roger Morrice, at least, his subsequent discharge raised worries about Catholic subversion even in the new government.<sup>2</sup> Arundell’s continued involvement in the Catholic community reinforced this distrust still further, especially after one of his younger sons died at the battle of the Boyne fighting for James II.<sup>3</sup> He received a substantial legacy from Cardinal Howard in 1694 and was again arrested in March 1696 in the aftermath of the Assassination Plot.<sup>4</sup> Ten years later a visit from Lady Powis (wife of William Herbert*, 2nd marquess of Powis), during a trip in which she allegedly made her way ‘cross the country from one papist’s house to another in a coach and six horses’, aroused fears that that all were involved in a conspiracy to promote a French attack.<sup>5</sup> The paucity of the family papers for this period makes it difficult to be sure how justified such suspicions were, though the survival of a copy of the confession of Sir John Fenwick<sup>‡</sup>, and a report of the debate over his attainder in December 1696 suggests rather more than a passing interest in politics and the fate of at least one Jacobite conspirator.<sup>6</sup> Whatever his political and religious loyalties were, Arundell’s surviving ‘cellar book’ shows that he regularly entertained his Protestant neighbours, Sir John Hoby and Sir Giles Long, as well as the Catholic Bishop Gifford, Whig and Tory alike.<sup>7</sup> At his death in February 1712 he was succeeded by his son Henry Arundell*, 5th Baron Arundell of Wardour.</p> |
R.P. |
|
ASHBURNHAM, John (1656-1710) |
<p><strong><surname>ASHBURNHAM</surname></strong>, <strong>John</strong> (1656–1710)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>20 May 1689 Bar. ASHBURNHAM |
|
First sat 4 June 1689; last sat 4 Feb. 1709 |
|
MP Hastings 1679 (Mar.)-1681, 1685-87 |
<p><em>b</em>. 15 Jan 1656, o.s. of William Ashburnham (<em>d</em>.1665) and Elizabeth, da. of John Poulett<sup>†</sup>, 1st Bar. Poulett. <em>educ</em>. Eton 1668-70; Peterhouse, Camb. 1670-1; travelled abroad (France and Switzerland) 1672-4.<sup>1</sup> <em>m</em>. 22 July 1677, Bridget (<em>d</em>. 12 May 1719), da. and h. of Walter Vaughan of Pembrey, Brec. and New Sarum, Wilts. 3s. 2da. <em>suc</em>. grandfa. John Ashburnham<sup>‡</sup> 1671, gt.-uncle William Ashburnham<sup>‡</sup> 1679. <em>d</em>. 21 Jan. 1710; <em>will</em> 7 Nov. 1709, pr. 6 Feb 1710.<sup>2</sup></p> |
<p>Dep. lt., Suss. 1685-May 1688, Brec. 1689-?<em>d</em>.; <em>custos rot</em>. Brec. 1702-<em>d</em>.</p> |
|
<p>The Ashburnhams were proud to claim descent from an Anglo-Saxon family established in Sussex from before the Norman Conquest. Their landholdings in the parish of Ashburnham can be traced back to the mid-twelfth century although there was a slight hiatus in the early seventeenth century when the family lands were lost. The setback proved to be temporary and the family fortunes were revived by a remarkable pair of brothers: Ashburnham’s grandfather John and his great uncle William. As a young man Ashburnham succeeded to both their estates, thus finding himself in possession of extensive properties in Westminster, Sussex, Bedfordshire and Hampshire. His good fortune was further enhanced by his marriage to Bridget Vaughan who possessed substantial estates in the West Country and in Breconshire, which seem to have been administered until then in trust by her mother’s second husband, William Ball of Gray’s Inn.<sup>3</sup> Ashburnham was careful to respect his wife’s interest in her patrimony. When making leases of properties that were previously hers, for example, he was always careful to do so in her name as well as his own even though he was not legally required to do so.<sup>4</sup> Ashburnham was undoubtedly a very wealthy man. He had extensive liquid assets, finding that in March 1687 the trustees who had been administering the family estates had £20,000 ‘lying dead’ in their hands’.<sup>5</sup> His Sussex estates alone were valued at over £2,600 per annum in 1690 and at just over £3,000 in 1703.<sup>6</sup> Surviving inventories show that his houses were comfortably furnished with an abundance of plate and jewels and on 17 Sept. 1689 as part of the peerage’s self-assessment exercise he acknowledged possession of a personal estate of £10,000 ‘in ready money and money at interest.’<sup>7</sup> He was still lending money in 1705, perhaps as much as £15,000 to Charles Bodville Robartes*, 2nd earl of Radnor, in company with Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and Sir Thomas Powys<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>8</sup> Ashburnham also later lent substantial sums of money to Nottingham and Sir Thomas Cave<sup>‡</sup>, as well as to Peregrine Osborne*, the future 2nd duke of Leeds.<sup>9</sup></p><p>Ashburnham’s antecedents were decidedly royalist. His grandfather was a committed royalist who treasured a watch given to him by Charles I and he himself was a committed member of the Church of England. His family’s long residence in Sussex meant that he either knew or was related to all the leading local families: his diary for 1686-7 records social interactions with many of the leading notables.<sup>10</sup> In later life (in the course of an argument about being double rated by the vestry of St. Margaret Westminster) he referred to the constitutional role of Parliament ‘so jealous of all oppressions, so ready to redress’.<sup>11</sup> Perhaps the remarks were no more than heavy irony for although Ashburnham became a member of the Commons at the earliest opportunity, he appears to have taken little interest in its proceedings. His absence from the division on the first exclusion bill foreshadowed his future somewhat lacklustre opposition to the policies of James II. His surviving diaries and correspondence show that his major interest in life was the management of his estates and nurturing his financial affairs. In August 1686 he recorded without comment a report that several prominent local Catholics had sat on the bench at the assizes and that they were ‘very courteously received by the lord chief justice’.<sup>12</sup> In January 1687 he was taken aback to learn that the Pelhams had been left out of the Sussex commission of the peace. Abortive attempts to check the accuracy of this report eventually led him to the crown office where he discovered that he had shared in the Pelhams’ disgrace.<sup>13</sup> A half-hearted attempt to win him back to the court by using Sir John Gage to invite him to attend the king’s rising failed when Ashburnham told Gage ‘that I had nothing to say to the king but that if his majesty had any commands for me I was always ready to obey them.’ The following day Ashburnham resolved ‘not to speak with the king except he should send for me’.<sup>14</sup> In 1686-7 Thomas Osborne*, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), listed him as a member of the opposition, possibly from personal knowledge as in May 1687 Ashburnham exchanged visits with Danby during his stay in London.<sup>15</sup> After being absent when the three questions were first asked in Sussex, Ashburnham later returned non-committal answers and was removed from his deputy lieutenancy.<sup>16</sup></p><p>Ashburnham supported the Revolution and was elected to the Convention. Despite his obvious distaste for the court and its policies there is little about his known activity that explains why Ashburnham should have been singled out for the reward of a peerage by William III so soon after the revolution of 1688. It has been suggested that the peerage might reflect his support for the toleration bill, or perhaps some undisclosed financial support for the new regime.<sup>17</sup> The timing of the grant, just one month after Danby’s elevation to a marquessate certainly fuels speculation about a reward for services rendered, and it is perhaps noteworthy that his patent of creation specifically mentions his love of his country’s liberties.<sup>18</sup></p><p>Merely a day after his writ of summons had been issued, Ashburnham took his seat in the Lords on 4 June 1689, being introduced by Charles North*, 5th Baron North, and Charles Cornwallis*, 3rd Baron Cornwallis. He was then present on 30 days of the session, 46 per cent of the remaining days, although he only attended six days in July and one day in August. He was named to seven committees, including the committee for privileges on 14 June. On 20 June he was named to report a conference on the bill appointing commissioners of the great seal, and to manage the subsequent conference on the 22nd. On 17 July, together with James Brydges*, 8th Baron Chandos, he introduced Charles Granville*, Baron Granville, into the House.</p><p>Ashburnham was present on the opening day of the 1689-90 session, 23 Oct. 1689, and attended on 69 days of the session, 95 per cent of the total, being named to 22 committees. In a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690 Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classed him among the supporters of the court. On 11 Jan. 1690 he acted as teller in opposition to North on whether to adjourn the hearing in <em>Fountaine v. Coke</em>. When, on 23 Jan., the House voted to omit the words ‘declared and were and are illegal’ in the bill to restore corporations, he signed a protest in which James II’s drive against corporations was described as ‘the most horrid action that King James was guilty of during his reign’. He was present when the session of March-May 1690 began on 20 Mar., attending on 40 days, 74 per cent of the total and being named to 19 committees. He attended the prorogation of 12 Sept. 1690. He was absent when the 1690-1 session began on 2 Oct., first attending on 27 October. After 31 Oct. he did not attend until 26 Dec. 1690, being present on 14 days of the session, 19 per cent of the total. He was named to six committees. He was absent from the beginning of the 1691-2 session on 22 Oct. 1691, first sitting on 18 November. He attended on 71 days, 73 per cent of the total and was named to 28 committees. On 17 Dec. he was named to report a conference on the treason trials bill. He held the proxy of Theophilus Hastings*, 7th earl of Huntingdon, from 23 Jan. 1692 until the end of the session. On 22 Feb. 1692 he was named to report on a conference on the small tithes bill.</p><p>Ashburnham was present on the second day of the 1692-3 session, 7 Nov., attending on 89 days, 87 per cent of the total and being named to 32 committees. On 31 Dec. he voted in favour of committing the place bill and on 3 Jan. 1693 he not only voted in its favour but entered his dissent when the bill failed. His attitude to the divorce bill promoted by Henry Howard*, 7th duke of Norfolk, was unclear. On 17 Jan. he entered two dissents concerning the refusal of the House to entertain the claim of Nicholas Knollys to the earldom of Banbury. Two days later he entered another pair of dissents to the refusal of the House to refer its proposed amendments to the land tax bill to the committee for privileges and then to abandon those amendments. On 4 Feb. he found Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder. On 20 Feb. he acted as teller in opposition to Louis de Duras*, 2nd earl of Feversham, on a procedural motion that effectively secured the House’s agreement to the reading of the list of commissioners of lieutenancy of the City of London for 1690, together with the names of those added or omitted from the commission.</p><p>Ashburnham arrived in London on 14 Nov. 1693, a week after the 1693-4 session had begun, being absent from a call of the House on that day. He took his seat on 17 Nov. and was then present on 95 days, 74 per cent of the total and was named to 21 committees. On 22 Dec. 1693 he entered a protest against the decision not to call the judges to account over the duchess of Grafton’s case. On 16 Feb. 1694, together with John Berkeley*, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, he introduced Charles Butler*, Baron Butler of Weston (commonly known as earl of Arran [I]), into the House. On 17 Feb. he voted against reversing the court of chancery’s dismission of the appeal of Ralph Montagu*, earl of Montagu, in the long running Albemarle inheritance dispute. He travelled to his Ampthill estate on 22 Feb., returning to London on 2 Mar. and to the House on 5 March.<sup>19</sup></p><p>Ashburnham paid several visits to London during the early autumn of 1694 but was absent for the whole of the 1694-5 session. He was absent from a call of the House on 26 Nov. and again on 3 Dec., when the Speaker was ordered to write to him ordering him to attend on 18 Dec.: on that day two of his servants attended to explain that Ashburnham was too ill to attend and he was accordingly excused.</p><p>Although there is virtually no evidence relating to his activities during the general election campaign of 1695 (which may be explained by his sons being some way off their majority) his involvement in other electoral conflicts suggests that he would certainly have played some part. The Ashburnhams exercised considerable influence in Hastings, and it can scarcely be coincidence that Robert Austen<sup>‡</sup>, the successful candidate there, was one of Ashburnham’s business partners as well as a relative of Lady Ashburnham.<sup>20</sup> They also had influence in Breconshire and their support may have helped to secure the county for the Tory Edward Jones<sup>‡</sup>.</p><p>When the first session of the 1695 parliament opened on 22 Nov. 1695 Ashburnham was absent. He first sat on the fourth day of the session, 2 Dec. 1695, and after sitting 12 days in December, he was absent after 19 Dec. until 29 Feb. 1696, when he signed the Association. Yet his absence did not prevent him from keeping a careful eye on proceedings in Parliament. His correspondence with his London agent included a request for a copy of the Coinage Act, and indicates that he monitored the progress of a bill affecting his interests in the Bedford Level promoted by Arthur Herbert*, earl of Torrington.<sup>21</sup> He did not sit after 20 Mar., having attended on 24 days, 19 per cent of the total and been named to four committees. Prompted by the success of the Scots, he wrote to his banker, Sir Richard Hoare<sup>‡</sup>, on 15 Apr. to enquire whether an act in favour of the East India trade had any chance of passing. He feared ‘that if nothing should now be done for us in this matter very probably the trade might be quite lost to England. I am the more inquisitive in what concerns this affair because I desire my self to be concerned in it in case an act of parliament should come forth to my liking.’<sup>22</sup> Over the summer he planned a journey to Wales, called for copies of the Coinage and Treason Trials Acts and fell ill with jaundice.<sup>23</sup> He also became involved in an acrimonious dispute with Thomas Bruce*, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, over his plans to build a private gallery for his family in Ampthill church.<sup>24</sup></p><p>On 22 Oct. 1696 Ashburnham told Sir John Morton<sup>‡</sup> that having been in London for a week, he had needed a spell hunting in the country ‘to lay in health for the service of the House this winter’ and promised that ‘I shall be at Parliament before Xmas’.<sup>25</sup> His first attendance at the 1696-7 session was on 19 Nov., having been ordered on 14 Nov. to attend by the 23rd for the proceedings over the Fenwick attainder. An additional motive for his arrival at this time was his quarrel with Ailesbury over the gallery at Ampthill, which although it had been arbitrated in his favour by Christopher Wren<sup>‡</sup>, still had to receive the assent of James Gardiner*, bishop of Lincoln. Gardiner was expected to arrive in London on 18 Nov. when he would seek guidance from Thomas Tenison*, archbishop of Canterbury.<sup>26</sup> A further round of negotiation appears to have followed through William Lloyd*, bishop of Lichfield, and Simon Patrick*, bishop of Ely, as referees.<sup>27</sup> On 2 Dec. 1696 Ashburnham was named as one of the managers of the conference on the bill remedying the ill state of the coinage. His last attendance of the session was 23 Dec., when he voted with the majority to convict Sir John Fenwick<sup>‡</sup>. On 4 Mar. 1697 he registered his proxy in favour of John Holles*, duke of Newcastle. He had attended on 24 days of the session, 21 per cent of the total and been named to two committees. By January 1697 he was back at Ampthill and promising his and his wife’s support to Sir Edward Williams<sup>‡</sup> at the forthcoming by-election for Breconshire under the caveat ‘that when my son comes to be of age and that we shall desire your interest for him in the same nature in case he shall be a pretender to be chosen for the county ... you will be as cheerful and ready to promote his election as we now are to ascertain yours.’<sup>28</sup> Somewhat oddly considering that Williams was a Welshman aiming for a Welsh seat, Ashburnham also declared that he believed Williams to be ‘a good Englishman and one of good sense and capable to serve his country, and such are the persons that ought only to be elected.’<sup>29</sup> Ashburnham also backed Williams in 1698, when Sir Rowland Gwynne<sup>‡</sup> won the seat, and then endorsed Gwynne in 1701. He then backed the victorious John Jeffreys<sup>‡</sup> in 1702, and seemed willing to back Williams in 1705, if Jeffreys would not stand.<sup>30</sup></p><p>Ashburnham attended the prorogation on 23 Nov. 1697 and was present when the session opened on 3 December. He attended regularly until 9 Feb. 1698 and then absented himself for the rest of the session, apart from two days early in June. He attended 34 days in all, 26 per cent of the total and was named to 12 committees. On 3 Dec. 1698, just prior to the meeting of the new Parliament, Ashburnham asked his London man of business, James MacBurnye, to send him pamphlets on the standing army controversy ‘for my diversion in the country’.<sup>31</sup> He was present on the second day of the 1698-9 session, 9 Dec., and last attended on the penultimate day of the session, 3 May, but these were rare attendances as, in total, he managed only 17 days, 21 per cent of the total. He was named to six committees including that to draw the address on the king’s speech (20 December). On 13 Mar. 1699 he was one of the peers ordered to be written to in order to attend the trial of Edward Rich*, 6th earl of Warwick, which was scheduled for 28 March. He was present on that day and on the following day for the trial of Lord Mohun. Ashburnham’s absence between 23 Feb. and 28 Mar. may perhaps be explained by his comment on 23 Mar. to Whitelocke Bulstrode, on his ‘being up and down in Wales, Bedfordshire, Sussex and Middlesex’.<sup>32</sup></p><p>During the 1699-1700 session Ashburnham was present a mere three days, 4 per cent of the total. On two of those days the business of the House included debate over the attempt of Thomas Watson*, bishop of St Davids, to resume privilege in his fight against removal from office. On 4 Dec. 1699 Ashburnham was named to the committee to consider matters of procedure concerning the attorney general’s submission on the Watson case (his only committee during the session). Ashburnham wrote to Charles Davenant<sup>‡</sup> on 17 Feb. 1700, apologizing for not committing himself on the issue of continuing the East India Company as a corporation, which was before the House.<sup>33</sup></p><p>Although not noted in the attendance list, Ashburnham was present on the opening day of the next Parliament, 10 Feb. 1701 to take the oaths and be nominated to the committees for privileges and the journal. He was then present nearly every day until 22 Feb., but he was absent for the whole of March, not returning to the House until 1 Apr. when he was named to the committee to consider precedents for the impeachment of the Whig lords. He attended fairly regularly through the first two weeks of April, entering a dissent on 16 Apr. to the decision to ask the king not to pass censure on the impeached lords whilst the impeachments were depending. His final attendance of the session was on 25 Apr., a full eight weeks before the prorogation. He attended for 18 days in all, 17 per cent of the total.</p><p>In December 1700, Ashburnham had backed the candidature of Edward Southwell<sup>‡</sup> at Hastings, as part of scheme whereby one of the sitting Members would come in at Lewes.<sup>34</sup> This may have been a device to keep a seat warm for his son, William Ashburnham*, the future 2nd Baron Ashburnham, who had recently come of age. Following the dissolution on 11 Nov. 1701, Ashburnham recommended his son, William, to Hastings, referring to his ‘stake in our English hedge’, and added on 5 Dec. the general observation that for England to be ‘settled and made happy, it must be done by councils of such who love their country and value their estates beyond anything else of any consideration whatsoever’.<sup>35</sup> Shockingly, at least to Ashburnham, the electors of Hastings chose instead John Mounscher<sup>‡</sup>, a Portsmouth ‘ropemaker’, described by Ashburnham as ‘a fellow that I believe such an one has not sat in the House of Commons since the Conquest, and that’s a bold word’. Ashburnham also sought to influence the Bedfordshire county poll, instructing to his agent in November ‘I would have you go round to such of my tenants as are freeholders’ in order to acquaint them ‘that I shall take it very well if they all appear and vote for my Lord Edward Russell<sup>‡</sup> and Sir William Gostwick<sup>‡</sup> on the election day as they all were so kind to do the last Parliament’.<sup>36</sup></p><p>Ashburnham was absent from the opening of the 1701-2 session, first attending on 5 Jan. 1702, when he took the oaths, but he may have been present on 1 Jan. when the Journal recorded his signature to the address concerning the Pretender being owned by France (although he may have signed it later). He was recorded as present on 63 days, 63 per cent of the total and was named to 20 committees. On 6 Feb. he was also named as one of the managers of the conference with the Commons on the bill to attaint the Pretender. Afterwards he was named to the committee to inspect precedents for adding clauses to such a bill, in order to provide reasons for insisting on their amendments, and as such was named to the conference on the 10th. On 27 Apr. he acted as a teller in opposition to John Jeffreys*, 2nd Baron Jeffreys, on whether to adjourn in the case of <em>Ranger v. Ashmeade</em>.</p><p>During the summer of 1702 Ashburnham was appointed <em>custos rotulorum</em> of Breconshire. He appears to have believed that this would allow him to replace the clerk of the peace with a candidate of his own choosing but, on taking legal advice, soon discovered that he was wrong.<sup>37</sup> Although he secured the election of his son at Hastings, ‘with a general voice’, Southwell reported as to the second seat that ‘those who were there concluded if my Lord Ashburnham had proposed me or any other at the time of election, he would have lost it’.<sup>38</sup> Ashburnham also expended considerable time in support of Southwell at Rye, strengthening his position sufficiently for him to be seated on petition in December 1702.<sup>39</sup></p><p>Ashburnham first attended the 1702-3 session on 27 Oct. 1702, when he took the oaths. On 9 Nov. he was named to the committee to draw up the address to the queen on the recovery of Prince George*, and later he acted as a teller in opposition to Charles Bennet*, 2nd Baron Ossulston, on whether to adjourn the House for a thanksgiving service at St Paul’s. After 19 Nov. he did not attend until the House resumed after Christmas on 7 Jan. 1703, sending a proxy up to Nottingham on 9 December.<sup>40</sup> In January 1703 Nottingham forecast that Ashburnham would support the bill against occasional conformity, and on 16 Jan. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ wrecking amendment to the penalty clauses of the bill. In all, he was present on 40 days of the session, 47 per cent of the total.</p><p>Ashburnham attended the prorogation of 4 Nov. 1703 and was present when the next (1703-5) session opened on 9 November. During the session he was present on 49 days, 50 per cent of the total and was named to 23 committees. According to both assessments of Charles Spencer*, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in November 1703, he was again expected to support the bill to prevent occasional conformity and voted in its favour on 14 Dec. 1703. Nottingham included him on a list of members of both Houses he drew up in 1704 which perhaps indicates support over the ‘Scotch Plot’. He was absent from the beginning of the 1704-5 session on 24 Oct. 1704 and attended only between 9 and 13 Nov. 1704, four days in total. He then entered a proxy on 14 Nov. in favour of Nottingham which remained in force for the remainder of the session. He was absent from a call of the House on 23 Nov. 1704. It was probably his name (rather than that of Hugh Cholmondeley*, Baron Cholmondeley) which was marked on what seems to have been a list, compiled in November 1704, of supporters of the tack. In April 1705 he was listed as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession.</p><p>Despite his inactivity in Parliament, Ashburnham was careful to keep his Hastings clients happy, acting as intermediary between the town and the admiralty in April 1705 in order to obtain protection and convoys for the townsmen during the mackerel fishing season and assuring them that whatever ‘you think fit to entrust to my affectionate care and concern for the good of your town shall be always performed to the best of my skill’.<sup>41</sup> His son was re-elected for Hastings on 12 May 1705, with the help of Ashburnham, who on 7 May began his journey into Sussex as an ‘absolute necessity’, and three days later fired off from Ashburnham some legal advice to the mayor of Hastings about his duties in the election.<sup>42</sup> On 21 May Ashburnham seemed to be coordinating the travel arrangements for a party of freeholders to accompany his son to the county poll in support of General Henry Lumley<sup>‡</sup> and Sir George Parker<sup>‡</sup>, and wrote personally to Lumley’s brother, Richard Lumley*, earl of Scarbrough, of his efforts in the election. The election over, he decamped to Bedfordshire.<sup>43</sup></p><p>Ashburnham may have been somewhat distracted during this period by his son’s marriage in October 1705. This brought a considerable estate ‘lying in sight from the windows of my house in this country’ near Ampthill into the family.<sup>44</sup> Unfortunately, it also brought an attendant dispute over the marriage settlement, particularly concerning which lands had been settled on his son, and which were part of his son’s mother-in-law’s jointure lands. He seems to have been delighted with his new daughter-in-law, but he was appalled by her mother’s financial laxity and did not hesitate to sour relations by making his views known and demanding interest for late payment.<sup>45</sup> Although Ashburnham was present on the opening day of the 1705 Parliament, 25 Oct. 1705, he then left London, and was absent until 22 Nov., his only other appearance before the Christmas recess.<sup>46</sup> He kept his eye on legislation, asking his London man of business, Martin Folkes, on 7 Dec. whether Sir Thomas Cave’s estate bill would affect the security of his loan.<sup>47</sup> However, he was present when the House resumed on 8 Jan. 1706 and sat regularly until 21 February. Although he was not listed as being appointed to the committee for a bill to naturalize William Lewis Le Grand on 14 Jan., he chaired the committee on the 15th and reported it to the House later that day.<sup>48</sup> Thereafter he sat for five days in March, the last being 9 Mar., on which day he entered a protest to the decision of the House to agree with the Commons that Sir Rowland Gwynne’s<sup>&dagger</sup> pamphlet, <em>A Letter to Stamford</em> was a scandalous, false and malicious libel. In all he attended on 33 days, 35 per cent of the total. By 23 Mar. 1706 he was at Ampthill.<sup>49</sup></p><p>Although Ashburnham had announced from Ampthill on 23 Nov. 1706 his intention of being at the opening of the 1706-7 session on 3 Dec., he missed the opening few days, first attending on 9 December.<sup>50</sup> He then managed only two more days before Christmas. He was delayed on his return to Westminster after the Christmas recess, arriving at Westminster by 25 Jan. 1707.<sup>51</sup> He sat for nine days at the end of January and beginning of February. On 3 Feb. he entered a dissent to the failure of the House to insist on making the Test Act perpetual and unalterable and a fundamental condition of union with Scotland. He sat again for four consecutive sitting days 15-19 March. He last sat on 19 Mar., having been present on 16 days, 19 per cent of the total. He did not attend the brief session of April 1707 session. He was missing on the opening two days of the 1707-8 session in October but was present when the sessional committees were appointed on 6 November. He sat for nine days in November and on 11 Mar. 1708, 9 per cent of the total. Although some of his earlier activity in the Lords indicated Whiggish (or perhaps country) sympathies, by May 1708 his party allegiances were far clearer and he was unsurprisingly listed as a Tory. Ashburnham’s only appearances in the 1708-9 session were 3 and 4 Feb. 1709.</p><p>By mid April 1709, it was reported that Ashburnham had been ‘above three months in a consumptive, dropsy and asthma with a hectic fever.’<sup>52</sup> He drew up a will in November 1709, a careful and detailed document. He appointed Southwell, Hoare, Sir John Osborne and Richard Webb of the Inner Temple as trustees for his son and heir, William. He left £10,000 and £8,000 respectively to his two younger sons, provided portions of £5,000 apiece for his two daughters and made generous provision for his widow. He also made exceptionally liberal provision for friends, servants and the poor. He died on 21 Jan. 1710, ‘after a lingering and tedious sickness’, at his house in Bloomsbury, ‘the master of a very plentiful estate, the bulk of which, together with his title’ went to his son, William and then to his second son, John Ashburnham*, the 3rd Baron Ashburnham.<sup>53</sup></p> |
R.P./S.N.H. |
|
ASHBURNHAM, John (1687-1737) |
<p><strong><surname>ASHBURNHAM</surname></strong>, <strong>John</strong> (1687–1737)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>bro. 16 June 1710 as 3rd Bar. ASHBURNHAM; <em>cr. </em>14 May 1730 earl of ASHBURNHAM. |
|
First sat 27 Nov. 1710; last sat 20 Apr. 1736 |
|
MP Hastings 10 Feb.-16 June 1710 |
<p><em>bap</em>. 13 Mar. 1687, 2nd s. of John Ashburnham*, Bar. Ashburnham and Bridget, da. and h. of Walter Vaughan of Porthammel House, co. Brecon; bro. of William Ashburnham*, 2nd Bar. Ashburnham. <em>m</em>. (1) 21 Oct. 1710, Mary (<em>d</em>.1712), da. of James Butler*, 2nd duke of Ormond and 2nd w. Mary Somerset, <em>s.p.</em>; (2) 24 July 1714, Henrietta Maria (<em>d</em>.1718), <em>suo jure</em> baroness Strange, da. and coh. of William Richard George Stanley*, 9th earl of Derby, wid. of John Annesley*, 4th earl of Anglesey, 1da. <em>d.v.p.</em>;<sup>1</sup> (3) lic. 14 Mar. 1724, Jemima, da. and coh. of Henry Grey*, duke of Kent and 1st w. Jemima Crewe, 1s. <em>d</em>. 10 Mar. 1737; <em>will</em> 17 Mar. 1733, pr. 24 Mar. 1737.<sup>2</sup></p> |
<p>Guidon and maj. 1 Horse Gds. 1707, col. July 1713-15; col. of horse duke of Ormond’s Regt. Jan. 1713.</p><p>Dep. gov. and dep. warden Cinque Ports June 1713-14; capt. yeomen of the guard. Nov. 1731-<em>d</em>.</p><p>Gent. of the bedchamber to Frederick<sup>†</sup>, Prince of Wales Dec. 1728-July 1731.<sup>3</sup></p> |
|
<p>As a younger son of a wealthy peer, it was always likely that Ashburnham would end up in Parliament; in April 1705 his father wrote, ‘my sons are both gone in to Sussex full of projects of elections for themselves’.<sup>4</sup> Ashburnham was underage at this point and was destined for a military career. Earlier in Anne’s reign, his father had approached John Churchill*, duke of Marlborough, for the place of guidion in the guards, and once his son was 18 he recommended him again.<sup>5</sup> In May 1706 his father reminded Marlborough of ‘the hopes I had of my second son being made fit in his education for the queen’s service’, outlined his plan for Ashburnham to be guidion ‘in her first troop of guards’ and described him in June as ‘a pretty fellow both in language and exercises becoming his age.’<sup>6</sup> After further manoeuvring he was gazetted in January 1707.<sup>7</sup></p><p>Following his father’s death, and his older brother’s elevation to the House of Lords, Ashburnham took over his brother’s seat of Hastings but his time in the Commons proved to be brief. In the summer of 1710, the unexpected death of his brother from smallpox propelled him into the Lords instead.<sup>8</sup> By August his new found status was also pushing him towards matrimony, and it was reported that he was to be married ‘very quickly’ to Lady Mary Butler, youngest daughter of James Butler*, 2nd duke of Ormond, ‘as soon as the writings can be done’.<sup>9</sup> By 23 Aug. it was reported that ‘all matters are concluded for the marriage’, which Swift called the ‘best match now in England’, as Ashburnham had £12,000 a year and ‘abundance of money’.<sup>10</sup> Both his own and his wife’s family traditions suggested that he would have Tory sympathies, but his military background had drawn him into Marlborough’s orbit. Thus, in August 1710 Anne Clavering reported that John Poulett*, Earl Poulett (a distant kinsman), had spent an hour trying to win Ashburnham over to the new ministry headed by Robert Harley*, the future earl of Oxford, only to be told that ‘may my estate sink under ground, my tenants be ruined, my family perish, and myself damned if ever I give you a vote.’ Lady Clavering was delighted with the ‘glorious young rogue’ and concluded her account by writing ‘is this not a tight Whig? Thank God his brother made room for him’.<sup>11</sup> Not surprisingly, in October 1710 Harley listed him as a likely opponent of the ministry.</p><p>Ashburnham took his seat on the second day of the 1710 Parliament (27 Nov.) and attended on 58 days of the session, 51 per cent of the total. He took a particular interest in military affairs and his attendances in January and early February of 1711 coincided with discussions of the war in Spain. On 11 Jan. 1711 he joined with a group of Whig peers and entered two protests relating to the conduct of the war. The first was against the resolution that the defeat at Almanza was the responsibility of Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], Charles O’Hara, Baron Tyrawley [I] and General James Stanhope<sup>†</sup>, later Earl Stanhope. The second was against the decision to reject petitions from Galway and Tyrawley. The following day he entered another protest at the decision of the House to censure the conduct of ministers for approving an offensive war in Spain. On 3 Feb. he entered two further protests; both effectively defended the previous ministry against allegations of incompetence in the conduct of the war. He covered a short absence from Parliament between 9 and 13 Feb. by a proxy registered in favour of fellow Whig Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun. Ashburnham was absent from 17 Mar. to 19 Apr. 1711, probably due to ill health, as on 20 Mar. he was reported to be ‘dead or dying of a pleurisy.’<sup>12</sup> He was present, though, on 24 Apr. when the bill for repairing the highways between Dunstable and Hockley (Hockliffe) was considered in a committee of the whole before receiving its third reading, then on 9 May he was named as one of the managers of the conference on amendments to the bill.</p><p>Ashburnham soon developed a reputation as a man about town, thus on 27 Nov. 1711, Lady Strafford was speculating on the duchess of Shrewsbury being ‘very coquet’ with him, and on the likelihood of a new opera singer becoming his mistress.<sup>13</sup> That same month, Swift had charged him with spreading a false rumour in a coffee house that Edward Harley<sup>†</sup>, styled Lord Harley, the future 2nd earl of Oxford, had married the Newcastle heiress.<sup>14</sup> Ashburnham attended the prorogations on 13 and 27 Nov., and was present on the opening day of the session, 7 Dec. 1711. Evidently, he supported the amendment to the address to include a reference to ‘No Peace without Spain’, and his name was listed on a forecast of those peers who would support the presentation of the address on the following day. He was also present at a celebratory dinner held on the 8th along with Ossulston and a host of other Whig peers.<sup>15</sup> On 12 Dec. he registered his proxy in favour of William Cavendish*, 2nd duke of Devonshire. Ashburnham had been forecast on 19 Dec. by Oxford as an opponent of the attempt to admit Scottish peers as peers of Great Britain, but with a query, which probably denotes his likely absence. The proxy was vacated by Ashburnham’s return to the House on 14 Jan. 1712. Ralph Bridges thought it worthy of note that on 20 May he voted against the passage of the bill to appoint commissioners to inquire into grants made since 1688.<sup>16</sup> He registered a proxy on 24 May in favour of Devonshire, next being recorded as present on 30 May. Thus, he was not recorded as present on 28 May 1712, although a printed list includes his name among those voting against an address to the queen that his father-in-law, Ormond, should act offensively against France in order to obtain a safe and honourable peace, Devonshire being on the other side of the question.<sup>17</sup></p><p>Ashburnham’s presumed support for the ministry in this division list is made more interesting because he was the most likely intended recipient of Swift’s pamphlet, published on 31 May, <em>Some Reasons to prove that no Person is obliged by his Principles, as a Whig, to oppose her Majesty or her present Ministry. In a Letter to A Whig Peer</em>.<sup>18</sup> Ashburnham, like the recipient, did vote for the ‘No Peace without Spain’ amendment to the address on 7 Dec. 1711; his ‘neighbour’ in Sussex, Charles Seymour*, 6th duke of Somerset, had been pivotal in that vote, and he was in possession of a ‘great patrimonial estate’. Most interestingly, the pamphlet referred to the failed grants’ bill (20 May) and to the loss of ‘your vote’, ‘a few days ago’, when the Whigs had been so confident of success as to encourage people to hire places in expectation of ministers being sent to the Tower, a reference to the vote of 28 May.<sup>19</sup> Tantalizingly, given the purpose of the pamphlet, Ashburnham does appear to have switched sides, for he supported the ministry on 7 June in a vote on whether to add words to the address in response to the queen’s speech communicating the terms of the peace.<sup>20</sup> Ashburnham had attended on 70 days of the session, 65 per cent of the total.</p><p>On 2 Jan. 1713, Swift noted that Lady Ashburnham had died at her ‘country house’, or as Thomas Bateman reported on 5 Jan. ‘suddenly on the road out of Sussex’, she being ‘with child and having a cold, Sir D[avid] Hamilton was sent for, who to prevent miscarriage, administered somewhat, or other, and she fell into convulsions’.<sup>21</sup> Ashburnham was now clearly in the Tory camp, for when Ormond conversed with Swift on 5 Jan. he referred to the political repercussions of her death, noting that ‘he was afraid the Whigs would get him again’.<sup>22</sup> His return to the Whigs was forestalled by his appointment on 26 Jan. 1713 as colonel of Ormond’s regiment of horse. Ashburnham attended the prorogations of 3 and 17 Feb. 1713. Swift included his name as a supporter of the ministry in the list that he drew up before the new session. Ashburnham was present on the opening day of the 1713 session, 9 Apr., attending on 48 days of the session, 73 per cent of the total. He was named to a select committee on the bill allowing his wife’s uncle, Charles Butler*, Baron Butler of Weston and earl of Arran [I], to take the oaths relevant to his Irish offices in England. He was also expected to support the ministry over the French commercial treaty. It was presumably to ensure Ashburnham’s continuing allegiance to the Tories that Ormond appointed him deputy warden of the Cinque Ports in June 1713. With Ormond’s regiment slated for disbandment, Ashburnham was accommodated in July 1713 when William Henry Bentinck*, 2nd earl of Portland, agreed to sell him the colonelcy of the first troop of horse guards.</p><p>Ashburnham missed the first few days of the 1714 session, not arriving until 2 March. He attended on 44 days of the session, 58 per cent of the total and was named only to the committee for privileges. On 5 Apr. he joined with Arthur Annesley*, 5th earl of Anglesey, Montagu Bertie*, 2nd earl of Abingdon, and William Dawes*, archbishop of York, in opposing the motion that the Hanoverian succession was safe under the queen’s government.<sup>23</sup> His rebellion proved to be temporary, for on 8 Apr. he was one of the ‘straggling Lords’ who returned to the court in order to amend the address to the queen on issuing a proclamation and reward for the capture of the Pretender, so that it could be issued when she deemed fit.<sup>24</sup> However, on 13 Apr. when the House came to debate the queen’s answer to their address on the Pretender of the 8th, the Whigs proposed a further address which was amended by the court. On the main amendment, Ashburnham joined other Hanoverian Tories in opposing the insertion of the term ‘and industriously’ into the address when referring to the fears and jealousies which had been ‘universally’ spread about the threats to the Protestant succession, which was carried for the ministry by two proxy votes.<sup>25</sup> This does not seem to have presaged any move away from the court in general, for on 21 Apr. he registered his proxy in favour of Ormond. This proxy may have been necessary for on 24 Apr. it was reported that ‘this morning Lady Betty Stanley died of the smallpox. I believe her fortune comes to [her sister] Lady Anglesey who is to marry Lord Ashburnham.’<sup>26</sup> The proxy was vacated on his reappearance in the House on 30 April. Ashburnham was missing from the House from 8 May until 1 June: again this may have been connected to his forthcoming nuptials as his prospective bride may also have fallen ill of the smallpox.<sup>27</sup> At the end of May or beginning of June Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, listed Ashburnham as a supporter of the schism bill.</p><p>The prorogation on 9 July 1714 was followed on 24 July by his marriage to Lady Anglesey in the royal chapel; this match reinforced his Tory links, she being the sister-in-law of the current earl of Anglesey, and the daughter of Lady Elizabeth Butler, Ormond’s sister. The couple then left London for Sussex, but the death of the queen brought Ashburnham back to London, where he attended on nine of the 15 days of the August 1714 session.<sup>28</sup> By the end of August, Ashburnham was preparing for the next election. His Ampthill neighbour, Charles Bruce*, Baron Bruce of Whorlton, was informed by a Captain Rolt that Ashburnham had already been written to, it being ‘pretty difficult to find him at home, that we may meet together by your appointments, as soon as we can’ in order to make plans to prevent the Whigs winning the forthcoming elections in Bedfordshire.<sup>29</sup> In November 1714 Ashburnham was actively campaigning in the forthcoming Sussex contest for his brother Bertram.<sup>30</sup> In January 1715 his name was included on a list of Tories still in office, and he was clearly seen as a potential recruit to the Whig cause. Eventually, he attained office in the household of Prince Frederick and was promoted to an earldom. He died on 10 Mar. 1737 and was succeeded by his son, John Ashburnham<sup>†</sup>, 2nd earl of Ashburnham.</p> |
R.P./S.N.H. |
|
ASHBURNHAM, William (1679-1710) |
<p><strong><surname>ASHBURNHAM</surname></strong>, <strong>William</strong> (1679–1710)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 21 Jan. 1710 as 2nd Bar. ASHBURNHAM. |
|
First sat 4 Feb. 1710; last sat 18 Apr. 1710 |
|
MP Hastings 1702-21 Jan. 1710. |
<p><em>b</em>. 21 May 1679, 1st s. of John Ashburnham*, 1st Bar. Ashburnham and Bridget, da. and h. of Walter Vaughan of Porthammel House, co. Brecon; bro. of John Ashburnham*, 3rd Bar. Ashburnham. <em>educ</em>. M. Foubert military academy.<sup>1</sup> <em>m</em>. 16 Oct. 1705, Catherine (1687-1710), da. and event. h. of Thomas Taylor of Clapham, Beds. <em>s.p</em>. <em>d</em>. 16 June 1710; <em>will</em> 11 June, pr. 15 July 1710.<sup>2</sup></p> |
|
|
<p>Ashburnham was a Member of the Commons when he succeeded to his father’s barony. As the Member for the family seat of Hastings he had established a reputation as a moderate Tory and Church man. His succession to the peerage coincided with the heightened political tensions caused by the trial of Dr. Sacheverell. He attended the House throughout Dr. Sacheverell’s trial and entered dissents to the failure of the attempt to adjourn the House on 14 Mar. and to the resolution on 16 Mar. that the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment. On the list of those voting in the division on Sacheverell’s guilt on 20 Mar. he was marked as absent although present at the trial. He returned the following day when he entered a dissent to the decision to censure Sacheverell. Overall he sat on 24 days of the session, 50 per cent of the total after he first sat and was named to seven committees.</p><p>Ashburnham died on 16 June 1710 during the smallpox epidemic of that summer, as did his widow a few weeks later on 11 July. His will made a few days before his death left the majority of personal estate to his wife, together with the use of his house in St. James’s Square, which he had ‘lately’ purchased from William Cavendish*, 2nd duke of Devonshire. He gave £5,000 to his brother, heir and executor, who succeeded him as 3rd Baron Ashburnham.</p> |
R.P./S.N.H. |
|
ASTLEY, Isaac (c. 1613-62) |
<p><strong><surname>ASTLEY</surname></strong>, <strong>Isaac</strong> (c. 1613–62)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 27 Feb. 1652 as 2nd Bar. ASTLEY. |
|
First sat 14 June 1660; last sat 19 May 1662 |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. c.1613,<sup>1</sup> 1st s. of Jacob Astley, Bar. Astley and Agnes, da. of Henry Imple of Blomersham/Bloumerckem, Holland. <em>m</em>. 27 Dec. 1650, Anne, 4th da. of Sir Francis Stydolfe (Stydolph) of Mickleham, Surr. and Mary Altham. 2s. 1da. <em>d.v.p.</em> kntd. 23 Feb. 1643. <em>d</em>. Sept. 1662.</p> |
|
|
<p>Astley’s father had already had a distinguished career as a soldier in Holland and Scandinavia when in 1640 he inherited the estates of his ‘cousin’, Sir John Astley<sup>‡</sup> (whose children had all predeceased him), the son of the Elizabethan courtier John Astley<sup>‡</sup>. His Civil War service was rewarded with a peerage in 1644, and having been captured by the parliamentarians at Stow on the Wold in 1646 and given his parole, he seems to have sat out the rest of the war and Interregnum at his Maidstone home, where he died on 27 Feb. 1652.<sup>2</sup></p><p>Little is known of Astley’s youth, although, aged about 15, he was the eldest of four sons naturalized by act of Parliament in 1628. By the time of his father’s death these three brothers were dead, the youngest, Bernard, having perished at the siege of Bristol in 1645. A younger brother, Edward, and a sister Elizabeth were naturalized by act in 1656; Edward served as a soldier with the Dutch, before his death at Maastricht in 1676.<sup>3</sup> At his father’s death in 1652 Astley inherited lands in Maidstone, including Maidstone Palace, Alsford and Boxley, Kent. Whether he was actually in England to take possession of those lands is uncertain, for Astley and his wife had received a pass on 30 Jan. 1651 to travel into Holland, and a younger son, Francis, was born in Delph (Delft) in about 1654.<sup>4</sup></p><p>Having taken his seat in the Lords on 14 June 1660, Astley was then present on 99 days of the remainder of the session, 82 per cent of the total. He was present on 13, 16, 17 and 22 Nov. 1660 to see through a bill to naturalize his son Francis (his eldest son had been born in England). On each day the bill was either the first item of business or close to the beginning of the day’s agenda which suggests that he was either very lucky or on good terms with those who managed the business of the House. He was less fortunate when the bill reached the Commons where, despite a reminder, it was lost at the end of the session.<sup>5</sup> However, Francis was included in the naturalization bill which passed in May 1663.<sup>6</sup> Astley did not attend the first part of the opening session of the Cavalier Parliament and was absent from a call of the House on 20 May 1661. He was present when the House resumed after its summer adjournment on 20 Nov. 1661, and attended on 59 days of the remainder of the session, 47 per cent of the total. On 24 Mar. 1662 he was given leave to be absent ‘for some time’, duly returning on 6 May. He last sat on the day Parliament was prorogued, 19 May 1662.</p><p>Astley died in September 1662, being succeeded by his son, Jacob Astley*, 3rd Baron Astley. He left no will, but on 6 May 1663 his widow proved the will of his father, the first baron, in the local church court rather than in the prerogative court of Canterbury.<sup>7</sup> An inventory was taken of Astley’s goods in Maidstone Palace on 28 Jan. 1663, including his parliamentary robes (valued at £30), but the total value of goods and personal estate was only £682 18<em>s</em>.</p> |
R.P./S.N.H. |
|
ASTLEY, Jacob (1651-89) |
<p><strong><surname>ASTLEY</surname></strong>, <strong>Jacob</strong> (1651–89)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. Sept. 1662 (a minor) as 3rd Bar. ASTLEY. |
|
First sat 18 Feb. 1673; last sat 4 Mar. 1689 |
|
|
<p><em>bap</em>. 13 Jan. 1651,<sup>1</sup> 1st s. of Isaac Astley*, 2nd Bar. Astley and Ann Stydolfe. <em>educ</em>. St. John’s, Camb. 1669. <em>m</em>. bet. 13 Feb. 1677 and 23 Jan. 1678,<sup>2</sup> Frances (c.1660-92), da. and coh. of Sir Richard Stydolfe, 1st bt. of Norbury, Mickleham, Surr. and Elizabeth, da. of Sir George Stonehouse<sup>‡</sup>, <em>s.p</em>. <em>d</em>. 21 Mar. 1689; admon. 8 May 1689.</p> |
<p>Freeman, Maidstone 1683.<sup>3</sup></p> |
|
<p>Astley’s life and parliamentary career is almost as obscure as that of his father. His grandfather’s will of February 1651, left ‘Jacob Astley my grandchild £5 to buy him a sword to maintain the honour of the name’.<sup>4</sup> In August 1666, Sir Jacob Astley<sup>‡</sup> wrote to a kinsman, Dr. Herbert Astley, about Lady Astley’s need for £60 and remitting it to Maidstone, noting that James Scott*, duke of Monmouth, had been at her house in Maidstone and might stay a long time.<sup>5</sup> Astley studied at Cambridge, being admitted in January 1669, although in June 1670, William Saywell wrote to Dr. Astley that Lord Astley’s return was ‘daily expected. I saw my Lady at London three days before Whitsuntide when she told he should return presently after that great feast after a full half year’s absence within a fortnight. I should be glad to be serviceable to a nobleman of his hopes were his diligence equal to his parts.’<sup>6</sup></p><p>At the beginning of January 1673, Dr. Astley, now dean of Norwich, approached Henry Bennet*, earl of Arlington, to take Astley under his wing and present him to the king. He stressed the services of the young man’s grandfather to the king and noted that before Parliament was scheduled to meet he would have attained his majority and be able to appear more publicly, ‘his modesty hath somewhat hitherto concealed him.’<sup>7</sup> Although the new session opened on 4 Feb. 1673, his writ of summons was not issued until 14 Feb., possibly prompted by a call of the House on the previous day. He took his seat four days later. He was added on 20 Feb. to the committees for privileges and petitions. He then absented himself from the House until mid-March, after which he attended the House almost daily until the adjournment on 29 March. He also attended when Parliament was prorogued on 20 October. Overall he was present on 14 days, 36 per cent of the total. He also attended on one of the four days of the short session which began on 27 October.</p><p>Astley was missing when the 1674 session convened on 7 Jan., being excused attendance on the 12 Jan., taking the oaths on the 15th and being added on the 16th to the sessional committees. Overall he attended on 22 days of the session, 58 per cent of the total, the highest of his parliamentary career. He was present for the opening of the first session of 1675 on 14 Apr. and was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. He was present on 19 days of the session, 46 per cent of the total, with his attendance tailing off markedly towards the end of the session. In all he was named to a further three committees. He attended on the opening day of the session of October-November 1675, on 13 Oct., and was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. However, he was present on only one other day, out of a possible 21 attendances.</p><p>At some point soon after the death of Sir Richard Stydolfe in February 1677, Astley and James Tryon married Sir Richard’s two daughters and co-heiresses, Frances and Margaret, then aged about 15 and 16 respectively. Astley and Tryon had to pay Stydolfe’s debts but seem to have regarded the investment as worthwhile since as a result they gained properties in the then fashionable Westminster parish of St Giles-in-the-Fields and in Surrey. They also found themselves in dispute with their mother-in-law over Sir Richard’s personal estate. In the course of the dispute Astley and Tryon assured the court that the Stydolfe sisters had married with the full approval of their guardians; Lady Stydolfe was equally insistent that the marriages had been contracted against her ‘will and liking’ and without the consent of their guardians.<sup>8</sup></p><p>Astley was back in Parliament for the opening of the 1677-8 session on 15 Feb. 1677, when he was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. After attending nine of the first 17 sittings, his attendance thereafter was negligible, totalling only 22 days, 19 per cent overall. He was named to a further three committees. Despite his poor attendance, his political views were clear to Anthony Ashley Cooper*, earl of Shaftesbury, who listed him as vile in his analysis of 1677-8. Although Astley had attended the prorogation of 11 May 1678, he was not present for the session of May-July 1678, which began on 23 May. Nor was he present when the next session began on 21 Oct. 1678, first attending on the 29th. He was present on ten days of the session, 17 per cent of the total.</p><p>Astley was missing when the new Parliament met on 6 Mar. 1679, and missed the remainder of the abortive first session which ended on 13 March. Although during March 1679 the various lists prepared by Thomas Osborne*, earl of Danby, mark him either as an opponent or as doubtful, another list of those absent on 12 Mar. 1679, labelled him as a court lord. After attending on 18 Mar., on 20 Mar. he registered his proxy in favour of Danby’s supporter, James Compton*, 3rd earl of Northampton, a peer linked to the family as Herbert Astley had once been his chaplain. The proxy was vacated by his return to the House on 2 May. He was then absent again until 8 May. On 10 May he voted against the appointment of a joint committee to consider proceeding against the impeached lords. He again absented himself after 14 May, possibly leaving London.<sup>9</sup> Astley had returned by 26 and 27 May when the main business before the House was the conference concerning the impeached peers; on the latter day, he also probably voted in favour of the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases. Nine out his ten attendances had been in May. He attended 16 per cent of all sitting days in the second session of the Parliament.</p><p>Astley was absent when the 1680-1 Parliament convened on 21 Oct., first attending on the 30th. He was present on 12 days of the session, 21 per cent of the total. Two surviving division lists indicate that he voted against rejecting the exclusion bill on its first reading on 15 Nov. 1680, but, confusingly, a third list puts him on the other side of the question. Even if this third list refers to the first question of the day, on whether to put the question that the bill be rejected, it still leaves Astley’s intentions unclear. His last attendance of the session was on 7 Dec. 1680 when he found William Howard*, Viscount Stafford, guilty.</p><p>Astley failed to attend the Oxford Parliament in 1681, when Danby expected him to be neutral on the issue of his bail. In 1683 he was one of a group of local gentlemen and nobility who offered to become freemen of Maidstone after the surrender of the town’s charter, which suggests sympathy for the Tory reaction.<sup>10</sup> He was present when James II’s Parliament opened on 19 May 1685, and attended on nine days, 17 per cent of the total, being named to one committee. He did not attend after the adjournment in July 1685, although he was present at the prorogation on 15 Feb. 1687. By then his support for James II and his policies seems to have become problematic. Canvassing lists during that year variously mark him as uncertain, opposed and undeclared. Subsequent events suggest that Danby was correct in labelling him as one of James II’s opponents.</p><p>Although Astley was not present at the Guildhall when the peers met on 11 Dec. 1688, he did attend on 24 Dec. 1688 when they met at the House of Lords to discuss the flight of the king. He also attended on Christmas Day when the assembled peers signed the two addresses, one summoning a Convention and the other asking the prince of Orange to take over the administration until then.<sup>11</sup></p><p>He was present for the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689 and was named to the committees for privileges and petitions the following day. He was then absent until 5 Feb. when Parliament discussed whether or not James II had abdicated. Astley was content to agree with the Commons over the use of the word abdicated and that the throne was vacant on 6 Feb., a vote for which Ralph Montagu*, 3rd Baron (later duke of) Montagu, later took the credit.<sup>12</sup> He took the oaths to the new regime on 2 Mar., although it may be indicative of his standing that he was recorded as Isaac, Lord Astley. In all he attended on ten days of the session, before his death on 21 Mar. 1689, 22 per cent of the available sittings. Although his wife had been pregnant in 1680, he had no surviving children.<sup>13</sup> His estate passed to his cousin and namesake Sir Jacob Astley, but the peerage was extinguished. When Anne Astley, a daughter of Edward Astley, the deceased younger brother of Baron Astley, sought naturalization, Sir Jacob, anxious to protect his interests, prepared a proviso to the effect that nothing in the bill should deprive him ‘of any estate right title interest claim or demand out of in or to any manors lands tenements or hereditaments of Jacob Lord Astley’.<sup>14</sup> The Stydolfe estates passed to Lady Frances’s nephew Charles Tyron.<sup>15</sup></p> |
R.P./S.N.H. |
|
BATHURST, Allen (1684-1775) |
<p><strong><surname>BATHURST</surname></strong>, <strong>Allen</strong> (1684–1775)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>1 Jan. 1712 Bar. BATHURST; <em>cr. </em>27 Aug. 1772 Earl BATHURST. |
|
First sat 2 Jan. 1712; last sat 28 Apr. 1769 |
|
MP Cirencester 1705-12. |
<p><em>b</em>. 16 Nov. 1684, s. and h. of Sir Benjamin Bathurst<sup>‡</sup> (<em>d</em>.1704) of Paulersbury, Northants. and St. James’s Sq., Westminster; bro. of Benjamin<sup>‡</sup> and Peter Bathurst<sup>‡</sup>. <em>educ</em>. privately (Abel Boyer); Trinity, Oxf., matric. 13 May 1700. <em>m</em>. 6 July 1704, Catherine (1688-1768), da. of Sir Peter Apsley<sup>‡</sup>, kt. 4s. 5da. <em>suc</em>. fa. 1704. <em>d</em>. 16 Sep. 1775; <em>will</em> 28 Apr. 1767-8 Dec. 1774, pr. 30 Oct. 1775.<sup>1</sup></p> |
<p>PC 13 July 1742, treas. to prince of Wales 1756-60.</p><p>Commr. for taking subscriptions to S. Sea Co. 1711; capt. gent. pens. 1742-4; treas. to Prince of Wales 1757–60.</p> |
<p>Likenesses: Marble bust on monument by J. Nollekens, St John the Baptist, Cirencester, Gloucs.</p> |
<p>A vivacious and colourful figure until well into his ninetieth year, Allen Bathurst took his seat in the House of Lords in January 1712 as one of 12 new peers created by the Tory ministry of Robert Harley*, earl of Oxford. Bathurst had been raised in court circles, as his father was a household official to Queen Anne and his mother a childhood friend of both Anne and her sister Queen Mary.<sup>2</sup> At his father’s death in 1704 he inherited estates said to be worth £7,000 a year, mainly centred on Paulersbury in Northamptonshire and Cirencester Park in Gloucestershire. The Cirencester estate carried with it the electoral interest that his father had built up. His landholdings were further augmented by much of the Apsley estate, worth £4,000 a year, which his wife inherited on the death of her brother in 1708.<sup>3</sup> By the time of his death in 1775, he was able to bequeath not only his real estate but numerous annuities and cash legacies amounting to more than £3,000.</p><p>What Bathurst did not inherit was his father’s political discretion. A Tory who made no bones about his hatred of Whiggery, he supported the highflying religious politics of Francis Atterbury*, bishop of Rochester, voted against the impeachment of Henry Sacheverell in 1710 and presented the Tory address from Gloucestershire against the Whig ministry later that year. With the Tory election victory of 1710, it was rumoured that he would be elevated to the peerage as part of a general promotion ‘but it won’t be until they see what strength they have in the House of Commons’.<sup>4</sup> More loyal to Henry St. John*, Viscount Bolingbroke, than to his Tory rival, Oxford, Bathurst nevertheless figured in Oxford’s plans and in December 1711 appeared in an Oxford memorandum as one of a number of potential new peers whose votes would be required to secure ratification of the peace. Bathurst was one of four members of the Tory Saturday dining club (to be elevated at this time. The other three, George Hay*, Baron Hay, George Granville*, Baron Lansdown, and Samuel Masham*, Baron Masham, were almost certainly more favoured by Oxford; Bathurst was of the lowest precedence, but he met Oxford’s fundamental criteria: family connection with the Commons and high social status.<sup>5</sup> On 2 Jan. 1712 he received his writ of summons and was introduced to the House between Francis North*, 2nd Baron Guilford, and Francis Seymour Conway*, Baron Conway. Bathurst proved an utterly reliable Tory presence in the Lords and attended this, his first session, for nearly 74 per cent of sittings. On 15 May 1712 he received the proxy of Thomas Foley*, Baron Foley (almost certainly for divisions on the grants bill). The proxy was vacated on 27 May. On 28 May 1712 Bathurst supported the ministry in the division on the restraining orders.<sup>6</sup> He was present on 21 June 1712 when the session adjourned and during the summer of 1712 and spring of 1713, Bathurst attended the House on six occasions for formal prorogations.</p><p>In Cirencester Bathurst ensured that his younger brother, Benjamin, replaced him in the Commons, causing considerable inconvenience to his erstwhile partner, the Tory Charles Coxe<sup>‡</sup> who was forced to renounce an interest that he had cultivated for more than 15 years and had to be found an alternative seat.<sup>7</sup></p><p>In March 1713 Bathurst was listed as a reliable supporter of the Oxford ministry. On 9 Apr. 1713 he attended the House for the first day of the new parliamentary session and attended for nearly 70 per cent of sittings. In June 1713 he was estimated as a supporter of legislation confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty. Attending sporadically for the remainder of the session, he was present on 16 July 1713 for the prorogation.</p><p>On 16 Feb. 1714 Bathurst attended the House for the first day of the new Parliament and thereafter attended the session for nearly 75 per cent of sittings. Estimated by Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as a supporter of the schism bill, he attended the House regularly throughout spring 1714. On 9 June 1714 he acted as teller in the division of a committee of the whole House on the resumption of the House. On 12 June 1714 he received the proxy of Robert Benson*, Baron Bingley (vacated on the 14th). The proxy was probably given in anticipation of the schism bill division.</p><p>Bathurst attended the brief August 1714 session at the start of George I’s reign for nearly half of all sittings (seven in total). On 23 Sept. 1714 he again attended the House for the prorogation. After the accession of George I, he hoped to be part of a loyal Tory opposition; alienated by the king’s partisan preference for Whigs, Bathurst turned Jacobite, supported the Old Pretender with financial assistance and consistently opposed the ministries of Robert Walpole*, later earl of Orford, and the Pelhams. A member of the Leicester House faction that gathered around Frederick<sup>†</sup>, prince of Wales, in the 1740s, he naturally gravitated to Frederick’s son, the future George III. He was raised to an earldom in 1772. His active parliamentary career after 1715 will be examined in detail in a subsequent volume. At the age of 91, Bathurst died at Cirencester on 16 Sept. 1775. He was buried alongside his wife in the Church of St. John the Baptist in Cirencester and was succeeded in the peerage by his eldest surviving son, Henry Bathurst*, 2nd earl Bathurst. The second earl destroyed the bulk of his father’s surviving correspondence, allegedly to protect his father’s political reputation.<sup>8</sup></p> |
B.A. |
|
BEAUCLERK, Charles (1670-1726) |
<p><strong><surname>BEAUCLERK</surname></strong> (<strong>BEAUCLAIR</strong>), <strong>Charles</strong> (1670–1726)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>27 Dec. 1676 (a minor) earl of BURFORD; <em>cr. </em>10 Jan. 1684 (a minor) duke of ST. ALBANS. |
|
First sat 11 Nov. 1691; last sat 9 Apr. 1725 |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. 8 May 1670, illegit. s. of King Charles II with Eleanor Gwyn (<em>d</em>.1687). <em>educ</em>. privately (M. de Gachon); travelled abroad (France) 1685. <em>m</em>. 17 Apr. 1694, Diana (<em>d</em>.1742), da. of Aubrey de Vere*, 20th earl of Oxford, 9s. (1 <em>d.v.p.</em>), at least 1da. (<em>d.v.p.)</em><sup>1</sup> KG 1718. <em>d</em>. 10 May 1726; <em>will</em> 19 July 1694, pr. 25 Aug. 1726.<sup>2</sup></p> |
<p>Master of hawks 1675-?1702; chief ranger, Enfield Chase 1684; gent. of the bedchamber (extra) 1697-1702; registrar, chancery 1698.<sup>3</sup></p><p>Freeman, Winchester by 1701, New Windsor 1716;<sup>4</sup> ld. lt. Berks. 1714-<em>d.</em>; high steward, New Windsor 1716.<sup>5</sup></p><p>Col. Princess Anne of Denmark’s Regt. of Horse 1687-92; capt. band of gent. pensioners, 1693-1712,<sup>6</sup> 1714-<em>d.</em></p><p>Amb. extraordinary to France 1697-8.</p><p>FRS 1722.</p> |
<p>Likenesses: oil on canvas by Sir G. Kneller, 1690-5, Metropolitan Museum, New York; British school, watercolour, 1680-1700, Royal collection.</p> |
<p>The eldest son of Charles II and his mistress, Eleanor (Nell) Gwyn, Charles Beauclerk and his half-brother, Charles Lennox*, duke of Richmond, were both reckoned by John Evelyn to be ‘very pretty boys’ and to be possessed of ‘more wit than the rest’ of the king’s offspring.<sup>8</sup> A later assessment reckoned Beauclerk ‘every way <em>de</em> <em>bon</em> <em>naturel</em>, well-bred, does not love business.’<sup>9</sup> An apocryphal, but probably not inaccurate, story told how Beauclerk acquired his surname and initial peerage title of earl of Burford as a result of his mother summoning her ‘little bastard’ while in the king’s hearing. When Charles took exception to her language, she explained that he had given the youngster no other name by which she could call him. The omission was then swiftly rectified.<sup>10</sup> Richmond’s appointment as a knight of the garter in the spring of 1681 was said to have provoked Nell Gwyn’s wrath that her own son had been overlooked, but by the opening of 1682 it was reported that the king intended ‘all favour that the law can afford’ to his son.<sup>11</sup> A scheme proposed by Prince Rupert*, duke of Cumberland, shortly before his death that Burford marry his illegitimate daughter, Ruperta, and have his garter was unsuccessful.<sup>12</sup> In 1684, shortly after the death of Henry Jermyn*, earl of St Albans, Burford was promoted to the dukedom of St Albans. In May it was speculated that the king would marry him to the daughter of Sir John Cutler<sup>‡</sup>, whose fortune was rumoured to be £100,000.<sup>13</sup> Negotiations for the match had been in train since the winter of 1677, but this marriage also failed to transpire.<sup>14</sup> Early the following year Burford was granted the reversion of the office of master of the hawks, in spite of the claims of Charles Dormer*, 2nd earl of Carnarvon, that the place belonged to him as one of his family’s perquisites.<sup>15</sup></p><p>Plans had been afoot in the winter of 1684 for St Albans to travel to France to complete his education, but it was not until after the accession of his uncle that he was able to make the journey, under the tutelage of a Huguenot, de Gachon.<sup>16</sup> He remained there until December 1686.<sup>17</sup> In the spring of 1687 his mother came under considerable pressure from the king to dismiss de Gachon and replace him with a Catholic. The king also insisted on the boy’s conversion.<sup>18</sup> The incident was said to have caused Gwyn such disquiet that she fell into an apoplexy from which it was thought unlikely she would survive.<sup>19</sup> With Gwyn apparently on the point of death, it was reported that St Albans was to quit England for Hungary to participate in the war against the Turks, where it was thought he would oblige his uncle by converting to Rome.<sup>20</sup> His mother’s death in November was said to have been the result of her ‘inexpressible grief’ at the enforced dismissal of de Gachon and the appointment of a Catholic named Wyvill as her son’s tutor.<sup>21</sup> St Albans was the principal beneficiary of her estate which was variously valued at £4,000 per annum, £30,000 or £100,000.<sup>22</sup> The inheritance of Nell Gwyn’s former home of Burford House in Windsor provided St Albans with an interest in the corporation for which several of his sons would later sit as Members of the Commons, although it was his half-brother, George Fitzroy*, duke of Northumberland, who exercised the most obvious interest in the town as constable and high steward from 1701 until his death.<sup>23</sup></p><p>St Albans benefited from the king’s decision to purge his younger daughter’s household at the close of 1687 when he was appointed colonel of Princess Anne’s regiment of horse in succession to Robert Leke*, 3rd earl of Scarsdale.<sup>24</sup> The following year he travelled to the continent once more, where he was reported (inaccurately) to have converted to catholicism.<sup>25</sup> That summer (1688) he set out for Hungary and was present at the capture of Belgrade, serving with the Imperial army.<sup>26</sup> In his absence his regiment, under the command of Thomas Langston, was one of the first to desert to William of Orange.<sup>27</sup></p><p>St Albans seems at first to have remained outwardly loyal to his uncle, and in January 1689 it was noted that he had waited on the exiled king at Paris.<sup>28</sup> By the summer of that year he had returned to England when he approached Charles Talbot*, earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, for his assistance on behalf of one of his gentlemen of horse.<sup>29</sup> Marked underage at calls of the House on 31 Mar. 1690 and 2 Nov. 1691 (on the last occasion inaccurately), St Albans finally took his seat in the House on 11 Nov 1691, introduced between his half-brother, Northumberland, and James Butler*, 2nd duke of Ormond.<sup>30</sup> He was thereafter present on 56 per cent of all sitting days, and on 23 Feb. 1692 he subscribed two protests against the poll bill. He resumed his seat in the ensuing session on 4 Nov. 1692 after which he was present on almost 58 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to two committees. Absent for a few days towards the close of the month, on 28 Nov. he registered his proxy with Northumberland, which was vacated by his return to the House on 6 December. Although St Albans voted in favour of committing the place bill on 31 Dec., on 3 Jan. 1693 he appears to have changed his mind and voted against the measure. On 4 Feb. he voted with the majority in finding Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.</p><p>St Albans travelled to the continent again in May to take part in the summer campaigning season. On 29 July he was present at the battle of Landen, where it was reported inaccurately that he had been killed. On his return, in recognition of his military services, he was appointed to the captaincy of the gentlemen pensioners, vacant by the death of John Lovelace*, 3rd Baron Lovelace. St Albans’ efforts to reform the pensioners met with spirited resistance, and the following year he was ordered to leave things as they had been under the former captain.<sup>31</sup> St Albans resumed his seat at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on 38 per cent of all sitting days. On 14 Nov. he introduced his half-brother, Richmond. The same month he appointed Henry Barnsley to act as receiver for his pension on the Irish establishment.<sup>32</sup> An account of the debates surrounding the passage of the triennial bill suggested that St Albans was one of a clutch of peers to lose interest in the affair early on as they were all said to have ‘gone off’ with the fate of the bill still in the balance.<sup>33</sup></p><p>Ten years after the first rumours had circulated of possible marriage alliances for St Albans, on 17 Apr. 1694 he was married to Lady Diana de Vere, daughter of the impecunious 20th earl of Oxford.<sup>34</sup> While the alliance promised little in the way of financial reward, it is easy to see how Oxford and St Albans may have been sympathetic to one another, both being committed soldiers. As if to confirm this, a little over two months after his marriage, St Albans again joined the campaign in Flanders, this time in company with James Hamilton*, styled earl of Arran [S] (later 4th duke of Hamilton [S] and duke of Brandon).<sup>35</sup> Despite his apparently substantial inheritance from his mother, St Albans’ lack of landed estate and reliance on the income from offices meant that he was rarely able to support his status as a duke adequately.<sup>36</sup> In response to this, later that summer, the king and queen granted him an annuity of £2,000 ‘for the better support of his dignity’.<sup>37</sup> Almost drowned on his return to England in October, he returned to the House for the new session on 12 Nov. 1694 and the same day introduced John Sheffield*, 3rd earl of Mulgrave, in his new dignity as marquess of Normanby.<sup>38</sup> St Albans was excused at a call of the House on 26 Nov. and resumed his seat the following day, after which he was present on approximately 43 per cent of all sitting days. Absent from the first few days of January 1695, on 12 Jan. St Albans registered his proxy with Algernon Capell*, 2nd earl of Essex, which was vacated by his return to the House on 24 January.</p><p>St Albans again served abroad during the summer, but he returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 22 Nov., after which he was present on just under half of all sitting days. On 11 Apr. 1696 he received his father-in-law’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session. St Albans took his seat in the second session on 2 Nov., after which he was present for 55 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to two committees. On 30 Nov. he was named one of the managers of a conference with the Commons concerning the waiving and resuming of privilege, and on 23 Dec. he voted in favour of attainting Sir John Fenwick<sup>‡</sup>. St Albans registered his proxy with Sidney Godolphin*, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, on 19 Feb. 1697 which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 2 March. On 10 Apr. he was nominated a manager of the conference for the bill to prevent the buying and selling of offices.</p><p>In March St Albans succeeded to the offices of master of the hawks and registrar of the court of chancery, the reversion of which he had held since 1675, thereby adding a further £1,500 to his annual income. The following month he was appointed an extra gentleman of the bedchamber. On campaign again in the summer, on his return the king demonstrated his attachment to the duke by presenting him with a gift of spotted coach horses.<sup>39</sup> St Albans took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec., but the same month he was selected to undertake an embassy to Paris to compliment the French king on the recent marriage of the duke of Burgundy with the princess of Piedmont.<sup>40</sup> According to one report he was ‘kindly received’ but was not granted the same honour as his half-brother, James Scott*, duke of Monmouth, had been on a prior occasion.<sup>41</sup> More suited to the life of a soldier than that of a diplomat, St Albans’ behaviour in France provoked complaints from his hosts, and he departed under a cloud at the close of January 1698 having failed to give the customary presents to the <em>introducteurs</em> and leaving his debts unpaid. He was also compelled to borrow £150 from Charles Paston<sup>‡</sup>, styled Lord Paston, to avoid having his baggage confiscated, which he then neglected to repay.<sup>42</sup></p><p>Having resumed his seat in the House on 9 Feb. 1698, St Albans was then absent for the majority of the following month, and on 4 Mar. he registered his proxy with Arnold Joost van Keppel*, earl of Albemarle. When Albemarle also absented himself on 7 Mar., both his and St Albans’ proxies were registered on 10 Mar. with Edward Villiers*, earl of Jersey, brother-in-law of St Albans’ old comrade-in-arms, Lord George Hamilton, later earl of Orkney [S]. St Albans’ proxy was then vacated when he resumed his seat at the close of the month. Travelling to London from Richmond on 21 June, St Albans’ military bearing served him well when he narrowly avoided the fate of his brother, Northumberland, and a number of others who were robbed by highwaymen on Hounslow Heath. According to the report the assailants thought St Albans ‘too strong to attempt him’.<sup>43</sup> Present in the House the following day, on 30 June he received Jersey’s proxy which was vacated by the close of the session.</p><p>St Albans took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, but he attended just 28 per cent of all sitting days in the first session and was named to no committees. The following September he joined a number of predominantly Tory peers at a dinner hosted by Henry d’Auverquerque*, earl of Grantham.<sup>44</sup> He then resumed his seat in the second session on 16 Nov. 1699, and on 27 Nov. he appeared with Ormond, Richmond and Oxford in king’s bench to stand bail for Captain Kirke (probably his wife’s cousin, Percy Kirke, the future Lieutenant General Kirke), who stood indicted for the killing of Popham Seymour Conway in a duel. Despite the presence of three dukes and an earl, the judges refused Kirke bail.<sup>45</sup> Present for approximately a third of all sitting days in the session, St Albans again appears to have been a somewhat inactive Member, preferring to divide his time between attendance in the House and hunting parties in company with Richmond and Hugh Cholmondeley*, Viscount Cholmondeley [I], (also Baron and later earl of Chomondeley in the English peerage).<sup>46</sup></p><p>St Albans took a controversial part in the elections for Winchester in January 1701, where he had been elected a freeman presumably on the interest of the high steward, Charles Powlett*, 2nd duke of Bolton. Appearing with Richmond and Bolton on behalf of Lord William Powlett<sup>‡</sup> (Bolton’s brother) and George Rodney Brydges<sup>‡</sup>, the three dukes’ participation in the election became the subject of a petition in the Commons from the defeated candidate, Frederick Tylney<sup>‡</sup>. The latter protested that their interference was contrary to a Commons’ order barring peers from voting in elections (all three had exercised their rights as freemen and voted at the poll for Powlett and Brydges).<sup>47</sup> Although Sir Richard Cocks<sup>‡</sup> reported that, ‘there was never a fairer cause’ than that of Tylney, Powlett and Brydges, the elections were permitted to stand.<sup>48</sup></p><p>St Albans took his seat in the new Parliament on 21 Feb. after which he was present on approximately one third of all sitting days; but, having played such a prominent part in the elections he was again inactive during the session and was named to just one committee. On 17 June he voted in favour of acquitting John Somers*, Baron Somers.</p><p>St Albans again formed one of a hunting trio with Richmond and Cholmondeley in the early autumn of 1701 before returning to the House for the second Parliament of that year on 30 December.<sup>49</sup> He was thereafter present for 39 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to eight committees. Missing at a call on 5 Jan. 1702, on 5 Mar. the House ordered the seizure of Benjamin Hardy and George Simpson for arresting one of St Albans’ servants contrary to his privilege.</p><p>St Albans took his seat in the new Parliament following the king’s death on 21 Oct. 1702. Absent for the following three weeks, on 4 Nov. he registered his proxy with Essex, which was vacated by his return on 12 November. He was then present for approximately a third of all sitting days and was named to six committees. On 9 Dec. he signed the resolution against tacking foreign material to supply bills, and in January 1703 he was estimated an opponent of the occasional conformity bill. In March St Albans again lost out to his brother, Northumberland, when he was disappointed in his efforts to succeed to the colonelcy of his late father-in-law’s cavalry regiment.<sup>50</sup> In advance of the new session Charles Spencer*, 3rd earl of Sunderland, listed St Albans as one of those peers thought likely to absent themselves from discussions of the occasional conformity bill. Sunderland then listed St Albans as a doubtful opponent of the measure in a second forecast drawn up late in November or early December. Having taken his seat in the new session on 6 Dec. (after which he was present on just 26 per cent of all sitting days), St Albans voted against passing the occasional conformity bill on 14 December. Three days later he was present at a dinner hosted by Bolton at which were a number of other opponents of the bill, including Richmond, Charles Montagu*, Baron (later earl of) Halifax, and Charles Bennet*, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville).<sup>51</sup></p><p>St Albans was absent from the House on 4 Jan. 1704 and, with a number of other peers, was sent a letter requiring his presence on 12 January. He duly resumed his seat on that day and in February was one of those persons granted relief in the resumptions bill.<sup>52</sup> Absent from the opening of the new session St Albans was excused at a call of the House on 23 November. He took his seat on 10 Jan. 1705 but attended for just three days before quitting the session. On 27 Jan. he again registered his proxy with Godolphin, which was vacated by the close: a rare instance at this juncture of a Whig leaving his proxy in the hands of someone from another party.<sup>53</sup> In a list drawn up before the spring of 1705 St Albans was noted as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Oct. but was again infrequent in his attendance. Excused at a call on 12 Nov., in all he attended on just 18 days of the 96-day session. He returned to the House for the second session on 3 Dec. 1706 after which he was present on 22 per cent of all sitting days. In February 1707 he was present at a political dinner attended by Bolton, Ossulston, Wharton and a number of other Whig peers.<sup>54</sup> On 14 Mar. he registered his proxy with Cholmondeley (who had also been present at the February dinner), which was vacated by the close.</p><p>St Albans attended just one day of the new Parliament of Great Britain on 30 Oct. 1707. In November he was disappointed of his expectation of a substantial legacy from John Fitzgerald, 18th earl of Kildare [I], who was said to have promised to make St Albans his heir.<sup>55</sup> Kildare devised the majority of his estates instead to St Albans’ half-brother, Richmond.<sup>56</sup> Marked a Whig in a list of party classifications on c. May 1708, St Albans returned to the House for the new Parliament on 16 Dec. after which he was present for 21 per cent of all sitting days. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted in favour of permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the elections for Scots representative peers and on 23 Feb. was named to the committee investigating affairs concerning his late would-be benefactor, Kildare.</p><p>St Albans’ attendance of the House improved slightly during the second session of November 1709, of which he attended almost 30 per cent of all sitting days, and on 20 Mar. 1710 he found Henry Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. Marked doubtful by Robert Harley*, later earl of Oxford, in advance of the new Parliament, St Albans took his seat on 25 Nov. 1710 but was thereafter present on just 12 days of the 113-day session. On 9 Feb. 1711 he was again present at one of the dinners hosted by Ossulston, and on 29 Apr. he registered his proxy with Richmond, which was vacated by the close.<sup>57</sup></p><p>Financial concerns continued to plague St Albans. During the summer his duchess took it upon herself to petition Harley (now earl of Oxford) for his assistance in ensuring the payment of arrears due to St Albans for his office of master of the hawks and of a grant made to him of the customs on logwood.<sup>58</sup> St Albans’ dependence on Oxford perhaps induced the treasurer, in December, to note the duke as a possible supporter and on 2 Dec. as one of those peers to be canvassed on the question of No Peace without Spain. St Albans was also one of those interviewed by Queen Anne in advance of the session in the hopes of securing his support for the government’s peace policy, but in spite of such attentions St Albans’ attendance remained relatively infrequent following his resumption of his seat on 7 Dec.: he was present on less than a fifth of all sitting days.<sup>59</sup> On 8 Dec. he was marked as an opponent of the court in an assessment of voting intentions concerning the presentation of the address containing the No Peace without Spain motion, and on 10 Dec. he was noted as one of those office holders who had defied the ministry on the issue. Present at one of Ossulston’s political dinners on 12 Dec., the same day St Albans registered his proxy with James Berkeley*, 3rd earl of Berkeley, which was vacated by his return to the House on 14 Jan. 1712. On 14 Dec. it was reported that he and Cholmondeley were likely to be put out of office for their opposition to the ministry over the peace, and on 19 Dec. he was forecast as being opposed to permitting Hamilton to take his seat in the House by virtue of his British dukedom of Brandon.</p><p>As anticipated, St Albans was removed from his captaincy of the gentlemen pensioners in January 1712 and replaced with the reluctant Henry Somerset*, 2nd duke of Beaufort.<sup>60</sup> On news of his displacement St Albans assured William Legge*, earl of Dartmouth, that he had ‘always endeavoured to perform his duty to her majesty and shall always acquiesce in her pleasure’ and that he would meanwhile ‘be contented to stay in the country and take care of his numerous family.’<sup>61</sup> St Albans received Berkeley’s proxy on 4 Feb., which was vacated by the earl’s resumption of his seat on 11 February. In spite of her husband’s loss of office, the duchess continued to petition Oxford for satisfaction of his arrears of pay during the summer of 1712, bitter at the way in which he was overlooked while his brothers’ claims were honoured: ‘we are nine quarters behind upon our several branches at lady day last, whilst the provision made for my lord’s brothers is duly paid every quarter.’<sup>62</sup> Absent from the House after 27 Feb., on 17 May St Albans again registered his proxy with Berkeley, and on 1 June he was listed by Oxford as a doubtful court supporter. The eventual payment of just half of the arrears failed to satisfy the duchess, who again appealed to Oxford for assistance in December. Throwing herself on his mercy she outlined the perilous state of the family finances, made the more pressing by St Albans’ poor health and the imminent departure of one of their sons into the navy.<sup>63</sup></p><p>St Albans was again included on one of Oxford’s lists of peers to be canvassed in advance of the new session in February 1713, but the following month, having presumably failed to win him over to the court, Oxford added his name to Swift’s assessment of those expected to oppose the ministry. St Albans took his seat in the House on 16 Apr. but attended just eight days of the session (approximately 11 per cent of the whole). In late May Oxford listed him as a peer to be contacted over the French commercial treaty, but in June he was again estimated as likely to desert the ministry over the measure.</p><p>St Albans was included in a list of poor lords thought likely to support the accession of the House of Hanover out of principle at the close of July. The same document recommended that he should be awarded a pension of £1,000 by the new dynasty. In August the duchess of St Albans again upbraided Oxford for his failure to ensure the payment of arrears, claiming that they had received only £300 and were still owed ‘upward of seven thousand pounds … which are almost the only provision which was granted by King Charles the second to support my lord’s honour and quality.’<sup>64</sup> Probably suffering from poor health once more, St Albans retreated to Bath in October where it was reported he proposed ‘to stay all the winter and follow the method he took the last’ by putting himself ‘at the head of a newly erected society of Whigs’ dubbed the Hanover Club.<sup>65</sup> The same month one of St Albans’ contacts, Daniel Burgess, was reported as having arrived in Hanover where it was speculated that he was ‘employed by some who are no friends to the ministry.’<sup>66</sup></p><p>Absent from its opening St Albans finally took his seat in the 1713 Parliament on 23 Feb. 1714 but attended just five days in all. On 12 Mar. he wrote to William Cowper*, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, enclosing his proxy, not doubting ‘the safety of it in your lordship’s hands’ and which he hoped Cowper would enter ‘when you judge there will be an occasion for it.’<sup>67</sup> The proxy was duly registered on 23 March. Forecast by Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as an opponent of the schism bill in late May or early June, St Albans returned to the House on 1 Aug., attending ten days of the brief 15-day session that met in the wake of the queen’s death.</p><p>St Albans’ fortunes revived under the new dynasty. Restored to his captaincy of the gentlemen pensioners, in November 1714 he was appointed lord lieutenant of Berkshire while his duchess was made groom of the stole to the new princess of Wales.<sup>68</sup> On the death of his brother Northumberland in 1716, St Albans was also elected to the high stewardship of New Windsor.<sup>69</sup> Taking his seat in the first Parliament of the new reign on 17 Mar. 1715, St Albans continued to attend with slightly increased frequency than hitherto until 1725, sitting for the final time on 9 April. Details of the latter part of his career will be considered in the second phase of this work.</p><p>In poor health for the final few years of his life, St Albans died at Bath on 10 May 1726 and was buried at Westminster Abbey. Of his surviving sons, six served as Members of the Commons (four of them for New Windsor).<sup>70</sup> One of them, Vere Beauclerk*, was later promoted to the Lords as Baron Vere of Hanworth. A seventh son, James Beauclerk*, entered the church and rose to become bishop of Hereford. Administration of St Albans’ estate was granted to his widow following the death of each of the executors named in his will during his lifetime.<sup>71</sup> He was succeeded in the peerage by his eldest son, also Charles Beauclerk*, as 2nd duke of St Albans.</p> |
R.D.E.E. |
|
BELASYSE, Henry (1666-91) |
<p><strong><surname>BELASYSE</surname></strong>, <strong>Henry</strong> (1666–91)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>grandfa. 10 Sept. 1689 as 2nd Bar. BELASYSE. |
|
Never sat. |
|
|
<p><em>bap.</em> 6 Aug. 1666, o.s. of Sir Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup>, KB of Worlaby, Lincs. and Susan, da. and coh. of Sir William Armyne<sup>‡</sup>, 2nd bt. of Osgodby, Lincs. <em>educ.</em> travelled abroad (tutor, Sir John Lethcott).<sup>1</sup> <em>m.</em> c.1689, Anne, da. of Francis Brudenell, <em>styled</em> Bar. Brudenell, <em>s.p</em>. <em>d</em>. c. 21 Aug. 1691;<sup>2</sup> <em>will</em> 11 May, pr. 13 Sept. 1691.<sup>3</sup></p> |
|
|
<p>Henry Belasyse was the only son of Sir Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup> who lost his life from wounds inflicted by his friend Tom Porter, a son of Endymion Porter<sup>‡</sup>, in a drunken duel in late July 1667.<sup>4</sup> Sir Henry’s widow was created in April 1674 <em>suo jure</em> Baroness Belasyse of Osgodby reputedly as recompense for desisting from her claims on James Stuart*, duke of York, who was said to have given her a promise of marriage.<sup>5</sup></p><p>Henry Belasyse succeeded to his grandfather’s peerage and adherence to the Catholic faith in September 1689 but never took his seat in the House, disabled from sitting by his religion. He was among those suspected Jacobite peers apprehended by the government at the time of the invasion scare of the summer of 1690, and bailed later that October.<sup>6</sup> He died, without heirs, on or just before 21 Aug. 1691, upon which the short-lived Belasyse barony became extinct.<sup>7</sup> His widow, chief legatee and executrix Anne, the daughter of Francis Brudenell, styled Lord Brudenell, the heir presumptive (before his early death in 1698) of Robert Brudenell*, 2nd earl of Cardigan, married within two years of Belasyse’s death Charles Lennox*, duke of Richmond.</p> |
C.G.D.L. |
|
BELASYSE, John (1615-89) |
<p><strong><surname>BELASYSE</surname></strong> (<strong>BELLASIS</strong>), <strong>John</strong> (1615–89)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>27 Jan. 1645 Bar. BELASYSE. |
|
First sat 1 June 1660; last sat 1 Aug. 1678 |
|
MP Thirsk 1640 (Apr.), 1640 (Nov.)-6 Sept. 1642. |
<p><em>b</em>. 24 June 1615, 2nd s. of Sir Thomas Belasyse<sup>†</sup>, 2nd bt. (later Visct. Fauconberg) of Newburgh Priory, Coxwold, Yorks. (N. Riding) and Barbara (<em>d</em>. 18 Mar. 1619), da. of Sir Henry Cholmley<sup>‡</sup>, of Whitby, Yorks. (N. Riding); bro. of Hon. Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup>. <em>educ.</em> Camb.? admitted c.1627?;<sup>1</sup> ‘Acad. of Signior Arnolfen’, Paris, France, c.1633-5;<sup>2</sup> G. Inn, admitted 16 March 1641. <em>m.</em> (1) by 11 Feb. 1637, Jane (<em>d.</em> bef. 12 Dec. 1657), da. of Sir Robert Boteler, of Watton Woodhall, Herts., 3s. <em>d.v.p.</em> 2da. (1 <em>d.v.p.</em>); (2) c. July 1659, Anne (<em>d.</em>1662), da. and coh. of Sir Robert Crane of Chilton, Suff., wid<em>.</em> of Sir William Armyne<sup>‡</sup>, 2nd bt. <em>s.p</em>; (3) by 18 June 1666,<sup>3</sup> Anne (<em>d</em>.1694), da. of John Paulet*, 5th mq. of Winchester, 2s. <em>d.v.p.</em>, 9da. (5 <em>d.v.p.</em>). <em>d.</em> 10 Sept. 1689; <em>will</em> 22 Apr.-1 May 1689, pr. 7 May 1690.<sup>4</sup></p> |
<p>Capt. gent. pens. 1667-72;<sup>5</sup> PC 17 July 1686-?;<sup>6</sup> first ld., of the treasury 4 Jan. 1687-30 Nov. 1688;<sup>7</sup> chan. (in common), duchy of Lancaster 1687-8.<sup>8</sup></p><p>Commr. array, Yorks., Lincs. 1642, sewers, Lincs. and Newark hundred 1660, 1664, Yorks. (E. Riding), 1664, 1666, Hull 1667;<sup>9</sup> corporations, Hull 1662;<sup>10</sup> ld. lt. Yorks. (E. Riding), 1660-73; high steward, Hull 1670-3.<sup>11</sup></p><p>Capt., coy of horse 1642-?; col., regt. of ft. (roy.) 1642-4; gov., York and lt. gen., Yorks. Jan.-Apr. 1644, Newark 1646; capt. gen., King’s Lifeguard of Horse, Sept. 1645-May 1646;<sup>12</sup> gov., Newark and lt. gen., Notts., Lincs. and Rutland Oct. 1645-May 1646;<sup>13</sup> col., regt. of ft. July-Oct. 1660, Jan.-May 1673;<sup>14</sup> gov., Hull 16 Aug. 1660-73;<sup>15</sup> gen., capt. gen. and c.-in-c., Tangiers 1665-7.<sup>16</sup></p> |
<p>Likenesses: oil on canvas by Gilbert Jackson, 1636, NPG 5948; line engraving by Robert White, aft. Sir Anthony van Dyck, late 17th century, NPG D29422; miniature by Samuel Cooper, Victoria and Albert Museum.</p> |
<p>John Belasyse was a younger son in one of Yorkshire’s leading gentry families, based primarily in the North Riding but with estates in north Lincolnshire as well. One of these, Worlaby, was settled on him upon his marriage in 1637, which gave him a lifelong interest in the Humberside region. John followed his father, Sir Thomas Belasyse<sup>†</sup> (Viscount Fauconberg from 1643) in becoming a Catholic royalist. He left the Commons in September 1642 and became one of the leading royalist commanders in the civil wars. He was defeated and captured by Thomas Fairfax<sup>‡</sup>, Lord Fairfax of Cameron [S], at Selby on 11 Apr. 1644 but was released from captivity in the Tower in January 1645 and upon his reunion with Charles I was created Baron Belasyse of Worlaby. In the autumn of 1645 Charles commissioned him captain general of the lifeguard of horse and governor of Newark-on-Trent. He belligerently and defiantly maintained this garrison, the last stand of the royalists, during a 26-week siege until the king, handing himself over to the Scots, ordered him to surrender it, which was effected 8 May 1646.<sup>22</sup></p><p>From the early 1650s Belasyse became a member of the ‘Sealed Knot’ and spent much of that decade under the suspicion of the council of state and imprisoned in the Tower.<sup>23</sup> Yet royalist leaders did not fully trust him; he did not appear in arms during any of the rebellions of the 1650s, and was not entrusted with a role in the rising of August 1659.<sup>24</sup> He may have been hesitant to act owing to his growing family and local connections with prominent members of the Interregnum regime. Fellow Yorkshireman Col. John Lambert<sup>‡</sup> procured overseas passes for him and protected him before the council of state.<sup>25</sup> At the Restoration, when the tables were turned and Lambert was arraigned and imprisoned, Belasyse held Lambert’s Yorkshire estates in trust for the benefit of his wife and children.<sup>26</sup> Belasyse’s nephew Thomas Belasyse*, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg, son of his elder brother, Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup>, married Mary, the daughter of Oliver Cromwell<sup>‡</sup> in 1657. In 1659 Belasyse himself married as his second wife Anne, the widow of Sir William Armine<sup>‡</sup>, son and namesake of the leading Parliamentarian and member of the council of state, Sir William Armine<sup>‡</sup>.</p><p>In early May 1660 Belasyse was among those peers who had been ennobled or promoted by Charles I after 1642 who demanded entrance to the Convention House of Lords from George Monck*, later duke of Albemarle. Monck rebuffed their request, telling Belasyse himself ‘that our desire had raised much noises’ among the Presbyterian peers already in the House.<sup>27</sup> Belasyse did not sit in the House for the first time until 1 June 1660, the day after the House agreed to admit the Oxford creations according to the king’ request. He was not prominent in the Convention, only attending just a little over a quarter of its meetings until the dissolution on 29 Dec. 1660. His absence was most likely caused by the responsibilities in Lincolnshire and Humberside that he took on in the first weeks of the Restoration. His influence in this region was quickly recognized and he was commissioned lord lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire on 26 July 1660 and governor of the garrison of Kingston-upon-Hull later in December. It was probably because of his intention to take up his lord lieutenancy that on 23 July the House granted Belasyse leave to be absent ‘for some time’. He registered his proxy with his fellow former royalist officer Thomas Wentworth*, earl of Cleveland, two days later; it was not vacated until Belasyse’s return to the House on 13 Nov. 1660. Through his lieutenancy of the East Riding and local landholding Belasyse was able to exert electoral influence in the Humber region, and he almost certainly had a prominent role in the selection of his former subordinate officer at Newark and current lieutenant governor at Hull, Anthony Gilby<sup>‡</sup>, as Member for Hull in 1661.</p><p>Belasyse was more active and attentive in the first session, in 1661-2, of the Cavalier Parliament, when he came to 71 per cent of the sitting days, and most particularly in the early meetings of spring 1661 before the summer recess, when he was present at just over three-quarters of the meetings. He was there on 11 May 1661 when he helped to introduce George Booth*, as the newly created Baron Delamer. He took an active part in legislation concerning fen drainage, particularly in Lincolnshire, and on both 10 and 19 June 1661 chaired meetings of the committees dealing with bills for Lindsey Level, Hatfield Chase and the fenlands drained by Sir Anthony Thomas. He reported the bill on Lindsey Level to the House on 21 June as fit to pass with some amendments.<sup>28</sup> In the part of the session after the summer recess (when he attended 68 per cent of the meeting days) he was appointed on 4 Mar. 1662 to the committee for the bill to drain Antholne Level in Lincolnshire. At the prorogation, on 19 May 1662, the House appointed Belasyse as one of a delegation of four peers to attend the king to advise him to protect the works on Bedford Level, despite Parliament’s failure to pass an act concerning those works.</p><p>He was involved in other matters which had a Yorkshire and Humberside dimension to them. On 1 July 1661 he was placed on the committee to consider the former proceedings concerning the court of York for the northern counties and the petition submitted to revive that court, which he himself had signed.<sup>29</sup> Just before the recess he was placed on the committees for both the militia and the corporation bills and after the latter measure’s passage he was not surprisingly appointed a commissioner to enforce the terms of the act in Hull.<sup>30</sup> He was specifically added, on 6 Dec. 1661, to the committee for the bill concerning Trinity Church in Hull. He later chaired, on the two separate days 17 Feb. and 15 Apr. 1662, meetings of the committee on the bill to regulate cloth manufacture in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and he reported the bill as fit to pass with amendments the following day.<sup>31</sup> Belasyse also signed the protest of 6 Feb. 1662 against the passage of the bill to restore to Charles Stanley*, 8th earl of Derby, lands he had legally conveyed during the Interregnum. Belasyse’s name appears in two contemporary manuscript lists of the protesters to this bill, though his signature was among those cut off from the original protest when the manuscript Journal was bound up in volumes, and consequently omitted from the official Journal when it was printed in the eighteenth century.<sup>32</sup></p><p>Belasyse only came to just over half of the meeting days of the session of 1663 and left the session early on 3 June 1663. Six days later he registered his proxy with Albemarle. Through this proxy Belasyse was considered by Philip Wharton*, 4th Baron Wharton, to be a supporter of the attempt by George Digby*, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Edward Hyde*, earl of Clarendon in July. Belasyse was back in the House on 21 Mar. 1664 and came to all but three of the meetings of that short session. Among the four committees to which he was named was that for the bill to sell part of the lands of William Armine<sup>‡</sup> at Ingoldsby in Lincolnshire to raise portions for his two daughters. Belasyse took a keen personal interest in this bill as he was closely connected to the Armine family. As noted above, his second wife Anne had been Armine’s widow and in October of that same year Belasyse arranged the marriage of his only son from his first marriage, Sir Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup>, to his stepsister, Susan Armine, the younger daughter of Anne and the late Sir William. Susan Armine’s portion was at stake in this bill. On 21 Apr. 1664 Belasyse presented the committee considering the bill with a paper attesting to the consent of all parties involved.<sup>33</sup> In the following session of 1664-5 he came to 69 per cent of the sitting days and was named to four committees, including the bill for Deeping Fen. He last sat in the House in this session on 24 Feb. 1665 and on that day registered his proxy with James Stuart*, duke of York.</p><p>What prompted his departure and his royal proxy recipient was his appointment earlier in the year as captain general and commander-in-chief of Tangier. He received his formal instructions for this mission on 24 Feb. 1665 and set off almost immediately.<sup>34</sup> Belasyse, however, returned from Tangier seemingly prematurely, in late April 1666, leaving his lieutenant governor Henry Norwood<sup>‡</sup> in charge.<sup>35</sup> Samuel Pepys<sup>‡</sup> and Sir Hugh Cholmley<sup>‡</sup>, prominent members of the Tangier Committee, thought that both the baron and Norwood were ‘men that do only mind themselves’ by which ‘the garrison will never come to anything’. Pepys had many dealings with Belasyse upon his return and considered him dishonest, rapacious and greedy, ‘as very a false villain as ever was born’, particularly when it also became evident that he was trying to sell his governorship to the highest bidder and procure illicit profits through prize ships.<sup>36</sup></p><p>Having returned from Tangier, Belasyse was able to sit in 84 per cent of the sitting days of the turbulent session of 1666-7. On 30 Oct. 1666 he was placed on a group of 12 members who were to join with a similar group from the Commons to present Parliament’s vote against the importation of French commodities to the king. The following day he helped to introduce into the House Richard Arundell*, Baron Arundell of Trerice. On 24 Nov. fellow Catholic Marmaduke Langdale*, 2nd Baron Langdale, registered his proxy with Belasyse for the remainder of the session. At this time, Belasyse’s son and heir Sir Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup> was returned for the Humberside borough of Great Grimsby in a by-election on 6 Nov. 1666. Sir Henry was killed in a drunken duel in August 1667, leaving Belasyse without a direct male heir.<sup>37</sup></p><p>Belasyse’s early departure from Tangier did not sit at all well with Clarendon, York or Henry Bennet*, Baron (later earl of) Arlington. They all reflected severely on him at a meeting of the Tangier committee in February 1667 but none of their criticisms, at least according to Pepys, appear to have troubled Belasyse at all.<sup>38</sup> A convenient way out of the impasse was provided by the old earl of Cleveland’s death on 25 Mar. 1667, by which Belasyse was able to take up the reversion of the captainship of the gentlemen pensioners which had been promised to him in 1660 and enabled him to resign his post at Tangier without loss of face.<sup>39</sup> He presented this in the best possible light to a sceptical Pepys on 7 Apr. when he boasted that the king had demanded he make a choice between his commission as commander of Tangier or his new post as captain of the gentlemen pensioners, ‘whereas I know the contrary, that they had a mind to have him away from Tangier … and I think he is as good a dissembler as any man else; and a fine person he is for person, and proper to lead the Pensioners, but a man of no honour nor faith I doubt’.<sup>40</sup> This view is echoed by the author (perhaps Andrew Marvell<sup>‡</sup>, who knew Belasyse well from Hull politics) of the satirical poem from 1673, ‘Advice to a Painter to draw the Duke’, where the painter is instructed to ‘Let Bellasis’s autumnal face be seen,/ Rich with the spoils of a poor Algerine,/ Who trusting in him, was by him betray’d,/ And so should we were his advice obey’d./ That hero once won honour by the sword;/ He got his wealth by breaking of his word’.<sup>41</sup></p><p>Belasyse was diligent in the sittings of winter 1667 which saw the impeachment and eventual banishment of Clarendon, attending 80 per cent of them before the Christmas adjournment of 19 Dec. 1667. When the session resumed between February and May 1668, Belasyse came to 59 per cent of the sittings, and on 30 Mar. 1668 the House gave him leave to be absent for a fortnight, though he returned on 11 April. He was present for the adjournment on 9 May 1668 and then the prorogation, more than a year later, on 1 Mar. 1669 and was again in the House for all but three of the meetings of the short session of the winter of 1669.</p><p>A family issue preoccupied him in the first part of the following session of 1670-71, and he diligently attended the House throughout March and April 1670. On 12 Mar. 1670 the House gave a first reading to the bill for settling the estate of Susan Belasyse, the widow of Belasyse’s deceased son Sir Henry, and mother of Belasyse’s heir presumptive, his young grandson, also named Henry Belasyse*, later 2nd Baron Belasyse. This bill was committed two days later and Belasyse himself was made part of the committee to consider the bill, which appears to have sailed through committee relatively easily, for Richard Sackville*, 5th earl of Dorset, reported the bill on 17 March and it was passed the following day. The bill received the royal assent on the day Parliament was adjourned for the summer, 11 Apr. 1670. Years later, on 1 Apr. 1674, Susan Belasyse, reputedly ‘a woman of much life and great vivacity, but of a very small proportion of beauty’, was created <em>suo jure</em> Baroness Belasyse of Osgodby for life, largely, at least according to Burnet, as recompense for desisting from her claims on the duke of York, who was said to have given her a signed promise of marriage.<sup>42</sup> Belasyse came to 78 per cent of the sitting days of that part of the session which met in October 1670 after the summer recess. He was named to 22 committees on legislation, one of which was for the bill to make the River Trent navigable around Boston in Lincolnshire. He chaired a committee meeting on this bill and was appointed a manager for a conference on 13 Mar. 1671 to discuss amendments.<sup>43</sup> The day after this conference John Granville*, earl of Bath, a close friend of the king, registered his proxy with Belasyse until the prorogation on 22 Apr. 1671.</p><p>Charles II, at this point in secret alliance with Louis XIV, evidently saw the Catholic Belasyse as a suitable envoy to the French king and only a few days after the prorogation Belasyse was dispatched to pay Charles II’s compliments to Louis at Dunkirk.<sup>44</sup> In March 1672 Belasyse resigned as captain of the gentlemen pensioners, replaced by his nephew Fauconberg, and perhaps with the promise that he would replace John Russell<sup>‡</sup> as colonel of the first regiment of foot guards. This promotion was not effected, but in early January 1673 Belasyse was given command of his own regiment of foot.<sup>45</sup> On 4 Feb. 1673, the first day of the session that met after the long prorogation, Belasyse helped to introduce to the House another military officer, Louis de Duras*, Baron Duras (later 2nd earl of Feversham). Belasyse proceeded to sit in all but two of the sittings in this session but in compliance with the first Test Act passed in March 1673 he resigned his remaining posts and offices. James Scott*, duke of Monmouth, was appointed lord lieutenant of the East Riding and governor and high steward of Kingston-upon-Hull in his stead, while James Compton*, 3rd earl of Northampton, replaced him as colonel of his infantry regiment.<sup>46</sup></p><p>Belasyse could still sit in the House and he was present in the House at the prorogation on 20 Oct. 1673 when he helped to introduce to the House Richard Butler*, earl of Arran [I], recently created Baron Butler of Weston in the English peerage.<sup>47</sup> Despite the increasing anti-Catholic mood of Parliament, Belasyse attended a little over three-fifths of the sittings of the session which met in the first months of 1674 to discuss the peace proposals to end the war with the United Provinces. He took the Jacobean oath of allegiance on 26 Jan. 1674 and the following day, after the House was informed that the Catholic John Paulet*, 5th marquess of Winchester (father of Belasyse’s third wife), was being prosecuted for recusancy during time of Parliament, it ordered that Winchester, Belasyse and a number of other Catholic peers were to enjoy their privilege and be protected from any such proceedings. By this time Belasyse may have been seen as a spokesman for the English Catholic peers. From mid February 1674 Belasyse held the maximum of two proxies, and both were from Catholic lords: Henry Arundell*, 3rd Baron Arundell of Wardour (from 14 Feb.) and Christopher Roper*, 5th Baron Teynham (16 February). He did not have long to exercise these proxies, as the session was prorogued barely a week later, on 24 Feb. 1674.</p><p>Parliament did not meet again until April 1675, when Belasyse attended just under half of the sessions of that spring. During the session the lord treasurer Thomas Osborne*, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), introduced his controversial ‘non-resisting’ test bill. Danby believed that Belasyse would support this measure; Belasyse was not among those who strongly opposed it, for he was in the House during proceedings on the bill in April and May 1675 and did not put his name to any of the four protests against the progress of the bill, nor does his name appear among those opposing the bill in the <em>Letter from a Gentleman of Quality</em>. Yet in the subsequent session of autumn 1675, when he attended a similar proportion of sittings (52 per cent), he opposed Danby and the court by voting on 20 Nov. 1675 in favour of the address to dissolve Parliament. He did not, however, take the added step of subscribing to the protest against the close rejection of that motion. Anthony Ashley Cooper*, earl of Shaftesbury, was also initially uncertain where to place Belasyse among the political groupings in Parliament. In his list of lay lords, drawn up in spring 1677, Shaftesbury initially considered Belasyse as ‘triply vile’, but it appears from the manuscript that he later altered this estimation to merely ‘vile’.</p><p>This change of mind may have come after a sympathetic visit from the Catholic baron, for on 11 Apr. 1677 Belasyse, who had been a regular attender of this session since its first day of 15 Feb. (at 65 per cent), received permission from the House to visit Shaftesbury and the other ‘country’ lords in the Tower. The session was adjourned five days later, on 16 Apr. 1677, and resumed on 21 May, when Belasyse again attended, although he did not come to any of the four remaining sittings of this short meeting of Parliament. He was present again when Parliament eventually met again for business on 28 Jan. 1678, though he only attended 37 per cent of this part of the session. He gave his proxy to his Protestant nephew Fauconberg, on 21 Feb. 1678, but this was cancelled when he returned to the House on 1 March. He probably came back in order to protect his property interests, for on the last days of February he and Robert Bruce*, earl of Ailesbury, complained to the committee considering a supplementary act for the draining of Deeping Fen that their privilege of Parliament had been infringed by the commissioners of sewers, who had made decrees which deprived Belasyse, Ailesbury and John Berkeley*, Baron Berkeley of Stratton, of much of their land in Lincolnshire.<sup>48</sup> On 27 Mar. Belasyse was also placed on the committee to draft reasons why the House could not agree with the Commons in its address calling for an ‘immediate’ war with France. By this time Belasyse’s attendance in the House was declining steeply, and he only attended ten sittings of the subsequent session of spring and summer 1678; he last sat in the House at the prorogation of 1 August.</p><p>Belasyse’s reputation as an open Catholic and a military leader made him an obvious target for those who fomented allegations of a Popish Plot in autumn 1678. In their testimonies before the Privy Council and Parliament Titus Oates, William Bedloe, Stephen Dugdale, Miles Prance and others repeatedly claimed that Belasyse had been commissioned by the Pope to be general of the Catholic army that was to subdue England after the king’s execution, and that he had also supervised and directed the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey.<sup>49</sup> Belasyse and four other Catholic lords (William Herbert*, earl, later marquess, of Powis, William Howard*, Viscount Stafford, William Petre*, 4th Baron Petre and Belasyse’s former proxy donor Arundell of Wardour) were arrested and incarcerated as early as 25 Oct. 1678, only a few days into the session, and formally impeached for treason by the Commons on 5 December.</p><p>The articles of impeachment against Belasyse and the Catholic peers were not delivered by the time of the dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament on 24 Jan. 1679. However, by an order of 19 Mar. 1679, in the first days of the first Exclusion Parliament, it was resolved ‘that the dissolution of the last Parliament doth not alter the state of the impeachments brought up by the Commons in that Parliament’ and the proceedings were allowed to continue. The detailed articles of impeachment against Belasyse and the other Catholic lords were finally submitted to the House on 7 Apr. 1679. When the peers were summoned to the bar of the House two days later to hear and answer the articles against them, Belasyse was not present at all as he was ‘so ill and lame with the gout, that he is not able to stir’. He was allowed to put in his answer in writing, which was submitted to the House on 15 April. Here he defiantly refused to answer the charges against them, because they were so vague and imprecise, both in terms of the time in which Belasyse was allegedly conspiring for a Catholic overthrow of the government and the circumstances by which he was supposed to do it. The Commons not surprisingly found this answer ‘argumentative and evasive’ and Belasyse, despite his gout, was forced to appear personally at the bar on 25 Apr. to hear this reprimand and be given another chance to submit his plea. His second plea was short and terse, merely pleading his innocence of the charges against him while reserving to himself ‘all advantages and benefits of exception to the generality, uncertainty and other insufficiencies of the said articles, of which he humbly prays that notice may be taken’. Much of May 1679 was taken up by disagreements between the Houses over the procedures to be followed for the trials of the peers and the order in which they were to take place, arguments which led in part to the prorogation and ultimate dissolution of the Parliament on 17 July.</p><p>The trial of Belasyse proceeded no further in the following two Parliaments, but his fellow prisoner Stafford was found guilty before the House on 7 Dec. 1680 and was subsequently executed. Belasyse thus remained under arrest for just over five years, until Petre’s death on 5 Jan. 1684 prompted York to insist that the three surviving prisoners be brought before the next session of king’s bench to be bailed. Belasyse was bailed on 12 Feb. 1684, with Fauconberg, Ailesbury, Charles Fane*, 3rd earl of Westmorland, and Sir John Talbot<sup>‡</sup> acting as sureties in £5,000 each.<sup>50</sup> On 22 May 1685, just a few months after York’s accession as James II, the House responded to a petition from the three surviving Catholic peers, by resolving to vacate the order of 19 Mar. 1679 allowing impeachments to continue from one Parliament to the next. This effectively ended proceedings in the House against Belasyse and his companions. A few days later James II followed this by entering a <em>nolle prosequi</em> to the prosecution in the ordinary courts.<sup>51</sup></p><p>As a Catholic, Belasyse could still not take his seat in the House, by the terms of the 1678 Test Act, but under James II he was soon returned to favour and influence. He was sworn to the king’s Privy Council on 17 July 1686 and was made first lord of the treasury in January 1687 when it was put into commission following the dismissal of Laurence Hyde*, earl of Rochester.<sup>52</sup> Despite his prominent position in James’s administration, Belasyse expressed and represented the moderate opinions of the older, more established, English Catholics, who were largely ignored by James in favour of the more zealous Father Petre and those of that circle. According to Thomas Bruce*, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, Belasyse expressed his concerns over James’s policies after the king’s speech before the reassembled Parliament in November 1685 in which he spoke of his intention to dispense Catholic army officers from the provisions of the Test Act. ‘My dear Lord’, Ailesbury recounts Belasyse saying, ‘who could be the framer of this speech? I date my ruin and that of all my persuasion from this day’. Ailesbury also recommended Belasyse to James II as a suitable lord lieutenant of Ireland in place of Henry Hyde*, 2nd earl of Clarendon, and in place of the king’s favourite, Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel [I]: ‘If your majesty will have a Roman Catholic, take an English one, with an English estate, and an English heart’. James II rebuffed this suggestion claiming, accurately, that Belasyse is ‘so afflicted with the gout that he cannot travel’. Ailesbury himself was surprised by Belasyse’s decision to head the treasury in 1687, ‘for his health was so bad, and to my knowledge he desired nothing but to live at ease and quiet, having so plentiful an estate and but four daughters to inherit’.<sup>53</sup> Belasyse resigned all his posts in the first days of December 1688, when James II attempted to placate the opposition by agreeing to dismiss his Catholic officers although just when his membership of the Privy Council can be said to have ended is difficult to establish as his resignation is not recorded in the council minutes. He had never been a particularly assiduous member and his last recorded attendance was at the extraordinary council meeting called to attest to the birth of the prince of Wales on 22 October.<sup>54</sup></p><p>When William of Orange’s followers were discussing, on 24 Dec. 1688, the expulsion of Catholics from the capital, William Cavendish*, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, pleaded successfully for Belasyse’s exemption.<sup>55</sup> On 3 Mar. 1689 Belasyse confided to Sir John Reresby<sup>‡</sup> that ‘he had been very averse (though a papist) to the measures used in that reign [James II’s], for promoting that religion … but his counsel was suspected as coming from a man that the hot party informed the King was old and timorous, and that having a good estate was in fear to hazard it.’ At this juncture Belasyse also doubted that James would be restored, there being ‘so many great men concerned in this revolt’. Belasyse’s ambivalence towards his Catholic king is suggested by the claim made by George Savile*, marquess of Halifax, that Belasyse refused to lend James £1,000 before he made his attempt to flee the country.<sup>56</sup></p><p>Belasyse died a few months after this conversation with Reresby, on 10 Sept. 1689. He died a very rich man and was able to bequeath to his wife and four unmarried daughters land and tithes in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire; houses and grounds in St James’s Square, Worcester Buildings and Great Queen Street in Westminster, in Newgate Street, Friday Street, Thames Street, Bread Street and Blackfriars in the City of London, and in Twickenham and Richmond in Middlesex; as well as the fee farm rents from the Great Level and from lands in Durham. Contemporaries estimated that he left £40,000 in total to his daughters and a jointure of £1,200 p.a. to his widow, the daughter of the Catholic marquess of Winchester (and sister of the Whig Charles Powlett*, duke of Bolton).<sup>57</sup> The title and majority of estates were inherited by his grandson and heir Henry Belasyse*, 2nd Baron Belasyse.</p> |
C.G.D.L. |
|
BELASYSE, Thomas (1628-1700) |
<p><strong><surname>BELASYSE</surname></strong>, <strong>Thomas</strong> (1628–1700)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>grandfa. 18 Apr. 1653 as 2nd Visct. FAUCONBERG; <em>cr. </em>9 Apr. 1689 earl of FAUCONBERG |
|
First sat 1 June 1660; last sat 23 Dec. 1696 |
|
Mbr. of the ‘Other House’ 1658, 1659 |
<p><em>bap</em>. 16 Mar. 1628, 1st s. of Hon. Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup> of Newburgh Priory, Yorks. (N. Riding) and Grace, da. of Sir Thomas Barton of Smithells, Lancs. <em>educ</em>. travelled abroad<sup>1</sup> <em>m</em>. (1) 3 July 1651, Mildred (<em>d.</em> 8 May 1656), da. of Nicholas Saunderson, 2nd Visct. Castleton [I], <em>s.p.</em>; (2) 18 Nov. 1657, Mary (<em>d.</em> 14 Mar. 1713), da. of Oliver Cromwell<sup>‡</sup>, ld. protector, <em>s.p.</em> <em>suc</em>. fa. 20 May 1647. <em>d</em>. 31 Dec. 1700; <em>will</em> 14 Nov. 1699, pr. 26 May 1701.<sup>2</sup></p> |
<p>Commr. trade of Eng. and Scot. 1668-aft. 1674,<sup>3</sup> to treat with ministers of the Emperor, Spain and the Utd. Provinces 1678,<sup>4</sup> Tangiers ?1680-84,<sup>5</sup> abuses in hospitals 1691,<sup>6</sup> appeals in cases of prizes 1694-7;<sup>7</sup> capt., gent. pens. 1672-6; PC, 17 Apr. 1672-<em>d</em>., ld. of trade and plantations 12 Mar. 1675-15 May 1696.</p><p>Ld. lt. co. Dur. 1660-1, Yorks. (N. Riding), 1660-87, 1689-92; <em>custos rot</em>. co. Dur. 1660-1,<sup>8</sup> Yorks. (N. Riding) 1660-<em>d.</em>; commr. Corporation Act, York 1662.<sup>9</sup></p><p>Col. regt. of horse 1658-9, 1660;<sup>10</sup> capt. tp. of horse 1667.<sup>11</sup></p><p>Amb. extraordinary France 1658, Venice and Italian States, 1669-70.</p> |
<p>Likenesses: oil on panel by M.D. Hout, 1651, sold at Sotheby’s 10 Apr. 2013; line engraving by A. Blooteling (after Mary Beale), 1676, NPG D28406; line engraving by Robert White, 1679, NPG D29520.</p> |
<h2><em>Cromwellian to royalist, 1653-60</em></h2><p>The Belasyse family’s rise to wealth and prominence in the north-eastern counties of England was cemented in the sixteenth century when they acquired their principal property of Newburgh Priory near Thirsk in the North Riding of Yorkshire.<sup>16</sup> Both the 2nd Viscount Fauconberg’s grandfather, Thomas Belasyse<sup>†</sup>, Baron Fauconberg (as he was created in 1627), and his father, Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup>, were active in Yorkshire politics. Henry Belasyse was a Member for Yorkshire in both the Short and Long Parliaments of 1640, where initially he was prominent among the northern Members who complained of the burdens imposed on the region by the maintenance of the king’s forces. Despite their opposition to royal policy in the north, both Henry and his father Fauconberg joined the king during the Civil War.<sup>17</sup> Baron Fauconberg was promoted to a viscountcy in January 1643 for his military service, while Henry was less active and does not appear to have been involved in any of the fighting but instead worked throughout these years on various peace initiatives between the king and Parliament.<sup>18</sup> Henry Belasyse died intestate in May 1647 and his eldest son, Thomas, inherited the viscountcy on 18 Apr. 1653 at the death of his grandfather.</p><p>The Belasyse family had strong Catholic connections; many of the 2nd Viscount’s closest kin – his grandfather, uncle and brother – were of that religion. Fauconberg was only able to reclaim possession of his grandfather’s sequestered estate in 1653 once he was able to prove before the committee for compounding that he himself was a practising Protestant.<sup>19</sup> In 1657, though, he needed to assure Oliver Cromwell<sup>‡</sup> and the council of state that he was not a Catholic.<sup>20</sup> Later, Fauconberg was to support much of the anti-Catholic legislation of the 1670s, but he does appear to have remained on friendly terms with his numerous Catholic kin throughout his life, especially his uncle John Belasyse*, Baron Belasyse. Accusations of being a Catholic, or at least a fellow traveller, dogged Fauconberg throughout his career.<sup>21</sup></p><p>As he had been out of the country during the Civil War, Fauconberg remained untainted during the Interregnum by the rest of his family’s adherence to the royalist cause, and was even regarded as ‘a neuter’ politically.<sup>22</sup> A young widower from 1656, he was seen, by John Thurloe<sup>‡</sup> and Sir William Lockhart<sup>‡</sup> among others, as a suitable and advantageous match for Cromwell’s third daughter Mary. He was ambitious enough not to refuse the opportunity of marrying into the ruling family and he and Mary were wed on 18 Nov. 1657 in a lavish ceremony at Hampton Court.<sup>23</sup> Gilbert Burnet*, the future bishop of Salisbury, later described Lady Fauconberg as ‘a wise and worthy woman, more likely to have maintained the post [of Protector], than either of her brothers’.<sup>24</sup> At the time the Venetian ambassador was surprised at the match, for he considered Fauconberg a royalist who corresponded with the exiled court.<sup>25</sup> Nevertheless, after the marriage Fauconberg became a favourite of his father-in-law and prominent in the increasingly dynastic Protectorate regime. Although he failed in being appointed to the council, he was in July 1657 commissioned colonel of the regiment of horse previously commanded by John Lambert<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>26</sup> He was on 9 Dec. summoned to Cromwell’s ‘Other House’ and he and his fellow Yorkshireman George Eure*, 6th Baron Eure, were the only two of the old hereditary peerage predating the Protectorate who sat regularly in this ersatz House of Lords from the time it convened on 20 Jan. 1658. After the second Protectorate Parliament’s dissolution on 4 Feb. he served for a brief two-week period from 25 May as an extraordinary ambassador to France, greeting Louis XIV at Calais in the name of the Protector.<sup>27</sup> In the months before Cromwell’s death Fauconberg opposed the interests and influence of the Army officers Charles Fleetwood<sup>‡</sup> and John Desborough<sup>‡</sup>. After September 1658 he was a loyal supporter of Richard Cromwell<sup>‡</sup> as Protector and a frequent correspondent with Richard’s brother Henry Cromwell<sup>‡</sup>, lord lieutenant of Ireland, in which he expressed his continuing distrust of the army officers and his wish to clip their wings. The feeling was mutual, as Desborough made clear his resentment of Fauconberg’s prominence. Fauconberg again sat, albeit intermittently, in the ‘Other House’ when Richard Cromwell summoned his new Parliament in late January 1659, but as the Protectorate crumbled Fauconberg protected his own interests and began to communicate with royalist agents at home and eventually the exiled court abroad. For the first half of April he absented himself both from his regiment and from the capital, ‘leaving nobody capable or loyal around the Protector’, although he had returned to attend the ‘Other House’ by 18 Apr. for the last few days of the third Protectorate Parliament, as Richard’s final confrontation with the army leaders took place.<sup>28</sup></p><p>When the Rump Parliament returned briefly to power in May Fauconberg was, not unsurprisingly, divested of his colonel’s commission. He was quickly recruited to join the royalist insurrection planned for August 1659 and after its failure he was confined and examined by the council of state in September.<sup>29</sup> He was free by 10 Feb. 1660 when he signed a petition of Yorkshire notables to his former Cromwellian colleague George Monck*, later duke of Albemarle, calling for the return of the ‘secluded’ Members and the summoning of a free Parliament.<sup>30</sup> At the dissolution of the Long Parliament Fauconberg threw in his commission of Lambert’s old regiment, but shortly after, on 23 Apr. 1660, Monck appointed him colonel of the regiment of horse formerly commanded by the prominent republican Sir Arthur Hesilrige<sup>‡</sup>, which Monck considered ‘one of the best regiments of horse in the army’.<sup>31</sup></p><h2><em>Convention and Cavalier Parliament, 1660-6</em></h2><p>Fauconberg first sat in the Convention House of Lords on 1 June 1660, in the company of the large group of royalists returned from exile. On 27 June he was granted a general pardon by the king for his brief complicity in the Cromwellian regime.<sup>32</sup> Soon he was able to re-establish his position as one of the leading magnates in the North Riding of Yorkshire and the neighbouring county palatine of Durham. He was made lord lieutenant and <em>custos rotulorum</em> of county Durham on 27 July and maintained that role until the installation of John Cosin*, as bishop of Durham in September 1661. Also on 27 July 1660, Fauconberg was also appointed lord lieutenant of the North Riding of Yorkshire and he served in this post actively until 4 Apr. 1692, except for a brief period in 1687-9.<sup>33</sup> His tenure as <em>custos rotulorum</em> of the North Riding was even longer lasting, from July 1660 to his death in 1700.<sup>34</sup> The day following these appointments Fauconberg was granted leave of the House to go into the country to take up these posts and on 30 July he registered his proxy with George Monck, now duke of Albemarle. Fauconberg also had a smaller part in the governance of Lancashire, as he had an interest in the estate of Smithells in that county, which came to the Belasyse family through his mother Grace Barton at her death in 1660. It was Fauconberg’s younger brother Sir Rowland Belasyse who settled at Smithells while Fauconberg concentrated his activity in the paternal estates of the North Riding and Durham, but Fauconberg still appears to have been placed on successive commissions of peace for the duchy of Lancaster from 1660 to his death.<sup>35</sup></p><p>He was present in the House on the first day of the Cavalier Parliament and on 13 May was one of the seven peers placed on the drafting committee for an address thanking the king for communicating his intention to marry. His local responsibilities in the far north probably summoned him again, for on 5 June 1661 he received leave of the House to go into the country and he last sat before the summer adjournment on 8 June; two days following he registered his proxy with John Granville*, earl of Bath.<sup>36</sup> In his absence the petition of the nobility and gentry of the far northern counties calling for the re-establishment of the court of York, was presented to the House on 1 July. Fauconberg himself had subscribed, his signature appearing prominently among the first names of the petitioners.<sup>37</sup> Fauconberg returned to the House on 5 Dec., but on 24 Mar. 1662 he once again received leave of the House to be absent ‘for some time’, presumably once again on northern lieutenancy affairs. He left the following day but does not appear to have registered a proxy. In the 50 sitting days on which Fauconberg was in the House in the 1661-2 session he was nominated to only 12 committees on legislation and on 6 Feb. 1662 signed the protest against the passage of the bill to restore to Charles Stanley*, 8th earl of Derby, the lands in north Wales he had conveyed to agents of the Interregnum regime by legal instruments during the 1650s.</p><p>He came to just under a quarter of the sittings of the session of 1663 and absented himself for several months after a week into the proceedings, on 27 February. After his return on 23 June he was named to only four committees on legislation. Philip Wharton*, 4th Baron Wharton predicted that Fauconberg would support George Digby*, 2nd earl of Bristol, in his attempt to impeach Edward Hyde*, earl of Clarendon, when the matter was expected to come to a vote on 13 July. As lord lieutenant of the North Riding he was closely involved in the apprehension of the Farnley Wood plotters in the autumn of 1663, although he appears to have remained in the capital at the time and to have delegated duties to his deputy lieutenants in the north.<sup>38</sup> Fauconberg first sat in the following session on 23 Mar. 1664, and only attended a further eight sittings, during which he was not named to a single committee on legislation, until on 22 Apr. 1664 he was given leave of the House to go ‘beyond the seas, for his health’. He was back in the House on 16 Jan. 1665, and attended a further 13 sittings before leaving the House for the rest of the session on 13 February.</p><p>By August 1665 he was back in the North Riding and he and his militia were prominent in the reception of James Stuart*, duke of York, and his duchess on their visit to north Yorkshire, although Fauconberg’s Cromwellian past still had enough of an effect that the duke and duchess had to obtain the king’s permission before Lady Fauconberg, the Protector’s daughter, was allowed to wait on them publicly.<sup>39</sup> His duties in the north apparently prevented him from attending any of the sittings of the session held in Oxford in October 1665, and thus he could not be the ‘Mr ff’ who contributed to the debate on the ‘Five-Mile’ Bill on 30 October, as is sometimes alleged.<sup>40</sup></p><h2><em>War and diplomacy, 1666-73</em></h2><p>He was back in the capital in April 1666 for he attended the prorogation of 23 Apr. 1666 and a week later sat in the specially convened court of the lord high steward to try Thomas Parker*, 15th Baron Morley, whom he, like the majority of the peers, found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.<sup>41</sup> That summer George Villiers*, 2nd duke of Buckingham, already lord lieutenant of the neighbouring West Riding of Yorkshire, was also commissioned colonel of a troop of horse to be stationed in the north. At a dinner held at York sometime in July insults were traded between Buckingham and Fauconberg and the duke challenged the viscount to a duel. According to Sir John Reresby<sup>‡</sup>, when the two opponents met, Buckingham, having ‘more mind to parley than to fight’ took ‘some verbal and superficial satisfaction of my Lord Fauconberg’ and the duel was called off, much to Reresby’s mortification for his patron Buckingham’s cowardice (and Buckingham’s enduring shame, as the incident was recalled many years later by his enemies).<sup>42</sup> This did not satisfy Fauconberg who in October of that year challenged and duelled with Buckingham’s ally (and his own half-cousin) Sir Thomas Osborne*, better known by his later title as earl of Danby, who seriously wounded Fauconberg in the thigh.<sup>43</sup></p><p>It was most likely that wound which kept Fauconberg away from the House for the early part of the session of 1666-7, but he was sufficiently recovered to take his seat on 8 Nov. 1666. Despite his late arrival he was able to sit in just under half of all the sittings of the session, and was named to five committees on legislation, including those for the bills for the lead mines in county Durham and for the bill to continue the act to prevent theft and rapine on the borders, in both of which he would have had a keen interest. From 13 Nov. to 3 Dec. he also held the proxy of Lionel Cranfield*, 3rd earl of Middlesex. His first involvement in the session was as a witness. The north Yorkshire peer Conyers Darcy*, 5th Baron Darcy (later earl of Holdernesse) had made complaint that the Irish peer (and Fauconberg’s kinsman) George Saunders<sup>‡</sup>, 5th Viscount Castleton [I], and the Scottish peer Henry Ingram, Viscount Irvine [S], had insisted on taking precedence over Darcy and other English peers during the visit of the duke of York to his namesake city in 1665. This matter was considered by the committee for privileges on 12 Nov. 1666, where Fauconberg, named by Darcy as a witness to these events at York, gave evidence corroborating Darcy’s account.<sup>44</sup> Two days later, upon the report from the committee, Fauconberg was once again called upon to testify before the House supporting Darcy’s claims, after which the House determined to address the king about this derogation of the honour of the English peerage.</p><p>It was proceedings on the Irish cattle bill which principally occupied Fauconberg during the winter of 1666-7. On 17 Nov. 1666 he was placed on the committee assigned to draft a proviso to the bill which would allow the Irish to send slaughtered and barrelled cattle to London as a charitable gesture after the devastation of the Fire. He chaired the committee that day, but it was principally Buckingham and Anthony Ashley Cooper*, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury), two of the fiercest supporters of the bill and opponents of the Irish, who framed the proviso which, in effect, ‘aspersed the intention of the givers, and called the contribution a contrivance to mischief England’. Fauconberg reported this malicious proviso to the House on 19 Nov., but two days later the House appointed Fauconberg’s fellow northerner and former Cromwellian colleague Charles Howard*, earl of Carlisle, as well as Ashley and Arthur Annesley*, earl of Anglesey, to amend the proviso further according to the House’s wishes.<sup>45</sup> On 20 Dec. Fauconberg was added to the committee that had been established three days earlier to draft reasons why the House insisted on the omission of the word ‘nuisance’ from the bill. On 29 Dec. these reasons were read before the House and he was named a manager for the ensuing conference, as well as for those on the poll bill and the bill for taking public accounts. On 2 Jan. 1667 he attended conferences on all three of these matters, while he managed others on the Irish cattle bill and public accounts bill on 9 Jan., and was at two more on the poll bill on 12 and 14 January. The proxy of Robert Bertie*, 3rd earl of Lindsey was registered with Fauconberg on 12 Jan. 1692, albeit only for the space of five days. On 18 Jan. he was placed on a committee to draw up reasons to be presented to the Commons in answer to their complaints that the House had acted in an ‘unparliamentary’ way in addressing the king directly regarding the commission of accounts. On 24 Jan., when a committee of the whole considered the Commons’ bill for a commission of public accounts, Fauconberg’s name was inserted in the draft as one of the 24 peers who were to act as representatives of the House in the commission and later that day he managed the conference at which these reasons were presented.</p><p>By early March Fauconberg was back in Yorkshire, where he continued in his military duties and on 13 June was commissioned a captain of a troop of horse in the regiment commanded by Prince Rupert*, duke of Cumberland, for the defence of England against Dutch or French invasion.<sup>46</sup> After peace was declared, he came to the House a week into the proceedings of autumn 1667, on 17 Oct. 1667, and proceeded to sit in 57 per cent of the sittings before the adjournment of 19 December. His stance on the impeachment and banishment of Clarendon cannot be exactly determined, as his name does not appear in connection with any of the protests or conferences on this matter. His principal involvement appears to have been a continuing concern with the import of Irish cattle, for on 9 Nov. 1667 he was named to the committee to consider reports of infractions of the Act passed in the 1666-7 session, and on 15 Nov. he chaired a meeting of this committee where evidence was heard of Welsh colliers evading the restrictions on Irish cattle.<sup>47</sup></p><p>On the last two days before the adjournment, 18-19 Dec. 1667, Fauconberg would have watched the rapid passage through Parliament of the bill to establish free trade between England and Scotland. He had a stake in this as well, for from mid January 1668 he was a reasonably assiduous member of the English commission to put this act into execution and soon struck up a friendship and a long correspondence with some of the Scots commissioners, particularly John Hay* earl (later marquess) of Tweeddale, which lasted well into the 1690s.<sup>48</sup> He resumed his seat when the session resumed on 6 Feb. 1668, on which day he helped to introduce his fellow Yorkshireman George Savile*, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax. On 29 Feb. 1668 Philip Stanhope*, 2nd earl of Chesterfield, registered his proxy with Fauconberg, who came to only 29 sittings of this part of the session, during which he was named to three committees on legislation, before he was given leave of the House on 6 Apr. ‘to go into the country for his health for some time’. He left the House that day, without apparently registering a proxy of his own, and Chesterfield’s vote was left untended until he himself returned to the House on 7 May. Fauconberg was back in the House after his long absence on 1 Mar. 1669, when he acted as one of the commissioners, sitting on a ‘form’ between the throne and the woolsack, who prorogued the long-adjourned Parliament until 19 Oct. He was present on that day as well and attended a little over three-quarters of the sittings of the short session of autumn 1669, where he was named to one committee on legislation and on 25 Nov. subscribed to the dissent from the resolution that the cause of <em>Grenville v. Elwes</em> was properly before the House even though, as the dissenters argued, chancery had not yet come to a final decree in this matter.</p><p>By August 1669 the common knowledge was that Fauconberg was ‘designed’ to be an ambassador extraordinary for Venice and other Italian city-states. The appointment was confirmed in November, but he did not set off until early January 1670.<sup>49</sup> He had his audiences at Florence and Genoa in May and arrived at his destination, Venice, in June.<sup>50</sup> During his embassy he successfully settled many outstanding trade disputes and returned to England in the autumn and had his audience with the king on 14 November.<sup>51</sup> Because of this embassy he missed the first part of the long session of 1670-1 entirely, but was back in the House on 7 Nov., shortly after the session had reconvened after the summer adjournment, and he proceeded to attend 82 per cent of the sittings in this part of the session. He was nominated to 22 select committees on legislation, including that for the bill to prevent the growth of popery. He appears to have been prominent on this committee for on 13 Apr. 1671 he was placed on a subcommittee of 15 members assigned to draw up an oath which could mitigate the penalties for those recusants willing to swear it.<sup>52</sup> On 9 Mar. he dissented from the two resolutions which in effect rejected the bill which aimed to restrict privilege of Parliament. In the last days of the session he acted as a delegate on 18 and 20 Apr. for two conferences on the House’s amendments to the bill to prevent abuses in selling cattle at Smithfield.</p><h2><em>Country peer? 1672-9</em></h2><p>On 10 Mar. 1672 Fauconberg replaced his uncle Belasyse as captain of the gentlemen pensioners and a month later, on 17 Apr. 1672, Fauconberg was also sworn of the Privy Council.<sup>53</sup> Both these moves may have been an attempt by Charles II to co-opt potential opponents to his recent policies and actions. Significantly Halifax, Arthur Capell*, earl of Essex and John Egerton*, 2nd earl of Bridgwater were also sworn of the council on the same day as Fauconberg.<sup>54</sup> His new prominence may account for his regular attendance in the House throughout 1673. He came to 82 per cent of the sittings in the session of February-March 1673, when he was appointed to seven committees, and on 24 Mar. he chaired a meeting of the committee on the bill to enable Henry Elwes to sell his entailed land in Yorkshire.<sup>55</sup> On 5 Mar. 1673 he was also appointed to the committee to draft an address to the king confirming that his recent referral to Parliament of the controverted Declaration of Indulgence was ‘good and gracious’, regardless of the complaints of the Commons. After the adjournment of 29 Mar. 1673 Fauconberg was present at the next sitting, the prorogation of 20 Oct. 1673, when he introduced to the House his former duelling opponent, Sir Thomas Osborne, as Viscount Latimer.<sup>56</sup> Fauconberg attended all but three of the sittings of the tempestuous session of January-February 1674, in which he was named to four committees on legislation. Within two weeks of the session’s opening York was complaining to the French envoy de Ruvigny that Fauconberg, Carlisle, Shaftesbury (as Ashley had become), James Cecil*, 3rd earl of Salisbury, ‘and several others’ were regularly meeting at the house of Denzil Holles*, Baron Holles ‘where they concerted together the matters which were to be proposed in the lower House, where those lords had great influence’.<sup>57</sup> However, Fauconberg is not explicitly named as a mover of seconder of any of the motions of late January and early February 1674 restricting the right of a Catholic to rule as a sovereign which York found so offensive and memorable.<sup>58</sup></p><p>Fauconberg’s attitude towards popery during this period of heightened anti-Catholicism, especially considering his own Catholic upbringing and the adherence of so many of his close kinsmen to the old faith, cannot be precisely determined. He was apparently opposed to the projects of the lord treasurer Danby (as Viscount Latimer had become in 1674), in consultation with the bishops, to press from January 1675 for the full enforcement of the penal statutes against Protestant Dissenters and Catholics alike. York was equally concerned at the potential effect on his co-religionists and even approached Fauconberg and other of his foes from the 1674 session to work together on a policy that would give relief to both religious groups.<sup>59</sup> Fauconberg got himself into some trouble with the king for his opposition to Danby’s policy. Sometime in mid March 1675 Danby learned that Fauconberg was spreading the story that at a recent dinner Seth Ward*, bishop of Salisbury, had laid the responsibility for the harsh measures against Dissenters in the order-in-council of 3 Feb. solely on the lord treasurer and had disavowed any involvement of the bishops. When at Danby’s request both Ward and Fauconberg appeared before the king to explain themselves the viscount could only make ‘a lame story of some discourse at the bishop’s table that imported nothing of that value’. The king ‘made bold to speak his mind freely to this lord’s disadvantage’.<sup>60</sup> Clearly at this time Fauconberg was seen as a prominent member of the country opposition. On 3 Feb. 1675 Shaftesbury, then in a brief retirement in Dorset, addressed a letter to Carlisle – with explicit instructions to convey its contents to Fauconberg, Holles and Salisbury – to reassure his colleagues that he was not about to abandon their campaign for the dissolution of Parliament in favour of the rumoured offer of high office under the Crown. This letter, quickly copied, printed and published, became notorious in its time, and contemporaries took it to be a public expression of Shaftesbury’s defiant attitude towards the court in the weeks before the next session of Parliament.<sup>61</sup></p><p>The king’s rebuke and Fauconberg’s own position at court as captain of the gentlemen pensioners may have cooled his country ardour for, despite this apparently high position in Shaftesbury’s confidence, Fauconberg did not subscribe to any of the protests against Danby’s non-resisting test bill in the session of spring 1675. His only recorded involvement in that session, of which he attended 81 per cent of the sittings, was his nomination to eight committees on legislation and his introduction of Francis Newport*, 2nd Baron Newport, as the recently promoted Viscount Newport (later earl of Bradford) on the first day of the session on 13 Apr. 1675. He also held the proxy of William Fiennes*, 3rd Viscount Saye and Sele, from 21 May until the prorogation on 9 June 1675. He came to two of the three weeks of the short and bad-tempered session of autumn 1675, and on 20 Nov. 1675 he did join most of the other country peers in voting that an address should be made to the Crown requesting a dissolution of Parliament, and signing the protest against its rejection.</p><p>The vote of 20 Nov. 1675 may have been too much for the king after the events of earlier that year and in May 1676, during the long prorogation, Fauconberg was encouraged to surrender his commission as captain of the gentlemen pensioners, with a payment of £3,000 to make it more palatable.<sup>62</sup> He was very active in the first part of the long session of 1677-8, and came to 81 per cent of the sittings in 1677. He chaired the committee appointed on 12 Mar. 1677 to draw up heads for a conference on the Commons’ address requesting the king to preserve the Spanish Netherlands from French attack. The following day he reported the results, and managed the ensuing conference that day in which these reasons were presented to the Commons. He was again a manager for another conference on this address two days later, after which the House resolved to agree with the Commons and present the address.<sup>63</sup> Later on 13 Apr. he was placed on the committee to draw up reasons explaining the House’s adherence to their amendments to the supply bill for building warships. In this period of spring 1677 Shafesbury classified Fauconberg as ‘worthy’, despite his passivity during the debates of 1675.</p><p>When the session eventually resumed on 28 Jan. 1678 Fauconberg was present in the House, but only attended for a further 32 sittings, just over half of the sittings until the prorogation of 13 May. From 21 Feb. he briefly held the proxy of his uncle Belasyse until that baron returned to the House on 1 March. He was named to 11 committees on legislation and on 23 Feb. 1678 chaired one meeting of the committee on the bill for Deeping Fen.<sup>64</sup> In March he objected to the use of the word ‘immediately’ in an address to the king requesting a declaration of war against France. In this he supported Danby, who used Fauconberg’s interjection to convene a committee of the whole to discuss the war, and argued against those lords who supported an ‘immediate’ war, such as Shaftesbury, Buckingham and Halifax.<sup>65</sup> At about the same time, on 21 Mar., he was named to the commission, consisting of Danby, Bridgwater, Essex and the two secretaries of state, to treat with representatives of the Emperor, the Spanish king and the United Provinces with the aim of forging a military alliance.<sup>66</sup></p><p>He attended a little over half of the sittings of the following session of May-July 1678. On 20 June he managed a conference to acquaint the Commons with the recent dispatches from the peace conference in Nijmegen that both the Dutch and Imperial negotiators were anxious to learn from Parliament the state of the English army, and whether Parliament intended to disband it or not. On 8 July the House debated the appeal of Louis de Duras*, 2nd earl of Feversham against a chancery decree rejecting his claim to the promised portion of his wife, who had predeceased him before he had been able to fulfil the conditions placed on him by his marriage settlement. Fauconberg took Feversham’s side, arguing that the original articles of marriage had been ‘shuffled up in haste’ and thus should not bind Feversham.<sup>67</sup> In the last days of the session, on 11-12 July, he managed two conferences at which the House disputed the Commons’ amendments to the bill for burying in woollen, before agreeing to the bill on 13 July so that it could be passed at the prorogation two days later.</p><p>Fauconberg attended 55 per cent of the meetings of the autumn 1678 session. On 23 Nov. 1678 he was a manager for a conference to prepare an address to the king concerning the number of days the local militias could legally be mustered in peacetime. He was added to the House’s committee for examining the Popish Plot on 7 December and five days later he was similarly placed on the Privy Council’s own committee investigating this matter, in which he appears to have been reasonably active.<sup>68</sup> Fauconberg’s last major act in the Cavalier Parliament was to vote on 27 Dec. in favour of the commitment of Danby. The motion was ultimately defeated, but Fauconberg did not sign the dissent from its rejection.</p><h2><em>Exclusion Parliaments, 1679-81</em></h2><p>At the dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament on 24 Jan. 1679, Fauconberg sought to influence the elections for Yorkshire and Thirsk. Fauconberg promoted his brother-in-law Sir William Frankland<sup>‡</sup>, and their mutual nephew Nicholas Saunderson<sup>‡</sup> for Thirsk, and Charles Boyle*, Baron Clifford of Lanesborough and Henry Fairfax<sup>‡</sup>, 4th Baron Fairfax of Cameron [S], for Yorkshire. All four were favoured for their country stance against government policies and their support for limitations on York’s succession. At the county level, Fauconberg and Frankland worked to convince a reluctant Lord Fairfax to declare himself a candidate with Lord Clifford and to circumvent the aspirations of Sir John Kaye<sup>‡</sup>, and Edward Osborne<sup>‡</sup>, styled Viscount Latimer (Danby’s eldest son), to stand for the county. On 14 Feb. 1679 Frankland was able to report to Fauconberg that Fairfax had finally agreed to join with Clifford to stand for the shire and that they had been able to convince Kaye to step aside. Fauconberg was also able to reassure Clifford that he would be attended at York by a sufficient number of the viscount’s clients and followers ‘to make the name of Clifford sound as loud as formerly it has done in Yorkshire’.<sup>69</sup> Clifford and Fairfax were duly selected knights of the shire without opposition on 3 Mar. and were re-elected for the following three Parliaments. At Thirsk Fauconberg shared his electoral interest with William Richard George Stanley*, 9th earl of Derby, in whose manorial court the bailiff of Thirsk, who also acted as returning officer, was chosen. In late January Derby enquired whether Fauconberg still intended to share the nomination of Thirsk’s burgesses and Fauconberg wrote to persuade him to put his support behind both Frankland and Saunderson:</p><blockquote><p>Sir William Frankland, who lives within two miles of and served for the town of Thirsk this last parliament, has so great an interest there as would prevail though your lordship and myself should both oppose him. So as in truth it remains only who shall be his partner … though I should be very glad (if your lordship be not engaged) to recommend my nephew Saunderson, son to Lord Castleton, who, I am confident, would carry himself very honestly.</p></blockquote><p>Derby agreed to ‘send to whom I have at Thirsk that are at my disposal that they be for Mr Saunderson’. Frankland and Saunderson were selected without opposition for both this and the following Parliament, though Frankland edged Saunderson out in favour of a more enthusiastic country Member to partner him, Sir William Ayscough, for the 1681 Parliament.<sup>70</sup></p><p>Fauconberg attended 50 per cent of sitting days in the abandoned 6-13 Mar. session of the first Exclusion Parliament of spring 1679. On his first day, 11 Mar., he was placed on the committee to receive informations regarding the Plot. He was appointed to the equivalent committee in the more enduring second session, on 17 Mar., and on 21 Mar. he made two reports from this committee. He attended 85 per cent of sitting days in this session. He chaired the committee examining the ruinous state of the streets on 17 Apr. and that same day he and Bridgwater reported to the House with an address to the king.<sup>71</sup> Fauconberg was particularly active in the proceedings surrounding the impeachment of Danby. The former lord treasurer himself could not be sure how much he could rely on Fauconberg’s support, and the viscount did seem to take an ambivalent stance. On the one hand, on 21 Mar., when the House debated the demand of the Commons for the immediate commitment of the former lord treasurer, Fauconberg argued that as the House had previously made an order giving Danby a set time within which to submit his answers to the impeachment, it could not legitimately change its conditions without new specific charges being laid against the former lord treasurer: ‘without new matter assigned you cannot without derogation to your own honour make an alteration’.<sup>72</sup> On the other hand, the House deemed it appropriate on 22 Mar. to place Fauconberg on the committee of 13 members, including such prominent country members and enemies of the former lord treasurer as Shaftesbury, Halifax, Holles, Essex, Bridgwater, Wharton, Thomas Colepeper*, 2nd Baron Colepeper, and James Scott*, duke of Monmouth, assigned to draft a bill to disqualify Danby from again ever holding office or attending the king. This group, including Fauconberg, were also managers for a conference held that day at which this bill was presented to the Commons. The Commons instead presented a bill that threatened Danby with attainder if he did not surrender himself and answer the articles of impeachment. On 4 Apr. Fauconberg voted for the amended version of the bill, which in effect changed it to a bill for Danby’s banishment rather than attainder. After it had passed the House it was decided to present it and its amendments to the Commons in conference instead of by message. Fauconberg was one of the four peers assigned to draft what was to be said to the lower House, and it appears he and Colepeper were last-minute substitutions for Halifax and Shaftesbury who were originally appointed to the committee. Fauconberg was also one of the eight peers assigned to manage the ensuing conference that day.<sup>73</sup> He was again a manager for a further two conferences on 8 Apr. where the Commons made clear their disagreement with the amended bill which they thought did ‘wholly alter the nature of it’. The lower House eventually had the better of the argument and on 14 Apr. Fauconberg joined with the majority of the House in voting through the attainder bill, largely in the form in which the Commons had originally intended it.</p><p>Fauconberg was involved in the four conferences from 8 to 11 May 1679 which discussed the proper methods and order of the trials of Danby and the five Catholic lords impeached for involvement in the Popish Plot. On 10 May he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee of both Houses, and signed the protest when that motion was defeated in division. Fauconberg had a family interest in the trial of the Catholic peers as one of these was his own uncle Baron Belasyse. On 8 Apr. he informed the House that Belasyse was too lame of the gout to attend the House himself to answer to the articles of impeachment laid against him and on 24 May Fauconberg was granted leave of the House to visit Belasyse, for only one time, in the Tower.<sup>74</sup> Not surprisingly perhaps, Fauconberg signed the dissent against the resolution of 23 May to proceed to the trial of Belasyse and the other lords before that of Danby and on 26 May was appointed a manager for the conference ‘to preserve a good correspondence’ between the Houses where the Commons made clear their vehement disagreement with this decision. Fauconberg ended the session by voting on 27 May, the day of prorogation, against the motion to insist on the right of the bishops to remain in the House during the hearing of capital cases, and he was one of the signatories to the protest when that decision was upheld.</p><p>A privy councillor since 1672, Fauconberg was re-appointed to that body at the remodelling of the council in April 1679, probably to serve both as a representative of the viscounts and as a ‘moderate’ member of the country interest. At this point he appears to have been close to the duke of Monmouth, who on 22 Sept. 1679 appointed Fauconberg to be his deputy in the office of chief justice in eyre south of the Trent after he had been ordered to leave the country. His closeness to Monmouth was also evident when he was later used as an envoy between Monmouth and his father. It was through him that Charles II ordered Monmouth to leave the kingdom, once again, upon the young man’s unexpected and sudden return in late November 1679.<sup>75</sup> In the long months of prorogation Fauconberg took a remarkably sanguine view of the political situation and the forthcoming Parliament. Writing to his brother-in-law Frankland in the north on 13 Apr. 1680, Fauconberg thought that ‘as to public concerns, so great a serenity and quiet in the minds of men has not been seen this many years. Fair measures are taken at home, advantageous alliances pursued, which is hoped may produce a good effect in Parliament next winter’.<sup>76</sup></p><p>Fauconberg was one of the seven privy councillors who advocated the duke of York’s departure to Brussels before Parliament finally did meet in the autumn of 1680.<sup>77</sup> He was present on the first day of the session, 21 Oct. 1680, and proceeded to sit in a little over two-thirds of its sittings. On 3 Nov. he was part of a committee consisting of Shaftesbury, Essex and Richard Boyle*, earl of Burlington, that heard evidence against the Catholic primate of all Ireland, Oliver Plunkett, and Richard Power, earl of Tyrone [I], which Shaftesbury reported to the House over the following days.<sup>78</sup> Fauconberg made an early contribution to the debate on the exclusion bill on 15 Nov., but took an ambiguous position on the matter. On the one hand he found the bill insufficient: ‘I desire a security for the king, lords and the Church, but how to find that in this bill I do not know’. On the other he did not subscribe to the Church’s rejection of exclusion on the basis of divine right and non-resistance: ‘I am not of the bishops’ opinion that by the laws of God it cannot be proved’. In the end he voted to reject the bill, and for him perhaps the clinching argument was the threat of war if the bill passed, for ‘it will draw the French and Irish’.<sup>79</sup> He also voted against the proposed joint committee of both Houses to consider the state of the nation on 23 Nov. and that same day he was placed on a committee to draft a bill for a Protestant Association. He appears to have been involved in this since 16 Nov. at least, when following after the defeat of the exclusion bill, he was appointed by the committee of the whole House considering ways of securing the Protestant religion to a subcommittee of seven members (including Shaftesbury, Anglesey, Essex and Bridgwater) assigned to develop heads for bills. Fauconberg appears to have been engaged in this group, for the manuscript of the heads for a bill to protect the Protestant religion is endorsed ‘L. Fauconberg’s Paper’. He also chaired a meeting of this committee on 25 Nov., although admittedly it was only to adjourn it to the following day.<sup>80</sup> Later in the session, on 7 Dec. Fauconberg found the Catholic William Howard*, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason.</p><p>After the dissolution of the 1680 Parliament, and in the weeks preceding the Parliament summoned for March 1681 in Oxford, Danby predicted that Fauconberg would be among those peers standing neutral regarding his petition for release from the Tower. On 22 Mar. 1681, though, Fauconberg was still at his country house of Sutton Court in Middlesex, from where he wrote to Carlisle, who was trying to make his way to Oxford from Cumberland, with despondent views of the prospects for the forthcoming Parliament. Four lords in one coach, ‘with a great train after them’, had called in on Fauconberg on their way to Oxford and showed him a printed version of the king’s speech, ‘which is very brisk, and forbids meddling with the title of succession, but allows that another may be appointed for the administration’. He expressed the fear that if the Commons proceeded as they had done last Parliament, he and Carlisle would find their intended journeys to Oxford fruitless.<sup>81</sup> Fauconberg’s prediction was realized, as the Oxford Parliament was dissolved after a week. Carlisle was only able to attend one sitting and Fauconberg none at all.</p><h2><em>Tory reaction, 1681-6</em></h2><p>In the weeks following the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament the ‘report was warm’ that Fauconberg was about to be dismissed from his lieutenancy and from the Privy Council, to the extent that Fauconberg had to send an envoy to be assured by the king that the report was false, and was later reportedly ‘not a little delighted’ when the king conferred on him the honour of dining with him.<sup>82</sup> He professed a renewed loyalty to the crown and anxiously expressed to Sir William Frankland the hope that ‘our county [Yorkshire], will imitate the rest in their loyalty’, both through sending loyal addresses to the king and through choosing suitable Members for Parliament, which Fauconberg thought would be convened in the winter of 1681.<sup>83</sup> However, Fauconberg was reportedly one of only three members of the Privy Council who refused to countenance the arrest of Shaftesbury in early July 1681 and declined to sign the warrant for his committal.<sup>84</sup> This may have been more out of a fear of public disorder than through any sympathy for Shaftesbury, for he wrote to Frankland in November that Shaftesbury’s acquittal ‘was accompanied with unparalleled disorder, of shouts, ringing of bells, bonfires and such extravagances as I fear at long run produce ill effects, parties being more exasperated than ever, even to such a degree as discourages all hopes of an accommodation at our next meeting’. He was evidently still under the misapprehension that another Parliament would be summoned imminently.<sup>85</sup></p><p>In these years of Tory reaction Fauconberg maintained an appearance of loyalty to the court and its causes. Family obligation also led him to stand as one of the sureties, for £5,000, for his uncle Belasyse when he was finally bailed from the Tower in February 1684.<sup>86</sup> At the accession of James II in February 1685 Fauconberg continued to show himself an obedient subject of the new king, procuring a somewhat reluctant loyal address to James from the North Riding and successfully persuading Frankland, who had offended the new king by his advocacy of exclusion in the previous parliaments, to give over his seat for Thirsk to his son Thomas Frankland<sup>‡</sup>, partnered by the Tory Sir Hugh Cholmley<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>87</sup> Fauconberg himself was present at the first day of James’s Parliament 19 May 1685, when he helped to introduce to the House a number of new viscounts who had been created or elevated during the four years since the preceding Parliament: Horatio Townshend*, Viscount Townshend; Thomas Thynne*, Viscount Weymouth; and Christopher Hatton*, Viscount Hatton. He sat in three-quarters of the sittings and was named to seven committees. He appears to have been among those peers opposed to the king’s planned dispensation of Catholic military officers from the provisions of the Test Acts, for in early November, his friend Chesterfield was once again considering assigning his proxy to Fauconberg, as he had done back in 1668, to represent their mutual opposition to these measures.<sup>88</sup> Nevertheless, shortly after the adjournment of 20 Nov. 1685 Fauconberg was summoned to the specially convened court of the lord high steward, consisting largely of courtiers and followers of the new king, to hear the crown’s case against Henry Booth*, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington) for treason in the recent insurrection of Monmouth. At the end of the presentation of evidence on 14 Jan. 1686, the lord high steward allowed the judges attending to withdraw to consider of the matters of law in the case, upon which Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham similarly moved that the lords themselves be permitted to withdraw. Fauconberg seconded this motion which was accepted. Upon their return, Fauconberg and the rest of the peers attending found that there was insufficient evidence on which to convict Delamer.<sup>89</sup></p><h2><em>Revolution and Convention, 1687-90</em></h2><p>By May 1687 Fauconberg was in touch with William of Orange’s agent in England Dijkvelt, through whom he sent a fulsomely admiring letter to William. Throughout 1687-8 he was consistently listed as one of the lords opposed to James’s policies and to the repeal of the Test Act.<sup>90</sup> He was one of those lord lieutenants who refused to put the Three Questions to his deputy lieutenants or justices of the peace, for which he was in November 1687 deprived of his responsibility in the North Riding, replaced in turn by the Catholic Charles Fairfax, 5th Viscount Fairfax of Emley [I], and then Henry Cavendish*, 2nd duke of Newcastle.<sup>91</sup> At the trial of the Seven Bishops he, with Danby, stood as a surety for the bail of William Sancroft*, archbishop of Canterbury.<sup>92</sup> He also supported Danby in his plans for the seizure and occupation of York during the projected invasion by William of Orange, donating £500 to the project.<sup>93</sup> He was in or around the capital during the last months of 1688 and was one of those peers who followed Halifax and Nottingham in not signing the petition of 16 Nov. calling for a Parliament. He did not take part in the provisional government which met at Guildhall during the brief period of the king’s first flight but did appear with the rest of the peers summoned by William of Orange to give him advice on 21 December. At that meeting he disagreed with Halifax’s suggestion that the assembled peers should meet again in a number of days’ time in the chamber of the House of Lords, stressing instead the urgency of the situation, and moving that the next meeting take place the following day and not in the Lords’ chamber, as they were not assembling as a House of Lords. He was present at the meeting the following day held, against his advice, in the House of Lords, in order to discuss means of summoning a Parliament, and again at the meeting of 24 Dec. during which James’s second flight was revealed. Here Fauconberg was one of those peers, joining Williamites such as Colepeper and Charles Mordaunt*, 2nd Viscount Mordaunt (later 3rd earl of Peterborough), who spoke against spending the meeting’s time reading the letter, presumed to be of a private nature, which James II had left before his departure addressed to his secretary of state Charles Middleton<sup>‡</sup>, 2nd earl of Middleton [S].<sup>94</sup></p><p>Fauconberg was active from the first day of the Convention, 22 Jan. 1689. On that day he seconded the motion proposed by Mordaunt for Henry Mordaunt*, 2nd earl of Peterborough, to be admitted to bail.<sup>95</sup> He took an active part in the debates and votes on the disposition of the crown, in which he acted as one of the small group of Danby’s followers, with whom he voted, and even abstained, consistently. The discovery of the division lists of these days compiled by Thomas Bruce*, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, has indicated that ‘Danby’s group’ consisted only of Fauconberg, his former proxy donor Lindsey and Henry Compton*, bishop of London. Fauconberg took part in the debate of 29 Jan. when the vote of the Commons declaring that James had ‘abdicated’ and that ‘the throne is vacant’ was brought up to the House. Danby was in the chair of the committee of the whole that debated the terms of the vote, and Fauconberg took a typically non-committal stance on this, arguing on one side that there was an ‘impracticability’ of James II’s continuing to govern, especially as hurried disposal of the great seal on his first flight, made his ‘dereliction’ clear. On the other hand, he felt the House was not ready for a question on the Commons’ vote until there had been more debate on whether there had been an abdication. The debate soon moved on to the question whether there should be a regency under Mary in James II’s name, and Danby’s group were instrumental in defeating this motion. The following day, the votes of Danby’s followers helped gain the majority for the substitution of the word ‘deserted’ for ‘abdicated’ in the Commons’ resolution. On 31 Jan. in another debate in a committee of the whole, Fauconberg voted with Danby in favour of inserting words in the Commons’ vote declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen of England and he did so again in the second division of the day, against declaring the throne ‘vacant’. Upon the report of the conference of 4 Feb. at which the Commons made clear their objections to the House’s changes, two more divisions were held, on whether to agree with the Commons in the use of the words ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is vacant’. Both Fauconberg and Danby abstained from the first of these votes and Ailesbury later recounted in his memoirs, written years after the events and thus confused in many of the details of these days, the curious story that at this division Fauconberg and Nathaniel Crew*, bishop of Durham (who was not even present according to the attendance register for that day) ‘retired between the hanging [presumably one of the Armada tapestries, and the door next to the bishops’ room’ in order to abstain. He may have voted with Danby against the motion to agree with the Commons that ‘the throne is vacant’ and he was certainly in the House to be nominated to a committee to draw up reasons defending the House’s amendments which he helped to present to the Commons in a conference the following day. By the time another long and inconclusive free conference, for which Fauconberg was not appointed a manager, was held on 6 Feb., the mood had changed in the House owing largely to William’s forthright statement to a group of prominent peers, including Danby, that he would not settle for less than the throne in his name. Danby and his group deserted their former loyalist position by voting in favour of the motion of that day to agree with the Commons in the use of the words ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is thereby vacated’. From there it was a short step for the House to pass a resolution declaring William and Mary king and queen.<sup>96</sup> Following this crucial vote Fauconberg was on 8 Feb. appointed a manager for a conference on the Declaration of Rights and, after the report the following day, was placed on the committee to draw up heads defending the House’s amendments. He chaired this committee on 11 Feb. 1689 and reported its reasons to the House that day, but these were rejected so Fauconberg and his committee had to withdraw to rework them.<sup>97</sup> The reasons once being settled, Fauconberg then helped to manage the three conferences on 11-12 Feb. that thrashed out the final text of the Declaration of Rights which was presented to the new monarchs at their proclamation in the Banqueting House the following day, 13 Feb. 1689.</p><p>Fauconberg’s activities in the House in support of William’s claim to the throne led to his re-appointment to the Privy Council on 14 Feb. 1689 and to the lieutenancy of the North Riding at the end of March. At the time of the coronation he was elevated in the peerage, as earl of Fauconberg. His patent of creation was dated 9 Apr. and he was introduced in the House under this title on 13 Apr., supported by other prominent adherents of the new regime Charles Talbot*, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury and Charles Gerard*, earl of Macclesfield. William III also used him as his representative to try to convince Fauconberg’s friend Chesterfield, whom William of Orange had known since his childhood, to support the new regime and to take office; Chesterfield consistently refused.<sup>98</sup> Yet there is other evidence that in private William did not think very highly of Fauconberg. When in his role as a member of the subcommittee of the Privy Council dealing with the affairs of Ireland Fauconberg recommended that John Skeffington, 2nd Viscount Massereene [I], take part in the expedition to Ireland, William could only comment that Massereene was a fool, ‘and was recommended by a greater fool, viz. the earl of Fauconberg’.<sup>99</sup></p><p>Fauconberg, both as viscount and later earl, kept busy in the Convention in the months immediately following the proclamation of the new monarchs, and proceeded to sit in 69 per cent of the sittings before the prorogation of 21 Oct. 1689. On 14 Mar. he was appointed to the committees on the major pieces of ecclesiastical legislation of the Convention, the abortive comprehension bill and the more successful toleration bill. He chaired short meetings of the committee on the comprehension bill on 16 and 20 Mar., only to adjourn them to future dates, because during this time he was heavily involved, indeed perhaps the principal actor, in the proceedings on the bill for the abrogation of oaths. On 15 Mar. he was placed on the subcommittee formed by a committee of the whole to draw up a clause to remove the sacramental test from the bill and he chaired a meeting of this subcommittee the following day. With the House requesting the committee to ‘expedite’ consideration of this bill, he chaired another committee meeting on 18 Mar., though only to adjourn it to the following day. In the meantime the House ordered that consideration of the matter be resumed in committee of the whole House. Fauconberg took the chair of that meeting too on 19 March. He reported that the committee had, once again, committed the matter to a select committee, the same one as had been appointed on 15 March. Not surprisingly, he chaired the select committee on 20 Mar. as well and reported its conclusions to the House. The House rejected one clause produced by the committee and assigned the legal assistants to draw up the clause on the sacramental test. Over the following days the House continued to debate various amendments to the bill, and its final rejection of the clause for removing the sacramental test from the new oaths prompted a protest from a small number of Whig peers, in which Fauconberg did not join.<sup>100</sup> The bill was sent down to the Commons on 23 Mar. and in the meantime Fauconberg on 28 Mar. helped to draft and to present in conference the reasons why the House could not agree with the provisions against the queen dowager and her household in the Commons’ bill for the removal of papists from London.</p><p>On 16 Apr. the Commons sent back its amended bill for the abrogation of oaths, and the House in turn sent its changes to the amendments back to the lower House two days later. Thus began a long dispute and series of conferences between the Houses on the key point of the dispensation, favoured by the House, of members of the clergy from the abrogation of their old oaths. He did not take part in the first conference on 20 Apr., but was appointed a manager for the free conference two days later. Upon the report of this conference the House agreed to accept the Commons’ amendment enforcing the oaths on the clergy as long as it were left to the discretion of the king to allow no more than twelve nonjuring clergymen to enjoy the income from the ecclesiastical benefices. Fauconberg was assigned to manage the free conference of 24 Apr. in which this concession was made, and the Commons in turn agreed to these terms, allowing the king to give the bill for abrogating oaths his royal assent when he visited Parliament that afternoon.</p><p>Fauconberg continued busy in the House throughout May 1689. On 8 May he was a reporter for a conference on the bill for the disarming of papists, after which the House accepted the Commons’ objections to its amendment. The following day he was placed on a subcommittee established by the committee of the whole House to consider the Commons’ amendments to the bill for establishing commissioners of the great seal. On 22 May he was appointed a manager for a conference on the Commons’ amendments to the toleration bill, after which the lower House agreed to the Lords’ objections. On that day he also chaired and reported from a committee of the whole considering the Bill of Rights, which established a subcommittee to draw clauses for settling the succession in the House of Hanover and for forbidding any king from marrying a papist. He chaired the committee of the whole House again on 24 May when these clauses drawn up by the subcommittee were reported and approved.<sup>101</sup> That same day he was named to the committee to draft reasons why the House did not agree with the Commons in removing the clause in the additional poll bill which allowed for the peerage’s self-assessment, but he was not assigned to manage the conference on 27 May when these reasons were presented.</p><p>On 15 June he was assigned to the drafting committee for an address requesting the king to repair the derelict garrisons, to discourage papists and, potentially most embarrassing for Fauconberg and other members of the council on Irish affairs, to investigate the reasons for the miscarriages in Ireland. Fauconberg was also involved in the impeachments of Sir Adam Blair and Captain Henry Vaughan, and on 26 June Fauconberg was placed on a committee to examine the Journal for precedents of similar impeachments. The precedents were reported on 2 July and the House resolved to proceed with the impeachments, prompting a dissent from 21 peers. Fauconberg evidently wished to be among that group for the following day he explained to the House that he had been present at the previous day’s debate and had even spoken on the matter, but had been absent when the division on the question was put. He wished, nevertheless, to put his name to the dissent, but the House ruled against him, as he had missed the division itself, which ‘was against the rules and orders of the House’.</p><p>Fauconberg was placed on 24 July on the committee to devise an explanation why the House insisted on its controversial amendments to the bill to reverse the two judgments against Titus Oates and he helped to present these reasons to the Commons in conference two days later. He also, on 25 July, helped to draw up reasons for insisting on amendments to the bill for duties on tea and coffee. He was prominent in the committee on the bill for prohibiting trade with France and chaired its meetings on four occasions between 12 and 16 August. On 17 Aug. the House ordered him to report from the committee, which he duly did two days later, although the House did not accept all of the amendments suggested by the committee.<sup>102</sup> The following day, 20 Aug., the session was adjourned for over a month, and it did not meet again for serious or extended business until the prorogation of 21 October. When the Convention resumed in its second session two days later, Fauconberg was there, but only attended 44 per cent of the sittings and left the House on 14 Dec. 1689, well over a month before the session was prorogued on 27 Jan. 1690. The Convention was dissolved on 6 Feb. 1690.</p><h2><em>William III’s Parliaments, 1690-1700</em></h2><p>Fauconberg attended just over three-quarters of the sittings of the first session, in spring 1690, of William III’s first Parliament. Late in the session, in the debate of 2 May 1690 on the bill to enforce an oath of abjuration, Fauconberg spoke against the immediate rejection of the bill, as was argued for by many because of the bill’s potential divisiveness, and called for its commitment.<sup>103</sup> Eleven days later he signed the dissent against the resolution not to allow counsel for the City of London more time to be heard in their petition to have the City’s charter restored. He was present for the first day, 2 Oct. 1690, of the following session of 1690-91 and proceeded to attend two-thirds of the sittings. On his second day there, 6 Oct., he was named to the drafting committee for an address of thanks to the queen for her government of the kingdom in the king’s absence and also voted for the discharge of Peterborough and James Cecil*, 4th earl of Salisbury from the Tower.<sup>104</sup> On 29 Oct. he chaired the committee of the whole considering the bill to clarify the power of the admiralty commissioners and reported it as fit to pass without amendment. He then chaired, over the course of the period 17-29 Nov. 1690, six meetings of the committee of the whole considering the bill to reform abuses in chancery, in which the judges themselves were consulted as to their views on parts of the bill.<sup>105</sup> He was appointed to the drafting committee for an order to vacate written protections and reported the draft on 9 Dec., but the House recommitted the matter to a committee of the whole the following day. Later, on 27 Dec., Fauconberg subscribed to the dissent from the resolution to allow written protections to be given to the menial servants of peers. In the last days of December he continued to be active, particularly in committee of the whole House. He chaired three meetings of the committee of the whole on the bill for examining public accounts in 29-31 Dec., and on 30 Dec. he also chaired a committee on the bill for attainting those in rebellion against William and Mary.<sup>106</sup></p><p>He was present for about two-thirds of the sittings of the 1691-2 session. On 17 Nov. 1691 he acted as a reporter for the conference on ‘matters relating to the safety of the kingdom’, at which the Commons announced their determination to proceed with the investigation of the letters found on the person of Richard Grahme<sup>‡</sup>, Viscount Preston [S], when his ship was boarded en route to France. On that same day he also reported from the committee assigned to consider the petition of George Hitchcock against Obadiah Sedgewick, in which he recommended the rejection of the petition. This advice was again ignored and instead the House ordered that counsel for both sides would be heard in four days’ time. A month later, on 18 Dec., he chaired the committee of the whole House when it determined that the book of ‘observations’ submitted to the House by the commissioners of public accounts would be considered each day at noon, no other business intervening. Between 18 and 29 Dec. 1691, Fauconberg chaired the committee of the whole House five times for its consideration of the observations. The committee formulated a set of questions to be posed to the commissioners, which he reported to the House on 30 Dec. 1691. The commissioners of accounts delivered their written answers to the House on 12 Jan. 1692 and four days later Fauconberg chaired the committee of the whole House again to consider these answers. The observations and the answers of the commissioners fell by the wayside in the busy weeks following, especially as the Commons shifted their focus of attention by bringing up a bill for another commission of accounts.<sup>107</sup> At the beginning of the new year, on 12 Jan. 1692, Fauconberg signed the protest against the decision to receive the bill for the divorce of Henry Howard*, 7th duke of Norfolk.</p><p>From the time of the 1692-3 session Fauconberg’s attendance steadily declined in the House and he never again came to more than half of the meetings of any session. In this session he came to only 38 (35 per cent) of its sittings, but he was present for the trial of Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun, on 4 Feb. 1693, whom he, with the majority of the House, found not guilty of murder. But, having cast his verdict in Westminster Hall, he was found not to have returned with the other peers to the Lords’ chamber after the trial – one of only four such miscreants – and was consequently fined £100 which was to go to the poor of Westminster.<sup>108</sup> He was present at 37 per cent of the sittings of the 1693-4 session and on 15 Jan. 1694 was placed on the committee to draw up heads for a conference concerning the details of the timing when intelligence of the sailing of the French fleet from Brest was transmitted to the admirals the previous summer. However, he was not named a manager for the ensuing conference when these heads were to be presented. Nothing was heard from the Commons on this point for several weeks until on 7 Feb. 1694, in response to a request from the House, the clerks reported their findings of precedents of messages sent between the Houses to remind them of papers previously delivered. Fauconberg was then placed on a new committee of ten members to prepare further heads for a conference on the intelligence of the sailing of the Brest fleet, including a reprimand to the lower House for ignoring the Lords’ previous message to them on this point in the previous conference. This time he was appointed a manager for the conferences held on 8 and 12 Feb. when the House delivered its stern message to the Commons. He barely attended the last session of William III’s first Parliament, in 1694-5, at all.</p><p>He managed to come to 30, just under a quarter, of the sittings in the first session, of 1695-6, in the ensuing Parliament, where he contributed to debate in a committee of the whole on 4 Dec. 1695 on the state of the coinage and expressed concern for the health of trade if the coin were called in.<sup>109</sup> On another controversial topic, he was a manager for a conference on 14 Dec. on the address against the establishment of the Scottish East India Company. He signed the Association pledging loyalty to William III on the first possible occasion, 27 Feb. 1696. By this time age was clearly taking its toll on Fauconberg and he effectively retired from the House in late 1696. He attended only 13 sittings of the session of 1696-7, all in late November and December 1696. In one of his last interventions in the House, on 15 Dec., he signed the protest against the resolution to read Cardell Goodman’s information in the proceedings for the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick<sup>‡</sup>, and he was given permission to leave the House when that suspect testimony was read.<sup>110</sup> He was marked as present in the House on 23 Dec. when the final division on the bill for Fenwick’s attainder took place. His name does not occur in the division list for this controversial vote, either for or against, and once more he may have chosen to abstain.</p><p>That day was his very last in the House and by July 1697 he revealed his determination to withdraw from public life in a letter to his brother-in-law Sir William Frankland, himself dying: ‘for my own particular, that have seen all the vanities and acted an unhappy part upon all the scenes and stages of human life, it is more than time I should endeavour to get the taste and relish of this world out of my mouth by withdrawing from the noise and bustle of it to a more heavenly conversation’.<sup>111</sup> Fauconberg died at his house of Sutton Court in Chiswick on 31 Dec. 1700. He did not have any surviving children by either of his wives, and in his will of 14 Nov. 1699 he stipulated bequests and annuities totalling approximately £7,500 and divided his extensive estate in Yorkshire and Lancashire and his houses in Chiswick and King’s (i.e. Soho) Square between his wife, his sister, his nephew Sir Thomas Frankland<sup>‡</sup> and another nephew, the son of his younger brother Sir Rowland Belasyse.<sup>112</sup> This nephew, Thomas Belasyse*, unlike him in religion and politics, succeeded him as 3rd Viscount Fauconberg. The earldom became extinct due to Fauconberg’s lack of direct male offspring, until it was created once again for another Belasyse later in the eighteenth century.</p> |
C.G.D.L. |
|
BELASYSE, Thomas (1663-1718) |
<p><strong><surname>BELASYSE</surname></strong>, <strong>Thomas</strong> (1663–1718)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>uncle 31 Dec. 1700 as 3rd Visct. FAUCONBERG. |
|
Never sat. |
|
|
<p><em>bap.</em> 11 Mar. 1663, 1st s. of Sir Rowland Belasyse, KB of Smithells, Lancs. and Anne, da. and h. of Humphrey Davenport of Sutton, Cheshire. <em>educ</em>. unknown. <em>m.</em> bef. July 1698, Bridget (<em>d.</em>1732), da. of Sir John Gage , 4th bt. of Firle, Suss. 4s. (2 <em>d.v.p</em>.) 3da. <em>suc</em>. fa. 16 Aug. 1699. <em>d.</em> 26 Nov. 1718; <em>will</em> 26 Mar. 1714, pr. 7 May 1719.<sup>1</sup></p> |
<p>Capt. and lt. col. Coldstream Regt. of Ft. Gds. 1687-8.</p> |
|
<p>Thomas Belasyse, 3rd Viscount Fauconberg, was the eldest son of Sir Rowland Belasyse, KB, younger brother of the childless Thomas Belasyse*, earl of Fauconberg. Like much of his family – except for his elder brother Fauconberg – Sir Rowland was a Catholic and brought up his son to be one as well.<sup>2</sup> The earldom of Fauconberg was extinguished at the earl’s death in 1700, but the viscountcy was an older title and was able to descend to the earl’s nephew. The 3rd Viscount never sat in the House of Lords, disabled by his Catholicism, and at the time of the Hanoverian succession was closely monitored as a known Jacobite.<sup>3</sup> His only known involvement with the House was as one of the signatories to a petition submitted in June 1716 against the bill for the registration of papists’ estates.<sup>4</sup> At his death, in exile in the English Benedictine convent in Brussels, in 1718, the viscountcy passed to his eldest son, Thomas Belasyse<sup>†</sup>, 4th Viscount Fauconberg, who inherited his father’s estates in five northern counties and the copious debts run up by the extravagance of his mother.<sup>5</sup> By 1737 the 4th Viscount was ready to take the requisite oaths so he could sit in the House, and was in 1756 was created earl of Fauconberg.</p> |
C.G.D.L. |
|
BENNET, Charles (1674-1722) |
<p><strong><surname>BENNET</surname></strong>, <strong>Charles</strong> (1674–1722)</p> |
<em>suc. </em>fa. 11 Feb. 1695 (a minor) as 2nd Bar. OSSULSTON; <em>cr. </em>19 Oct. 1714 earl of TANKERVILLE |
|
First sat 12 Dec. 1695; last sat 31 Jan. 1722 |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. c.1674 o.s. of Sir John Bennet*, later Bar. Ossulston, of Dawley, Harlington, Mdx. and 2nd w. Bridget (<em>d</em>. 21 July 1703), da. of John Grobham Howe<sup>‡</sup> (1625-79) of Langar, Notts. <em>educ.</em> unknown. <em>m</em>. 3 July 1695, Mary (<em>d</em>. 31 May 1710), da. and h. of Ford Grey*, earl of Tankerville, 3s. (1 <em>d.v.p.</em>), 3da. KT 28 Mar. 1721. <em>d</em>. 21 May 1722; <em>will</em> 31 July 1721-16 Apr. 1722; pr. 12 June 1722.<sup>1</sup></p> |
<p>C.j. in eyre, Trent S. 1715-<em>d.</em>; PC 6 July 1716-<em>d</em>.</p><p>Col. militia ft. Mdx. 1690-?95.<sup>2</sup></p> |
|
<p>Charles Bennet had Whiggish antecedents and influences from many sides in his early development. In August 1690, when as a fifteen-year old he was made a colonel of militia in Middlesex, he was noted by Roger Morrice as being ‘prejudiced against King James who dealt severely with his father’, John Bennet*, Baron Ossulston.<sup>6</sup> James II had called Ossulston to account for peculation in his role as deputy postmaster general in the 1670s and had compounded with him ‘a little before his flight’ for the large sum of £12,000. On his mother’s side Charles Bennet’s uncles were the Howes—Scrope Howe<sup>‡</sup> (later Viscount Howe [I]), John Grobham (‘Jack’) Howe<sup>‡</sup>, and Emanuel Scrope Howe<sup>‡</sup>—who were known for their Whiggish support of the Revolution settlement, and for their opposition to William III’s court in the later years of his reign. When Ossulston died on 11 Feb. 1695 Charles inherited his Whiggish principles as well as a great fortune and houses in Middlesex and St James’s Square.<sup>7</sup> The early 1690s had seen the young man linked matrimonially with a succession of wealthy heiresses. In July 1694 it was reported that he was to marry ‘Mrs Thomas of Wales, the greatest fortune in England, having £5,000 p.a. land, besides £50,000 in money’, and later that year he was said to be on the point of marrying the eldest daughter of John Crew*, Baron Crew, who possessed a similar dowry.<sup>8</sup> In July 1695 the new 2nd Baron Ossulston entered instead into an advantageous marriage that further cemented his relationship to the Whig hierarchy. His new father-in-law, Ford Grey*, 3rd Baron Grey of Warke, had been promoted in the peerage as earl of Tankerville barely a month earlier.</p><p>On 12 Dec. 1695, now of age, Ossulston first took his seat in the House and began a long political career. At this point Tankerville was one of the leading spokesmen for the Whigs in the House of Lords. Although Ossulston appears to have been under the influence of his energetic and flamboyant father-in-law, he was not at this point an active member of the House. He diligently attended for the rest of December 1695 and the first week of January 1696, but then his attendance became sporadic; in total he came to only 28 sitting days of the 1695-6 session and was named to only two committees. He left the House on 13 Feb. 1696 and was absent when the Association was introduced in the House. He had to be summoned by a special letter addressed to him on 27 Feb. before he indicated his belief in William III’s ‘lawful and rightful’ rule with his signature to the Association on 14 March. He maintained the same attendance rate of just under a quarter of the sittings in the following session of 1696-7, when he was named to five committees. Ossulston voted on 23 Dec. 1696 in favour of the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick<sup>‡</sup>, in the passage of which Tankerville played a major role. Ossulston registered his proxy with his father-in-law on 1 Mar. 1697, and again on 12 Feb. 1698 in the 1697-8 session, when Ossulston came to just over a third of the sittings.</p><p>He probably used Tankerville as his proxy at other times during the succeeding Parliaments of 1698-1700 and early 1701, but the relevant proxy registers are now missing. For the Parliament elected in the summer of 1698, Ossulston took his seat on 9 Dec. 1698, but after this late start he attended regularly and came to 45 per cent of the 1698-9 session’s sitting days when he was named to 12 committees on legislation. His attendance dropped steeply in the following session of 1699-1700 when he came to only 16 sittings from 20 Feb. to 22 Mar. 1700. He may have been summoned specifically to take part in the debates surrounding the bill to continue the old, Tory-led, East India Company as a corporation, and on 23 Feb. 1700 he voted against the motion to adjourn into a committee of the whole House to discuss amendments that would further the bill’s progress through the House. He did not, however, join the many Whigs who signed the protest of that day against the bill’s passage.</p><p>His attendance dropped even further, to only 13 sittings, in the Parliament which met in early 1701. He first sat on 24 Feb. 1701, when he was named to a committee, and then absented himself until 26 Mar., whereupon he sat for five successive days until leaving the House again on 1 April, the day of his second committee nomination in that session. He did not return for over two months but was probably urgently summoned to return, for he sat again on 17 June, the day of the controversial trial of the impeached Junto peer John Somers*, Baron Somers. Over the next week he did his duty by the Junto and voted to acquit both Somers and Edward Russell*, earl of Orford. On the day after that latter vote, 24 June 1701, the earl of Tankerville died and bequeathed to his daughter, Ossulston’s wife Mary, a share of his property, including most notably the estate and manor house at Up Park in Harting, west Sussex.<sup>9</sup></p><p>Ossulston first sat in the following Parliament of the first half of 1702 on 9 Jan. 1702 and proceeded to come to exactly half of this Parliament’s sitting days and was named to 15 committees on legislation. He also acted as a teller on 23 Feb. 1700 on the question of whether to add a clause to the bill for the oath of abjuration providing that those clergymen who refused to take the oath by the deadline should nevertheless be allowed to retain their livings for another three months.<sup>10</sup> At the death of William III on 8 Mar. 1702, he was, along with the rest of the House, appointed a manager for a conference to discuss arrangements for the succession of the new queen.</p><p>He attended half of the sittings of Anne’s first Parliament of 1702-5, although he was more diligent in the first two sessions, coming to 63 per cent of the sittings of each, while his attendance slipped to 25 per cent during the 1704-5 session. He subscribed on 9 Dec. 1702 to the House’s resolution against accepting bills with ‘tacked’ clauses and showed the extent of his opposition to this tactic when he joined the Whig protest against retention of a clause in the bill to settle a revenue on George*, prince of Denmark (also duke of Cumberland) which stipulated that he could retain his place in the House and in the Privy Council even after the queen’s death, despite his foreign birth. The Whigs considered this clause to be an unnecessary ‘tack’ on a supply bill which could cast doubt in the future on the rights of a number of other peers of foreign birth, such as William III’s Dutch followers, to sit in the House.</p><p>Three days before this protest Ossulston cast his vote in favour of the Whig amendment to the penalty clause in the occasional conformity bill. In this and the following sessions Ossulston was closely involved in proceedings on this controversial bill. On 24 Feb. 1703 he dissented from the resolution that, in the wake of the bill’s defeat in the Commons because of the House’s amendments, the text of these amendments and of the reasons for their inclusion given during a conference should be printed and made publicly available. The household account book of the Junto leader Thomas Wharton*, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, shows that Ossulston was present at a meeting of ten Whig peers at Wharton’s house on 29 Jan. 1703, most likely to discuss the strategy to take at the free conference on the bill which had been scheduled for 1 February.<sup>11</sup> Ossulston’s own social diary, which survives from November 1703 to December 1712, reveals that from at least late 1703 he was well acquainted with the members of the Whig Junto, and that they relied on his support to help defeat the bill when it came up before the House again in the 1703-4 session.<sup>12</sup> On 4 Dec. 1703, Ossulston recorded that his maternal uncle, the Whig comptroller of the excise Scrope Howe<sup>‡</sup>, Viscount Howe [I], delivered a blank proxy form for his signature at the specific request of the Junto leaders Wharton, Charles Spencer*, 3rd earl of Sunderland and Charles Montagu*, Baron Halifax (later earl of Halifax).<sup>13</sup> As the proxy registers for this session are missing we cannot know whose proxy the Junto leaders assigned to him, or even if one was registered to him at all, but it is noteworthy that Ossulston obediently started attending the House for the first time that session two days after receiving this letter. He was clearly there specifically for the purpose of acting against the bill, as he noted its delayed progress up from the Commons in his diary, and he voted against it on 14 Dec. 1703, most probably armed with the proxy of a fellow Whig. He even noted that it was thrown out by a majority of eleven.<sup>14</sup> Over the following days, Ossulston continued to meet with the Junto members and other Whigs at meetings in their houses or in eating establishments, meetings which were probably intended in equal part for socializing and political strategizing. For just one example, on 17 Dec. he had dinner at the house of Charles Powlett*, 2nd duke of Bolton, accompanied by Halifax, Algernon Capell*, 2nd earl of Essex, Evelyn Pierrepont*, 5th earl (later duke) of Kingston, Charles Lennox*, duke of Richmond, Charles Beauclerk*, duke of St Albans and the Member ‘Mr. Morgan’, probably Anthony Morgan<sup>‡</sup>, the Whig burgess from Yarmouth. Later that evening Ossulston supped at the house of his London neighbour Sunderland (who lived at no. 31 St James’s Square) with an even larger number of fellow Whigs: Wharton; Halifax; William Cavendish*, duke of Devonshire; Charles Seymour*, 6th duke of Somerset; Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun; Ralph Grey*, 4th Baron Grey of Warke; Charles Cornwallis*, 4th Baron Cornwallis; Charles Townshend*, 2nd Viscount Townshend; Arthur Herbert*, earl of Torrington; Thomas Howard*, 6th Baron Howard of Effingham; Charles Mordaunt*, 3rd earl of Peterborough; Lewis Watson*, 3rd Baron (later earl of) Rockingham; John Holles*, duke of Newcastle; and ‘some others I do not remember’.<sup>15</sup></p><p>He continued to attend the House regularly following the defeat of the occasional conformity bill. On the day of that vote, 14 Dec. 1703, his wife’s uncle Ralph, 4th Baron Grey of Warke, petitioned to bring in a bill to compound with various parties to settle the affairs of the troubled estate left to him by his late brother Tankerville. By the terms of the bill Ossulston was to receive a composition of £15,000 to release various estates in Northumberland and London in which his wife had a reversionary interest. Ossulston was absent from the House after 18 Dec. 1703, during the preliminary stages of Grey of Warke’s bill but was present on 12 Jan. 1704 when it was reported as fit to pass with amendments. On 13 Jan. Ossulston met with Grey of Warke ‘about our act of Parliament’ and the following day the bill was passed in the House. It received the royal assent on 24 Feb. 1704.<sup>16</sup></p><p>On 14 Jan. 1704 Ossulston also recorded that he called on his wife’s uncle Charles Berkeley*, 2nd earl of Berkeley, to accompany him to the House ‘where there was a cause heard of a writ of error from the King’s Bench in a cause of an elector of Aylesbury in Bucks. The House did not rise till 9 of the clock’. He was on a committee to draw up an address to the queen concerning this matter, better known as the case of the Aylesbury men, as he noted for 15 Jan. that he was in Westminster although the House was not meeting, and ‘there was a committee to draw up a representation but it was adjourned till Monday’. That he had a part in this is suggested by his note three days later that ‘we carried the representation’ to the queen.<sup>17</sup> In this period Ossulston had almost daily meals taken after meetings of the House with a small group of peers who were his close friends and companions.<sup>18</sup> Ossulston also attended a number of sizeable gatherings hosted by the Junto lords to discuss political tactics. On 13 Feb. 1704 he was at Sunderland’s house in the evening with a large number of Whig peers, where ‘tea drunk and our discourse was only about the Scotch Plot [of] which the papers was before the House of Lords’.<sup>19</sup> Throughout the first half of March he recorded his regular attendance in Parliament during the hearings of the Scotch Plot, although he almost never stated the business of the day or his own views. Earlier, on 13 Jan. 1704 he had been appointed to a committee to draw up a representation to the queen objecting to the Commons’ complaint that the House was arrogating the royal prerogative to itself by examining witnesses and taking evidence in this case, independent of the Privy Council and officers of the crown. He noted in his diary the report on the address on 17 January.<sup>20</sup> Ossulton later recorded that on 1 Mar., a day when there was a debate on the Plot, he remained in the House until nine in the evening and that on 3 March,</p><blockquote><p>there was a report from a committee of seven lords that there was a man who would decipher the gibberish letters and a debate thereupon arose. I was against the man’s deciphering the letters only to the lords [of the committee established to examine the papers on the Plot] and not to the whole House.<sup>21</sup></p></blockquote><p>Political meetings and dinners hosted at Sunderland’s or Somerset’s came in rapid succession in late March, perhaps especially as Ossulston and his dining companions were placed on the large committee established on 22 Mar. to draw up a statement for the queen of the many resolutions taken by the House regarding the discoveries made in their examination of the Plot.<sup>22</sup></p><p>Clearly by 1704 Ossulston was seen by the Junto as a key member of the House on whom they could rely to assist in prosecuting their political strategies. As the occasional conformity bill came up before the House again in the following session of 1704-5, Ossulston received a letter from Somers on 15 Dec. 1704 requesting his presence in the House that day to help throw out the bill on its first reading.<sup>23</sup> Yet Ossulston did not attend the House regularly until 5 Feb. 1705, and he only came to a quarter of the sittings of this session. On 26 Feb. Ossulston went to yet another gathering to discuss Whig strategy with Somerset at Northumberland House, ‘where there was a great many other Lords, none but Lords’.<sup>24</sup> This probably concerned the continuing dispute with the Commons over the case of the Aylesbury men, for the day following this meeting, Ossulston and many of these companions were placed on a large committee to consider heads for a conference regarding the continuing dispute. On 7 Mar. he was placed on a smaller committee of 18 members assigned to draw up a representation to the queen of the state of proceedings in the matter.</p><p>He came to 45 per cent of the sitting days of the following session of 1705-6, the first of the new Parliament elected in the summer of 1705, and first sat on 27 Nov. 1705. He is recorded as being in the House on 6 Dec. when he almost certainly voted in favour of the motion that the ‘Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration’, for five days after this vote he was one of 12 members appointed to a committee to draft an address to the queen asking her to punish those spreading such reports. When he left the House on 5 Mar. he registered his proxy in favour of Sunderland, who held it for the remaining two weeks of the session. <sup>25</sup></p><p>Ossulston was in Bath during the summer between sessions, and there he first met William Johnstone*, marquess of Annandale [S], with whom he struck up a lifelong and close friendship. Their friendship was further cemented when they discovered they had a common interest in the borderlands of England and Scotland. On 20 June 1706, two weeks after the first mention of Annandale in the diary, Ossulston became a major landowner in the north through the death without heirs of his wife’s uncle Grey of Warke, whose estate of Chillingham (as well as property in Charterhouse Yard and elsewhere) fell to the Ossulstons.<sup>26</sup> Through his continuing friendship with Annandale Ossulston was to become acquainted with a great many Scottish peers, and he may have been one of the few English lords of Anne’s reign who maintained friendships with his peers from north of the border.</p><p>This may explain his renewed interest in the business of the House during the 1706-7 session which saw the passage of the Act of Union, and when he attended almost three-quarters of the sittings. Ossulston was active in the Whig strategizing for the debates on the Union, and throughout January and February 1707 was a regular member of several mealtime gatherings of peers and Members, consistently listed in detail in his diary, that inevitably would have discussed the proceedings of the House. On 24 Jan. he hosted a Whig dinner in his own house in St James’s Square.<sup>27</sup> On 19 Feb. 1707 Ossulston was a teller on a division in the House for the question that the ninth article, regarding Scotland’s proportion of the land tax, should be included among the articles of the bill. As the opposite teller was the resolute Tory William North*, 6th Baron North, Ossulston almost certainly told for the Whig side of the question.<sup>28</sup></p><p>The Act of Union having passed into law, Ossulston came to only 40 per cent of the sittings of the session of 1707-8, only sitting regularly from 16 Jan. 1708 until the last week of March. He returned to the House most likely to keep an eye on proceedings on the bill, first read on 23 Jan. 1708, of his former brother-in-law John Cecil*, 6th earl of Exeter, a measure which affected him. Exeter’s first wife had been Ossulston’s sister Annabella. She had brought a £30,000 dowry to the marriage, as well as a detailed marriage settlement involving her jointure lands. She died within two years of the wedding and after her death Exeter, then styled Lord Burleigh, quickly remarried. However, according to the terms of Annabella’s marriage settlement, if she died within five years of the marriage (as she did), £10,000 of the original dowry was to revert to the Ossulstons. Burleigh had entered into his second marriage on the understanding that he and his father John Cecil*, 5th earl of Exeter, would take steps to revoke the terms of this settlement. The death of Burleigh’s father in August 1700 had delayed these proceedings, although it is not clear why it took seven years for the new earl of Exeter to bring a bill in Parliament to accomplish the revocation. Ossulston, only a week back in the House, was named to the committee on this bill on 24 Jan. 1708. Despite the threat to a portion of the large dowry originally bestowed at Annabella’s marriage, Ossulston does not appear to have objected to the bill, perhaps because the jointure lands would revert to him, for it went through both houses fairly easily and received the royal assent on 11 Mar. 1708.<sup>29</sup></p><p>His recent inheritance of the Chillingham estate gave Ossulston some electoral influence in Northumberland, which he determined to put to use in the elections of May 1708 when he supported the candidacy of his kinsman and man-of-business Sir John Bennet<sup>‡</sup> for a seat for Morpeth.<sup>30</sup> On 21 Apr. 1708 Ossulston wrote ‘letters to several people in Morpeth [to] set Sir John Bennet up to stand for Parliament man’ and on 11 May, two days before the election, it was reported that Edmund Maine<sup>‡</sup>, a Tory army officer and the incumbent of the contested seat, ‘has desisted at Morpeth to Lord Ossulston’s friend’.<sup>31</sup> Ossulston does not appear to have tried to influence subsequent elections at Morpeth, probably content to leave his political associate, neighbour at St James’s Square, and frequent dining companion, Charles Howard*, 3rd earl of Carlisle, who controlled the principal interest for that borough, to handle elections there single-handedly.<sup>32</sup></p><p>Ossulston maintained his association with the Junto and other Whigs during the Parliament of 1708, while also increasing his contacts with his Middlesex neighbour John Walker, the clerk assistant to the House of Lords, and with Scottish peers and Members in Westminster. He was present at 62 per cent of the sittings of the session in 1708-9, and first took his seat for continuous attendance on 11 Jan. 1709 (after a token appearance on the first day of the Parliament to take the oaths). That same evening he was at Devonshire House and recorded that ‘here there was a great many other Lords to consult about the Scotch election, as the duke of Newcastle and several other lords’.<sup>33</sup> Ossulston and a number of Whigs, such as his host William Cavendish*, 2nd duke of Devonshire, were apparently galvanized when the issue of the validity of the recent elections of the Scottish representative peers came to a head early in 1709. It may have been at this meeting of Whigs in the house of the new duke of Devonshire that plans were laid for the attack on the parliamentary alliance between the lord treasurer Sidney Godolphin*, earl of Godolphin, and the leading Scottish politician James Douglas*, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S], for Ossulston returned to regular attendance on the House after this meeting, and on 21 Jan. joined the Junto and the Scottish ‘Squadrone’ in voting against the motion that Queensberry, created duke of Dover in the British peerage after the Union, had a right to vote in the elections of the Scottish representative peers. This would have gratified Ossulston’s friend and dining companion, Annandale, who was one of Queensberry’s fiercest enemies in Scottish politics.<sup>34</sup> On 26 Mar. Ossulston also reported to the House from committee with the amended estate bill of Sir Roger Bradshaigh<sup>‡</sup>, which was duly passed.</p><p>From early March 1709 Ossulston began to associate with the Scottish peers in Westminster and their allies, to the point where by 1710 they had become his principal dining companions. On 2 Mar. 1709 he was at dinner at the residence of James Hamilton*, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], where was also Annandale, Charles Douglas*, 2nd earl of Selkirk [S], and the Scottish Member, Lord Archibald Hamilton<sup>‡</sup>; four days later Ossulston had the same company in turn over to his house for dinner. On 15 Mar. he was at Annandale’s residence in an even larger company of Scottish peers: Hamilton, John Ker*, duke of Roxburghe [S], James Graham*, duke of Montrose [S], Thomas Livingstone, Viscount Teviot [S], as well as the English peer Basil Feilding*, 4th earl of Denbigh.<sup>35</sup> Ossulston came to just over half of the sittings of the 1709-10 session and did not begin to sit regularly until 17 Jan. 1710, probably in order to take part in the proceedings against Dr. Henry Sacheverell. On 22 Jan. 1710 Ossulston dined at the duke of Somerset’s, ‘where there was a great deal of company, too many to enumerate’, and where the gathering most likely discussed the action to be taken against Sacheverell and his incendiary sermon.<sup>36</sup> Ossulston recorded on 27 Feb. 1710, with more than usual fanfare, ‘Monday the 27 was the first day of Dr. Sacheverell’s trial’, and his diary shows that he took a keen interest in the proceedings from that point. On 10 Mar. he noted that ‘the managers against Dr. Sacheverell made an end of the reply this night’, and he frequently recorded when he had spent ‘the whole day’ at the trial and on two occasions indicated that he was so involved in the proceedings that he ate his dinner in the House itself, with food that was brought to him from his St James’s residence.<sup>37</sup> On 14 Mar. he was a teller in the question whether to agree with the motion ‘that by the law and usage of Parliament’ it was not necessary to include the actual words supposed to be criminal in a written impeachment and six days later, on 20 Mar., Ossulston voted Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.<sup>38</sup></p><p>After the death of his wife in May 1710, and the sense of isolation it appears to have brought him, Ossulston became even closer with the Scots in London and from the autumn of 1710, when the political landscape was changing greatly with the dissolution of the Parliament and the breakup of the ministry of the ‘duumvirs’, Ossulston became a central member of what has been dubbed a ‘Westminster Anglo-Scottish dining group’. Between 25 Nov. 1710 and 26 June 1711, when Ossulston left London for his Northumbrian estates, he was at 136 mealtime meetings of this group, which had as its inner core the Scottish peers Annandale, John Elphinstone*, 4th Baron Balmerino [S], William Livingstone*, 2nd Viscount Kilsyth [S], William Keith*, 8th earl of Marischal [S], and Archibald Primrose*, earl of Rosebery [S], the Scottish Members John Montgomerie<sup>‡</sup>, William Cochrane<sup>‡</sup>, Sir James Abercromby<sup>‡</sup>, George Hamilton<sup>‡</sup>, Sir Hugh Paterson<sup>‡</sup>, and John Houston<sup>‡</sup>, and the English peer William Ferdinand Carey*, 8th Baron Hunsdon.<sup>39</sup> It was clearly Annandale who was making these other Scottish contacts for Ossulston, who noted upon meeting Kilsyth, Marischal and Sir James Abercromby in November 1710, ‘They are gentlemen that I am not at all acquainted with, only upon Lord Annandale’s account’ and again upon meeting some new faces on 28 Jan. 1711, he remarked, ‘I don’t at all know any of ’em than drinking sometimes with ’em. They are Lord Annandale’s acquaintance’.<sup>40</sup></p><p>Against this socio-political background, Ossulston attended 56 per cent of the sittings of the 1710-11 session, the first of the Tory-led Parliament elected in the autumn of 1710. He was this time a fairly regular attender from the first day of the session but on 2 Feb. 1711Ossulston registered his proxy with Dorchester for the following three days.<sup>41</sup> From 9 Feb. he was involved in a number of dinner meetings with Whig leaders, perhaps discussing moves against the attack on the previous ministry’s conduct of the Spanish war, and after such gatherings he frequently joined his Scottish friends Annandale and Kilsyth (as well as Hunsdon) in their favourite haunt, the British Coffee House, for supper.<sup>42</sup> Most of his companions among the Scots in Westminster were Tory, or in the case of Kilsyth and Balmerino, committed Jacobites. That he had frequent meetings, often in the same day, with both English Whigs and Scottish Tories, suggests that he could have been acting as a link between the two groups, a conduit through which the Junto Whigs—with whose policies he was always far more in sympathy—could sound out and approach the Scottish Tories in the House. This is suggested by a letter of June 1711 from Balmerino to Henry Maule in Scotland where, commenting on growing Scottish disenchantment with the Union, Balmerino added, ‘I find by Lord Ossulston that discourses of this kind are beginning to be common among the Whig Lords’.<sup>43</sup> So close was Ossulston becoming to his Scottish friends that in early August 1711, while he was at his estates in Northumberland, he briefly went over the northern border to visit Edinburgh—probably one of the only English peers to make this trip.<sup>44</sup></p><p>Ossulston was back in time to attend the 1711-12 session on its first day, 7 Dec. 1711, when he voted against the ministry of Robert Harley*, earl of Oxford, by supporting the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion. On these first days of the session he followed his parliamentary activities with dinners with leading Whigs.<sup>45</sup> On the other hand, Ossulston on 20 Dec. 1711 voted against his Whig friends and in favour of the right of the duke of Hamilton to sit in the House of Lords as a British peer, under the title duke of Brandon. He was on the losing side here, and in protest at the House’s disenabling of Hamilton, many of the Scottish peers with whom Ossulston associated boycotted the House early in the new year. One day in late January 1712, when Balmerino and Annandale were refusing to enter the House, Ossulston and Henry Herbert*, 2nd Baron Herbert of Chirbury, did them the favour of leaving the chamber early and providing them with an account of that day’s proceedings, after which the two English peers went off to dinner with the two Scottish ones.<sup>46</sup> His diary, which ends on 19 Dec. 1712, records 23 meetings with the Anglo-Scottish dining club in 1712, but this is undoubtedly an underestimate: there are large periods in that year, usually during the parliamentary sessions, which are unaccounted for because the entries are in a now lost ‘London diary’. The diary for this period which survives is the diary maintained at his country residence, Dawley House. He was away from the House from 21 Feb. 1712, but his proxy (registered with Bolton on 28 Feb.) was vacated by his return to the House on 10 March.</p><p>The treatment of his Scottish friends may have alienated Ossulston temporarily from the Whigs. Ossulston’s closest companion among the Scots, Annandale, was so incensed by the vote of 20 Dec. that he and Hamilton himself continued their boycott of the House far longer than any of the other Scottish members of Parliament—. For a brief time in the latter stages of this turbulent session, Ossulston supported the Oxford ministry, and he may even have brought his friend Herbert of Chirbury, who had joined him in associating with the boycotting Scottish peers, over too. On 28 May 1712 Ossulston (and Herbert) surprisingly sided with the ministry by voting against the motion for an address to the queen over the ‘restraining orders’ issued to the captain general James Butler*, 2nd duke of Ormond.<sup>47</sup> Later on 7 June Ossulston and Herbert were two of the ‘young lords’ who ‘went off’ from the Whigs and voted with the ministry against the address to the queen urging her to work with the United Provinces in forging a ‘mutual guaranty’ to ensure the Hanoverian succession in Britain. As the parliamentary correspondent of William Wake*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of Canterbury), commented</p><blockquote><p>These [peers] had made a sort of agreement that the court should prevent a division, by which means they should not be discovered, but they were gudgeons, for the Court wanted not a majority, but a triumph, to show the people the disparity of numbers, and so they were caught like fools. A great deal of money and promises were spent to work this apostacy.<sup>48</sup></p></blockquote><p>This was certainly a triumph for the ministry, which had a majority of 45 in the Lords of this vote, one of the largest Whig defeats in the session and one which marked the end of concerted Whig opposition to the peace terms negotiated in Utrecht. The session was prorogued two weeks later, on 21 June.</p><p>Nevertheless, Jonathan Swift still considered Ossulston an opponent of the ministry in the months preceding the following session of spring 1713 when the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht were formally presented to the House. Ossulston came to half of the meetings of that session, when Oxford fully expected him to oppose the French commercial treaty, if it ever arrived in the House from the Commons. In the first session, in spring 1714, of the following Parliament, Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, saw him as an opponent of the schism bill. Ossulston was present at less than a quarter of that session’s sittings and on 16 Apr. 1714 he registered his proxy with Somerset, but this was vacated two weeks later by his return to the House. He was present for much of the first half of June during the proceedings on the schism bill but did not sign the protest against it on 15 June, and then absented himself from the House for a period of two weeks after the bill’s passage. After returning briefly for one day, he registered his proxy with Bolton on 3 July, who was only able to hold it for a week before the Parliament was prorogued. Ossulston arrived in the House again on 1 Aug. 1714, the first day of the brief session charged with seeing a peaceful transfer of the crown to the elector of Hanover following the death of the queen, and sat in a further eight sittings of that session before the prorogation at the end of August.</p><p>In September 1714 Ossulston rented a portion of his townhouse on St James’s Square to the Hanoverian envoy Hans Caspar von Bothmer, and this favour to his representative, as well as Ossulston’s long allegiance to the Whigs, may have prompted George I on 19 Oct. 1714 to create Ossulston earl of Tankerville, his father-in-law’s old title.<sup>49</sup> Ossulston had been petitioning for this title since at least 1712 but had been blocked during the Oxford ministry by the counterclaims of the previous earl of Tankerville’s cousin, the staunch Tory, Lord North.<sup>50</sup> In November 1715 the new earl was given a further honour by being appointed chief justice in eyre south of Trent, an ancient and lucrative office which by this point was largely a sinecure. Nevertheless, Tankerville appears to have been active in it and generated a great deal of records, mostly licences for felling trees, during his tenure.<sup>51</sup> On 6 July 1716 he was sworn to the Privy Council.</p><p>Tankerville maintained his Whig loyalties in George I’s new Parliament. On 4 Mar. 1721, Tankerville received the green ribbon of the specifically Scottish Order of the Thistle, fittingly replacing his old friend Annandale, who had died in 1721. He was only the second English peer to receive the honour, which was a tribute to his long association with the Scottish nobility and political class.<sup>52</sup> Tankerville died on 21 May 1722. In his will of 31 July 1721 he bequeathed the entailed estate to his eldest son and heir, Charles Bennet<sup>†</sup>, 2nd earl of Tankerville, but appointed trustees to raise from that estate portions of £8,000 each for his four younger children, including the unpaid part of the marriage portion of his daughter Bridget, wife of John Wallop*, Viscount Lymington (later earl of Portsmouth).<sup>53</sup> A dispute over the administration of the estate later led to a suit in Chancery, and all the first earl of Tankerville’s papers were submitted as exhibits. They are now in the National Archives, including the five volumes of his diary.<sup>54</sup></p> |
C.G.D.L. |
|
BENNET, Henry (1618-85) |
<p><strong><surname>BENNET</surname></strong>, <strong>Henry</strong> (1618–85)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>14 Mar. 1665 Bar. ARLINGTON; <em>cr. </em>22 Apr. 1672 earl of ARLINGTON |
|
First sat 21 June 1665; last sat 1 July 1685 |
|
MP Callington June 1661-14 Mar. 1665 |
<p><em>bap</em>. 6 Sept. 1618, 2nd s. of Sir John Bennet of Dawley, Harlington, Mdx. and Dorothy, da. of Sir John Crofts<sup>‡</sup> of Little Saxham, Suff.; bro. of John Bennet*, Bar. Ossulston. <em>educ</em>. Westminster; Christ Church, Oxf. 1635, BA 1639, MA 1642, DCL 1663; Camb. LLD. <em>m</em>. 16 or 17 Apr. 1666 (with at least £10,000),<sup>1</sup> Isabella (<em>d</em>.1718), da. of Lodewyck (Ludwig) van Nassau, Bar. of Leck and Beverwaert, 1da. kntd. Mar. 1657;<sup>2</sup> KG 15 June 1672. <em>d</em>. 28 July 1685; <em>will</em> 25 July, pr. 6 Nov. 1685.<sup>3</sup></p> |
<p>Sec. to James*, duke of York, 1648-57; gent. of the privy chamber 1656-61; kpr. of the privy purse 1661-2; PC 15 Oct. 1662-<em>d</em>.; sec. of state (South) 1662-74; comptroller of prizes 1664-7; postmaster gen. (jt.) 1665-6 (sole) 1667-77;<sup>4</sup> commr. trade 1668-72;<sup>5</sup> Admiralty commr. 9 July 1673-14 May 1679; commr. Tangier 1673, 1680-4;<sup>6</sup> ld. chamberlain 1674-<em>d</em>.; ld. steward to Queen Catharine of Braganza 1680-<em>d</em>.</p><p>Resident amb. Madrid 1657-61; amb. extraordinary France and Low Countries June-July 1672; special amb. (jt.) Low Countries 10 Nov. 1674-7 Jan. 1675.</p><p>Commr. assessment, Mdx. 1661-5, Westminster 1663-5, loyal and indigent officers, London and Westminster 1662; freeman, Portsmouth 1665; gov. Charterhouse 1667; steward, Norwich Cathedral 1668; gov. Deal castle 1668;<sup>7</sup> alderman, Thetford by 1669-<em>d</em>.; steward of the manor of Higham Ferrers aft. Sept. 1669; high steward, Wallingford 1670-<em>d</em>.; Kingston-upon-Thames 1683-<em>d</em>.; <em>custos</em>. <em>rot</em>. and ld. lt. Suff. 1681-<em>d</em>.</p><p>Asst. Roy. Adventurers into Africa by 1664-7, 1669-71, Roy. Fishing Co. 1664, Roy. Africa Co. 1673; Grandmaster of freemasons, 1679-<em>d</em>.<sup>8</sup></p> |
<p>Likenesses: Oil on canvas by P. Lely, c.1655-70, NPG 1853; oil on canvas by P. Lely, c.1676, Christ Church, Oxf and National Trust, Kedleston Hall.</p> |
<h2><em>‘A subtle courtier’</em></h2><p>Bennet was descended from solid gentry stock on his father’s side and was related to several peers on that of his mother.<sup>10</sup> He nonetheless never quite shook off the reputation of being parvenu. His rival, George Villiers*, duke of Buckingham, derided him as ‘an arrant fop’.<sup>11</sup> Edward Hyde*, earl of Clarendon, found other reasons to dislike him and claimed that he ‘knew no more of the constitution and laws of England than he did for China.’ Equally dismissively (and equally inaccurately) Clarendon wrote that Bennet ‘believed France was the best pattern in the world.’<sup>12</sup></p><p>It was not to France but to Spain and the Dutch that Bennet looked principally for inspiration. Bennet’s early ambassadorial posting in Spain was to prove a crucial formative experience. The Spanish liking for ceremony appealed to him, and it was at the court in Madrid that he acquired his rather affected, grandiose manner and a lifelong interest in positioning England within a Spanish and (later) Hispano-Dutch sphere.<sup>13</sup> He may also have privately committed himself to the Catholic religion. Samuel Pepys<sup>‡</sup>, for one, already thought in the 1660s that he was at least a crypto-Catholic.<sup>14</sup> If this was so, Bennet nevertheless conformed outwardly to the Anglican Church, and it was not until his final moments that he may at last have revealed his true beliefs, though this was denied strenuously by his widow.<sup>15</sup> He was also willing to act with a degree of circumspection about his foreign policy preferences and to assist the king with his entirely opposite agenda of a close alliance with France.<sup>16</sup> Genuinely cultivated, he enjoyed the trappings of social eminence but (at the beginning of his career) lacked the foundations on which such a lifestyle was based. This has been pointed out as one of the most significant reasons for explaining his malleability and reluctance to join other courtiers in opposition when his own schemes went awry. Having said that, it is easy to underestimate his achievement in rising through the ranks of nobility and in establishing himself as such a prominent patron of the arts and as a courtier of real significance.<sup>17</sup> As a minister he was more capable and influential than many of his better-known colleagues, particularly skilled at the art of collecting supporters through the exploitation of perks and offices. Pepys wrote in April 1667 of a conversation with John Evelyn, who told him (after they had discussed the apparently meteoric rise Thomas Clifford*, later Baron Clifford) that ‘there is none that endeavours more to raise those that he takes into favour than my Lord Arlington’.<sup>18</sup> Arlington’s development of a significant interest in the Commons and management of Parliament in some ways anticipated that of Thomas Osborne*, later Viscount Latimer, earl of Danby and duke of Leeds. Although several of his clients later went their own way or took service with his rivals, at the height of his power he was able to command the allegiance of a significant bloc in the lower House. He was able to manage this group with the aid of his lieutenants Clifford and Joseph Williamson<sup>‡</sup>, as well as a number of kinsmen.<sup>19</sup> Bennet’s marriage into a Dutch family later extended his interest beyond the confines of East Anglia and the court. It helped to cement his close relationship with Sir William Temple<sup>‡</sup> and others close to William of Orange as well as with members of the Butler family.</p><p>Pragmatic and efficient, Arlington gained considerable notoriety for his willingness to adapt himself to the times and forge alliances with any number of competing factions. It did not, however, prevent him from resenting those who stood in his way or crossed him: the French ambassador at one point suggested that Arlington ‘would join with the devil to ruin an enemy.’<sup>20</sup> His power, though, rested on royal favour: John Sheffield*, duke of Buckingham and Normanby, considered him to have been ‘rather a subtle courtier, than an able statesman; too much regarding every inclination of his master, and too little considering his true interest and that of the nation’.<sup>21</sup> For all his avowed interest in furthering a Spanish alliance as the best means of advancing English trade, this statement may provide the key to Arlington’s motivation.</p><p>Bennet was the second son of a substantial gentleman with estates in Middlesex and Suffolk. His most significant association came to be with the latter. It was here that he built his country retreat and also where his kinsman, William Crofts*, Baron Crofts, exercised his interest. Originally intended for the Church, Bennet soon found his <em>métier</em> in more political activities.<sup>22</sup> The Civil War interrupted his studies at Oxford, but although he served George Digby*, styled Lord Digby (later 2nd earl of Bristol), in a non-combatant role, he succeeded in acquiring a scar on the bridge of his nose while participating in a skirmish near Andover. He drew attention to the wound by sporting a black sticking plaster for the rest of his life.<sup>23</sup> This appears to have been the limit of Bennet’s participation in the conflict though it is possible, if unlikely, that he was the Henry Bennet noted as a major in Colonel Boys’s regiment.<sup>24</sup> Following the fall of Oxford, Bennet joined the royalist party overseas and by 1648 he was a significant figure in the court in exile, becoming secretary to James, duke of York. Despite this, he was never close to York and was from the outset considered very much the king’s man.<sup>25</sup> As such he was despatched to Madrid at the close of 1656 to fulfil the post of royal agent to the court there. His status was later upgraded to that of ambassador and he remained in post in Spain until after the Restoration.<sup>26</sup></p><h2><em>Secretary of state, 1661-5</em></h2><p>Bennet returned to England from Spain in the spring of 1661, too late to participate in the elections to the Cavalier Parliament. By this time he had aligned himself with his old patron, Bristol, against Clarendon. Clarendon was later to deride his young rival as being ‘without money, without friends, without industry or any one notable virtue.’<sup>27</sup> For all these apparent limitations Bennet was able to make progress at court and pressure was placed upon Clarendon to provide him with a safe seat in the House of Commons as soon as one became available. Accordingly, in June Bennet was returned for Callington in Cornwall. More courtier than Parliament man, though, and more at home in the fusty ceremonial of the Spanish court than in the rough and tumble of English politics, Bennet found aspects of Parliament unnerving. In 1664 he wrote to James Butler*, duke of Ormond (who then attended the House as earl of Brecknock), that ‘although there be safety (as Solomon says) in a multitude of counsellors, yet we cannot but think ourselves at ease when we are fairly rid of them’.<sup>28</sup></p><p>When in August 1661 Bennet was appointed keeper of the privy purse, a post that had been expected to go to one of Clarendon’s creatures, it encouraged Bennet and Bristol to persist in their attacks on the lord chancellor.<sup>29</sup> He was unsuccessful in his attempt to secure appointment as ambassador to France. His pretensions to that post appear to have been stymied in part by advice conveyed to Louis XIV by the French ambassador Estrades, who thought it inappropriate that someone he considered little more than a Spanish pensioner should be installed at the Paris embassy, and the post went to Denzil Holles*, Baron Holles, who was generally assumed to be close to Clarendon.<sup>30</sup> Bennet’s appointment as secretary of state in October 1662, replacing Sir Edward Nicholas<sup>‡</sup>, however, was generally regarded as a signal success for the opposing faction.<sup>31</sup> By mid-October, Pepys noted that ‘none in court have more the king’s ear now’ than Bennet, Sir Charles Berkeley*, later earl of Falmouth, and the king’s mistress, the countess of Castlemaine.<sup>32</sup> Bennet’s and Bristol’s influence was recognized not only in the creation of the Declaration of Indulgence, published at the very end of 1662, but also in the bill presented in the House of Lords by John Robartes*, 2nd Baron Robartes, later earl of Radnor, in February 1663 designed to give effect to the Indulgence. </p><p>The fall-out from Clarendon’s opposition to the Indulgence meant that Bristol and Bennet were reckoned to have virtually ousted Clarendon from Charles II’s favour, and by the early months of 1663 Pepys concluded that Bennet’s progress meant that things had ‘changed to the worse’. He noted that a number of other prominent courtiers were now ‘afeared of him’ and recorded that Edward Montagu*, earl of Sandwich, had attempted to bribe him with a present of a gold cup, though Bennet had refused to be bought.<sup>33</sup> But Bristol’s partnership with Bennet became unstuck as Bristol overreached himself, demanding a position in Charles II’s counsels which the king was reluctant to concede; well before the farce of Bristol’s attempt to impeach Clarendon, Bennet had been brought to a reconciliation with the lord chancellor and was seen to be operating in alliance with him against his former patron. Despite Bristol’s effective removal from the political scene, it was not a partnership to last, and by the close of the following year Bennet was said to be working closely with two other men hostile to the chancellor, Anthony Ashley Cooper*, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury), and John Maitland*, duke of Lauderdale [S] (who sat in the House as earl of Guilford). With them he was at the forefront of those promoting a war against the Dutch in the expectation of acquiring easy spoils and in the hopes of gaining leverage over Clarendon.<sup>34</sup></p><h2><em>The fall of Clarendon, 1665-7</em></h2><p>At the opening of March 1665, shortly after the declaration of war against the Dutch, Bennet was raised to the peerage. The choice of title caused Bennet some problems. Although the warrant for creating him a baron noted that he was to be created Baron Bennet of Arlington, this was not the style on which he settled. He appears early on to have rejected all thoughts of using his surname, perhaps fearing that any future wife would be forced to share the title Lady Bennet with a well-known brothel keeper of the same name. Certainly this was the tale recounted by Wood, who also recorded a ditty featuring ‘Lord Benet and Bawd Benet and Knight Benet and Shite Benet.’ Bennet’s first choice of title appears to have been Colnbrook, while advice from Sir Edward Walker, garter king of arms, suggested that he might reasonably assume the titles of Bradston or Ingoldsthorp. Walker also noted the availability of St Amand and Dunsmore. Failing these, Walker suggested that ‘he might take one from some place in his possession as Dawley … or be baron of the place near Andover where he received his honourable scar.’ Bennet toyed with the notion of taking the title of Lymington, and also considered Paddington before eventually settling on Cheney, to which he pretended a remote claim.<sup>35</sup> A patent was drawn up accordingly creating Bennet Baron Cheney of Harlington in Middlesex.<sup>36</sup> Although the barony of Cheney was extinct, the remaining members of the family protested and Bennet was compelled to withdraw his pretension to that title and settle instead on Arlington, from the village of Arlington (or Harlington) of which his brother was lord of the manor and where it had originally been intended he was to have been the incumbent. It is indicative of the confusion that surrounded Arlington’s selection of title that in mid-March he was still being referred to by the French ambassador as Cheney and by at least one other commentator as Lord Blandford.<sup>37</sup></p><p>For all the confusion over his choice of title, Arlington’s promotion to the peerage served to underscore his continuing rise at court. In May it was reported that the king was to be seen each day supping with a cadre of close advisors, among them Lady Castlemaine, Arlington, Ashley and Lauderdale.<sup>38</sup> On 21 June 1665 Arlington took his seat in the House for the first time, introduced between his cousin, Crofts, and William Brydges*, 7th Baron Chandos. That summer, Arlington wrote to Richard Legh<sup>‡</sup> to assure him of having used his interest to secure the post of governor of Chester for Geoffrey Shakerley<sup>‡</sup>. This may have been indicative of his continuing effort to develop his party in the Commons, where he was also able to look to the helpful presence of his brother, John, and brother-in-law, Sir Robert Carr<sup>‡</sup>. Much of his contact with his various associates was coordinated by his secretary, Williamson.<sup>39</sup></p><p>Arlington was a visitor at Ashley’s seat at St Giles in Dorset in mid-September.<sup>40</sup> By the end of the month he was in Oxford for the meeting of Parliament that had been moved from London because of the plague. Although he was present in the city on 8 Oct. 1665 he failed to attend the opening day of the session on 9 Oct., waiting until the following day to take his place. He was then present on ten of the session’s 19 sitting days.<sup>41</sup> The following day he wrote to Ormond advising him of the impracticality of attempting to repeal the 1663 act restricting the importation of Irish cattle into England. Rather, he warned him that the mood of Parliament was such that a bill for a complete ban on Irish cattle was likely to be warmly received, and recommended that the Irish find another market for their livestock. On 12 Oct. he was named to the committee for privileges, and on 16 Oct. he was entrusted with the proxy of John Paulet*, 5th marquess of Winchester, which was vacated by the close. Two days later, Arlington wrote again to Ormond advising him to do what he could to gratify James Tuchet*, 3rd earl of Castlehaven [I] (who sat in the House as 13th Baron Audley). On 21 Oct. he was entrusted with the proxy of Thomas Wentworth*, earl of Cleveland, which was vacated by the close. By 25 Oct. Arlington was able to assure Ormond that the numerous interventions to be expected in the House combined with the king’s reluctance to pass the measure and the brevity of the session would prevent any progress being made in passing the bill prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle.<sup>42</sup> Two days later he acquainted the House with the king’s resolution to prorogue the session by the following Wednesday at the latest. Named to two committees that day, Arlington was nominated to a further committee on 31 Oct. before the prorogation brought the session’s business to a close.</p><p>Arlington passed the Christmas holidays at the home of his kinsman, Crofts, in company with several other courtiers, including the man who would become a key rival, Buckingham.<sup>43</sup> Despite the ongoing war with the Dutch, by the middle of January 1666 rumours began to circulate of an impending match between Arlington and a Dutch noblewoman, Isabella van Nassau. Arlington’s prospective bride was a relative of the king’s nephew, William of Orange (later King William III), and was sister-in-law to Ormond’s heir, Thomas Butler*, earl of Ossory [I] (later a member of the Lords as Baron Butler of Moore Park) and, according to Sir Philip Frowde, ‘a fine discreet lady personable and well shaped.’ Ormond was said to have been instrumental in bringing the match about, through the medium of the duchess of York. The affair helped to feed general rumours that ‘the court inclines to thoughts of peace.’<sup>44</sup></p><p>The plague was still rife in London in the middle of January 1666. At the beginning of the following month, though, Arlington returned to Whitehall, ‘whither the necessity of affairs brought his majesty’ and which was by then considered sufficiently free of disease for the court to be convinced of their safety.<sup>45</sup> Early in March, it was reported that Ossory and his wife had arrived in England to help with finalizing arrangements for Arlington’s marriage, and on 4 Apr. Arlington was granted a special licence to enable him to marry during Lent.<sup>46</sup> Andrew Marvell<sup>‡</sup> in his <em>Second Advice to a Painter</em> castigated the match as the only achievement of the war:</p><blockquote><p>And with four millions vainly giv’n as spent,<br />And with five millions more of detriment,<br />Our sum amounts yet only to have won<br />A Bastard Orange for pimp Arlington.<sup>47</sup></p></blockquote><p>If Arlington was aware of such criticism it did not prevent him from spending the early part of the summer in ‘a jolly journey with his wife at my Lord Crofts’ house at Sarum’. Enjoyment of his new wife’s company may have been behind his remissness in watching over Ossory as Ormond had expected: in June he was upbraided by Ormond for having allowed Ossory to slip away to join the fleet.<sup>48</sup> For this omission, Ormond took ‘the boldness to tell you, you govern not as is expected, or he (Ossory) has not that deference to your advice which I recommended to him.’ By August Arlington was fretting about the threat of a French descent on Ireland, while Ormond worried about the renewed efforts that would be made to pass the Irish cattle bill in the new session of Parliament.<sup>49</sup> With such charged matters in prospect Arlington was said to be one of the ministers who had particular reason to fear the new session but the Great Fire of London (2-5 Sept.) forced the otherwise divided members of the council to put aside their differences for the while to respond to the crisis.<sup>50</sup></p><p>Arlington reluctantly left Moor Park, where he had sought a few days’ respite from the problems in town, to resume his place in the House at the opening of the new session on 18 Sept., though he expected that ‘both Houses would be very thin’. He joined with Crofts to introduce Ossory as Baron Butler of Moore Park, a further indication of his close relations with the Butler family. With the House as empty as Arlington had foreseen, the king then determined to adjourn proceedings until the following Friday.<sup>51</sup> Present on almost 87 per cent of all sitting days, on 24 Sept. Arlington was named to the committee for privileges, and he was thereafter named to a further five committees in the course of the session, including that for the bill for rebuilding the City of London. On 26 Sept. the House read Lady Arlington’s naturalization bill for the first time and, following its second reading the next day, it was passed on to a committee presided over by Richard Sackville*, 5th earl of Dorset.<sup>52</sup> The bill was passed and sent down to the Commons on 4 October.<sup>53</sup> It returned to the Lords with the Commons’ concurrence on 10 November.</p><p>Besides personal business relating to his wife’s naturalization, Arlington’s attention during the session was dominated by three problems. The first related to the aftermath of the Great Fire. On 29 Sept. 1666 Arlington joined Arthur Annesley*, earl of Anglesey, in taking a walk through the city ruins to see for themselves the extent of the devastation. The second concerned the proceedings surrounding the passage of the Irish cattle bill, which were overshadowed by the actions of Buckingham, and the third the usual preoccupation with persuading the Commons to vote adequate supply. Arlington was absent from the House for ten days in October, for which he had been granted leave by the king.<sup>54</sup> During his absence he was kept informed by his protégé, Clifford, who reported to him the proceedings of 5 Oct. which revolved around Buckingham’s motion for preventing abuses in the revenue and the Commons’ early consideration of the Irish cattle bill.<sup>55</sup> On 13 Oct., two days before he resumed his place, Arlington wrote to Ormond to advise him of the passage of the Irish cattle bill in the Commons. He took heart from the division, which saw the measure passed by 165 to 104 votes, ‘which I confess was a greater opposition than I thought it would have met with there, and such a one as perhaps will encourage the like in the House of Lords more successfully.’ Nevertheless, he wrote to Ormond a few days later to advise against ‘moving the king to improve supply to Ireland’ in order to compensate for the possible impact of the bill on Irish finances. He was embarrassed by the fact that one of those to carry the bill up to the Lords was his brother-in-law, Robert Carr, and was also forced to concede that the Lords appeared ‘as fond of’ the Irish cattle bill as the Commons had been.<sup>56</sup> Debates in the House proved to be quite as spirited as they had been in the Commons and on 26 Oct. Arlington had to come to the defence of his brother-in-law, Ossory, following Buckingham’s verbal assault on the intelligence of the Irish. According to Anglesey, Arlington argued back at Buckingham ‘a little too warmly and with some reflection took up the bucklers for my lord of Ossory,’ such that it was only through the House’s interposition that Arlington and Buckingham were prevented from coming to blows.<sup>57</sup></p><p>With Irish matters continuing to predominate in the session, Arlington hosted a dinner on 6 Nov. 1666 at which were, among others, Richard Boyle*, earl of Burlington.<sup>58</sup> On 10 Nov. he reported to Ormond that the Lords had all but resolved to pass the bill and that it was thus high time that Ormond ‘bethought yourself of what his majesty may do for that kingdom in recompense of such a damage’, noting also that he had dissuaded Anglesey from proposing a proviso relating to free trade in Ireland, thinking that the temper of the House would be against it. Three days later Arlington reported to Ormond the proceedings following the committee report on the bill, underscoring his hopes that the clause describing Irish cattle as a ‘nuisance’ might yet be excluded. Despite Arlington’s apparent efforts on behalf of Ormond and his associates, the same day, Edward Conway*, Viscount (later Earl) Conway, reported to Ormond that he was ‘scandalized’ to discover that Arlington had acted against them with regard to the Scottish articles in the bill. By 20 Nov. Arlington admitted to Ormond that he had ‘but little comfort to send’ him concerning the bill.<sup>59</sup></p><p>At a meeting at the lord chancellor’s on 13 Jan. 1667, Arlington persuaded the king and other key members of the government to drop the government’s objection to the retention of the term ‘nuisance’ within the Irish bill. Even so, two days later, Arlington complained that the ministry’s concessions appeared not to be sufficient. Conway reported that Clarendon had laid the blame of the government’s decision to permit the passage of the bill squarely at Arlington’s door. Arlington, it was thought, was eager to allow the measure through as part of his effort to maintain satisfactory relations with the Commons.<sup>60</sup></p><p>Arlington’s eagerness to compromise over the cattle bill was the more understandable when set against his frustration at the slow progress made by the Commons over supply. Back in October 1666 he had complained to Sandwich how ‘our whole time and thoughts are taken up with the Parliament who have not yet agreed upon the way of levying the £1,800,000, it being not easy to do it without burdening the people over much.’ By the middle of November, with little more progress made, Arlington worried that the Commons appeared in too much of an ill temper to deliver what the ministry required in terms of supply.<sup>61</sup> Arlington was entrusted with the proxy of his kinsman, Crofts, on 17 December. By the time it was vacated on 8 Feb. 1667 he had been able to inform Sandwich with relief that ‘all our business in Parliament is at an end.’ Happy to be able to turn his back on the chamber for a while he complained ‘the truth is the Parliament ever since it sat has taken up our time so entirely that we have had none left to make compliments.’<sup>62</sup></p><p>Arlington was unsuccessful in his efforts to secure a seat in the Commons for his secretary Joseph Williamson at Dartmouth in January 1667. (The following year he was also frustrated in his efforts to create a vacancy for Williamson in Durham when the Commons rejected the bill for the county’s enfranchisement in March 1668. The failure was the more irritating as it had followed long and patient negotiation with John Cosin*, bishop of Durham, to give way to the notion.<sup>63</sup>) Shortly after the end of the session, in February 1667, in response to Buckingham’s leadership of the disruption of the previous session and recognizing the danger the duke posed to his own position, Arlington tried to have Buckingham disgraced. Tales of the duke having resorted to fortune-tellers to cast the king’s horoscope, which was a treasonable offence, were seized on (and very possibly elaborated) by Arlington in an attempt to have Buckingham removed from the scene permanently. At first the strategy appeared to work and Buckingham took himself into hiding for the ensuing few months to allow the hue and cry to abate. With Buckingham temporarily out of the way, Arlington was free to progress at court unrestricted.</p><p>In the middle of February, it was rumoured that Arlington was employing his contacts at Amsterdam to manage the peace negotiations with the Dutch.<sup>64</sup> At the same time he attempted to assure Ormond of his continued good intentions towards Ireland, undertaking to do what he could to promote a measure for the benefit of Ireland then before the council to compensate for the Irish Cattle Act.<sup>65</sup> In March rumours circulated that Arlington was to replace the sick Thomas Wriothelesley*, earl of Southampton, as lord treasurer, though Pepys dismissed them on the grounds that Arlington was ‘of too small an estate’. Such talk persisted, no doubt encouraged by Arlington’s own ill-disguised ambition to secure the place.<sup>66</sup> Later that month Arlington was involved in quizzing witnesses about the whereabouts of the missing Buckingham. He was even said to have employed torture against John Heydon, the man responsible for casting the horoscope.<sup>67</sup> The affair began to rebound against him, however, amid suggestions that he had suborned several people to testify against Buckingham. According to one witness, Arlington had paid £100 down with the promise of a further £500 to come.<sup>68</sup></p><p>In April, Arlington was so ill that he was ‘not to be visited much less solicited about business’.<sup>69</sup> By the middle of the month, however, he had recovered sufficiently to resume his correspondence with Ormond.<sup>70</sup> The death of Southampton in May renewed expectations that Arlington might replace him as lord treasurer, but once again the expected promotion failed to transpire and the treasury was instead put into commission.<sup>71</sup> The following month the Dutch raid on the Medway acted as a catalyst for the peace negotiations as support grew for bringing to a close what had proved to be a costly and unsuccessful conflict.</p><p>By the time the peace of Breda was signed in July 1667, Buckingham had re-emerged from hiding. He was subjected to a harsh interview by Arlington, but when he was brought before the council he was able to respond in kind by making a number of insinuations about the secretary to whom he was ‘most bitter and sharp, and very slighting.’ Buckingham’s rapid return to favour threatened Arlington, who was thereby compelled to patch up another hasty alliance with Clarendon and his associates.<sup>72</sup> By the close of September, following the dismissal of Clarendon, it was speculated that the new session of Parliament, primed by Buckingham, would be likely to turn its fire on Arlington, Clarendon and Sir William Coventry<sup>‡</sup>, who were, unsurprisingly, all said to be ‘ill at ease’ at the prospect.<sup>73</sup> Buckingham’s initial plan appears to have been to revenge himself on Arlington, and he was said to have had at least one meeting with Clarendon. In the end, however, perhaps because of Clarendon’s failure to co-operate, Buckingham decided on Clarendon’s destruction, and Arlington made little effort to prevent it. Ruvigny, concerned by Arlington’s close identification with the Spanish party, criticized him and Coventry roundly for their failure to back the chancellor, considering that they had ‘served their master badly in persuading him to please Parliament’ and also concluded that ‘the passion for bringing down the chancellor has blinded them to the extent that they have become dependent and their fortune is now ill-founded.’<sup>74</sup></p><p>Arlington took his seat in the House almost a month into the new session on 6 November. He was then present on just over three-quarters of all sitting days. Non-attendance up until that point does not mean that Arlington had not been engaged with the affairs then in hand. Late in October he had been required to submit papers concerning the mishandled attack on the Dutch fleet the previous year, and on 4 Nov. he had written to Temple excusing his failure to write on account of his involvement with the parliamentary inquiries into the management of the war.<sup>75</sup> A day after taking his seat he was named to the committee for the trial of peers bill. Named to a further five committees in the course of the session, on 9 Nov. he was entrusted with the proxy of John Frescheville*, Baron Frescheville, which was vacated on 17 Feb. 1668. Later that month, on 28 Nov. 1667, he also received Crofts’ proxy, which was vacated by 11 Feb. 1668. On 20 Nov. Arlington voted in favour of agreeing with the Commons’ motion to commit Clarendon without a specific charge being assigned.<sup>76</sup> He then subscribed the protest when the Lords resolved not to do so. On 26 Nov. he wrote to Ormond complaining that ‘we are not at all advanced in the parliament about the earl of Clarendon,’ but the following day he was able to report that he had it ‘from a very good friend’ that Clarendon was soon to put an end to the impasse by withdrawing. On 28 Nov. he wrote to Sandwich, reporting the debates on privilege relating to the Clarendon impeachment and predicted that ‘tomorrow it is likely either of the Houses will accommodate to the other’s opinion or so finally adhere as the impeachment will fall to the ground between them.’<sup>77</sup> Following Clarendon’s flight, Arlington was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the paper presented to the House by Clarendon on 4 Dec. and five days later (9 Dec.), he acquainted the House with the king’s message concerning the adjournment.</p><h2><em>The succession to Clarendon, 1668-71</em></h2><p>Clarendon’s departure brought out into the open a struggle for succession to his position of dominance at court and in politics that had been latent for some years. Although the period has been referred to as ‘the ministry of Arlington’, with the king unwilling to place his complete confidence in any single minister the next few years were marked by an intense jockeying for position, in particular between Arlington and Buckingham. With Clarendon out of the way, at the beginning of 1668 Arlington was clearly unnerved by the prospect of attention turning once more in his direction, and perhaps troubled by rumours that he was one of a number of prominent individuals likely to be prosecuted for bribery over the importation of French wine.<sup>78</sup> The French ambassador believed at the end of November that Arlington may have been involved in a new alignment headed by Ashley and Anglesey in the hopes that they would be able to counterbalance Buckingham.<sup>79</sup> His advice to the king to order the enforcement of the penal laws against Catholics while showing a more lenient hand towards Protestant Dissenters indicated, however, a rejection of what was seen as the approach represented by Clarendon, shared by both factions.<sup>80</sup></p><p>The struggle for power was closely related to recovering England’s position as an international power after the disastrous defeat of 1667. Arlington, seen with intense suspicion by the French ambassador Ruvigny, was believed to favour alignment with Spain and the Dutch. Nevertheless, he continued to work with Buckingham on the king’s favoured scheme of a French alliance over the winter, carrying out joint visits to the French ambassador to remove all possibility of misrepresentation. <sup>81</sup> Ruvigny complained of his determination to ‘introduce someone from the Spanish faction’ into the negotiations, either Charles Howard*, then styled Lord Andover (later 2nd earl of Berkshire), or Sir Charles Littleton<sup>‡</sup>, ‘whom he has recently won over’.<sup>82</sup> Arlington, though, pulled off a spectacular success in early 1668, wrong-footing Louis XIV, with the so-called Triple Alliance of England, the Dutch Republic and Spain, designed to bring the continental war to a close.</p><p>Alongside his foreign policy success, Arlington moved to consolidate his influence at home, joining Buckingham at the close of the year to request from the king the removal from court of several people who had been closely connected to Clarendon. Among them were the lord chancellor’s sons, Laurence Hyde*, later earl of Rochester, and Henry Hyde*, then styled Lord Cornbury and later 2nd earl of Clarendon. The request reflected a belief that Parliament and the court would prove more tractable once it was freed from Clarendonian influence.<sup>83</sup> Arlington’s foreign policy success helped to encourage rumours that he was to be advanced in the peerage as earl of Cleveland.<sup>84</sup> He was thwarted, though, in his efforts to replace Secretary Morrice with his own supporter, Sir John Trevor<sup>‡</sup>. Morrice proved unexpectedly unwilling to sell his place, an about-face that left Arlington ‘very surprised’.<sup>85</sup> Arlington received Conway’s proxy in mid-January (though it was not registered formally until 14 February). It was vacated on 7 May. At the same time Conway advised Ormond to entrust his proxy to Arlington also, though Ormond appears not to have acted on this.<sup>86</sup></p><p>The Triple Alliance had both confirmed French suspicions of Arlington and led to a considerable cooling in the relationship between England and France. In negotiations with the French ambassador in January both Arlington and Buckingham were reported to be exasperated with French dilatoriness. In court politics Arlington was understood to be intent on preventing an alliance between York and Buckingham. His efforts were facilitated by Buckingham’s duel with Francis Talbot*, 11th earl of Shrewsbury, which left the duke once more in ill favour at court. Surprisingly, Arlington was said to have proposed Buckingham for the lieutenancy of Ireland, from which the king was eager to recall Ormond. This may well have been thought a useful way of both flattering and marginalizing the duke, though the report contradicts Arlington’s long-standing alliance with Ormond, suspicious though the latter may have been of the secretary’s commitment to it. The issue of Ormond’s future would hang in the air for the next year, and lead Ormond to question Arlington’s sincerity.<sup>87</sup></p><p>By early February 1668 Conway was convinced that, although Arlington ‘labours with all art imaginable not to be thought a premier minister, yet he is either so, or a favourite, for he is the sole guide that the king relies upon.’<sup>88</sup> If this was so, his position in no way protected him from the investigations in the Commons into the miscarriages of the war, particularly when they focused on poor intelligence-gathering. Unflattering comparisons were made between his information network and that of Morrice, not least as Arlington’s was known to cost considerably more to maintain.<sup>89</sup> When reported in mid-February, the investigation provoked a ‘sharp speech’ against Arlington by Marvell criticizing the manner in which he had acquired his peerage, among other things.<sup>90</sup> At the end of April, Arlington was involved in disputes with the northern magnates Charles Howard*, earl of Carlisle, and Thomas Belasyse*, Viscount (later earl of) Fauconberg, but the cause of the disagreement is not clear. They coincided with rumours that Parliament was preparing to bring charges against both Arlington and Sandwich although Ruvigny believed that it would be ‘a vain pursuit’.<sup>91</sup> Arlington may have wanted to engineer a dissolution — Ruvigny thought that Arlington had done ‘all he could to oblige the king his master to break Parliament’, but that he had been prevented by the interposition of George Monck*, duke of Albemarle.<sup>92</sup></p><p>Arlington played host to the king at his as yet unfinished new seat, Euston Hall, during a royal progress through Suffolk in late May. The estate was perfectly situated close to the king’s preferred racing retreat at Newmarket. Despite his efforts, at the close of the month it was reported that the secretary was again fearful for his security amid rumours that the king intended to recall Clarendon.<sup>93</sup> Concern over the possible return of the former lord chancellor also left Arlington’s relations with Ormond unsettled until the middle of the summer, by which time the two men appear to have convinced themselves of each other’s sincerity.<sup>94</sup> Ossory declared himself pleased that his father, Ormond, had ‘so good an understanding with Lord Arlington’, which he begged him to maintain.<sup>95</sup> The duke’s wish to do so was put to the test with Arlington’s appointment as one of the commissioners for investigating miscarriages of government in Ireland alongside a number of Ormond’s sworn enemies, among them Buckingham and Roger Boyle<sup>‡</sup>, earl of Orrery [I]. This left Ormond doubting once more how far he could trust his former ally.<sup>96</sup> Arlington sought to reassure Ormond that he had no reason to question the king’s judgment and that he ‘should not oppose any way the king would take to be delivered out of his doubts concerning the administration of the revenue of Ireland.’<sup>97</sup></p><p>In the summer of 1668 Ruvigny was replaced as the French representative by Colbert de Croissy. Colbert’s instructions warned him that the secretary was by no means sympathetic to the French and that Arlington was ‘not only a good Spaniard, having conceived a strong affection for that country in a sojourn of several years at Madrid … but he is still more a good Dutchman, since he has married a Dutchwoman who has great influence over his mind.’<sup>98</sup> This being the case, Colbert was instructed to attempt to buy off Arlington with an offer of a pension of £2,500 as well as a down payment of £25,000, but the bribe was rejected, though whether out of care to avoid making himself vulnerable to attack or to avoid entanglement with France is uncertain.<sup>99</sup></p><p>Arlington suffered from poor health towards the end of August, but he had rallied by 24 Aug. when he dined at Teddington with the lord keeper, Sir Orlando Bridgeman, and Clifford. The next day, he hosted a meeting of the committee for foreign affairs in his chamber, which was also attended by the king and York.<sup>100</sup> The following month he was closely involved in discussions with Buckingham over whether or not to permit Parliament to resume as planned in November. According to Colbert, Arlington feared that Parliament, irritated by maladministration, ‘might take this pretext not just to grant nothing, but to press those who have the greatest part in government to make resolutions prejudicial to royal authority’, including insisting on the passage of a triennial bill.<sup>101</sup> Despite such concerns, Pepys reckoned by then that either Buckingham, or Buckingham and Arlington together, ‘rule all’. Even so, Arlington prevented Buckingham from securing the secretaryship for Sir Robert Howard<sup>‡</sup> and ensured that the place went to his own follower Sir John Trevor instead.<sup>102</sup> By the close of September Arlington had added to his own interest by purchasing the governorship of Deal Castle.<sup>103</sup></p><p>By then, Buckingham and Arlington were once more at loggerheads; Lauderdale was also said to be on bad terms with Arlington.<sup>104</sup> The split within the council centred on disagreements over management of the treasury (then held in a commission headed by Albemarle). Many assumed that Arlington would be appointed lord treasurer. He was adamant that such rumours had been put about by his enemies and in the event the commission remained unchanged for the time being.<sup>105</sup> The dispute coincided with new moves against Ormond and Anglesey, with Arlington claiming to be eager to do all in his power to assist Ormond against the efforts being made by Buckingham to displace him as lord lieutenant.<sup>106</sup> By the end of the month the stand-off appeared to have been settled temporarily, with Anglesey’s office of treasurer of the navy put into a commission divided between members of Arlington’s and Buckingham’s factions. It was also reported, however, that a resolution had been taken without Arlington’s knowledge to remove Ormond from his post.<sup>107</sup> Although Arlington was not unaware of the speculation concerning Ormond’s removal, he was adamant when writing of it to Ossory that nothing was as yet ‘resolved in that point’. According to Colbert, however, by the beginning of November Arlington and Buckingham had both resolved to sacrifice both Ormond and Anglesey in order to maintain their own positions.<sup>108</sup> Within a week it was reported by Colbert that Arlington and Buckingham’s co-operation would not last, though they worked together to secure the appointment of John Wilkins*, as bishop of Chester, thereby thwarting the efforts of Gilbert Sheldon*, archbishop of Canterbury, and Herbert Croft*, bishop of Hereford, who had promoted the claims of William Sancroft*, later archbishop of Canterbury.<sup>109</sup></p><p>Colbert’s view that Arlington would abandon Ormond in order to maintain his alliance with Buckingham remained unaltered throughout November.<sup>110</sup> By the close of 1668 Louis XIV thought Arlington ‘the absolute master of English affairs’; but Charles persisted in encouraging petty rivalries between Arlington and the other principal ministers and his determination to return to a French alliance coupled with Arlington’s anxiety not to be isolated, as well perhaps as genuine frustration with the progress of discussions with both the Dutch and Spanish to follow up the Triple Alliance, appears to have made him more willing to countenance French advances.<sup>111</sup></p><p>On 25 Jan. 1669 he was said to have been one of those present at the legendary (perhaps mythical) meeting where the king reputedly announced his conversion to catholicism. Charles was said to have made known his intention of proceeding with a French alliance in return for a number of safeguards from Louis, not least the controversial payment of £200,000 in recognition of his announcement of his conversion.<sup>112</sup> The French envoy’s concerns with his negotiations with other ministers led him more than ever to ‘cultivate this good disposition of milord Arlington, not only because I believe him to be more capable of bringing this matter to a good conclusion, but also because I do not see that all the fair hopes given me by Leighton [Buckingham’s factotum] are having any progress.’<sup>113</sup></p><p>Ormond’s eventual dismissal, in mid-February 1669, may have been related to the new turn in English policy represented by the meeting on 25 Jan., and was not, in the end, regarded as a victory for Buckingham over Arlington because his replacement, Robartes, was not one of Buckingham’s allies. By mid-March, Arlington was once again said to be the subject of the duke’s profound suspicion following a series of meetings conducted at Hampton Court attended by Arlington, Lauderdale, Ashley and Ormond, though both rivals were intent on bringing down the king’s confidant and well-known opponent of France, Baptist May<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>114</sup> Reports from the end of April suggested that the principal thing now uniting Arlington and Buckingham was their joint desire force the king to agree to a dissolution.<sup>115</sup> This may have been connected to discussions in the foreign affairs committee of the council in April concerning action to be taken against conventicles (following the lapse of the Conventicle Act the previous month), in which both men were said to have tried to convince the king (unsuccessfully) against renewing persecution.<sup>116</sup> In the middle of the summer it was suggested that both competing ministers ‘seem to be a little eclipsed and not so gracious as formerly’.<sup>117</sup> This state of affairs may have been the reason for Arlington casting about once again for new allies and determining on ingratiating himself with the king’s sister, Henriette Anne, duchesse d’Orléans, though she was steadily becoming a more significant figure in the negotiations between Charles and Louis XIV.<sup>118</sup></p><p>Arlington was confined to bed with an injured leg in August, though he had recovered by the end of the month. Arlington seems to have had renewed cause for concern about his position in the early autumn: he came under pressure to enter into an alliance with York and Lady Castlemaine, and William Denton thought that Arlington was now only kept in place through the interest of those opposed to seeing Roger Boyle<sup>‡</sup>, earl of Orrery [I], replace him.<sup>119</sup> According to some it was Lauderdale that had intervened on Arlington’s behalf, being more fearful of Orrery’s potential influence as secretary than that of the current incumbent.<sup>120</sup> By the beginning of October Colbert had convinced himself once more that Arlington’s credit was in decline, and that he was ‘leaving no stone unturned to make himself indispensable to the king his master’ in an effort to cling onto power.<sup>121</sup> Another assessment, however, noted only that ‘some little cloud there was upon the Lord Arlington but it is said to be wholly blown over.’<sup>122</sup> Buckingham and Arlington were eventually reconciled once more, on the king’s orders, shortly before the opening of the new session of Parliament. While Colbert continued to indulge himself with the belief that Arlington’s credit was ‘diminishing every day’ the reality was that Arlington’s knowledge of the king’s private intentions relating to France and Catholicism made him all but unassailable; Buckingham, by contrast, was unaware of them.<sup>123</sup></p><p>Arlington took his seat at the opening of the new session on 19 Oct. 1669, after which he was present on just over 80 per cent of all sitting days. In advance of the session he had written to Lauderdale that all expected the divisions between the Houses to be ‘quickly awakened’: when he reported the opening manoeuvres to Temple, he noted the Commons’ intention of drawing up a bill to settle their differences, though he seemed doubtful of its success. He was also dubious about Lauderdale’s efforts to promote union with Scotland, suggesting that little progress was likely even though the only argument likely to be raised against the project was that ‘<em>la mariée est trop belle</em>’ (the bride is too beautiful). In the course of the session Arlington was named to just two committees, and it was rumoured that he would be despatched to Spain as ambassador to save him from the possibility of proceedings against him in Parliament.<sup>124</sup> Although no such proceedings transpired and a series of libels that had been circulated concerning various members of the administration were suppressed, the course of the session was dominated by Arlington and Buckingham’s fractious relations. Towards the end of October Colbert again reported further difficulties between Arlington and Buckingham, causing the king to commission Bishop Wilkins of Chester to attempt (once more) to bring them together.<sup>125</sup> On 10 Nov. William Denton noted the latest effort to make the two rivals friends, adding no doubt sarcastically, ‘and long it will last.’ Six days later, he recorded that they had fallen out again.<sup>126</sup></p><p>Set against such tensions Arlington continued to fulfil his duties in the House as well as overseeing his local interests. On 1 Nov. he was entrusted with Frescheville’s proxy, which was vacated by the close. Later that month he was approached by the corporation of Thetford to use his interest to secure a warrant from the king to enable them to limit the number of public entertainments in the town, which distracted the population from their work and which the authorities thus considered to be ‘a vain expense of their time and money.’<sup>127</sup></p><p>The closing months of the year found matters as fragmented as ever. Arlington joined with York and Ormond to put his support behind Sir George Carteret<sup>‡</sup>, accused in the Commons of maladministration in Ireland. It was later rumoured that Arlington might even replace Carteret as vice-treasurer of Ireland.<sup>128</sup> His stance in support of Carteret once again set him at variance with Buckingham, whose supporters were suspected to be behind the allegations. Arlington meanwhile was behind an attempt to impeach Buckingham’s ally, Orrery, in the Commons. Orrery was able to swat away the charges brought against him, while Carteret was voted guilty of misdemeanours, although he escaped serious consequences and the king ultimately quashed further inquiry at the beginning of 1670.<sup>129</sup> The loss of the stabilizing presence of Albemarle at the same time left Arlington hoping ‘we may not need the wishing him alive again.’<sup>130</sup></p><p>By the close of January 1670 the court appeared deeply divided into two factions: one comprising York, Ormond, Arlington and their followers, and the other Buckingham, Orrery and those associated with them.<sup>131</sup> Nevertheless, the king’s decisive intervention over the allegations about Carteret’s financial mismanagement and his acceptance of action against conventicles resulted in an unusually successful session. Arlington took his seat in the new session on 14 Feb., after which he was present on almost 82 per cent of all sitting days. He was named to 14 committees, including those concerning the treaty of Union with Scotland and the bill for preventing the growth of popery. Having survived what he and other members of the court considered a day of crisis shortly after the opening as members divided over the employment of funds that had been voted for the prosecution of the war, Arlington was able to report to Fauconberg on 21 Feb. that ‘the Parliament met in the best humour that could be, and have exceeded our expectations in their first votes for an addition of seven years more upon the wine act, which together with the peace for one year longer, will put his Majesty at much ease.’<sup>132</sup> This optimistic appraisal continued through March, and when at the end of the month he wrote again to Fauconberg he told him ‘how happily the complexion of the Parliament is changed since your lordship left us, they having disposed themselves to do everything to his majesty’s mind and satisfaction.’<sup>133</sup> On 6 Apr. 1670 he registered his proxy with Ossory, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat two days later. As soon as the session was adjourned on 11 Apr. he accompanied the king to Newmarket, not returning to the capital until the close of the month.<sup>134</sup></p><p>Although at the close of March 1670 Buckingham was said to be more than ever Arlington’s enemy, by the end of the following month Arlington, malleable as ever, was reported once more to have realigned himself with the duke and his faction and to have cast off his friends, Ormond and Ossory.<sup>135</sup> That summer Arlington was one of those to sign the secret treaty of Dover. As such he proved himself once again to be both more at the centre of things than his rival and considered by the king to be more trustworthy: full details of the treaty were hidden from Buckingham and the majority of the rest of the council. During the visit of the king’s sister to Dover in the middle of May, when the treaty was signed, yet another formal reconciliation between Arlington and Buckingham was effected.<sup>136</sup> Remarking on the occasion to Temple, Arlington neatly avoided relating anything of consequence. He remarked disingenuously ‘I leave it to the gazettes and the common newsmongers to tell you how we passed our time at Dover; where the resort of so much company and so many nations cannot but furnish the world with relations of what passed.’<sup>137</sup> Arlington’s motivation in distancing himself from Ormond and embracing an alliance he supposedly disapproved of is at best obscure. The most likely explanation is that he was willing to fulfil his master’s desires if it offered him the chance of continued prominence at court while also enjoying the distinction of being at the heart of the scheme while Buckingham was kept on the fringes. He may also have concluded that this, like so many other systems, would soon unravel.</p><p>Although the Treaty of Dover had been completed, negotiations continued with the Dutch on cementing the Triple Alliance. In July 1670 Arlington was one of the participants in a conference involving Buckingham, Clifford, Ashley, Trevor and the Dutch minister, Van Beuningen, which was overshadowed by the beginning of rumours of a realignment of English policy towards France.<sup>138</sup> By the close of the month Arlington had retreated to the country, and he was still absent from town by the middle of the following month suffering from a ‘feverish distemper.’ His indisposition delayed a decision being taken about who was to succeed Fauconberg at Venice.<sup>139</sup> At the beginning of September, Arlington’s recall of Temple from his embassy at the Hague, and his cold reception of him on the 16th was the first formal sign of the change in policy.<sup>140</sup> Despite what must have been a preoccupation with preparations for war with the Dutch, as well as the enormous complication of the ‘catholicity’ clause in the Treaty of Dover (which necessitated discussions on the dispatch of an envoy to the Vatican) Arlington also participated in a meeting of the commissioners for the union of England and Scotland at Somerset House.<sup>141</sup></p><p>Arlington returned to the House on 24 Oct., the first day it sat following the adjournment. On that day he introduced Henry Howard*, later 6th duke of Norfolk, as Baron Howard of Castle Rising. The ensuing weeks were punctuated with events relating to his role in foreign affairs, in particular the signature of the <em>traité simulé</em> by Buckingham. The completion of it was, according to Colbert, greeted with joy by York, Arlington and Lauderdale.<sup>142</sup> Arlington took his seat again following the Christmas recess on 4 Jan. 1671 and ten days later was one of those named to the committee investigating the assault on Ormond. He was again entrusted with Crofts’s proxy on 3 Mar., which was vacated on 17 Apr., and during the remainder of the session he was named to a further six committees. For all the ministers’ apparent delight at the signing of the treaty with France, Colbert advised that the sullen disposition of Parliament caused them considerable concern and made them reluctant to appear too overtly pro-French. Buckingham took the opportunity to redirect criticism of his actions towards Arlington.<sup>143</sup> But apart from the loss of the bill authorizing increased customs duties as a result of a row between the Lords and the Commons (for which Buckingham was blamed), the session produced no major upsets.</p><p>Buckingham’s responsibility for the row in the Lords may have enhanced Arlington’s reputation, and shortly before the close of the session rumours began to circulate that he was to be promoted in the peerage as earl of Norwich; by the beginning of May it was speculated that he would also be created lord treasurer.<sup>144</sup> But such apparent dominance at court did not go unchallenged and the same month Arlington’s late candidacy for the place of chancellor of Cambridge proved unsuccessful. The distinction was awarded to Buckingham instead.<sup>145</sup> By the end of July Colbert related to Louis XIV that Buckingham and Arlington were ‘as well reconciled as your majesty could wish’. This did not prevent Arlington from continuing to champion the cause of his brother-in-law, Ossory, whom he recommended to Colbert for a command in France.<sup>146</sup> And in the middle of September, reports were current once more of renewed fractures within the ministry, with Buckingham, Lauderdale and Ashley now believed to be pitted against Arlington and the duchess of Cleveland.<sup>147</sup> Arlington’s prominent role in attempting to negotiate a new marriage for York may have been one of the reasons for subsequent reports that he and Buckingham were again engaged in bitter disputes, though Buckingham’s own explanation for their fractious relationship was Arlington’s opposition to the alliance with France, which Buckingham assured the French he (Buckingham) had always supported.<sup>148</sup> Alongside his efforts to promote a new match for York, Arlington’s struggle to underpin his position by promoting Louise de Kéroualle as a new mistress for the king appeared initially to have blossomed when he played host to the couple at Euston in mid-October 1671. Among those taking part in the festivities was another of Arlington’s protégés, Robert Spencer*, 2nd earl of Sunderland. Arlington later found himself disappointed in his efforts to manipulate Kéroualle as she proved utterly unwilling to co-operate with a man whom she considered to be little better than a pimp.<sup>149</sup></p><h2><em>The collapse of the ‘Cabal’</em></h2><p>Arlington persisted in his efforts to woo the factions at court by hosting a grand ball in London towards the close of the year, but he then promptly fell lame with gout and was confined to his bed for the following few weeks.<sup>150</sup> On 21 Dec. 1671 he wrote to Sunderland, for whom he had acquired a diplomatic posting to Madrid, excusing his continued indisposition.<sup>151</sup> He was nevertheless appointed at the end of the month as one of five commissioners named by the king to treat with the French as part of the final preparations for war against the Dutch.<sup>152</sup> The commissioners—Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale—were, according to Sir Ralph Verney<sup>‡</sup>, ‘the junto about this grand affair’. They came increasingly to be known by their mnemonic: Cabal.<sup>153</sup> Despite his prominent role in the negotiations at this time, Arlington was still suffering from gout, complaining to Sir William Godolphin<sup>‡</sup>, who had accompanied Sunderland to Spain and later succeeded him there as ambassador, that his sickness had ‘affected my head, though the gout has only been in my foot’.<sup>154</sup> By the middle of January 1672 he appears finally to have recovered amid reports that he and Clifford were now pre-eminent among the other ministers.<sup>155</sup> Arlington hosted the exchange of ratifications with the French in February in his lodgings.<sup>156</sup> Arlington had been involved in discussions with Dissenters in December, and in mid-March, Arlington was party to the decision in the committee for foreign affairs to issue the Declaration of Indulgence for Dissenters the day before a declaration of war against the Dutch. Arlington’s own cautious contribution to the discussion (perhaps reflecting his previous experience in 1662) seems to have been to insist that there should be a clear inquiry into the extent of the king’s powers under existing law.<sup>157</sup></p><p>Although Arlington remained unwilling to accept cash from the French in recompense for his services in bringing about the treaty, he was not so punctilious as not to allow his wife to accept gifts. Towards the end of March he waited on Colbert to let the ambassador know ‘how moved he is by the marks of esteem and distinction your majesty [Louis XIV] has shown him by the magnificent present you made to Madame Arlington.’<sup>158</sup> He appears then to have retreated to Euston briefly before returning once more to Whitehall. From thence he wrote to Sunderland on 15 Apr. 1672 (by which time war had formally been declared) to give directions for Sunderland’s move from the embassy in Madrid to that in Paris.<sup>159</sup></p><p>Having attended the prorogation day of 16 Apr., after which Parliament was further prorogued to October, Arlington was promoted in the peerage to an earldom. At the same time his former protégé, Clifford, was created Baron Clifford and Lord Ashley was promoted to the earldom of Shaftesbury. The French envoy reported that Arlington was now ‘all-powerful’. In mid-June Arlington was one of a small group of ministers to participate in negotiation with a Dutch delegation with peace terms at Hampton Court. Shortly afterwards he joined Buckingham on a diplomatic mission to France and Holland, in order to co-ordinate the allies’ response to the Dutch proposals.<sup>160</sup> Colbert advised his master, Louis XIV, that in sending Arlington, the king of England was sending ‘if one may be permitted to say it, another self, for this minister knows his most secret intentions.’<sup>161</sup> Arlington had returned to England by the beginning of August when his four-year-old daughter, Lady Isabella Bennet, was contracted to marry the king’s natural son, Henry Fitzroy*, later duke of Grafton, who was created earl of Euston to mark the alliance.<sup>162</sup> Later that month both Arlington and Buckingham were the recipients of further ‘magnificent’ gifts from the French.<sup>163</sup></p><p>By the beginning of September 1672, York appears to have concluded that Parliament ought to be allowed to sit at the end of October. Arlington took the contrary view and was successful in persuading the king to postpone holding another session until the following year.<sup>164</sup> In mid-October he joined the king at Newmarket, before returning to the capital to attend the prorogation day of 30 Oct., when he was introduced as earl of Arlington between John Sheffield*, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby) and William Craven*, earl of Craven. Parliament was then prorogued once again to the following February.<sup>165</sup> In November rumours circulated of Arlington’s appointment as lord treasurer with Clifford succeeding him as secretary. The possible alterations kept the newsmongers guessing for the next few weeks. By the end of that month it was thought that Clifford rather than Arlington would be appointed to the treasury, though there were doubts as to whether Clifford would accept the post.<sup>166</sup> By the close of the year, with Clifford confirmed in office as lord treasurer to Arlington’s ill-disguised annoyance, and Shaftesbury as lord chancellor, Arlington’s star appeared once again to be declining. This seemed to be underlined when he failed to secure further promotion in the peerage, it having been speculated that he was to be made duke of Bury.<sup>167</sup> Arlington and the foreign affairs committee were preoccupied in late November with how to handle the forthcoming session of Parliament in February. At a meeting on 24 Nov. there was an extensive discussion of who should be put up for election as Speaker of the Commons, at which Arlington seems to have underlined the need for ‘honesty’ in a Speaker.<sup>168</sup> He hosted a further meeting on 21 Dec. at which Sir Job Charlton<sup>‡</sup> was decided on as the court candidate for the speakership. Arlington reported to Colbert the ‘great conferences with the foremost members of Parliament’ that he had conducted and how as a result he was confident that the king would be able to secure his demands. His optimism seems not to have been shared by the French ambassador.<sup>169</sup></p><p>The beginning of 1673 gave Colbert further grounds to be suspicious having heard rumours of a projected visit by William of Orange to seek terms with his uncle, the king, though Arlington attempted to assure him that he had put measures in place to dissuade Prince William from undertaking the journey.<sup>170</sup> Arlington was appointed one of the commissioners for reviewing the settlement of Ireland at the close of January.<sup>171</sup> He took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session on 4 Feb., after which he was present on 93 per cent of all sitting days and during which he was named to five committees. In advance of the session, he was entrusted with the proxy of Christopher Hatton*, 2nd Baron (later Viscount) Hatton, and on 7 Feb. he also received that of Louis de Duras*, earl of Feversham (both proxies were vacated by the close of the session). Arlington predicted that the session ‘would not pass without tribulation’ but that the king would ultimately ‘be satisfied with his parliament.’ His prediction proved to be far off the mark. The new Speaker of the Commons, Charlton, lasted only two weeks before retiring with ill health, in part the result of the lower House’s tempestuous response to the Declaration of Indulgence.<sup>172</sup> Towards the end of the month Arlington was forced to admit to Colbert that ‘there was no expedient the king could bring to the conduct of parliament which would not be followed by great disadvantages.’ The withdrawal of the Declaration of Indulgence and the government’s perceived timidity in the face of spirited opposition to the king’s disinclination to adopt the Test was ascribed to Arlington’s counsel: Arlington was certainly much more cautious than others in the foreign affairs committee when it discussed trying to get the Lords to confront the Commons over its response to the Declaration: ‘w[ha]t if the H[ouse] of Lords should deceive expectations, and vote as the H[ouse] of Commons did?’—as indeed it did—he asked on 16 February. It was also by now well known that he and Clifford were no longer on friendly terms.<sup>173</sup> By the end of March Arlington was forced to admit to Colbert:</p><blockquote><p>that he could no longer guess what the outcome would be, that only two days ago he could have told his master the king that today he would have the act for the money which he has been promised, but at the moment tempers are so high that if the members of the two chambers do not find a way of appeasing the lower by passing the act against the Catholics in the terms it wants, he believed they would attack the treasurer next Monday, then the duke of Lauderdale and perhaps even all those who are privy to the secrets of their master the king.<sup>174</sup></p></blockquote><p>Besides these pressures, Arlington was also faced with the failure of his attempt to secure a match for York with the archduchess of Innsbruck.<sup>175</sup></p><p>The end of the session saw the beginning of the government’s efforts to withdraw from the war, and it marked the end of the period in which Arlington—closely identified with the war—was clearly the dominant voice in the king’s counsels. It was rumoured in May that Buckingham’s client, Sir Thomas Osborne, was to be promoted to the treasurership following the Catholic Clifford’s resignation as a result of the Test Act. Arlington’s name was also put about as a possible replacement though without nearly as much force. Arlington confided to Colbert that he now saw himself as ‘entirely excluded.’<sup>176</sup> By the close of June 1673 reports began to circulate of ‘stiff cabals in order to impeachments’ to be presented at the next session of Parliament. Arlington was thought to be at the head of the list of those expected to be attacked, though it was noted (with perhaps an implication that he was a crypto-Catholic) he had ‘the advantage of sticking close to the [Test] Act’ unlike Clifford. Information relayed to Hatton on the other hand suggested that Arlington was not in particular danger and that he ‘keeps his own very well.’<sup>177</sup> Even so, Arlington and Lauderdale were said to be completely at variance.<sup>178</sup></p><p>Clearly taken aback by the criticism directed against him and ‘weary of the fatigue of his place’, Arlington entered into negotiations with Henry Jermyn*, earl of St Albans, to purchase the lord chamberlaincy from him so that he could withdraw from direct involvement in foreign affairs. This was expected to be just one of a number of alterations. Arlington was also said to be one of those in line to succeed Lauderdale in the bedchamber. Sir Joseph Williamson, it was assumed, would succeed his master, as secretary.<sup>179</sup> Talk of such alterations continued over the next few months and in August, following a sumptuous banquet for the king and members of the court at Goring House, reports circulated (once again) that Arlington was to be promoted to a dukedom.<sup>180</sup> For the time being, none of these changes came to pass. St Albans, for one, proved unwilling to relinquish his post.<sup>181</sup> Complaints, however, persisted. Disappointment with the conduct of the war led to an outpouring of hostility against the French at the beginning of September and with it opprobrious comments against Arlington ‘for having been bribed to sell the interests of the king and country alike.’ In spite of his eagerness to shield himself from further insult, Arlington appears soon after to have succeeded in winning the king to his view that Parliament should be recalled in the face of opposition from York and Lauderdale, dismissing concerns that it would react against the planned York-Modena match, and insisting that it would be possible to persuade Parliament to grant further subsidies for the war effort. By the middle of October his confidence appears to have evaporated once more, and he fretted that a new session might demand unpalatable expedients such as York’s banishment and the king’s divorce and remarriage to a protestant.<sup>182</sup></p><p>Arlington attended the House as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament on 20 October.<sup>183</sup> He took his place at the opening of the brief session of 27 Oct., on which day he was named to the standing committees for privileges and petitions. He was then present on each of its four sitting days. In advance of the session he had been entrusted with the proxy of Henry Pierrepont*, earl of Dorchester, which was vacated by the close. Colbert noted the bad-tempered opening of the session and the abortive attempt driven by Sir Charles Littleton (one of Arlington’s supporters) to force the removal of Sir Edward Seymour<sup>‡</sup> (an associate of Osborne) from the Speakership.<sup>184</sup> The court also came under close scrutiny. After Sir Thomas Clarges<sup>‡</sup> raised the question of the sums of money that had found its way into the hands of the duchesses of Cleveland and Portsmouth, it was expected that the House would turn its attention to the causes of the war and fall ‘severely’ on Lauderdale and Arlington. The sudden prorogation nipped any such plan in the bud.<sup>185</sup></p><p>Arlington was left despondent by the brief session, and troubled a return of ill health later in November.<sup>186</sup> The duke of York described him to Gilbert Burnet*, later bishop of Salisbury, around this time as ‘almost dead with fear’.<sup>187</sup> There was speculation about both his own and York’s political survival. Early the following month Conway suggested that Latimer (as Osborne had since become) had now eclipsed Arlington in his standing with the king. Another observer assessed that the court was clearly divided into two factions. One comprised Ormond, Arlington, Shaftesbury and Secretary Coventry; the other involved Buckingham and Lauderdale, and was buoyed by the emergence of the new ministerial cadre dominated by Latimer, Seymour and Heneage Finch*, later earl of Nottingham.<sup>188</sup> Such pressures appear to have persuaded Arlington to distance himself once more from the French alliance and to seek to realign himself with the Dutch and Spanish, a policy to which Colbert believed the king had also resigned himself.<sup>189</sup> It was also rumoured that Arlington was to go to Spain as ambassador to avoid the new session of Parliament.<sup>190</sup></p><p>Arlington was again entrusted with Hatton’s proxy early in December 1673, presumably in anticipation of the new session the following month. The proxy was again vacated by the close of the session. By the beginning of the year it was speculated that he and Ormond had forged an alliance with York. Arlington and Ormond were the only members of the council to raise objections to the king’s projected speech to the Parliament outlined in council the day before the opening of the new session. Arlington’s disquiet may well have been caused by the king’s (false) declaration denying the existence of a secret treaty with France. York soon came to the conclusion that he had ‘been abused by these men who had strongly assured him that Parliament had begun to soften towards him.’<sup>191</sup></p><p>Arlington took his seat in the House on 7 Jan. 1674. He was present on two-thirds of all sitting days in the session but was named to just two committees. Shortly after the opening he found himself the subject of investigation by the Commons along with Buckingham and Lauderdale. Addresses were voted requesting the king to remove both Buckingham and Lauderdale from his counsels on 13 and 14 January. Articles against Arlington, complaining of a series of abuses, including the encouragement of popery and of embezzlement, were presented to the Commons on the following day, 15 Jan., by Sir Gilbert Gerrard<sup>‡</sup> and Sir Charles Wheeler<sup>‡</sup> (who had been set to bring forward charges during the previous session). Unlike Buckingham, Arlington won praise for his handling of the situation. He was assisted in this by Gerrard failing to present the articles effectively but also by vigorous support from Members including Sir Robert Holte<sup>‡</sup>; Henry Capel<sup>‡</sup> and William Harbord<sup>‡</sup> (both attached to Arthur Capel*, earl of Essex) as well as Ossory. Essex had only a few weeks previously been described by Latimer of being ‘locked up in a box’ with Arlington. Certainly Essex accounted Arlington one of his friends at this point. On 15 Jan., the day on which the Commons considered the charges against him, Arlington sought the House of Lords’ permission (as well as that of the king) to offer to appear before the Commons to defend himself. After being made to wait for an hour in the Commons’ lobby he made ‘a very handsome speech in his defence’, which lasted an hour and a quarter.<sup>192</sup> Denying that he had been the author of the Declaration of Indulgence, he stressed that he had assumed at the time that it was in the king’s power to grant it, but that once he had been advised to the contrary, ‘I was the first man that persuaded the king against it.’ He rejected the accusation that he had worked to undermine the Triple Alliance and dismissed the suggestion that he was over-familiar with the French ambassador, insisting that he ‘only received him with good manners, and have used the same some time to Spain, some time to Holland, and they have all been angry enough with me since to have declared it if I had any pension from them long before now.’ He also neatly shifted the blame for the war onto Buckingham. Finally, he responded to the accusation that he had been in receipt of vast sums from the Crown. Admitting that he had ‘a very indulgent master’ he countered that ‘what I have is not half enough to support the honour and dignity the king has given me.’<sup>193</sup></p><p>Although most conceded that Arlington had acquitted himself very convincingly, the following day Coventry considered that Arlington was not yet secure.<sup>194</sup> Over the next few days the Commons continued to debate the matter but on 19 Jan. his supporters, now sure of victory, pressed for the projected articles of impeachment to be presented. They then carried a vote not to call for candles (thus refusing to continue their deliberations into the evening) by a margin of 197 to 97. The following day the motion to remove him from the king’s presence was defeated by 166 to 127 (not far off de Ruvigny’s report that the margin had been just 30 votes).<sup>195</sup> One of those most vigorous in pressing the prosecution was Clarendon’s heir, Cornbury, who acted as a teller for the ayes in the second division.<sup>196</sup> According to John Wynne, Arlington’s escape was owing to the presence of ‘many friends in the House else it had gone as hard with him as with the two dukes before him.’<sup>197</sup> Wynne’s assessment pointed to Arlington’s continued success in cultivating a following in the Commons. Sir Ralph Verney, however, attributed Arlington’s deliverance more to the divisions among his enemies than the strength of his friends, that he had ‘made a shift to divide the Presbyterian party and by that means got off.’ Whatever the reason, Walter Overbury writing to Williamson concluded that the future looked promising for Arlington. Buckingham and Lauderdale, on the other hand, were ‘defunct’. Nevertheless, some of those most determined to bring Arlington down persisted with their enquiries well into February. It was not until the middle of the month, coinciding with Arlington’s recovery from his latest attack of gout, that the diplomat Sir Peter Wyche reckoned that Arlington’s pursuers had at last been stymied by a ‘dry scent’.<sup>198</sup> In spite of his success in avoiding a censure by Parliament, some observers believed the affair indicated the end of Arlington’s influence.<sup>199</sup></p><p>Early in February 1674 Arlington advised de Ruvigny that the English could no longer delay making a settlement with the Dutch and that as a consequence Temple was on the point of being sent to The Hague to sign a peace treaty.<sup>200</sup> On 5 Feb. delegates from both Houses attended the king to proffer their advice for a swift conclusion to hostilities.<sup>201</sup> Such eagerness to see the war concluded no doubt encouraged Arlington’s assessment that it was the Dutch party in Parliament that now held the upper hand, and on 9 Feb. he joined with Finch, Latimer, Ormond and Coventry in signing the treaty bringing the war to a close.<sup>202</sup> Arlington was away from the House briefly early that month, but he covered his absence by registering his proxy on 5 Feb. with Ossory. The proxy was vacated by Arlington’s resumption of his seat six days later. By the middle of the month the council was said to be undecided on whether or not Parliament should continue to sit. Commentators were also divided on which ministers favoured which policy. According to one, Latimer, Finch and York were in favour of a prorogation while Ormond and Arlington preferred the session’s continuation; Arlington’s enemies, on the other hand, were eager to stress his role in arguing for an early close. Ruvigny considered that the resulting prorogation was designed to protect Arlington from further attacks in Parliament, though Sir Gilbert Talbot<sup>‡</sup> regretted that Arlington’s friends had not been given more time to clear him (as he was sure they would have done). Moreover, he feared that the same charges would now be revived in a future session strengthened by the imputation that Arlington had been responsible for the early prorogation.<sup>203</sup></p><p>Arlington’s experience of another turbulent session gave rise to renewed reports that he was to part with the secretaryship in return for appointment to the office of lord chamberlain. This it was hoped would enable him to remove himself ‘a little further from affairs or at least to put himself in a place which exposes him less when Parliament returns’.<sup>204</sup> Until such a place could be procured, he remained pivotal. This certainly appears to have been Ruvigny’s assessment, for though he was convinced that Arlington was committed to working with the Dutch and Spanish, Ruvigny resolved to persist in courting him as ‘we can only accomplish things by dealing with him’.<sup>205</sup> As further evidence of Arlington’s commitment to closer ties with the Dutch, both he and Ormond were said to be working hard to press forward the match between William of Orange and Princess Mary. York was resistant to the notion and opened negotiations with the French for a match between his daughter and the dauphin. William of Orange was similarly unconvinced at first. Ruvigny (reciting a by now familiar theme) considered that Arlington hoped that the marriage would serve to weaken York’s importance.<sup>206</sup></p><p>Arlington’s troubled relations at court in the spring of 1674 may have been reflected in reports that he had been involved in ‘a cruel dispute’ with Anglesey towards the close of March. Anglesey recorded in his diary the following day (28 Mar.) that he had informed York about Arlington during a meeting of the admiralty commissioners, which presumably referred to this episode.<sup>207</sup> More importantly, although the proceedings in the Commons in January had damaged his older rivals Lauderdale and Buckingham, Arlington now faced in Latimer a much more potent new rival, as well as in York a more assertive influence on the king who may have seen Arlington as too much in favour of the Dutch.<sup>208</sup> Absent from town through the late spring of 1674, by early May Arlington’s extended sojourn in the country was beginning to excite adverse comment, and it was thought that ‘foreign affairs are languishing and suspended by his absence.’ Arlington returned to London by the close of the month when he was again engaged in negotiations with the Dutch.<sup>209</sup></p><p>By the beginning of July 1674 it was expected that Arlington would be handed the lord chamberlain’s white staff imminently, but it was a further two months before he was finally confirmed in post.<sup>210</sup> By the middle of the summer, Ruvigny noted, ‘it should not be doubted that the earl of Arlington acts entirely in the interests of the prince of Orange, not only against those of France, but also against those of his master’ and that he was in frequent contact with ‘several rebels in Parliament of the intelligence he has with the Prince of Orange.’<sup>211</sup> Conflicting reports that Arlington had already received the white staff as lord chamberlain or that he was to take up the office as soon as agreement could be reached with the current holder (St Albans) circulated in August.<sup>212</sup> By the beginning of September he was once more prostrated with gout.<sup>213</sup> Shortly after, it was reported that he was travelling to Bath for his health. On 11 Sept. he was at last confirmed in post as lord chamberlain and succeeded in his former office by Williamson.<sup>214</sup></p><p>During his absence at Bath, Arlington suffered the loss of his London residence, Goring House, in a blaze that left little worth salvaging. One report estimated the loss at between £40,000 and £50,000, while Ossory commented how ‘all the furniture and rarities he has been these 14 years collecting’ had been destroyed. Later estimates set the losses at nearer £20,000. In spite of the extent of his misfortune, Arlington was said to have borne the loss of his home ‘with great evenness’. He remained away from the capital for the meantime and at the beginning of October retreated from Bath to his seat at Euston.<sup>215</sup></p><h2><em>Lord chamberlain 1674-9</em></h2><p>It would be a mistake to assume that Arlington’s translation from secretary to chamberlain spelled retirement for him. Rather, it offered him a more appropriate position at court from which he continued to exert his influence. In his new role he made a significant impact in refashioning the royal image at court but he also continued to exert his interest in more overtly political areas.<sup>216</sup> He remained closely involved in foreign affairs. His continuing influence caused some disquiet to the now Catholic earl of Berkshire (as Andover had since become), who wrote to York’s secretary, Edward Coleman, that if Arlington was among those selected to negotiate the peace, ‘then a rope for the Pope and long live the house of Nassau.’<sup>217</sup> The following month, Arlington and Ossory were commissioned to travel to Holland to engage in negotiations with William of Orange, though the purpose of their trip was officially said to be a private one and they were joined by their wives, who, it was put about, intended to visit their relatives in Holland.<sup>218</sup> Even so, Danby (as Latimer had since become) insisted that his son, Edward Osborne<sup>‡</sup> (now styled Viscount Latimer) accompany the party, while others, among them York and Lauderdale, were said to ‘envy him (Arlington) the honour of this journey and do believe his lordship will carry himself so warily and honestly in this business that he will make himself the darling and favourite of the Parliament and kingdom.’<sup>219</sup> For all this, the mission proved to be unsuccessful. Ossory, charged with discussing the match between Prince William and Princess Mary, made little progress, while Arlington irritated his host by subjecting him to lengthy lectures and interrogating him about the source of his parliamentary intelligence.<sup>220</sup> By 20 Dec. the party’s imminent return from Holland was daily anticipated, but unfavourable winds kept them in Holland until the beginning of the following year.<sup>221</sup></p><p>Early in 1675 it was reported that Arlington was to be appointed to the lord lieutenancy of Ireland and replaced as lord chamberlain by Philip Herbert*, 7th earl of Pembroke. It is possible that the rumour arose out of the perception that the Holland trip had gone badly, but nothing came of it. Arlington returned to England in the first week of January.<sup>222</sup> The remainder of the month was dominated by discussion at court concerning the summoning of Parliament, which the French ambassador was eager to see delayed.<sup>223</sup> Some thought that a dissolution would make it impossible for Arlington to challenge the duke of York’s advice: the former would ‘dare not contest with the duke without that support.’<sup>224</sup></p><p>Besides involvement in the preparations for Parliament Arlington was also engaged in planning with Sir Christopher Wren<sup>‡</sup> the arrangements for the interment in Westminster Abbey of the newly discovered remains of two children in the Tower of London, popularly believed to be those of the murdered princes, Edward V and Richard of York. It was not the only way in which Arlington employed his new office to develop a sense of royal heritage and the court’s artistic patronage. Extensive remodelling was undertaken at Windsor, in particular, where overt references were made to other medieval predecessors such as the Black Prince.<sup>225</sup></p><p>Towards the close of February 1675 it was rumoured that Arlington had altered his mind about the meeting of Parliament and that he had now joined with Danby and Lauderdale in supporting a further prorogation, even though it was considered that this course of action would ‘much displease the public’.<sup>226</sup> Aside from their agreement on this matter, Arlington, Danby and Lauderdale were said to be irreconcilably divided: Arlington was said to fear that the other two were working for his destruction.<sup>227</sup> Danby was said to have advised the king that ridding himself of Arlington would ensure a compliant Parliament.<sup>228</sup></p><p>Parliament did meet in April 1675, and Arlington took his seat on the first day, the 13th, after which he continued to attend on just over half of all sitting days. At the opening, Arlington and Ormond caused consternation by proposing that rather than thanking the king for his speech, the House ought rather merely to present an address thanking the king for the ‘gracious expressions’ within it.<sup>229</sup> By the middle of the following month Arlington’s credit at court was in severe decline. The king, it was perceived, paid him scant attention, irritated by his behaviour over the negotiations with William of Orange and suspecting him, according to de Ruvigny, of co-operating with dissident members of the Lords in combination with Ormond.<sup>230</sup></p><p>Arlington’s loss of interest with the king may have been reflected in his inability to prevail on Charles II to accede to a request by William Sancroft, now dean of St Paul’s, for permission to erect a temporary church until the cathedral, devastated by the Fire of London, could be rebuilt.<sup>231</sup> By the middle of June 1675 Arlington was reported to have all but retired from court, leaving the field to his rival, Danby.<sup>232</sup> He returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 13 Oct., but he attended on just four days (19 per cent of the whole) before absenting himself for the remainder of the session. On 10 Nov. he was excused at a call of the House and on 12 Nov. he registered his proxy with James Scott*, duke of Monmouth.</p><p>At the time of the handover to a new French representative the following spring there was little perceived change in Arlington’s circumstances. The advice offered to the new ambassador, Courtin, indicated that Arlington’s interest remained on the wane. He was said to have distanced himself from the French ‘and that his own inclination as much as the alliance he has through his wife with the Prince of Orange, pushes him towards Holland.’<sup>233</sup> A few months earlier, in December 1675, Temple reported to Danby Arlington’s role in having Sir Gabriel Sylvius sent to Holland to continue negotiations for the Orange marriage, though Temple was dismissive of Sylvius’s ability to make more progress with the prince than either he or Arlington had managed.<sup>234</sup> Alongside this, Arlington was said to be renewing his efforts to build up his interest in Parliament among those sympathetic to an alliance with the Dutch and Spanish. According to Ruvigny, his aim was then ‘to govern this court from Holland.’<sup>235</sup> Challenging this assessment, towards the end of May 1676, Arlington called on the new French representative to assure him that his interests remained those of the king and that he would consequently do all in his power to further his master’s wishes. It was also reported, contrary to claims that he was keen to work with the existing Parliament that both he and York desired to see it ‘broken up’.<sup>236</sup></p><p>At the close of June 1676 Arlington voted with the majority in finding Charles Cornwallis*, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, not guilty of murder.<sup>237</sup> The occasion precipitated a dispute between Arlington as lord chamberlain and Robert Bertie*, 3rd earl of Lindsey, as lord great chamberlain, over which officer possessed the responsibility for issuing out orders for preparing for peers’ trials. The dispute between the two men persisted into September, when Lindsey (who had voted with the minority in finding Cornwallis guilty of manslaughter) was ordered to come up to town along with his evidence to present his case.<sup>238</sup> At the beginning of July it was put about (once again) that Arlington was ‘making a retreat from court’, but there was little indication of this when he played host to the queen at Euston in September.<sup>239</sup> However uncertain his position at court, his reputation as a master of etiquette remained undiminished, and when Essex wrote to congratulate the duchess of York, who had recently given birth to a daughter, Isabella, he deliberately left the packet open so that his kinsman, Capel, could confer with Arlington ‘who understands these niceties of ceremony better than myself.’<sup>240</sup></p><p>Arlington was absent from the opening of the new session, though he ensured his proxy was again registered with Monmouth on 15 Feb. 1677. Arlington’s relations with the duke had only recently been decidedly cool following a dispute concerning two trumpeters formerly attached to the king’s horse (under the jurisdiction of the lord chamberlain) who had been transferred to the king’s guards (answerable to Monmouth as the unit’s captain). The ‘weighty controversy’ was referred to the king’s adjudication but had presumably been settled by the time Arlington made out the proxy.<sup>241</sup> Noted as being abroad at a call of the House on 9 Mar. he returned from his travels soon after and the proxy was vacated by his return to the House on 26 Mar. after which he proceeded to attend on 59 days in the session (approximately half of the whole). On 14 Apr. he was one of nine senior peers nominated to consider the case <em>Sir Scrope Howe v. earl of Rutland</em> (John Manners*, 8th earl of Rutland). In May Arlington was listed as doubly vile by Shaftesbury.</p><p>Arlington returned to the House following the adjournment on 15 Jan. 1678. Excused at a call on 16 Feb., in April he joined the lord chancellor (Finch) and Danby at a meeting at the Guildhall, which resulted in the securing of a loan of £100,000 from the City authorities.<sup>242</sup> On 4 Apr. he attended the trial of Thomas Herbert*, 7th earl of Pembroke, to vote him not guilty. Following the brief prorogation in May, Arlington took his seat once again at the outset of the new session on 23 May, after which he was present on just under 70 per cent of all sitting days. Named to three committees in the course of the session, on 21 June he hosted Anglesey at a dinner at his London home.<sup>243</sup> Arlington’s diminishing interest may have been one of the factors in persuading the duchess of Cleveland to put an end to the match between her son, Grafton, and Arlington’s daughter earlier that year, though personal antagonism may also have been behind her decision. As early as January 1678 it was rumoured that Cleveland was on the point of coming to England from France ‘to break the match’ and by June reports were circulating of the duke and duchess of Grafton being ‘divorced’ and of the duke being married to one of Louis XIV’s bastards instead.<sup>244</sup></p><p>The new session of October 1678 found Arlington once again present in the House. Having taken his seat on 21 Oct., he proceeded to attend on 77 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to three committees. Even so, he seems to have lost much of his former enthusiasm and have been suffering from poor health. Early in November Ormond was encouraged to come over from Ireland to assist as Arlington’s ‘relish to business is wonderfully blunted and his distemper lies heavily upon him.’ On 14 and 15 Nov. Arlington undertook routine duties in the House informing the Lords about the presentation of seven addresses to the king. On 15 Nov. he voted against disabling papists from sitting in Parliament in the division held in a committee of the whole. The following month, on 26 Dec., Arlington voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill relating to the payment of money into the exchequer. The next day, in spite of his poor relations with the lord treasurer, he voted against committing Danby, perhaps all too aware of how narrowly he had avoided a similar fate.<sup>245</sup> At least one member of Arlington’s household, however, seems to have resolved to protect his position by dealing with the other side. At the beginning of 1679 Arlington’s secretary, Cooling, was identified as ‘one of the greatest intelligencers’ Shaftesbury possessed.<sup>246</sup></p><p>Arlington failed to make much impression in the elections for the new Parliament. Although by the end of January 1679, it was reported that he was ‘very earnest’ in employing ‘all his interest’ on behalf of Sir Allen Apsley<sup>‡</sup> at Thetford, Apsley (who had represented the seat since 1661) was defeated at the poll by Arlington’s erstwhile supporter, William Harbord.<sup>247</sup> In February Arlington’s apparently weakening interest was further hinted at by rumours that he was to be put out as lord chamberlain and replaced by Sunderland.<sup>248</sup> It is indicative of quite how difficult Arlington often was to pin down that in advance of the new Parliament, Danby assessed him variously as a likely supporter who should be spoken to by the king, a probable supporter to be contacted by his son, Latimer, and as an unreliable supporter. In a further forecast of 3 Mar. Danby again reckoned Arlington as being likely to vote in his favour in the proceedings against him. Arlington attended four days of the abortive session of 6 Mar. 1679, during which no business was transacted. He then resumed his seat once more on 17 Mar. and was thereafter present on 62 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 30 Apr. he was one of the peers nominated to wait on the king with the House’s thanks. On 2 May he reported that he had waited on the king with the address concerning Edmund Warcupp, and on 8 May he entered his dissent at the resolution not to agree to the Commons’ request for a committee of both Houses to be established to consider the manner of proceeding with the impeached lords. Two days later he voted in favour once more of appointing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the issue and dissented again when the motion was carried in the negative. On 23 May he dissented once more at the resolution to inform the Commons of the Lords’ resolution to proceed with the trials of the five peers in the Tower before that of Danby. On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.</p><p>Arlington was one of a number of notables to attend a dinner hosted by Anglesey on 14 June 1679, among the other guests being his daughter and her half-brother-in-law, Charles Beauclerk*, earl of Burford (later duke of St Albans). On 6 July he was present at the council meeting at which he, Anglesey and the lord chancellor all argued against dissolving Parliament, in opposition to his former associate, Essex, and George Savile*, earl (later marquess) of Halifax. By the middle of the summer it was reported that the duchess of Cleveland had altered her previous opposition to the marriage of Bennet’s daughter Isabella with her son, and that she had summoned Grafton home to see it consummated (a formal confirmation of their ‘marriage’ which had been contracted when the pair had been significantly underage).<sup>249</sup> In November Grafton and Isabella Bennet took part in a marriage ceremony at Arlington House presided over by John Dolben*, bishop of Rochester.<sup>250</sup> By the close of the year Arlington was said to be suffering from gout in the hand.<sup>251</sup> He also continued to labour under the difficulty of poor relations with the duchess of Portsmouth. In September, although it was reported that the king had wished to see Arlington appointed to the new treasury commission, Portsmouth prevailed on him to appoint Essex in his stead.<sup>252</sup></p><h2><em>Final years 1680-5</em></h2><p>In spite of the duchess of Portsmouth’s interventions, Arlington enjoyed a gradual return to favour in the final years of his life. In February 1680 he was made steward to Queen Catherine, an office left vacant by the demise of Denzil Holles*, Baron Holles.<sup>253</sup> Three months later rumours circulated once more that Sunderland would replace Arlington as lord chamberlain, though it was said that Arlington would have £10,000 to pay off his debts.<sup>254</sup> The rumour proved to be inaccurate and evidence of his continuing good standing with the king is suggested by Charles’s decision to dine at Arlington’s country seat during one of his progresses towards the end of May.<sup>255</sup></p><p>Arlington had returned to London by the middle of June 1680 following a summons for him to be present at a case heard in chancery.<sup>256</sup> The death of his brother-in-law and close friend, Ossory, soon after seems not to have weakened Arlington’s association with Ormond; instead he found himself active in assisting with planning the education of Ossory’s heir.<sup>257</sup> Towards the end of August he proposed to the king a number of bills to be presented to the Irish parliament, but was taken aback to discover that the king demonstrated no inclination to call one (even though there had been no Irish parliament called for almost 20 years).<sup>258</sup> Between May and August Arlington attended four of the prorogation days before taking his seat in the new Parliament on 21 October. He proceeded to attend on 80 per cent of all sitting days, but although he undertook an active role in conveying reports to and from the king, he was named to just one committee concerning abuses in the post office. On 15 Nov. he voted in favour of putting the question that the exclusion bill should be rejected at first reading.<sup>259</sup> He then voted in favour of rejecting the bill at first reading and on 23 Nov. voted against establishing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the state of the kingdom. A fortnight later he found William Howard*, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason.</p><p>Far from stepping back from his responsibilities, Arlington and his family continued to acquire offices. In February he was appointed lord lieutenant of Suffolk in place of James Howard*, 3rd earl of Suffolk (who had voted for the exclusion bill in November), for the duration of Grafton’s minority. The following month, it was reported that Lady Arlington was to replace Lady Suffolk as the queen’s groom of the stole.<sup>260</sup> Although Lady Suffolk was ostensibly removed on the grounds of her poor health and was compensated with a pension, it was reported that the move had been made in opposition to the queen’s wishes and at the king’s express order.<sup>261</sup></p><p>Arlington’s ambiguous attitude with regard to Danby persisted into the new year. In advance of the Parliament at Oxford, Danby assessed Arlington as one of those who would remain neutral if they did not vote for him. Arlington took his seat in the House on 21 Mar. 1681 and was then present on six of the session’s seven days during which he was named to the committee for receiving information concerning the Plot. According to Narcissus Luttrell<sup>‡</em>, Arlington was one of only a handful of councillors to have been aware of the king’s intention of ending the session so suddenly.<sup>262</sup> While in Oxford, the king was said to have proposed holding a conference with Shaftesbury in the hopes of settling matters between them. Shaftesbury was reported to have agreed to the offer and to have suggested that they use Arlington’s lodgings as a venue, reasoning ‘first, that it was the most indifferent place in the world, because my lord chamberlain was neither good Protestant nor good Catholic; and next, because there was the best wine, which was the only good thing that could be had from their meeting.’<sup>263</sup></p><p>Following the session’s close, Arlington retreated to Euston once more, where he played host to the king in June.<sup>264</sup> On 2 July he was one of those to sign the warrant for committing Shaftesbury.<sup>265</sup> Later the same month he played host to the prince of Orange (though it was reported that the cost of the entertainment was charged to the king).<sup>266</sup> In early August Arlington and Grafton were among those present at the apprentices’ feast held in Sadlers’ Hall.<sup>267</sup> Arlington later wrote to recommend Stephen Upman, who had accompanied Grafton as tutor during his foreign tour, to be the new provost of King’s College, Cambridge. Upman was unsuccessful on this occasion. He was nominated to the place again after the Revolution by the king, but the college objected and Upman was forced to give way.<sup>268</sup> In spite of their long and by no means friendly rivalry, Shaftesbury turned to Arlington to present his petition to the king for his release from the Tower, writing in mid-October with an offer to retire to his plantation in Carolina.<sup>269</sup> Although Arlington agreed to present the request, the petition was initially brought before the council at the close of the month and Arlington advised that they should not meddle in it but refer it to the king.<sup>270</sup></p><p>The remaining few years found Arlington active in seeking suitable candidates to tutor Ormond’s grandson, James Butler*, styled earl of Ossory [I] (later 2nd duke of Ormond), as well as in employing his interest on behalf of the Suffolk-born diplomat, Edmund Poley.<sup>271</sup> At the close of the year he also intervened on behalf of Matthew Bankes, who was ‘personally employed in the king’s service’, to secure his exemption from being required to undertake duties in the city of London.<sup>272</sup> Arlington was actively engaged, too, in seeking to further the alliance between his family and that of Ormond by brokering a marriage between Ossory and Frances Bennet, daughter of his kinsman, Simon Bennet. Negotiations had been in train since at least May of 1681, but although by February 1682 an agreement appeared to be on the point of being reached, Arlington was clearly frustrated by the slow progress, which he seems to have blamed on his cousin. Complaining to Ormond of ‘the irresolution of the poor man’, Arlington resolved to take command of events at his end and to see ‘how high we can screw him as to the portion and your grace’s [role] must be to bethink yourself how you will have the marriage treated which is not a small affair, nor fit to be trusted but to well-chosen people.’ Although troubled by poor health at the beginning of March, which kept him from travelling with the court to Newmarket, Arlington remained eager to see the alliance completed and maintained a correspondence with Ormond informing him of the progress of the marriage treaty. In spite of all of Arlington’s efforts to keep negotiations on course, by May Ormond had lost patience with the proposal. He declared himself to be ‘quite off with Bennet’ and intent on looking elsewhere for a match for his grandson.<sup>273</sup></p><p>Arlington was again to the fore in council following rioting in the city of London in the late autumn of 1682, taking to task the city authorities and warning the lord mayor against allowing any further trouble.<sup>274</sup> In the spring of the following year he was engaged in a dispute over precedence at court after having been refused admission to the bedchamber ‘in a very rude manner’ by one of the officials of John Granville*, earl of Bath, the king’s groom of the stole.<sup>275</sup> It was perhaps as a result of his annoyance at this latest sign of disfavour that it was believed Arlington was looking to rid himself of the lord chamberlaincy, but rumours that he was to sell it to Feversham proved misplaced. Conway expressed the hope that Arlington would get the better of Bath in the dispute, ‘though I never expect to make my fortune by my pretences.’<sup>276</sup> The case persisted into the summer.</p><p>The winter of 1683 brought Arlington good news with the birth of a grandchild. He was said to be ‘so joyed’ with the infant that it was feared he would ‘smother it with kisses’. Meanwhile, his own health began to decline during the late autumn of the following year.<sup>277</sup> At the end of November 1684 Edmund Poley was informed that his patron had rallied sufficiently ‘to walk in his chamber, but does not yet go abroad.’<sup>278</sup> Following York’s accession as king, Arlington was confirmed in office as lord chamberlain, and he proved well enough to take his seat four days after the opening of Parliament on 23 May, after which he attended 19 of its 43 sitting days.<sup>279</sup> Named again to just one committee, he sat for the last time on 1 July. Six days later he submitted a list of disaffected inhabitants in his lieutenancy who had fled to the neighbouring county of Norfolk in the wake of Monmouth’s rebellion. Arlington’s health took a sudden turn for the worse towards the end of the month and, having lain speechless for two days, he finally succumbed on 28 July at his London residence, Arlington House.<sup>280</sup></p><p>Shortly after his death rumours circulated that Arlington had died a Catholic and that he had summoned a priest to his deathbed. These reports were dismissed angrily by Arlington’s widow and daughter; some speculated that Arlington had not been in his right mind at the end and that it was in this weakened condition that he had been prevailed upon to admit the priest. According to other reports the duchess of Grafton was later overheard confessing to the queen that her father had indeed recently converted. Throughout his career at court Arlington had been looked upon by some as a Catholic sympathizer, and many believed that he had converted while resident in Spain; although his long-term involvement with the Dutch aristocracy seemed to tell a different story.<sup>281</sup> Although he had been careful throughout his career to conform to the Anglican faith, like his former master, the king, he may have taken advantage of his final moments to embrace a religion to which he had long been drawn. It might be said to have been appropriate for a man who had built his career as both a minister and a diplomat on such flexible ground and who had made and broken so many alliances that even at the close it was impossible to know what his true beliefs had been.</p><p>In his will Arlington bequeathed the majority of his possessions to his daughter and son-in-law. He appears to have conveyed his London residence to Grafton some years before. In addition, Arlington left to his nephew, Henry Bennet, his remaining interest in various offices including that of clerk of the signet as well as the sum of £1,250 owed him by Richard Jones<sup>‡</sup>, earl of Ranelagh [I]. He named his son-in-law, Grafton, as sole executor and requested that he should be buried ‘forbearing all pomp and ostentation’ in the vault he had had built in the parish church at Euston. Arlington left his estates in some disorder, amid rumours that he had left numerous debts unpaid in both England and Holland. In the absence of a son, his peerage descended, by special remainder, to his daughter and became subsumed within the dukedom of Grafton.</p> |
R.D.E.E. |
|
BENNET, John (1616-95) |
<p><strong><surname>BENNET</surname></strong>, <strong>John</strong> (1616–95)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>24 Nov. 1682 Bar. OSSULSTON. |
|
First sat 19 May 1685; last sat 18 Jan. 1694 |
|
MP Wallingford 6 May 1663. |
<p><em>bap</em>. 5 July 1616, 1st s. of Sir John Bennet (<em>d</em>.1658), 2nd bt. of Dawley, Mdx. and Dorothy (<em>d</em>.1659), da. of Sir John Crofts of Saxham, Suff.; bro. of Henry Bennet*, earl of Arlington. <em>educ</em>. Pembroke, Oxf. 1635; G. Inn 1636. <em>m</em>. (1) 28 Oct. 1661, Elizabeth (<em>d</em>. 1 Feb. 1672), da. of Lionel Cranfield<sup>†</sup>, earl of Middlesex, wid. of Edmund Sheffield<sup>†</sup>, 2nd earl of Mulgrave, <em>s.p.</em>; (2) lic. 1 May 1673, Bridget (<em>d</em>. 14 July 1703), da. of John Grobham Howe<sup>‡</sup> of Langar, Notts. 1s. 1da. <em>suc</em>. fa. 1658; KB 23 Apr. 1661. <em>d.</em> 11 Feb. 1695; <em>will</em> 9 Oct.-28 Nov. 1694, pr. 18 Feb. 1695.<sup>1</sup></p> |
<p>Gent. pens. 1660-76, lt. 1662-76; treas., loyal and indigent officers’ fund 1663-9;<sup>2</sup> dep. postmaster 1666-72.</p><p>Commr. for assessment, Mdx. Aug. 1660-80, Westminster 1665-80, Lincs. 1673-80, Norf. 1673-9, Suff. and Yorks. (W. Riding) 1673-4, loyal and indigent officers, London and Westminster. 1662, recusants, Berks. 1675; dep. lt. Mdx 1662-bef. 1680.</p><p>?Ensign, coy. of ft. expedition against Scots 1640;<sup>3</sup> ?col. roy. army 1642-?<sup>4</sup></p> |
<p>Likenesses: oil on canvas by R. Phillips, Pemb. Oxf.</p> |
<p>John Bennet’s family first made its way in the world in the early seventeenth century through the exertions of his grandfather, Sir John Bennet<sup>‡</sup>, an ambitious civil lawyer who rose to prominence in the law courts of both York and Westminster, and who purchased the estates of Dawley and Harlington in Middlesex in 1607. Bennet’s father, Sir John Bennet, lived more the life of a country gentleman, most famous for the use of his house at Uxbridge as the meeting place for the abortive Uxbridge Treaty negotiations of February 1645. He died in 1658 and passed these Middlesex estates to his eldest son and namesake, an officer in the royalist army in the Civil War. A ‘Col. John Bennet of Uxbridge’ who petitioned the king for local office in 1660 and recounted his military service and sufferings for the Stuarts is almost certainly the subject of this biography.<sup>7</sup> Bennet rose to prominence after the Restoration, owing both to this lucrative inheritance, which endowed him with wealth and local influence and offices in Middlesex, and to the meteoric rise at court of his younger brother Henry Bennet*, later earl of Arlington. By his first marriage he became stepfather to the underage John Sheffield*, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby). In 1662 Sir John was recommended by the king to the electors of the Berkshire borough of Wallingford as the replacement for their recently deceased burgess George Fane<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>8</sup> From 1664 he was involved with Sir John Monson<sup>‡</sup> in the consortium for providing alum from the northern mines of the young earl of Mulgrave, and when the farm of the mines was leased to other speculators in 1666, Bennet was granted £400 p.a. out of its rent.<sup>9</sup> From 1666 to 1672 he acted as deputy postmaster and assignee for five years of the profits arising from his brother’s ten-year lease of the office of postmaster general. His tenure was controversial as his bullying and high-handed manner elicited many complaints, and he often charged postage on proclamations and other official dispatches, which was unprecedented and opened him to charges of peculation.<sup>10</sup></p><p>By 1676 Bennet was gradually divesting himself of offices and responsibilities, shoring up his income instead with a number of shrewd and successful investments. In 1671 he joined a consortium to farm the customs and between 1672-4 he purchased many fee farm rents in a wide variety of counties – Suffolk, Norfolk (including the rents of the city of Norwich), Gloucestershire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire.<sup>11</sup> He maintained an interest in each of these far-flung counties, which may account for his appointment as a commissioner of assessment in so many of them during the 1670s. He, perhaps with his brother, had invested in a plot of land in St. James’s Square during its earliest development and by 1676 it was sufficiently inhabitable for him to reside in it and occasionally rent out for profit.<sup>12</sup></p><p>He sat in the Commons until the dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament. As a client of his brother and a courtier he was considered a government supporter for much of the time. By 1676, though, Thomas Osborne*, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds) considered Bennet’s membership among his followers in the Commons uncertain, probably owing to Bennet’s loyalty to Arlington, who had been effectively removed from influence by Danby. Anthony Ashley Cooper*, earl of Shaftesbury, considered Bennet ‘triply vile’ in 1677, and he was accused in an opposition pamphlet of this time, <em>A Seasonable Argument</em>, to have ‘got of the poor indigent Cavaliers’ money £26,000, and other ways £40,000’. In the weeks preceding the first election in 1679 he was numbered by the opposition among the ‘unanimous club’, but he did not stand for that election nor for any subsequent ones.<sup>13</sup></p><p>On 24 Nov. 1682, probably as a delayed gratification to his brother Arlington, Bennet was raised to the peerage as Baron Ossulston, named after the Middlesex hundred in which his manor of Dawley was located. He was one of 12 individuals whose creations and promotions passed the Great Seal in November and December 1682 as part of Charles II’s campaign to confer public marks of favour on loyal courtiers and converts from the opposition. Ossulston first sat in the House on the first day of James II’s Parliament, 19 May 1685, introduced by William Paget*, 7th Baron Paget and Charles West*, 5th Baron De la Warr. He came to three-quarters of the sittings of that Parliament and was named to 11 committees on legislation. On his third day in the House, 23 May, he was placed on the committee for the bill against the clandestine marriage of minors, which committee he chaired on 27 May.<sup>14</sup> On 30 May, as a member of the subcommittee for the Journal, he signed his approval of the account of the proceedings in the House on 23-26 May. Of particular relevance to him, considering later events, was his nomination on 15 June to a committee of 25 members to consider the bill for consolidating the revenue owing to the king from the profits from the Post Office.</p><p>Ossulston was enough of a political cipher, seen perhaps as principally concerned with feathering his own nest, that none of the commentators, whether English, French, or Dutch, who in 1687-8 tried to analyse the attitudes of the peerage to James II’s proposed repeal of the Test Acts, could determine where he stood on this matter. However, he did turn against James II, fiercely, owing to the decision made in January 1687 by the lord treasurer Laurence Hyde*, earl of Rochester, that Ossulston owed £12,375 for the postage that he as deputy postmaster had charged on official correspondence which should have been carried free. In the event a small reduction was allowed and Ossulston paid £12,000.<sup>15</sup> A few years later Roger Morrice was to attribute to this act the ‘prejudice’ of Ossulston’s son and heir Charles Bennet*, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville) against James II, ‘who dealt severely with his father’.<sup>16</sup></p><p>Ossulston supported the prince of Orange during the invasion in 1688. He was one of the 19 members of the House who subscribed to the petition of 16 Nov. 1688 for a free parliament, and, after the king’s first flight, he signed the Guildhall Declaration to William of Orange on 11 December.<sup>17</sup> As a peer resident in the capital, he was a regular attender of the provisional government of 11-16 Dec., and signed many of the orders the lords meeting at Guildhall sent out to maintain civil government during the king’s absence. On 15 Dec. he was commissioned, with Charles North*, 5th Baron North and James Brydges*, 8th Baron Chandos, to interrogate the lord chancellor George Jeffreys*, Baron Jeffreys, as to the whereabouts of the great seal and the writs for Parliament.<sup>18</sup> After William’s arrival at St. James’s Ossulston took part in the debate on 22 Dec. concerning measures to remove Catholics from the capital. Ossulston suggested that those Catholics who could not supply bail be committed to inns in the City, to be guarded by members of the trained bands. Later, discussing the threat of wandering Irish Catholic soldiers, he complained ‘that there are 2 or 300 of them at his house near Uxbridge; that he is told they are ready to give up their arms, and therefore [he] desires somebody may be appointed to receive them’.<sup>19</sup> He likewise contributed two days later, after James II had fled England for good, to the discussion on the whereabouts of the king and the proper methods of summoning a Parliament in his absence, but the exact nature and content of his intervention was not recorded by George Savile*, marquess of Halifax, in his notes.<sup>20</sup></p><p>Ossulston attended three-fifths of the sitting of the first session of the Convention. After being nominated on its second day, 23 Jan. 1689, to a committee to consider ways of removing papists from Westminster and London, and chairing that committee the following day, Ossulston was noticeably absent from the House in late January and February when all the controversial constitutional issues regarding the disposition of the Crown were debated and resolved.<sup>21</sup> Having avoided taking any contentious positions on this delicate issue, he returned to the House on 1 Mar. and took the oaths to the new monarchs the following day.</p><p>In late April 1689 the committee for privileges considered the many breaches of the privilege of the peerage perceived to have been perpetrated during the reign of James II. Ossulston brought to its attention on 30 Apr. the case of his dealings with Rochester and the exchequer over the postage he had embezzled as deputy postmaster general, and particularly the bond for £20,000 that he had been forced to submit as security for payment of any fine.<sup>22</sup> On 10 May he chaired one meeting of the committee on the bill to establish commissioners of the great seal, and at the end of that month, after having been added to the Journal committee on 17 May, he signed his name against the manuscript account of the proceedings of 22 March.<sup>23</sup> On 14 June he was placed on a drafting committee for an address requesting the king to forbid French papists from coming into Whitehall or St. James’s. July 1689 was a particularly busy month for Ossulston. On 10 July he joined a group of Whigs in dissenting from resolutions that would have disabled Titus Oates from being able to give testimony in court. Thomas Bruce*, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, later recorded that on 30 July Ossulston voted against the decision to adhere to this amendment in the face of the Commons’ continuing objections to it, even though Ossulston does not appear in the presence list in the Journal for that day. On 11 July Ossulston and John West*, 6th Baron De la Warr, introduced to the House two eldest sons of peers who had been summoned by writs in acceleration: Charles Berkeley*, summoned to the House as Baron Berkeley of Berkeley (later 2nd earl of Berkeley) and Robert Sydney*, summoned as Baron Sydney (later 4th earl of Leicester). Ossulston was named to 23 committees on legislation in this session, and on 17 July he chaired a meeting of the committee to consider the bill to recover small tithes.<sup>24</sup> Six days later he was part of the group of the former servants to Charles II who petitioned against the bill for a duty on tea and coffee, on the grounds that their salaries and continuing pensions were charged on the revenue from these imposts which the bill wished now to vest in the Crown.<sup>25</sup></p><p>Ossulston’s attendance level during the second session of the Convention stood at 64 per cent and he was named to nine committees on legislation. Between 16 Nov. 1689 and 21 Jan. 1690 he acted as chairman on ten or so occasions (it is not always clear from the minute books who was chair) for the committee dealing with irregularities in the courts of Westminster Hall. This was a matter in which he took a personal interest as he used the opportunity of these committee meetings to pursue his complaints, earlier voiced in the committee for privileges, against the exchequer and his bond for £20,000.<sup>26</sup> Related to this concern with legal procedure, he protested on 23 Nov. 1689 against the rejection of a proviso in the bill of rights which would have required parliamentary approval for any royal pardon of an impeachment. He was also placed on the ‘committee for inspections’ investigating what were considered to be the judicial murders of William Russell<sup>‡</sup>, styled Lord Russell, and Algernon Sydney in 1683, as well as the other committee examining the subornation of witnesses under James II. An allegation that he had made disparaging remarks about a fellow member of the committee for inspections, Edward Clinton*, 5th earl of Lincoln, led him to beg the committee’s forbearance.<sup>27</sup> He was also, on 9 Dec. 1689, placed on the committee of 17 members assigned to draw up an address to the king requesting that the laws against papists be duly put into execution.</p><p>After attending 96 per cent of the sittings of the first session of the new Parliament in spring 1690, Ossulston’s attendance in the House dropped precipitously, probably owing to his age, as he was in his late 70s by this time. On 1 and 4 Apr. 1690 Ossulston chaired meetings of a committee that was investigating the high price of coal in the capital, and on 12 Apr. he also chaired the committee on the estate bill of Anthony Ashley Cooper*, 2nd earl of Shaftesbury, which he reported to the House two days following.<sup>28</sup> Ossulston supported the right of the corporation of London to present its case against the surrender of its charter in the preceding reign, and he entered his protest on 13 May 1690 when the time allowed the City’s counsel was curtailed. He came to only a little over a quarter of the meetings of the 1690-1 session, and on the first day of the year 1691 he formally registered his protest against the passage of the bill incorporating the York Buildings Waterworks Company. He maintained the same attendance level for the 1691-2 meeting, and during this session his absence from a division on 24 Nov. was noted by a newsletter writer because he was one of those ‘who was against the party of my Lord Carmarthen’ (as Danby had become).<sup>29</sup> It was during this session that he registered his proxy for the first time, on 11 Feb. 1692 with the Whig, Thomas Grey*, 2nd earl of Stamford, who had it for the remaining two weeks of the session.</p><p>In the following session of 1692-3, when his attendance stood at 36 per cent, he registered his proxy, on 23 Jan. 1693, with another Whig, John Egerton*, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, but this was vacated upon Ossulston’s return to the House on 9 February. On 27 Feb. 1693 he chaired the committee for the bill on buying and selling offices.<sup>30</sup> A week later, on 8 Mar., he protested against the rejection of a proviso to the bill to revive expiring legislation which would have allowed for a relaxation of the restrictions on publishing books without licence. He only came to 14 per cent of the meetings of the following session of 1693-4. On 2 Dec. 1693, while Ossulston was away from the House, counsel for Catherine, the queen dowager, presented a petition requesting the House demand that Ossulston waive his privilege so that a long-delayed cause over who had the right to the fee farm rights of the city of Norwich, which the queen dowager claimed as part of her jointure, could be heard in the courts. Ossulston, who had been away from the House since the beginning of the session in early November, appeared there on 8 Dec. and the matter was referred to the committee for privileges the following day, although there is no record of this case in the committee’s minute book.<sup>31</sup> On 10 Jan. 1694, Ossulston joined the Whigs in protesting against the resolution exonerating the Tory admirals from responsibility for the capture of the Smyrna fleet the previous summer. Eight days after this protest he sat in the House for the last time.</p><p>At his death on 11 Feb. 1695 Ossulston was able to leave his surviving family ‘a great estate’.<sup>32</sup> In his will, drawn up in late 1694, Ossulston gave all his personal estate and the house in Middlesex to his wife and assigned trustees to provide his daughter with a portion of £30,000. She married John Cecil*, styled Lord Burleigh (later 6th earl of Exeter) in 1697. To his son and heir Charles he bequeathed his real property, which he took the trouble to entail in the male line. The new Baron Ossulston also inherited an enduring prejudice against James II and a predilection towards the Whigs.</p> |
C.G.D.L. |
|
BENSON, Robert (1676-1731) |
<p><strong><surname>BENSON</surname></strong>, <strong>Robert</strong> (1676–1731)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>21 July 1713 Bar. BINGLEY. |
|
First sat 16 Feb. 1714; last sat 25 Mar. 1731 |
|
MP Thetford 1702, York 1705, 1708, 1710. |
<p><em>bap</em>. 25 Mar. 1676, o.s. of Robert Benson (<em>d</em>. c. July 1676) of Wrenthorpe, Yorks. and Dorothy (<em>d</em>.1696), da. of Tobias Jenkins<sup>‡</sup> of Grimston, Yorks. <em>educ</em>. Christ’s, Camb. 1691; travelled abroad 1693-4, Padua 1694. <em>m</em>. 21 Dec. 1703 (with £8,000), Elizabeth (c.1676-1757), da. of Heneage Finch*, Bar. Guernsey (later earl of Aylesford) 1s. <em>d.v.p</em>., 1da.; 1da. illegit. <em>suc</em>. fa. c. July 1676. <em>d</em>. 9 Apr. 1731; <em>will</em> 27 June 1729-9 Mar. 1730, pr. 13 Apr. 1731.<sup>1</sup></p> |
<p>Commr. treasury Aug. 1710-May 1711, building 50 new churches 1711-15, survey, Westminster and St. James’s manors 1712; chancellor Exch. 1711-13; PC 14 June 1711-Sept.. 1714, 11 June 1730-<em>d</em>.; treas. household 1730-<em>d</em>.</p><p>Dep. lt., Yorks. (W. Riding) and York city 1700-?;<sup>2</sup> freeman, York 1705; alderman, York 1705-15; ld. mayor, York 1707;<sup>3</sup> trustee, Yorks. (W. Riding) registry 1711.</p><p>?Capt., Sir Henry Belasyse’s<sup>‡</sup> Regt. of Ft. 1691.</p><p>Amb. extraordinary, Spain Dec. 1713-14.</p><p>Dir. S. Sea Co. 1711-15.</p> |
<p>Likenesses: watercolour on vellum (miniature) by Andreas von Behn, 1704, Victoria and Albert Museum, acc. no. P.189-1922; oil on canvas, c.1720, Bramham Park, Yorks.</p> |
<p>Robert Benson, Baron Bingley, was derided by his contemporaries for his lowly origins and for his rise up the Tory ranks through an advantageous marriage, and has been dismissed by more recent historians for an innocuous ‘moderate’ Toryism and a seemingly slavish devotion to Robert Harley*, earl of Oxford.<sup>6</sup> At the time of the change of ministry in 1710, before there was any thought of Benson’s becoming a peer, Thomas Wentworth*, 2nd Baron Raby (later earl of Strafford) wrote of him and his origins:</p><blockquote><p>Mr. Benson is of no extraction. His father was an attorney and no great character for an honest man, and I think concerned in the affairs of Oliver Cromwell. He left him a good estate in Yorkshire of about £1,500 a year, and an old seat just by Wakefield. This gentleman has been a very good manager and has saved 5 or 6,000 pounds or more. He has lived very handsomely in the country without being a drinker, though very gallant amongst the ladies.<sup>7</sup></p></blockquote><p>Benson’s father held a succession of minor local offices during the Interregnum and rose to be clerk of the assizes in the northern circuit of Yorkshire from 1662 to 1673, when he was employed by Thomas Osborne*, the future earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), as a treasury official.<sup>8</sup> Sir John Reresby<sup>‡</sup> described him as ‘the most notable and formidable man for business of his time, one of no birth, and that had raised himself from being clerk to a country attorney to be clerk of the peace at the Old Bailiff, to clerk of assize of the northern circuit, and to an estate of £2,500 p.a., but not without suspicion of great frauds and oppressions’. Reresby further sourly noted that Benson senior ‘had greatly ingratiated himself with my lord high treasurer under pretence to find out extraordinary ways ... to get the king money’.<sup>9</sup> When Benson senior died suddenly of apoplexy in July 1676, it was reported that, apart from the £1,500 p.a. in land recorded by Strafford, he also was also possessed of £120,000 in money.</p><p>His death came only four months after the birth in March 1676 of his only son Robert who was soon taken into the care of his mother’s new husband, Sir Henry Belasyse<sup>‡</sup>. In 1691 Robert Benson attended Christ’s College, Cambridge and then embarked on a tour of the continent in 1693, during which he appears to have studied at the university at Padua during 1694.<sup>10</sup> From about the time of his return in or around 1698 he was engaged in building his residence of Bramham Hall, northwest of Leeds, which took many years to complete.<sup>11</sup> His parliamentary career started in Norfolk where for the election of May 1702 his brother-in-law, Sir John Wodehouse<sup>‡</sup>, stepped aside to allow Benson to take his seat for the borough of Thetford while he tried his fortune (unsuccessfully) for the county seat.<sup>12</sup></p><p>Strafford believed that it was in Italy that Benson ‘had the good fortune to’ strike up a friendship with William Legge*, 2nd Baron (later earl of) Dartmouth. Dartmouth was married to Anne, a daughter of Heneage Finch*, Baron Guernsey (later earl of Aylesford), himself a younger brother of Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and through Dartmouth’s patronage Benson, although a commoner, married another of Guernsey’s daughters, Elizabeth. This marriage bound Benson to the extended Finch clan, and to the Tories in general, for many years to come; Dartmouth in particular remained an especial friend well into the reign of George I. For the 1705 elections Benson replaced his maternal uncle, Tobias Jenkins<sup>‡</sup>, as a burgess for York, and he continued to represent that borough in all the succeeding Parliaments until he was raised to the peerage in 1713. Charles Spencer*, 3rd earl of Sunderland, regarded his election in 1705 as a ‘loss’ for the Whigs and Strafford thought that it was largely through ‘the means of Lord Dartmouth’ that Benson ‘first came over to the Tory party’ and even then ‘he has been very moderate’.<sup>13</sup></p><p>By July 1710 the paymaster of the forces James Brydges*, later duke of Chandos, could tell a correspondent that Benson was ‘a very considerable gentleman’.<sup>14</sup> His position in political circles was no doubt helped by the appointment of his brother-in-law and friend Dartmouth as secretary of state in June. While John Drummond thought that an ambassadorial role would best suit Benson, ‘who speaks all languages, ... and knows the world very well’, Dartmouth, at least according to Strafford, ‘procured’ for Benson his appointment on 10 Aug. 1710 as the third of the treasury commissioners, along with Harley himself, replacing the ousted lord treasurer Sidney Godolphin*, earl of Godolphin.<sup>15</sup> He had the advantage, for Harley, of being a ‘moderate’; this was certainly how political opposites as Strafford and Addison perceived him.<sup>16</sup> His appointment also placed one of the more malleable and less difficult members of the extended Finch clan in the heart of government. Throughout the early months of 1711 Benson attended to treasury business and also supported the ministry in the Commons, as when he seconded a tax upon leather, and by April he was included on lists of both ‘Tory patriots’ and ‘worthy patriots’.<sup>17</sup> He was rewarded in June 1711, after the end of the session, when he was sworn to the Privy Council and was made chancellor of the exchequer after Harley’s creation as earl of Oxford and subsequent appointment as lord treasurer led to the disbanding of the treasury commission. Not everybody approved of his appointment to the exchequer, George Lockhart<sup>‡</sup> complaining that ‘Mr Benson was one of the most confused speakers ever opened a mouth and was rather, or at least affected more to appear, a man of wit and pleasure than of parts and capacity of business’.<sup>18</sup> Abel Boyer, though, was later to praise Benson’s tenure as chancellor,</p><blockquote><p>which office he executed with remarkable exactness and dexterity, being a man of very great natural abilities and thoroughly versed in business as well as all kinds of useful knowledge and polite literature and always remarkable for a firm adherence to the true interest and fundamental constitution of his country.<sup>19</sup></p></blockquote><p>Jonathan Swift was impressed with other qualities, remarking that Benson ‘eats the most elegantly of any man I know in town’.<sup>20</sup> Benson was one of the leading and most effective spokesmen for the ministry in the Commons throughout this Parliament. In July 1711 he also became one of the first directors of the South Sea Company, subscribing £3,000 to the stock, and he was to remain prominent in the company’s affairs for several years.<sup>21</sup> He was also appointed in September as one of the commissioners for building 50 new churches, in which he was able to use the architectural knowledge he had gained in the construction of Bramham Hall.</p><p>Benson was removed from his important role in the Commons when he was raised to the peerage shortly after the end of the 1713 session. He took his title from the town of Bingley in the West Riding, close to Leeds and to Benson’s mansion at Bramham Hall. In telling his masters of this promotion, the Hanoverian agent Kreienberg noted that Benson ‘has always shown himself closely attached to the interests of the lord treasurer and is the one who has managed all this winter the affairs of the court in the lower House’.<sup>22</sup> Benson’s creation was not popular with all his colleagues: Henry St. John*, Viscount Bolingbroke, wished that Benson had stayed in the Commons and been made secretary of state to help Oxford’s troubled ministry.<sup>23</sup> Others objected to Benson’s lowly origins. ‘It was justly alleged in the late creation [of 12 peers in January 1712] that all of them were of ancient families; no one I have met with is much acquainted with the new lord’s pedigree, nor are his merits in the House from whence he is removed sufficiently known’, complained Dr William Stratford.<sup>24</sup> William Berkeley*, 4th Baron Berkeley of Stratton, thought that Benson’s elevation was further proof that ‘every year that House [of Lords] receives some great blow, that I am persuaded ... it is the interest of the public to have the dignity kept up’. Peter Wentworth gleefully related to his brother Strafford a story of how Bingley had been embarrassed by the heralds. The newly ennobled baron requested ‘supporters’ to accompany his new honour, but the heralds told him that they could not even find a coat of arms for his family. When he had the temerity to compare himself to the famous John Somers*, Baron Somers, whom he claimed had likewise had neither arms nor supporters until he had been made a lord, the heralds informed him that on the contrary, Somers had had the foresight (in implicit contrast to Bingley) to know that he would soon be made a peer and had taken the precaution of getting a privy seal from the king to give him arms well in advance of his creation.<sup>25</sup></p><p>Benson’s peerage was thought to be incompatible with his office of chancellor of the exchequer, and he was replaced there by Sir William Wyndham<sup>‡</sup>. Oxford, Bolingbroke and Dartmouth instead tried to find a suitable ambassadorial role for him. Bolingbroke initially suggested France as a destination, as ‘his estate will bear it, and his obligations to the queen will, if she requires it, I suppose make him willing’.<sup>26</sup> By September he was also considering sending Bingley to Spain to negotiate a commerce treaty and sought Oxford’s help to persuade him, especially as Bingley seems to have feared such a complicated and thankless mission would keep him ‘in exile’.<sup>27</sup> Oxford succeeded and in December 1713 Bingley was formally appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court at Madrid.<sup>28</sup></p><p>After months of protracted negotiations between the ministers, the board of trade, the South Sea Company and the merchants trading to Spain, Bingley’s instructions for the trade negotiations he was to conduct in Madrid were finally ready in early June 1714.<sup>29</sup> In the event he never did leave for Spain, as the crisis within the Tory party and the illness and death of the queen in the summer of 1714 overtook his preparations. He took his seat in the House when the new Parliament convened on 16 Feb. 1714, being introduced that day between William Paget*, 8th Baron Paget (later earl of Uxbridge) and Thomas Mansell*, Baron Mansell.<sup>30</sup> He sat in 44 of the 79 sittings (56 per cent) of the session of Feb.-July 1714, but even when he was away for only a few days he was anxious to ensure his proxy was registered with a fellow supporter of the ministry. On 5 Apr. 1714 he was named to the drafting committee for an address requesting the queen to desire the Emperor and other princes to enter into a ‘Guaranty’ with her to ensure the protestant succession in Britain and 11 days after that he was involved in proceedings on another address to the queen. On that day, 16 Apr., he was a teller, probably for the contents, in the division on whether to put the question whether to deliver a controversial and highly partisan Tory address to the queen regarding the peace. He was then appointed to the committee, charged with drafting an address thanking her for saving Britain, ‘by a safe, honourable, and advantageous peace with France and Spain, from the heavy burden of a consuming land war, unequally carried on, and become at last impracticable’.<sup>31</sup> The previous day, 15 Apr., he had registered his proxy with Dartmouth, but he was in the House on 16 Apr. for these proceedings and this proxy may not have taken effect until 20 Apr., when Bingley was away from the House for a week, returning on 28 April.</p><p>By late May 1714 his kinsman by marriage, Nottingham, forecast that Bingley would be in favour of the schism bill and Bingley ensured that his proxy was properly registered during the few days he was absent in the House during the bill’s proceedings. On 3 June 1714 he registered his proxy with George Hay*, Baron Hay (later 8th earl of Kinnoul), Oxford’s son-in-law and one of the 12 peers created at the turn of 1712, but the following day he switched his proxy and registered it instead with Charles Seymour*, 6th duke of Somerset, for three days until he returned to the House on 7 June. Later, Bingley again entrusted his proxy to another of the 12 Tory peers created in 1712, registering it on 12 June to Allen Bathurst*, Baron (later Earl) Bathurst, who likewise held it for only two days. The day following his return, 15 June, Bingley was in the House to vote for the schism bill. On 30 June he was a teller in the division whether to set a date for the second reading of the bill to examine the public accounts. The session was prorogued in the first week of July just as hearings were about to commence concerning Bolingbroke’s suspicious dealings with the Spanish court over the negotiations for the trade treaty (the asiento), negotiations in which Bingley, in his role as putative ambassador to Spain and a director of the South Sea Company, could not help but be involved and implicated.<sup>32</sup></p><p>Bingley came to only two meetings of the session of August 1714, first sitting on 4 August. The following day he registered his proxy with Hay, with whom it remained until Bingley returned to the House on 21 August. In November Oxford used him as an intermediary with Bolingbroke to procure his assistance in defending the impeachment which was bound to be brought against him.<sup>33</sup> By this time, however, Bingley was a leading representative of a regime out of favour, and in September 1714 he was removed from the privy council by order of George I.</p><p>Bingley’s parliamentary career in the reign of George I can only be sketched here: in brief, until 1730 he stood in opposition to the court and the Whig ministry. In the early sessions of George I’s first Parliament a number of measures of the new ministry – such as the septennial bill in April 1716, the impeachment of Oxford in June 1717, and the repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts in December 1718 – exercised him sufficiently to lead him to take public stances against the government through formal protests.<sup>34</sup> Even when he was not in the House, he continued to entrust his proxy with oppositional Tories, particularly with Dartmouth and members of Oxford’s group of 12 new peers from January 1712. As noted above Bingley had been one of the first directors of the South Sea Company in 1711. He continued to invest heavily in it over the intervening years, even when no longer a director after 1715.<sup>35</sup> He appears to have emerged relatively unscathed from the bursting of the Bubble, but was reportedly ‘not happy with it since so many are undone ... what concerns him the most of all is that the morals of the nation seem to be quite corrupted’.<sup>36</sup> The corruption he saw in government at the time of the Bubble only threw him further into opposition. In January 1730, though, he determined that the Tories in opposition were about as effectual as ‘a rope of sand’, and went over to the court by speaking in the House in favour of the Treaty of Seville.<sup>37</sup></p><p>Bingley died on 9 Apr. 1731, of a ‘pleurisy and a fever’. His only legitimate child, Harriet, inherited a reputed £100,000 in cash and her father’s property at Bramham Park in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He also left £7,000 to his illegitimate daughter Mary Johnson, whom he insisted should take his surname after his death, and gave an annuity of £400, and the lease of her house on Prospect Park, to Anna Maria Burgoyne, wife of John Burgoyne. This bequest has led some to suggest that Anna Maria’s son, John Burgoyne, the future military commander best known for his defeat at Saratoga in the American War of Independence, may well have been another of Bingley’s illegitimate children. Bingley had no male heir so his peerage was extinguished at his death, but it was recreated in 1762 for his daughter Harriet’s husband, George Fox-Lane.</p> |
C.G.D.L. |
|
BENTINCK, Hans Willem (1649-1709) |
<p><strong><surname>BENTINCK</surname></strong>, <strong>Hans Willem</strong> (1649–1709)</p> |
<em>cr. </em>9 Apr. 1689 earl of PORTLAND |
|
First sat 15 Apr. 1689; last sat 5 Apr. 1709 |
|
|
<p><em>b</em>. 10 July 1649, 4th but 3rd surv. s. of Bernhard Bentinck (1597-1668), Ld. of Diepenheim [Overijssel, Utd. Provinces], and Anna (1622-85), da. of Hans Hendrik van Bloemendaal; <em>educ</em>. DCL (hon.), Oxford 20 Dec. 1670. <em>m</em>. (1) Feb. 1678 (with £2,000) Anne (?1660-1688), da. of Sir Edward Villiers, 2s. (1 <em>d.v.p</em>.), 5da. (1 <em>d.v.p</em>.);<sup>1</sup> (2) 12 May 1700 (with £20,000)<sup>2</sup> Jane Martha (1672-1751), da. of Sir John Temple of East Sheen, Surrey, wid. of John Berkeley*, 3rd Bar. Berkeley of Stratton, 2s. 4da. <em>cr</em>. ld. of Drimmelen [Brabant, Utd Provinces], 15 Sept. 1676 [n.s.];<sup>3</sup> ld. of Rhoon and Pendrecht July 1683;<sup>4</sup> KG 19 Feb. 1697. <em>d</em>. 23 Nov. 1709; <em>will</em> 30 Apr. 1709, pr. 22 Dec. 1709.<sup>5</sup></p> |
<p>Page of honour to William, Prince of Orange 1664-72;<sup>6</sup> ‘nobleman of the chamber’ (i.e. chamberlain) to William, Prince of Orange 1672-99;<sup>7</sup> verderer (<em>houtvester</em>), Holland and West Friesland, Utd. Provinces 1681-99;<sup>8</sup> PC 14 Feb. 1689-8 Mar. 1702; treasurer, privy purse c.1689-99; groom of the stole to William III, 1689-99; superintendent, royal gardens 1689-1702;<sup>9</sup> ranger, Windsor Great Park 1697-1702,<sup>10</sup> Windsor Little Park 1699-1702;<sup>11</sup> commr. appeals in prizes 1694, 1695, 1697.<sup>12</sup></p><p>Bailiff (<em>drost)</em>, Breda, United Provinces 1674, Lingen, Utd. Provinces 1675.<sup>13</sup></p><p>Cornet, lord of ’s Graevemoer’s coy [Dutch army], 1668-72;<sup>14</sup> capt., 1672-75;<sup>15</sup> coy in William of Orange’s own Regt. of Horse Guards 1675-99;<sup>16</sup> col. Regt. of Dutch Guards [Dutch army], 1674-1700;<sup>17</sup> sgt.-maj.-gen., Horse [Dutch army], 1683;<sup>18</sup> lt.-gen., Horse and Foot [English Army], 1690,<sup>19</sup> Horse [Dutch army], 1691;<sup>20</sup> gen., Horse [English Army], 1697.<sup>21</sup></p><p>Commr. to treaty for peace with Maréchal Boufflers June 1697, amb. extraordinary France Jan.-June 1698; plenipotentiary, to treat with the Emperor, France and the States General for a partition of Spanish Empire Aug. 1698;<sup>22</sup> to treat with the Emperor, France and the States General for a partition of the Spanish Empire July 1699,<sup>23</sup> to treat with France and the States-General for a partition of the Spanish Empire Jan. 1700.<sup>24</sup></p> |
<p>Likeness: oil on canvas, studio of Hyacinthe Rigaud, 1698-9, NPG 1968.</p> |
<h2><em>Companion to the Prince of Orange</em></h2><p>Born on 10 July 1649 Hans Willem Bentinck had little chance of inheriting his noble father’s title or estate, being one of the younger of nine children.<sup>26</sup> He made his fortune instead as a courtier of his contemporary William, Prince of Orange, beginning as a page of honour in 1664. He quickly became a close friend and companion of the orphaned young prince, only one year younger than him, who as early as 1668 promised him assistance, faithfulness and affection.<sup>27</sup> The war with France from 1672 to 1679 allowed Bentinck to rise with his prince. William of Orange was made captain-general of the armed forces in February 1672 and, upon the French invasion in June of that year, stadholder of the provinces of Holland and Zealand in the ‘Orangist revolution’. For his part, Bentinck quickly showed himself a brave warrior on the battlefield, and perhaps more importantly a skilled military organizer, administrator and staff officer. He rose from being a captain in the prince’s own regiment of Horse Guards in April 1672 to being the regiment’s colonel in May 1675. The numerous papers in his archive concerning the war of 1672-8 are testament to his close involvement in this struggle.<sup>28</sup> He was also made ‘chamberlain’, or the principal nobleman of the chamber, to the prince’s household as William increasingly relied on him for assistance, companionship and even nursing care, at least at the time of William’s dangerous attack of small pox in 1675.</p><p>Bentinck also became William’s principal diplomat. He first encountered members of the English elite when he accompanied William on a trip to England in the winter of 1670 to request, unsuccessfully, the repayment of debts owed to the prince by his uncle Charles II.<sup>29</sup> In June 1677 Bentinck came to Westminster by himself on a special diplomatic mission to Charles II to gauge the king’s attitude towards the possibility of peace between the United Provinces and France.<sup>30</sup> The embassy was successful enough for William to come to England in September, with Bentinck in his retinue, to further the work Bentinck had started and to engage in negotiations for his marriage to Princess Mary. Shortly after, in February 1678, Bentinck contracted a marriage to one of Mary’s childhood friends and member of her household, Anne Villiers, the daughter of Edward Villiers, the knight marshal.<sup>31</sup></p><p>Further honours, rewards and responsibilities were bestowed on Bentinck. In 1681 he was made verderer of Holland, in charge of the stadholder’s parks and gardens, an area of aesthetics in which Bentinck was keenly interested.<sup>32</sup> In 1683 he purchased the lordships of Rhoon and Pendrecht near Rotterdam for 154,000 guilders. His connection with England and the English political elite was strengthened by his marriage into the Villiers family and by his growing friendship with the English ambassador at the court at The Hague from June 1679, Henry Sydney*, later earl of Romney.<sup>33</sup> Bentinck returned to England in the summer of 1683, ostensibly to congratulate Charles II on his escape from the Rye House Plot but also to endeavour to detach the king from the orbit of Louis XIV by making clear to him, and to Laurence Hyde*, earl of Rochester, the danger to European peace represented by French aggression.<sup>34</sup> In the face of continuing military danger from France, in October Bentinck was made sergeant-major-general of the cavalry in the Army of the States-General. He was again dispatched to England in July 1685 to assure James II that William had given no encouragement to James Scott*, duke of Monmouth, in the months preceding his expedition to England and of the prince’s loyalty and service. Bentinck also had instructions to negotiate with the lord treasurer, Rochester, for a closer Anglo-Dutch alliance against France.<sup>35</sup></p><h2><em>Revolution</em></h2><p>By 1687 Bentinck had become aware of the growing unrest in Britain against James II’s rule, especially from the large number of Scottish exiles at William of Orange’s court, such as William Carstares, Sir Patrick Hume of Polwarth, later earl of Marchmont [S], James Johnston<sup>‡</sup>, and Gilbert Burnet*, later bishop of Salisbury.<sup>36</sup> Burnet, at this point at least, thought highly of Bentinck, who was,</p><blockquote><p>bred about the prince, and he observed in him that application to business and those virtues that made him think fit to take him into his particular confidence, and to employ him in the secretest of all his concerns as well as the looking to all his private affairs. He is a man of a great probity and sincerity, and is as close as his master is. He bears his favour with great modesty, and has nothing of that haughtiness that seems to belong to all favourites. He is a virtuous and religions man, and I have heard instances of this that are very extraordinary, chiefly in a courtier. He has all the passion of a friend for the prince’s person, as well as the fidelity of a minister in his affairs, and makes up the defects of his education in a great application to business; and as he has a true and clear judgment, so the probity of his temper appears in all his counsels, which are just and moderate; and this is so well known, that though commonwealths can very ill bear any inequality of favour that is lodged in one person, yet I never heard any that are in the government of the towns of Holland complain of him; nor does he make those advantages of his favour which were ordinarily made by those that have access to princes, by employing it for those pay them best. I do not know him well enough to say much concerning him; but though I naturally hate favourites, because all those whom I have known hitherto have made a very ill use of their greatness, yet by all I could ever discern, the prince has showed a very true judgment of persons in placing so much of his confidence on him.<sup>37</sup></p></blockquote><p>From late December 1687 at the latest Bentinck began to receive detailed newsletters of developments in English politics from a number of correspondents in Britain, particularly Sydney and James Johnston<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>38</sup> By mid-August 1688, after William had received the invitation from Sydney and other opponents of the king to invade England, Bentinck was appointed to organize the logistics of both the land and sea forces for the descent on England.<sup>39</sup> Burnet commented that Bentinck and the invasion fleet’s English admiral Arthur Herbert*, later earl of Torrington, ‘were for two months constantly at the Hague giving all necessary orders, with so little noise that nothing broke out all the while’ and that ‘Bentinck used to be constantly with the prince, being the person that was most entirely trusted and constantly employed by him; so that his absence from him, being so extraordinary a thing, might have given some umbrage’.<sup>40</sup> He supervised the embarkation of the troops on board the fleet and set sail with the fleet on 1 Nov. 1688. After the invasion force made landfall at Torbay on 5 Nov. Bentinck effectively oversaw the disembarkation of the troops over the space of 48 hours. He maintained a detailed diary and account of the march of William’s troops from the West County to London and also kept Herbert informed of the progress of the campaign.<sup>41</sup> Henry Hyde*, 2nd earl of Clarendon, first encountered Bentinck shortly after he arrived at William of Orange’s camp at Hildon, near Salisbury, on 4 December. Bentinck had only just received the news of the death of his wife Anne back in The Hague, which affected him deeply. Nevertheless, he still had the presence of mind to reassure Clarendon that William had provided a ‘sincere’ account of the reasons for his invasion in his <em>Declaration</em> (which Bentinck had helped draft), ‘though there are not ill men wanting, who give it out that the prince aspires at the crown, which is the most wicked insinuation that could be invented’.<sup>42</sup> He played a prominent part as William’s ‘general’, principal adviser and intermediary when the commissioners sent from James – George Savile*, marquess of Halifax, Daniel Finch*, 2nd earl of Nottingham and Sidney Godolphin*, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin – arrived at the camp at Hungerford and set forth James’s conditions.<sup>43</sup></p><p>Despite his earlier protestations to Clarendon, from the time of James II’s first abortive flight Bentinck began to sense that his master could perhaps gain more than a role as a protector through the evident disorder in James’s government. After the king had been ordered – via the intermediaries Halifax, Charles Talbot*, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury and Henry Booth*, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington) – to leave the capital, ‘for his own safety’, it was Bentinck who, at 5 o’clock in the morning on 18 Dec. 1688, wrote to Halifax to tell him that the prince accepted James’s request to reside in Rochester, from which the king more easily effected his escape in the early hours of 24 December.<sup>44</sup> During January 1689 Bentinck appears to have increasingly pressed William to take advantage of the opportunity presented to him and to insist on full regal power. Nicolas Witsen came to England in early January 1689 as part of a Dutch delegation to the prince and the Convention. He thought that while Dijkvelt had hoped to arrange for both the prince and princess of Orange to be proclaimed king and queen, Bentinck had strongly laboured to have only the prince elected: ‘Bentinck and Dijkvelt had laboured hard, the former with great vehemence’.<sup>45</sup> Burnet provided an account of a long conversation he had with Bentinck at about the time the plans for a regency were being debated in the Convention. He recounted how Halifax suggested that the crown should be given to the Prince of Orange alone, followed by the two princesses, Mary and Anne:</p><blockquote><p>How far the prince himself entertained this, I cannot tell. But I saw it made a great impression on Benthink [<em>sic</em>]. He spoke of it to me, as asking my opinion about it, but so, that I plainly saw what was his own. For he gave me all the arguments that were offered for it; as that it was most natural that the sovereign power should be only in one person; that a man’s wife ought only to be his wife; that it was a suitable return to the Prince for what he had done for the Nation; that a divided sovereignty was liable to great inconveniences: and though there was less to be apprehended from the Princess of any thing of that king than from any woman alive, yet all mortals were frail, and might at some time or other of their lives be wrought on. To all this I answered, with some vehemence, that this was a very ill return for the steps the princess had made to the prince three years ago: it would be thought both unjust and ungrateful: it would meet with great opposition, and give a general ill impression of the prince, as insatiable and jealous in his ambition … We talked over the whole thing for many hours, till it was pretty far in the morning.<sup>46</sup></p></blockquote><p>Bentinck evidently was keeping a very close eye on events in Parliament in the early days of February 1689 and gave William’s personal secretary Constantijn Huygens the younger a detailed breakdown of the vote of 6 Feb. 1689 which declared the throne vacant and William and Mary king and queen.<sup>47</sup> After Parliament had passed this vote, it turned to the matter of the Declaration of Rights. Here Bentinck also defended what he saw as the prerogative rights of his master, the new king. It was reported that Sir Edward Seymour<sup>‡</sup> informed the Commons that Bentinck had told him that the prince was not happy with the restrictions and limitations they were putting upon the crown ‘and that if it had been left to himself he would have done better and more for their security’. This angered Nottingham in particular who said in the House ‘that the prince ought to consider that the crown of England with whatever limitations was far more than anything the States of Holland were able to give him’. Sydney was able to defuse the situation when he returned from the prince, who disowned Bentinck’s comments and ‘said such a thing was far from his mind’<sup>48</sup></p><h2><em>The Convention, 1689-90</em></h2><p>Bentinck was quickly rewarded for his faithful service. On 14 Feb. 1689, the day of the proclamation of William and Mary as king and queen, he was sworn to the new king’s Privy Council, and over the following few weeks he was appointed keeper of the king’s privy purse, groom of the stole and first gentleman of the bedchamber. These positions put him closer than any other courtier to the person of the king; his favoured status was further emphasized when he was given apartments adjoining the king’s. For the next ten years or so Bentinck remained the closest adviser and secretary to the Dutch king and acted as his intermediary with the English, indeed the British, political nation. In effect he was the gatekeeper to the king’s presence, by which discretion he was able to wield a great deal of power and influence. As Burnet commented about the king’s appointments: ‘The king’s chief personal favour lay between Bentinck and Sydney: the former was made earl of Portland and groom of the stole, and continued for ten years to be entirely trusted by the king; and served him with great fidelity and obsequiousness: but he could never bring himself to be acceptable to the English nation’<sup>49</sup>.</p><p>Huygens reported as early as 29 Dec. 1688 that the English political class ‘already held a grudge against Bentinck because he had so much authority’ and a month later was told by Dijkvelt that ‘Bentinck already gave great jealousy to the English’, a view confirmed by the other ambassador Odijk.<sup>50</sup> Dijkvelt, with some of William’s other close Dutch companions, did not wish to become involved in English politics or be promoted as Bentinck was, knowing that ‘in England the manner was that the favourites and councillors were accused and punished when the kings had done some wrong’. Nor did they wish – at that point at least – to be made peers of the realm by the king, for then they would have to serve him in Parliament.<sup>51</sup> Such considerations do not seem to have preyed on Bentinck, and in early April, only a few days before the coronation, he and his children were naturalized by an act of Parliament (part of a string of naturalizations of many of William’s Dutch followers). The following day, on 9 Apr. 1689, he was made an English peer as Baron Cirencester, Viscount Woodstock and earl of Portland. The latter title may have been chosen because of the connection between the family of his late English wife, Anne Villiers, and the Westons, earls of Portland. The last of that line, Thomas Weston*, 4th earl of Portland, had died in 1688. Portland was also granted the park and house of Theobalds in Hertfordshire.<sup>52</sup> In early June he was made superintendent of the royal gardens and parks, an office especially created for him by William III so that Portland could continue in an office he had also fulfilled in the United Provinces.<sup>53</sup></p><p>As a new member of the English aristocracy, no matter how resented this may have been, the earl of Portland was introduced in the House on 15 Apr. 1689, between Shrewsbury and Charles Montagu*, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester. This late entry into the House and his later absence on military and administrative duties in September and early October 1689 meant that in total he came to only 16 per cent of the sittings of the first session of the Convention. He was also not particularly prominent in the House’s affairs, and was named to only four very large select committees on legislation. Huygens reported that in May Portland was proposing a parliamentary bill so that the funds voted for the queen would be managed and disbursed through the privy purse, which he of course controlled, but this project does not appear to have gone very far.<sup>54</sup> Roger Morrice reported that when on 2 July the House considered the impeachment against Sir Adam Blair and the others who had distributed James II’s <em>Declaration</em>, Portland and Frederick Herman Schomberg*, duke of Schomberg – the only two of William’s continental coterie who had received English titles by that time – voted in favour of the impeachment, ‘and they two had not this sessions before ever been present at any division, nor at any time given either their contents or not contents’. Morrice likewise remarked on the absence of Portland and Sydney (now Viscount Sydney), two of the four ‘new lords’ recently created by William III, at the division on 30 July on whether to adhere to the House’s controversial amendment to the bill for reversing the judgments against Oates.<sup>55</sup></p><p>Portland was more often present in the short second session of the Convention which began in late October. He came to just under half of its sittings in the autumn and winter of 1689 but was named to only two large select committees on legislation. His lack of presence and activity in the House was explained to Huygens in the week before the autumn meeting, for ‘he was not a man who could do the king either great service or disservice, having no considerable estate nor following and credit in Parliament’.<sup>56</sup> This lack of a parliamentary interest rendered him susceptible to attack. In May Huygens noted the appearance of a scurrilous poem claiming that ‘The Lord Portland takes all’, and later that month one of his English informants complained ‘about the sale of all sorts of offices, most of which was done by Bentinck’ [as Huygens frequently named him even after his elevation]. Huygens’s informant confidently predicted that within nine months Parliament would attack Portland; in late July the English <em>accoucheur</em>, Dr Chamberlen, complained that Portland ‘had too much influence and that favour lay too much in his hands’.<sup>57</sup> As early as November it was thought that Portland would be caught up in the scandal surrounding the commissary John Shales, as there were rumours that the earl had been involved in Shales’s purchase of the office.<sup>58</sup></p><p>As Huygens’s comment suggests, Portland, though not a considerable figure in Parliament at this time, was at the very heart of William III’s government from its beginning. He acted as the conduit for the British political nation to the king. He was personally sent by the king in early September 1689 to Shrewsbury to try to convince him not to resign the secretaryship of state, as Shrewsbury so often threatened, and it was to Portland that Shrewsbury finally delivered up the seals of office in June 1690.<sup>59</sup> Almost all official correspondence for the king passed through his hands first, and the king increasingly delegated many areas of policy to him. In particular, Portland managed the complicated affairs in Scotland, where he took advice from the Presbyterian minister William Carstares, one of the many Presbyterian exiles who had taken refuge in the United Provinces during the 1680s.<sup>60</sup> Burnet believed that Portland ‘had that nation … wholly in his hands’, while Macky early in Anne’s reign commented that William III ‘gave him the absolute and entire government of Scotland’.<sup>61</sup> He remained the dominant ‘English’ figure in Scottish politics and policy-making throughout William’s reign.<sup>62</sup> In English matters, Portland was much more present and active in the Privy Council than he was in the House, and although the scarcity of sources renders it difficult to make definitive statements, it is most likely that Portland was also engaged in the embryonic ‘cabinet council’ being formed at this time. A French agent wrote in early July that ‘Dijkvelt who has as much power in the council as Bentinck in the cabinet gives complaints mightily here’ and both Narcissus Luttrell<sup>‡</sup> and John Verney<sup>‡</sup> (later Viscount Fermanagh [I]) also noted in early August that Portland was one of the five members of William’s ‘cabinet council’ dealing with naval strategy during the transport of troops to Ireland.<sup>63</sup> Portland was intensely involved in this campaign and left the House for several weeks in the late summer as he was dispatched to Chester to oversee the preparation and embarkation of the troops headed for Ireland under Schomberg.<sup>64</sup> The United Provinces also called his attention and his attendance on the House in the autumn 1689 was cut short when, on the final day of the year, he was given leave by the House to go to Holland in order to settle the growing unrest caused by the republican faction in the Holland States of the States General against their stadtholder’s new powers as king of England. On the same day he registered his proxy for the remainder of the session with his old friend Sydney.</p><p>Portland spent the next three months in the Netherlands, engaged in complicated negotiations with the anti-Orangist city fathers of Amsterdam who wished to appoint the town’s bailiffs (<em>schepenen</em>), without the advice or confirmation of William of Orange. These same anti-Orangist Amsterdamers also tried to deprive Portland of his seat as a noble (<em>ridderschap</em>) in the Estates of Holland, as he was now a naturalized subject of the English crown.<sup>65</sup> After several weeks of building alliances, and enlisting the help of the dukes of Brandenburg and Brunswick, Portland was able to take his seat in the States General and to effect a compromise between Amsterdam and their absent stadtholder on the appointment of the city’s officials and the payment of its quota to William’s war effort.<sup>66</sup></p><h2><em>The Parliament of 1690</em></h2><p>While he was in the Netherlands, Portland learned from the king himself of the continuing party disputes over the bill of indemnity and other measures and of the surprise prorogation of 27 Jan. 1690. William recounted, perhaps with some glee, that ‘it seems the Tories are happy with it, but not the Whigs.’ Similarly, in informing his friend of the dissolution on 6 Feb., William could only comment, ‘the animosity of the two parties grows from day to day and causes me terrible problems’.<sup>67</sup> Portland returned from his mission in the Netherlands in time to sit in William III’s new Parliament on 24 Mar. 1690, only four days after it had first convened. He continued to sit for 54 per cent of the session’s sittings, though throughout this time he was named to only one select committee. In early April Portland, with Nottingham, Halifax, Shrewsbury and Thomas Osborne*, the former earl of Danby now marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), opposed the bill moved by Charles Powlett*, duke of Bolton, which would ‘declare’ the acts of the Convention ‘to be of full force and effect by the laws of the realm’ and would ‘recognize’ William and Mary as ‘rightful and lawful’ monarchs. In this they followed the wishes of the king who was trying to court the Tories and was concerned that such claims would raise their ire. Portland preferred Nottingham’s compromise wording merely ‘confirming’ the acts of the Convention and the monarchs’ presence on the throne.<sup>68</sup> In late April he was ordered by the king to try to make clear to the Commons manager Sir John Lowther of Lowther*, later Viscount Lonsdale, ‘the prejudice that Holland would suffer by the prohibition of silk goods’ in order to block a bill banning their import.<sup>69</sup></p><p>Portland accompanied William on his expedition to Ireland in spring 1690, and he and his regiment of horse participated in the Battle of the Boyne. When William returned to England in early September he left Portland effectively in charge of the army in Ireland, making him a lieutenant-general of both the horse and foot in the English Army before he left.<sup>70</sup> Portland did not stay long in Ireland, as the government of that troubled country was entrusted to the lord justices Sydney (who left to take up one of the secretaryships of state in December 1690), and Thomas Coningsby<sup>‡</sup> (later earl of Coningsby [I]) and the military leader Godard van Reede-Ginckel (earl of Athlone [I] from March 1692). However, from this point Portland became closely involved in Irish affairs as well and received letters from Sydney, Coningsby and especially Ginckel discussing the course of the campaign against the remaining Jacobite army and the management of the government in the conquered areas. From October Portland held peace talks in London with John Grady, representing the Jacobite peace party. In his correspondence with Ginckel on campaign he urged that favourable terms be offered to the Irish Catholics so that the war could be wrapped up quickly.<sup>71</sup> The Treaty of Limerick of early October 1691, with its conciliatory terms extended to Irish Catholics, represented the policy he had been advocating to Ginckel. The terms of the treaty were later repudiated by the Irish parliament which met under the lord lieutenancy of Sydney in 1692, and held back supply until harsher anti-Catholic measures were taken – ensuring Portland’s continued involvement in Irish politics for many years.</p><p>Shortly after Portland’s departure from Ireland, Sydney and Coningsby addressed a long letter to him setting out their advice on how he and the king should manage the Commons in the forthcoming Parliament in England, for ‘it is without all question impossible for a king of England to do any considerable thing in a House of Commons without a formed management’. This is the first indication that, among his other duties for the king, Portland was also beginning to take on the role of parliamentary manager, or as a co-ordinator of the court’s other parliamentary managers. Sydney and Coningsby concentrated their analysis on the Commons, and insisted that the crown rely on ‘two or three men who have fair reputation in the House’ and were not allied to James II.<sup>72</sup> How much Portland himself took on this advice, which appears to have been unsolicited, and acted on it is difficult to determine, but he was in the House for the first day of the new session on 2 Oct. 1690; however, he was present for only 39 per cent of its sittings, during which he was named to four select committees. Carmarthen, the court’s principal manager in the House, also recorded that on 6 Oct. 1690 Portland was among those who voted for the discharge of James Cecil*, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt*, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from the Tower.<sup>73</sup></p><p>Shortly after the prorogation in early January 1691, Portland accompanied William to the Congress of Allies meeting at The Hague.<sup>74</sup> After an inconclusive summer’s campaigning in the Netherlands (for which he had been promoted to lieutenant-general of the Dutch horse), Portland returned to England in time for the 1691-2 session beginning in late October, in which he maintained his best attendance rate to that point – 58 per cent.<sup>75</sup> Despite his new-found assiduity, he was not named to a single select committee during this session. As the king’s principal adviser and policy-maker, he was, however, becoming increasingly concerned with the problems of parliamentary management, as first suggested by the project outlined to him by Sydney and Coningsby the previous year. Huygens recorded that at a meal at court Portland was assured by the goldsmith Sir Francis Child<sup>‡</sup> ‘that the Parliament will do your business’ regarding supply, to which Portland could only answer ‘I think they will not do the king’s but their own business’.<sup>76</sup></p><p>Certainly the 1691-2 session proved difficult for the court and considerations of the management of the parties had to be taken into account after the disgrace of John Churchill*, earl (later duke) of Marlborough in early 1692 and the vacancy in the secretaryship of state caused by Sydney’s appointment as sole lord lieutenant of Ireland in March 1692. From February 1692 Portland clearly became more involved in ensuring the smooth functioning of the government in England for the court’s interest by managing the parties and their expectations.<sup>77</sup> As part of this he consolidated his connections with a few key individuals and families among the English nobility – a strange decision as, at about this time, Huygens noted him as commenting that he wished to send his son back to the continent so that he would not learn English ‘debauchery’.<sup>78</sup> On 28 Feb. 1692, only a few days after the prorogation of Parliament, his eldest daughter Mary was married to Algernon Capell*, 2nd earl of Essex, only recently come of age, the son of the ‘martyred’ opponent of the Stuart brothers Arthur Capell*, earl of Essex.<sup>79</sup> This match had been long rumoured and anticipated, and it was hardly a coincidence that only a few weeks afterwards the young groom’s uncle and guardian, the Whig Henry Capell*, was created Baron Capell of Tewkesbury.<sup>80</sup> Portland and Capell were to remain close friends and associates, bound in no small part by their mutual anxiety over the erratic and abusive behaviour of the young earl of Essex. Portland played an important role in ensuring that Capell was appointed a lord justice of Ireland in June 1693, and then the sole lord deputy there from May 1695, posts in which he was in constant contact with Portland discussing Irish and familial affairs until his death at the end of May 1696.<sup>81</sup></p><p>A third figure often mentioned in the correspondence of Portland and Capell was Robert Spencer*, 2nd earl of Sunderland, James II’s disgraced former secretary of state who in 1691 had been allowed to kiss the king’s hand and even to take up his seat in the House. Feeling confident of his rehabilitation, and of the king’s desire for his advice, Sunderland addressed the first in what was to become a long series of letters to Portland on 5 May 1692. He welcomed Portland’s return to England, sent there to help the queen and the cabinet council deal with the threat of a French invasion. In his letters of May 1692 he urged the king’s immediate return as well and lashed out at the current Tory-based ministry, for ‘the considerable part of [the nation], do not care who are ministers of state, whether this man or that, so we may be safe and secure’ and that ‘it will be a very ill preparative to the persuading the Parliament to take care of the government next winter, to leave all at random this summer’.<sup>82</sup></p><p>The need for a reform of the ministry was further emphasized by the military failures of the Allies that summer. Following the victories of Admiral Edward Russell*, later earl of Orford, against the French invasion force at Barfleur and La Hogue in mid-May, Portland, with Sydney (about to be dispatched to Ireland again as sole lord lieutenant) and Rochester, went to Portsmouth to convene a council of war with Russell and the other admirals in order to plan an Allied ‘descent’ and invasion of the French coast. Shortly after these meetings Portland returned to the continent to take part in the campaign in Flanders, where he was one of the commanders who oversaw the disastrous defeat of the Allies at Steenkirk following the French capture of the fortress of Namur.<sup>83</sup> Similarly, the ambitiously planned invasion of France foundered through mismanagement and miscommunication, particularly between the Tory secretary of state Nottingham and the Whig admiral Russell. This was much to the frustration of the general of the land forces in the expedition Meinhard Schomberg*, duke of Leinster [I] ( later 3rd duke of Schomberg), and of Sydney. The latter’s passage to Ireland to take up the lord lieutenancy there was delayed by his continuing involvement in this matter, in which he was increasingly critical of Russell’s unwillingness to embark for the descent.<sup>84</sup></p><p>In this depressing international context Portland returned with the king in late Oct. 1692.<sup>85</sup> In the days before the session, scheduled to start on 4 Nov., Sunderland presented Portland with a long ‘memorial’ on the proper means to manage the Parliament, transmitted to Portland through Sunderland’s associate Henry Guy<sup>‡</sup> (for it is in his hand). Sunderland recalled that in his previous correspondence with Portland in May ‘we were of a mind in everything we talked on, and so I know we shall always be, both of us intending the same thing’, so ‘if you can believe my opinion of weight, you may make use of it as you please’. Sunderland stated his views straightforwardly, ‘without any kind of mincing’, that the country needed to be properly defended and that the king should maintain a constant presence there:</p><blockquote><p>That which will ruin the king, if not remedied, is, that every one thinks this Government cannot last, which makes, that many of those who wish well to it, have a mind to secure themselves, for the generality of mankind will ever intend that chiefly. … A good session of Parliament is necessary, which – as much as I can judge – is yet in the king’s power ... But if the foundation is not made good, that will not save us; for if the fears and discontents continue, though the Parliament doth give money, we shall be undone … People are possessed of a most dangerous opinion, that England is not taken care on; that must be cured, or all signifies nothing, which may be done, and the Allies supported to the height; but if it is not done, the confederacy will quickly be at an end.<sup>86</sup></p></blockquote><p>Portland, and through him the king, were ready to listen carefully and follow Sunderland’s advice at this time. Marlborough suggested to Halifax at about this time in the autumn 1692 that ‘Lord Sunderland had gained Lord Portland, and that he [Marlborough] was sure the king had a great mind to have him in employment’.<sup>87</sup></p><p>Others also expressed their fears to Portland of the danger to the confederacy from the forthcoming Parliament. Even before Portland’s departure from the continent, Dijkvelt had written to him recommending that Jean de Robéthon, the secretary of the Hanoverian envoy Schütz, should write a pamphlet aimed at Members of the English Parliament convincing them of the benefits of continuing the war.<sup>88</sup> Robéthon, who was later to go on to serve as secretary to Portland and then to William III, duly produced his <em>Letter to one of the Members of Parliament about the State of the Present War</em>, published early in 1693. An anonymous correspondent in England also warned Portland at length in early November, only a few days before the session was scheduled to start, of the attacks that were being planned against him, the king, the ministry, and the alliance in general:</p><blockquote><p>That there are many Members of Parliament that would do all they could to delay and hinder his majesty in his most generous and glorious acquirements your lordship can not be ignorant, and that they design to do the like now is too obvious. They resolve to spoil all business if possible and are upon several projects to make a division in this next session of Parliament. Some members are for impeaching your lordship as advising his majesty to keep up the Dutch confederacy and thereby expending the English blood and treasure beyond sea and doing no good therewith against the French: they also intend to make other articles against the bishop of Salisbury [Gilbert Burnet], looking on him as accessory to the same; and these men are churchmen and friends of my Lord Nottingham, though I cannot say his lordship knows of it. And they are for finding fault with the last summer’s expedition both by land and sea; and say they will call Admiral Russell to account for failures on his part; and will also have an account of the miscarriages beyond sea. All which things they are encouraged to by the many and great complaints made by some of his majesties officers who tell them, the English were sacrificed at Steenkirk, the Dutch would not fight, nor let the other English relieve them.</p></blockquote><p>This correspondent went on to recount at length allegations made by a kinsman of Sir Edward Seymour<sup>‡</sup> to Sir Thomas Clarges<sup>‡</sup> about Portland’s refusal to allow James Butler*, 2nd duke of Ormond, to march his troops to the relief of the hard-pressed English troops at Steenkirk. This, he predicted, would give Clarges a handle for refusing to promote supply for the continuation of the war. He further suggested Portland advise the king to adjourn Parliament for a further few days so that the government’s supporters could come up and make a ‘full house’, as there were rumours that Clarges and the ‘Country’ opposition were trying to muster their troops early for an attack at the beginning of the session.<sup>89</sup></p><p>Portland’s anonymous correspondent was not wrong. Almost immediately after the session had begun, the Commons, under the cover of offering ‘advice’ to the king, attacked almost every aspect of the government’s administration of the previous summer, particularly the management of the military effort, both at sea with the failed descent, and on land with the disaster of Steenkirk. As Sunderland later sarcastically complained when detailing to Portland all that went wrong with the management of the session of 1692-3, ‘The king in his speech at the beginning of the last sessions by the word advice gave a handle to the Parliament, which was well improved’. Portland was very concerned by these attacks. Among the few parliamentary papers in his surviving archive are fair copies of the debates in the Commons of 21-26 Nov. 1692 on the ‘advice’ to the king. Most disturbing would have been the attacks of country Whigs such as ‘Harry’ Mordaunt<sup>‡</sup> on Nottingham on his conduct of naval affairs and on Portland, who was included in the motion that all general officers in the army should in future be ‘natives of their Majesties’ dominions’ (although the motion’s supporters were primarily aiming at Hendrik Trajectinus van Solms, Count Solms, for his perceived misconduct at Steenkirk).<sup>90</sup></p><p>To Portland’s discomfort the Lords took up the same theme against foreign-born general officers in the Army when they considered their ‘advice’ in late November and early December. This led to Huygens to record on the first day of December that Parliament was ‘lingering’ in its attacks against the ministers, and especially Nottingham and Portland.<sup>91</sup> In the House, Portland showed his renewed concern with management, and perhaps in defending himself, by coming to just under two-thirds of the sittings of the 1692-3 session, his highest attendance to that date. He was only absent for the last week of the session in March because he was struck down by a dangerous and life-threatening pleurisy.<sup>92</sup> He was more of a presence in Parliament as well where his main goal was to ensure the defeat of the Place bill. It may have been in the context of this bill that Portland had a list of officers and pensioners in the Commons drawn up for him as a way of calculating its potential damage to the court interest in the Lower House.<sup>93</sup> He engineered opposition to the measure by speaking at length in the House against the bill. Bonet, the ambassador for the Brandenburg court, gave his masters in Berlin a detailed account of the debates surrounding the bill. He singled out as the ‘principals’ among the bill’s enemies Portland, Carmarthen and Nottingham, joined by Godolphin and William Cavendish*, 4th earl (soon to be duke) of Devonshire, ‘very well informed of the intentions of his majesty’, and ‘to whom must be added Lord Sunderland as a good courtier’.<sup>94</sup> Portland also engaged in a more careful management of proxies and clients for vital votes on this bill. From 8 Dec. 1692 he held the proxy of John Lovelace*, 3rd Baron Lovelace, and was presumably able to use this in voting against the commitment of the Place bill on the very last day of 1692. His son-in-law Essex, recently made a gentleman of the bedchamber through Portland’s influence, also voted against the commitment as did Essex’s uncle, and Portland’s friend, Capell. Despite these votes, the commitment went through, and Portland and his court allies spent several days hurriedly canvassing votes for the bill’s defeat. On 3 Jan. 1693, when the bill was to come from committee to be read a third time, Essex registered his proxy with his father-in-law who, apart from speaking against the bill in the House, was now able to make use of the proxies of both Lovelace and Essex to help defeat the bill at its third reading; Capell also helped him by voting against the bill.<sup>95</sup> Thomas Bruce*, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, who had a long-abiding hatred of Portland as a grasping representative of the regime which had overthrown his master James II, noted in the division list he drew up on this agonizingly close vote of 3 Jan. 1693 that the Place Bill was ‘thrown out by two Dutch votes’, meaning that of Portland and Charles Schomberg*, 2nd duke of Schomberg. It was proxies, of which two were held by Portland against the bill, which determined the bill’s defeat.<sup>96</sup> Portland also wished to keep track of who had supported the bill and had a copy of the protest against its rejection, and its signatories, drawn up for him by the clerk from the Journal.<sup>97</sup></p><p>Portland’s management of the beleaguered court interest in the House did not end there. It may have been to ensure Portland’s ability to fight against the Triennial bill, another country measure opposed by the court, that Lovelace, who had returned to the House to vacate his proxy on 13 Jan., registered his proxy with Portland again on 21 Jan., the day the bill was sent down to the Commons.<sup>98</sup> Despite this, the Triennial Bill passed both Houses but was ultimately vetoed, perhaps on Portland’s advice and certainly with his approval, by the king at the prorogation on 14 Mar. 1693. In the meantime, Portland was divested of both his proxies – Lovelace’s and Essex’s – when both arrived back in the House on the same day, 31 Jan. 1693. Portland himself left the House for a week in mid-February and on 15 Feb. 1693 registered his own proxy with the lord steward and loyal court supporter Devonshire, who had helped him defeat the Place bill earlier that winter. Portland probably saw the necessity of entrusting his vote with a loyal adherent of the court, for on the following day, 16 Feb., the House embarked on a debate on the ‘heads of advice’ to be given to the king, including the request that foreigners such as Portland no longer be employed in the army and other important positions. Portland’s proxy with Devonshire was vacated when he returned to the House on 21 February.</p><p>Other evidence of Portland’s increasing involvement in the affairs of the House comes from his careful interest and participation in the trial of Charles Mohun*, 4th Baron Mohun. His hurriedly written pencil notes – written in English with the occasional Dutch word or spelling – on the debate of 4 Feb. 1693 on Mohun’s guilt still survive among his papers.<sup>99</sup> They show he was paying careful attention to the arguments put forward by peers such as Rochester, Nottingham, Capell and Vere Fane*, 4th earl of Westmorland, for Mohun’s guilt, and those of Halifax, Devonshire, Godolphin, Richard Lumley*, earl of Scarbrough, Thomas Grey*, 2nd earl of Stamford, and John Sheffield*, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby), for his acquittal or conviction for manslaughter. His notes are interesting in that they reveal a fair amount of wavering and doubt among many of the peers, especially among those who felt that he was not guilty; even Halifax thought that Mohun should be treated as a kind of ‘lunatic’ in this case. It is probable that Portland took his notes to make his own mind up on the legal point of whether Mohun’s presence at the scene of the murder, actually committed by his companion, was evidence of ‘malice prepense’. He appears to have been more convinced by the arguments of the king’s ministers in the House, Rochester and especially Nottingham. Portland – and his kinsman and friend Capell – were among the small number of 14 peers who voted Mohun guilty of murder, against 64 who found him not guilty.</p><p>Following the prorogation of Parliament on 14 Mar. 1693, Portland in late April set out with the king to Holland for that summer’s campaigning.<sup>100</sup> It was to Holland that Sunderland addressed his increasingly detailed, and insistent, letters describing the measures that needed to be taken to secure a compliant Parliament for the forthcoming session and the actions he was taking towards this goal on behalf of the king.<sup>101</sup> Even before the king’s departure a first part of Sunderland’s project to strengthen the government by bringing in some of its Whig opponents was put into place, when Sir John Somers*, later Baron Somers, was made lord keeper and Sir John Trenchard<sup>‡</sup> appointed a secretary of state to fill the vacancy left by Sydney’s dispatch to Ireland the previous summer. Even this step faced opposition from William’s Tory ministers but Sunderland was unrelenting in his criticisms of the ministry and its management of Parliament in the last session, as he made clear in a brief ‘memorial’ he drew up for Portland about the preceding session of 1692-3. He recounted the many things that went wrong in the 1692-3 session: the request for advice that backfired, the promise of a future descent on France for which supply was not forthcoming, the dispute between Russell and Nottingham over the previous summer’s abortive descent which turned into a battle both between the parties and between the Houses, and ‘the clamour concerning the miscarriages of Ireland, which was fomented by some who ought least to have done it’. Then he projected what should be done for the forthcoming session, and lamented the obstacles already put in the way:</p><blockquote><p>At the end of the sessions, that the next might be a good one, the advice, the business of Ireland, the Triennial Act, the descent, which the king would not mention his last speech, the Streights Fleet, and many other things were to be laid asleep, if possible, by care and good conduct against the winter, in order to which a keeper and a secretary were made and well chosen. But the clutter at their coming in, by the pressing of the ministers very much spoiled the good that was designed. Then the ministers were suffered to be insolent, who of all others ought to be least so. The king was accused of breach of his word by several … The descent is now carrying on, in most men’s opinion, without a possibility of success, at a time that there is not money for the subsistence of the army. The whole government is loose, no respect paid to it, no order in any of the councils, nor care of anything. It is pretty plain what good preparations these things are for next sessions, either of this or of a new Parliament. The king went away thinking he had done too much, because the ministers were ill pleased, who have little credit, and that is always wrong employed.<sup>102</sup></p></blockquote><p>In a long letter of advice to Portland of 20 June, Sunderland set out various measures required to secure the smooth running of Parliament, including acts needed to mollify certain influential members of the House and bring them over to the government.<sup>103</sup> Portland did as requested, and as a result, in spring 1694, after the end of the following session, Mulgrave was promoted to a marquessate (although, contrary to his demands, as part of a general promotion), and Charles Gerard*, who had recently succeeded as 2nd earl of Macclesfield, was given his own regiment of horse and made a major-general.</p><p>Sunderland’s projections for an easy parliamentary session were complicated by the military reverses of summer 1693 in which Portland himself was wounded. Sunderland expressed relief at the news that Portland was not badly hurt and, more importantly that, despite rumours, the king was still alive, but continued to fret about the next session. The last in the series of Sunderland’s letters to Portland of that summer, dated 21 Aug., suggests that Portland returned with the king to England shortly after that date.<sup>104</sup> He does not appear, however, to have been present at the celebrated meeting of 27 Aug. when Sunderland convened a conclave of leading Whigs and ministers – Russell, Thomas Wharton*, later marquess of Wharton, and Ralph Montagu*, earl (later duke) of Montagu – at his house at Althorp to discuss measures to secure the support of the Whigs for the following session, probably on the promise of future favour. Part of this ‘turn to the Whigs’ was undoubtedly the dispatch of Portland’s other principal political associate, Capell, to Ireland in July 1693 as one of the lord justices and, in effect, as Portland’s and Sunderland’s agent and associate there. In a letter of 13 June Sunderland had also given his advice on Irish affairs that ‘Nothing is more important than the putting off the parliament there till the spring’, for ‘our Parliament being to sit so soon will give all factious people encouragement both here and there to embroil all they can, which we know by letters from thence and by information here is laboured in both kingdoms’.<sup>105</sup> Two final steps taken in Sunderland’s scheme before the convening of Parliament were Admiral Russell’s restoration to favour and to command of the fleet and the consequent resignation, apparently sincerely regretted by William, of Russell’s enemy, the secretary of state Nottingham. Portland’s precise role in these changes remains murky, but as Sunderland used him as his principal personal advocate to William, it is likely that he strongly pushed the views of ‘the minister behind the curtain’ to the king.</p><p>Portland himself maintained the same level of attendance – 64 per cent – in the following session (1693-4). From 19 Dec. 1693 until 15 Jan. 1694 he held the proxy of John West*, 6th Baron de la Warr. Once again Portland was not frequently named to select committees, being appointed to only three (including a small one of ten members appointed by a committee of the whole to draft a clause for the Mutiny bill). Otherwise, he only appears in the pages of the Lords Journal for this session on 21 Dec. 1693 and 2 Jan. 1694 as the victim of a breach of privilege of Parliament after one of his menial servants had been arrested.<sup>106</sup></p><p>Nevertheless, he was undoubtedly behind the scenes managing Parliament and trying to maintain discipline in the court party. He was widely reputed to have been responsible for advising William to veto the Place bill in January 1694. Certainly Sir Thomas Clarges seemed to be thinking of Portland, William’s closest counsellor, when he moved on 26 Jan. 1694 ‘That the advisers of the rejection of this bill are enemies to the king and kingdom’<em>.</em><sup>107</sup> The final resolution of the Commons the following day had much the same target, praying ‘That your majesty would graciously be pleased to hearken to the advice of your Parliament, and not to the secret advices of particular persons, who may have private interests of their own, separate from the true interest of your majesty’.<sup>108</sup> Portland was probably consulting closely with Sunderland during this time. No written correspondence between the two survives from the time of the session: as they were both in the capital and in the House during the winter months, they probably communicated verbally and in private. Their growing closeness, and Sunderland’s clear return to favour, however, is suggested by the rumours circulating in mid-March 1694 that Sunderland’s son, Charles Spencer*, styled Lord Spencer, (later 3rd earl of Sunderland) was to marry one of Portland’s many daughters.<sup>109</sup></p><p>Shortly after the prorogation on 25 Apr. 1694, and before the king’s and Portland’s departure for the continent, a further step was taken in Sunderland’s project to build a loyal court party with a mass promotion of loyal court followers in the peerage. Nine followers of the court, who had worked for its agenda in the recent session, were either created peers or raised in the peerage, five of them – Carmarthen, Devonshire, Shrewsbury, William Russell*, 5th earl of Bedford, and John Holles*, 4th earl of Clare – being made dukes. With these rewards having been distributed, William, Portland and other military officers set off for the continent in early May for that summer’s campaign. While on the continent Portland received regular missives from Sunderland concerning his continuing efforts to ensure the smooth running of the king’s government. One matter in particular that summer concerned Sunderland. He had long insisted that the ‘cabinet council’, especially that entrusted to run the country during the king’s absence, should be small, ‘one fitted for business and not a ridiculous one’.<sup>110</sup> ‘A cabinet council of 12 or 13 men, of which no one takes himself to be particularly concerned in the general conduct of affairs, where there is neither secrecy, dispatch or credit, is a monstrous thing’, he had opined in the previous summer.<sup>111</sup> For the summer of 1694 he had persuaded the king to constitute an inner ‘war council’ consisting of the great officers of state. But the recently elevated marquess of Normanby (previously earl of Mulgrave) was now outraged that he was excluded from this inner council and was in danger of ‘infecting’ other peers. Sunderland reported to Portland his efforts, assisted by Shrewsbury, Somers and even the queen, to assuage Normanby’s ire but Normanby continued to make trouble throughout the summer and by August Sunderland could only conclude that he ‘will never be satisfied, therefore what is good ought to be done without considering what he or anybody else likes’. Sunderland also forcefully made clear to Portland, and through him to the king, on what basis the king’s administration should be established, despite his own (and the king’s) dislike of the individuals involved, ‘Whenever the government has leaned to the Whigs it has been strong, whenever the other has prevailed it has been despised’. Nevertheless, Sunderland was keeping channels open to all sides, ‘I still think all must be made use of’, and continued, ‘but in a manner not just as the king and you understand it’.<sup>112</sup></p><p>The king and his entourage stayed longer than usual on the continent and Sunderland was writing to Portland well into September with his views, making clear in a letter of 13 Sept. what the purpose of this ongoing correspondence was and Portland’s role in it: ‘I have not writ directly this year to his Majesty because I told him before he went away that what I had to say to him I would write to you and so you see I have always done’. Sunderland warned of the potential for trouble in the next session, but concluded that ‘It will be much easier this year than it was the last. The business is now in so good hands that nothing need to be done but to keep it so and to pursue the present track.<sup>113</sup></p><p>Once again ignoring Sunderland’s incessant urgings for a speedy return, the king and Portland did not return to England until 9 Nov. 1694.<sup>114</sup> A scant three days later Portland was in the House for the first day of the new session, where he came to three-fifths of the sittings. Again he appears rarely in the pages of the Lords Journal and was named to only two select committees, both of them in January 1695. One committee helped to consider the procession to be had at the queen’s funeral. Portland was strongly affected by the queen’s death. As he wrote to Capell in Ireland in January 1695, ‘our grief is too great to be silenced or to be expressed … what loss, good God, for the king, for the country, for the church, for me and my family’.<sup>115</sup></p><p>Portland’s surviving correspondence with Capell in Ireland is most plentiful in 1695-6 as the two friends and kinsmen had a great deal to discuss concerning the government of Ireland. Capell’s advocacy of summoning a new Parliament there and his efforts to negotiate with the recalcitrant leaders of the Irish Commons set him apart from his two fellow lord justices and met with the approval of the new secretary of state Shrewsbury, Sunderland and the king. It was Portland who in March 1695 was able to inform Capell that the king had decided to give him sole government over Ireland and its Parliament by making him lord deputy – a promotion Capell was to keep secret until it was formally announced in May 1695.<sup>116</sup> The new Irish Parliament first met under Capell’s government in August 1695 and proved to be harder work than the lord deputy or Portland had anticipated.<sup>117</sup></p><p>Perhaps as, or more, serious to both men was the continuing bad behaviour, always discussed in oblique terms, of the young earl of Essex. He was not obedient to the king’s wishes in Parliament where Portland had tried to guide him, even holding Essex’s proxy for two days between 21 and 23 Jan. 1695. On 2 May Portland complained to Capell that ‘there are so many occurrences where in the Parliament he distinguished himself against the wishes of all those who are for the present government’. In particular Portland lamented Essex’s vote against the Act of Grace which the king sent to Parliament on 29 Apr. 1695 and which was clearly seen by all to benefit the king’s principal adviser (after Portland), Sunderland. But Essex voted against the measure, one of the few to do so, as he continued to blame Sunderland for his father’s death in the Tower in 1683 which he regarded as murder. This, as Portland recounted, ‘seems extraordinary in someone who is a member of the royal household; everybody was surprised by it … I told him that I was very surprised by that, and particularly because my Lady Essex, his mother, and you wish to live in great friendship with him [Sunderland]’. He also stressed the potential risk to Essex if this behaviour was noted by Sunderland or, more dangerously, the king himself.<sup>118</sup> Portland’s and Capell’s concern over Essex’s behaviour continued for many months and was not mitigated by the birth of a daughter, Portland’s first grandchild, which did not seem to change the young father’s behaviour greatly.<sup>119</sup></p><p>Portland had long been resented for his influence with the king and the great wealth he was able to enjoy from that position, thought by many to have been gained by corruption and the sale of offices. He thus came to the attention of the House most noticeably towards the end of the session, during the hearings on bribery and corruption in the East India Company. On 27 Apr. 1695 both Sir Basil Firebrace<sup>‡ </sup>and a Mr. Tyssen testified before the House that Sir Josiah Child<sup>‡</sup> and Sir Thomas Cooke<sup>‡</sup> had drawn up a note for £50,000 which was to be presented to the king if he would pass a bill advantageous to the old company, but that Portland, as the king’s intermediary, refused to accept this ‘gift’ or bribe, saying that ‘the king would not meddle with it’. Tyssen further denied accusations that he had made a similar offer to Portland himself, saying that ‘If he had [done so], he must never have seen his face more’. Portland at first looked on bemusedly at the corruption proceedings being played out in Parliament, comparing the hearings to ‘a party, who having got drunk together, quarrel, and separate with bloody noses’.<sup>120</sup> He became more concerned when his own name appeared in the East India Company proceedings but confidently asserted his innocence to Robert Sutton*, 2nd Baron Lexinton, then envoy to Vienna,</p><blockquote><p>You will learn from other quarters that we are in expectation of great disclosures in our Parliament. I believe that they may very well reach some who will find it difficult to clear themselves; all that I fear is that it may delay the departure of the King for some days, otherwise I should be very glad that they should investigate this affair to the very bottom, particularly as there are malicious people who, judging me by themselves, think that it is impossible that I could be proof against £50,000, and have taken the liberty to make use of my name to hide their own knavery. It is annoying to be exposed to such an accusation here, where corruption is too general.<sup>121</sup></p></blockquote><p>However, any lessening of the resentment felt against him and his wealth because of his exoneration from the bribery allegations would have been undone shortly after. On 7 May William issued a warrant granting Portland extensive lands in Wales, the manors of Denbigh, Bromfield, Yale and Swaden, some of which were part of the hereditary estate of the Prince of Wales.<sup>122</sup></p><p>Portland and the king then left England for that summer’s campaign, but almost immediately upon his arrival Portland was greeted with a letter of 17 May from Sunderland’s associate Henry Guy recounting the strenuous opposition the grant was already facing in the treasury. Charles Montagu*, later earl of Halifax, had purposely absented himself from the proceedings on the grant, Sir Stephen Fox<sup>‡</sup> had already brought in a petition against it and Guy advised him ‘it will be best that the king do send for the report and afterwards declare to them, that he will have it done, for if it be delayed till you come back, I fear the opposition will get such strength, that it will hazard the passing it at all’.<sup>123</sup> This advice was not followed and as Guy predicted over the course of the summer petitions and resistance to the grant only increased. The first lord of the treasury Godolphin also intervened and told Portland of the objections of ‘above thirty gentlemen of the House of Commons that owned themselves concerned in this matter, besides many others whom they named that were not then in London’. He urged Portland and the king to abandon the grant, otherwise, he suggested, ‘it will be an occasion of sending up thirty or forty gentlemen to the Parliament as full of animosity and anger as one can imagine’.<sup>124</sup> Both Guy and Sunderland also kept Portland informed of the developing political situation in England and particularly Sunderland’s tentative reconciliation with the Whigs of the emerging ‘Whig Junto’, above all Wharton, Montagu and Russell, who all eventually agreed, ostensibly at least, to follow Sunderland’s parliamentary management. Another topic of conversation was the prospect for the forthcoming elections and the divisions between the country Whigs led by Paul Foley<sup>‡</sup> and the court and Junto Whigs, especially the objectionable Montagu, which damaged the prospects for the king’s management of the new Parliament. The prospects for the Whigs, divided as they were, were not good, suggested Guy, and ‘the violent Whigs do now despair of a majority to come up fully to them in Parliament and therefore now discourse everywhere that this Parliament will be best’.<sup>125</sup></p><h2><em>The Parliament of 1695</em></h2><p>Portland was closely involved in the allies’ triumphant retaking of the fortress of Namur in September and personally took custody of the French Maréchal Boufflers, arrested, despite the terms of the surrender, because Louis XIV had broken the terms of a previous agreement and had taken the garrisons of Deinze and Dixmuide. Portland maintained his usual attendance rate of around two-thirds of the sittings in the first session of the 1695 Parliament and held the proxy of the earl of Scarbrough from 10 to 13 Jan. 1696. As usual he was seldom named in the Journal in connection with the business of the House, but he was at the heart of one of the first altercations between the country Whigs led by the new Speaker Paul Foley and his associate Robert Harley*, later earl of Oxford, and the court. As Godolphin had predicted many of the new members, particularly from Wales, came up to Parliament ‘full of animosity and anger’ against the proposed grant. On 17 Jan. 1696 the Commons agreed to an address to the king urging him to stop it from passing the great seal, because ‘such a grant is in diminution of the honour and interest of the crown, by placing in a subject such large and extensive royalties, powers, and jurisdictions, which ought only to be in the crown’.<sup>126</sup> William could only give a testy response to this overwhelming opposition:</p><blockquote><p>Gentlemen, I have kindness for my Lord Portland, which he has deserved of me by long and faithful services. But I should not have given him these lands, if I had imagined the House of Commons could have been concerned. I will therefore recall the grant, and find some other way of showing my favour to him.<sup>127</sup></p></blockquote><p>William was good to his word for on 21 May 1696 he granted to Portland less noticeable and controversial lands and estates scattered throughout England – in Lincolnshire, Cumberland, Chester, Norfolk, Yorkshire, Sussex – which had been Catherine the queen dowager’s jointure lands and together were worth £4,332 p.a. By the time of Portland’s death in 1709 their value had risen to £86,643 p.a.<sup>128</sup> As far back as May 1695, at the same time as he had made the grant of the Welsh estates, William had also intended to grant Portland £1,536 worth of fee farm rents, but by September the payment for these rents was still not forthcoming and met with further difficulties in the new year.<sup>129</sup></p><p>It was to Portland that the Jacobite conspirators Fisher and Pendergrass went in February 1696 to inform him and the government of the plans to assassinate the king at Turnham Green and a projected French invasion. Despite the king’s initial scepticism, Portland was able to convince him to stay away from danger and to round up the leading conspirators, including Peter Cook and Sir John Fenwick<sup>‡</sup>. Over the following weeks he was kept informed of their interrogations by James Vernon<sup>‡</sup>.<sup>130</sup> Portland was shocked by the assassination plot and wrote to Lexinton that, ‘We were on the brink of a precipice and ready to fall, when, by a manifest interposition of providence, we were made aware of the danger which threatened us and all Europe’. He praised ‘the vigorous and energetic measures of Parliament on this occasion’, namely the Association, to which he subscribed on the very day it was passed, 27 Feb. 1696.<sup>131</sup> Indeed, to encourage more subscriptions to the Association Portland supported the compromise wording suggested by Leeds, which would substitute the confirmation of William as ‘rightful and lawful’ king with the less contentious affirmation of his ‘right by law to the crown of this realm’.<sup>132</sup> Other than his subscription his name does not appear in the Journal of the House in connection with business during this session, not even as a nominee to any select committee.</p><p>Portland joined William III on the continental campaign again in the summer of 1696 but was sent back to England in late July for the onerous task of raising £300,000 to enable William to continue the war, as funds were rapidly dwindling during England’s liquidity crisis. Portland arrived on 26 July and immediately sent an express to Sunderland and the lords justices to convene at Whitehall with him on the crisis; Somers’s hasty departure from a church service caused much comment and alarm about the nature of the crisis.<sup>133</sup> Thus back in England Portland could, for the first time in his English career, actually attend the House as a commissioner for the prorogation on 28 July, at a time when he and the lords justices were debating the feasibility of convening Parliament during the king’s absence to raise additional funds. It was decided that this was impractical, particularly given the continued divisions among the Whigs which were recounted to him in detail by Sunderland and others. Portland, Shrewsbury and Godolphin began negotiations with the directors of the new Land Bank. When these failed Portland and his colleagues turned to the Bank of England, which on 14 Aug. was able to provide £200,000 so that Portland could embark for the continent, ‘carrying with him bills for considerable sums of money’, enough to see the troops into winter quarters at the end of that campaign.<sup>134</sup> This incident further tightened the bond between Portland and the group now being called the ‘Junto’ – particularly Montagu, Somers, and Baron Wharton (as he had become in February 1696) – despite whatever misgivings the king may have had about them.</p><p>One result of this mission was Portland’s closer relationship with Shrewsbury, whom he praised to the king for his valuable assistance in this matter.<sup>135</sup> Complimentary letters passed between them and in one of 8 Sept. 1696, when Portland was back at Loo, he rejoiced in his new understanding with Shrewsbury and revealed a self-awareness of aspects of his own character which had previously caused him trouble in the English political world:</p><blockquote><p>Ever since I had the honour to know you, I have perceived a coldness and reserve towards me, which I wished not to deserve; but rather than attribute it to you, I have concluded that I was myself the cause of it, being sufficiently just to myself, to know part of my failings. But as we cannot control those which arise from nature, and which are born with us, I have deemed the evil incurable, and have merely paid to the minister and secretary of state, the respect which was due to him, without troubling myself farther. But as it is the will of fortune, that you should personally testify to me your approbation of my conduct, and express your satisfaction with it, I assure you, sir, that I shall return the same cordiality, and that this cold and reserved disposition, which I frankly avow, shall wholly vanish after the candour which you have had the goodness to promise me. I will request some indulgence in regard to my judgment, but none respecting my integrity; and I shall not solicit your friendship, until I shall have taken the first step to render myself worthy of it.<sup>136</sup></p></blockquote><p>This letter was almost certainly written after Portland, having returned to the king’s side in Flanders, was made aware of the allegations of Jacobite conspiracy made by Sir John Fenwick against Shrewsbury, Godolphin, Marlborough and Russell. The accusations which had been sent to William for his eyes only by the lord steward, Devonshire, who had received Fenwick’s written ‘confession’ in confidence on 10 August. These allegations were not new to William III, who had long known of his ministers’ shadowy negotiations with St Germain and decided to overlook them. To reassure the anxious Shrewsbury in particular he sent him a copy of the allegations with a covering letter affirming his continued support. Portland too on 1 Sept. quickly wrote to Shrewsbury to reassure him that ‘the little appearance of sincerity in that man is sufficiently manifest in his accusing persons, on whom the king has so much reason to repose confidence’.<sup>137</sup> Shrewsbury replied on 8 Sept. 1696 insisting that</p><blockquote><p>Sir John Fenwick’s story is as wonderful to me, as if he had accused me of coining. However I shall always acknowledge the king’s great goodness and generosity in the manner he has received the information, and your lordship’s friendship, in not permitting so foul a thought of your humble servant to receive credit one moment in your breast.<sup>138</sup></p></blockquote><p>Portland instead turned his ire towards Devonshire whom he thought had been too lenient and too apt to give credit to Fenwick. He felt that if it ‘had been possible to prevent access to him [Fenwick], he would have spoken quite another language’ and if Fenwick ‘had not unfortunately addressed himself to Lord Devonshire, and if from the beginning he had been spoken to as he ought to have been, I think he would not have had either leisure or inclination to invent the tales which he has told’. Throughout September it was Portland who managed the Fenwick affair from the king’s side and it was to him that Shrewsbury addressed his letters detailing the prisoner’s repeated promises of further allegations and the insistence of his wife that her husband be heard by Devonshire alone. To Portland, all this smacked of a deliberate attempt by Fenwick to delay his trial by making unfounded accusations, and always promising more. ‘I hope that no more delay will be allowed him, and that he will be tried before the arrival of the king’, Portland commented on 24 Sept. – at the same time that Fenwick had procured another postponement of his trial with a confession targeting better-known Jacobites.<sup>139</sup></p><p>After Portland’s return with the king in early October 1696 he was immediately thrown into discussions with the ministers and the Junto on how best to deal with Fenwick’s claims.<sup>140</sup> In particular, he consulted with the lord keeper, Somers, and James Vernon, who was acting in the capital as Shrewsbury’s agent. Shrewsbury himself was incapacitated and unable to come to London.<sup>141</sup> This development greatly concerned both the king and Portland, as they saw Shrewsbury’s presence as vital to rebuff Fenwick’s allegations; his absence could be, and was, interpreted as an admission of guilt. To make matters worse, Shrewsbury chose this time of his illness to tender his resignation as secretary of state once again; a decision from which Portland strenuously tried to dissuade him.<sup>142</sup> A central issue for Portland and the Whig ministers was whether the king should hear what Fenwick had to say; however, the king and his ministers were still convinced that Fenwick was merely trying to postpone his trial and that the further information he was offering was unlikely to be of any value. The disappearance of a vital witness confirmed their view. It became imperative that the allegations against Shrewsbury and others be discredited and ministers concluded that the best way to effect this was through the drastic measure of a bill of attainder against Fenwick. This became the most controversial business in the parliamentary session that opened on 20 Oct. 1696. Portland attended a full two-thirds of this session and was named to four select committees. He acted as a manager in the House to see the bill through, despite his colleague Sunderland’s own reservations against the move. On 26 Nov., the day after it had passed the Commons and was on its way to the Lords, Portland told Vernon that, after examining a list of the lords in the house, he and his fellow ministers ‘judged the bill would pass by a majority of about fifteen, not including the bishops, where there would be a majority for it likewise’. Portland was also taking steps to ensure that the king would be present at the debates in the House on the bill.<sup>143</sup> Vernon soon after reported that ‘my Lord Portland is very hearty and industrious in this matter, and does not stick to speak to any one my lord keeper [Somers] desires’ concerning support for the bill, and on 1 Dec. he expressed ‘a better opinion of the bill’s passing than yesterday’. <sup>144</sup> Despite this confidence, it was not a smooth passage for the bill. Portland voted in favour of the close division at its third reading on 23 Dec. 1696, when even some government ministers such as Devonshire and Godolphin opposed it.<sup>145</sup> Portland appeared tangentially in the further evidence regarding the interference of Charles Mordaunt*, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough), in the proceedings against Fenwick. Evidence given on 9 and 15 Jan. 1697 revealed that part of Monmouth’s scheme for Fenwick’s defence was for him to demand that intercepted letters from James II and Mary of Modena to Godolphin be laid before the House and that Portland and Romney be summoned to give evidence on the rumours of ‘great presents’ sent from people in England to the former queen in France. Monmouth had also been patronizing an importunate informer, Matthew Smith, who was prepared to charge Shrewsbury with stifling his reports of Jacobite activity in England. Portland had also been trying to manage Smith and to get him out of the country to silence him.<sup>146</sup> To forestall these further allegations against Shrewsbury, the king gave Portland permission to present to the House the letters Smith had sent to him and the king, and on 18 Jan. 1697 he was named to the large committee entrusted to examine these papers – one of his few committee nominations of the session. <sup>147</sup> On 20 Jan., with Fenwick executed and Smith’s letters discredited, he was able to write with relief to the still absent Shrewsbury, ‘all is now finished, entirely to your advantage … I could not delay congratulating you’.<sup>148</sup></p><p>On 10 Feb. 1697 Portland’s rival Arnold Joos van Keppel*, was raised to the peerage as earl of Albemarle. This marked the pinnacle of the rapid rise in favour of this young, handsome and sociable Dutchman at William’s court. Particularly after the death of the queen, William turned increasingly to the pleasant, diverting company of Keppel for solace – which inevitably gave rise to allegations of more illicit activities between them among William’s enemies. William’s grant to Portland of the Welsh estates in May 1695 had most likely been an attempt to assuage Portland’s growing jealousy of this rival at court. In May 1695 Albemarle was promoted to the mastership of the robes, replacing another of William’s childhood companions and veteran Dutch followers, William Henry van Nassau van Zuylestein*, who in compensation for his removal was himself created earl of Rochford. <sup>149</sup> The rivalry and animosity between Portland and Albemarle caused by William’s clear preference for the younger and more affable man became increasingly open and bitter and almost led to a duel between them in November 1696 in the king’s presence.<sup>150</sup> Gilbert Burnet watched this growing feud between the two Dutch favourites with some surprise, ‘they being in all respects men, not only of different, but of opposite characters: secrecy and fidelity were the only qualities in which it could be said that they did in any sort agree’. To Burnet, Keppel ‘was not cold nor dry, as the earl of Portland was thought to be; who seemed to have the art of creating many enemies to himself, and not one friend: but the earl of Albemarle had all the arts of a court, was civil to all, and procured many favours’.<sup>151</sup></p><p>Keppel’s elevation to an earldom was too much for Portland, and in March 1697 he asked to resign from William’s service. The king implored him to desist from ‘the cruel resolution they have told me that you have asked to leave my service’ and, invoking ‘the good and faithful services you have done for me during the thirty-three years you have been with me’, insisted that if Portland really was intent on this resolution he should serve him for at least another year, to which Portland apparently agreed.<sup>152</sup> To soften the blow and perhaps dissuade him from his resolution, William showered Portland with more honours, grants and offices. Perhaps as a direct counterweight to Keppel’s elevation into the peerage, on 19 Feb. 1697 Portland was nominated a knight of the garter, ‘to show that he is still preferred a step above [Albemarle]’, Vernon commented to Shrewsbury.<sup>153</sup> In early March the king made Portland ranger of Windsor Great Park, an office worth £1,500 p.a. with the Windsor Great Park Lodge included, which quickly became Portland’s favourite residence, away from the court which he was beginning to find so distasteful.<sup>154</sup> The king also set in motion the procedures to grant Portland the large forfeited estate in Ireland of the Jacobite Donough McCarthy, 4th earl of Clancarty [I], which consisted of about 135,000 acres and was estimated to be worth about £25,000 p.a. as well as the reversion of the Irish estates of James II’s former mistress, the countess of Dorchester<em>. </em>Furthermore, at this time Portland engaged in negotiations with Somers on the matter of fee farm rents which had been promised to them both. Through May 1697 Portland and Somers haggled, very politely, over their competing claims, but Somers was always at pains to insist that Portland had priority and that he did not wish to displease the king or his most trusted servant and delayed accepting his own grant until the matter was settled.<sup>155</sup> In June, as the summer’s campaign was underway, Portland was also made general of the English horse, even though he was seriously ill and away from the front at Brussels at the time.<sup>156</sup></p><p>Despite this wealth of honours, Portland was still disgruntled with the king’s favour towards Albemarle. As he made clear to the king in a letter of 30 May from his sickbed in Brussels, it was not for his own sake and feelings of jealousy that he wished to leave William’s service but:</p><blockquote><p>it is your honour which is close to my heart, and the favour which your majesty shows to a young man and the manner by which it appears to justify his liberties and his pride, makes the world say things which it shames me to hear …. I believed that it was only the malicious in England who fabricated these bloody [<em>sanglantes</em>] things but I have been struck as if by thunder when I saw that The Hague and the Army spread [<em>fournissoit</em>] the same stories and tarnished a reputation which has never been subject to such attacks.<sup>157</sup></p></blockquote><p>Similar rumours and allegations of homosexuality had long been levelled by the regime’s enemies against the king and Portland. That Portland was so shocked by them and so concerned for the king’s reputation, and that the king in his angry answer to Portland’s letter could also expressed outrage at such allegations of ‘criminal’ acts, suggests that there is little foundation to the claims by the regime’s enemies – or by later historians.<sup>158</sup></p><p>Portland agreed to serve William for another year, as the king had asked him to do in March.<sup>159</sup> It was an important decision because in the following weeks Portland entered into perhaps his most important, and certainly most renowned, service for the king, for which he gained an international reputation. With the long-running peace talks at Ryswick between the allies and France having stalled, throughout the month of July Portland, as a personal representative of William, met secretly in a series of conferences with Louis XIV’s agent, the French marshal Boufflers. They hashed out some of the outstanding points regarding Louis XIV’s recognition of William III as king of England and the continuing residence of James II on French soil.<sup>160</sup> With these problems settled, the formal negotiations could make progress, with Portland now taking an acti |
