designated 14 Oct. 1633 duke of York; cr. 27 Jan. 1644 duke of YORK; cr. 10 May 1659 earl of Ulster [I]; cr. 31 Dec. 1660 duke of Albany [S]; suc. bro. 6 Feb. 1685 as James II, king of England and James VII, king of Scotland
First sat Oxford 1644; first sat after 1660, 31 May 1660; last sat 1 July 1680
b. 14 Oct. 1633, 3rd but 2nd surv. s. of Charles I, king of England and Henrietta Maria, da. of Henry IV, king of France and Navarre. m. (1) 3 Sept. 1660, Anne (1638-1671) da. of Sir Edward Hyde, later Bar. Hyde and earl of Clarendon, and Frances, da. of Sir Thomas Aylesbury bt., 4s. d.v.p., 4da. (2 d.v.p.); (2) 21 Nov. 1673 Mary Beatrice Eleanora (1658-1718) da. of Alphonso IV, duke of Modena and Laura, da. of Hieronymus (or Girolamo) Martinozzi, 2s. (1 d.v.p), 4da. (3 d.v.p.); 2s. 2da. (illegit.) with Arabella Churchill. KG 1642. d. 6 Sept. 1701.
Jt. commr. preservation of law and order, city and univ. of Oxf. and Oxon., Berks. and Bucks., 1645; PC by 31 Aug. 1649; PC [S] 1674, ld. high commr. to Parl. [S] 1681.
Vol. French service 1652-5 (lt. gen. 1654), Spanish service 1655-58 (capt. gen. 1657); ld. high adm. England 1660-June 1673, 1684-88, colonies 1662, Scotland Feb. 1673; Generalissimo of all the forces 1673
Gov. Jersey 1650; const. Dover Castle, ld. warden and ld. lt. Cinque Ports 1660-73; kpr. and capt. Portsmouth 1661-73; ch. commr. government of Tangier 1662-73; gov. New York 1664.
Capt. gen. artillery coy. London 1660-1688; gov. Co. of Royal Fishery of England 1661, Co. of Royal Adventurers trading into Africa (later Royal African Co.), 1664; Hudson’s Bay Co., 1683-85; council of trade 1669, foreign plantations 1671.
FRS 1665.
Associated with: St James’s Palace, Mdx.
Likenesses: oil on canvas (as duke of York, with duchess of York), by Sir P. Lely, c.1661, NPG 5077; oil on canvas (as duke of York), by Sir P. Lely, c.1665-70, NPG 5211; oil on canvas (as duke of York), by Sir G. Kneller, c.1684, NPG 666; oil on canvas (as duke of York), attrib. to studio of Sir G. Kneller, National Trust, Wallington Hall.
The Convention and the Hyde marriage, 1660-1
Educated on the battlefields of The Civil War, the subject of a daring escape from captivity and with a distinguished record of bravery as a soldier in the French and Spanish service, the young James, duke of York was on the verge of accepting a prestigious though probably powerless post as High Admiral of Spain or ‘Prince of the Sea’ when the English Republic suddenly imploded.1 York and his brother Henry Stuart, duke of Gloucester, took their seats on 31 May 1660. Their presence underlined the message from the king, conveyed that day, that all those with peerages created since 1642 should be able to sit. The presence of York and Gloucester in the upper House meant that no others ‘dared to contest the proposition’.2 Over the remaining period of the convention Parliament he was present on just under 60 per cent of sitting days. On 6 June he was initially named to the committee for petitions, then added to all the committees of the House. His name was also included on 7 June to the list of those for whose welfare the House prayed. On 14 June he was named to the committee to consider the oath of allegiance. From late June and for much of the summer his attendance slackened. He did, however, attend to the affairs of the navy, of which he had been appointed lord high admiral before the Restoration: on 27 June he presented a paper to the Privy Council concerning the reorganization of the navy, which set up a commission, under himself. He would, nevertheless, retain a close interest in naval business, and immediately sought information on the state of the navy.3
It is possible that York was in the first months after the Restoration diverging from his brother the king and his as future father-in-law, Edward Hyde, later Baron Hyde and earl of Clarendon, Charles’s lord chancellor and most powerful minister. Charles II under the influence of Hyde and James Butler, earl of Brecknock and duke of Ormond [I], took the continued presence in England of the French ambassador Antoine de Bordeaux-Neufville (who had been ambassador to the English republic and Cromwellian protectorate) as a calculated insult by Cardinal Mazarin, with whom they had crossed swords often in the past. York, however, went out of his way to maintain cordial relations with the ambassador and to assure him of his gratitude to France. Bourdeaux would become closely involved in plans closely related to the circle around the queen and the French court to topple the chancellor.4
On 1 Sept. the House of Commons voted York an annual income of £10,000 and asked the king not to dispose of the estates of those excepted from the act of oblivion until provision had been made for him. York was in the Lords chamber on the 3rd, when the House passed similar votes to the Commons; on the same day he was named to the committee on the drainage of the Lincolnshire fens and on the 7th was nominated as one of the commissioners for disbanding the army. On the same day as the Lords’ vote providing him with an annual income, York formalized his marriage contract with Anne Hyde, the daughter of the lord chancellor, in a furtive ceremony at Hyde’s Worcester House conducted by York’s chaplain Joseph Crowther, witnessed by Thomas Butler, earl of Ossory [I] and later Baron Butler, and Eleanor Strode, Anne’s servant. The wedding followed an engagement of 24 Nov. 1659 at Breda, and the evidence of Anne’s pregnancy.5
The marriage—apparently a genuine commitment on the part of York, and according to Clarendon having sought the consent of the king—created a political crisis. Apart from the mésalliance, felt deeply by the queen mother and her circle, it wrecked her plans to cement relations with France through a diplomatic marriage for her second son. Hyde himself claimed to have been initially convinced that the affair was part of a plot to discredit him; the king seems to have quickly accepted that the marriage was legally binding, genuinely the product of his brother’s affection for Anne Hyde, and there was nothing to be done.6 York’s attitude changed, possibly following the arrival of his sister, the Princess Royal, from France at the end of September, but also on account of a concerted campaign to blacken anne’s reputation originating from the queen mother’s associates.7 By 10 Oct. York had become so disillusioned he told Hyde that he wished never to see his daughter again, and that ‘he would have no better friend if he did not pursue the matter, but that if he did, then the two of them could not live in the same place, and that one or the other would have to leave England.’ Enormous pressure was placed on the king to find a way to annul the marriage. He did little to help, insisting that York could extricate himself from the situation only if a solution could be found that ‘did not violate divine law and that of his state.’8 Some observers would conclude that he was happy to humble his brother and to destroy their mother’s high opinion of him.9 York and his circle discussed seeking assistance from Parliament in repudiating the marriage: the option was dismissed on the grounds that it might jeopardize the fragile basis of the Restoration settlement, provoking an attack on Hyde which in turn would force the king to declare a dissolution ‘and from there we move into matters unknown and infinite which nobody could foresee and would bring fear to all wise people’.10 Charles was equally unwilling to create a precedent which might encourage Parliament to take an interest in matters relating to the succession to the crown.11 An alternative solution apparently proposed by one of York’s friends, Charles Berkeley, later earl of Falmouth, who offered to kidnap and murder both mother and baby did not receive serious attention.12
Anne Hyde’s firm insistence when she gave birth on 22 Oct. that York was the father, the marriage was valid, and that she had not slept with anyone else were convincing enough to dispel the whispering campaign, although the queen mother’s arrival in London on 2 Nov., bringing new tales of Anne’s alleged promiscuity, gave fresh impetus to the attempts to overturn the marriage, particularly as York seemed unable to admit to her that he was, indeed, married.13 The king’s firm defence of the status quo, as well as the marks of favour given to Hyde when the Convention met again on 6 Nov. after a late summer break, with a peerage and a gift of £20,000, forced the queen to retreat, and even to make some moves towards a reconciliation with Hyde, encouraged by Mazarin, who seems to have recognized the damage the affair was doing to Anglo-French relations. During November Hyde began to treat his daughter as duchess of York.14 In early December it was well known that York had been resuming evening visits to his wife, and that ‘he is more in love than ever’.15 On 8 Dec. York had a long talk with the chancellor after a Privy Council meeting; for the following week he went through an elaborate charade of retiring to his apartment at ten, when the queen mother went to bed, and then going on to the lord chancellor’s to sleep with his wife, returning before daybreak to Whitehall and going back to bed. On the 12th, however, he openly went to bed with her, ‘in the presence of the chancellor and his wife, and stayed there until 11 in the morning, when his servants came for his levée.’16 In January a careful series of meetings was held to formalize the reconciliation, culminating in a meeting of the Privy Council on 18 Feb. 1661, which reviewed the evidence for the marriage and concluded that it was valid.17 York recognized the role of Mazarin in securing his mother’s acceptance (albeit somewhat grudgingly given) of the reality of his marriage and expressed gratitude to the French for their support.18
York and the Restoration regime
York was provided with estates and income by the crown that perhaps made him the richest individual in the country. It is difficult to be precise about York’s finances: estimates of his income range from £40,000 a year to £150,000, and it changed over time, as a result of a long drawn-out process of sorting out a complex portfolio of land and other investments.19 After the overthrow of his regime in 1688 one estimate put the value of his Irish estates alone at over £7,500 a year; another valued them at £30,000 a year. 20 Of the two the lower figure is probably more realistic, certainly during the earlier part of the Restoration, though the higher figure may be close to what York would have received had his estates been less encumbered by disputes.
Apart from the £10,000 voted by Parliament in 1660 and a further £120,000 in 1665 following the early victories of the Second Dutch War, York was granted in 1661 the profits from the post office and wine licences, a grant that was confirmed in 1663 by Act of Parliament.21 He received an annuity from royal funds of £20,000 plus a one-off payment of £15,000 in 1661. He was given confiscated regicide estates scattered through the City of London and several counties: Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Surrey. He was also given substantial estates in Ireland, and large tracts of land in New England. The title to many of these properties, however, was disputed for reasons that ranged from prior commitments such as family settlements, the demands of dispossessed royalists like the Penruddocks and the claims of those who had, in good faith, bought lands from the estates of parliamentarians such as Henry Ireton and Thomas Pride. Thoughout the 1660s and beyond York’s name appears regularly and frequently in the records of the court of exchequer as one of that court’s most active plaintiffs. His many and varied disputes almost all stemmed from his attempts to secure the regicides’ lands. His opponents included former royalists like Lady Anne Sydenham, City merchants like Francis Dashwood and powerful institutions like the East India Company. His pursuit of the regicides – or their heirs – was relentless. He was involved in litigation with Dame Alice Lisle, widow of the regicide John Lisle, until at least 1674 and probably later.22 Her claim to jointure, which presumably lasted until her execution in 1685, effectively blocked York’s attempts to gain possession of significant parts of John Lisle’s properties.23 Similarly, the grant to him of land confiscated from the regicides immensely complicated the Restoration land settlement in Ireland, as it pre-empted the settlement of disputes resulting from the dispossession of the Irish after the 1641 rebellion in the Irish court of claims, and many other competing titles to the land. In addition to lands, York, as Lord High Admiral, received a percentage of the proceeds from the sale of all prizes.
Apart from his enormous property portfolio, York built up substantial investments in trading companies. By 1662 he was the largest single shareholder in the Company of Royal Adventurers trading into Africa (later rechartered as the Royal African Company).24 The management of his financial affairs was largely in the hands of Sir Allen Apsley‡, the duke’s cofferer, and Thomas Povey, his treasurer and receiver-general, whose relationship became dysfunctional as they struggled to deal with York’s growing debt: despite the scale of his income, extravagant expenditure and gifts to cronies (by both the duke and the duchess, who had her own reputation for reckless generosity) eroded it rapidly: it has been estimated that the annual deficit between 1663 and 1667 ran at over £20,000 a year.25 The creation of a commission of revenue in December 1667 to oversee the Yorks’ financial affairs, the displacement of Povey, and Apsley’s appointment as treasurer and receiver general resulted in a considerable amelioration of the situation: York’s expenditure was brought under control, and his income grew considerably during the 1670s.
York’s circle had formed in exile, largely around military figures with whom he had served in the armies of France. John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton, had been appointed his governor in 1648: now his steward, he was an old rival of the earl of Clarendon, and had been closely involved in attempts to discredit Hyde in the 1650s as well as the Hyde marriage (and Clarendon) in late 1660. So had Charles Berkeley, the future earl of Falmouth, a groom of York’s bedchamber since 1656, and nephew of Lord Berkeley, who was also closely involved in the efforts to discredit Anne Hyde. Many other of York’s closest associates would have military backgrounds, such as George Legge, the future Baron Dartmouth, or Louis Dufort de Duras, earl of Feversham, or John Churchill, Baron Churchill, (ultimately duke of Marlborough). York’s land holdings, his generosity to his followers, the size of his household, his trading interests and his offices, particularly the patronage at the disposal of the admiralty, gave him the potential for considerable parliamentary influence. A total of 47 members of the Commons (including Speaker Edward Turnor‡, and York’s successive secretaries, Sir William Coventry‡ and Matthew Wren‡, and his treasurer, Sir Allen Apsley) were members of, or closely related to members of, York’s household; a further 15 held commissions either in his regiment or in the navy. His three brothers-in-law, Edward‡, Henry Hyde, later 2nd earl of Clarendon, and Laurence Hyde, later earl of Rochester, had experience of both Houses, as did his close friends Thomas Butler, earl of Ossory [I], who sat in the Lords as Baron Butler of Moore Park, Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough and Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford. Among others personally associated with York who were in the House of Commons at some point were Sir Allen Apsley, Francis Hawley‡, Baron Hawley [I], Henry Brouncker‡, William Legge‡, Thomas Dalmahoy‡, Richard Graham‡, Christopher Hatton, later Viscount Hatton.
Numerous Members are known to have sought, and obtained a recommendation or other form of direct support from the duke of York in order to secure election, many of them in the Cinque Ports where his interest was strongest, or in one or other of the ports where the navy was a major source of weath. Some were officers or officials of the navy, such as Sir George Carteret‡ (at Portsmouth), Samuel Pepys‡ (at Castle Rising), Sir Richard Haddock‡ (at Aldeburgh), William Penn‡ (at Weymouth), John Robinson‡ (at Rye).26 Others included Sir John Banks, bt.‡ (at Winchelsea), Thomas Kendall‡ (at Dartmouth), Baptist May‡ (at Winchelsea), Edward Noel‡ (for Hampshire), Richard Spencer‡ (at Rye), John Strode‡ (at Sandwich), Robert Werden‡ (at Chester), Sir Richard Wiseman‡ (at Maldon), Henry Wright‡ (at Harwich) and Thomas Wyndham (at Minehead).27
York, though he had strong political views, was only episodically a powerful figure in English politics. He was, however, constantly involved in the inner counsels of his brother’s government, almost always present at significant discussions of policy and a routine attender in the Privy Council.28 From the time of his marriage until the chancellor’s exile in 1667, or even after it, York was deemed to be close to the chancellor, and they formed a powerful political alliance. Apsley, who was also close to Clarendon, was an important figure in maintaining it. The Hyde-York relationship during the 1660s helped to ensure that York was never seen at this time as a reversionary interest, although a powerful undercurrent within court politics concerned the duke’s expectation of succession to the throne given the increasing likelihood of the king’s childlessness; it was only in the months after Clarendon’s dismissal that York came to be seen as in some sense a challenge to the king, until his conversion to catholicism came to meant that he was a different type of challenge entirely.
Clarendon, 1661-8
York attended the opening of the Cavalier Parliament on 8 May and was then present on over 77 per cent of sitting days. On 28 June he was named to the committee to consider the sanguinary laws concerning religion and on 1 July he was named to the committee to consider former proceedings relating to the court of York. Later, in August John Parker, bishop of Elphin [I], who was in London trying to influence Parliament over the question of impropriations in the Church of Ireland reported that in the process of his lobbying activities he had made contact with York ‘who is a zealous and active friend to the Church.’29 York had shown his hand on church affairs when he showed impatience with the objections of Presbyterian peers to the bill that repealed the 1641 Act abolishing the coercive powers of the church courts, insisting on 26 July that the bill would pass, despite their opposition.30 He was also named on 10 July to the committee to consider the bill for regulating the navy and on 18 July to that for regulating corporations (the latter of which drastically altered the Commons’ bill to provide the government with considerable powers to appoint municipal officials). He was thought to be a supporter of Oxford’s claim to the office of great chamberlain.
On 19 Dec. 1661 York was named to the committee to meet with the Commons to consider rumours of a plot. Closely associated now with his father-in-law (now earl of Clarendon), in early February 1662 he helped the chancellor to oppose the Commons’ amendments to the Convention’s Act for Confirming Ministers, which would have ensured the early removal of many more ministers than had the original act.31 Later that month, however, he shared with Gilbert Sheldon, bishop of London (later archbishop of Canterbury), his disapproval of amendments to the Book of Common Prayer that were designed to placate nonconformists. In March he was involved in an acrimonious exchange with Clarendon’s rival George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol over the proviso proposed by Clarendon with the king’s recommendation to soften the effect of the uniformity bill, allowing the king to dispense with the requirement that ministers wear the surplice and use the sign of the cross as a concession to Presbyterians. Bristol’s claim that when he had spoken with Charles ‘the king was of another opinion’ was contradicted by York, who regarded it as a slight on his brother. Bristol also wanted a saving clause relating to the privileges of the peerage but the House rejected it.32 On 7 May York delivered his brother’s message to the House asking it to give a speedy despatch to public bills.
During the late summer, York was closely involved in negotiations surrounding the controversial sale of Dunkirk to the French. He claimed credit for persuading his brother to accept the French offer, though it was the duchess who received Louis XIV’s ‘deepest appreciation’ for her help in arranging the sale, though it is not quite clear what for.33 It was originally intended that York would personally be in control of the arrangements to hand Dunkirk over to the French; in the event he remained in England because worries about riot and disturbances.34 In December 1662 the first rumours began to circulate of a plan to legitimize James Fitzroy, (later Scott) duke of Monmouth. The legitimization contemplated was a device under Scots law to safeguard the inheritance rights of any children that Monmouth might have by his planned marriage to the duchess of Buccleuch but even at this early stage the use of the term ‘legitimation’ led to misinterpretations south of the border and to rumours that Monmouth would displace York in the succession, though it does not seem to have York himself any cause for concern.35
York attended just over 72 per cent of the sitting days during the 1663 session. At the opening of the session he was again named to the committees for privileges and for petitions. Shortly after the beginning of the session, in the debates in the Lords on the Declaration of Indulgence, he was said to have acted as his brother’s mouthpiece, suggesting new laws against Catholics—presumably he was laying before the House some of the proposals to prevent the growth of popery that the king had offered when opening the session.36 After Clarendon incurred the king’s displeasure when he seemed, in a debate on 12 Mar., to have criticized the bill introduced to give effect to the Indulgence, York acted as an intermediary between the two men. The affair for a while appeared likely to upset his dominance at court, and revived hopes for his enemies (including the queen mother) of toppling him from his position. But on 19 Mar. Clarendon was said to have been ‘locked up’ with York and the king’ for a long interview, which gave rise to speculation that ‘the river will take its old channel’37 Over the next ten days the efforts of Henry Jermyn, earl of St Albans was said to have ‘brought all the interests together’ and the duke and duchess of York on 30 Mar. were said to have assiduously courted the queen mother.38 On 19 Mar. York had also been named to the committee to prepare a bill to repeal the acts of the Long Parliament. Court politics remained in a febrile state, however, for the next two months, fought partly through attempts in Parliament to undermine Clarendon, while the king gave little sense of direction. Clarendon’s enemies—Bristol, Ashley, and Bennet—were worried by the association between York and Clarendon.39 By the end of May, though, the destabilizing effects of the uncertainty became sufficiently destructive for the king to have to take action: Bristol was frozen out of government and Bennet reconciled to Clarendon. Charles rebuilt his inner circle of councillors, including York, Clarendon, Thomas Wriothesely, 4th earl of Southampton, Albemarle and Henry Bennet (later earl of Arlington), and excluding Bristol and his allies.40
Bristol’s obvious determination to hit back may have been the reason for an increase in York’s attendance at the House—he was present on all but two of the sitting days in July. The day before Bristol was expected to accuse Clarendon of high treason on 10 July, York was lobbying his friends to oppose him, and on the 10th itself, following Bristol’s delivery of his charges, he counter-attacked with a speech in which he accused Bristol of being a ‘sower of sedition.’41 The French ambassador noted that his speech was the more forceful because he was known to be speaking on behalf of his brother as well as of himself and Clarendon.42 Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, in his estimate of support for Bristol’s motion against Clarendon, oddly reckoned York to be doubtful rather than unlikely.43 The day after Bristol’s allegations had been referred to the judges Bristol returned to the House to wrest the and in so doing to complain of the way in which he had been treated by York. ‘All the rest of the day’ remarked one observer, ‘passed in wrangling.’44 The session ended with debates on a revived attempt to make the Act of Uniformity more acceptable to Presbyterians, with a clause weakening the effect of the requirement on ministers to signal their assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer: on 25 July York headed the list of those protesting at the clause and arguing that it was destructive of the Church of England. One of the small number of acts passed during the session was one settling the profits of the post office and wine licences on York. Bristol absconded after the end of the session, evading likely arrest, and leaving Clarendon and his backer, York, without significant opponents at court.
Tensions between the king and his brother were, though, said to exist. There was a rumour in December 1663 that York was to replace Ormond as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and another in February 1664 that he was to be given the government of the low countries by the king of Spain. Neither was true, though they may be indicative of moves to take him away from the court.45 One bone of contention appears to have been signs of favour conferred by the king on his illegitimate son Monmouth: the king in January had permitted Monmouth to wear deep mourning dress for the duchess of Savoy, as though he were a royal prince ‘which gives great offence’.46 The king’s gentlemen of the bedchamber were said in February to have ‘nourished and fermented’ jealousies between the king and his brother by ‘always speaking to him of the inequality of his marriage and the fertility of his wife.’47 Yet when Parliament reassembled in March 1664 the French ambassador reported that the king did nothing without the consent and approval of York and Clarendon.48 When James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton delivered a letter from Bristol appealing to be heard and proposed that it be read to the House on 21 Mar., it was York who led the opposition and who moved successfully that it be put off until the next day.49 On 22 Mar. York arrived early in order to lobby the peers; he made a particular target of Bristol’s ally John Lucas, Baron Lucas. Northampton, supported by Lucas, put up a well reasoned case based on an appeal to privilege, but York argued that ‘for ought appeared it might come from any foreign prince’ and be a matter of state and cited the precedent of a letter sent by the prince elector in 1660.50 The House voted to send the letter to the king unopened.51
York was present on every day of this session. As usual, he was named to the committee for privileges. On 21 Mar. he presented the petition of Robert Robartes, then heir apparent to his father John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes (later earl of Radnor) in an appeal against a chancery decree.52 He held the proxy of Charles Dormer, 2nd earl of Carnarvon from 6 Apr. 1664 to the end of the session. Once the Bristol affair had receded the principal issue of the day was the prospect of war with the Dutch. York, as lord high admiral and as an investor in the Royal Adventurers trading into Africa, stood to gain profit as well as glory from war. The Commons committee on the general decay of trade whose report resulted in the resolution that the Commons would assist his majesty ‘with their lives and fortunes’ was packed with York’s friends and clients. Although in May the French ambassador was convinced that neither York nor the king were keen on a war, and their stance was a negotiating tactic, writing several years later Sir William Coventry, who had at the time been his secretary, recorded York’s enthusiasm for it, he being ‘willing to have an occasion to show his courage in the sea as well as at land’. Louis XIV had come to believe by early 1665 that a war had been contrived by the court to distract attention from Bristol’s complaints and that York was one of its leading proponents.53
In the early autumn of 1664 York was preoccupied with preparations for war: naval duties would ensure his absence from the opening of Parliament.54 He covered his absence by entering a proxy in favour of Clarendon, which was vacated by York’s arrival in the House on 5 Dec. 1664, after which he was present on all but three days of the session. From 28 Jan. 1665 York again held the proxy of Carnarvon and from 24 Feb. he also held that of John Belasyse, Baron Belasyse. Both proxies were vacated at the end of the session.55 On 20 Feb. 1665 he invoked privilege after the arrest of his gentleman usher, Sir Hugh Middleton. On 22 Feb. he was named to the committee to consider Sir Robert Carr’s bill. Following the end of the session, York was demonstrating his continued concern for the Hyde family when in April he wrote to promote an advantageous marriage for his brother-in-law Laurence Hyde, the future earl of Rochester, promising that if the chancellor was unable to make adequate provision for the couple he would do so himself.56
Two days after the end of the 1664-5 session war was declared and York joined the fleet. York was, according to Clarendon, a strong supporter of the war.57 The French, though, hoping even up to the last minute to prevent a war into which they would be dragged by virtue of their treaty with the Dutch, thought in June that York was the key figure in determining whether serious fighting would break out, and was at the centre of arguments between a pro-war and a pro-peace party; the French ambassador on 21 June heard that after having been harangued by Arlington, John Maitland, earl of Guilford and duke of Lauderdale [S], and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury), he had firmly come down on the side of the war party. The chancellor, the French concluded, at this point had abandoned his opposition to the war, no longer speaking about finding an accommodation.58 Once war was joined, York’s success at the battle of Lowestoft won him considerable credit; but two of his closest friends, Charles Berkeley, earl of Falmouth and Charles MacCarthy More, earl of Muskerry [I] were killed by his side. Their deaths underlined the danger to York (and the succession) of active participation in battle, and the king refused to allow him to return to the fleet, replacing him with Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich.59 In August York travelled north, in what effectively became a triumphal progress. The idea that York intended to raise an army in the north and to become its general probably dates to about this time.60
The war put strains on York’s relationship with his father-in-law, who had been opposed to it.61 York’s insistence on the promotion of his secretary, Sir William Coventry, to the Privy Council (he was admitted at the end of June) had caused a row; and after he returned to the court (based in Oxford because of the plague in London) from his northern trip in in mid-September he clashed with the chancellor over the grant of a viscountcy to Coventry’s nephew, Sir George Savile, later marquess Halifax, who had treated him and the duchess on their journey. In October Clarendon found himself in a difficult position between York and his close political ally, the lord treasurer, the earl of Southampton, over the appointment to the position of the queen’s master of the horse.62
York was present for the opening of Parliament in Oxford on 10 Oct. 1665. Thereafter he attended on nine of the fourteen days of the session and again held Carnarvon’s proxy. In his speech to both Houses at the beginning of the October 1665 session of Parliament, the chancellor told how the king had refused to allow York to return to command the fleet, and both Houses voted thanks on 10 and 11 Oct. to the king for his care of the duke’s person. On 24 Oct., the Commons voted an additional sum of £120,000 on top of the main supply bill, designed to be given to the duke. York was present in the Lords on 30 Oct. when, in alliance with the bishops, he ensured that the bill to prevent nonconformists from living in corporations (which would become the Five Mile Act) was passed without being re-committed.63 His standing in Parliament was not however sufficient to convince the Commons that the peers should be exempted from the provisions of the bill to prevent the spread of the plague; despite his ‘vehement intercession’, backed up by ‘passionate letters’ from George Monck, duke of Albemarle. The peers’ insistence on a proviso protecting their privileges resulted in the bill being lost at the end of the session.64
York’s reputation had been considerably enhanced by his success at sea; now frustrated at being barred from further military service, rumours now suggested his ambition and greater assertiveness towards his brother. Towards the end of October 1665 Albemarle was reported to be resentful at a story that York was to be given command of an army in the north.65 In November the royal brothers were said to have fallen out over their mutual infatuation with Frances Stewart (later duchess of Richmond) and York was said to have given leave to his servants to speak slightingly of the king in his presence, and to be ‘not so obsequious as he used to be’, threatening to take a command under the king of Spain unless he could be general of all the forces with Albemarle as his deputy.66 Over the course of 1666 he argued with both Albemarle and Prince Rupert over the appointment and dismissal of commanders, including the young Louis de Durfort Duras, marquis de Blanquefort (later Baron Duras and earl of Feversham), who was said to have ‘the same command over’ York as Coventry did; towards the end of the year his devotion to his mistress, Lady Denham, was seen as distracting him from navy business. 6768
York did gain some credit from his intervention in fighting the Fire of London.69 Present at the opening of the 1666-7 session two weeks after the fire on 18 Sept. 1666, he was absent from the House on only five occasions during the session. He held Carnarvon’s proxy from 24 Sept. to the end of the session and that of Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon (later earl of Macclesfield) from 7 Jan. to 8 Feb. 1667.70 He was named to the committee for privileges. Although there is no surviving evidence it is likely that he was involved in drawing up objections to the bill for preventing the importation of French commodities, since (as the Lords made clear to the Commons in the course of a conference) the proposed ban materially affected his income from wine licences.71 On 29 Nov. he together with Clarendon secured a postponement of the case against the Canary Company in the face of opposition from George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham and Lucas.72 On 22 Dec. 1666, three days after Buckingham and Henry Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester had been sent to the Tower for quarrelling at a conference between the Houses, York presented Dorchester’s petition for release to the House. In the contentious issue of the Irish Cattle Bill he seems at first to have taken little part, even though he was himself a major Irish landowner and the bill was opposed by Clarendon’s ally Ormond . York’s allies Dorchester and Oxford were amongst those identified as supporters of the bill.73 By 13 Nov. Edward Conway, 3rd Visct. Conway (later earl of Conway), one of the leaders of the resistance to the bill, told Ormond that ‘The Duke of York begins to be more our friend, than he was at first, and to think himself a little concerned in it.’74 Like a number of those opposed to the bill, when the king decided to abandon the court’s rejection of the inclusion of the word ‘nuisance’ in the bill, thereby making executive dispensation from it impossible, York abstained in the vote on 14 Jan. 1667, even though he had himself informed the court’s supporters in the House that his brother had commanded them to pass it.75 In February York was named to the committee for the bill for rebuilding London. He also had some involvement in a claim for privilege by Gerard of Brandon, for which he is known to have drafted a motion which was not used.76
The difficulties in which the government found itself after an exceptionally unsuccessful session, with supply agreed far too late to make it possible to raise credit for setting out the navy, no doubt contributed to growing tensions in the court. A week after the end of the session it was reported that York was openly quarrelling with Albemarle in council.77 York had also become involved in a dispute over Irish lands with Ormond.78 In June, the naval disaster in the Medway, the predictable result of the failure to set out a fleet in the summer, precipitated a huge political crisis, with the duke of Buckingham placing himself at the forefront of a demand for political reform and renewal. York, closely associated with the war and with Clarendon—who seemed to embody the current regime and its failures—and also, as heir, the beneficiary of the king’s childlessness, was one of the targets. In mid-June, as the court struggled to decide whether a recall of Parliament would help solve the crisis or just make it worse, it was said that York opposed it and proposed instead to raise an army to enforce royal rule.79 In early July, it was rumoured that the king might declare that that he had been married before his contract with Catherine of Braganza (which, it was claimed, was not itself a valid marriage), which would rob York of his expectations of succession.80 The death of both of York’s young sons in May and June were further blows.
Clarendon’s removal from the lord chancellorship at the end of August was the result of a confused and farcical process initiated by York’s secretary Sir William Coventry, and supported by York, who seems mistakenly to have believed that it was Clarendon’s wish, following the death of his wife in June, to retire from public life. Coventry told Pepys ‘that he did first speak of it to the duke of York, before he spoke to any mortal creature besides, which was fair dealing; and that the duke of York was then of the same mind with him and did speak of it to the king, though since, for reasons best known to himself, he was afterward altered’.81 The king, happy to accept Clarendon’s resignation as a way of pre-empting the inevitable calls for investigation and retribution when Parliament was due to sit again in October, now insisted on it. When York realized both that he had mistaken his father-in-law’s wishes he took on Clarendon’s cause as ‘his own.’ He and his wife lobbied the king unsuccessfully in Clarendon’s favour.82 Following Clarendon’s dismissal, both initially encouraged him to remain in London rather than leave for the country, arguing that his absence would strengthen his enemies.83 The alliance between Clarendon and York was increasingly seen as a major problem by those determined to call the former chancellor to account: ‘people are working hard’ reported Ruvigny in the middle of September 1667 to separate York from Clarendon; Pepys again heard talk in mid-September of finding ways of ensuring York’s exclusion from the throne through the legitimation of the duke of Monmouth.84 York may have had less personal concerns about the consequences of the parliamentary onslaught expected to follow Clarendon’s removal: he recorded a conversation with Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland at around this time in which he became concerned about Northumberland’s plans to complain about the existence of the king’s army. Clarendon, who told the king that he should not give in to parliamentary pressure, may have encouraged York in his anxieties for the maintenance of royal power.85 York himself emphasized his continuing commitment to naval power, military glory and royal authority by naming his new-born son (baptised on 15 Sept.) Edgar after a legendary Anglo-Saxon king who ‘vanquished seven kings who were dominating this island; and having made it into one kingdom, every year he sailed around it with a thousand ships’.86
York was present at the opening of the 1667-9 session of Parliament on 10 Oct. and was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. Overall he was present on some 63 per cent of sitting days. He was at the House every sitting day in October. The king extracted from him a promise not to oppose the proposal for votes of thanks by both Houses for Clarendon’s removal, although he was said to have insisted that he would defend Clarendon ‘if the enemies of the chancellor pushed him too far.’87 On 15 Oct. when the House returned thanks to the king for dismissing Clarendon, he (together with Burlington, Bridgwater and Peterborough) left the chamber.88 On 23 Oct. he was said (unsuccessfully) to have opposed Buckingham’s motion that Parliament’s thanks recorded in the Journal.89 With impeachment proceedings getting under way in the Commons, on 31 Oct. York incensed his brother, and Buckingham, by publicizing, via his new secretary (Clarendon’s former secretary, Matthew Wren, William Coventry having resigned from his service shortly after the chancellor’s dismissal) the king’s private assurance that Clarendon had never suggested abolishing Parliament in favour of military rule.90
After attending the House on 6 Nov., however, York was taken ill with small pox. Although it proved in the end to be relatively minor illness, it took him out of the acrimonious debates over the impeachment of Clarendon over the next month.91 Matthew Wren was involved in the proceedings in the Commons on the impeachment, and York himself ensured his vote counted by registering his proxy on 8 Nov. to his friend and ally Peterborough.92 The proxy was vacated on his return to the house. He was later thankful for his illness, fearing that he might otherwise have been drawn into actions from which it would have been hard to recover and his realization of the strategic value of his absence may explain why he did not return to the House until after the long winter adjournment on 10 Feb. 1668, although he had recovered his health well before the end of November.93 During November, with encouragement from Buckingham and Bristol, the crisis was brought much closer to York and his position. The king was reported in the middle of November to have said that ‘the quarrel is not between my Lord Chancellor and him, but his brother and him’ and to have shut York out of the cabinet council.94 (When he was asked to provide information to the Commons relating to his command he sought the permission of the House of Lords to do so—more than a month after the original request on 9 Nov. 1667—on 12 Dec., but he sent Peterborough with the request rather than attending himself.95) Clarendon’s flight to France at the end of November brought to an end the immediate crisis, which had become a confrontation between the Lords and the Commons over whether the former chancellor should be committed to prison; but it did not end the whispering against York, suggesting to many that York and his ‘cabal’ were in close communication with the French.96 The French did see York as supportive of their interests and their proposal for a formal alliance between England and France, as they did Buckingham, and their ambassador went out of his way to reconcile the two dukes; but Clarendon’s treatment by the French government became a subject of extreme sensitivity as they sought to reconcile York’s concern and Charles II’s hostility towards him.97
After Clarendon: Conversion and the Dutch War, 1668-72
In the aftermath of Clarendon’s departure, a purge of his supporters was expected. The French ambassadors were convinced that Arlington, working in the Spanish interest, was stoking up Charles’s hostility to his brother, ensuring that he was excluded from negotiations with the Spanish and Dutch and that York faced a concerted campaign to remove him from office. The rumours that either the duke of Monmouth or the king would be persuaded to divorce and remarry became more insistent in January and February, and the idea of cool relations between the king and York persisted, the king being said to be afraid of York ‘yet neglects and incenses him’.98 In January 1668 York seems to have been determined to assert himself once more in the navy, telling Pepys and others of his disapproval at the officer appointments that Albemarle and Prince Rupert had made, and his plans to tell the king to let him take personal command of the fleet again: to ‘desire the King to let him be what he is, that is, admiral’.99
York returned to the House on 10 Feb. 1668 to hear his brother’s announcement of the new treaty. Said to be concerned over the continuing Commons’ investigations into the war and the navy, York was present on all but two of the remaining days of the session and contrary to expectation found himself, unlike Buckingham, relatively popular and respected: ‘the duke of York’ reported Ruvigny at the beginning of March, ‘sits well.’100 He again held Carnarvon’s proxy, from 21 Feb. to the end of the session; and from 24 Feb. he held Ossory’s proxy.101 On 21 Feb. 1668 he was added to the committee to consider trade. Burlington wrote in his diary about a conversation with York during the debates on comprehension in March which revealed that the two men shared common beliefs on the subject, though not, unfortunately, what they were. (It was in April 1669, almost certainly after his conversion, that York talked to the French ambassador of his support for an alliance between the Church of England and the Catholics and his suspicion of the attempt to secure the backing of the ‘Presbyterians and sectaries’: whether York would have been quite so pro-Catholic in early 1668 is uncertain.)102
The crisis in the relationship between York and his brother seems to have passed by early April, perhaps as it became clear that Buckingham’s offer to manage Parliament was unreliable; York’s assiduous performance of his naval functions seems also to have attracted some admiration, and perhaps won support. Even Arlington ‘who until now had insolently crossed him in all things’, was said to have come to see him to ask his pardon; and Lady Castlemaine went out of her way to make friends with the duchess. The French ambassador Ruvigny reported that ‘the duke is reassuming his rightful place’.103 Given the widespread dismay caused by the king’s pardoning of Buckingham for his part in the fatal duel against Shrewsbury, it is possible that when on 6 Apr. York presented a bill to the House of Lords against duelling and communicated the king’s declaration that he would not in future pardon duellers, some message was being sent both about the king’s closeness to York and his disapprobation of Buckingham’s activities. Ruvigny noted with approval a few days later that York’s ‘court is increasing from day to day and his credit has grown’.104 York may not have been concerned by the expulsion from the House of Commons on 21 Apr., of his former groom of the bedchamber, Henry Brouncker‡, whom he had dismissed the previous year because of his support for the attack on Clarendon, and who was seen as the person responsible for the failure to follow up the victory at Lowestoft in 1665. York was more concerned for the fate of William Penn‡, as he suggested to Pepys at a meeting on 23 Apr. when he told him of the introduction of the impeachment against him that day in the Lords.105 York’s letters to the corporation of New Romney failed to secure the election of his close friend Louis de Duras, later 2nd earl of Feversham, as a replacement for Brouncker; Sir Charles Sedley was elected instead.106 York was present at the conference on 8 May with the Commons on the subject of Skinner v. The East India Company.107 The following day he reported from the committee on the bill for monies due to the crown. The committee minute book indicates that he also chaired the committee considering the bill for rebuilding the City of London, although the list of committee members in the Journal does not include his name. The bill was lost with the ending of the session.108
Despite the apparent recovery in York’s position over the first half of 1668, he seems to have been acutely aware of the threats to his position, particularly as the duke of Buckingham recovered some of his favour with the king in the second half of the year. He was keen over the summer of 1668 to ‘do something’ about miscarriages in the navy office, in order, Pepys thought, to secure his position, because ‘the world is labouring to eclipse him’.109 One of Charles II’s attempts to bring about a reconciliation with Buckingham in September 1668 rapidly collapsed.110 In October James was forced to accept the king’s dismissal of Arthur Annesley earl of Anglesey as treasurer of the navy and his replacement by Sir Thomas Osborne (later earl of Danby and duke of Leeds) and Sir Thomas Littleton‡. Pepys had no doubt that the instigators of the change were Buckingham and Arlington who thought that any strengthening of York’s position threatened their own; and that they aimed at his removal from his post.111 In early November, rumours were rife of James’s imminent replacement at the admiralty by a commission.112 In mid-December it was said that York was one of the enemies to whose confusion a toast was drunk at Arlington’s house December 1668, while York himself rebuffed overtures from Buckingham.113 A week later a newsletter reported that the king had repudiated any intention of displacing York from the succession, that all differences at court had been reconciled and that what was described as the chancellor’s party had promised ‘to lay his [the chancellor’s] interest aside and mention it no more’, though the writer confessed that it was impossible to give an accurate account of what was going on, as everything changed from day to day.114
The attempt at a reconciliation probably coincided with the beginnings of discussions between the duke and his brother over the Catholic religion, recorded by James himself in the surviving part of his memoir: it suggests that James had determined on becoming a Catholic through a series of discussions with the Jesuit, Joseph Simons; that he had been told that it was not possible for him to be received into the Catholic Church but still attend Anglican communion (even with the pope’s dispensation); that he had established that Charles was also interested in conversion; and that at an extraordinary meeting on 25 January 1669 with Arlington, Henry Arundell, 3rd Baron Arundell of Wardour, and Sir Thomas Clifford, later Baron Clifford, at York’s apartments, Charles discussed how it might be possible for him to declare his own conversion, and concluded that it would only be done in alliance with France.115 From this discussion Buckingham was, naturally, excluded, and the effect was in some way to strengthen James’s relationship with the king; though York’s enthusiasm for the conversion policy seems to have been inconvenient for Charles’s tortuous diplomacy over the following year, and the extent to which he was actually involved in the protracted negotiations with the French is uncertain. The conversion plan also added a new layer of complexity to the competition of the factions over the winter of 1668-9 and the spring of 1669.
The issues around which the competition was immediately focused were Parliament and religious policy. While Buckingham argued for a dissolution of the existing Parliament and the calling of a new one, York took the contrary view.116 The issue was partly behind his discussion with Colbert in the middle of March about religious policy, arguing that the king’s best interests would be served by relying on an alliance between the Church of England and the Catholics, whom he took to be the largest and most powerful religious groups, and so loyal that ‘it would be prudent and politic to support them as far as possible, and suppress the others’. He was also convinced that keeping the existing Parliament would assist negotiations for an alliance with France.117 A series of arguments and slights over the spring and summer entrenched the hostility between Buckingham and York, including Buckingham’s deliberate insult to Sir William Coventry, and Coventry’s challenge to the duke in March, in which York took Coventry’s part; Buckingham’s continued advocacy of a royal divorce; and an argument over the use of the king’s horses by the duchess of York (Buckingham was master of the horse).118 In July York argued openly with Buckingham at a meeting of the Privy Council. York opposed toleration, demanded the enforcement of laws against Dissenters and virtually accused Buckingham of being in league with sectarian plotters. Buckingham’s response enraged York still further and the king had to intervene to preserve the peace. He later rebuked York and forced the two men to reconcile. Buckingham was the more anxious to reconcile because:
Milord Arlington, with whom he is not on the best of terms at the moment, is doing all he can to outdo him and get in with the duke of York; and while this prince protests that he would rather lay down his life than make use of the power he has in Parliament to ruin those who have the greatest part in the running of affairs, nevertheless, as it appears that the credit he has among those who compose the assembly is growing every day, these ministers can well see that his friendship is not to be neglected in view of the decision the king seems to have taken not to dissolve Parliament.
The king’s decision to retain the existing Parliament and to issue a proclamation against conventicles both represented victories for York and his allies over Buckingham.119
Over the late summer, the improvement in the relationship between the royal brothers was consolidated. They spent some time together hunting in Epping Forest.120 York and his wife were also said to be on terms of ‘intimacy and friendship’ with Lady Castlemaine, who, both the French ambassador and John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt concluded, was having a helpful impact on York’s relations with the king. Colbert concluded in early August that ‘it is no longer to be doubted that from now on the duke of York will have a great part in the most important of affairs.’ York told him of his support for the project of a treaty between England and France, though he acknowledged that
we could conclude nothing until the assembly of Parliament was finished because, he said, the people of England, who do not care for novelty in religion, would not fail to declaim against this alliance, and Parliament would be of the same sentiment, and would refuse the king the means of paying his debts, and of executing the treaty he would have made; instead of which, if one were to wait until it were finished, one would have plenty of time before it reassembled to give them a taste of this alliance, and even let them appreciate its advantages.121
The death of the queen mother in France at the end of August may have had some effect in cementing the new relationship between the king and his brother. In September York told his sister that the king was ‘much kinder’ to him than he used to be and in October Colbert reported that Arlington had begun to work closely with York, and that York ‘sits better than ever with the king, and still promises to bring about a close union between France and England.’122
When Parliament met in October, the strategy that York outlined to Colbert over the summer appears to have been followed closely. York was present at the opening of Parliament on 19 Oct. 1669 when he was named to the committee for privileges, and he was present on all but the final day of the session. On 25 Oct. his name was added to all committees including those not yet formed. He held Darcy’s proxy from 20 Oct. as well as that of Leicester Devereux, 6th Viscount Hereford (from 22 Nov.) for the remainder of the session.123 When, early in the session, Anglesey rose to speak of the danger to England posed by France, York was said (by the French) to have contained his anger and his tongue with difficulty.124 York seems to have been closely concerned in the business of the session: Colbert reported that he was always present at the meeting of the committee to draw up a bill on the jurisdiction of the House, the issue that had been so disruptive to the business of the previous session; he was responsible at least in part for the ‘sweeteners’ that were inserted in it in an attempt to defuse the dispute over Skinner v. the East India Co.; and Colbert reported that when the bill was rejected by the commons, York ‘hoped no more would be heard of it.’125 In November he clashed with Buckingham over the latter’s proposal for the abolition of the court of the lord steward (no doubt a move against the duke of Ormond, who held the position) in favour of trial by the whole House. The principal speaker against the proposition was Viscount Halifax (as Sir George Savile had since become), whom York supported ‘vigorously’: after ‘a great contestation’ with Buckingham the House followed their lead and voted for the retention of the court.126 The jurisdictional disputes, as well as the renewed outbreak of factional warfare in the Commons resulting in the attempted impeachment of Orrery, wrecked the session sufficiently for the king to decide on a prorogation, urged to do so, apparently, by York.
York was again present at the opening of the 1670-1 session (which was adjourned between April and October 1670) on 14 Feb. 1670, and attended for every sitting day until the adjournment on 11 Apr. 1670. He again held Darcy’s proxy for the whole of the session as well as that of Thomas Windsor, 7th Baron Windsor (later earl of Plymouth), from 15 Mar. to 9 Nov. 1670 and again from 19 Dec. 1670 to the end of the session. He was named to the committees for privileges and petitions, and to the committee for the bill to prevent frauds in the exportation of wool and then on 8 Mar. 1670 was added to all committees; once again the term ‘all committees’ included those yet to be formed. Despite this rubric he was specifically named to the committee considering the bill initiated by the king on the sale of fee farm rents on 18 March. On the same day he reported from the committee considering the bill to remove benefit of clergy from those convicted of stealing cloth from the rack or stealing from the king’s stores. The success of the session in damping down the jurisdictional disputes of the previous two owed something to a firm assertion of his authority by the king and his decision to allow the conventicle bill to proceed. During March the two major political issues confronting the House of Lords were the divorce bill for Lord Roos (John Manners, later duke of Rutland) and the conventicle bill. Although the king insisted that he supported Roos’s bill only because ‘he is happy to oblige all persons of quality who are his kinsmen or in his interests’ the duke of Buckingham in particular was keen to promote the idea that it had implications for the king’s own marriage. York and the queen were said to be working together to oppose the bill.127 York not only voted against it but entered protests when it passed its second and third readings on 17 and 28 Mar. respectively. Colbert, the French ambassador, thought his opposition was unwise, and gave others the opportunity to claim that he was trying to protect his own position as heir to the crown.128 York was also concerned with a rather more prosaic issue, the admiralty bill, and chaired a session of the committee considering it on 18 March.129 York does not seem particularly to have been involved in the debates over the conventicle bill, perhaps because the king’s own presence in the House from 21 Mar. coincided with debates in committee of the whole House on the subject and York’s personal intervention less necessary.
Immediately after the adjournment of 11 Apr. 1670 York went with his brother and most of the court to Newmarket. In May they went to Dover to meet their sister, the duchess of Orleans at Dover, where the Secret Treaty of Dover, committing Charles to making his conversion to Catholicism and allying with the French in war against the Dutch republic, was signed on 22 May.130 In mid-July, shortly after his sister’s death, York’s health broke down and necessitated his withdrawal to the country. Some thought he would not recover.131 It is perhaps not a coincidence that it was in August that the duchess wrote a note explaining her own movement towards conversion to Rome, which the duke would publish much later, after he was king. It is perhaps from around this time, or shortly afterwards, that the gossip began about James’s own commitment to Protestantism. By 26 Dec. that year her brother, Clarendon’s son and heir Viscount Cornbury, wrote a deeply alarmed letter to the York underlining that the rumours ‘do not only prejudice her, but reflect upon your Highness, by men’s believing that she never does anything without your knowledge, and therefore that you must needs be privy, at least, to all her intentions, what further inferences they draw, your Highness may imagine’.132
James had recovered sufficiently to attend Parliament when it reconvened on 24 Oct. and he was then present on some 85 per cent of sitting days up to the end of the session in April 1671. On 23 Jan. 1671 he invoked privilege of Parliament to secure the arrest of George Thompson and his accomplices for arresting William Foakes in a dispute over oyster beds in which York claimed ownership. In the spring of 1671 he was present for all three readings of the bill to explain a proviso in the act that had settled the profits of the post office on him; he appears to have taken no part in the activities of the committee considering the bill other than to signify his consent to its provisions.133 The death of the duchess of York on the last day of March 1671 confirmed the speculation about her conversion.134 For the House of Lords grief, if any, was less important than their concern over questions of status. On 4 Apr., the day before the funeral, they declared that they would attend in a body ‘according to their places in this House’ and that ‘no foreign nobility shall interpose’. On 20 Apr. York informed the House of his brother’s intention to prorogue Parliament on the following Saturday.
Despite the relative success of the 1671 session, early in July York told the French ambassador that the king should be ‘very wary’ of calling Parliament together again, adding ‘that affairs are at present here in such a situation as to make one believe that a king and a Parliament can no longer live together’.135 He may have found particularly troubling the revival of concern about catholicism, resulting in a petition against the growth of popery initiated by the Commons and finally agreed by the Lords on 10 Mar. and a bill against the growth of popery.136 York was again ill during the summer of 1671.137 Almost as soon as he had recovered it was rumoured that he was again contemplating marriage. The widow of Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, was suggested, as her extensive kinship network ‘could be more useful to him on occasion than a foreign alliance’ but the match seems to have been prevented by the ‘implacable hatred’ of the countess of Castlemaine, now duchess of Cleveland.138 In September it was reported that York had ‘submitted his fancy and liberty in the choice of a wife’ to the king.139 Charles II vetoed a suggested marriage to Falmouth’s widow, with whom York ‘was very much in love’ and then agreed to a marriage to the Archduchess Claudia Felicitas of Innsbruck. Although Colbert reported that Charles II had agreed to the marriage at his brother’s desire, he told the king that the union would ‘greatly facilitate the negotiation he needed to effect to dispose Spain to neutrality in the war which your majesty and he were to wage on the Dutch.’ Charles II also made it clear that negotiations would be broken off if the Spanish asked for any condition prejudicial to the interests of Louis XIV.140
The major preoccupation of 1671, however, were the negotiations with France about their joint assault on the Dutch republic. Over the year, York had to recognize that Charles II’s enthusiasm for the secret Treaty of Dover ‘Catholicity’ project had cooled considerably since January 1669 and was considerably less than his own: the project had become much more focused on an aggressive war against the Dutch. Diplomatic and military planning for it continued throughout 1671 and into early 1672, naturally involving York as lord admiral; and his naval role dominated once the war began in March 1672.
The Second Dutch War, 1672-4
York participated in the discussions in the foreign affairs committee on the Declaration of Indulgence: at a meeting at Lord Arlington’s lodgings on 7 Mar. which discussed how best to give effect to the Declaration, he spoke (with Arlington) in favour of a cautious approach to the question of ‘regulation’ of the religious groupings freed by the Indulgence.141 His conversion was by now generally assumed, and linked to the war. James took personal command of the navy again at the beginning of the 1672 naval campaign. In April, it was noted that York’s ‘retreat onto the ships’ at Easter (when he joined the fleet) was being interpreted as ‘a formal renunciation of the Protestant communion’; the French ambassadors had noticed even Baptist May‡, a former servant of the duke and now a member of the royal household commenting that the war was ‘only being undertaken for the downfall of the Protestant religion’. They worried even more about York’s ‘inflexible zeal’ and his determination that his brother should declare his conversion.142 He was, Colbert wrote in September, ‘passionately’ opposed to any delay, ‘his zeal making him blindly put reasons of religion before those of state’.143
The naval campaign of 1672 was indecisive, with a bloody engagement at Sole Bay in late May leading to recriminations between the allies, and failing to enhance York’s reputation. York’s marriage was a preoccupation over the winter of 1672-3, as it was becoming clear that negotiations for York’s Austrian marriage were getting nowhere (the archduchess would in the end be married to the Emperor Leopold I).144 Of greater immediate significance was Parliament, and raising money for a continuation of the war: over the winter of 1672-3 York participated in the discussions in the foreign affairs committee in preparation for the forthcoming session of Parliament, postponed from October to February.145 Added to the committees for privileges and petitions, York was present every day of the session. The proxy book records that he held the proxy of Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon from 11 Feb. 1673 until the end of the session on 20 Oct. 1673, but technically this should have been invalidated when Huntingdon took his seat on 15 Feb. 1673.146 York also held the proxy of Conyers Darcy*, 5th Baron Darcy from 1 Feb. 1673 until the end of the session. Huntingdon’s agent in London, Benjamin Woodroffe, who seems to have been confused about the arrangements for making proxies by black rod, was told by the duke that York had refused to Carnarvon&rquos;s proxy in order to receive Huntingdon’s.147 On 10 Feb. the Commons voted in effect to reject the Declaration of Indulgence and the claim that the crown had the right to suspend statutes on matters ecclesiastical. In the debate two days later in the committee on foreign affairs, York, along with Shaftesbury, supported the idea that the Commons should be encouraged to seek the Lords’ concurrence in their vote, in the knowledge that the Lords would not agree with them; it was also hoped that the Commons might agree to the drafting of a bill to achieve the same ends as the declaration. York does not appear to have contributed to the discussions in the committee following the rejection by the Commons on 14 Feb. of the proposal to seek the concurrence of the House of Lords was rejected by the Commons, but was clearly closely involved in the strategy of confrontation with the Commons reflected in the king’s approach to the House of Lords on 1 Mar. seeking their advice on the addresses he had received from the Commons.148 York’s presence in the chamber along with the king on 4 Mar. may have helped to secure the acceptance of a motion that the king’s proposal for a bill of indulgence was an appropriate way to proceed, and on the following day, York was named to the committee to prepare a bill of advice to the king (although this very large committee probably contained everyone in the House at the time).149 On the 3rd, however, the Commons had agreed an address to the king requesting that all officers and soldiers be required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which the Lords agreed, and on the 5th they gave a first reading to a bill to prevent the growth of popery, which would become the Test Act. The king’s acceptance of the address against the growth of popery and his cancellation of the Declaration of Indulgence on 8 Mar. signalled a major climb-down; York, according to the Venetian ambassador, had vehemently opposed it, attempting to persuade the king to dissolve Parliament instead.150 Attention then focussed on the Test bill (the bill for preventing the dangers which may happen by popish recusants), which was brought up to the Lords on 13 Mar., given a second reading on the 14th, and occupied the House’s attention for much of the following week. York is not known to have personally intervened in the debates on the bill themselves, although it was said that it was at his instance that an attempt was made to exempt several catholics by name as well as servants of the various royal households.151 But in the arguments that went on at court over it, in which it was seen as the price of finally clinching supply, he was said to have opposed it bitterly, complained about the king’s weakness, and encouraged Clifford in his extraordinary attack on the bill on 20 March. The French ambassador wrote to the duke to persuade him not to oppose the bill.152 It passed, and Parliament was prorogued on 29 March.
Even at this stage the question of York’s religion was a matter of rumour rather than open knowledge: his reaction to the passage of the Test Act was uncertain, and since a considerable period was allowed for taking the oaths and making the declaration required to hold office under the act, it remained uncertain for some time. Nevertheless, the French ambassador, at least, was in no doubt of the popular fury that was brewing against York, and the determination among a number of senior politicians, including Shaftesbury, to persuade the king to find some way to remarry and father legitimate children in order to exclude James from the throne.153 In April it was noted that he again did not take the sacrament with his brother on Easter Day 1673.154 In mid-May it was still expected that he take command as ‘generalissimo’ of the armed forces.155 The row over popery in the session also became a factor in James’s search for a new marriage: the proposed match to the archduchess of Innsbruck having fallen through, discussions continued with the French ambassador as to an alternative, with Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, conducting a search through Europe on York’s behalf. At one point in May it was even rumoured that he was to take a Protestant bride, Lady Susan Belasyse (he had promised her marriage shortly after the death of his first wife, but this idea had been squashed then by the king).156 It was by then almost certain that Clifford would resign the Lord Treasurership and that ‘a much greater person than he’ would also resign his offices.157 The royal brothers seem to have expected York to take command of an expeditionary force into the Netherlands on the grounds that the Test Act did not apply outside England, but Lord Chancellor Shaftesbury refused to put the great seal to the patent with the result that ‘it is certain the duke can have no new commission... and so his expedition is blown up.’ (The king seems to have been keen on the idea in order to get York out of the way before the next parliamentary session.)158 On 15 June York resigned all his offices. He was replaced in his command of the navy by Prince Rupert although in practice he continued to wield influence (a source of evident tension between the two of them thereafter).159 He continued to attend meetings of the Privy Council, and he was still closely involved in political discussions with the king. Nevertheless, his political power and influence had received a severe blow; and his status as the king’s heir and a now confirmed Catholic was now one of the major political issues faced by the king, widely expected to bring about a new storm in the session of Parliament scheduled to sit on 20 October.
With it deemed essential for York’s marriage to a Catholic to be concluded before Parliament met, he and the king settled in late July on Maria Beatrice d’Este, daughter of the duke of Modena, within the sphere of influence of the king of France.160 News of his choice was current in London within days of the decision, and considerable efforts were made to change minds before the formalities were completed (by the earl of Peterborough, by proxy in Italy on 20 Sept., and despite numerous difficulties placed in the way by the pope in particular).161 It was known that they had been by the time the new session began. The king complained to the French ambassador that York was the author of all of the difficulties that he anticipated during the session, and Arlington told him that he was braced for a violent reaction against the duke.162 At some point, though it is not clear whether it was before or after the opening of the session, an attempt was made to persuade York to leave the country.163
York was still present for the opening of the new session on 20 October, when the king imposed a further prorogation for a week, with the intention that the new duchess should have arrived in England and the marriage consummated before Parliament sat. The Commons, nevertheless, succeeded in using the time taken in the Lords for the introduction of new peers at the beginning of the session, to pass an address requesting that the marriage should not be consummated and that York should only marry a Protestant. Lord Chancellor Shaftesbury was generally assumed to have ensured sufficient time was taken up with routine business in the Lords for the Commons to pass their vote.164 Over the further prorogation there was some unrealistic speculation that the king would decide against allowing the marriage to be finalized (even the French ambassador seems to have been nervous on this account); Anglican divines were still hopeful that York could be brought back to the Church of England through the intervention and teachings of George Morley, bishop of Winchester and Herbert Croft, bishop of Hereford.165 When the Lords sat again on 27 Oct. York was added to the committees for privileges and petitions. The king’s response to the address of the Commons of 20 Oct. told them, rather baldly, that the marriage had been completed ‘according to the forms used among princes’. It resulted in a vote for a further address from the lower House, carried on a division in which York’s associates Sir Allen Apsley and Francis Hawley‡, Baron Hawley [I] were tellers for the minority. The text of the address was agreed the following day, and presented on 3 November. On the following day, the king prorogued Parliament again until January.
Over the interim, the court’s policy showed the influence of Viscount Latimer (as Osborne had since become), the protégé of Buckingham, whose appointment as Lord Treasurer on Clifford’s resignation in June York had supported.166 The dismissal of Shaftesbury as Lord Chancellor, on 9 Nov. was very much in line with York’s wishes, something he had been pressing for for some time.167 Latimer, emerging as chief minister, rapidly eclipsing a demoralized Arlington, was faced with the related problems of the reaction to York’s religion (to emphasize which, it was noted that no bonfires were lit to celebrate the eventual arrival in London on 24 Nov. of the new duchess of York) and the need to extricate England from the war with the United Provinces, given that there was little chance of securing parliamentary support.168 Perhaps to balance the effect of the new duchess’s arrival, prosecutions of Catholics were stepped up in late November, and in December more formal measures were taken to enforce the laws against them.169 On Christmas day, James appeared at the chapel royal, but left after the sermon, without taking communion.170
The new session opened on 7 Jan. 1674. York, who was present on every sitting day, held Dorchester’s proxy from 16 Feb. for the remainder of the session. He was again added to the committees for privileges and petitions. On 8 Jan. he, Northampton and Arthur Anglesey, earl of Anglesey were the only peers to vote against a motion initiated by Shaftesbury for an address to the crown for a fresh proclamation against papists: even the Catholic peers recognized the need to assuage anti-catholic opinion and voted in favour of the address. York seems to have been taken aback by the continued hostility to him in Parliament, having (he told the French ambassador, Ruvigny) relied on assurances from Arlington and Ormond that it had declined.171 On 14 Jan. the House revived the practice of taking the oath of allegiance prescribed under the statute of 3 James I. York took the oath, albeit with a protestation not recorded in the Journal that he ought to be exempt as heir apparent. Shaftesbury (as Ashley had since become) and Denzil Holles, Baron Holles, soon disabused him, pointing out that he was ‘but heir presumptive, for the King might have a child’ and citing the precedent of York’s uncle, Prince Henry, who had taken the oath despite being heir apparent. Another account of the same incident adds that Shaftesbury also insisted that York should take his place on the duke’s bench rather than in the chair to the King’s left which he usually occupied, since that place was reserved for a Prince of Wales.172 It may well have been a garbled account of the taking of this oath that led to a false report that York had taken the sacrament.173 On the same day (14 Jan.) York heard the king’s announcement of his compliance with the address concerning Catholics. York seems have responded in a long meeting with the king and the lord treasurer, complaining bitterly about Parliament, and he laid out to Ambassador Ruvigny his intelligence of the cabals of Shaftesbury, Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Carlisle, James Cecil, Salisbury, Thomas Belasyse, Viscount (later earl of) Fauconberg and others at Holles’s house: he told the ambassador that he determined to break up Parliament ‘in good time’.174 Shortly after these meetings, in a debate on securing the Protestant religion on 24 Jan., York had to listen to the proposal of Salisbury, backed by Carlisle, that he be compelled to bring up his children as Protestants, and to a second motion by his former protégé, Halifax, proposing the disarming of all Catholic recusants.175 On 10 Feb., during the further proceedings in committee of the whole House on another proposal made on 24 Jan., that a prince of the blood should not be entitled to marry a Roman Catholic without parliamentary consent, Carlisle proposed that any such prince who did would be excluded from the throne. Backed by Halifax and by Shaftesbury, the proposal was described as a ‘horrid notion’ by York’s associate Peterborough and attacked by the bishops. York told the French ambassador again shortly afterwards that it was essential that Parliament be dismissed.176 The bill for the better securing the Protestant religion received its first reading in the Lords on 21 February. The fears of the consequences of the accession of the duke of York were also the background to a series of attempts in the Commons to introduce measures that would remove Catholics from the Lords, and restrict the powers of the crown to dismiss judges.177 The introduction of the bill for securing the Protestant religion and rumours that Shaftesbury and Carlisle intended to propose the disbanding of the duke of York’s regiment were two of the many reasons contributing to the decision to prorogue Parliament on 24 Feb., though it was facilitated by the ratification of the Treaty of Westminster, confirming England’s exit from the continental war.178
Between Danby and the Country Party, 1674-8
The Treaty opened the possibility of the marriage of York’s eldest daughter and heir, Mary, to Prince William of Orange, something mooted by the lord treasurer and the lord keeper in April, but York resisted, discussing with the French ambassador a match with the dauphin instead.179 Always nervous of the king’s commitment to him, he was concerned to hear in late April of a meeting between Carlisle and the king: though the king had talked about a further prorogation, his announcement (to quell speculation) that he intended to let Parliament sit in November, the date to which it was prorogued, was very unwelcome to the duke.180 York was approached through the physician Sir John Baber in July by a group of nonconformists seeking his support for the dissolution of Parliament, though he seems not at that point to have done much to encourage them.181 Edward Colman, whom York had appointed to be secretary to the duchess in 1673, was in correspondence by the end of June 1674 with the confessor of Louis XIV, in which he outlined York’s intention to achieve a dissolution of Parliament and its replacement with a new one, fearing that a new session would lead to further attacks on Catholics and to demands for an anti-catholic alliance with the Dutch against the French. He was as concerned about the ‘furious Protestants and… malcontents’ in the upper House, as much as about the Commons. Colman’s first letter suggested that the French king might offer interim financial support to Charles II to adopt this policy.182 The extent to which York knew of the details of Colman’s exchanges with the French and of his attempts to persuade Louis XIV to ‘offer his purse’ to the king is not clear. York wrote in his memoir that he had cautioned Colman on his activities, but the views expressed, including condemnations of the king’s ‘weakness’ and complaints about the continuing uncertainty of his commitment to York, were clearly close to York’s own, one of the letters appears to indicate that the correspondence was carried on with York’s knowledge and approval and it seems likely that Colman was authorized to declare ‘that money is the only means of bringing the king into the duke’s interest and of disengaging him from the Parliament’.183 Ruvigny also reported in early August that York was discussing with him a payment from Louis in return for a further prorogation of Parliament, and referred to the apparent concert between York, the lord treasurer (who had in June been promoted to be earl of Danby) and the duke of Lauderdale, at least in their suspicion of the activities of the earl of Arlington, and in finally persuading the king to postpone the meeting of Parliament to the new year.184 York was extremely agitated by Arlington’s efforts in November to negotiate the marriage of Princess Mary to Prince William, an agitation fully shared by Arlington’s rivals, Lauderdale and Danby. However, over the winter of 1674-5 Danby and York went in separate directions as Danby developed his strategy of seeking an alliance with the bishops against nonconformists and Catholics as a means of conciliating the Cavalier Parliament. Lauderdale seems to have encouraged York to cultivate his contacts with the Presbyterians, and James did, indeed, show some greater interest than before in protecting Protestant Dissenters and supporting demands for religious liberty, though Lauderdale too became identified with the Anglican turn of Danby’s policy in late 1674 and early 1675.185
Plans to forge an alliance with some of his enemies in the previous session, based around religious liberty, may have been the point behind Mordaunt’s visit (who was now expecting the reversion to a place as gentleman of the bedchamber to the duke) to Shaftesbury at his home in Dorset in January 1675, in advance of the expected meeting of Parliament: contemporaries were confused as to whether Mordaunt was acting for the king, for York or on behalf of an independent grouping of peers, and the origins of it certainly seem to have been complex, but did involve York.186 This may have been linked to York’s continued interest in the dissolution of the existing Parliament, which he discussed with the French ambassador in the middle of January.187 Meanwhile, Danby was further developing his policy of making the existing Parliament more amenable: over January he and his allies came to an agreement with the bishops on a policy of the suppression of both Catholics and court and elsewhere and of Protestant nonconformity. When this was promulgated as a new policy in early February it seems to have infuriated York, against Danby and Lauderdale in particular.188 At the end of March the French ambassador found himself attempting to argue York out of a plan to use the forthcoming session of Parliament to undermine and destroy his new enemies and to achieve popularity that way.189 There were said to have been contacts between York and Shaftesbury and others of his confederates.190
York was present on 13 Apr. 1675, when Parliament opened, and on every day of the session thereafter. He was, as usual, nominated to the committees for privileges and petitions. He again held Darcy’s proxy from 1 Apr. 1675 to the end of the session. Despite his opposition to Danby’s scheme, he intervened in the debate over the king’s speech on the first day to oppose Shaftesbury’s efforts to appeal for allies among the Catholics in the House. Shaftesbury had said that there were elements of the speech on religion which many in the House had no reason to like; York argued sophistically that what the king had said did not imply persecution, and was said to have thereby ensured that all but one of the Catholic peers supported the vote of thanks. It was said in a newsletter that the duke could have courted popularity and become the patron of nonconformists, but chose instead duty to the king his brother, and effectively lost his opportunity to forge an alliance with the Presbyterian opposition against Danby.191 During the lengthy debates in committee of the whole House on the test bill proposed by Danby York continued to loyally support the line decided on by the king, although he supported the unsuccessful amendment to the oath proposed by Charles North, Baron Grey of Rolleston (later 5th Baron North) which would have qualified the prohibition against endeavouring to change the government by adding the words ‘by force or fraud’.192 When in the debate on 30 Apr. he proposed that the House pass a standing order that no other test should ever be introduced to the prejudice of any peer’s right to sit in Parliament, it was greeted with ‘great content and applause’. York’s purpose appears however to have been to remove from the Catholic peers the threat of a further test aimed at them from being brought forward in a future session, and thus facilitating the passage of the bill.193 The effective manipulation of the Sherley v. Fagg privilege case to hold up business put an end to the session with a prorogation on 9 June.
During the course of the session, York’s hostility to Danby had intensified, particularly as, as the French ambassador reported about a week after its end, the king was relying much more on the treasurer, and consulted his own brother much less frequently than before.194 Following the session, York and his circle seem initially to have been keen, as before, on securing a dissolution and even negotiating with Shaftesbury.195 Within a few months, however, their focus had shifted to working with the existing Parliament. Colman wrote to a new French correspondent at the end of Sept. outlining plans for a new session of Parliament, based on forming a coalition with non-conformists and ministerial opponents in order to restore York to his offices and to make him ‘much greater than ever’ by providing a convincing demonstration to the king that parliamentary opposition did not arise from ‘any aversion … to his R[oyal] H[ighness]’s person, or apprehension they had of him or his religion; but from faction and ambition in some and from a real dissatisfaction in others’. The scheme would also be aimed at achieving religious toleration. Colman wrote that he thought that it would have been possible in the previous session to obtain a parliamentary address to the crown demanding that York be restored to the office of High Admiral, but York, who had been willing to give it a try, had been persuaded against it.196 Colman explained that simply to dissolve Parliament would not meet the interests of either York or of his French allies, since it would leave Danby and Arlington free
to govern what way they list, which we have reason to suspect will be to the prejudice of France and the Catholics, because their late declarations and actions have demonstrated to us, that they take that for the most popular way for themselves, and the likeliest to keep them in absolute power; whereas should the duke get above them after the tricks they have served him, they are not sure he will totally forgive the usage he has had at their hands.197
But if Parliament could be persuaded or bribed into following York’s policies, it would provide a more solid foundation for York to consolidate his power with a dissolution rather later: ‘for everybody will then come over to us, and worship the rising sun.’198 Throughout the summer of 1675 the French, themselves hostile to Danby, were open to Colman’s appeals for support, though it is not known whether they supplied the £20,000 Colman requested in order to distribute among Members of Parliament and annul the advantage that Danby possessed from the patronage of the treasury, though Ruvigny was busy distributing his own £20,000.199
Parliament reconvened on 13 October. York once again attended every day and was added to the committees for privileges and petitions. He again held Darcy’s proxy for the whole session. Between 8 Oct. and 25 Oct. he also held the proxy of James duke of Monmouth and from 16 Oct. to 20 Nov. he held that of Lord Windsor.200 In spite of the complicated thinking laid out by Colman before the session, York emerged as an open advocate of dissolution, voting in favour of a dissolution in the division on 20 Nov. 1675, although he did not sign the resulting protest when the vote was lost.201 As a result, he received a message via the Catholic William Howard, Viscount Stafford complimenting him on his vote, and assuring him that a dissolution would be the best way to achieve toleration for the Catholics.202 A revival of the Sherley v. Fagg case put paid to any prospect of progress in the session and the king prorogued Parliament two days after the vote on the dissolution, for nearly fifteen months, until 15 Feb. 1677.
The ensuing long prorogation may have made York feel less constrained. He ceased to attend Anglican services, publicly declaring at the end of March 1676 that ‘he would never more come under the roof of Whitehall Chapel’.203 He still felt, however, seriously eclipsed by Danby, whose hold over the king and policy was generally regarded as stronger than ever. Danby worked increasingly closely with his clerical ally, Henry Compton, bishop of London, who had been charged with bringing up the Princesses Mary and Anne in the Church of England, and who earned the lasting hostility of the duke by securing the king’s permission to conduct confirmation services for them in January 1676.204 Danby and York were frequently in disagreement: a row over policy between them at Newmarket in April was widely noticed, particularly as it was said to have required the intervention of the duchess of Portsmouth, hastily summoned from her sick bed after a miscarriage, to reconcile them.205 York continued to urge the king to dissolve Parliament, while Danby advised him to retain it; he supported the French alliance, while Danby pointed out its political inexpediency; Danby and Compton continued to work on Charles to stamp out Catholic practices at court wherever they could. In October 1676 James was incensed by the success of Danby and Compton in securing the passage of an order in council aimed at preventing attendance at the mass by in the queen’s chapel.206 Compton and Danby ensured that the king insisted on Colman’s removal from the queen’s service towards the end of the year, after he had been found responsible for leaking confidential information concerning the navy, though his interventions in religious polemic seem to have been the real reason. Although he spent a short period in exile, Colman was soon back in the service of the duke.207 York did his best to avoid any imputation of factional activity: in his contacts with the new French ambassador, Honoré de Courtin, over the summer and autumn he insisted on his determination solely to strengthen the authority of the king, while he argued throughout on a dissolution as the means of doing so. In this he was very much supported by Courtin, and the two discussed in August how they would work jointly to attempt to prevent Parliament reassembling, and if it did reassemble, to ensure that arguments about privilege would disrupt its proceedings and result in another prorogation. In December 1676 York discussed with Courtin the argument, expected to be advanced in the following session by Buckingham, Shaftesbury and Holles, that the long prorogation meant that Parliament had been ipso facto dissolved.208
Despite his preference for a dissolution, York seems to have been reasonably confident before Parliament finally met on 15 Feb., having been courted by the key opposition leaders. He had had at least some contact with Holles about the proposed motion about the dissolution and with Shaftesbury, from whom he sought assurances that no impeachment of him was planned. A few days beforehand, he had an interview with Henry O’Brien‡, Lord Ibrackan, in which he discussed the forthcoming business in the Commons and prospects for supply and for the Catholics.209 He may, though, have been put off by the reference in one of the opposition peers’ pamphlets, Some Considerations upon the Question whether Parliament is Dissolved, to Parliament’s power to alter the succession, a reference that they insisted had been included by mistake.210 York was present when Parliament met on 15 Feb. 1677 and was added to the committees for privileges and petitions. He again held Darcy’s proxy for the whole of the session. He may also have held the proxy of Thomas Lennard, earl of Sussex between 10 Feb. 1677 and 30 Apr. 1678, but the entry in the proxy book is too unclear for certainty. He attended every sitting day of the session (which was abnormally extended into the middle of 1678 by a series of lengthy adjournments) except 10 Apr. 1678 when he absented himself in the knowledge that the business of the House that day was to proceed to Westminster Abbey in a body to keep the fast ordered by the king.
In the end, York seems to have baulked at joining in with the pressure for a dissolution. Despite his earlier interest in the subject, not only did he not support Buckingham’s motion that Parliament had been dissolved by the long prorogation, but he may also have seconded motion proposed by his own associate, the earl of Peterborough, on the subsequent day, 16 Feb., that he be sent to the Tower for making it.211 His failure to support the motion, or to deliver the support of Catholic peers that the opposition peers had hoped for, marked the end of his flirtation with the dissolutionists over the last year or more, and the beginning of a rapprochement with Danby. He was said to have accepted the necessity for the introduction of a bill which would place some limits on the power of a catholic king in ecclesiastical matters.212 These provisions were incorporated in the bill for further securing the Protestant religion which covered included the usual list of anti-Catholic measures which were debated at the beginning of the session. When the bill passed its third reading on 15 Mar., however, York was one of 14 peers entering a protest against it, along with a short list of associates and advocates of religious toleration—Peterborough, Dorchester, Anglesey and Grey of Rolleston among them. On 11 Apr. 1677 York carried a message from his brother to inform the House that Sir Francis North would act as speaker during sickness of Finch, Baron Finch (later earl of Nottingham). Two days later he invoked privilege of Parliament to secure the release of his servant Cave Underhill.
Parliament was adjourned at the end of May 1677, in the midst of a row about the unwillingness of the Commons to commit to a grant before the king committed himself to an alliance with the Dutch: the Commons’ action seems to have produced the usual reaction from York, furious at its temerity and deeply antipathetic to breaking the link with France.213 But over the following months York seems to have increasingly accepted the logic of Danby’s arguments for a move away from the French alliance, though his proposal for raising an army for an intervention in the continuing continental war on the other side (an army which, he thought, might have assisted the project to dispense with Parliament) may have helped to persuade him.214 Danby and he were far from entirely in concert: his support for the reinstatement of the duke of Ormond as lord lieutenant of Ireland in the first half of 1677 seems to have been in the teeth of Danby’s opposition and advocacy of the claims of the duke of Monmouth.215 In August York joined with Danby and Monmouth, however, in remonstrating with the king over the release of Buckingham, arguing that in so doing the king was allowing ‘his authority to be trampled on’.216 He also seems to have encouraged Stafford to suggest to Shaftesbury that he gain his liberty by turning Catholic.217 An indication of York’s change of mind and acceptance of Danby’s advice was his agreement to the marriage of his daughter Mary to the Prince of Orange, grudging though it may have been. Initiated by the visit to the English court of William’s agent Hans Willem Bentinck, later earl of Portland, in June, the marriage was concluded in November during William’s visit to the English court and in between negotiations on the terms on which England would help to bring about an end to the war between France and the Dutch republic.218 Louis’s rejection of the proposed terms (conveyed to him by York’s associate Lord Feversham) opened the possibility of English military intervention, and over the winter York would emerge as the main advocate of military action to force Louis XIV to come to terms with the Dutch.219
York’s propensity to intervene in decisions relating to the Church was in evidence during the competition for the replacement of Sheldon of Canterbury, who died in early November. His attempt to promote the candidacy of Michael Boyle, archbishop of Dublin, fell flat as Boyle realized what a ‘great disadvantage’ it was to have York’s recommendation.220 On the other hand, his hostility to Compton, the leading candidate, ensured that he was overlooked.221 York was back in the House of Lords for the brief sitting on 15 Jan. 1678, when the king ordered it to adjourn until the 28th, and on the 28th, when the king laid out his agreements with the Dutch for the defence of Flanders, in the hope of approval from both Houses, and funding for the consequential naval preparations. On 29 Jan. 1678 York protested at the House’s resolutionto release Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, who was imprisoned on a charge of blasphemy. When on 14 Feb. Halifax brought Shaftesbury’s petition for release to the House, York successfully led the opposition ‘so fiercely that he is yet kept in’, although Shaftesbury would be released on another application to the House on 25 Feb., albeit after a long debate, in which York was said to have often spoken in support of the argument of Danby and Lord Arundell of Trerice that Shaftesbury had made remarks ‘of a dangerous nature’ during his habeas corpus appearances in king’s bench in the course of his imprisonment.222 By then the government had secured, on 18 Feb. a vote of £1 million from the Commons, to York’s relief, who told Ormond that it was not sufficient to prepare for a war with France, which would ‘be sufficient to set us a work, but more had been better’.223 On 16 and 18 Mar., when the House debated in committee the address proposed by the Commons requesting an immediate declaration of war on France, Finch, Danby and York led the opposition to the insistence that the declaration should be immediate, York in particular pointing out that the military preparations had yet to be made, and that a number of (presumably trade) fleets were on their way home and vulnerable to attack.224 The Lords’ proposed amendments to the address were rejected by the Commons, and with an impasse reached, both Houses adjourned until 11 Apr., with the required supply uncompleted. In the period before they reconvened, on 4 Apr., York had voted with the majority in Pembroke’s trial, to find him guilty of manslaughter.
Intensive diplomatic negotiations (including Danby’s notorious letter to the English ambassador in Paris, Ralph Montagu, later 3rd Baron Montagu of Boughton (future duke of Montagu), soliciting a subsidy failed to produce a peace, and Danby’s efforts to bolster his support in the Commons were also unsuccessful (his efforts included an attempt to ensure that Sir John Reresby‡, elected at a by-election at Aldborough, survived an attempt to unseat him in the committee of elections on 21 Apr.: Reresby was defeated, by two votes, much to the irritation of York, who explained to Reresby how he had spoken to several of his servants to ensure that they were present, and told him ‘who had promised, who had failed, who had attended, who had not; and knew all particulars of the trial as if he had been upon the place’).225 York’s correspondence with William of Orange showed him closely concerned with preparations for military intervention.226 The recruitment of the army had been underway for some time, with most of the new regiments up to strength by the middle of March. York, under his existing commission of generalissimo (which it was said would be effective outside the kingdom, despite his failure to comply with the provisions of the Test Act), prepared to command it, though it was Monmouth who would actually go as its commander in July.227 Edward Clinton, 5th earl of Lincoln made a stirring speech in the House on 30 Apr. likening York’s military prowess to that of Henry V.228 But the suspicion and dilatory action of the House of Commons over completing supply were deeply frustrating to James, let alone the renewal of complaints about the growth of popery (Shaftesbury, during the debate on a Commons proposed address against popery on 4 May, made a clear, though indirect, reference to York, as one of the ‘great personages’ who posed the main danger by aiming to introduce arbitrary government and the Catholic religion’.229 The French ambassador Barillon quoted him in April as considering using the army to strengthen the king’s power; and he wrote to William of Orange on 21 May complaining bitterly of the encroachment of the House of Commons on royal authority.230 York was also drawn into the argument over the government of Scotland which resulted in the vote in the Commons of 7 May requesting the removal of Lauderdale: in both May and June 1678 James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] (later duke of Brandon) involved him in his attempts to present his grievances against Lauderdale to the king.231 After the Commons failed to vote supply the king prorogued Parliament on 13 May for ten days, returned to negotiations with Louis XIV.
When Parliament met again on 23 May 1678 York was again added to the committee for privileges. He was present every day except for 29 May when the House attended the Abbey Church in celebration of the king’s birthday. On 5 July he entered a protest at the decision of the House in Darrell v Whitchcot. That he was still able to command considerable support in the House seems to have been demonstrated by the verdict delivered on 8 July in favour of Feversham’s appeal. Sir Ralph Verney‡ was convinced that Feversham was in the wrong ‘but the duke hath a great interest, and he is for Feversham.’232 York held the proxy of William Widdrington, 3rd Baron Widdrington from 6 June and that of Ossory proxy from 8 July for the remainder of the session.233 Once they were aware of the prospects for a general peace, the Commons quickly voted the money required for the disbandment of the troops, setting a date of 30 June for the task to be accomplished; shortly afterwards, however, came the news that Louis XIV had reneged on his agreement to conclude the war, throwing open again the question of how to employ the army. The large expeditionary force which the king and York reviewed on Hounslow Heath on 22 June was a visible reminder of York’s concerns about the state of English government and what was generally thought to be his prescription for overcoming them; though its employment in England was quite possible, York’s reaction to the news of Louis XIV’s change of mind, saying in the foreign affairs committee ‘that nothing could be more evident than that France intended an universal monarchy, and nothing but England could hinder them’, suggested that he was also still spoiling for continental war, and had moved well away from his previous position of seeking a close alliance with France.234 The English troops, however, had barely joined the allies when a truce was agreed, and the war ended in August.
The Crisis, 1678-80
Before Parliament met again rumours of a Popish Plot were already spreading. During the investigation by the Privy Council on 28 and 29 Sept. one of those named as involved in the Plot was Edward Colman, whose person and letters were seized (Colman had failed to take the duke’s advice to destroy his papers and to leave).235 The letters were read to the Privy Council on 4 October. York denied knowledge of the correspondence. But even if York’s involvement in the conspiracy was dismissed, it was widely understood that his religion amounted was an incentive to the plotters to dispose of the king.
The new session opened just over three weeks later, on 21 Oct. 1678. York was present on every sitting day of the session except 5 and 13 Nov. when the House attended the abbey church. He was as usual named to the committees for privileges and petitions, and again held Widdrington’s proxy. On 23 Oct. he was also named (with every member present that day) to the committee to examine papers and witness about the plot and the death of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. Sir Robert Southwell‡ reported that
His Royal Highness is at present surrounded with infinite perplexities, which all good men must lament. He has been always present at the Committee of the Lords while the papers of Coleman and Sir William Throgmorton have been read. Each of them have dared to name and interest His Highness in their dangerous contrivances, which he hears with indignation and appeals to the improbability of his confiding either to the folly of the one or the madness of the other. And yet this does not satisfy the warm spirits of that House, and much less is it likely to do that of the Commons.236
Southwell also reported that York had been approached secretly by all sorts of groups who claimed to be able to secure his ‘deliverance, but that he knows not whom to trust or what to choose.’237 The initial interrogations of Edward Colman by a Lords’ Committee, reported to the House on 29 Oct. enhanced suspicions of York’s involvement: York tried to prevent his own letters being read to the House, but Shaftesbury and Bishop Compton succeeded, after a division, in insisting that they should be. York defended himself and called Colman a liar, and Shaftesbury’s proposal that the information the committee had elicited be communicated to the Commons was defeated, but some observers, including the king himself, seriously feared a possible impeachment.238 The pressure was released a little when on 30 Oct. Titus Oates was interviewed in the House of Lords (apparently at the instigation of James Annesley, styled Lord Annesley, later 2nd earl of Anglesey) and explicitly exculpated York from any involvement in the plot to assassinate the king. Nevertheless, a further debate in the Lords on 2 Nov. was initiated by Shaftesbury, who proposed an address to the king to remove the duke from the council and the king’s presence; Lord Gerard of Brandon was said to have spoken much more vehemently than Shaftesbury, suggesting that there had been two kings, rather than one. Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, opposed it: York himself was dissuaded from attempting his own defence. On the following day, the king persuaded James that he should stay avoid intervening in public business. On 4 Nov., York made a public declaration in the Lords that he would withdraw from the council of foreign affairs and the admiralty. Shaftesbury attempted to have the declaration made public through a proclamation, though this was not agreed.239 On the same day, the Commons read the Colman correspondence and began a debate on a motion for the removal of the duke from the king’s presence and counsels, although the debate was adjourned rather than concluded, probably with the assistance of secretary Henry Coventry’s‡ report of the duke’s declaration in the Lords.240 Colman, who had initially insisted that he had acted with the full knowledge of both York and Arundell of Wardour, soon realized that preservation of catholic hopes depended on shielding York and began to claim that he had acted on his own.241
On 9 Nov. the king made his appearance in the Lords to promise that he would accept a bill or bills for the security of the Protestant religion under a Catholic successor, so long as it did not ‘impeach the right of succession, nor the descent of the crown in the true line, and so as they restrain not my power, nor the just rights of any Protestant successor’: though the statement was widely and enthusiastically but inaccurately hailed as presaging a change in the succession, its actual effect was limited. York successfully opposed the Commons’ address to the king to allow the publication of the Colman letters on 11 November.242 The Commons had sent up their test bill, the bill for disabling papists from sitting in Parliament, as early as 28 October. On 15 Nov., in committee of the whole House, after Catholic peers had succeeded in taking out the requirement for them to take the declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints (though the provision was put back later by the House itself), York moved for a provision specifically to exempt himself from the terms of the bill. He tearfully declared that his religion, whatever it might be, was ‘a private thing between God and his own soul’, and made professions of loyalty and earnest sincerity. The motion was passed, though York particularly noted and resented the fact that Monmouth left the chamber before it came to a vote, which he took as an indication of the king’s son’s increasing identification with Shaftesbury, Arthur Capell, earl of Essex and his other antagonists.243 The bill was reported from committee on 20 Nov. and read a third time. York voted against it, and together with seven other Catholic peers entered a formal protest at its passage. Remarkably, the exemption for the duke survived the bill’s return to the House of Commons, largely because Danby, whose support for the duke so far had not seemed whole-hearted, did throw his support behind it.
New threats to York came with the attempts to implicate the queen in the Plot in late November (which promised to open a new route to change the succession by allowing the king to marry again), and by Bedloe’s equivocal evidence about whether York had been present at some of the meetings at which the Plot had been discussed.244 Danby’s impeachment, brought up from the Commons on 23 Dec., left York in something of a quandary. The French ambassador Barillon had already judged in the middle of November that the Presbyterians, especially, were much less concerned with York than they were with Danby and his alliance with the bishops.245 York’s own close associates Clarendon and Feversham were said to have advised him not to risk becoming involved in defending ‘a man so universally hated’; Danby’s friends feared that York’s studied neutrality would be interpreted as thinly disguised enmity and tried to ensure that the king would ‘engage the duke’s zeal’ for Danby.246 On 26 Dec. York voted in favour of insisting upon the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill taking out the provision relating to the payment of tax money into the chamber of London, and making it payable, as usual, into the exchequer instead. The following day York voted against committing Danby.247 Three days later, on 30 Dec., Parliament was prorogued to 4 Feb. 1679.
The prorogation provided an opportunity for a series of negotiations: Presbyterians, represented by Holles and various associates in the Commons seem to have agreed not to proceed with the prosecution of Danby; Shaftesbury was said to have approached York probably in order to ensure that the prosecution of Danby succeeded.248 The negotiations with the Presbyterians were the basis on which the king decided, at last, to dissolve the Cavalier Parliament and summon a new one to meet on 6 March. Another Danby-inspired attempt by Archbishop Sancroft and Bishop Morley to convince the duke of York to return to the Church of England having failed, the king accepted Danby’s advice that York’s absence from the country was an essential basis for the smooth operation of the new Parliament. With a formal letter from the king, dated 28 Feb., instructing him to leave but assuring him that it would be for as short a time as possible, York left on 3 Mar., writing to Ormond that ‘I take even less pleasure in going out of England, than I did in making so insignificant a figure, as I have for sometime past’, but slightly mollified by the king making a solemn declaration in the Privy Council that he had not been married to Monmouth’s mother, nor to anyone but the queen.249 York’s intervention a little earlier in the Hampshire election in favour of Richard Norton‡ probably had more to do with Norton’s relationship with George Legge, York’s master of the horse, than with any political deal, despite Norton’s Presbyterian associations.250
York settled in Brussels, with his duchess, keeping a low profile, refusing to allow any of those named in connection with the plot to attend him and performing his own devotions ‘as privately as I can.’251 He relied especially on George Legge, whom he urged to write to him without ceremony, for information about English politics, and for conveying his thoughts to the king.252 He fretted in mid-April that ‘the longer people are used to be without me, the harder it will be, in my mind, to come back’.253 He looked on with some dismay at the remodelling of the Privy Council, bringing Shaftesbury and other opponents onto the board. He wrote to Legge in early May that, although he was reluctant to make the first move he was nevertheless prepared to use intermediaries to make limited overtures to Shaftesbury in order to assure him that ‘I can very willingly forgive, and not only that, but live well with any that have been my greatest enemies, if they behave themselves as they ought to his Majesty, and will live well with me’.254 With the development of the exclusion proposal in the Commons in England, however, York became less sanguine. The king had offered limitations again on 30 Apr., and after a long period of discussion away from the floor of either House it was not until 11 May that the subject was discussed in the Commons, when Shaftesbury’s associate Thomas Bennett proposed that the duke of York should not return without the approval of Parliament; the bill was read a second time on 21 May, and the king prorogued Parliament on the 27th.255 On 20 May, York wrote to Legge that ‘now or never is the time to save the monarchy’ and urged the king to be resolute and to take advantage of his control of the fleet and the army and of the kingdoms of Ireland and Scotland: ‘All these circumstances considered, the hazard will not be so great as some knaves and fainthearted men would make him believe.’ His only fear was that the king’s political opponents might secure the leadership of the duke of Monmouth ‘the only dangerous man that can do it, if he does not, no man of quality will dare’.256 He was reassured by William of Orange’s professions of support but was increasingly hostile to Monmouth.257 Brooding on his exile, Monmouth’s success in quelling the Scottish rebellion in June, and the king’s failure to recall him even after the dissolution of the 1679 Parliament on 10 July, York became increasingly gloomy and suspicious, convinced that the king was being turned into ‘a duke of Venice’, complaining that that ‘I am not used like a brother nor a friend’. He gloomily insisted that he would not convert and that he was prepared to suffer death
for the true catholic religion, as well as banishment; what I have done was not hastily but upon mature consideration and foreseeing all and more than has yet happened to me; and did others enquire into the religion as I have done, without prejudice, proposition, or partial affection, they would be of the same mind in point of religion as I am.258
When the king fell seriously ill at the end of August 1679, sparking fears of an attempt to seize the throne by Monmouth, York, summoned by the secretary of state, Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, raced back to England, arriving in London on 2 September. He was warmly received by the king, to some extent effacing the impression that York had obtained from his silence during the exile, and also by many others for whom he represented continued stability. Once the king had recovered, however, his presence was still seen as politically inconvenient, particularly as Shaftesbury had begun thinking about an attempt to impeach him at the forthcoming meeting of Parliament.259 Over York’s protests, Charles insisted that he should return to exile, though to a more acceptable and influential Scottish, rather than continental, exile. The pill was sugared, too, by the dismissal of Monmouth from the command of the army, and the king’s insistence that he, too, should go into exile. Monmouth was despatched to the Netherlands at the end of September, the lack of attendants of any rank contrasting with the crowds surrounding York and suggesting that the king’s discountenancing of his illegitimate son had had an effect.260 Having made a brief trip back to Brussels to collect his wife and household, York himself delayed his departure for Scotland until the end of October, enjoying some public demonstrations of support, including participation as guest of honour at the annual feast of the Artillery Company, but also experiencing plenty of barely veiled hostility.261 York’s influence at court was reckoned to be growing. Shaftesbury’s furious objections to the change of York’s exile arrangements (it was rumoured that he had called for York’s arrest), as well as to the further prorogation of Parliament on 17 Oct., precipitated his dismissal from, and the effective break-up of, the Privy Council that had been established in April.262 It initiated a new, and increasingly dangerous, phase of the crisis, in which any semblance of court unity collapsed. Soon after the duke’s departure London was rendered more febrile by the discovery of the Meal-Tub Plot; by a dramatic and threatening pope-burning procession on 17 Nov.; Monmouth’s unauthorized return to London on 27 Nov., having apparently been summoned home by Shaftesbury; and the petitioning movement, initiated by Shaftesbury, for Parliament to be allowed to sit.
Scottish Exile, 1680-2
On his trip northwards York received a mixed reception, though in some places supporters made significant demonstrations in his favour.263 In Scotland he was careful to avoid involvement in local factional politics.264 It was feared that Monmouth’s return to England in late November would precipitate the return of York, ‘and then’ wrote one of Ormond’s correspondents ‘what is next God knows.’265 York himself, who received the news on 3/4 Dec., was dismayed by it, fretting about the messages it might send about the king’s commitment to himself, and anxious to be recalled himself. He insisted that ‘nothing could encourage the loyal party more and persuade them, and all the world, that his majesty is in earnest, then the sending for me’, and welcomed the efforts of the king’s mistress, the duchess of Portsmouth, York’s brother-in-law Laurence Hyde (newly appointed to the council and replacing Essex as first lord of the treasury), and of Edward Seymour‡ to persuade the king to recall him.266 Unsettling rumours that Monmouth was to be legitimized and that William of Orange was meddling on his behalf persisted throughout the winter of 1679-80.267 York became convinced that Monmouth aimed at a republic ‘hoping then to make his self their general and Stadtholder, as the Prince of Orange is in Holland’.268 A constant refrain of his correspondence was that ‘all things are a running on to a commonwealth’ and that ‘no time must be lost by his Majesty, to put a stop to all these destructive proceedings’.269
The king’s reaction to the petitioning movement was the further prorogation of Parliament on 26 Jan. to April; by then there was already an expectation of York’s recall from Scotland. Shaftesbury reacted to it by attempting to persuade all of his allies on the council to resign en masse, though with limited success.270 He arrived on 24 Feb. 1680 to a 61-gun salute, and in the middle of negotiations for an anti-French alliance. The king and the duke dined with the lord mayor and aldermen on 8 Mar., and two days later went together to Newmarket.271 The lord mayor turned down a request from Shaftesbury for a similar invitation to Monmouth. Several of the opposition peers were wavering in their open hostility to York, with Baron North and Grey eliciting Shaftesbury’s contempt at a meeting on 17 Mar. for kissing York’s hand; William, Lord Cavendish, later 4th earl and duke of Devonshire, had also kissed York’s hand.272 The duke for a time appeared to be in an influential position, with a number of recently appointed ministers—Sidney Godolphin, later Baron, then earl of Godolphin, and Daniel Finch, later 2nd earl of Nottingham, as well as Laurence Hyde—on good terms with him: ‘the duke governs all’ claimed the Dutch ambassador.273 York attended Parliament for its further prorogation on 15 Apr. 1680 and was present at the special meeting of the Privy Council on 26 Apr. at which the king denied reports that proof of Monmouth’s legitimacy was concealed in the so called ‘black box’. York’s apparently good standing, however, rested on weak foundations, given that it was generally regarded as inevitable that Parliament would have to sit eventually if only in order to secure supply. The king’s declaration failed to put an end to the speculation over Monmouth’s legitimacy: a pamphlet by Robert Ferguson, which appeared on 15 May, shortly after the king had again fallen ill albeit not so seriously as before, brought additional arguments to claim that Monmouth’s mother had married Charles, and exposed the king’s failure to pursue further inquiries after the authors of the ‘black box’ rumours.274 York and his allies were engaged in negotiations in May and June, which suggested a potential deal with some elements, possibly Presbyterian politicians, might be available.275 The king was persuaded to publish another declaration that he had never married anyone other than the queen, which appeared on 2 June.276 York’s last attendance at Parliament as a peer was on the day of further prorogation on 1 July 1680.
The possibility of a resolution to the crisis was probably illusory, given the determined efforts at least of Shaftesbury to undermine it. The bold move of Shaftesbury and his supporters to present York as a recusant at the Middlesex assizes on 26 June had been prevented by the action of the judges, and further attempts to do so, though rumoured, were not carried out: but the action was a blow to York’s prestige, and dramatically publicized the case against him, especially as Shaftesbury, as usual, ensured its publication as The Reasons for the Indictment of the Duke of York presented to the Grand Jury of Middlesex.277 They had also presented Lady Portsmouth as a common nuisance, which helped to unnerve her sufficiently (though the efforts of Hyde and possibly York as well to set the duchess of Mazarin up as her rival may have contributed) to push her into negotiations with the anti-Yorkists. She was increasingly close to Sunderland, who by late August seems to have concluded that it was impractical for the king to continue to defend York. Successive monthly prorogations, to 22 July, 23 Aug. and then 21 Oct., and negotiations Sunderland and others had with opposition leaders produced a sense of growing expectation and uncertainty as each of them passed.278 Monmouth’s triumphant progress in the west from July to September added to the impression that York’s position was crumbling. Monmouth’s supporters were said to be actively toasting the ‘bold Briton’ who would accuse York of high treason at the next parliamentary session. York’s impeachment seemed highly probable.279
York’s continued presence in London was thought to be obstructive to any success in achieving a resolution of the crisis as it became difficult to postpone a meeting of Parliament any longer, especially by Sunderland, Godolphin, Essex and Halifax. Halifax claimed that ‘there is now as much anger against him at Whitehall as there can be at the other end of the town [i.e., in the City], so industrious his highness hath been to spoil his own business; the waves beat so high against him that a great part of the world will not hear of any thing less than exclusion’.280 Halifax was not the only one to condemn York for his political naivety.281 A Privy Council meeting on 13 Oct. decided he should stay; three days later, less than a week before Parliament was due to meet the decision was reversed, and the king insisted on his departure. Speaking to the French ambassador on the day of the meeting, York told him that he had been betrayed by Sunderland and others whom he had believed to be his friends, and laid out his (not unjustified) suspicions that the prince of Orange would be the beneficiary of his departure.282 In the meantime the king’s continued meetings with Monmouth encouraged him, and many others to conclude that ‘if pressed hard the King will part with the duke’.283 Fearing impeachment, York sought a pardon: the king refused, on the grounds that it would be highly provocative. It gave the duke, he later wrote ‘a melancholy apprehension of what his future fate might be’.284 Sent back to Scotland, though this time with full vice-regal powers, York left on 20 Oct. 1680, the day before Parliament assembled.
James’s second period of exile in Scotland would last almost 18 months, until April 1682. As commissioner, he summoned the Scottish Parliament in 1681, securing from it taxation to strengthen the forces at his disposal, a confirmation of his right of succession, and a Test Act, based on the 1675 English Act, requiring all office holders to uphold the Protestant religion, defend royal prerogatives and not to alter the government of Church or state. The act became a means of crushing the power of Archibald Campbell, earl of Argyll [S], charged in November 1681 with treason for entering a verbal reservation when required to swear the Scots test. Argyll’s conviction and subsequent flight into Holland removed an economically and politically powerful presence from Parliament and council.
Within two weeks of York’s departure from London in October 1680, and the opening of Parliament in England, the exclusion bill had been introduced into the Commons. It passed the Commons on 11 Nov. and arrived in the Lords on the 15th. The duchess of Portsmouth and Sunderland were said to have attempted to kindle some expectations that it would be passed, 55 votes having been promised ‘and his majesty being contrived into a passive neutrality.’285 The king had in fact made his opposition to it clear on 9 Nov. with a message to the Commons that he would accept remedies other than exclusion. That it met with a resounding defeat was attributed in part to the oratory of Halifax, but (as York wrote to Legge in response to his account of the debate) any gratitude that York might have felt towards him was dispelled by Halifax’s introduction the following day of a bill to limit the prerogative of a catholic king. It was, he wrote,
as bad as a stab with a dagger to hear, after Lord Halifax had spoke so handsomely for me, and managed the whole debate, he should make such a proposition as he did the next day… I would willingly not be thought of of not being very sensible of kindnesses done me, and I am as sensisble as possible of his doing his part so very well at the rejecting of my bill, but can I or any body think him really my friend, that would have me banished from his Majesty’s presence, for he moved it… and to say the truth what I hear they are agoing on with in the House of Lords, will be of as bad consequence if not worse to me, and much worse for the monarchy, then the bill that was thrown out.286
He was bitter about Sunderland and others who not only voted in favour of exclusion but then entered a dissent at its rejection.287 The debate on the 16th had gone over a number of alternatives to exclusion, including the divorce (opposed by Halifax and the king), and a Protestant association, and limitations, and these options were further explored over the following days, with a limitations bill read a second time on 10 December.288 There were further attempts to put pressure on York and his associates: York heard how Halifax had been attacked in the Commons for his opposition to exclusion, with an address presented against him to the king on 25 Nov.; on 29 Nov. there was another attempt to present York for recusancy by a Middlesex grand jury; on 21 Dec. Shaftesbury and others attacked in the Lords York’s servants, including Laurence Hyde, Legge himself and Feversham; on the same day the Commons presented an address demanding York’s exclusion.289 On 4 Jan. 1681, after the king’s unsatisfactory response, there were further assaults in the Commons on Halifax, Hyde, Feversham and others. On 10 Jan. the king put an end to the session, and on the 18th he announced its dissolution and the summons to a new Parliament on 21 March.
James himself, who had continually urged the king to allow him to return to England, arguing that his presence helped to discourage the exclusionists and other enemies of the monarchy, in his correspondence with Legge continued to reflect on the danger posed to the monarchy (and himself) by Parliament, warning that ‘honest gentlemen’ would not stand at the forthcoming elections and insisting that ‘I shall be ruined’ if the new Parliament were to be allowed to meet. Talk of ‘an expedient’ to be presented to the Oxford Parliament as a way of taking the heat out of anxieties about York was interpreted by York and his opponents as a proposal for his banishment; and indeed, something along these lines was laid out by the king to the Privy Council on 23 Feb., although other ideas, including Halifax’s regency proposal were still current. At the same time, Hyde was becoming a much more influential figure, while a series of appointments to the Privy Council in late January and early March of associates of York—the earls of Chesterfield, Oxford, Ailesbury and Craven—seemed to suggest a resurgence in the duke’s interest.290
When Parliament opened in Oxford on 21 Mar. the king’s offer to put the administration into ‘Protestant hands’, and vague mention of expedients, encouraged discussion of a wide variety of proposals: Shaftesbury’s open suggestion that Monmouth be designated successor, regency, exclusion, and limitations. The rejection of regency and probably provoked the Parliament’s dissolution on 28 Mar., just as the exclusion bill was being introduced. On 2 Apr. York wrote to Legge jubilant at the dissolution, and again urging his return to England: ‘unless I be sent for, the generality of the world still apprehend a want of steadiness and not believe there will be any ... till Godolphin, and all the rotten sheep are turned out ... fearful ministers and irresolute counsels have contributed more than any thing else to bring things into the condition they are’. It was a ‘great mortification’ to discover, within a few days, that he would still not be summoned home’.291 He looked on changes at court and in the judiciary (the dismissal of Sir William Scroggs) as further symptoms of ministerial fear, though Halifax and his ‘timorous counsels’ still had too much credit; and he condemned the duchess of Portsmouth’s attempts ‘to bring in the duke of Monmouth.’292 The same month, part of the response to the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament and the king’s declaration setting out his reasons for it was an attempt to revive the indictment of the duke for recusancy; in a transparent move to prevent a trial, it was removed to the comparative safety of the king’s bench.293
In the months following the end of the Oxford Parliament, as the Tory reaction gathered pace, the apparent violence of Whig efforts to remove him and their association with the opponents of the Church of England made York seem a more plausible object of loyalty for dedicated churchmen than had once been the case. James’s Anglican chaplain, Francis Turner, later bishop of Rochester and Ely, who had had numerous opportunities to study and talk to him during the long Scottish exile, was one of those who not only believed York’s assurances but also campaigned on his behalf, assuring William Sancroft, the archbishop of Canterbury, that
upon all occasions, I find he places his hopes altogether upon that interest we call the Church of England, upon the episcopal party, and mainly upon the bishops themselves, your Grace especially, wishing and desiring that your Grace will take all opportunities of encouraging the king (that was the duke’s own word) to be steady in well-chosen resolutions, and laying before his Majesty how fatal a thing it would be now to trace back again the ground he has gained and how mighty safe to stick to his old friends.294
In a further sign of the increased prestige of York’s associates, Hyde was made Viscount Hyde in April. In June Henry Sydney, later earl Romney penned a long description of affairs at court, where ‘nobody hath any credit but the duke’s creatures, and they study what is good for the duke and themselves’.295 This again was a little misleading: York’s own account suggested that most of the central members of the government were against his return to London; Halifax was probably the most influential adviser to the king (despite his lack of ministerial office), and while York seems to have been warming to him over the summer, perhaps as he pursued Shaftesbury and as York found that he was instrumental in preventing the duke of Monmouth’s readmission to his father’s presence, Halifax was still determined to keep York at a safe distance.296 York was suspicious to learn of William of Orange’s visit to England in the summer of 1681, particularly as he lobbied for a meeting of Parliament.297
Return and Retribution, 1682-5
Whether or not a Parliament would be held was the determinant of the king’s response to the duke’s plea to be allowed to return home, though (in his own account at least) it was pure pique on Halifax’s part that thwarted a proposal that he return simply in order to report to the king on the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, and despatched Hyde to Scotland in September with orders to have another doomed go at persuading York to abandon his religion.298 From mid-December, York’s recall looked increasingly likely, Parliament or no Parliament, possibly in part because of Hyde’s success in winning over the duchess of Portsmouth with a promise of £5000 a year from York’s revenue.299 Halifax complained that York had
a sort of hungry servants about him that were still pressing his return, and would never let him alone til, out of interest to themselves, they put him upon that which would turn to the prejudice of their master by the ill timing of it. The truth was, whilst the duke was near the king everybody believed him led most by his advice, and consequently that popish councils were most prevalent; and he did a great deal of good in Scotland by his influence and watchfulness in that mutinous kingdom.300
York seems initially to have secured permission from the king in late February to return for a ‘visit’: landing at Great Yarmouth, he met Charles in Newmarket on 11 March. Received warmly by the king, it was soon expected that his return would become permanent; the crowds coming to see him at Newmarket suggested some new level of popularity, and shortly after he returned to London on 8 Apr., he was again the guest at the annual feast of the Artillery Company, where the throng of well-wishers was so great that he was unable to leave for an hour and ‘was never better pleased ... in his life.’301 A rival Whig feast celebrating delivery from popery was banned as seditious.302 A brief return to Scotland in May in order to collect the duchess ended in disaster when the ship in which he was travelling, the Gloucester, struck a sandbank and sank. York escaped, but over 100 were drowned.
York’s return to London and to a role in government meant a process of establishing, or not establishing, relationships with those who had either opposed him, or failed to defend him. York’s former ally in the 1670s, turned exclusionist, Annesley was received coldly in April, and would be turned out of office in early August.303 Hyde and the duchess of Portsmouth secured York’s reconciliation with Sunderland, who managed to overcome his support for exclusion and York’s exile in October 1680 to become a privy councillor once more by September 1682, and secretary of state by January 1683.304 In May, Monmouth, willing to have a reconciliation with the king, was refusing to meet York, though finally, on 11 Aug., on a chance encounter in Hyde Park, he bowed to the duke, opening the way to a reconciliation.305 There seems even to have been an approach from Shaftesbury in September.306
York was now seen by a significant segment of Tory opinion—albeit one with existing strong connections to himself—as a powerful asset and potential defender of the Church, despite his religion. Alexander Burnet, archbishop of St Andrews, referred in February 1683 in correspondence with Turner, who had perhaps initiated the idea, to his determination ‘to cast himself, and all his concerns upon the old royal party, and the true sons of the Church of England’.307 James’s brother-in-law, Clarendon, wrote to Sancroft at about the same time, that although it was ‘a great misfortune’ that he was a Catholic, he might, ‘if he be well-instructed’, ‘be an instrument of great good’.308 He clearly identified his opponents with Presbyterianism: later that year he applauded the application of the Scots presbyterian Sir John Cochrane for a large tract of land in Carolina, ‘I told him I was glad he and others of his persuasion thought of going there, because they would carry with them disaffected people.’309 When, in May 1683, York was splendidly received at Oxford, it set a seal on his status as the figurehead of the Tory reaction.310
From the summer of 1682 York began to hit back at his political opponents through the courts. A combination of criminal prosecutions and actions for scandalum magnatum was used to neutralize them with heavy damages or requirements to find sureties wealthy enough to guarantee high levels of bail for their future good behaviour. Some were forced into exile; some to make their peace with York and the court; a few unfortunates, like John Culliford, suffered long and gruelling periods of imprisonment. The first of York’s actions for scandalum magnatum was against Thomas Pilkington‡ in the summer of 1682. He procured damages of £100,000 and ‘another mortification to the Whigs’.311 York is also known to have taken action ‘Mr Arrowsmith an apothecary in Friday Street’ in November 1682 (whom he pursued for £80,000), against John Culliford sometime after May 1683, Hugh Speke in October 1683, Titus Oates (for £100,000) in May 1684, and former member of the Commons John Dutton Colt‡ in April/ May 1684.312 Another former MP, Scrope Howe ‡, was prosecuted in January 1685, though it is not clear whether for scandalum magnatum or for treason, and was cowed into submission, and the mere threat of an action of scandalum was sufficient to force one more, Sir Francis Drake‡ out of the country.313 York’s allies Ormond, North, Clarendon, Beaufort, and Peterborough and Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort all took similar action. The former Speaker, William Williams‡, fared particularly badly as the subject of a criminal prosecution instigated by York in June 1684 for licensing the publication of Dangerfield’s Narrative of the Late Popish Designs, and a personal action for scandalum magnatum by Peterborough. Any inclination to renege on this agreement was kept in check by Peterborough’s studied reluctance to abandon his own prosecution until Williams’s Whig credentials were totally compromised.314 Speke, on the other hand, was first prosecuted in the king’s bench for seditious libel and then sued by York for scandalum.315 Attempts by York’s opponents to exploit the law in a similar fashion faltered because of the judges’ complicity in ensuring that their actions were removed to jurisdictions where the juries would favour the crown.316 York’s personal scandalum magnatum campaign was closely linked to the government’s campaign against the Whigs, especially in the City of London. York began his action against Pilkington a few months after the initiation of the quo warranto against the City of London, and close to the time of the June shrieval elections. The threat to his opponents was further underlined when his success in dealing with Pilkington was followed up in May 1683 by an accusation of perjury against one of Pilkington’s witnesses, Sir Patience Ward‡, who was forced to flee abroad.317 Another early attack on a charter was that led by York’s ally Beaufort on the corporation at Leominster in May 1682. Two of the victims of scandalum magnatum, John Dutton Colt‡ and William Williams, were heavily involved in defending the charter but both were rendered impotent first by the threat and then by the reality of the scandalum proceedings.318
York’s growing influence within the court in 1682 and 1683 was closely connected to the increasing significance of the earl of Rochester (as Viscount Hyde became in late 1682) in royal counsels, and to York’s rather complicated prestige among Tories. The commission for ecclesiastical promotions, originally established in early 1681 to advise the king on clerical appointments, had become an ‘instrument of Tory reaction’, particularly given the addition to it in July 1681 of lay commissioners, Halifax, Hyde and Edward Seymour, and although Halifax’s presence and Sancroft’s use of it to maintain his own influence tempered its character as a simply Yorkist body, the triangular relationship between Hyde, York and Sancroft was a powerful driver of its activities.319 The appointment of York’s chaplain, Francis Turner to the vacant see of Rochester (with a further promotion the following year to Ely), was plainly an indication of his significance, though Turner himself was anxious that the world should attribute his good fortune to Sancroft rather that to ‘the partiality of my master’.320 York never accomplished, in his brother’s reign, Rochester’s promotion from first lord of the treasury to the position of lord treasurer that the latter coveted, despite it being a routine subject of rumour after 1682, and Rochester’s influence was always contested by the continued presence of Halifax as lord privy seal, who continued to be a (relatively lonely) voice within the administration calling for a new meeting of Parliament, and would continually seek to undermine Rochester. Sunderland was also treated with suspicion by Rochester and the Tories, but with the duchess of Portsmouth’s protection, he was both irremovable and increasingly indispensable. It was Rochester and Sunderland who negotiated with the French and Danes to secure the marriage of York’s daughter Anne to Prince George of Denmark, who would become duke of Cumberland, which was announced in May 1683, and took place at the end of July. York took delight over the way it had upset the Whigs, presumably because of the prince’s Protestantism.321
York’s restoration to a (nearly) complete role in politics and administration was largely the result of the revelation of the Rye House Plot in June 1683. Shortly afterwards, the king brought him back into the informal meetings of the committee of foreign affairs; by the end of the year he was once more closely involved with the king in decisions on foreign policy, particularly the crisis resulting from Louis XIV’s attack on Luxembourg.322 The evidence of Monmouth’s involvement in the Plot, gratifyingly for York, produced a new crisis in the relationship between the king and his favourite son. His reappearance in England in November, and his confession to the king and reconciliation with him on 25 Nov. was an unpleasant surprise to York, who was suspicious of Halifax’s role within it—although it was principally the king himself who had determined how to deal with his son.323 The Whigs, York complained on 6 Dec., ‘are grown very insolent’ as a result.324 York insisted that a report of Monmouth’s confession be published in the Gazette.325 On subsequently disowning the report Monmouth was banished from the court. He migrated to Holland: in July 1684 York was scandalized at the ‘kind usage’ he received there from the Prince of Orange.326
By Charles’s final year James was clearly exercising a much greater influence on royal business than perhaps ever before, despite the formal disabilities that he still laboured under. Burnet declared that all ‘application and dependence was visibly on the Duke’ and Sir John Reresby agreed that ‘The duke of York did now chiefly manage affairs’.327 Though this remained an exaggeration given the continued significance of the duchess of Portsmouth and the effective political skills of her sidekick, Sunderland, as well as the broodingly powerful figure of Halifax, York’s reach into many parts of the administration would grow over the course of 1684. James had continued his involvement in Scottish military affairs after his return: a letter from John Grahame of Claverhouse, later Viscount Dundee [S], shows him exercising a detailed control over Scottish military appointments in March 1683 (Grahame wrote with a touch of exasperation that ‘the duke thinks the army his own province, and that he understands both the men and business of it better than any, and he has his own maxims that it is hard to put him off’).328 But he was now involved again with the military in England, clearly exercising a strong influence over naval affairs: many senior officers and officials were his close allies, including George Legge, now Baron Dartmouth, and Arthur Herbert, later earl of Torrington, although Halifax was also a significant figure behind some members of the admiralty commission. York’s plans to retake full control of the navy was achieved with the king’s revocation of the admiralty commission on 11 May 1684, when Charles took the position of lord admiral himself, leaving the exercise of it to York.329 York was said to have begun again to attend meetings of the Privy Council in late May, although his name was not included in the register’s attendance lists.330
York’s rehabilitation did not mask the continuing struggle for power between Rochester and Halifax, in which Halifax, despite his virtually open efforts to frustrate James, was proving the more effective, diluting Rochester’s command at the treasury by placing two of his political allies there in June, to York’s annoyance: Rochester, increasingly irritable and difficult, was manoeuvred into the post of lord president as one of a series of changes among senior ministers in late August, and then shifted to replace Ormond as lord lieutenant of Ireland in October.331 The mutual antipathy between Rochester and Halifax, who by the end of the year had virtually fought each other to a standstill, would provide the opportunity for Sunderland to ease himself firmly into a commanding position of ministerial power.
With York’s voice in government more powerful in the second half of 1684, certain aspects of its policy appeared to take on a more authoritarian, Catholic line. Ormond’s replacement was intended to make it easier to remodel the Irish army, eliminating Protestant radicals, and transferring military control from the lord lieutenant to a general answerable directly to the English government, a project that was masterminded by Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnell [I], who would become the cornerstone of James II’s scheme to restore the Catholic position in Ireland. part of an attempt to assert a much greater degree of royal control In November James also began to prepare to summon and preside over another Scottish Parliament in which he would complete his destruction of Argyll and others.332 He had not yet, however, changed his views on indulging Protestant Dissent: though the issue was discussed in the last few months of Charles’s reign, he was clearly opposed to it. In January 1685 he was able to reassure the Scots that rumours of a new declaration of indulgence were false for although some favours were intended for loyal Catholics ‘the king knows too well both the principles and practices of the fanatics’.333
The king’s short illness and death on 6 Feb. put an end to James’s plans for Scotland, and brought him to the throne after 36 years as his brother’s heir and at least 12 as the biggest problem in English and Scottish politics. Along the way, he had garnered greater experience of Parliament in England than perhaps any other reigning monarch ever had done, and some experience of how it worked in Scotland as well. It had made him well-informed about it, displaying his knowledge about how proceedings on an election petition worked in 1678 to the surprise of Reresby; but it had given him very little patience for it, complaining in his memoir of Parliament as ‘refractory and insolent’ or ‘impertinent’.334 He had also gained a considerable appreciation of the law as both an obstacle for government to be worked around, and a potential weapon in its hands. But impatient and confident in his own ‘maxims’, James had developed a view of political skill as about the effective imposition of his own will, and regarded the key political qualities as being steadfastness and determination, rather than stealth, flexibility and negotiation. York had attracted sufficient friends and supporters in the seven years since the problem of his Catholicism erupted into a crisis in 1678 to make his reign viable. Over the next four, he would shed them again through his determination, his ‘maxims’ and his faith.
R.P.- 1 TNA, PRO 31/3/106, f. 129.
- 2 PRO 31/3/107, f. 77.
- 3 TNA, PC 2/54, ff. 48v, 53-4; Memoirs of the English Affairs, chiefly Naval… written by His Royal Highness, James Duke of York (1729), 1-3.
- 4 PRO 31/3/107 f. 110.
- 5 Bodl. Clarendon 74, f. 138-40; CCSP, v. 79, 80.
- 6 Life of Clarendon (1857), i. 322-3..
- 7 PRO 31/3/107 f.193; Pepys Diary, iv, 136-8; PRO 31/3/108, ff. 11-18, 96-8.
- 8 PRO 31/3/107 f. 200.
- 9 PRO 31/3/109 ff. 45-8.
- 10 PRO 31/3/107 ff. 200, 208, 31/3/108 f. 7, 30-3, 38-42.
- 11 PRO 31/3/108 ff. 35-7.
- 12 PRO 31/3/108 ff. 58-63.
- 13 PRO 31/3/108 ff. 1, 3-5, 22, 38-42, 74-8.
- 14 PRO 31/3/108 ff. 38-42, 48-51, 74-8.
- 15 PRO 31/3/108 ff. 119-23v, 129.
- 16 PRO 31/3/108, pp. 126-7, 129.
- 17 Bodl. Clarendon 74, ff. 138-40; PRO 31/3/109, ff. 45-8.
- 18 PRO 31/3/109 ff. 11-16, 21-4.
- 19 Callow, Making of King James II, 115-16.
- 20 HMC 8th Rep., pt. I, 497-9; HMC Portland, iii. 480.
- 21 CTB, i. 269-70; 15 Car. II, c. 14.
- 22 TNA, E 134/25&26Chas2/Hil15.
- 23 TNA, IND 1/16828, 16830.
- 24 Callow, 240, 251.
- 25 Ibid. 119.
- 26 HP Commons 1660-90, i. 196, 253, 323, 395, 591, iii. 222, 341.
- 27 HP Commons 1660-90, i. 35, 152, 196, 245, 501, iii. 465, 749, 765, 778.
- 28 Seaward, Cavalier Parlt., 14-15.
- 29 HMC Hastings, iv. 105.
- 30 Add. 232215, f. 40.
- 31 Rawdon Pprs. 137.
- 32 Chatsworth, Cork mss Misc Box 1, Diary of Earl of Burlington, 18 Mar. 1662; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 324.
- 33 PRO 31/3/110 ff. 228, 247, 246, 242, 441, 31/3/110 ff. 293-5, 274-6.
- 34 PRO 31/3/110 ff. 293-5, 351.
- 35 Pepys Diary, ii.303, iv. 137; NAS GD 157/3233.
- 36 PRO 31/3/111 ff. 10-11.
- 37 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iii. 47.
- 38 PRO 31/3/111 ff. 90-1.
- 39 PRO 31/3/111 ff. 90-1.
- 40 PRO 31/3/112 ff. 29-31.
- 41 Bodl. Carte 77, ff. 524-5; BL, RP 409, ? to Carlingford, 11 July 1663.
- 42 PRO 31/3/112 ff. 97-100.
- 43 Bodl. Carte 81, f. 224.
- 44 PRO 31/3/112 ff. 97-100.
- 45 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iii. 121; PRO 31/3/113 f. 60.
- 46 Pepys Diary, v. 21.
- 47 PRO 31/3/113 ff. 24 et seqq.
- 48 PRO 31/3/113 ff. 117-19.
- 49 Bodl. Carte 76, f. 7; Bodl. Rawl. A130, 21 Mar. 1663-4.
- 50 Bodl. Rawl. A130, 21 Mar. 1663-4.
- 51 Bodl. Carte 76, f. 7; Add. 38015, ff. 77-8; Chatsworth, Cork mss misc Box 1 [Diary of earl of Cork and Burlington], 22 Mar. 1664.
- 52 Bodl. Rawl. A130, 21 Mar. 1663-4.
- 53 PRO 31/3/113 f. 155v; P. Seaward, ‘The House of Commons Committee of Trade and the Origins of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, 1664’, HJ xxx, 437-52; BL, M874/9, Coventry pprs. vol. 102, f. 7; PRO 31/3/114, f. 184.
- 54 Verney ms mic. M636/19, Sir E Fust to E Verney, 7 Nov. 1664; CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 56; PRO 31/3/113 f. 422.
- 55 PA, HL/PO/JO/13/5.
- 56 Add 75356, York to Burlington, 17 Apr. 1665.
- 57 Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 6-7.
- 58 PRO 31/3/115 ff. 54, 81-2.
- 59 PRO 31/3/115 f. 76; Bodl. Rawl. A130, 11 Oct. 1665; Turner, James II, 82.
- 60 Pepys Diary, vi. 277.
- 61 Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 6-10.
- 62 Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 176-91; Bodl. Carte 34 f. 431; SP 29/131/52.
- 63 Bodl. Rawl. A 130, 30 Oct. 1665.
- 64 Bodl. Carte 34, f. 468.
- 65 Pepys Diary, vi. 277.
- 66 Pepys Diary, vi. 301-2, 321.
- 67 Pepys Diary, vii. 163, 314-5.
- 68 Pepys Diary, vii. 323.
- 69 HMC Hastings, ii. 370; HMC Egmont, ii. 17.
- 70 PA, HL/PO/JO/13/5.
- 71 LJ, xii. 15-6.
- 72 Bodl. Rawl. A130, 29 Nov. 1666.
- 73 Bodl. Carte, 217, f. 353.
- 74 Bold. Carte, 35, f. 126.
- 75 Bodl. Carte 35, f. 30; Clarendon Life (1857), ii 346; Bodl. Carte 47, f. 138 Bodl. Carte 215, f. 318.
- 76 HMC 8th Rep. 111.
- 77 HMC Le Fleming, 45.
- 78 Bodl. Carte 48, f. 458.
- 79 Savile corresp. 17; Pepys Diary, viii, 292-3, 332.
- 80 Pepys Diary, viii. 342.
- 81 Clarendon, Life (1857), ii 445-6; ms Carte 220, ff. 272-5; Pepys Diary, ix. 409-10, 414-5.
- 82 Bodl. Carte 220, ff. 272-5.
- 83 PRO 31/3/116, f. 76 et seqq.
- 84 PRO 31/3/116, ff. 9. 85-6.
- 85 Life of James II, i. 426-7; Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 450-1.
- 86 PRO 31/3/116 ff. 82-4.
- 87 PRO 31/3/116 f. 115.
- 88 Chatsworth, Cork mss Misc Box 1 (Earl of Burlington’s Diary,), 15 Oct. 1667.
- 89 PRO 31/3/117 ff. 1-2.
- 90 PRO 31/3/117 f. 14.
- 91 Add 36916, f.17; PRO 31/3/117 ff. 23-4.
- 92 Pepys Diary, viii. 551.
- 93 PRO 31/3/117 ff. 39-41; Add. 70128, Sir E Harley to Lady Harley, 9 Nov. 1667; Add 36916, ff.17, f.22, Verney ms mic. M636/22, Sir R Verney to E. Verney, 14, 21, 28 Nov. 1667; Pepys Diary, viii. 551.
- 94 Pepys Diary, viii. 530, 532-4.
- 95 LJ, xi. 167-8.
- 96 PRO 31/3/117 ff. 56-9.
- 97 PRO 31/3/118 ff. 7-8.
- 98 Pepys Diary, viii. 596; PRO 31/3/118 pp. 33-7, 43-4; Add. 36916, f. 122; Burnet, i. 452-3; Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. (1775), i. 44; CSP Dom., 1667-8, pp. 258-9.
- 99 Pepys Diary, ix. 39.
- 100 PRO 31/3/118 f. 84.
- 101 PRO 31/3/118 ff. 65-6; PA, HL/PO/JO/13/5.
- 102 Chatsworth, Cork mss Misc Box 2 [diary of Earl of Cork and Burlington]; PRO 31/3/18, ff. 84, 112-13.
- 103 PRO 31/3/118 f. 108.
- 104 PRO 31/3/118 f. 116.
- 105 Pepys Diary, ix. 173-4.
- 106 BL, Add 36916, f.96; HP, Commons 1660-90, i. 498.
- 107 Pepys Diary, ix. 190.
- 108 LJ, xii. 244-6; PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2.
- 109 Pepys Diary, ix.280.
- 110 PRO 31/3/120, Colbert to Louis XIV, 24 Dec. 1668 NS.
- 111 Pepys Diary, ix, 340-1; PRO 31/3/120 ff. 40-2.
- 112 PRO 31/3/120 ff. 26-7; Pepys Diary, ix, 346-9.
- 113 PRO 31/3/120 f. 69; Life of James II, i. 436-7.
- 114 BL, Add. 36916, f 122; Life of James II, i. 437.
- 115 Life of James II, i. 441-2.
- 116 PRO 31/3/121 ff. 81-3, 100, 31/3/122, ff. 1-2, 5.
- 117 PRO 31/3/121 pp. 112-13.
- 118 PRO 31/3/121 ff. 65, 70-2, 31/3/122, ff. 23-24, 55; Verney, ms mic. M636/23, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 10 Mar. 1668.
- 119 PRO 31/3/122, ff. 85-7.
- 120 HMC Le Fleming, 65.
- 121 PRO 31/3/122, ff. 102-3; Add. 32499, f. 25.
- 122 HMC Buccleuch i. 441; PRO 31/3/123 ff. 2-3, 13.
- 123 PA, HL/PO/JO/13/5.
- 124 PRO 31/3/123, ff. 30-1.
- 125 PRO 31/3/123 f. 46.
- 126 PRO 31/3/123 ff. 57-8.
- 127 PRO 31/3/124 ff. 146-7, 154-5.
- 128 PRO 31/3/124 pp. 146-7, 154-5.
- 129 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2.
- 130 Verney, ms mic. M636/23, Sir R Verney to E Verney, 18 May 1670; Add. 65138, f. 91.
- 131 Add. 36916, f. 186.
- 132 State Papers Collected by Edward, Earl of Clarendon ed. R. Scrope and T. Monkhouse, iii, supplement, xli.
- 133 LJ, xii. 468-9, 471-2, 475-6; PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2.
- 134 Add. 36916, f. 217, BL, Verney, M636/24, Denton to Sir R Verney, 6 Apr. 1671; CSP Ven. 1671-2, p. 34; PRO 31/3/126 f. 44.
- 135 PRO 31/3/126 f. 65.
- 136 Witcombe, Charles II and the Cavalier House of Commons, 121-2; HMC 9th Rep. ii. p. 2.
- 137 Add 36916, f. 225.
- 138 PRO 31/3/126 ff. 74-5.
- 139 HMC 6th Rep. 369b.
- 140 PRO 31/3/126, pp. 138-9, 152, PRO 31/3/127 p. 123.
- 141 SP 104/177, f. 12.
- 142 PRO 31/3/127 pp. 57-9.
- 143 PRO 31/3/127 p. 98.
- 144 PRO 31/3/127 p. 123; NLS, ms 7006, ff. 6-7.
- 145 SP 104/177, ff. 107ff.
- 146 PA, HL/PO/JO/13/5.
- 147 Bodl. Carte. 77, ff. 536-7.
- 148 SP 104/177, f. 143.
- 149 PRO 31/3/128, pp. 39-41.
- 150 CSP Ven. 1673-5, p. 27.
- 151 Verney ms mic. M636/25, Denton to Sir R Verney, 20 Mar. 1673.
- 152 CSP Ven. 1673-5, p. 29; Burnet, ii. 7-12.
- 153 PRO 31/3/1287-60., pp.
- 154 Verney ms mic. M636/25, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 3 and 24 Apr. 1673.
- 155 Verney ms mic. M636/25, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 15 May 1673; NLS, ms 7006, f. 25.
- 156 PRO 31/3/128, pp. 57-60, 65, 66; Verney ms mic. M636/25, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 12 May 1673; HMC Hastings, ii. 162-3; Miller, James II, 71.
- 157 Verney ms mic. M636/25, Sir R. to E. Verney, 29 May 1673.
- 158 NLS, ms 7006, ff. 30-32; PRO 31/3/128, p. 83.
- 159 J. Davies, Gentlemen and Tarpaulins, 169-70; HMC Le Fleming, 102.
- 160 Miller, James II, 72-3; PRO, 31/3/128, pp. 102-7, 31/3/129, pp. 1-2; Bodl. ms Eng. 5237, ff. 39-40.
- 161 Verney ms mic. M636/26, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 24 July, 11 Aug. 1673; PRO 31/3/129, pp. 10-11, 13; Miller, James II, 73.
- 162 PRO 31/3/129, pp. 40-4.
- 163 Haley, Shaftesbury, 337 and n.
- 164 Haley, Shaftesbury, 336; CSP Ven. 1673-5, p. 161.
- 165 PRO 31/3/129, pp. 53-8; Verney ms. mic. M636/26, Dr Denton to Sir R. Verney, 23 Oct. 1673; Bodl. Tanner, 42, f.44.
- 166 Browning, Danby, i. 100.
- 167 Haley, Shaftesbury, 337, 343.
- 168 Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. Verney to E Verney, 27 Nov. 1673.
- 169 Add. 25117, f. 150.
- 170 Add. 40860, f. 62.
- 171 Haley, Shaftesbury, 355; PRO 31/3/130, ff. 34-6; Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 12 Jan. 1673/4.
- 172 Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. to E Verney, 15 Jan. 1674. Bodl ms film 293, Folger Library, Washington, Newdegate newsletters (1678-1715), I. L.C.3; CSP Ven. 1673-8, p. 206.
- 173 NAS, GD 406/1/2778, 2780.
- 174 PRO 31/3/130, pp. 44-8.
- 175 Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. i. 71.
- 176 CSP Ven. 1673-5, pp. 220-1; Lauderdale Pprs. iii. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxxviii) 32-3; PRO 31/3/130, pp. 79-84.
- 177 Haley, Shaftesbury, 359-60.
- 178 Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. i. 72.
- 179 PRO 31/3/131, pp. 17-20.
- 180 PRO 31/3/131, pp. 23-4.
- 181 CSP Ven. 1673-5, pp. 279; Miller, James II, 77.
- 182 G. Treby, A Collection of Letters and Other Writings relating to the Horrid Popish Plot (1681), 1.
- 183 Treby, 5, 7, 12, 110; Life of James II, i. 533-4.
- 184 PRO 31/3/31 pp. 85-6.
- 185 CSP Ven. 1673-5, pp. 307-8; HMC Portland iii. 348. Miller, James II, 78.
- 186 Miller, James II, 78; Bodl Carte 72, f.255; Haley, Shaftesbury, 368-9.
- 187 PRO 31/3/132, pp. 9-10.
- 188 Browning, Danby, i. 148-9.
- 189 PRO 31/3/132, pp. 19-24; CSP Dom. 1673-5, p. 595; NAS GD 406/1/2844.
- 190 Haley, Shaftesbury, 373.
- 191 Bulstrode Pprs. 284.
- 192 ‘A Letter from a Person of Quality’, in Locke, An Essay on Toleration ed. J.R. and P. Milton, 364.
- 193 Bulstrode Pprs. 289; Essex Pprs. (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, xxiv), ii. 8; Haley, Shaftesbury, 376.
- 194 PRO 31/3/132 pp. 33-6.
- 195 Essex Pprs. (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, xxiv), ii. 32; Miller, James II, 79.
- 196 Treby, 109-116.
- 197 Treby, 109-116.
- 198 Treby, 115-6.
- 199 Treby, 115; Miller, James II, 79; Haley, Shaftesbury, 389.
- 200 PA, HL/PO/JO/13/5; Staffs. RO, DW1778/li/407a & b.
- 201 Timberland, i, 175-83; Add. 35865, f.224.
- 202 Burnet, ii. 93-4.
- 203 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Denton to Sir R. Verney, and J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 30 Mar. 1676, Sir R. to J Verney, 3 April 1676.
- 204 Miller, James II, 80; Gregg, Queen Anne, 16.
- 205 Verney ms mic. M636/29, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 12 April [1676], J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 13 Apr. 1676.
- 206 CSP Dom. 1676-7, pp. 349, 386.
- 207 A. Barclay, ‘The rise of Edward Colman’, HJ, xlii, 126-8.
- 208 Browning, Danby, i. 213.
- 209 CSP Dom. 1676-77, pp. 541-2.
- 210 Life of James II, i. 504-5.
- 211 Add. 27872, f. 30.
- 212 Browning, Danby, i. 219 and n.
- 213 Add. 75376, ff. 16-17, where the letter is ascribed to Sir W. Coventry, though see Halifax Letters, i. 129.
- 214 Miller, James II, 81.
- 215 Life of James II, i. 507; BL, Verney, M636/30, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 21 June 1677.
- 216 HMC Portland, iii. 355-6.
- 217 HMC Portland, iii. 355-6.
- 218 Miller, James II, 84-5.
- 219 Miller, James II, 85-6, Browning, Danby, i. 255.
- 220 Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R Verney to E Verney, 27 Dec. 1677; HMC 12th Rep. v. 42.
- 221 Verney ms mic. M636/30, Denton to Sir R Verney, 15 Nov. 1677.
- 222 HMC Rutland, ii. 46; HMC Ormond, iv. 408.
- 223 Bodl. ms Eng. 5237, f. 9.
- 224 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 417; Browning, Danby, i. 268-9.
- 225 Reresby Mems. 140-1.
- 226 Dalrymple Mems. i. 201-9.
- 227 Life of James II, i. 497-8; J. Childs, The Army in the Reign of Charles II, 186-8; Verney, ms. mic. M636/31, J Verney to Sir R Verney, 10 Apr. 1678.
- 228 HMC Rutland, ii. 51.
- 229 Haley, Shaftesbury, 448.
- 230 Miller, James II, 86; Dalrymple Mems. i. 225-7.
- 231 NAS GD 406/2/B635/11, GD 406/1/8095; HMC Drumlanrig, i. 237.
- 232 Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R. to E Verney, 8 July 1678.
- 233 PA, HL/PO/JO/13/5.
- 234 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 160; Miller, James II, 86-7; Childs, Army of Charles II, 188.
- 235 Life of James II, i. 533-4.
- 236 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 463-4.
- 237 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 465-6.
- 238 Haley, Shaftesbury, 470-1; Verney ms mic. M636/32, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 30 Oct. 1678, J. to Sir R. Verney, 1 Nov. 1678.
- 239 Haley, Shaftesbury, 471-2; Life of James II, i. 524; Verney, ms mic. M636/32, J Verney to Sir R. Verney, 1 Nov. 1678, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 4 Nov. 1678; Bodl. Carte 72, ff. 403-6.
- 240 Haley, Shaftesbury, 472-3; Bodl. Carte 72, ff. 403-6.
- 241 HMC Kenyon, 108.
- 242 HMC Ormonde, iv. 470.
- 243 Life of James II, i. 525-6; Haley, Shaftesbury, 481; Verney ms mic. M636/32, Denton to Sir R Verney, 23 Nov. 1678.
- 244 CSP Dom. 1677-8, p. 550.
- 245 PRO 31/3/141, pp. 63-4.
- 246 Add 28049, ff. 34-5.
- 247 Bodl. Carte 81, f. 405.
- 248 Add 28053, f.133; PRO 31/3/142, ff. 40-1.
- 249 Bodl. Tanner 39, f. 178; Durham UL, Mickleton and Spearman ms 46, f. 132; HMC Ormonde n.s. iv. 315; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 147; Browning, Danby, i. 314. Woburn Abbey mss (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxix), f. 30; Bodl. Carte 147, f. 68.
- 250 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E Verney, 27 Feb. 1702. HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 160.
- 251 Bodl. ms Eng. 5237 f.13-14.
- 252 Add. 18447, f. 2.
- 253 Add. 18447, f. 3.
- 254 HMC Dartmouth, i. 32-3.
- 255 Knights, Pols. and Opinion, 50-1.
- 256 Add. 18447, ff 8-9.
- 257 HMC Dartmouth, i:34-5.
- 258 HMC Dartmouth, , i, 36-7.
- 259 K. Feiling, ‘The Journals of Edmund Warcup’, EHR, xl. 244.
- 260 Bodl. Carte 232, f. 60.
- 261 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 537. Verney ms mic. M636/33, J Verney to Sir R Verney, 23 Oct. 1679; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 24.
- 262 Knights, Pols. and Opinion, 60.
- 263 Miller, James II, 101; Verney ms mic. M636/33, J. to Sir R. Verney, 13 Nov. 1679, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 19 Nov. 1679.
- 264 HMC Dartmouth, i. 41.
- 265 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 245.
- 266 HMC Dartmouth, i. 38-9.
- 267 HMC Dartmouth, i. 39-49; Verney, ms mic. M636/33, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 7 Dec. 1679; HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 568; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 164.
- 268 HMC Dartmouth, i. 39-40.
- 269 HMC Dartmouth, i. 40.
- 270 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 576-7; Christie, Shaftesbury, ii. 358.
- 271 Haley, Shaftesbury, 568.
- 272 NLW, Clenenau, 784; HMC Le Fleming, 166; Hatton Corresp, i. (Cam. Soc. xxii), 223-4.
- 273 Knights, Pols and Opinion in Crisis, 69; Sidney Diary, ii. 173.
- 274 Haley, Shaftesbury, 577; R. Ferguson, A Letter to a Person of Honour concerning the Black Box (1680); HMC Ormonde, n.s., v. 310-11; HMC Finch ii. 75-78.
- 275 Knights, Pols. and Opinion in Crisis, 72.
- 276 CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 502.
- 277 HMC 7th Rep., 479; HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 342; Verney ms mic. M636/34, J. to Sir R Verney, 5, 8 July 1680, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 15 July 1680.
- 278 Knights, Politics and opinion in Crisis, 70 n. 106, 71; Haley, Shaftesbury, 588.
- 279 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 449, 454; Knights, Pols. and Opinion in Crisis, 73, n. 122.
- 280 Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 15, f. 13.
- 281 Bodl. Tanner, 37, f.157.
- 282 Haley, Shaftesbury, 591-2; Dalrymple Mems., i. 344-5.
- 283 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 454.
- 284 Life of James II, i. 597.
- 285 HMC Ormonde, n.s., v: 495-7.
- 286 HMC Dartmouth, 53-4.
- 287 Bodl. ms Eng. 5237, f.17-18.
- 288 Knights, Pols. and Opinion in Crisis, 87-8.
- 289 Haley, Shaftesbury, 612; Knights, Pols and Opinion in Crisis, 89.
- 290 Life of James II, i. 655-6; HMC Dartmouth, i, 57; Knights, Pols. and Opinion in Crisis, 94-5.
- 291 HMC Dartmouth, i. 58-9.
- 292 HMC Dartmouth, i, 59-60.
- 293 Verney ms mic. M636/35, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 7, 11 Apr. 1681; Derbys RO, D 239 M/O 1126.
- 294 Bodl. Tanner 36, ff. 31-2.
- 295 Dalrymple Mems. i. 74-79.
- 296 HMC Dartmouth, i. 64-5; Halifax Letters, 302-3.
- 297 Dalrymple Mems. i. 69, 73; Life of James II, i. 691.
- 298 Life of James II, i. 698-9; Verney ms mic. M636/36, W Denton to Sir R Verney, 29 Sept. 1681; Add. 75361, Strafford to [Tillotson], 17 Sept., 15 Oct. 1681; HMC Dartmouth, i, 66-7, 70-71, 72; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 249.
- 299 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 249, 271, 295.
- 300 Reresby Mems. 239.
- 301 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi:342, 347, 351, CSP Dom. 1682, p. 173.
- 302 Haley, Shaftesbury, 694-5.
- 303 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i, 177.
- 304 Kenyon, Sunderland, 81-2, 86.
- 305 Verney ms mic. M 636/36, J. to Sir R. Verney, 25 May 1682; Carte 216, f. 141.
- 306 Haley, Shaftesbury, 701-2; Bodl. Tanner, 35, ff.91-92.
- 307 Bodl. Tanner, 35, f.185.
- 308 Bodl. Tanner, 35, ff.213-4.
- 309 HMC Drumlanrig, i. 175.
- 310 Verney ms mic. M636/37, E. to J. Verney, 24 May 1683, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 25 May 1683; Bodl. Rawl. Lett. 48, no. 10.
- 311 HMC Drumlanrig, i. 177.
- 312 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 334 (Arrowsmith), 395, 400, 403-4, 409, 445, 449, 452, 466, 468, 505 (Speke), 476 (Oates), 464, 474-5 (Dutton Colt); Wood, Life and Times, iii 31 (Arrowsmith); Luttrell, Brief Relation, i:307; CJ, x. 163-4 (John Culliford).
- 313 HP, Commons 1660-90, ii. 233-4 (Drake), 612 (Howe); Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, ii.
- 314 Add. 75362, Sir W. Coventry to Halifax, 20 May 1686; NLW, Trevor Owen, 29, 44, 45, 46, C46; HP, Commons 1660-90, iii. 733-4; NLW, Trevor Owen, 47, 49, C38.
- 315 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 286-7; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 403-4.
- 316 Bodl. Carte 216, f. 41.
- 317 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 258-9.
- 318 Halliday, Dismembering the Body Politic, 229-30; NLW, Trevor Owen, 26-7, 34.
- 319 R. Beddard, ‘The Commission for Ecclesiastical Promotions’, HJ, x, 11-40.
- 320 Bodl. Tanner, 34, ff. 58-59, 115.
- 321 Gregg, Queen Anne, 32-5; HMC, Drumlanrig, i. 189.
- 322 Miller, James II, 116-7.
- 323 Reresby Mems. 320, 322, 324.
- 324 HMC Drumlanrig, i. 200.
- 325 Kenyon, Sunderland, 95.
- 326 HMC Drumlanrig, i. 205.
- 327 Burnet, i. 582-3; Reresby Mems. 329.
- 328 HMC Drumlanrig, i. 275.
- 329 J. Davies, Gentlemen and Tarpaulins, 192, 194-8; NAS GD 406/1/3273; Verney ms mic. M636/38, Sir R. to J. Verney, 19 May 1684.
- 330 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 308; TNA PC 2/70.
- 331 Kenyon, Sunderland, 98-101.
- 332 Kenyon, Sunderland, 101, 103-4.
- 333 HMC Drumlanrig, i. 214-5.
- 334 Life of James II, i. 627, 645, 715.