WILMOT, John (1647-80)

WILMOT, John (1647–80)

styled 1652-58 Visct. Wilmot; suc. fa. 19 Feb. 1658 (a minor) as 2nd earl of ROCHESTER

First sat 10 Oct. 1667; last sat 26 Jan. 1680

b. 1 Apr. 1647,1 2nd but 1st surv. s. of Henry Wilmot, 2nd Visct. Wilmot [I] (later earl of Rochester), and 2nd w. Anne (1614-96), da. of Sir John St John‡, bt. and wid. of Sir Francis Henry Lee, 2nd bt. educ. Burford g.s.; Wadham, Oxf. 1660, MA 9 Sept 1661; travelled abroad c.1661-5 (France, Italy).2 m. 29 Jan 1667, Elizabeth (d.1681), da. of John Malet (Malett) of Enmore, Somerset, 1s. 3da.;3 1 illegit. da. with Elizabeth Barry.4 d. 26 July 1680;5 will 22 June 1680, pr. 23 Feb. 1681.6

Gent. of the bedchamber 1667-d.;7 kpr. of the king’s game, Oxon. 1668-d.;8 ranger, Woodstock Park 1674-d.;9 master of the king’s hawks 1675-d.10

Dep. lt., Som. 1672-d.;11 alderman, Taunton 1677-?d.12

Vol., RN 1665, 1666;13 capt. tp. of horse, duke of Monmouth's regt. 1666.14

Associated with: Woodstock, Oxon. and Adderbury, Oxon.

Likenesses: oil on canvas by unknown artist (after orig. by J. Huysmans), c.1665-70, NPG 804; oil on canvas by Sir P. Lely, c.1666-7, V&A Museum.

The subject of numerous biographies and literary studies, Rochester is best known as one of the foremost poets and rakes of the Restoration. The word ‘excess’ might well have been invented for him. His verses both amused and annoyed while his sharp tongue and sharper satires involved him in a series of duels and altercations. On occasion he landed himself in hot water for his jibes and boisterous behaviour but his time out of favour was usually brief as the king tended to enjoy Wilmot’s company more than he was offended by the young man’s invective. As one of the ‘wits’ of the Caroline court, Wilmot ensured his immortality by the composition of pieces such as A Satyr against Mankind, though doubt has been cast on the authorship of a number of works previously thought to have been by him. He achieved no less notoriety for his riotous private life. A companion of Sir George Etherege and William Wycherley, he was also one of John Dryden’s patrons, though the relationship was an awkward one. When not indulging his hedonistic tendencies, Wilmot was at times a significant force both at court and in Parliament. Through his association with George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, he was an important associate of those opposed to Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, and latterly to Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds). His friendship with Nell Gwyn furthered his position at court and he later assisted her as a trustee supporting her attempts to acquire lands in Ireland.15 Wilmot’s connection with Buckingham and Lovelace seems to have gone beyond political sympathy: Buckingham and Wilmot were said to have run a tavern together at one point; Lovelace was a close neighbour and shared responsibility with Rochester for the manor of Woodstock, where they both hosted Buckingham for a fortnight in 1677.16

Early career to 1667

Like so much else about Wilmot’s life, there appears to have been some doubt about his paternity. Wood thought his real father was his mother’s cousin, Sir Allen Apsley‡ but there seems little reason to give credence to this report.17 Wilmot’s father (real or otherwise) was prominent in the Civil War as a royalist cavalry commander and rewarded with the earldom of Rochester in 1652, having been one of those to aid the king’s escape after the battle of Worcester. He subsequently joined Charles II in exile. Wilmot meanwhile remained in England with his mother at Ditchley, Oxfordshire, under the guardianship of Sir Ralph Verney‡.18 The countess’s puritan background ensured that her estates were saved from sequestration. Her husband’s estates at Adderbury fared less well, though the house there itself remained in the family’s possession (and was eventually effectively purchased by the countess from her exiled husband). Wilmot’s mother is reported to have spent between two and four thousand pounds on building work and refurbishments after 1661. Even so, the house was comparatively modest and in 1665 it was assessed at just 14 hearths.19 Wilmot’s upbringing was dominated by his mother’s puritan austerity but her family ties brought him into contact with his royalist relatives, the Lees of Ditchley and the Berties of Rycote. 20 Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, thought Wilmot was ‘naturally modest, till the court corrupted him. ... He gave himself up to all sorts of extravagance, and to the wildest frolics that a wanton wit could devise’. Anthony Wood echoed the sentiment, adding that the court ‘not only debauched him but made him a perfect Hobbist’. Thomas Hearne, on the other hand, blamed the young peer’s fall into debauchery on his experiences at Oxford.21

On the death of his father Wilmot succeeded both to the earldom of Rochester and to significant interest in Oxfordshire. At the time of the Restoration he was still barely 13 years old, but given his background it is perhaps unsurprising that both the newly restored king and Hyde took a keen interest in the young peer. Rochester repaid them by being highly critical of the former and rebelling against the latter’s proffered patronage.22 In 1665 Rochester, having returned from his foreign tour, was put forward, upon the recommendation of the king himself, for a match with the Somersetshire heiress Elizabeth Malet, whom Grammont described as ‘melancholy’ and Samuel Pepys‡, with scant regard for geography, as ‘the fortune of the north’. Rochester’s modest inheritance required that he marry well. With characteristic lack of concern for the consequences, he took matters into his own hands and on 26 May abducted the young woman. They were quickly overtaken: Rochester was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower and Elizabeth Malet returned to her family. 23 Within a few weeks, though, Rochester was admitted back into favour and allowed to volunteer in the navy during the second Anglo-Dutch war. He was commended by Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich, for his bravery.24 Rochester returned from the fleet in September 1665 with the news of the fleet’s victory and was rewarded with a free gift of £750.25 He was involved in the following spring’s campaign and once again distinguished himself for bravery, both in battle and in his penchant for issuing challenges to other young blades.26

Marriage and majority, 1667-1675

On 29 Jan. 1667, against all expectations and despite rival suits from Lord John Butler (later earl of Gowran [I]), and Sandwich’s heir, Edward Montagu, styled Lord Hinchingbrooke (later 2nd earl of Sandwich), Rochester was married to Elizabeth Malet.27 She remained for the remainder of his life, a devoted, if badly neglected, wife. Rochester’s marriage to an heiress whom Pepys believed to be worth £2,500 p.a., solved his immediate financial problems.28 The king rewarded him generously too, however, and there seems little reason to believe Pepys’ assessment that the new countess had agreed to marry Rochester out of charity.29 Rochester already enjoyed a pension of £500 p.a. and shortly after the wedding was the beneficiary of a temporary downturn in Buckingham’s fortunes when on 6 Mar. 1667 he was appointed to the duke’s place as gentleman of the king’s bedchamber, at a salary of £1,000 p.a.30 By 1672, however, Rochester was owed £3,375 in arrears and he seems to have struggled to keep his word in assuring his wife that he would not expect her to maintain him. 31 Rochester’s marriage also brought him new lands and influence in Somerset.32 In October 1672 he was appointed a deputy lieutenant for the county and in 1677 an alderman of Taunton under the town’s new charter.33

As his star continued to rise, Rochester was, on 29 July 1667, summoned to the House, along with his rival, John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby), despite both peers being under-age.34 The reason for their early writs was believed to be the expectation that they would help bolster the court in the Lords.35 Mulgrave (later satirized by Rochester as ‘Lord All-Pride’) chose not to answer the summons.36 Rochester, though, presented himself in the House on 10 Oct., the opening day of the new session. His appearance provoked serious debate and the question of whether minors could attend the House preoccupied the committee for privileges. The matter was still unresolved on 11 Feb. 1668 when James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, complained that the sub-committee for the Journal was unable to complete its work until some resolution had been reached.37 Exactly a month later the sub-committee was still impatient to have some resolution in order to proceed. In spite of the House’s deliberations, the king overruled the Lords’ objections and insisted on the young lords’ right to sit. The decision served later as a precedent for Monmouth’s early admission in 1670. With his right to attend secured, Rochester was present on just under a quarter of all sitting days in the remainder of the session. He willingly supported Clarendon’s impeachment and on 20 Nov. subscribed the protest at the failure to insist on Clarendon’s commitment. Verses celebrating the former lord chancellor’s disgrace were later attributed to him:

Pride, lust, ambition and the people’s hate,
The kingdom’s broker, ruin of the state,
Dunkirk’s sad loss, divider of the fleet,
Tangier’s compounder for a barren sheet:
This shrub of gentry married to the crown,
His daughter to the heir, is tumbled down.
The grand despiser of the nobles lies
Grovelling in dust, a just sacrifice.38

His last sitting in 1667 was on 27 Nov., but he returned on 17 Feb. 1668 and continued to make occasional appearances in the House. He last sat on 8 May, the day before the adjournment.

The controversy raised by his presence in the House when still underage was probably the greatest impact Rochester had on the House during his brief parliamentary career. He was never an assiduous attender, at least until the sessions of the late 1670s, and even when he did appear in the House his activity was minimal. He was rarely named to select committees, and was even left off of the standing committees for privileges and petitions until the session of 1673. There is little record of any intervention by him in the affairs of the House.

His principal arena was the court and the theatre where he quickly earned a reputation for excess, in both liquor and libido. He was the cause of much scandal and newsletter gossip in 1669. On 16 Feb. he was at a dinner at the Dutch ambassador’s residence when, ‘heated with wine’, he dared to strike Thomas Killigrew in the king’s presence. Despite this offence to royal majesty, Pepys was scandalized to see ‘so idle a rogue’ in the king’s presence the following day, ‘to the king’s everlasting shame’.39 In mid-March Rochester was further involved in a disturbance, this time a quarrel between Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond, and James Hamilton. Rochester was said to have ‘spoke but oddly of the king’, with ‘ugly slighting things’. The inevitable scandal compelled Rochester to make an immediate departure for France.40 When the duchess of Orléans presented him to Louis XIV, the French king made it plain that he would not so readily forgive such affronts to royal dignity and commanded Rochester to leave his presence.41 An evening at the Palais d’Orléans with William Cavendish, styled Lord Cavendish (later duke of Devonshire), resulted in a violent brawl. Whereas Cavendish nearly died through the several wounds he received, Rochester, ‘by retreating, extricated himself from a violence at once barbarous and out of all proportion’.42 Perhaps it was such dexterity which led the English ambassador, Ralph Montagu (later duke of Montagu), to recommend Rochester to Henry Bennet, Baron (later earl of) Arlington, as one worthy of favour.43

Rochester had returned from his exile by the early autumn and on 29 Oct. 1669 he took his seat in the new session, of which he again attended a quarter of all sitting days. The following month he was engaged in an inglorious squabble with Mulgrave, which resulted in a farcical attempted duel. Rochester, pleading ill health, requested that the bout be fought on horseback but when he appeared on the field accompanied by a heavily armed lifeguard, Mulgrave’s second protested that the combatants were unevenly matched. 44 The king was outraged when the earl escaped capture by slipping out the back door, commenting that ‘as the earl of Rochester is his servant, he knows what course to take with him’. On 23 Nov. the House ordered both miscreant peers to be secured, and three days later Rochester was compelled to make a formal apology before the House, though he took the opportunity of ridiculing his opponent while pretending to make amends for their misunderstanding.

Rochester’s uncontrolled behaviour resulted in tragedy early in 1670 when it was reported that he had run through and killed (or grievously wounded) a waterman. The circumstances of the tussle were unclear, which presumably assisted Rochester in again escaping serious consequences for his actions.45 Nevertheless it must have come as some relief to his friends and relations when he announced his intention of setting out for his Somersetshire estates towards the end of April. Even this proved no complete remedy for his excesses and by the middle of the summer he was seeking advances of money after losing large amounts at play. Efforts to control his spending and settle his financial situation persisted late into the year.46

It was with his affairs still in a state of some disarray that Rochester took his seat in the House once more on 24 Oct. 1670, having failed to attend the opening on 14 February. He proceeded to attend on just 14 days of the session (8 per cent of the total). Although he was not in the House in January 1671 when members of the Talbot family lodged a petition accusing Buckingham of killing Francis Talbot, 11th earl of Shrewsbury, he was said to have worked on Buckingham’s behalf with Nell Gwynn and Charles Sackville, styled Lord Buckhurst (later 6th earl of Dorset), to frustrate the Talbots’ aims.47 Rochester was again barred from court in December 1671 because of the publication of a libel attributed to him involving the king’s mistress, the duchess of Cleveland, and John Churchill (later duke of Marlborough). As was predicted, the matter soon blew over and he was quickly restored to favour. He then celebrated this, characteristically enough, by engaging in yet another brawl in the last days of the year.48

Rochester took his seat in the House once more on 10 Feb. 1673, a week after the opening of the new session, of which he attended just over half of all sitting days. On 15 Mar. he appeared before the committee on the bill for making the rivers Parret and Tone navigable, to which he himself had been named the previous day, in order to recommend its passage, a matter in which he appears to have been involved along with his Malet relations. Rochester assured the committee that the Somerset towns of Bridgwater and Taunton were both eager to see the measure pass, though both this and the subsequent meeting of the committee on 17 Mar. revealed concerns about the financing of the project. One of the local aldermen, John Forth, made a spirited intervention against the imposition of one amendment to part of the bill. The amendment was dropped and on 22 Mar. it was at last recommended that the bill should be reported to the House with a proviso that had been offered by Rochester and acceded to by Forth. The bill passed the Lords three days later.49 By the time the committee had concluded its deliberations Rochester was back in custody. On 21 Mar. 1673 the earl marshal informed the House that Rochester and the murderous Robert Constable, 3rd Viscount Dunbar [S], had been secured to forestall an intended duel.50 The following day, Rochester was brought before the House and, despite his protests of innocence, was enjoined to lay aside the quarrel and keep the peace. The cause of the dispute is uncertain but both men had been part of a group, including Monmouth, that had assaulted and killed Peter Virnell or Vernell two years previously.51

Rochester returned to the House on 27 Oct. 1673 for the next session, of which he attended three of the four sitting days. By the first day of the following year, he had again pushed his luck too far and was once more in disgrace, this time over some ‘witty, spiteful verses, which touch too severely upon the king.’52 This did not prevent him from taking his seat in the House on 16 Feb. 1674, but he was then present on just seven days of the session (18 per cent of all its sitting days). As ever, by the spring he had managed to inveigle his way back into favour and in early March he was promised the offices of keeper and ranger at Woodstock in order to allow him some independence from his mother, whose longevity was the cause of increasing friction as it prevented him from taking control of the estates at Adderbury.53 Rochester’s new responsibilities brought with them an official residence at the high lodge where he spent much of his time away from London and which enabled him to exert his interest in the locality. He also made efforts to expand his influence into Ireland, as well as acquiring property in London.54 In 1675 he was granted a 41-year lease of the manor of Edmonton.55 Such preferments made no difference to Rochester’s riotous lifestyle and at the close of 1674 he was engaged (as second to his good friend Henry Savile) in another duel with Mulgrave. On this occasion it was Savile who had triggered the quarrel by insulting Rochester’s ‘goggle-eyed’ rival.56

Rochester took his seat in the following session on 20 Apr. 1675 and was present on 48 per cent of all its sittings. In advance of the session he was assessed among those peers thought likely to support Danby’s non-resisting test bill and certainly his name does not appear in any of the protests against it. Shortly after the prorogation of 9 June Rochester, in company with other ‘wits’ including his friend Savile, participated in another notorious frolic which resulted in the destruction of a sun-dial, in the king’s garden at Whitehall. 57 Both this and earlier indiscretions may have been behind a downturn in his relations with the king’s mistress, the duchess of Portsmouth, that resulted in yet another command to leave the court. He retreated to Woodstock. Over that summer of 1675 Rochester and his neighbour and associate Lovelace appear to have fallen foul of the efforts made by Danby to control the management of the royal estates when both received firm orders to ensure that no more timber was illegally felled.58 Further trouble emanated from Woodstock that autumn over the appointment of Rochester’s kinsman, Edward Henry Lee, earl of Lichfield, to the reversion of the rangership of the park. In response Rochester (and Lovelace) demanded a caveat to be drawn up protecting their interests in their offices within the manor during their lifetimes. Rochester’s inability to secure the office for his own heirs is perhaps indicative of his diminished influence at court at the time.59

Rochester took his seat once more on 13 Oct. 1675 but he was again rarely in attendance, troubling the clerk only five times during the session (just under a quarter of all sitting days). He last sat in that session on 27 Oct. and by the beginning of November was back in the country. On 15 Nov. he registered his proxy with Monmouth, which the duke held until the prorogation a week later. Sickness was again, probably, the reason for his poor attendance. Early the following year rumours circulated of his demise. Rochester took pleasure in informing his companion, Henry Savile‡, of the ‘unhappy news of my own death and burial.’ Dislike of the identities of the rumoured replacements for the few offices he held had a briefly revitalizing effect on him and, by the spring, Rochester had resolved to dedicate more time to the Lords. He quizzed Savile on the likely date of the next session, explaining that as, ‘the peers of England being grown of late years very considerable in the government, I would make one at the session. Livy and sickness has a little inclined me to policy.’ Shortly after, his enthusiasm appears to have abated and in a further letter to Savile he mocked ‘They who would be great in our little government’ who seemed ‘as ridiculous to me as schoolboys who with much endeavour and some danger climb a crab-tree, venturing their necks for fruit which solid pigs would disdain if they were not starving.’60

Decline and death 1676-1680

Rochester’s earnest resolutions of the beginning of the year were soon forgotten and in late June 1676 he was engaged in another altercation at Epsom, in which he reportedly ‘abjectly hid himself’ while his companions ‘were exposed’ to assault; one of his associates was killed in the fray. One of Rochester’s kinsmen noted he was:

every now and then entangled in brangles and though hitherto he has escaped pretty well, yet one time or another he will be made to pay for all, for as to his person it is weak and there is not one ordinary man in ten but is able to beat his lordship to stockfish.61

A desire to avoid this last indignity was probably the determining factor in leading Rochester back to his wife and estates at Adderbury that summer, where they played host to Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, on 22 August.62

Rochester took his seat in the following session on 15 Feb. 1677, following which he was present on 24 per cent of all its sitting days. Rochester was again the subject of scandal, this time over the breakdown of relations between Thomas Leigh, 2nd Baron Leigh, and his baroness. Rochester emerged from the affair with little credit. The previous autumn he had reportedly offered to help Lady Leigh abscond from her husband and to pay her an allowance of £500, pending his recovery from gout.63 Perhaps distracted by this scandal, Rochester seems not to have played a significant role in the debates at the beginning of the session over the validity of Parliament’s sitting after the lengthy prorogation. He was away from the House for just over a fortnight between 20 Feb. and 3 Mar., but ensured that his proxy was held during that period by Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon (later earl of Macclesfield). He was noted nonetheless as ‘worthy’ by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, in the spring of 1677. Rochester does appear to have become associated with Shaftesbury’s opposition group, probably on account of his friendship with Buckingham and Lovelace. He was also one of the companions of Monmouth, who was a visitor at Woodstock on at least one occasion.64 Rochester and other members of ‘the merry gang’ were to the fore in putting pressure on the king to have Buckingham released from the Tower. Once Buckingham was free, it was at Rochester’s lodgings that he sought sanctuary before his return to court in August. Subsequent rumours that Buckingham was to replace James Butler, duke of Ormond, as lord steward gained currency as a result of Rochester engineering a meeting between the king and duke.65 Their partnership invited criticism at court and Rochester’s talent for libellous verses left him open to assault through works attributed to him. In August Buckingham wrote warning him that ‘my noble friends at court have now resolved as the most politic notions they can go upon to lie most abominably of your lordship and me in order to which they have brought in a new treasonable lampoon of which your lordship is to be the author.’66 In September more lurid rumours circulated about Rochester following reports of a ‘beastly prank’ in which he, Lovelace and a group of others had indulged, holding nude races in the park at Woodstock.67

Rochester returned to the House for a further three days towards the close of the session early in 1678. He was present again in the House for the adjournment of 15 Jan. 1678, but was not there when it resumed for business on 28 January. On 31 Jan. he registered his proxy again with Gerard, which was vacated by Rochester’s return to the House on 20 February. On 4 Apr. he was present for the trial of Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, when he was among the 18 peers who found Pembroke not guilty of murder; he was not among the majority who found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.68 He failed to return to the House for the brief session of May to July 1678, probably on account of increasingly poor health, though he was able to rely on Henry Savile to keep him apprised of developments in Parliament.69 Earlier in the year he had been given over by his physicians.70 His condition continued to fluctuate over the next few months and in mid-April he was believed (erroneously) to have died. According to Lady Chaworth, having been at the ‘gates of death’ he had become ‘so penitent’ that he was resolved to ‘be an example of penitence to the whole world.’71 Such resolutions appear to have been short-lived. In September he had rallied sufficiently to engage in yet another argument, this time with his cousin, James Bertie, Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon), most likely over rival interests in Oxfordshire. The contretemps was said to have been referred to the lord privy seal (Anglesey) to settle.72 Rochester took his seat once more in the ensuing session on 15 Nov. 1678, over three weeks into its proceedings. He was present on 24 per cent of its sitting days. On his first day he voted in a division in a committee of the whole with James Stuart, duke of York, and Monmouth, but in opposition to Shaftesbury, against the motion that the declaration against transubstantiation provided for in the test bill should be under the same penalties as the oaths .73 On 9 Dec. he was, with Buckingham and Monmouth, nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the disbandment of part of the army.

The early months of 1679 found Rochester initially engaged in attempting to maintain control over Woodstock, where Lovelace had recently been displaced from his position as ranger of Woodstock Park. Rochester ordered his agent, Heron, ‘not to stir’ from the place to ensure a smooth transition to the new office-holder.74 He does not, though, appear to have made much impact on the elections for the new Parliament. He took his seat in the abortive week-long session of the new Parliament on 6 Mar. 1679, and attended four days in total. He then returned to the chamber at the opening of the following session on 15 Mar. after which he attended unusually assiduously, being present on 77 per cent of the total. In advance of the session Danby initially noted him as a peer who could be relied on (though requiring the king’s solicitation) to oppose the impeachment, but over the next few days Danby amended his predictions, incrementally downgrading Rochester to ‘unreliable’ and ultimately to an undoubted opponent. Danby’s assessment was proved correct when Rochester joined Monmouth, as well as his old rival Mulgrave, in turning his back on Danby and supporting in the first two weeks of April the Commons’ bill to have the former lord treasurer attainted, rather than merely banished, in case he did not surrender himself to face impeachment.75 On 10 May he also voted in favour of appointing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the manner of proceeding against the impeached lords, and registered his dissent when the motion failed to carry. He dissented again almost a fortnight later, on 23 May, from the resolutions to insist on the Lords’ answer relating to the right of the bishops to vote in capital cases and to proceed with the trials of the five lords in the Tower before that of Danby. Four days later he dissented once more from the Lords’ further resolution to confirm their decision that the bishops might sit as judges in court until sentence of death was pronounced.

Although Rochester refused to assist Danby, the assault on the lord treasurer combined with the furore over the Popish Plot appears to have distanced him from his former colleagues Buckingham and Lovelace. He wrote to his wife in the country describing the situation in London at about this time as, ‘reduced to that extremity on all sides that a man dares not turn his back for fear of being hanged.’76 In a letter composed over the course of almost a month from the end of May to the last week of June, he reported to Savile how, ‘Every man in this court thinks he stands fair for minister. Some give it to Shaftesbury, others to Halifax [George Savile, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax], but Mr Waller says S[underland] [Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland], does all.’ It was a struggle in which Rochester had little interest in participating and he resolved instead to retire once again into Oxfordshire.77

Rochester is said to have broken his usual silence in the House to speak out against Exclusion, but this is difficult to verify.78 One speech sometimes attributed to him was most likely made by Laurence Hyde, later earl of Rochester of the second creation.79 Another, delivered on what occasion it is not clear, that was said to have consisted only of the lines, ‘My lords, I divide my speech into four parts. My lords, if I ever rise to speak again in this House, I give you leave to cut me in pieces’, may well be a later invention.80 A rumour suggesting that Rochester had persuaded his countess to convert to Catholicism in anticipation of York’s succession is equally difficult to substantiate. According to evidence presented during the investigation of Stephen College (the ‘Protestant Joiner’), it was College, a trooper in Rochester’s regiment of horse, who was responsible for introducing Lady Rochester to a Catholic priest.81 The only action that Rochester undoubtedly took in the Parliament of spring 1679 was to insist on 15 Mar. on his parliamentary privilege to secure the release of one of his servants who had been imprisoned for debt. 

Following the dissolution in July 1679, Rochester enjoyed some success in the races at Woodstock that September, where his grey was reported to have won the plate.82 The following month his health had once more collapsed and he was described as being ‘exceeding ill.’83 He rallied early the following year to attend the House for the final time at the prorogation of 26 Jan. 1680. In March, for the last time, he managed to avoid yet another duel, which was to have been fought, like his abortive bout with Mulgrave, on horseback.84 Rochester’s condition steadily deteriorated over the next few months, his style of living having damaged his health irreparably.85 At the beginning of June, John Cary predicted that Rochester did not have long to live. His announcement was followed by the usual contradictory reports of the earl’s demise and steady recovery.86 The former proved to be closer to the mark and on 26 July, aged only 33, Rochester finally succumbed to his excesses. Given the number of accounts of his expected recovery it is hardly surprising that at least one correspondent remained hopeful that once again the news was false.87

Rochester’s early death was preceded by his spectacular conversion to the Church of England through the mediation of his chaplain Robert Parsons and Gilbert Burnet. In solidarity with her husband, his countess also returned to the Anglican fold.88 Given his former demonstrations of penitence when in extremis, Rochester’s drinking companions not unreasonably assumed that his new-found religiosity was a temporary veneer. Rochester’s caustic response to their wishes that he might recover and return to his former amusements as well as later comments about his demeanour on his sickbed made by Dr Radcliffe suggests that his resolution to change his ways was genuine enough.89 John Tillotson, later archbishop of Canterbury, certainly regretted that ‘an example which might have been of so much use and advantage to the world is so soon taken from us.’90 Rochester’s passing was marked by an elegy by his half-sister Anne Lee, wife of Thomas Wharton, later marquess of Wharton.91

Rochester left considerable debts.92 His lodgings at Whitehall were sold to satisfy his creditors, who seem still to have been unsatisfied five years after his death.93 Evidence of his extravagant and venal lifestyle remained among his belongings. Of his large collection of paintings, Lady Lindsey expressed an interest in securing first refusal on ‘all the little Dutch pictures that are fit for a woman to buy’ but added that there were numerous others in the collection ‘fitter to be burnt.’94 In spite of this, Rochester’s children’s expectations were considerable and his daughters benefited financially from the early death of Charles Wilmot, 3rd earl of Rochester, their brother . The three Wilmot girls were thus said to be expected to share an estate of £60,000 between them on attaining their majorities. Unsurprisingly, each married well. Rochester’s second daughter, Elizabeth, later married Edward Montagu, 3rd earl of Sandwich, son of the Lord Hinchingbrooke whom her own mother had spurned. His youngest daughter, Mallet, was married to John Vaughan, Viscount Lisburne [I].95 Rochester’s natural daughter by Elizabeth Barry appears to have been the beneficiary of £3,000 left to her by Anne Wharton.96 Rochester was succeeded by his reputedly scrofulous son, Charles, but on his death only a year after his father, the peerage became extinct. The title was revived shortly afterwards for Clarendon’s younger son, Laurence Hyde, Viscount Hyde.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Letters of John Wilmot, earl of Rochester ed. J. Treglown, 5.
  • 2 J. Johnson, A Profane Wit, 18-19, 25-29, 40-54; Ath. Ox. iii. 1229; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p.154.
  • 3 HMC Le Fleming, 44; Verney ms mic. M636/35, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 8 Aug. 1681.
  • 4 HMC Bath, ii. 160.
  • 5 VCH Oxon. xii. 447-8; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 53.
  • 6 TNA, PROB 11/365.
  • 7 Verney ms mic. M636/20, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 14 Mar. 1667; HMC Laing, i. 386.
  • 8 CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 253; G. Greene, Rochester’s Monkey, 87.
  • 9 VCH Oxon. xii. 440-1; CSP Dom. 1673-5, p. 182.
  • 10 CSP Dom. 1675-6, p. 87; Greene, Rochester’s Monkey, 87.
  • 11 CSP Dom. 1672-3, p. 101.
  • 12 HMC Portland, iii. 357.
  • 13 CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 562; G. Burnet, Some Passages in the Life and Death of John, Earl of Rochester (1680), 10-11.
  • 14 Bodl. Carte 222, ff. 107-8, Carte 72, f. 95.
  • 15 Stowe 211, f. 330; Wilmot Letters 144; C. Goldsworthy, The Satyr, 120.
  • 16 HJ, xix. 563; HMC Le Fleming, 141.
  • 17 Greene, Rochester’s Monkey, 14-15.
  • 18 Verney Mems. ii. 335.
  • 19 VCH Oxon. ix. 7; M. Weinstock, Hearth Tax Returns 1665, 139.
  • 20 HMC Rutland, ii. 26.
  • 21 Burnet, i. 485-6; Ath. Ox. iii. 1229; Hearne, Remains, 122.
  • 22 Greene, Rochester’s Monkey, 33.
  • 23 Pepys Diary, vi. 110; Grammont Mems, 320; CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 389.
  • 24 Verney ms mic. M636/20, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 10 July 1665; CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 562.
  • 25 CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 35; Bodl. Carte 223, f. 291.
  • 26 Burnet, Some Passages (1680), 10-11; Johnson, Profane Wit, 85; Carte 222, f. 96.
  • 27 Pepys Diary, vi. 119; vii. 56, 260, 385; viii. 44-45; Verney ms mic. M636/20, Lady Rochester to Sir R. Verney, 15 Feb. 1667, M636/21, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 31 Jan. 1667.
  • 28 Pepys Diary, vi.110.
  • 29 Pepys Diary, viii. 44.
  • 30 CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 523; Verney ms mic. M636/20, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 14 Mar. 1667; CSP Dom. 1667, pp. 504, 534.
  • 31 Harl. 7003, ff. 208, 289; Wilmot Letters, 78-9, 133; CTB 1669-72, p. 1207.
  • 32 Som. Heritage Centre, DD\SF\1028; TNA, C 104/263.
  • 33 CSP Dom. 1672-3, p. 101; HMC Portland, iii. 357; J. Savage, History of Taunton, 278-80;.
  • 34 HMC Le Fleming, 51; CSP Dom. 1667, pp. 339, 450; Verney ms mic. M636/21, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 31 July 1667.
  • 35 Swatland, 33-34; Bodl. Rawl. A 130, ff. 67-68; Johnson, Profane Wit, 98-100.
  • 36 POAS, i. 414.
  • 37 Greene, Rochester’s Monkey, 75;.
  • 38 POAS, i. 158; Complete Poems of ... Earl of Rochester ed. D.M. Vieth, 231-2.
  • 39 TNA, PRO 31/3/121, pp. 53, 54; Add 36916, f. 127; Pepys Diary, ix. 451-2.
  • 40 HMC Le Fleming, 62; Verney ms mic. M636/23, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 17, 18, 24 Mar. 1669; Add. 36988, ff. 91-92.
  • 41 Add 36916, f. 136.
  • 42 CSP Ven. 1669-70, pp. 71-2; HMC 6th Rep. 366.
  • 43 HMC Buccleuch, i. 430.
  • 44 Works of John Sheffield … Duke of Buckingham (1729), ii. 8-11; Verney ms mic. M636/23, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 24 Nov. 1669.
  • 45 Add. 36916, f. 163; Verney ms mic. M636/23, Sir R. to E. Verney, 2 Feb. 1670.
  • 46 Verney ms mic. M636/23, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 26 Apr. 1670, M636/24, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 25 July, 30 Nov. 1670.
  • 47 J.H. Wilson, A Rake and his Times: George Villiers duke of Buckingham, 191-2.
  • 48 Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. to E. Verney, 14, 21, 28 Dec. 1671.
  • 49 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/3, pp.27, 29, 30.
  • 50 HMC Le Fleming, 100.
  • 51 R. Clifton, The Last Popular Rebellion, 90.
  • 52 Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. to E. Verney, 1 Jan. 1674.
  • 53 Harl. 7003, f. 196; Wilmot Letters, 21; CSP Dom. 1673-5, pp. 182, 238.
  • 54 CSP Dom. 1677-8, p. 89.
  • 55 TNA, T1/382/137.
  • 56 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 24 Dec. 1674.
  • 57 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 24 June 1675; Wilmot Letters, 106n.; POAS, i. 423.
  • 58 CTB, iv. 316, 784.
  • 59 CTB. iv. 818; CSP Dom. 1675-6, pp. 320, 341-2, 367; Wilmot Letters, 110-11.
  • 60 Wilmot Letters, 111, 114, 117, 119.
  • 61 Verney ms mic. M636/29, E. to J. Verney, 26 June 1676, J. to E. Verney, 29 June 1676; Add. 70120, [A. Marvell] to Sir E. Harley, 1 July 1676.
  • 62 Add. 18730, f. 15.
  • 63 SCLA, DR 671/10.
  • 64 J. Prinz, Rochesteriana, 15.
  • 65 HMC Portland, iii. 355; Carte 79, f. 112; Verney ms mic. M636/30, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 2 Aug. 1677.
  • 66 Harl. 7003, f. 283; Wilmot Letters, 151.
  • 67 HMC Portland, iii. 356; Wilmot Letters, 157.
  • 68 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/19, 18 Apr. 1678.
  • 69 Wilmot Letters, 184-6, 191-2.
  • 70 Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R. to E. Verney, 31 Jan. 1678.
  • 71 Verney ms mic. M636/31, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 18 Apr. 1678, M636/32, Sir R. to J. Verney, 22 Apr. 1678; HMC Rutland, ii. 50.
  • 72 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 12 Sept. 1678, E. to J. Verney, 23 Sept. 1678, Sir R. to E. Verney, 26 Sept. 1678.
  • 73 Carte 81, f. 380.
  • 74 Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. Heron to Sir R. Verney, 12 Feb. 1679.
  • 75 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 48-9.
  • 76 Harl. 7003, f. 230; Wilmot Letters, 220.
  • 77 Wilmot Letters, 224ff.
  • 78 Greene, Rochester’s Monkey, 92.
  • 79 J. Lamb, So Idle a Rogue, 213; Wilmot Letters, 30-31.
  • 80 Goldsworthy, The Satyr, 197-8.
  • 81 CSP Dom. 1681, pp. 406, 609, 415-6; Rochester-Savile Letters, 5n; Johnson, Profane Wit, 94-95.
  • 82 Add. 18730, f. 61.
  • 83 Verney ms mic. M636/33, P. Osborne to Sir Ralph Verney, 2, 16 Oct. 1679.
  • 84 HMC Hastings, ii. 390.
  • 85 Burnet, 486; N. Allen, Adderbury, 97.
  • 86 Verney ms mic. M636/34, John Cary to Sir Ralph Verney, 1, 15 June, 17, 21, 23 July 1680; Add. 75376, f. 50; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, ii. 230.
  • 87 Verney ms mic. M636/34, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 29 July 1680.
  • 88 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 53; Verney ms mic. M636/34, Sir R. to J. Verney, 7 June 1680; Verney Mems. ii. 336.
  • 89 Add 6269, ff. 34, 37; Add. 70127, A. Stephens to Lady Harley, 20 Nov. 1680.
  • 90 Add. 4236, f. 219.
  • 91 H. Walpole, Royal and Noble Authors, iii. 287.
  • 92 C 104/269.
  • 93 C104/110; Verney ms mic. M636/38, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 2 Jan. 1684, M636/40, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 27 June 1685.
  • 94 Verney ms mic. M636/34, Lady Lindsey to J. Cary, 28 Sept. 1680.
  • 95 Verney ms mic. M636/43, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 18 May 1689, M636/44, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 27 Jan. 1690; HMC Lords, iv. 172.
  • 96 Verney ms mic. M636/40, Sir R. to J. Verney, 15 Nov. 1685.