styled 1665-80 Lord Butler; suc. fa. 30 July 1680 as Bar. BUTLER OF MOORE PARK; styled 1680-88 earl of Ossory [I]; suc. grandmother 24 July 1684 as Bar. of Dingwall [S]; suc. grandfa. 21 July 1688 as 2nd duke of ORMOND
First sat 19 May 1685; last sat 1 June 1715
b. 29 Apr. 1665, 2nd but 1st surv. son of Thomas Butler, Bar. Butler of Moore Park, styled earl of Ossory [I], and Amilia, da. of Lodewyk van Nassau, Herr van Beverweerd; bro. of Charles Butler, Bar. Butler of Weston. educ. travelled abroad (Orange, France) 1678;1 Christ Church, Oxf. 1679, MA 1680, DCL 1683; MA (Dublin) 1680, LLB and LLD 1681; M. Temple 1683. m. (1) 20 July 1682, Anne (d. 1685), da. of Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, 2da. (d.v.p.); (2) 3 Aug. 1685, Mary (d. 1733), da. of Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort, 1s. (d.v.p.), ?4da. (3 d.v.p.); 1s. illegit.2 KG 1688–1715. d. 5 Nov. 1745.
Gent. of bedchamber 1685–8, 1689–99; ld. high constable 1689; PC [I], 1690–?1715; PC 9 Apr. 1696–Sept. 1714; ld. lt. Ire. 1703–7, 1710–13.
Freeman, Preston 1682;3 steward, honour of Tutbury 1683–92;4 ld. lt. Som. 1691–1714; ld. lt. Norf. 1713; high steward, Westminster 1688–1715; high steward, Bristol 1688–1715;5 high steward, Exeter 1697–1715;6 constable Dover Castle and ld. warden Cinque Ports 1713–14.7
Col. of horse [I], 1683, 1703–13; col. Ft. Gds. 1686;8 col. 2nd tp. Lifeguards 1689–1712; col. 1st Ft. Gds. 1712; major-gen. 1692; lieut.-gen. 1694; gen. of horse 1702; c.-in-c. and capt.-gen. 1712.
Chan. Oxford 1688–1715; chan. Dublin 1688–1715; gov. Charterhouse 1688–1715.
Mbr. Bristol Society of Merchant Venturers 1685.9
Likenesses: oil on canvas by or after M. Dahl, NPG 78; oil on canvas by W. Gandy, National Maritime Museum; oil on canvas by Sir G. Kneller, National Trust, Hardwick Hall; mezzotint by J. Smith, after Kneller, NPG D3778; mezzotint by J. Smith, after Kneller, NPG 5727.
An apprentice peer, 1660–88
Butler was a scion of the leading Anglo-Irish family in the seventeenth century. Family tradition marked him out as the proponent of an old-style Cavalier ethos: Protestant, open and generous. As well as a distinctive High Church Tory political style, he inherited crippling financial troubles, which his vast expenditure made worse. On his mother’s side, he also had an entrée into Dutch society, which placed him in a position to gain considerably from the Orangeist Revolution of 1688, albeit at some cost to his loyalist reputation. He maintained a dual role in the Augustan polity, as a soldier and a courtier politician, serving twice as lord lieutenant of Ireland. Eventually, the pressure of events was to force him into exile, and a long association with the Jacobite cause.
As early as 1678, Butler’s grandfather, James Butler, duke of Ormond, was taking a keen interest in the education of his grandson, and likely eventual heir. His concern in moving him from Orange to France and then to Oxford was to make him ‘a good Christian, a good and useful subject and an honest man’. He was settled in Oxford by late February 1679, under the watchful eye of John Fell, bishop of Oxford. Likewise, the old duke made plain his opposition to an early marriage for his grandson with Lady Elizabeth Percy, the Northumberland heiress. After the death of his father, Butler, now styled earl of Ossory, became the direct heir to the Ormond patrimony and his grandfather’s interest intensified. The old duke became even more concerned with securing the family’s future, and hence heavily involved in the negotiations surrounding his grandson’s marriage. In May 1680, the fortune offered by the younger daughter of Simon Bennet of Buckinghamshire was under consideration. Bennet was a relative of Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington, and had the advantage of offering a large cash sum with his daughter.10
In September 1680, the daughter of the recently deceased John Poulett, 3rd Baron Poulett, was offered as a possible spouse by her uncle Colonel Edward Cooke, as was Lady Catherine Cavendish, one of the daughters of Henry Cavendish, 2nd duke of Newcastle.11 Meanwhile, Ormond decided to take a closer look at his grandson, sending for him into Ireland in September 1680, with the intention that Ossory spend the winter there. At the beginning of January 1681, Ormond seems to have rejected the Bennet match and to have resolved to keep his grandson with him until an appropriate governor could be retained for an overseas tour. Both the Bennet and Cavendish matches continued to be considered well into 1682, especially the first when Arlington was able to show the king an agreement he had made with Bennet in February 1682, on the pretext of asking if the king had anyone else in mind for Ossory.12 In the event, Ossory married Lady Anne Hyde on 20 July 1682 in the chapel at Burlington House. This was a favourable match, both politically and financially. She was the daughter of the future earl of Rochester, a rising politician and the brother-in-law of James Stuart, duke of York, who had initially suggested the alliance to Ormond.13 She commanded a portion of £15,000, which was higher than originally thought possible by the Butlers.14 The marriage produced two daughters (assuming that the child christened Mary, who was buried in the Hyde vault in Westminster Abbey in February 1688, was the daughter of his first wife), who both died young.15
As Ossory proceeded towards his majority, honours were bestowed upon him. In August 1682 he was allowed the rights of precedency due to the son of a duke of Ireland, and in September 1682 there was some talk of him succeeding to the garter of John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale.16 He was admitted a freeman of Preston in September 1682, along with his grandfather and brother, and to the Middle Temple on 9 Feb. 1683, along with his grandfather.17 Ossory was also much in society, joining York’s train in a tour of Oxfordshire houses in May 1683.18
An adventurous voyage to Calais in one of the yachts of Peregrine Osborne, Viscount Dumblane [S], the future 2nd duke of Leeds, in late March 1684 may have persuaded Ormond in April to allow Ossory to attend the French campaign, ‘to remove him from a very idle, slothful way of life’, although he thought joining other nobles at the camp of the French army likely ‘to be more chargeable to me than instructive to him’.19 Ossory returned to England in the second week of July, preparatory to accompanying his grandfather to Ireland, and by the middle of August he was resident in Dublin.20 At least one writer believed that the ‘chief cause of the duke’s going is to fix the young family in that country’.21 This was a particular responsibility of the young Lady Ossory, who had to take over the management of family affairs from the recently deceased duchess of Ormond.22 By the death of his grandmother, Ossory became baron of Dingwall in the Scottish peerage, a title he seems to have taken little cognizance of until after the Union.
By October 1684, Charles II had come to a decision to replace Ormond as the lord lieutenant of Ireland with Rochester.23 While the exact timing of Rochester’s take-over and arrival remained unclear, Ormond suggested that Ossory and his wife remain in Dublin when he returned to London.24 Such plans were disrupted by the death of Ossory’s wife, in Dublin on 25 Jan. 1685, followed in February by the death of Charles II. The latter event necessitated Ormond’s presence in London, and he duly sailed with Ossory for England on 20 Mar. 1685.25 Their smooth progress to court was curtailed when Ossory was struck down with smallpox at the end of March and had to be left to recuperate at Knowsley, the Lancashire residence of his brother-in-law William Stanley, 9th earl of Derby.26
The accession of James II did not alter Ormond’s political position, although his replacement in the viceroyalty was not Rochester but the latter’s brother, Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon. Ossory continued to rise to positions in keeping with his social rank. He was appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber on 16 May 1685. He was also issued with a writ on 14 May to attend the Parliament called following the accession of James II. As Baron Butler of Moore Park he duly attended on the opening day of the session on 19 May, aged 20, and took the oaths. When the Lords next sat, on 22 May, Francis Newport, Viscount Newport, successfully proposed a motion that all the peers under the age of 21 should be ordered to withdraw until they had obtained their majority, and this brought his attendance to an end for that session.27 He had sat for just one day.
As Ossory was now a young widower, without a male heir, attempts were soon underway to find him another wife. As early as February 1685, Sir Robert Southwell‡ had been engaged in a project to marry him to the duke of Beaufort’s daughter, Lady Mary Somerset.28 The Butlers made use of the parliamentary session to procure an act to enable Ossory to make a jointure should he marry again. The bill received its first reading on 27 May 1685 and was reported by Clarendon, on 1 June, with two amendments. The Commons then passed the bill without amendments and returned it on 13 June, by Sir James Butler‡, a member of the extended Butler family, and a client of Ormond. This was clearly a precursor to Ossory’s second marriage at Badminton on 3 Aug. 1685. The couple had at least five children, but only one son, who died in February 1689.
When the 1685 Parliament resumed on 16 Nov. 1685, Ossory was excused attendance because he was still underage. The death of his uncle the earl of Arran, Richard Butler, Baron Butler in the English peerage, in January 1686 occasioned some dispute over his will, and the estates which fell to Ossory. One assessment of Arran’s estate suggested debts of just over £16,800, with an income (optimistically forecast) of £4,450 p.a. With interest and other payments of just over £2,000, this left an annual income due to Ossory of about £2,437.29 However, there was considerable uncertainty, probably occasioned by the debt. Legal opinions were collected about the implications of Arran’s will from Richard Nagle, Lord Chief Justice Keating and others.30 Ormond was reported to have devolved all his right and title in Arran’s estate to Ossory, but ‘how far Lady Arran will agree to an administration of his choosing, is doubtful’.31 The agreement apparently worked out was that, apart from £800 p.a., most of the estate would be applied to the payment of Arran’s debts, Ossory being the ultimate beneficiary of the estate.32
On 29 Jan. 1686, Ossory received a commission to be colonel of a regiment of the Irish foot guards, in succession to his uncle Arran, an appointment received with general satisfaction according to Clarendon.33 Despite this evidence of royal favour, Ossory now spent a considerable amount of time in attendance on his new wife and his ageing grandfather. Indeed, in April 1686, one of the correspondents of John Ellis‡ thought that Ossory ‘grows more shy than before of the court’, and in June Francis Gwyn‡ remarked that he was ‘so wedded to the country and his lady, that we seldom see him here’ in London.34 This was perhaps understandable as the young countess of Ossory was pregnant. Their son, Thomas, was born on 24 Sept. 1686, and baptized at St James’s with Ormond and Beaufort as godfathers.35
Ossory, having now attained his majority, attended the prorogation on 15 Feb. 1687. He continued to divide his time between waiting on the king and retreating back to his family in the country, although he did attend James II during his tour of the north-west in the autumn of 1687.36 This may indicate unease with the politics of the court because in about November 1687 Ossory was listed as an opponent of the repeal of the Test Act, and at around the same time Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, listed him as an opponent of James II in the Lords. Further evidence of his position on the political spectrum comes from June 1688, when Henry Compton, bishop of London, suggested Ossory as a surety for William Lloyd, bishop of St Asaph, one of the seven bishops.37
Revolution 1688–9
Ossory succeeded his grandfather on 21 July 1688, and steps were taken immediately to ensure that his political position was secured. The dean and chapter of Westminster were approached to choose the new duke as their high steward, and duly did so, although ‘other Lords were put up in competition with him but none of the rest had above one third of the voices’. Similarly, the University of Oxford moved rapidly to choose Ormond as their new chancellor, on 23 July, before the king could send a mandate imposing someone more sympathetic to his religious objectives. In this case he defeated Halifax by 188 votes to 45.38 Rochester was then despatched to the king to secure royal acquiescence, and Ormond was duly installed at a specially summoned convocation held in Northumberland House on 23 August.39 The king having allowed both the Westminster and Oxford elections to stand, on 8 Sept. Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, informed Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel [I], that Ormond’s election as chancellor of Dublin University was also confirmed.40 On 13 Sept. he was chosen a governor of Charterhouse, with both Clarendon and Rochester among the electors.41 Other offices that had been held by his grandfather were not handed down to Ormond, including the lord stewardship. Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, thought this one of the reasons for Ormond’s actions later in 1688. One of Ellis’s correspondents thought that the old duke’s garter would be withheld from his grandson as ‘a sort of rod over the young gentleman’s head, and his merit in next Parliament shall get or lose it’.42
Ailesbury later recollected that it was in about August 1688 that Ormond had almost let him into the secret of the design against James II, only to be dissuaded from confiding in him by the more cautious Thomas Maule, groom of the bedchamber to Prince George, of Denmark. As well as disappointment over office, Ailesbury attributed Ormond’s involvement to the promptings of the zealous James Douglas, styled Lord Drumlanrig, the future 2nd duke of Queensberry.43 Ormond’s involvement is confirmed by George Byng†, the future Viscount Torrington, a prominent conspirator in the navy, who recorded meeting Ormond in London in order to discuss the recruitment of men to their cause.44 In any event, Ormond had many links with the prince of Orange, through his mother, a member of an illegitimate branch of the House of Orange, and his father, who had been a great favourite of the prince.45
James II’s turn to the Tories in the autumn of 1688 saw reports that Ormond would inherit his grandfather’s garter, Roger Morrice noting that he ‘has been educated by the Tories, and is looked upon as a very principal pillar of that party’. He was among those Tories who subscribed the petition for a free Parliament on 16 Nov. 1688. Ormond then deserted from the army, together with Prince George, Drumlanrig and Henry Boyle†, the future Baron Carleton, joining Prince William on 24 Nov. 1688, and causing Tyrconnel to brand him as the ‘first rebel of your family’.46 On 21 Dec. Ormond attended the gathering of peers in the queen’s presence chamber, when the prince of Orange addressed them on the procedures needed to call a free Parliament. He was also present at meetings of peers held in the Lords on 22, 24 and 25 Dec. 1688.47
Ormond attended on the opening day of the Convention, 22 Jan. 1689, and was appointed to attend Prince William in order to ascertain when both Houses of Parliament could present him with their joint address of thanks. On 25 Jan. Ormond and Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, introduced George Fitzroy, duke of Northumberland, into the House. Nevertheless, Ormond was not such a convinced supporter of the Williamite Revolution as his early support for the prince might suggest. Ailesbury had noted the influence of his former father-in-law, Rochester, on the young duke, even though Ormond had remarried.48 He was also connected, through Prince George, to the court of Princess Anne. Thus, on 29 Jan. 1689, he voted for the resolution that a regency was the best way to preserve the Protestant religion and the nation’s laws, a motion carried by only three votes. Morrice reported that Ormond had voted that way, ‘though he had received such badges of respects from the Prince’.49
Ormond remained consistent in his attitude, voting on 31 Jan. 1689, in the committee of the whole House, against declaring William and Mary king and queen. On 4 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons in using the word ‘abdicated’ rather than ‘deserted’, and was appointed to draw up reasons for a conference on the matter. On 5 Feb. he was named to manage the resultant conference; the following day he voted against agreeing with the Commons that James II had ‘abdicated’ the throne, and was noted as a dissentient. The king was not deterred by these votes from further favouring Ormond and at the end of February 1689 he was appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber.50 Furthermore, according to later accounts, his secret service pension of £2,500 p.a. was paid from 13 Feb. 1689.51 He took the oaths on 2 March. On 5 Apr. he was installed as a knight of the garter, and on 11 Apr. he acted as lord high constable at the coronation of William and Mary.
Back in the House, on 9 Apr. 1689 Ormond and Beaufort introduced Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, into the House, and on the 20 Apr. Ormond performed the same duty with Somerset for the duke of Cumberland, the title under which Prince George took his seat. On 22 Apr. 1689, George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton, registered his proxy with Ormond. On 22 May Ormond was excused attendance following a call of the House. On 31 May he voted against reversing the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. He was granted leave to go beyond the sea on the king’s service on 3 June and sat for the last time that session on 6 June, depositing his proxy with Rochester on the following day, and reportedly leaving for Flanders on 8 June.52 Rochester duly cast his proxy on 30 July 1689 in favour of the Lords adhering to their amendments to the bill reversing the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. In total, Ormond attended on 57 days during the 1689 session (35 per cent of the sittings) and was named to nine committees.
Meanwhile, proceedings in the Commons proved to be of great interest to Ormond. At the report of the committee appointed to consider the distressed condition of Irish Protestants on 16 May 1689, it was noted that Ormond had not been included in any of the lists compiled of such people, and consequently it was resolved that the committee appointed to draw up the resultant address be instructed to ask the king to take particular notice of his plight. On 22 May, the address reported from the committee included a paragraph asking the king to favour Ormond owing to his ‘great merits and sufferings’. After being recommitted twice, this address was finally agreed on 15 June, complete with the special recommendation of Ormond. The king’s response, on the 19th, was to promise his assistance when the House furnished him with the means so to do.
By mid-July 1689, Ormond was on campaign, attracting the favourable notice of Prince Waldeck, and in August distinguishing himself at the battle of Till.53 He was at The Hague by the end of October, and back in London at the end of the first week in November 1689.54 His military duties had seen him excused attendance following a call of the House on 28 October. He first attended the 1689–90 session on 6 Nov. 1689, and in all was present on 29 days, nearly 40 per cent of the total, and was named to two committees. In a list drawn up between October 1689 and February 1690, Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen classed him as among the supporters of the court. Again, the Commons may have interested Ormond more than business in the Lords. On 31 Dec. the lower House ordered a clause to be added to the bill attainting those in rebellion in Ireland, vesting in Ormond ‘all estates made by him, or his ancestors, to any tenants, and all monies issuing out of, or mortgages, charges, or encumbrances upon, the said duke’s estate, to any person, who are in rebellion against their majesties’. A draft clause was prepared, but the bill never emerged from committee.55
Reign of William and Mary 1690–4
Ormond attended on the opening day of the 1690 Parliament, 20 March. He was present on 26 days during the session (48 per cent of the sittings) and was named to three committees. He was excused attendance on 31 Mar. 1690 following a call of the House. Ormond accompanied King William to Chester in June 1690, embarking with him for Ireland, and serving during the campaign.56 On 19 July the king and the court dined at Kilkenny, after Ormond had travelled there and ‘found his house unrifled, by the particular order of count Lausun’, the French commander.57 Ormond was back in London in time to be present on the first day that Parliament sat, 2 Oct. 1690, and attended on 38 days during the session, 50 per cent of the total, and was named to five committees. On 6 Oct. he voted for the discharged of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough from their imprisonment in the Tower. He was appointed to the Irish Privy Council on 6 Nov. 1690.
The gains to be made – or in Ormond’s case, the losses to be recouped – again focused his attention on Irish forfeitures. In particular, he was keen to exercise his right under his county palatinate jurisdiction to the forfeitures of rebels in co. Tipperary. To this end, he approached the king, who referred his request to the commissioners for forfeited estates; they denied that they had the power to determine the matter, so at the beginning of December 1690 Ormond petitioned the Irish lords justices for an order permitting his officers to seize the goods and estates forfeited within his county palatine, and for the commissioners to restore what they had seized. They promptly passed on his petition to the judges to consider and report, which presumably they did, for there is evidence that Ormond successfully protected his rights.58 The need for a decision in his favour was made clear by the proceedings in the Commons, which was considering a bill for attainting persons in rebellion in England or Ireland, and for confiscating their estates for the use of the war. To Ormond’s advisers, this meant that there was a need to safeguard his rights under his county palatinate jurisdiction. This bill passed the Commons on 23 Dec. 1690, and on 3 Jan. 1691 Sir John Temple‡ wrote a letter advising that Ormond should attempt to obtain a proviso in the Lords safeguarding his rights.59 However, the bill failed to pass in the Lords.60 Meanwhile, at the end of the session on 5 Jan. 1691, a warrant was signed for Ormond to replace Maurice Berkeley‡, 3rd Viscount Fitzhardinge [I], as lord lieutenant of Somerset, an office he retained until December 1714.61
The background to all this activity was Ormond’s deteriorating financial position, which the Irish campaign made much worse through his inability to collect any rents. First, there was the debt inherited from his grandfather, which in May 1688 stood at £98,500 and required interest payments of £6,000 p.a.62 A broader overview of September 1690, taking into account money owed to the old duke’s other grandchildren and other liabilities, extended the debt to almost £160,000, which required just over £12,000 to service. Then there were the debts of Ormond himself, which in September 1690 were calculated at about £30,000. So, in September 1690 Ormond’s total debts were calculated at £188,637 9s. 5d. and yearly outgoings at £21,116 10s. 7d.63 His commitments now also included financial support for his brother, Charles, and two sisters, Emilia and Henrietta.64 His rental income in March 1692 was estimated optimistically at just over £24,000; but the receivers’ accounts for 1690–1 revealed an income of just over £17,000 p.a.65
Having regained control of his estates, Ormond was faced with how to manage them effectively, given that he was essentially an absentee owner. As Israel Feilding wrote in November 1691, ‘I could heartily wish that the duke of Ormond would take a little more of himself on this side, for I fear his fortune under a very negligent way of management.’66 At the end of 1691 Ormond appointed a commission, headed by Francis Aungier‡, earl of Longford [I], to manage his estates.67 This marked a reversion to original arrangements once adopted by the first duke, who had eventually found this system wanting and instituted management by a single person.68
In late May 1691 Ormond was reported to be going to Flanders, where he served in the campaign.69 He attended the Lords on 56 days during the session of 1691–2 (55.5 per cent of the total) and was named to three committees. On 11 Nov. Ormond and Northumberland introduced Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans, into the House. Meanwhile, at the end of October Ormond was rumoured to be in competition with Rochester and Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney, for the lord lieutenancy of Ireland.70 In Ailesbury’s view Ormond wished to be lord lieutenant principally for financial reasons, noting that he had been persuaded to stay in the army only by his sister, the countess of Derby, now serving as groom of the stole to the queen, who provided the finance for his equipage.71
On 9 Feb. 1692, George Rodney Brydges‡ presented a clause to the Commons on Ormond’s behalf to be added to the Irish forfeitures bill.72 This clause enabled the king to grant him any of the estates forfeited by the act within Ormond’s county palatine, and alluded to the enduring problem that Ormond faced after being deprived of his estate in Ireland, which had rendered him ‘in a great measure uncapable to discharge the great encumbrances whereunto his estate is liable, all his estate being and lying within that kingdom’.73 Despite passing the Commons, this bill also fell in the Lords when Parliament was prorogued.74
Ormond’s close relations to Prince George were highlighted in February 1692, when he was one of those who paid a visit to Princess Anne at Sion House. This friendship was also used by the king, who got Ormond to convey to the princess of Denmark a peremptory message that she should remove the countess of Marlborough from her house. Towards the end of March 1692 Ormond left England to join the campaign, arriving in Flanders at the beginning of April.75 The limits to the power of some of Ormond’s honorific posts were revealed while he was abroad. He sent a recommendation to the dean and chapter of Westminster that they choose Sir Charles O’Hara as head bailiff of the city, but they opted for a Mr Knipe instead.76 This decision seemed to irk Ormond considerably, while the duchess expressed her disappointment at not being informed earlier, believing ‘I would have been quick enough for my Lord Rochester, if I had known it.’77
In May 1692, Longford, one of Ormond’s trustees for managing his estates, again put forward the idea that Ormond obtain a grant of ‘all forfeitures within his own estate’, in order to forestall other applicants, or indeed the grants being blocked once their value had been ascertained. Another of Longford’s schemes for maximizing Ormond’s income revolved around the patent that had been granted by Charles II to his uncle Arran for coining farthings, the profits of which appeared to have been diverted by the nominal grantee, Sir John Knox, and his executor, Roger More. In June 1692 Longford favoured obtaining a fresh grant and applying the profits to pay off Arran’s debts.78
Ormond returned to England with the king in October 1692, and received a sobering analysis of his finances from Longford. For the year ending in May 1693, Ormond could expect rental income of just over £21,000 (excluding the butlerage and prizage, assigned to Sir Stephen Fox‡), of which deductions for ‘my wife’s jointure and the list of interest for your debts, pensions and annuities’ amounted to just over £8,000, leaving a shortfall of just under £12,900. He then issued a warning of the dire consequences of defaulting on his interest payments to his creditors.79
Ormond attended on 25 days during the session of 1692–3, 23 per cent of the total, and was named to two committees. His prolonged absence between 22 Nov. 1692 and 11 Jan. 1693 was partly covered by the issue of a proxy, to Rochester, on 6 Dec. 1692. Rochester duly cast his proxy on 3 Jan. 1693 against the motion to pass the place bill. Ormond was back in the House to vote Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder on 4 Feb. 1693.
The duke came gradually to see the virtue of a single person taking charge of his affairs in Ireland. In March 1693 he reorganized the management of his estates, appointing a former baron of the exchequer in Ireland, William Worth, the sole manager, and thereby superseding the commission he had set up following his grandfather’s death.80 At the end of March, Ormond’s dissatisfaction over his failure to be made governor of the Isle of Wight, or to receive a promotion in the army, saw him offer to surrender his commission, using the excuses that the campaign would be a great charge to him, and that his affairs required his presence in Ireland. After the king asked him to reconsider, Ormond relented and joined him on campaign.81
He embarked at Gravesend with the king on 31 March 1693.82 Wounded and captured at the battle of Landen, he was exchanged for James Fitzjames, duke of Berwick.83 He recovered quickly from his wounds and was able to return to England with the king in October 1693.84 He attended the Lords on 49 days during the session of 1693–4, just over 37 per cent of the sittings and was named to three committees. Ormond again spent the summer of 1694 on campaign with the king, landing back in England in November 1694.85
Reign of William III, 1695–1702
Ormond attended the Lords on 48 days of the 1694–5 session, 38 per cent of the total, and was named to one committee. On 12 Nov. 1694 he and Meinhard Schomberg, 3rd duke of Schomberg, introduced both the duke of Leeds (the former Danby) and William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, into the House. On 25 Feb. 1695 the Lords read for the first time a bill for vesting certain manors, lands and tenements belonging to Ormond, in Ireland, in trustees, to be sold, and enabling him to make leases for raising money to discharge the debts and encumbrances of his grandfather, for raising portions for any younger daughters and for securing the duchess’s jointure of £2,000 p.a. However, no further progress was made on the bill.86 February 1695 saw the first of several attempts by Ormond to secure a grant of part of the bailiwick of Westminster for 99 years, which appears to have been unsuccessful. He was more successful in renewing his lease to the crown of butlerage and prizage. His initial proposal was for a rent of £1,600 p.a. covering five years, which was altered by the Treasury in April into a grant of £1,500 p.a. for seven years.87
In April 1695 Ormond wrote to Sidney Godolphin, Baron Godolphin, asking for a response from the lords of the treasury to his request for a patent for the coining of pence and two-pence pieces in Ireland.88 This had been a longstanding interest of the Butlers, dating from the patent issued to Ormond’s uncle Arran. The king had forwarded the petition to the treasury, who in turn had referred it to the lord deputy in Ireland.89 The report came back from Ireland in January 1696. Despite Luttrell reporting that a patent had been issued ‘granting the duke of Ormond the sole benefit of coining half-pence and farthings in Ireland’, the issue then seems to have been returned to the lord deputy by the king, who was anxious about the economic implications of granting a licence to coin the money.90
As usual, the summer of 1695 saw Ormond in the Low Countries with the king.91 In August it was reported that the duke and duchess were coming to reside in Ireland in the winter, which may possibly explain why on 7 Sept. William Blathwayt‡ reported to James Vernon‡ that he had the writs ready for calling Ormond, among others, to the Irish parliament.92 In the event Ormond did not travel to Ireland, although it would have made sense for him to attend the parliament, given that it would be dealing with several pieces of family business.
In October 1695 Worth reported that two bills relating to Ormond’s county palatinate jurisdiction had been despatched to London for approval by the Privy Council, and that Ormond’s estate bill had arrived back from England following its approval there, it having been sent from the Irish parliament to the Privy Council for approval in September 1695.93 The secretary of state, Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, instructed his office to expedite the estate bill after it had passed the great seal, ‘the duke of Ormond being very desirous to have no time lost in getting that passed which relates to him’, and Robert Rochfort, speaker of the Irish House of Commons, reported that it had passed ‘with great respect’ in November.94 The bill appears to have been designed to accomplish the ends of the failed legislation in the English Parliament earlier in the year: it vested lands in Ireland in trustees (including Worth and Sir Richard Cox) to be sold, enabled the duke to make leases for raising money to discharge the debts and encumbrances of his grandfather, raised portions for any future daughters and secured his wife’s jointure.95 The duchess referred to the act’s essential point as allowing the ‘letting leases and taking fines, as well as the selling part of his estate’.96 The bills for granting tales (alternate jurors) on trials to be had in the court of the county palatine of Tipperary before the seneschal, and concerning fines in the county palatine, were eventually despatched by the Irish parliament in the course of a couple of days in December.97 That same month Henry Capell, Baron Capell of Tewkesbury, the lord deputy in Dublin, was critical of some of Ormond’s followers in the Irish parliament, whom he accused of acting in concert with the supporters of the Irish lord chancellor Sir Charles Porter, in an attempt to delay the money bills, until they knew the fate of the bills already despatched to the Privy Council.98
Just prior to the next parliamentary session, Ormond played host as chancellor on 9 Nov. 1695 during the king’s visit to Oxford University, despite prior warning from Shrewsbury that the visit would be of such a short duration as to preclude a formal dinner. 99 Ormond was present on the opening day of the session, 22 Nov., subsequently attending the Lords on 54 days during the 1695–6 session (nearly 44 per cent of the sittings) and being appointed to one committee. He signed the Association in the Lords on 28 Feb. 1696. On 18 Mar. he acquainted the Lords that Beaufort was absent by virtue of a fall from his horse, but to little avail as his father-in-law was ordered to attend by 31 March.
In March 1696 Ormond petitioned for a lease of some lodgings adjoining Whitehall for 42 years at some small rent, which the crown would be able to resume on payment of £1,800, the amount expended by the petitioner on the premises. This was probably granted, as Ormond still had lodgings in Whitehall at the time of his attainder in 1715. In May 1696 he petitioned for a grant of several leases and mortgages worth about £4,000, which were held under him and his grandfather in Ireland and which had become forfeit to the king. This was a variant to the parliamentary requests, and for the same reason, in consideration of the great damage that his estate had received by the late troubles in Ireland. This petition was renewed in November 1696, presumably to no effect.100
Ormond again spent the campaigning season of 1696 in Flanders, following which it was reported in October that he had brought over all his equipage in anticipation of the Peace.101 Upon his return there were rumours that he would be made lord lieutenant of Ireland.102 He attended the Lords on 53 days during the 1696–7 session, 45 per cent of the sittings, and was named to three committees. On 18 Dec. 1696 he voted against admitting Goodman’s evidence in the trial of Sir John Fenwick‡, but still voted for the bill’s second reading. However, on 23 Dec. he voted against the passage of the bill, somewhat to the surprise of James Vernon, who noted Ormond as one of those peers who had ‘renounced their former vote’.103 On 12 Jan. 1697, his sister Lady Henrietta Butler married, with a portion of £10,000, her cousin Henry d’Auverquerque*, the eldest son of Hendrik van Nassau-Ouwerkerk. D’Auverquerque (whose sister was Lady Ossory) was William III’s master of the horse, and was subsequently created earl of Grantham.104
On 22 Jan. the Lords gave a first reading to a bill to enable Ormond to raise money by the sale of woods, to make leases of lives renewable forever, for the payment of debts, and for encouraging the English plantation in Ireland. Under the management of Rochester this bill passed rapidly through the House, being amended to include in its provisions Ormond’s brother, Arran. The Commons also dealt with the matter quickly, under the management of Francis Gwyn, and it was returned to the Lords with minor amendments on 12 Feb. 1697, receiving the royal assent on 8 March. In essence this amended the Irish act of 1695, probably because the duke did not wish to alienate land permanently through sales. Under the operation of this act over £115,000 was raised in fines.105
While Ormond travelled to join the camp of William III in May 1697, his duchess was preparing to travel to Ireland.106 Unfortunately, a miscarriage delayed her trip, and it was not until 29 May that a cavalcade, including the duchess’s two brothers, Charles Somerset‡, marquess of Worcester, and Lord Arthur Somerset, escorted her to Bristol from Badminton.107 She finally arrived at Waterford on 21 June.108 Meanwhile, Ormond was en route back across the Channel, arriving in England at the end of August, with the intention of joining his duchess in Dublin and of staying in Ireland throughout the winter.109 Although he gave the impression to Southwell that he only waited for the signing of the articles of peace with France to set out for Ireland, he enjoyed a somewhat leisurely progress through the West Country, stopping at Exeter, to receive the office of high steward of that city on 9 Oct., and possibly also at Bristol.110 Ormond then took up residence in Clancarty House, which he rented at £40 a quarter.111
Ormond took his seat in the Irish House of Lords on 10 Nov. 1697, much to the trepidation of the lords justices, who feared that the duke would attack some of the grants of forfeited lands made to Henry Sydney, earl of Romney, in Tipperary, and revive his claim to them under his palatine jurisdiction.112 The Irish lord chancellor, John Methuen‡, echoed their concern as to ‘how far the duke of Ormond will endeavour to show his power’, particularly as there was discontent among the disbanded army officers in the lower house.113 Thomas Medlycott‡ later claimed that he had been instrumental, following a request from Rochester, and ‘by the interest of the duke of Ormond’s friends’, in preventing the passage of the outlawries’ bill, which contained clauses detrimental to Princess Anne, whose rights to her father’s Irish estate were precluded by it.114 Ormond certainly evinced some opposition to the plan to retain the Huguenot regiments on the establishment.115 All in all, Methuen thought that Ormond’s actions in Ireland, and, indeed, his somewhat regal manner of travelling there, would harm his relations with the king.116 Moreover, Ormond then left his proxy with Henry Hamilton-Moore, 3rd earl of Drogheda [I], who promptly cast it against the bill for the security of the king’s person.117
Ormond left the duchess in Dublin around 21 Nov. 1697, and landed at Chester.118 He took his seat in the Lords on 17 Dec., attending on 48 days of the 1697–8 session (nearly 35 per cent of the total), and was named to six committees. Once there he evinced a concern to protect Irish interests, particularly from the power of the English Commons. It was at Ormond’s London house that a meeting was convened on 26 Jan. 1698 to consider how best to thwart the English woollen interest, perhaps by promoting an Irish linen bill.119 Pulling in the opposite direction on the issue, in March the Exeter corporation lobbied him, as their high steward, in favour of the bill to encourage the ‘woollen manufacture’ in England and to restrain the export of woollens from Ireland into ‘foreign parts’, and to prevent the export of English wool into Ireland, which had passed the Commons and was now before the Lords.120 On 15 Mar. Ormond voted to commit the bill to punish Charles Duncombe‡. The following day he registered his dissent over the resolution to grant relief to the appellants James Bertie‡ and his wife, in a cause against Lucius Henry Carey, 6th Viscount Falkland [S], although he did not join the dissentients on 17 March.
In keeping with a more Irish orientation to Ormond’s affairs, no doubt necessitated by the need to both maximize his income and reduce his expenditure, as early as January 1698 it was reported that representatives of Count Tallard, the new French ambassador, were in negotiations to rent his house in St James’s Square.121 Luttrell reported in February 1698 that Tallard was to rent it for three years, and two days after his arrival there on 19 Mar., Ormond entertained him to a dinner.122 In July, Ormond sent a letter of recommendation to the University of Oxford in favour of John Ellis, ‘his long and affectionate services to me and my family, having procured him a particular regard from me’.123 However, Ellis did not contest the parliamentary seat.
Peace and renting out his London house probably determined Ormond to try another period of residence in Ireland. On 2 Aug. he was reported to be intent on spending some time there, and he travelled to Ireland via Chester, arriving in Dublin about 16 Aug. and attending the Irish parliamentary session.124 He left on 26 Oct. while the parliament was still sitting, ‘having given the greatest opposition he could to all our business’, which according to one Irish member continued after his departure.125 Vernon, too, had referred to Ormond and ‘several of the opposing party’.126
Ormond arrived back in London on 3 Nov. 1698.127 He took his seat in the Lords on 6 Dec. 1698, attending on 39 days of the 1698–9 session (45 per cent of the sittings), and was named to four committees. On 8 Feb. 1699 he voted against agreeing to the committee resolution offering to assist the king in retaining the Dutch guards, and then registered his dissent. Perhaps significantly, on the previous day Ormond had resigned his place in the bedchamber in favour of his brother, Arran.128 On 29 Mar. he dissented from a resolution to agree with a committee charged with examining the case of the London Ulster Society v. the bishop of Derry to address the king that the bishop and several officers of the Irish House of Lords be sent for in custody for their behaviour in relation to the case. This was a further example of his sensitivity to Irish political opinion; the case concerned appeals from Ireland to the Lords at Westminster and the vexed question of the autonomy of the Irish parliament.
On 10 Apr. 1699, Ormond was reported to have given up ‘his commission of the command of the Guards on a point of command’ between Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle, and himself.129 His resignation was occasioned by the king’s appointment of Albemarle to command the 1st troop of guards, and hence to a position of authority over Ormond. Initially, Rochester’s intervention on his behalf failed to change the king’s mind and Ormond was left proclaiming that he was ‘resolved to travel this summer into Italy’.130 However, the quarrel was patched up, the king taking both men in his coach to the Easter service.131 Command of the guards was to be determined according to seniority of commission, reportedly after George Clarke‡ had discovered a previous order of the king’s on seniority and given it to Rochester to show to the king.132
Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, reported from Dublin on 1 May 1699 that the duchess of Ormond was sailing for England the next day.133 This probably indicated that Ormond’s experiment of a permanent Irish residence had been abandoned for the time being. Ormond was certainly involved in the usual summer round of social visits, but with a political edge. At the end of June, he, Rochester, Richard Jones‡, earl of Ranelagh [I], and James Kendall‡ paid a three-day visit to Edward Russell, earl of Orford, at Chippenham.134 In August, Ormond was reported to be moving into the house in St James’s Square vacated by Count Tallard, and on 24 Aug. he was present at the prorogation of Parliament, delivering ‘an elegant speech to both Houses.135
Ormond attended the Lords on 49 days during the 1699–1700 session, nearly 54 per cent of the sittings, and was named to two committees. In February 1700, he was forecast as likely to support the bill continuing the East India Company as a corporation. On 22 Mar. he was one of the nobility reported to be accompanying the king to Newmarket and on Easter Sunday he attended the king to the chapel royal.136 On 1 Apr. at the third reading in the Commons of the land tax and Irish forfeited estates bill, a clause was offered on his behalf. As Luttrell reported, on 8 Apr. one of the two saving clauses added by the Lords to the bill was ‘to set aside the Commons’ provisos on behalf of those who had not grants under the great seal of England, [such] as the duke of Ormond’. These clauses were agreed to by 46 votes to 26.137 As these were amendments to a supply bill, the Commons rejected them and offered this as their reason for so doing at a conference on the 9 April. Later that day, the Lords resolved to insist upon their amendments and drew up their reasons, which were delivered to the Commons at a conference on 10 April. After this conference the Lords gave way, and passed the bill without amendment. On 11 July it was reported that ‘Romney is likely to sell his house at Greenwich to the duke of Ormond’, which suggests that Ormond was already on the lookout for the country villa he eventually found at Richmond.138 He was present at the prorogation of Parliament on 1 Aug. and attended the duke of Gloucester’s internment on 9 August.139
Ormond attended the Lords on 59 days during the 1701 session (just over 54 per cent of the total) and was named to four committees. He signed a protest on 16 Apr. against a resolution to appoint a committee to draw up an address asking the king not to punish the four impeached Lords until their impeachments had been tried. The protest was subsequently expunged from the Journal, and Ormond then joined in signing the protest over this action.140 On 16 Apr. he and Arran had a petition read for a bill to enlarge the powers of their act of 1697 for discharging their debts. This bill was introduced the following day, entitled a bill for the more speedy payment of the creditors of the late and present dukes of Ormond. Again managed by Rochester, the bill was sent to the Commons on 6 May, where it was managed by Sir Simon Harcourt, the future Viscount Harcourt, and returned with minor amendments on 30 May, although a petition on it and a resultant saving clause were rejected. This bill appointed more trustees, including Harcourt, Rochester, Francis Annesley‡ and Sir Stephen Fox (a significant creditor).141 By its provisions the sum of £6,386 was raised between 1701 and 1704.142
Ormond was present at the prorogation of Parliament on 7 Aug. 1701, and again on 18 Sept. according to the Post Boy, although his name was not recorded as being present in the Journal.143 During the 1701–2 session he attended the Lords on 19 days, 19 per cent of the total, and was named to four committees. He also signed the address on 1 Jan. 1702 on the Pretender being owned by France. He was given command of the land forces designed to go with the new lord admiral, Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke.144 Rather intriguingly, Ormond was noted in January 1702 as having given a dinner to the Junto Whigs Charles Montagu, Baron Halifax, and John Somers, Baron Somers, with Orford only absent through illness.145 He was present at the deathbed of William III, and was named to the conference committee on 8 Mar. on the death of William III and the accession of Queen Anne.146 In April 1702 the duchess of Ormond was named a lady of the bedchamber, allegedly at the instance of the duchess of Marlborough so that ‘her Lord and his family would use her much better’.147
Early years of Queen Anne, 1702–10
By 1702 Ormond’s rental had been reduced to about £15,733, and he was still energetically searching after alternative sources of revenue.148 Chief among these was the money that he could raise from leasing the collection of butlerage and prizage to the crown. Shortly before the king’s death, Christopher Carleton, an Irish revenue official, in correspondence with Ellis, had suggested that a rent of £2,000 p.a. for seven years would be a good deal given the likelihood of a war, noting that ‘the last seven years produced £2,323 p.a. … which may be a ground for demanding the same’.149 Following the king’s death, Ormond did indeed attempt to negotiate better terms for the lease (the seven years’ lease for £1,500 p.a. having recently expired), hoping for an increase to £2,500 p.a. based on rising receipts, and the overplus of over £5,700 which the crown had received during that period.150 The treasury appears to have ordered the direct collection of the duties, which would then be paid to Ormond, because the uncertainties of war made any estimate of the receipts unreliable.151
Further evidence of Ormond’s association with Rochester occurred early in the new queen’s reign, when Marlborough became apprehensive about Ormond’s demands concerning the expedition to Cadiz: ‘I shall explain the matter more at large to Lord Rochester and such others as her majesty shall think fit to entrust.’ In the summer Ormond commanded the land forces during the assault on Cadiz, the unsatisfactory nature of which saw him contemplate a complaint against Sir George Rooke‡, the admiral in charge of the fleet. When Marlborough heard in November 1702 that Ormond was likely to complain about Rooke, he counselled caution, regarding all parties to the expedition as culpable in its failure.152 Solicitor-General Harcourt, Ranelagh and others were despatched to persuade Ormond to drop his complaint, but too late to prevent him from instigating it.153 The Whigs in the Lords then used the enquiry to attack Rooke.
Ormond attended the Lords on 29 days during the 1702–3 session (32 per cent of the sittings) and was named to seven committees, reporting from one, a naturalization bill, on 13 January. On 12 Nov. 1702 he attended the queen to St Paul’s for the public thanksgiving for the previous year’s campaigns, carrying the sword of state.154 The following day he took his seat in the Lords, after which he received the thanks of the House from Lord Keeper Wright, ‘for the great services done by him to her majesty and this kingdom’. Ormond responded by thanking the House for the great honour done him, noting ‘that the officers and soldiers, in the late expedition at Vigo, behaved themselves with the greatest bravery imaginable’. The House then addressed the queen that the instructions given to Ormond and Rooke relating to the previous summer’s expedition be laid before the House, and further asked that Ormond lay before the House a written account of the whole expedition. Ormond delivered this to the House on 30 November. Proceedings then disappeared into committee for some time, although William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, recorded proceedings in the grand committee on 11 Feb., which saw Rooke’s Tory defenders object to the tenor of the intended report.155 Bolton reported on 16 Feb. 1703, and the report was considered on the following day, when criticisms of Rooke were rejected and a favourable resolution adopted. The view of Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, was that Ormond’s appointment to the lord lieutenancy of Ireland had effectively muted his criticism so that ‘he came not to the House, when it was brought to a conclusion’.156 On the forecast of Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, compiled in about January 1703, Ormond was listed as likely to support the occasional conformity bill, duly voting on 16 Jan. against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause.
On 4 Feb. 1703, Ormond was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in place of Rochester, ‘being an honour which he had a considerable time aimed at’.157 The Hydes claimed the credit for his elevation into the cabinet but this was not widely believed, although some Irish officials thought that it was worth applying to Rochester for his influence on the new viceroy.158 Burnet thought that Ormond ‘was the better received, when he went to that government, because he came after the earl of Rochester; till it appeared that he was in all things governed by him’, and alluded to one of his faults, that ‘being a man of pleasure, he was much in the power of those who acted under him, and whose integrity was not so clear’.159 Ormond’s long-term client John Hartstonge, bishop of Ossory, noted the universal pleasure in his appointment and saw him as ‘a proper person to accommodate all our piques and divisions here’.160 While John Isham noted the joy with which Ormond’s appointment was received in Dublin, he added a note of caution, saying that ‘unless he has some better heads about him than he usually converses with, I much question whether he will govern this kingdom long to the satisfaction of England’.161 Ormond also received £3,000 towards his equipage and travel to Ireland.162 However, this was unlikely to solve his financial problems: in June 1703 Marlborough wrote that ‘the vanity of 33 [Ormond], is what he can’t help, and I believe it is out of his power to do his family any more hurt, so that it must be poor tradesmen that must suffer when he dies’.163
On 20 Feb. 1703 Ormond submitted a memorial to the lord treasurer, setting out his purchase from John Latten of a lease of 31 years on Richmond Lodge, which he now wished to surrender in return for a lease of three lives. He secured a lease for 99 years by December of that year.164 On 24 Feb. he was one of the peers responsible for the rejection of the bill to enable the queen to settle the lands and revenues of the recently dissolved Savoy Hospital to charitable and public uses, because of the implications for universities of ‘annihilating a Charity in a summary way’.165 On 22 Mar. Ormond was a pallbearer at the interment of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in Westminster Abbey.166 He attended the prorogation on 22 Apr., when he introduced John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham and Normanby, into the House. Ormond set out for Ireland around 20 May 1703 and, after a leisurely progress (caused by the extent of his train) to Chester, arrived in Dublin on 4 June.167
Ormond came into conflict with Marlborough over military appointments to Irish regiments, and particularly over the new regiment which he was given leave to raise in September 1703, despite it being against policy for a viceroy to command a regiment in Ireland.168 As Isham pointed out, such patronage provided Ormond with ‘an opportunity of obliging a great many gentlemen that went over with him’.169 The Irish parliament met from September to November 1703, and January to March 1704, so that Ormond was unable to attend the 1703–4 session at Westminster, although he seems briefly to have considered visiting England during the recess.170 Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, duly marked him in an analysis drawn up around November 1703 as an absent peer, who would have been a supporter of the bill to prevent occasional conformity.
In the 1703–4 session, the Irish parliament promoted a bill to prevent the further growth of popery, one particular provision of which threatened Captain George Mathew, a relative of Ormond, upon whom he depended for the smooth running of his estate at Kilkenny. Ormond declined to remove this clause, ‘to avoid what people are so apt to call here favour to papists’.171 Instead, he instructed Edward Southwell‡ to write to Nottingham to use his influence to have the clause omitted in England. He did, however, procure an act confirming the sales, fee-farms and leases made by himself and his brother, Arran, and extending the period for making fee-farms until Michaelmas 1705, after having prepared the ground for its favourable reception by the Privy Council by writing to Nottingham to desire his ‘favour in the matter of a private bill now going over, concerning Lord Arran and myself’.172
Thwarted of his recessional break, Ormond made plans for a quick departure from Dublin following the end of the Irish parliamentary session. He landed back in England on 21 Mar. 1704, and set out from Chester to London on the 22nd, leaving his wife and daughters in Ireland once more.173 During his time in England, he attended the Treasury on at least three occasions, usually on matters pertaining to Ireland.174 In the summer, he also managed to negotiate a new lease of the prizage and butlerage. Following discussions among his advisers in the previous autumn, in May 1704 Ormond had petitioned for compensation for the loss he had sustained by consenting to a lease of the prizage and butlerage on wines for seven years at £1,500 a year, and proposing a further seven years lease to the crown, with an increase in the annual payment from the crown to £3,500 p.a.175 On 10 June 1704 he gained an agreement with the treasury for ‘a lease for seven years at £3,500’, for which he received a great seal in August.176
Ormond departed from London in October, landing in Dublin on 15 Nov. 1704.177 He was again absent from the 1704–5 English parliamentary session. On the opening day of the session, 24 Oct. 1704, his proxy was registered with Lord Treasurer Godolphin, and on 23 Nov. he was excused attendance following a call of the House. His name appears on what was probably a forecast of those likely to support the Tack in November 1704 and as a Hanoverian on an analysis of the peerage drawn up on 13 Apr. 1705 in relation to the succession.
Ormond’s time in Ireland was spent anxiously watching English parliamentary proceedings over the linen industry and the effects that this would have on the Irish bill promoting the export of linen and on the session over which he was presiding.178 Similarly, he was concerned about his political position, believing that the changes ‘much talked of’ would be delayed ‘until they see which way the elections will go’.179 Certainly, Tories in Ireland were alarmed by the prospect of a Whig victory in England, and the possibility that Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron Wharton, would replace Ormond. The Irish session of 1705 also provides an indication of how Ormond could operate, politically, in England. In April, his secretary, Ben Portlock, wrote to Ellis concerning a bill that had been sent over to the English Privy Council, to inform him that Ormond
wishes the bill may never come back, but you know how improper it is for him to interest himself on these accounts during his government, and therefore he desires you would serve and assist him with all privacy and speak to the solicitor general [Harcourt], on his behalf and who else you think fit.180
Edward Southwell reported on 22 June 1705 that Ormond ‘is preparing for England next week’. He landed at Chester on 26 June, arriving in London on the 29th.181 He made use of his house at Richmond (no doubt showing off the many improvements he had made to it) to treat, among others, Lord Treasurer Godolphin on 21 Sept., three days before he attended at the Treasury on Irish business.182 At the end of the month it was rumoured that his commission as lord lieutenant would be renewed for three years, thus combating rumours, current since at least March, that he would be replaced and become master of the horse instead.183 Ormond made a constant round of visits, waiting on William Cowper, the future earl Cowper, upon his appointment as lord keeper in October 1705.184
Ormond attended the Lords on the opening day of the session, 25 Oct. 1705, and for 38 days altogether, nearly 40 per cent of the total. He was excused attendance on 12 Nov. following a call of the House, but he was present on the 15th when he introduced Ralph Montagu, duke of Montagu, into the House. In the division on 6 Dec. he was listed as voting that the Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration. In December the bishop of Kildare recounted how he had been in discussion with ‘the new manager’ of Ormond’s estates, upon which he described the situation as ‘very bad, the expedients of raising money for want of it in the kingdom fail and should they take place, all would not do without the continuance of the government for a considerable time longer’, which perhaps gave an extra edge to the various rumours surrounding Ormond’s continuance in office.185
On 29 Jan. 1706, a petition was read in the Lords for a bill enabling Ormond and Arran to settle fee-farm rents in co. Tipperary, pursuant to an agreement upon Arran’s marriage. The bill was duly given a first reading on 7 Feb. and reported, by Rochester, on the 15th. It was returned from the Commons with some amendments on 28 Feb. and passed. In April it was reported that Ormond would be retained in the lieutenancy of Ireland, ‘because of a competition among the Whigs who should have his place’, Wharton, Bolton and Evelyn Pierrepont, 5th earl of Kingston, being in contention.186 However his return to Ireland was repeatedly postponed, amid continual speculation about potential successors. By October Robert Johnson had heard that Ormond designed to stay in London during the winter ‘to make all secure and safe in the rear and to leave it so, well fixed behind you, when you come over in the spring’.187 Following the passage of the Regency Act in 1706, Ormond was named as one of the electress of Hanover’s regents.188 He attended the prorogation of the House on 22 Oct. 1706.
Ormond attended the Lords on just 13 days of the 1706–7 session, 14 per cent of the total. However, he attended the cabinet four times in December 1706, five times in January 1707 and four times in February.189 There is some evidence that his absence from the House between 7 Feb. and 4 Mar. was occasioned by ill-health and he did not attend the cabinet again until 8 March.190 On 14 Mar. 1707 he left his proxy with Lord Mohun, although he was listed as attending twice more during the session, on 25 and 26 Mar., and he attended the cabinet on 16 and 26 Mar. and 10 April.191 He did not attend the short session of April 1707. In February he was granted a new lease of the lodge within Richmond Old Park, and in April he extracted from the Treasury an extension of their lease of prizage and butlerage for £3,500 p.a. for ten and a half years from 29 Sept. 1701.192 Ormond was finally removed as lord lieutenant in April 1707, and affected to be content with ‘his private way of life’ in Richmond, although General Henry Lumley‡ also noted, ‘I wish he may so settle his affairs as to be perfectly easy.’193 Sir Richard Cox added, ‘I am glad his grace is retrenching. I wrote twice on that subject.’194
In July 1707, the Irish parliament considered ‘heads of a bill to revive powers granted to his grace by former acts of Parliament’, which was another extension of the legislation of 1701. Ormond’s appointee as Irish lord chancellor, Cox, managed it through the council in August, so that it was ready to be despatched to London for approval. When it was returned to Ireland, the bill passed the Irish House of Lords in November 1707, ‘as fast as the forms would allow it’, receiving the royal assent as an act enlarging the time for executing several powers and authorities given to Ormond and Arran, by several former acts of parliament, and for making effectual and confirming the bargains, sales, fee-farms and leases made by them.195
The death of the lord steward, Devonshire, in August 1707 prompted speculation that Somerset would succeed him, and that Ormond would step into Somerset’s office as master of the horse, but the office went to Devonshire’s son.196 Ormond was present on the opening day of the 1707–8 session, 23 Oct. 1707, attending on 50 days, just over 46 per cent of the total. Following the presentation of the University of Oxford’s address to the queen on 18 Mar. 1708, a sumptuous dinner was given by the chancellor.197 He was classed as a Tory on an analysis compiled in about May 1708 of the British Parliament and he was also named to the new Privy Council of Great Britain.198
Ormond first attended the 1708–9 session on 19 Nov., when he introduced Queensberry as duke of Dover. In all, he was present on 33 days of the session, nearly 35 per cent of the total. At the beginning of January 1709, Marlborough wrote, ‘I am told that 33 [Ormond], is desirous of parting with his employments, but I hope at this time her majesty will not allow of it, since it must turn to her disservice.’199 This wish had apparently been prompted by Wharton’s appointment to the Irish lord lieutenancy because Ormond did not wish to come under his command. This also led to rumours concerning his selling his company of guards. Peter Wentworth thought Ormond’s reasons a little specious, as he would not come under the lord lieutenant’s command, and Ormond did not in the event sell his regiment.200
Interestingly, given that he was a Scottish peer and a long-term associate of Queensberry, on 21 Jan. 1709 Ormond voted in favour of the motion that a Scots peer with a British title had the right to vote in the election for Scottish representative peers. His supporters continued to harbour thoughts of his return to office in Ireland, and Wharton’s secretary, Joseph Addison‡, at least, felt that some of the current opposition in the Irish parliament was propelled by the hope that making the government there appear to be in difficulty might lead to Ormond’s return; he referred to the ‘Ormond and Rochester party’ in August 1709.201 Wharton may have made life a little more difficult for Ormond, by referring back to the Irish revenue commissioners a request from Ormond for an extension of the term of his contract for butlerage and prizage. They had reported favourably upon it in July 1709, and saw no reason to change their view, so it was duly granted in September. In fact, Ormond waited until December 1710 before petitioning to reclaim the exchequer fees he had paid on his duties.202
The Oxford ministry, 1710–15
Ormond was present on 15 Nov. 1709, the opening day of the 1709–10 session, attending in all on 40 days of the session, nearly 39 per cent of the total. On 30 Nov. he acted as a pallbearer at the interment of Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland.203 James Johnston‡ noted in December that ‘Wharton and Halifax seem to be out of the secret of the Junto and great court is made to the Duke of Ormond’, a comment which may reflect the tensions between the members of the Whig Junto over Irish policy which had surfaced earlier in the year.204 On 14 Jan. 1710, Ormond and James Hamilton, duke of Brandon and 4th duke of Hamilton [S], introduced Charles FitzRoy, duke of Southampton, as 2nd duke of Cleveland. On 16 Feb. Ormond joined the protest against the resolution not to require James Greenshields and the magistrates of Edinburgh to attend the Lords before Greenshields’ appeal was received. Later that day he protested against the resolution not to adjourn the House following the receipt of the Commons address commending Marlborough and requesting that he be sent to Flanders. However, he did not sign the protest on the address subsequently agreed asking the queen to ensure Marlborough’s early departure for Flanders.
On 14 Mar. Ormond dissented from the decision not to adjourn before the House considered precedents concerning impeachments, but did not protest against the actual resolution that in prosecutions by impeachments for high crimes and misdemeanours the particular words supposed to be criminal are not necessary to be expressly specified. Two days later he protested against the resolution to put the question that the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment against Sacheverell. He protested again on the following day, against the resolutions that the Commons had made good the second, third and fourth resolutions of the impeachments. On 18 Mar. he protested against the resolutions limiting peers to a single verdict of guilty or not guilty upon all the articles of impeachment. On 20 Mar. he voted Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, and duly entered his dissent.
According to Bishop Compton’s chaplain, Ralph Bridges, on 1 May 1710, a little while previously Ormond had attempted to reconcile Rochester and Leeds.205 Perhaps because of this political manoeuvring, Ormond was not initially an integral part of the plans of Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, to reconstruct the ministry in the summer and autumn of 1710, at least not for Ireland. However, the death of John Annesley, 4th earl of Anglesey, on 18 Sept. opened the way for Ormond’s re-appointment as lord lieutenant on 19 October.206 The prospect of his advancement may explain the report on 22 Sept. that his levee had been attended by 150 people.207 Some Tories had considered him as a plausible candidate for the post of master of the horse, should Somerset be forced out, especially as he had ‘the character of a generous, fine gentleman, and not one that would set up for politician, those that are in possession of the queen’s ear could have suffered him near there without any jealousy’.208
On 6 Aug. 1710, Ormond acted as a pallbearer at the interment of his aunt, the dowager duchess of Devonshire, in Westminster Abbey.209 The same month saw the Irish parliament pass an act ‘for rendering more effectual the several provisions made by former acts for the payment of the debts of [the] late duke of Ormond and present duke, and for other purposes therein expressed’, yet another extension of the legislation attempting to deal with his debts.210 The trustees appointed by this act included Rochester, Fox, Charles Fox‡, William Robinson, John Ellis, Archibald Hutcheson‡ and William Sloper‡. They instituted a thorough plan of reform by consolidating Ormond’s debts, mainly into loans by two Dublin bankers, Henry and Sir Alexander Cairnes. However, plans for retrenchment failed and Ormond’s debts had risen to £110,500 by 1715.211
On 21 Oct., before the opening of the 1710 Parliament, Ormond’s daughter Lady Mary Butler married John Ashburnham, 3rd Baron Ashburnham, who had recently succeeded his brother to the title. Matters had been under negotiation in August and, according to Swift, this was ‘the best match now in England, twelve thousand pounds a year, and abundance of money’.212 In his analysis of English Lords of 3 Oct. 1710, Harley expected Ormond to support the ministry. The same month, in preparation for his journey to Ireland, Ormond was allowed £3,000 towards his equipage and travel costs. However, in November the order to pay him the usual allowances of the lord lieutenant ensured that the lords justices could deduct £100 per month each.213 At the beginning of November, John Erskine, 22nd earl of Mar [S], was hopeful that Ormond would send his proxy, possibly to Archibald Primrose, earl of Rosebery [S], for use in the election for Scottish representative peers.214 Ormond duly sent it, for it was cast by John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S], ‘but it was disputed until the records of Parliament were read and determined in his favour’.215 On 13 Nov. Ormond was again a pallbearer, this time at the funeral of John Thompson, Baron Haversham.216
Ormond first attended the 1710–11 session on 27 Nov., being present on 53 days of the session, just under 47 per cent of the total. On 29 Nov. Mohun (nominally a Whig) registered his proxy with Ormond, further evidence of the campaign waged by Harley to convince Mohun to take a place on the admiralty board.217 On 16 Dec., Northumberland’s proxy was also registered with Ormond. On 4 Dec., Ormond, his wife and Anne, countess of Coventry (the duchess of Ormond’s sister), put in their answer relating to the cause of the dowager duchess of Beaufort (his mother-in-law) versus Lady Granville (widow of the duchess’s son, the marquess of Worcester) over the will of his deceased father-in-law, the duke of Beaufort. The decree was reversed on 18 Dec. 1710. On 22 Dec. Ormond was named a commissioner for passing bills.
Ormond again sought to defend Irish interests in February 1711, when Scottish interests attempted to promote a bill in the Commons to tighten the laws prohibiting the export of flax from Scotland to Ireland. In alliance with Whig lords, he was able to guarantee Irish exports access to the colonies for a further six years, and effectively destroyed the prohibition of Scots flax exports to Ireland.218 Interestingly, there was some doubt as to his rights as a Scottish peer, for on 8 Jan. 1711 Mar wrote that the only obstruction to his name being placed in the roll of Scottish peers was that it was not known where exactly he should be placed.219 On 2 Mar. the Lords were informed that Ormond was Lord Dingwall [S], and ought to be placed in the list of the nobility of that kingdom. The matter was referred to the committee of privileges, where it seems to have languished until revived on 7 July 1714, when some papers relating to the precedency of the title were ready to be produced. The Lords duly agreed to the title being added to the roll of Scottish peers established at the union on the following day.
On 5 Mar. 1711, Sir Alexander Cairnes, now a member of the Irish commons, petitioned for a bill to establish a purchase deed made with Ormond of some lands in Ireland. As this bill had the consent of Arran, the judges had no grounds to object to it, and it was managed rapidly through the House of Lords by Rochester, being sent to the Commons on 16 Apr., where it was managed by Sir Thomas Hanmer‡ and returned to the Lords with only minor amendments on 16 May, before receiving the royal assent. Ormond was present at the meeting of the cabinet on 8 Mar. when Guiscard stabbed Harley. Once overpowered, Guiscard begged Ormond to kill him, presumably counting on his Ormond’s previous acquaintance with his kinsman the comte de Gusicard, who had ensured his recovery from his wounds at the battle of Landen, to guarantee him a quick end.220 Ormond did not oblige, though Guiscard died of his wounds shortly afterwards. Ormond’s name appeared on a list of Tory patriots during the 1710–11 session. On 17 Mar. he was one of the commissioners for passing bills in the queen’s absence, being ‘on the bench’, as Bishop Nicolson put it, as he was again on 26 March.221 On 6 Apr. 1711 Swift noted another example of Ormond’s commitment to the Irish lobby. Ormond hosted a meeting of ‘all the Irish in town … to consult upon preventing a bill for laying a duty on Irish yarn’, at the conclusion of which the group ‘all went to the lobby of the house of Commons, to solicit our friends, and the duke came among the rest’, although the committee of ways and means was then put off until Monday.222
When Rochester died on 2 May 1711, Ormond’s closeness to his former father-in-law was emphasized by his appointment as chief mourner at Rochester’s funeral on 10 May.223 Ormond then left London on 14 June en route for Ireland, arriving in Dublin on 3 July.224 One of his major political headaches was his continuing dispute with the city of Dublin, Swift reporting on 20 Sept. 1711 that ‘Ormond is censured here by those in power for very wrong management in the affair of the mayoralty [of Dublin]’.225 Swift also wrote that ‘He is governed by fools; and has usually much more sense than his advisers, but never proceeds by it.’226 The importance to Ormond of his office-holding, and other income from the state, was underlined by Archibald Hutcheson in August, when he noted to Cox that ‘with all the present great incomings of his grace his debts, instead of lessening, are upon the increase … and if in the present prosperity things run thus, how swift must the destruction be when the tide shall turn.’227
Ormond arrived back in London on 7 Dec. 1711, just in time to attend the opening day of the session.228 He supported the ministry over the ‘No Peace Without Spain’ motion and consequently on 10 Dec. he was listed as a loyal peer. He attended on 35 days of the session of 1711–12, just over 31 per cent of the sittings. On 19 Dec. he was forecast as likely to support Hamilton’s pretensions to vote as a British peer and on the 20th was duly listed as voting against the right of Scots peers holding post-union British titles to sit and vote in Parliament under their British titles. He then signed the protest against this resolution. Ormond’s name appears on Oxford’s list of 29 Dec. 1711 of Lords to be contacted during the Christmas recess. At the end of 1711, he was elected to membership of Swift’s dining or drinking club, known as ‘the Society’, attending his first dinner on 26 Jan. 1712.229
Ormond was the major beneficiary of Marlborough’s dismissal from all his posts, being named to replace him as colonel of the Grenadier Guards and shortly afterwards as commander-in-chief of the queen’s forces in Great Britain.230 Towards the end of February 1712 he was named commander-in-chief in Flanders.231 Somerset’s removal as master of the horse also revived speculation about Ormond as his successor, coupled with the duchess as groom of the stole, rumours which did not abate when the place was left vacant and then in June executed by commissioners.232
On 28 Jan. 1712, Swift reported a meeting with Ormond and the prolocutor of convocation, Francis Atterbury, the future bishop of Rochester, concerning a lobbying matter delegated to Swift by Lord Treasurer Oxford ‘to contrive some way to keep’ John Sharp, archbishop of York, ‘from being seduced by Lord Nottingham’, an important matter given that ‘there is but a slender majority in the house of Lords; and we want more’. On 31 Jan. Ormond was one of the commissioners named by Queen Anne to pass the malt bill, as he was again on 3 and 25 March.
Ormond’s appointment as general led to some disquiet, Swift noting in March 1712 that ‘his friends are afraid the expense of this employment will ruin him, since he must lose the government of Ireland’.233 Others, like Thomas Burnet, noted the duke’s extravagance in having 18 aides-de-camp and observed that ‘he will have the honour of running farther into debt by being made a general’.234 He was awarded £5,000 for his equipage, and £600 a month for extraordinary charges.235
On 7 Apr. 1712 Ormond deposited his proxy with Oxford, in preparation for his journey to Flanders to take command of the army. He had already taken the precaution of conveying his house in St James’s Square to Arran, in trust to sell it to pay his debts.236 He left London on 9 Apr. and arrived at The Hague on the 14th, along with Hanmer and John Dalrymple, 2nd earl of Stair [S].237 At this time, Prince Eugene penned the following assessment for the court of Vienna:
Ormond is the finest Cavalier and most complete gentleman that England bred, being the glory of that nation, of so noble spirit that he would sacrifice all for his Church and sovereign, very popular, his great affability winning the hearts and affections of all people; yet [I] cannot say his grace is much concerned in the ministry, because he acts most by direction, and has no great sway in the cabinet.238
On 19 May 1712, Harcourt informed Oxford that Ormond’s bill ‘enabling to sell his palatinate to the queen’ was ready, and asking whether there should be a clause in it remitting the crown and quit rents out of Ormond’s estate, the act of resumption making these rents inalienable. On the 25 May he added that the bill had been settled by the attorney-general, Sir Edward Northey‡, and was ready to be brought into the Commons. The issue of the quit rents was still threatening to delay the bill, possibly until the following session, and on 26 May Harcourt wrote asking for authority to allow Northey leave to offer the bill to the Commons ‘this morning’.239 The bill was duly ordered by the Commons that day and passed rapidly under the management of Francis Annesley. It was managed through the Lords by Edward Hyde, 3rd earl of Clarendon, with an amendment rejected by the Commons, relating to the keeping of the records from the Tipperary courts, being re-inserted, which was then agreed to by the Commons. This act remained in reserve and was never brought into force: the county palatine jurisdiction was eventually extinguished by Ormond’s flight and attainder, although, as Archbishop King of Dublin noted on 7 Oct. 1715, ‘the duke himself was weary of it, it being a considerable charge and a mere feather of no value in itself’.240
Ormond may have felt considerable discontent at being ordered not to engage the enemy, under the so-called ‘restraining orders’, which had occasioned a set-piece debate in the Lords on 28 May 1712. Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, almost acknowledged the point in late August when he explained to Ormond why he had to remain with the army until the end of the campaign and Matthew Prior‡, at Fountainbleau, informed Oxford at the beginning of September that ‘Monsr. Torcy judges the duke of Ormond’s stay in Flanders absolutely necessary’.241
The death in London on 27 May 1712 of William Keith, 8th earl of Marischal [S], necessitated a by-election for the vacancy among the Scottish representative peers. In July, William Cochrane‡ put Oxford in mind of the need to mobilize the votes on behalf of the court, specifically noting ‘the duke of Ormond’s proxy as Lord Dingwall’s’, although in the event the election of James Ogilvy, 4th earl of Findlater [S], was unanimous. In October the failure of William Delaune to obtain an Irish bishopric, despite being backed by Ormond among others, demonstrated the limits of Ormond’s ecclesiastical patronage in Ireland.242 Nor did he have much success shortly afterwards when he was heavily involved in soliciting the vacant bishopric of Hereford for his long-term associate John Hartstonge, bishop of Ossory.243
Ormond arrived back in London on 3 Nov. 1712 and waited on the queen the following day.244 On 5 Nov. Queen Anne wrote to Oxford that, upon seeing Ormond, ‘I fancied at first he seemed a little uneasy, but after talking some time he came into good humour; he comes of a solicitous family, therefore care must be taken that he makes no unreasonable request.’245 In January 1713, the death of his daughter Lady Ashburnham ‘occasioned great affliction to the duke of Ormond’s family’, and was also a matter of some political significance, Ormond being ‘afraid the Whigs would get him [Ashburnham], again’.246 In early February it was reported that Ormond had given his Irish horse regiment to Ashburnham.247
Ormond was present on 26 Mar. 1713 at the prorogation of Parliament. On 10 Apr. it was reported that he had been appointed lord lieutenant of Norfolk, in place of Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend.248 Ormond attended the opening day of the 1713 session, 9 Apr., being present on 30 days of the session (39 per cent of the sittings). On 10 June and 6 July he was a commissioner named by the queen for passing bills. His name appears on Oxford’s list, drawn up about 13 June 1713, of those peers expected to support the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty.
Despite more rumours suggesting that he would become master of the horse, in June 1713 Ormond was made lord warden of the Cinque Ports, with Ashburnham as his deputy.249 He was soon at work replacing the officers under him with his own nominees, preparatory to the general election, although too late sometimes to influence the outcome, as at Dover, where his secretary, Henry Watkins‡, was defeated.250 He was more successful in nominating Archibald Hutcheson at Hastings. Ormond also interested himself in the Bedford election, in behalf of an Irish army officer, Brigadier Waring, by approaching the lord treasurer, through Thomas Harley‡, for the interest of Thomas Trevor, Baron Trevor, in the borough.251
In July 1713, Ormond received a grant on the Irish revenue of a pension of £5,000 p.a. for 15 years,
in consideration of many good and faithful services as well in the beginning of our reign in the hazardous and successful undertaking at Vigo (particularly acknowledged by both Houses of Parliament) and as captain general of our forces in Flanders the last year, by which and in many other former services to the crown we are fully satisfied you have much lessened and impoverished your own estate.252
This was not, however, to be paid while he remained lord lieutenant of Ireland. Sir Stephen Fox thought that this grant ‘may presently give ease to his affairs, if his grace will follow the advice of his trustees’.253 That same month, Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort, was keen to utilize his relationship with Ormond (his uncle through marriage) to try to gain a better office from Oxford, referring to Ormond as ‘having undertaken as a guarantee between his Lordship and me’.254 In August Ormond played a more pivotal role, in persuading his friend Hanmer to become more involved with the ministry, helping to cajole him up to London for meetings with Oxford and William Bromley‡, and even attending them himself.255 In October Ormond voted in the election for Scottish representative peers, using Rosebery as his proxy, it being ‘allowed by the peers, although not formerly in the rolls of Parliament’.256
Ormond was also in contact with the Jacobite court from October 1713, and, owing to the perceived failings of other Tory ministers, he was increasingly courted from the turn of the year.257 George Granville, Baron Lansdown, told the Jacobite Thomas Carte in 1724 that Louis XIV (through Pontchartrain and Torcy) was dealing with Ormond in the last months of his life, to support a Stuart restoration.258 However, Ormond was not always a partisan figure: as chancellor of Oxford, he was on hand to protect Charles Aldrich, the nephew of his former tutor, Dr Henry Aldrich, in the summer of 1713, from his High Church opponents.259
Ormond first attended the 1714 session on 2 Mar., being present on 41 days of the session, nearly 52 per cent of the total, and was named to one committee. On 17 Mar. Banastre Maynard, 3rd Baron Maynard, registered his proxy with Ormond, and on 21 Apr. Ashburnham did likewise. Ormond’s name appeared on Nottingham’s forecast, drawn up between 27 May and about 4 June, of those likely to support the bill to prevent the growth of schism. In May he was one of the peers in a symbolic vote for the Catholic heir against a Protestant claimant in an appeal before the Lords.260 On 11 and 28 May, and 5 and 25 June 1714 he was a commissioner for passing bills.
Ormond was given a key personal and political role following Beaufort’s death in May 1714. According to a newsletter, he was to be named as the acting lord lieutenant of Hampshire and Gloucestershire during the minority of Henry Somerset, 3rd Duke of Beaufort, and he was given a supervisory role over the young man in the duke’s will. In July he was deeply involved in the ministerial manoeuvrings, although it was not always clear to observers where exactly he stood. On 1 July, Dr William Stratford wrote in disbelief that Ormond was leaning towards the Bolingbroke faction within the ministry.261 The most common reason given for Ormond’s political stance was disillusionment with Oxford over patronage matters and particularly the army. Certainly, Oxford’s failure to purge the guards must have grated on Ormond. Ormond had also wanted £10,000 ‘to make the matter easy to those officers who were to succeed’, but this money was not forthcoming, despite Oxford’s promises.262 According to Carte, recounting evidence given years later by Lansdown, Ormond ‘insisted that the officers turned out should be paid for their regiments and posts, which they had purchased with their blood, which the new officers proposed were not able to do, nor could the exchequer then supply £150,000 which was the least it amounted to’.263
Ormond signed the proclamation for the accession of George I but he was not one of the regents previously named by the new monarch under the Act of Settlement.264 He sat on two days of the short August session held after the death of Queen Anne, taking the oaths on 3 Aug. 1714 and being named to one committee. The remainder of Ormond’s career will be dealt with elsewhere, detailing his loss of office and the events which led to his flight from England and consequent attainder in 1715. He died at Avignon on 5/16 Nov. 1745. His body was returned to England and he was buried in the Ormond vault in Westminster Abbey on 22 May 1746.265
S.N.H.- 1 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 222–3, 238.
- 2 Dukes of Ormonde 1610-1745, ed. J. Fenlon and T. Barnard, 10n, 215n.
- 3 Preston Guild Rolls (Lancs. and Cheshire Rec. Soc. ix), 180.
- 4 Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster Office-holders, 162.
- 5 Merchants and Merchandise in Seventeenth-century Bristol, ed. P. McGrath (Bristol Rec. Soc. xix), 57.
- 6 CSP Dom. 1697, p. 445.
- 7 Post Boy, 30 July 1713, 7 Oct. 1714.
- 8 HMC Ormonde, i. 35.
- 9 P. McGrath, Records Relating to the Soc. of Merchant Venturers of the City of Bristol (Bristol Rec. Soc. xvii), 50.
- 10 HMC Ormonde, ii. 283; n.s. iv. 215, 222–3, 229, 269–70, 335; n.s. v. 321, 465–6; Bodl. Carte 219, ff. 198, 323.
- 11 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 405–6, 424–5, 434–6; Bodl. Carte 216, f. 31; Carte 50, f. 271; Carte, Life of Ormond, iv. 632–3.
- 12 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 435; n.s. v. 544, 573, 585; n.s. vi. 308–9, 334–5.
- 13 Bodl. Carte 216, f. 113; Carte 50, f. 292.
- 14 Carte, Life of Ormond, iv. 632–3; CSP Dom. 1683–4, pp. 262–3; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 402.
- 15 Registers of Westminster Abbey, 220.
- 16 CSP Dom. 1682, p. 353; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 216.
- 17 Preston Guild Rolls, 180; M. Temple Admiss. I. 209.
- 18 BL, Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 25 May 1683.
- 19 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 43, Yard to Poley, 24 Mar. 1683/4; folder 44, same to same, 28 Mar. 1684; Bodl. Carte 220, ff. 34–35; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 307; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 227.
- 20 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1 folder 53, Yard to Poley, 14 July 1684; CSP Dom. 1684–5, p. 96; Bodl. Carte 220, ff. 66–67; Carte 50, ff. 348–9.
- 21 Bodl. ms. Eng. Lett. c. 53, f. 16.
- 22 Verney ms mic. M636/39, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 25 July 1684.
- 23 Clarendon Corresp. i. 96–97.
- 24 Bodl. Carte 220, ff. 87–88.
- 25 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 343.
- 26 Verney ms mic. M636/39, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 1 Apr. 1685; HMC Egmont, ii. 151.
- 27 Bodl. ms Eng. Hist. c. 46, f. 44.
- 28 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 335.
- 29 Add. 28938, f. 174.
- 30 Bodl. Carte 60, ff. 124, 212; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 438.
- 31 Ellis Corresp. i. 110–11.
- 32 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 447.
- 33 HMC Ormonde, i. 35; CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 27.
- 34 Ellis Corresp. i. 103; Add. 28875, f. 433.
- 35 CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 277.
- 36 Ellis Corresp. i. 248, 263; Add. 28876, f. 85.
- 37 Bodl. Tanner 28, f. 76.
- 38 Clarendon Corresp. ii. 182–3; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 86, ? to Poley, 27 July 1688; folder 87, Wynne to Poley, 3 Aug. 1688.
- 39 Kingdom without a King, 174.
- 40 CSP Dom. 1687–9, p. 270.
- 41 Clarendon Corresp. ii. 187.
- 42 Ellis Corresp. ii. 79–82.
- 43 Ailesbury Mems. 179–80.
- 44 Memoirs Relating to Lord Torrington, ed. J.K. Laughton (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvi), 27.
- 45 S.B. Baxter, William III, 55; Redefining William III, ed. E. Mijers and D. Onnekink, 244–6; Dukes of Ormonde, 6.
- 46 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 313–14, 359; Reresby Mems. 534; Add. 28876, f. 184.
- 47 Kingdom without a King, 124, 153, 158, 165.
- 48 Ailesbury Mems. 248–9.
- 49 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 503–4.
- 50 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 505.
- 51 CTB, 1702, p. 530.
- 52 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 133.
- 53 CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 187; Prescott Diary (Lancs. and Cheshire Rec. Soc. cxxxii–cxxxiii), 737.
- 54 CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 304; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 238.
- 55 Bodl. Carte 118, ff. 359, 361, 379; Failed Legislation, 1660–1800, ed. J. Hoppit, 168.
- 56 Prescott Diary, 825, 827.
- 57 Journal of the Very Rev. Rowland Davies, ed. R. Caulfield (Cam. Soc. lxviii), 129; HMC Finch, ii. 271.
- 58 Add. 28939, ff. 79–80; T.P. Power, ‘Land, Politics and Society in Eighteenth Century Tipperary’ (Trinity College, Dublin, Ph.D. thesis, 1987), 73.
- 59 Add. 28876, ff. 271–2.
- 60 Failed Legislation, 178–9.
- 61 CSP Dom. 1690–1, p. 223.
- 62 Dukes of Ormonde, 213.
- 63 Add. 28939, ff. 64, 67.
- 64 Add. 28878, ff. 53–54.
- 65 Add. 28939, ff. 222–4; Dukes of Ormonde, 213–14.
- 66 Add. 28877, ff. 152–3.
- 67 Dukes of Ormonde, 216.
- 68 Analecta Hibernica, 32, p. 85.
- 69 HMC Portland, iii. 466; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 346.
- 70 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 301.
- 71 Ailesbury Mems. 288–9.
- 72 Luttrell Diary, 178.
- 73 HMC Lords, iv. 71.
- 74 Failed Legislation, 188–9.
- 75 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 365, 373, 383; CSP Dom. 1691–2, p. 217.
- 76 Add. 28927, ff. 43–44; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 550, 553; Add. 70081, newsletter, 27 Aug. 1692.
- 77 Add. 28927, ff. 43, 4477–8.
- 78 Analecta Hibernica, 32, pp. 94–95, 98–99.
- 79 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 600; Analecta Hibernica, 32, pp. 103–5.
- 80 Add. 28878, ff. 75–76, 81.
- 81 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 66–68; Baxter, William III, 310; Bodl. Rawl. 98, f. 206; HMC 7th Rep. 213.
- 82 HMC Finch, v. 72.
- 83 CSP Dom. 1693, p. 246; HMC Finch, v. 207.
- 84 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 199, 218.
- 85 Bodl. Carte 109, f. 33.
- 86 HMC Lords, n.s. i. 521–2; Failed Legislation, 204.
- 87 CTB, 1693–6, pp. 480, 527, 932, 978, 1369.
- 88 Bodl. ms. Eng. Hist. c. 266, f. 19.
- 89 CTB, 1693–6, p. 1106.
- 90 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 34–35; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 21; CTB, 1693–6, p. 1331.
- 91 Add. 70141, Benjamin Woodroffe to Edward Harley, 24 June 1695.
- 92 Add. 28879, f. 88; SP 87/1, ff. 114–15.
- 93 Add. 28879, ff. 237–8; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 525, 530.
- 94 CSP Dom. 1695, p. 86; HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 34–35.
- 95 CJ[I], ii. 775–800; Power, ‘Land, Politics and Society’, 151; Dukes of Ormonde, 216.
- 96 HMC Ormonde, ii. 60.
- 97 CJ[I], ii. 791–5.
- 98 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 272.
- 99 London Gazette, 11 Nov. 1695; Bodl. Ballard 5, ff. 89–90; Add. 40771, f. 95.
- 100 CTB, 1693–6, p. 1346; 1696–7, pp. 136, 304; 1714–15, p. 307; CTP 1714–19, pp. 145–6.
- 101 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe–Maunsell newsletters, 10 Oct. 1696.
- 102 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 122; Bodl. Ballard 11, f. 137.
- 103 Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, i. 133, 140.
- 104 HEHL, Hastings mss HM 30659 (72), newsletter; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 159.
- 105 Power, ‘Land, Politics and Society’, 77.
- 106 Post Man, 22 May 1697.
- 107 Add. 28881, ff. 242–3, 280–1; Add. 28927, ff. 67–68.
- 108 Add. 28881, ff. 330–1.
- 109 Post Man, 31 Aug. 1697; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 348.
- 110 Add. 24023, ff. 28–29; Add. 28881, f. 513; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 445; Post Man, 9 Nov. 1697.
- 111 Dukes of Ormonde, 41–42.
- 112 CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 459–60; TCD, Lyon (King) mss 750/1, pp. 138–40.
- 113 CSP Dom. 1697, p. 460.
- 114 CTP, 1708–14, p. 611.
- 115 Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 249.
- 116 Add. 61653, ff. 24v–26, 27v–30v.
- 117 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 583.
- 118 Add. 28881, ff. 534–5, 553–4.
- 119 Add. 61653, ff. 39v–41.
- 120 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 35.
- 121 CSP Dom. 1698, pp. 10, 23.
- 122 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 349, 358; Post Man, 19 Mar. 1698.
- 123 Eg. 2618, ff. 182–3.
- 124 CSP Dom. 1698, p. 369; Flying Post, 11 Aug. 1698; Bodl. Carte 233, f. 78.
- 125 Post Boy, 3 Nov. 1698; HMC Buccleuch, ii. 617; Add. 38150, ff. 127–8.
- 126 Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss, 47/106, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 3 Nov. 1698.
- 127 CSP Dom. 1698, p. 413.
- 128 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 480; CTB, 1700–1, p. 236.
- 129 HMC Portland, iii. 604.
- 130 Add. 28931, ff. 243–4; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 503–4.
- 131 Evelyn Diary, v. 320–3.
- 132 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 507; CSP Dom. 1699–1700, pp. 141–2; HMC Popham, 275.
- 133 CSP Dom. 1699–1700, p. 153.
- 134 Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 47/205, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 1 July 1699; UNL, PwA 1497.
- 135 London Post, 14 Aug. 1699; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 318.
- 136 London Post, 22 Mar. 1700; Post Boy, 30 Mar. 1700.
- 137 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 632; CJ, xiii. 318.
- 138 CSP Dom. 1700–2, p. 90.
- 139 Post Boy, 8 Aug. 1700; Add. 61101, ff. 68–69.
- 140 Timberland, ii. 26.
- 141 Dukes of Ormonde, 217.
- 142 Power, ‘Land, Politics and Society’, 78.
- 143 Post Boy, 18 Sept. 1701.
- 144 Burnet, v. 9–10; Add. 70073–4, newsletter, 3 Dec. 1701; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 135.
- 145 Atterbury, Epistolary Corresp. iii. 64.
- 146 Burnet, iv. 560.
- 147 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 163; Add. 61474, ff. 52–53.
- 148 Dukes of Ormonde, 22.
- 149 Add. 28888, ff. 103–4.
- 150 CSP Dom. 1702–3, p. 219; CTB, 1702, pp. 44, 237.
- 151 CTB, 1700–1, p. 434.
- 152 Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 55, 146–8.
- 153 HMC Portland, iv. 51.
- 154 Post Boy, 12 Nov. 1702.
- 155 Nicolson, London Diaries, 202.
- 156 Burnet, v. 60.
- 157 Post Boy, 4 Feb. 1703; Add. 70075, newsletter, 6 Feb. 1703.
- 158 Pols. in Age of Anne, 499–500; Add. 28890, ff. 105–7.
- 159 Burnet, v. 101–2.
- 160 Add. 28890, ff. 80–81.
- 161 Northants RO, Isham mss IC 2198, J. to Sir J. Isham, 15 Feb. 1703.
- 162 CTB, 1702, p. 138.
- 163 Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 197.
- 164 CTP 1702–7, pp. 115, 212.
- 165 LPL, ms. 930, no. 227.
- 166 Daily Courant, 24 Mar. 1703.
- 167 Add. 70075, newsletter, 20 May 1703; Add. 28890, ff. 246–51; Daily Courant, 20 May 1703; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 300; Post Man, 8 June 1703.
- 168 CSP Dom. 1703–4, p. 119; Dukes of Ormonde, 168.
- 169 Isham mss IC 2205, J. to Sir J. Isham, 12 Oct. 1703.
- 170 Add. 28891, ff. 185–6, 218–19; Add. 28932, ff. 93–96, 101, 106–7.
- 171 SP 63/363/96.
- 172 CJ[I], iii. 173–82, 209; CSP. Dom. 1703–4, p. 236.
- 173 Add. 28932, ff. 157–8; Post Man, 2 Sept. 1704; HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 96.
- 174 CTB, 1704–5, pp. 24, 46, 54.
- 175 Add. 28890, ff. 360–1; Add. 28891, ff. 9–10, 72–73; CTB, 1704–5, pp. 247, 346.
- 176 CTP 1702–7, p. 270; CTB, 1704–5, p. 346.
- 177 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 480; Add. 28932, ff. 159–60; CSP Dom. 1704–5, p. 117; Verney ms mic. 636/52, M. Lovett to J. Verney, 18 Nov. 1704.
- 178 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 134–9, 151, 159.
- 179 Add. 28927, ff. 186–7.
- 180 Add. 28893, ff. 95–96, 101–2.
- 181 CSP Dom. 1704–5, p. 297; London Gazette, 28 June 1705.
- 182 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 595; HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 158; CTB, 1705–6, p. 32.
- 183 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 597; Verney ms mic. 636/52, Sir T. Cave to Fermanagh, 25 Mar. 1705; Add. 28932, ff. 216–17.
- 184 Cowper, Diary, 5.
- 185 Add. 28932, ff. 265–8.
- 186 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 231; KSRL, Methuen–Simpson corresp. C163, Methuen to Simpson, 13 Apr. 1706.
- 187 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 258.
- 188 Add. 70278, ‘Electrice’s Regents copied by earl Rivers at Hanover’ [1706].
- 189 Add. 61498, ff. 1–23.
- 190 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 287–9; Add. 28933, ff. 31–34, 37–40; Add. 61498, f. 30.
- 191 Add. 61498, ff. 38, 42.
- 192 CTB, 1706–7, p. 170, 232.
- 193 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 310; The Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer, ed. H. Bunbury, 112–13.
- 194 Add. 38155, f. 23.
- 195 HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 302, 309, 314; CJ[I], iii. 526, 533, 539, 541.
- 196 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 204.
- 197 Christ Church, Oxf., Wake mss 17, f. 186.
- 198 Timberland, ii. 244.
- 199 Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. ii. 1185.
- 200 Wentworth Pprs. 72.
- 201 Add. 61636, ff. 48–49, 52–53.
- 202 CTP 1708–14, pp. 127, 217; CTB, 1709, p. 357.
- 203 Post Boy, 3[0], Nov. 1709.
- 204 Add. 72488, ff. 66–67; BIHR, lv. 206–14.
- 205 Add. 72495, ff. 4–5.
- 206 Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 13, 60.
- 207 Dukes of Ormonde, 233.
- 208 Wentworth Pprs. 118, 144–5, 149–50.
- 209 Post Boy, 5 Aug. 1710.
- 210 CJ[I], iii. 797–808.
- 211 Dukes of Ormonde, 218–19.
- 212 Add. 28051, f. 241; Jnl. to Stella, ed. Williams, 64–65.
- 213 CTB, 1710, pp. 489–90, 508.
- 214 HMC Portland, x. 347.
- 215 Wake mss 17, ff. 268–9.
- 216 Memoirs of the Late Right Honourable John Lord Haversham (1711), p. iv.
- 217 Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 75.
- 218 Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Politics, 85.
- 219 NAS, GD124/15/1024/1.
- 220 Add. 72500, ff. 54–55; Ailesbury Mems. 290.
- 221 Nicolson London Diaries, 561.
- 222 Jnl. to Stella 235; CJ, xvi. 583.
- 223 British Mercury, 11 May 1711; Worcs. RO, Hampton (Pakington) mss 705:349/4739/(i)/55, newsletter.
- 224 Post Man, 14 June 1711; Prescott Diary, 314; HMC Portland, v. 30.
- 225 HMC Portland, v. 65.
- 226 Jnl to Stella, 364.
- 227 Dukes of Ormonde, 215.
- 228 Prescott Diary, 336; Evening Post, 4 Dec. 1711.
- 229 Jnl. to Stella, 432, 454–5, 473.
- 230 Bodl. Ballard 20, f. 74.
- 231 Post Man, 26 Feb. 1712.
- 232 Wentworth Pprs. 244, 246, 249–50, 257–8.
- 233 Jnl. to Stella, 474, 522.
- 234 Letters of Thomas Burnet to George Duckett 1712–1722, ed. D.N. Smith, 5.
- 235 CTP 1708–14, pp. 369, 441.
- 236 Survey of London, xix. 120.
- 237 London Gazette, 10 Apr. 1712; Bolingbroke Corresp. ii. 269; British Mercury, 21 Apr. 1712.
- 238 HMC Portland, v. 157.
- 239 Add. 70230, [Harcourt to Oxford], 19, 25, 26 May 1712.
- 240 TNA, SP 63/373/149.
- 241 Bolingbroke Corresp. iii. 29–30; Add. 70253, M. Prior to Oxford, 1 Sept. 1712.
- 242 HMC Portland, x. 275; v. 239.
- 243 NLW, Ottley Corresp. 1613–14, 1616.
- 244 Post Boy, 1 Nov. 1712.
- 245 HMC Bath, i. 222.
- 246 Add. 72500, ff. 125–6; Jnl. to Stella, 596.
- 247 British Mercury, 4 Feb. 1713.
- 248 London Gazette, 7 Apr. 1713; Add. 72500, ff. 153–4.
- 249 Add. 72496, ff. 77–78; London Gazette, 9 June 1713; Post Boy, 11 June 1713.
- 250 Evening Post, 23 July 1713.
- 251 Add. 70200, D. Kennedy to T. Harley, 18 Aug. 1713.
- 252 CTP 1720–8, p. 295; Post Boy, 16 July 1713; CTB, 1713, pp. 281, 316.
- 253 Add. 28893, ff. 448–9.
- 254 Beaufort mss at Badminton, Beaufort to Ormond, 25 July 1713.
- 255 The Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer, 147; Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 284.
- 256 HMC Portland, x. 168.
- 257 Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Politics, 39–40.
- 258 Bodl. Carte 237, f. 2.
- 259 HMC Portland, vii. 146–7, 176.
- 260 Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Politics, 159.
- 261 HMC Portland, v. 454, 459; vii. 192.
- 262 Swift Works, ed. Davis, viii. 155–7.
- 263 Bodl. Carte 231, ff. 39–41.
- 264 Daily Courant, 3 Aug. 1714.
- 265 Registers of Westminster Abbey, 370.