cr. 2 Feb. 1673 Visct. Oseburne of Dunblane [S]; cr. 15 Aug. 1673 Visct. LATIMER; cr. 27 June 1674 earl of DANBY; cr. 20 Apr. 1689 mq. of CARMARTHEN; cr. 4 May 1694 duke of LEEDS
First sat 20 Oct. 1673; last sat 19 June 1712
MP York, 1665-15 Aug. 1673
b. 20 Feb. 1632, 2nd but 1st surv. s. of Sir Edward Osborne‡, bt. and 2nd w. Anne, da. of Thomas Walmesley of Dunkenhalgh, Lancs., wid. of William Middleton. educ. privately (French tutor); ?St Peter’s York;1 travelled abroad (France and Italy) 1649-50;2 Oxf. Univ. (DCL) 9 Nov. 1695. m. 1 May 1653, Lady Bridget Bertie (d.1704), da. of Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey, 3s. (2 d.v.p.), 8da. (5 d.v.p.). suc. fa. 9 Sept. 1647 as 2nd bt. KG 24 Mar. 1677. d. 26 July 1712; will 21 Jan. 1712, pr. 20 Apr. 1713.3
Commr. for accounts [I] 1668-9, trade 1668-72, trade and plantations 1672-4, Tangier 1673-9;4 treas. of Navy (jt.) 1668-71, (sole) 1671-3; commr. for union with Scotland 1670; PC 1672-1679, 14 Feb. 1689-d., [S] 1674-9; ld. treas. 1673-9; ld. of admiralty 1673-9; ld. pres. of Council 1689-99; ld. high steward 1693; commr. prizes 1694-5;5 commr. for Greenwich hosp. 1695; gov. of mine adventurers' co. 1698-d.
Dep. lt. Yorks. (E. Riding) 1661-?;6 sheriff Yorks. 1661-2; freeman, York 1662; ld. lt. (W. Riding) 1674-9, 1689-99, (E. Riding) 1691-9, (N. Riding) 1692-9; jt. ld. lt. Som. 1690-1; recorder Lichfield ?by 1685-?d.;7 gov. of Kingston-upon-Hull 1689,8 high steward 1691-99;9 high steward, Lichfield 1678-86, Oct. 1688-d., York 1688; ch. justice in eyre (Trent N.) 17 Oct. 1711-?d.
Col. militia (Yorks. W. Riding), ?-1667.10
Gov. of royal fisheries co. by 1698.11
Associated with: Kiveton, Yorks.; Wallingford House,Westminster,12 St James's, Westminster;13 Duke Street, Westminster;14 Holborn, Westminster,15 and Wimbledon, Surr.16
Likenesses: oil on canvas, studio of Sir P. Lely, c.1680, NPG 1472; oil on canvas, by Wolfgang William Claret, 1682, Government Art Collection; oil on canvas, by Johann Kerseboom and Jan van der Vaart, 1704, NPG 5718; oil on canvas, Sir G. Kneller and studio, National Trust, Penrhyn Castle.
Few men in the period enjoyed such a spectacular career as did Thomas Osborne, who emerged from comparative obscurity to be made lord treasurer and latterly lord president.17 With high office came promotion to the Lords first as a viscount, thence to an earldom and onwards to a marquessate and ultimately a dukedom. He was no less successful in acquiring property (Wallingford House from George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, and Wimbledon from the countess of Bristol as well as a suite of rooms at St James’s Palace and extensive estates in Yorkshire, Surrey and Wales) and in securing prestigious matches for his numerous progeny. Quite as important in this latter regard was the role of his wife, Lady Bridget Bertie, and his close relations with members of her extensive family, enabling him to extend his interest far beyond the confines of his native Yorkshire. From a position of subservience he rose to become head of the Anglican grouping under Charles II; he was then a commanding figure in the Revolution and briefly William III’s chief minister. Given all this, it is unsurprising that he was thought of as rapacious, unscrupulous and overweening, or that such successes were followed by significant downturns in his fortunes.18 These included a period of five years in the Tower and attempted impeachment on two occasions. His success was all the more striking when considered in the context of his abysmal health that kept him confined for weeks at a time.
While he may have been more than ordinarily acquisitive in terms of the policies he pursued, Osborne was strikingly consistent throughout his career. From the time that he assumed the lord treasurership until his death, the central tenets of his creed were the security of the Church of England, achieving financial stability for the country, and hostility to the power of France. Given that he had started out as a follower of Buckingham, his religious stance was by no means obvious at the outset, but once fixed in this direction, Osborne rarely faltered.
Osborne seems initially to have made his way forward by exploiting his connections with Sir George Savile, later marquess of Halifax, and Buckingham. Osborne and Savile would later become implacable rivals, nicknamed variously the white and black marquesses (Osborne being the former as marquess of Carmarthen) but in the early 1660s they were reckoned to be friends.19 Having been returned for York on Buckingham’s interest in 1665, Osborne proved his worth as a reliable lieutenant by fighting a duel with Buckingham’s rival and Osborne’s own distant kinsman, Thomas Belasyse, Viscount (later earl of ) Fauconberg, the following year. On Buckingham’s removal from office in 1667, Osborne noted how he was able to save his patron from imprisonment ‘by proving his hand to have been counterfeit in a letter’ given to the king.20 More significantly, Osborne also made his first foray into financial politics by proposing a farm of the exchequer, though this was rejected. As early as the autumn of 1667 it was predicted that Osborne would be ‘a great man of business’, and he was appointed in October 1668 joint treasurer of the navy together with a client of Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington’s, Sir Thomas Littleton‡. By 1669 his relationship with Buckingham had become strained, but it was not until the latter part of 1671 that he finally began to emerge from under his patron’s shadow, when he became sole treasurer of the navy, rather than holding the post jointly.21 In 1673 he became a senior minister in his own right when he succeeded Thomas Clifford, Baron Clifford, as lord treasurer. Reports of Osborne’s expected appointment to the treasury circulated from the middle of May. His appointment signalled the temporary eclipse of Arlington, who had opposed Osborne’s nomination, as well as disproving the predictions of those who had expected to see the treasury put back into commission.22 Soon after being appointed to the treasurership Osborne (already ennobled in the Scottish peerage as Viscount Oseburne of Dunblane) was advanced to an English peerage marking the beginning of his steady rise through the ranks of the peerage that culminated two decades later with his creation as duke of Leeds.
Viscount Latimer, 1673-4
Latimer’s prime consideration at the time of his succession to the treasury was the vexed question of the nation’s finances, a problem that convinced him of the need to persuade the king to accept Parliament’s demands for legislation safeguarding the Church. Although at least one commentator had heralded the new lord treasurer’s appointment as ‘an excellent choice’, his tenure of office did not have an auspicious beginning.23 At his swearing-in he was subjected to a typically caustic address by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, and within days of his appointment (and before his promotion to his English viscountcy) it was speculated that he might be replaced. This was thought either to be owing to a renewed effort by Arlington and James Stuart, duke of York, to displace him or to his almost immediate collapse with severe colic. Osborne survived the malady and in August he was promoted Viscount Latimer while still on his sickbed.24 There had previously been considerable speculation as to the style he would choose.25 Some thought he was to be made Viscount Leeds, others that he would be promoted at once to an earldom as earl of Leigh or earl of Danby. The selection of Latimer as his title was an overt allusion to the new viscount’s descent (via his mother) from the Neville lords Latimer.
Latimer took his seat in the House on 20 Oct. 1673 (the final day of the session) introduced between William Howard, Viscount Stafford, and his erstwhile duelling opponent, Fauconberg. Shaftesbury used the opportunity to have Latimer introduced as a way of delaying the prorogation so that the Commons were given more time to draft an address complaining about the marriage of the duke of York, to the Catholic princess, Mary of Modena. Parliament was then prorogued by commission, with Latimer serving as one of the commissioners.26 It was then recalled seven days later only to be prorogued once more having sat for just four days (Latimer being present for all four sitting days).
Latimer’s aims as lord treasurer were summarized in a document he drafted at some point in October 1673, which asserted his intention to see the Protestant interest protected and the nation’s finances reformed.27 He was assisted in this task by the removal of certain significant opponents, most notably Shaftesbury who was put out of office in November and replaced by Heneage Finch, later earl of Nottingham, on the recommendation of Latimer and the other Buckingham client with whom Latimer was becoming increasingly closely associated, Edward Seymour‡.28 Shaftesbury’s removal encouraged speculation that more changes would be made, prompting John Frescheville, Baron Frescheville, to approach Latimer for one of the expected vacancies.29 In spite of Latimer’s apparent ascendancy at this time his interest in Yorkshire came under severe pressure during by-elections for Aldborough, Boroughbridge and York, with his son, Edward Osborne‡ being forced to withdraw his candidacy at the last of these. The reversal at York may have been in part owing to the corporation’s confusion as to what their local patrons, Buckingham and Latimer, intended them to do.30 Nevertheless by the close of the year it was reported confidently that Buckingham and Latimer had settled matters between them and had ‘a perfect understanding of the present disposition of the cabals in Parliament.’31
In advance of the new session of Parliament beginning in January 1674, Latimer was entrusted with the proxy of William Ley, 4th earl of Marlborough, an impoverished peer. He took his seat on the opening day of the session (7 Jan. 1674) after which he was present on 92 per cent of all sitting days. The opening few days were dominated by the presentation of addresses from the Commons calling for the removal of two members of the Cabal from the king’s counsels: John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale [S] (sitting in the House as earl of Guilford), and Buckingham.32 The assault helped Latimer consolidate his hold on power, although he was reported to have remained close to Buckingham for the remainder of the year. Buckingham’s removal also enabled Latimer to develop his own local interest and the following month he was appointed to the lieutenancy of the West Riding in succession to his former patron. A major preoccupation of the session, and of Latimer, was the peace proposals emanating from Holland. It was said to be on Latimer’s advice that the letter from the States General setting out their proposals was laid before Parliament on 24 Jan. by the king.33 On each of the following three sitting days, 26, 27 and 28 Jan., Latimer reported from the committee of the whole House considering the proposals. Although peace was shortly afterwards concluded, the session was prorogued on 24 Feb. without supply having been voted. Danby was forced to initiate a series of financial reforms the following month. On 7 Mar. Latimer laid the problems relating to the navy before the admiralty commissioners pressing for a reduction in naval expenditure of £200,000 a year. The same month saw him seeking an increase in revenue yields through renegotiation of the excise farm and other measures, as well as vigorously slashing expenditure in other areas of government.
Progress in such initiatives was threatened by ill health. By the close of March 1674 Latimer was described as being ‘sickish’ and as a consequence it was complained of that business was no longer being done. It was not until the close of April that he finally began to recover.34 His improvement in health coincided with the beginnings of negotiations with Prince William of Orange to arrive at a settlement of the respective financial claims of the prince against the English crown (dating back to the Interregnum) and the English crown against the Dutch government arising from the recent peace treaty, in the course of which the question was raised of a match between the prince and York’s eldest daughter, Princess Mary.35 In late April Latimer was also involved as one of the commissioners treating with a Scots delegation for the improvement of trade between the two kingdoms.36
In May rumours circulated of a match in train for one of Latimer’s sons but in the event nothing came of it.37 He and his wife removed to Bath at the end the month in search of a cure for his various maladies.38 Reflecting his success in improving the revenue and cutting expenditure, at the end of June he received a further mark of the king’s confidence by his advancement to the earldom of Danby.39 The remainder of the summer was divided between attendance on the king and a lengthy sojourn at Bath.40 Danby was careful to protect his back, setting negotiations in train for bringing him and the duchess of Portsmouth into alliance through the mediation of Roger Boyle‡, earl of Orrery [I].41 Efforts were also said to have been made to rescue a friendship with another of the king’s mistresses, the duchess of Cleveland.42
Earl of Danby, 1674-85
Danby returned to town in September 1674 having, it was hoped, ‘found benefit by the Bath’.43 The second week of the month saw Arlington’s resignation and his replacement as secretary of state by Sir Joseph Williamson‡, a move that helped confirm Danby in his ascendancy. Towards the end of the month a decision was taken to postpone Parliament until the spring; William Harbord‡ wrote to Arthur Capell, earl of Essex to tell him that Danby had ‘greater credit with the king than any man ever had’, largely based on his success in increasing the revenue. Danby’s attention in the autumn of 1674 focused closely on the need to prepare for the coming parliamentary session and particularly to drive forward his plans for setting the security of the Church of England at the heart of his policies. In October he visited George Morley, bishop of Winchester, at Farnham to impress upon him the need for a pre-sessional meeting of the bishops and Privy Council so that they could consult about ‘some things that might unite and best pacify the minds of people against the next session.’44 Towards the end of the month the bishops were summoned to meet to consider the best ways to ensure the suppression of Catholicism. On 10 Nov. 1674 Danby was introduced in the House in his new dignity between John Carey, 2nd earl of Dover, and William Craven, earl of Craven, when Parliament met to be prorogued to April. Fees payable on the occasion to the various staff of the House amounted to £19 10s.45 Any satisfaction he felt at his promotion was no doubt tempered by his reported annoyance at discovering the king’s plan to send Arlington on a mission to the prince of Orange without informing the council, though he was able to rescue the situation by insisting that Arlington was accompanied by his son, Edward Osborne (now styled Viscount Latimer).46
The close of the year saw Danby’s position further underpinned amid rumours that his second son, Peregrine Osborne, later 2nd duke of Leeds, was to be raised to the peerage and various reports of lucrative marriages for his children. Among them was a match between one of his daughters and ‘the great’ Robert Coke‡ of Norfolk, which prompted Edmund Verney to comment how ‘my lord treasurer is very fortunate in making his family great by rich matches.’47 Danby chose to renounce his own Scots peerage at this time, which was then regranted as the viscountcy of Osborne of Dunblane [S], for Peregrine Osborne.48 In all, by the close of the year Danby was said to have been successful in raising ‘his family to a high pitch and yet no damage to his master, wherein he is very much to be commended.’49 Such successes were tempered by the news that one heiress (Bridget Hyde, stepdaughter of Sir Robert Viner) he had hoped to acquire for his younger son had married her cousin (John Emerton). Eager not to allow Hyde’s action to disturb his plans, Danby set about investigating the details of the marriage in the hopes that it could be overturned: the case would indeed become a legal battle that lasted several years.50 Some took pleasure in pointing out that while Hyde’s husband lived, Dunblane would remain disappointed ‘notwithstanding all his great and potent friends.’51
Danby’s efforts to mobilize the bishops to ensure the suppression of popery resulted in their reporting early in the new year that existing legislation was sufficient to safeguard the Church of England provided it was enforced. The opening of 1675 witnessed increasing tension between Danby and Lauderdale, as the latter attempted to take credit for the development of the pro-Anglican policy.52 In spite of this the result was the effective creation of a new ‘cabal’ comprising Danby, Lauderdale, Lord Keeper Finch and both secretaries of state. The details of the alliance with the bishops was worked out at a meeting of bishops and members of the council on 21 Jan. 1675, with commitments to enforce the laws against Catholics and prevent Catholics from coming to court, while also suppressing conventicles. By the end of the month Danby reported confidently to Essex, that the king was now ‘taking the most effectual courses to cure the suspicions which many had received here of the encouragement or at least connivance which was given to popery’.53 The one obvious loser from the new state of affairs was Arlington. Towards the close of January Danby informed the king that he was unable to work with the former secretary.54 By early February Danby’s victory appeared all but complete after he was able to convince the king to announce the new policy in favour of supporting the Church of England in council.55
Danby’s setting out of a clear policy probably encouraged increasing hostility to him personally. His reputation for acquisitiveness was bolstered by his actions in February 1675. It was reported that while the king had provided him with £10,000 to purchase Buckingham’s London residence of Wallingford House, he had proceeded to settle with the duke’s trustees for just £6,000, pocketing the remainder. Towards the end of the month it was also put about that the lord privy seal, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey (who had preceded him and Littleton in the treasurership of the navy), intended to accuse Danby of disposing of £200,000 without a proper warrant.56 This sort of behaviour no doubt encouraged comments concerning Bridget Hyde’s marriage to Emerton, a man of relatively humble origins, in which it was pointed out that ‘my lord treasurer having raised his family himself has little reason to repine at another man’s doing the same, and probably by an honester way.’ Edmund Verney also observed that,‘I believe my lord treasurer intends to have the monopoly of all the good fortunes in England, and engross them all for his family.’57
Preparations for the new session of Parliament began to dominate Danby’s thinking, though he was said to have been one of those in favour of a further prorogation.58 On 2 Mar. Essex wrote from Ireland that he had resolved to register his proxy with Danby, ‘being full assured that I cannot entrust it with any who doth more faithfully intend both his majesty’s and the kingdom’s good.’59 The proxy was registered with Danby. The proximity of the new session of Parliament brought out the usual tensions. In the middle of the month Fauconberg was said to have reported that Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury had told him that the planned non-resisting test owed nothing to the bishops and that the whole measure was of Danby’s making. On this being related to Danby the lord treasurer was said to have been left ‘extremely nettled’ with the result that the whole disagreement was brought before the king.60 Towards the end of the month further divisions came to the surface. The French envoy de Ruvigny considered Arlington, Lauderdale and Danby ‘most divided’. At the same time it was reported that Danby and Lord Keeper Finch were being ‘very industrious to reconcile’ the lord mayor, aldermen and common council of the City of London.61
Efforts to ensure the attendance of people thought likely to support the administration continued through the spring. On 1 Apr. 1675 Danby wrote to Henry Cavendish, styled earl of Ogle (later 2nd duke of Newcastle), at the king’s command to advise his presence ‘the first day of the session.’ He also pressed Ogle to ensure that the proxy of his father, William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, was placed ‘in some good hand.’62 Danby was successful in securing the return of his son-in-law, Coke, at a by-election for King’s Lynn, at a cost of £8,000. He was also entrusted with the proxy of Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu of Boughton, on 10 Apr. to add to that of Essex and on 13 Apr. he resumed his place in the new session, after which he was present on 95 per cent of all sitting days. Two days into the session, the non-resisting test bill was introduced into the Lords by Danby’s brother-in-law, Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, inspiring a lengthy contest in both Houses that continued until early June.63 Danby was noted as being one of ‘the great speakers for it’ with Shaftesbury, Halifax and Buckingham ranged against him.64 Having come under pressure from the Lords early in the session, Danby was targeted by the Commons towards the end of the month over criticism of his conduct at the treasury highlighted by William Russell‡, styled Lord Russell.65 Russell’s assault was followed by the introduction of articles of impeachment against him by Sir Samuel Barnardiston‡, supported by Sir Thomas Meres‡, Sir Thomas Littleton and Henry Powle‡, but Danby’s prevailing strength at the time was demonstrated by the swiftness with which the impeachment was dismissed.66 By 28 Apr. both the first and second charges against him had been rejected as matter not sufficient for impeachment and on 30 Apr. further consideration of the charges was rather driven by Danby’s party in the Commons as part of an effort to exonerate him rather than by his opponents who now seemed all too eager to let the matter drop.67 On 3 May the final articles were debated and dismissed, probably without a division being taken. Essex congratulated Danby on his escape noting ‘how busy faction and the animosities of men always are against those who possess great places.’68 A series of disputes between the two Houses were also manipulated as a way of disrupting proceedings on the test bill. At the end of May Danby was one of five peers nominated to prepare information to be communicated to the Commons complaining at the lower House’s failure to send representatives to a previous conference in the case of Stoughton v. Onslow. He was then nominated one of the managers of a subsequent conference on the same matter on 2 June. Disagreement over this business was soon overtaken by the far more divisive dispute over Sherley v. Fagg. At the beginning of June Danby advised Essex that the dispute was likely to mean a longer session than originally anticipated while efforts were made to reconcile the two chambers, ‘it being so necessary they should come to some composure before they part.’69 In attempting to settle the dispute Danby supported the claims of the Commons in support of their member, Sir John Fagg‡, over Shaftesbury, who was eager to stir up dissension between the Houses in an effort to derail Danby’s test bill.70 Parliament’s prorogation on 9 June was a recognition that little more would be achieved as a result of the dispute. Danby’s strategy of generating support through identification with the supporters of the Church had clearly failed, and he himself was said to have been damaged as a result; Shaftesbury, in particular, was seen as having a chance of ousting him. In an interview with the king on 19 June Danby, though, seems to have persuaded the king not to turn back to the man who had become his principal opponent.71 In August 1675 Danby felt able to retreat once more to Bath to recover from his exertions.72 In his absence from court the king struck up a new agreement with the French via their emissary, Ruvigny, ignoring Danby’s preferred policy of mediation between France and the United Provinces.73 The king’s actions and the resurgence of some courtiers inimical to Danby such as Baptist May‡ clearly disturbed Danby’s allies and on 25 Aug. his brother-in-law, Lindsey, wrote to insist that he had ‘always thought the court of no good complexion towards your lordship’74 Danby had returned to London by the beginning of the second week of September 1675 to respond to the growing threat to his position.75
Preparations for the new session predominated from the beginning of October, including a further expansion of the number of pensions being paid to Members of the House of Commons and a more systematic summons to court supporters to attend the session, practices which, it has been argued, helped both to create a more formal ‘court’ party and also an opposition party of those who had not been selected.76 On 10 Oct. Danby was once more entrusted with Montagu of Boughton’s proxy. He added the proxy of Charles Howard, earl of Nottingham, the following day. On 13 Oct. he took his place at the opening of the new session, after which he was present on 90 per cent of all sitting days. Danby’s influence was clearly to be seen in the king’s speech in which the need for further security for the Church of England was emphasized. The government also set out its requirements for supply, but on 19 Oct. the ministry’s supply bill was defeated in the Commons by 172 votes to 165; Danby’s policy of distributing rewards among Members of the Commons came in for severe attack there, and the vocal opposition to the service of English soldiers in the French army came in for open criticism, as it had in the spring. Once more suffering from poor health and overwork, by the close of October 1675 Danby was said to inaccessible.77 Struggling to maintain control over the Commons, he also found himself pitched with increasing bitterness against an opposition faction in the Lords. In mid-November he and James Scott, duke of Monmouth, had to be reconciled by the king following a report that Danby had cast aspersions on Monmouth’s parentage.78 Although in early November, the Commons did vote to provide money for the navy it proved difficult to draw this to a conclusion; in the Lords anger over the previous session’s dispute with the Commons was rekindled, and on 19 Nov. Danby was one of 10 peers nominated to act as managers of a conference with the Commons, ‘for the preservation of good understanding between the two Houses’. The following day, having been one of the principal speakers against it, wielding Nottingham and Montagu’s proxies, Danby voted against the opposition-inspired proposal for an address to request the king to dissolve Parliament.79 In the event the motion was only rejected by the late arrival of Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury (also in receipt of a proxy), who ensured that the ministry carried the day narrowly by 50 votes to 48 (including proxies).80 Two days later Parliament was prorogued once more and with the king no longer confident of the efficacy of summoning another one soon, the new session was set for 15 months hence.
With the failure to secure a parliamentary grant, in the immediate aftermath of the prorogation, Danby set about ordering swingeing retrenchments at court.81 His experience in the sessions of 1675 also appears to have inspired him to do yet more to construct a more reliable court following in the Commons. On 18 Dec. he was provided by Sir Richard Wiseman‡ with a list of potential ministry supporters divided into groups according to their reliability. Over the ensuing months Danby honed this group, eventually emerging with a core of approximately 130 Members of the Commons on whom he was reasonably confident he could depend.82 Danby also made moves to attack the bases of opposition support. Towards the end of December he inspired a proclamation for the eradication of coffee houses. In response to complaints that the ministry would lose revenue (one estimate suggested the loss would be as much as £15,000 per annum) through the fall in sales of coffee he retorted that the shortfall would be made up in increase in revenue from beer.83
The new year opened with Danby determined to continue with the retrenchment of finances while struggling to maintain his influence at court, which was threatened by the king’s continuing efforts to secure a French alliance. Danby’s own preference for closer relations with the Dutch, which seems to have been expressed at a secret meeting held at the close of the previous year involving the king, York and Lauderdale, met with a distinctly cool reception.84 He was also disappointed in his plans for retrenchments and was quickly forced to amend his initial plan to limit expenses to £1,000,000 and allow for £1,175,315 instead. Plans for suppressing coffee houses also had to be scaled back when several proprietors petitioned the council in January protesting at their loss of revenue. The petition resulted in a ministry climb-down and the establishments’ licenses being extended to mid-summer in return for an undertaking on the part of the owners that they would prevent their premises being used for the circulation of scandalous papers. Danby took steps to consolidate his own control of the government. He ensured that Halifax and Denzil Holles, Baron Holles (who had espoused the cause of the coffee houses), were struck off the council.85 His ally, Henry Compton, bishop of Oxford (shortly after advanced bishop of London), was one of those called up to replace them at the board. Danby was responsible in large measure for Compton’s appointment to both bishoprics and was also the inspiration for the religious census presided over by the bishop in 1676, which was intended to demonstrate the strength of the Church of England and relative paucity of nonconformists of all shades.86
Although by the beginning of February 1676 Danby was accounted by some to have been ‘a greater favourite than ever was the late duke of Buckingham’, his influence over the king was never secure.87 Later that month the king finally resolved to proceed with the projected French alliance, over Danby’s obstruction and objections.88 Danby was further humiliated when an attempt to have Shaftesbury sent to the Tower misfired as Secretary Williamson refused to sign the warrant for Shaftesbury’s arrest and the king then proved unwilling to back Danby over the issue. By the close of March 1676 it was speculated that the ‘heaving and shoving’ at court would result in Danby being put out as lord treasurer and that the office would be put back into commission.89 Although the French envoy continued to believe that Danby retained the chief place in the king’s confidence, according to another report by the beginning of April Danby ‘sits very loose.’90 For the moment the former assessment appeared to be the more perceptive. That month Danby was able to secure the appointment of his creature, Sir John Ernle‡, as chancellor of the exchequer. Ernle’s success inspired a belief that all office holders bar those known to be among the lord treasurer’s supporters were now vulnerable. The duke of York remained an obstacle, however. On 12 Apr. it was reported that Danby had been involved in a furious row with York over religion while the court was at Newmarket. Danby was said to have been compelled to summon the duchess of Portsmouth to his aid, ‘else it is thought he had been removed’.91 At the end of May 1676 York was said to have entered into an alliance with Arlington in the hopes of displacing the lord treasurer. Although the king attempted to broker a reconciliation between Arlington and Danby, it was thought that ‘the hatred between these two ministers seems so great that it will be difficult to reconcile them sincerely’. In the event, Arlington was left isolated as Danby opted instead for a temporary rapprochement with his other rivals.92
By the beginning of the summer of 1676, Danby’s efforts to press forward with his religious policies seemed to be on the verge of succeeding. Early in June Bishop Morley reported to him the results of enquiries within his diocese concerning the declaration for suppressing conventicles, for which he concluded ‘there will appear neither danger in attempting nor great difficulty in effecting this great work.’93 Danby was also able to report to the king confidently that his efforts to recruit a reliable grouping in the Commons had resulted in the addition of a further 20 members to his core group of 130. In all, he hoped to be able to call upon approximately 250 members to support the ministry’s business.94 Meanwhile, his efforts to secure his position at court had resulted in him striking up a partnership with the duchesse de Mazarin, one of the king’s mistresses.95
Danby was one of a minority of seven peers to find Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, guilty of manslaughter at the close of June.96 Preparations for the trial had found him attempting to show favour for his kinsman, Lindsey (the lord great chamberlain) in a dispute relating to the preparations for peers’ trials.97 During the autumn Danby was concerned with a series of looming by-elections and anticipating the death of Gilbert Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, the search for his successor. He also continued to seek lucrative matches for members of his family and in July Robert Robartes‡ (later styled Viscount Bodmin) heir of John Robartes, Baron Robartes (later earl of Radnor), approached Danby to offer his son as a potential husband for Lady Martha Osborne following a breakdown in negotiations between John Granville, earl of Bath, and Danby.98
In September, Danby decamped to Rycote to stay with another of his Bertie relations, James Bertie, Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon). While there he saw much of Anglesey, (someone with whom he had previously been on decidedly poor terms).99 Having been troubled once again by a lingering sickness throughout July Danby was now eager to make known his return to health, insisting to his countess that he was as ‘errant a Nimrod as ever you knew me’.100 Danby had returned to London by the beginning of October. That month a satire was pasted to the gates of Westminster Hall, Whitehall and Wallingford House jibing at Danby’s perceived corruption. It advertised the sale of two or three judges’ places as well as ‘a small country called Ireland’ with enquiries to be directed to the lord treasurer.101
The opening of 1677 found Danby’s fortunes once again unsettled. The death of his grandson, Thomas, hours after birth, was set off against news of an impending marriage between Charles Granville, styled Lord Lansdown (later 2nd earl of Bath), and one of Danby’s daughters.102 The great focus of his efforts, though, was the forthcoming meeting of Parliament following the 15-month prorogation. He was entrusted with Marlborough’s proxy on 8 Jan. (vacated on 11 Apr. the following year); Montagu of Boughton’s proxy was also registered to him on 6 February.103 From Paris, Danby received reports from Paris that it was expected that ‘the Parliament will do no good’, that half of its time would be spent in further consideration of the dispute with the Lords over Sherley v. Fagg and that ‘quarrelling with the ministers will take up all the rest.’104
Danby took his seat on 15 Feb. 1677 after which he was in attendance on over 90 per cent of all sitting days. The opening was dominated by the attempts by Buckingham, Shaftesbury and two others to question the legitimacy of the proceedings given the length of the prorogation. Danby’s ally Frescheville recommended that the opposition lords should be punished for their actions, and Danby later that evening backed him up.105 On the following day, in response to the four peers’ attempts to justify their behaviour, Danby insisted that there had been collusion between them and successfully pressed for their separate confinement in the Tower. One report of the proceedings referred to the ‘high and bitter clashings’ between Danby and Buckingham.106 On 17 Feb. the question of the long prorogation was debated in the Commons and carried in the government’s favour by 193 to 142: significantly short of the 250 voices he had assured the king he would be able to command.107
Danby was forced to accept less than he hoped for elsewhere too. A measure sponsored by him for limiting the powers of a future Catholic monarch regarding ecclesiastical appointments was rejected in the Commons.108 More pressing was the question of supply and on 21 Feb. the Commons entered into a grand committee to consider the issue. The ministry had submitted a request for a grant of £800,000 but although the chairmanship of the committee went to Danby’s ally, Sir Richard Temple‡, it was a compromise sum of £600,000 that was ultimately settled on after six weeks of haggling. While the Commons debated the supply bill, there was talk of renewed efforts to displace the lord treasurer and on 22 Feb. it was reported that William Cavendish, styled Lord Cavendish (later duke of Devonshire), was in possession of a number of articles with which he intended to accuse the lord treasurer the following day, though nothing came of this.109 Between 13 and 15 Mar. 1677 Danby was one of the managers of a series of conferences held to discuss an address to the king requesting a declaration against France in the light of recent French advances into Flanders. On 20 Mar. he was behind a motion for a second address promising supply to assist in the campaign against the French, which was said to have been greeted with cheers in the House. At the end of the month Danby’s appointment to the order of the garter and reports that he would shortly be advanced in the peerage to a dukedom demonstrated Danby’s continued favour with the king.110
On 10 Apr. the supply bill was finally sent up to the Lords, the king insisting on taking Danby’s white staff out of his hand to use as a ruler against the document that stretched the length of the chamber.111 But despite a series of addresses initiated in the Commons urging immediate intervention in the European war and promising further supply for it, work on supply was undercut by the lack of any sign of commitment on the king’s part to fighting. Moreover, the supply bill itself was put at risk by a dispute between the two Houses about whether the exchequer should supply accounts of the tax to just the Commons or to both Houses. On 16 Apr. Danby was forced to give up hope of securing an additional supply for the present and accept an adjournment over Easter. On 17 Apr. Charles Hatton noted how ‘the lord treasurer who on Saturday last argued incomparably well very acutely and home was now silent’ during a conference with the Commons over the dispute between the two Houses.112 Danby was assessed, unsurprisingly, as triply vile by the imprisoned Shaftesbury at the beginning of May and by the end of the month the list of Danby’s enemies was again noted to be increasing. Despite the king’s efforts to reconcile them, it was now headed by James Butler, duke of Ormond [I], who sat by virtue of his earldom of Brecknock, along with Seymour and York, the last having once again decided to throw his weight behind those determined to upset the lord treasurer.113 When the Commons reassembled after the Easter break and drew up another address demanding that the king enter immediately into an alliance with the Dutch, the king adjourned the session to the middle of July.
In spite of the disappointing conclusion to the first part of the new session, Danby appears to have emerged with his authority relatively intact. In June Willem Bentinck, later earl of Portland, arrived in England on a mission from William of Orange and at once sought out Danby for his advice. As a result of Danby’s intervention the king gave way to the prince’s request to travel to England later in the year. Later that summer Ormond returned to Ireland as lord lieutenant, a move that probably met with Danby’s tacit approval. In spite of his previously poor relations with the duke, Danby and Ormond appear to have been reconciled by this time and reports that Danby had ‘opposed his election all he could’ and supported the candidacy of Monmouth instead more likely reflected the desires of Danby’s lieutenant, Richard Jones‡, earl of Ranelagh [I]. It seems unlikely that Danby was overly concerned that Monmouth was denied the post.114
Danby continued to struggle over the summer of 1677 with the king’s continued interest in an alliance with France and the procurement of a French subsidy which would enable him to avoid a meeting of Parliament. Ralph Montagu, currently ambassador in France, and later duke of Montagu, suggested that he would be able to broker an attractive offer.115 Having failed to secure Danby’s backing in the spring, Montagu had approached the king directly in the early summer. At the beginning of July the king presented Danby with Montagu’s letter setting out his scheme and about a week later Danby replied to Montagu directly approving his suggestions. Danby’s decision to involve himself explicitly in the business was to prove a crucial error for which he would pay dearly over the next few years.116 With a new negotiation afoot with France, Parliament was once again adjourned in mid-July, until early December.
By the beginning of August Danby’s negotiations with Bath over the marriage between Martha Osborne and Lord Lansdown were proving troublesome and his efforts to have his ally, Sir William Temple‡, installed as secretary of state also proved unavailing.117 By the close of July Danby was said to be planning to ‘solace himself a little in the country’ at Norreys’ estate in Oxfordshire and at his son Latimer’s in Buckinghamshire.118 He was permitted little respite before he had once more to rally himself to head off Buckingham, who had succeeded in persuading the king to release him from the Tower.119 Nell Gwynn also appears to have been determined to revenge herself on the lord treasurer for blocking her ambition of being created a countess. Under pressure from a number of quarters, Danby found himself with little choice but to concede to the king’s policy of pursuing the French subsidy. Even here, he was disappointed and rather than £200,000, which he had initially sought, he was forced to allow the king to settle for the lesser figure of 2 million livres.120
In spite of such reversals, rumours continued to circulate of honours that it was expected were to be lavished on Danby including talk towards the end of August 1677 that he was to be advanced in the peerage to the dukedom of Pomfret (Pontefract).121 The summer also saw the beginnings of a lengthy correspondence between Danby and William of Orange. The two had corresponded sporadically since the spring of 1674 but from this point on there was a steady stream of letters.122 The initial impetus for this was Danby’s forceful support for the marriage between the prince and Princess Mary. Prince William’s arrival in England in October brought matters to a head and in spite of York refusing his consent and rumours that the French intended to tempt the prince away from an English match by proposing one of their own, the combined representations of Danby and Sir William Temple convinced the king to overrule his brother.123 The alliance formed part of a broader negotiation then in train with the Dutch for which Danby lamented the absence of Lauderdale from discussions taking place at Newmarket in the middle of October.124 By the end of the month details of the marriage articles were close to being finalized and on 4 Nov. the marriage was solemnized with Bishop Compton conducting the service and Danby one of only three English nobles present at the ceremony.125
Danby’s triumph in securing the Orange match proved to be the pinnacle of his achievement in the latter months of 1677. The death of Gilbert Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, in November prompted him to renew his efforts to secure the vacant primateship for Compton but he was unsuccessful.126 Danby attended the House for the single sitting day of 3 Dec. after which Parliament was adjourned to 15 Jan. 1678. Writing to Ormond, he explained the reason for the further delay as the expectation that the French would make unacceptable demands upon Flanders; the king therefore did not wish to ‘have it out of his power to call the Parliament to assist him in doing what shall be best for us.’127 On 21 Dec. he was present at a meeting held in the treasury attended by the king, York, Essex and other officials precipitated by rumblings from some of the government’s backers in the City that they intended to withdraw their support.128 The early months of 1678 were thus once more dominated by Danby’s need to secure a financial settlement, as well as the parallel negotiations with France, managed by Montagu, for a subsidy that would enable parliamentary pressure to be avoided. Present again on the single sitting day of 15 Jan, when Parliament was adjourned once more for a further fortnight, Danby then resumed his place on 28 Jan. for the remaining months of the session, which was prorogued finally on 13 May.
During the two-week interval between the adjournment in mid-January and Parliament’s resumption, Danby was engaged in close correspondence with Ralph Montagu at Paris concerning the French subsidy offers and the prospects for peace on the continent.129 The resumption of Parliament found Danby once again swamped with business, to the extent that his own son, Latimer, complained that he now struggled to secure a quarter of an hour with his father.130 On 4 Feb. the court finally scored a success by having a resolution carried in the Commons for the House to resolve itself into a committee for the supply bill and on 18 Feb. the Commons voted supply of £1,000,000 having rejected an opposition-inspired effort to reduce the figure to £800,000.
With the possibility of a financial settlement at last in prospect Danby seems to have considered himself at liberty to take a robust attitude to Buckingham. A half-hearted effort on the part of the king to reconcile the two men was shrugged off, while Buckingham also seemed unwilling to agree to any kind of accommodation with a man he considered to be ‘ungrateful and ignorant.’131 Danby successfully argued against the release of Shaftesbury from the Tower on 4 Feb., but failed to prevent it on Shaftesbury’s second attempt, on 25 Feb., although Danby clearly continued to work to neutralize the threat he posed: new charges against Shaftesbury were, it was said, being ‘supported with all sort of vigour by the lord treasurer.’132 Efforts continued to ensure that Danby and Ormond put aside their past differences, and Ormond’s son, Thomas Butler, earl of Ossory [I], insisted that his father was ‘extremely disposed’ to work with Danby.133 For all this, relations with the Commons remained strained and in the middle of March Danby summoned several members to a meeting at which he berated them for failing to prevent opposition motions being posted, ‘which were only offered to perplex and disturb the public peace.’134
Towards the end of March 1678, Danby was nominated one of the commissioners for treating with the emperor, the Spanish and the Dutch.135 At the same time he instructed Montagu to ‘find the pulse’ of the French king.136 On 23 Mar. he reported to the House the king’s responses to the forthcoming trial of Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, and to the House’s address for a general fast.137 By the close of the month talk circulated of a new cabal being forged by Buckingham and Nell Gwynn and of their aim to bring in Laurence Hyde, later earl of Rochester, and to exclude Danby’s followers. Intelligence of these manoeuvrings was conveyed to Danby by Montagu via Danby’s Bertie kinsmen, though Montagu was insistent that knowledge of the plan be kept secret so that it did not prevent Montagu from discovering more.138
Danby received the proxy of John Poulett, 3rd Baron Poulett, on 9 Apr. (which was vacated on 3 May). On 10 Apr. it was reported that he had informed the Dutch ambassador that the prohibition on French goods was a measure intended to woo his people and to assure him that war would soon be declared against France.139 At the same time he was active in attempting to secure additional funds for the ministry and it was said that (in spite of former difficulties) he had been successful in persuading the merchants of the city of London to pledge an additional £100,000 on the poll tax.140 In other regards, Danby continued to struggle to maintain his control. Although Sir John Reresby‡ had been assured of the support of both the king and the lord treasurer in his disputed return to the Commons, he was unsuccessful when the case came before the elections committee. His failure to be selected was laid squarely at the door of several court members who had neglected to appear, despite Danby’s efforts: he had made a point of driving Reresby to Parliament in his own coach and had stationed his supporters at the lobby door.141 Danby was negotiating to marry another daughter to Sir John Banks‡, who was believed to be intent on contesting a seat in Kent following an 18-year absence from Parliament, even though he was said to be highly despised in the county.142
Buckingham’s re-emergence as a political figure pointed to difficulties ahead. One correspondent commented in a letter to Danby of late April how Buckingham’s return to favour had become a problem, ‘for you only intended his enlargement and not to have him a courtier.’143 By the beginning of May Danby’s friends were noting with alarm the proliferation of enemies, many of them coalescing around Buckingham.144 Towards the end of April 1678, Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, made a point of observing to Danby that now the treasury was on an even footing perhaps he might be paid his arrears of pension.145 The government still needed considerable loans, however, and in the middle of May Danby was rebuffed by the City of London when he attempted to persuade the City fathers to lend a further £50,000 in addition to the £100,000 already promised.146
Danby resumed his seat in the House following the brief prorogation on 23 May 1678, after which he was present on over 90 per cent of all sitting days. On 20 May he was again entrusted with Montagu of Boughton’s proxy. On 20 June he was one of seven peers to subscribe the protest at the resolution to petition the king for a bill disabling Robert Villiers from claiming the viscountcy of Purbeck. On 25 June he was nominated one of the managers of a conference with the Commons concerning the supply bill and on 11 July a manager of the conference for the bill for burying in woollen. Towards the close of the session, Danby was said to have been successful in securing a match between his last remaining unmarried daughter and the king’s natural son, Charles Fitzcharles, earl of Plymouth.147 On 16 July it was reported that Plymouth was to be promoted to a dukedom to mark the alliance while Dunblane was to be appointed master of the horse to the queen.148 At the end of the month it was once more put about that Temple was expected to be made secretary of state rather than Laurence Hyde, because he (Temple) ‘is very great with my lord treasurer.’149 The beginning of the following month witnessed further rumours that Danby either would be or already had been promoted to a dukedom as well.150
Danby’s undoubted successes in the first half of 1678 were thrown into question by the revelations about the Popish Plot. On 28 Sept. the king informed the council for the first time about Israel Tonge’s evidence, which had previously been confined to a small circle including Danby.151 By the time Parliament resumed on 21 Oct. the conspiracy had taken on a life of its own and pressure began to mount on the lord treasurer over allegations that he had suppressed information or had failed to act on evidence made available to him and the king earlier in the summer. According to one correspondent, ‘had this plot been sought into when first it was brought to a great man’s court there would have been clearer evidence than can now be had.’152 Present on 85 per cent of all sitting days in the session, Danby was clearly aware that his pronounced scepticism about the information presented by Tonge and Oates could prove damaging given the willingness of so many to believe in the veracity of their claims. In response, he made a concerted effort to ensure that his following in the Lords held firm. In advance of the session he was entrusted with the proxy of James Brydges, 8th Baron Chandos, while that of Norreys was registered with Bath. On 2 Nov. Danby also secured the proxy of the absent Edward Conway, Viscount (later earl of) Conway. A central figure in the early investigation into the conspiracy, on 29 Oct. Danby was one of five lords appointed by the House to examine Coleman at Newgate while on 4 Nov. the Lords recommended that Danby ensure that Oates was awarded a ‘comfortable allowance’.153 Meanwhile he was also involved as one of the managers of two conferences held on 1 and 2 Nov. concerning the preservation of the king’s person and on 11 Nov. of a further conference considering the commissions being issued to justices of the peace for administering the oaths to Catholics.
Such activities failed to shield Danby from the rising chorus of criticism. As early as the beginning of November 1678, it was suggested that as soon as the question of forcing York to withdraw was settled Halifax and Shaftesbury intended to turn their attention on the lord treasurer.154 On 5 Nov., Shaftesbury moved for York to be removed from the king’s presence but was opposed by both Danby and Lauderdale.155 Danby’s stance on the issue no doubt added to mutterings about his handling of the crisis. Although it was suggested that he had been successful on one occasion in the House when he had been able to ‘divert the storm’ let loose by Shaftesbury and Buckingham in favour of Bedloe’s testimony, it was also reported how (despite the views of his countess who insisted that ‘none but her husband stands up for the Protestant religion’) ‘many suspect his opinion.’156 On 15 Nov. Danby voted against disabling Catholics from sitting in Parliament in a division held in committee of the whole but his position was rendered increasingly difficult by the absence of significant allies.157 Among these was William Lloyd, bishop of Llandaff, who excused his failure to attend on the grounds of ‘a dangerous fit of sickness’.158 By the middle of the following month, Danby was foursquare in the line of fire amid reports that he was to be charged with misprision of treason for his failure to act more swiftly on the information presented to him during the summer.159 Ralph Montagu had been conspiring with the French and key opposition figures to bring forward, as material for an impeachment, the evidence of Danby’s authorization of discussions with France the previous year for a subsidy. Opinions varied as to whether charges were being framed deliberately in such a way that Danby could easily answer them or whether his enemies were seriously intent on seeing the lord treasurer destroyed. The plans were brought to a head by the government’s attempt to seize Montagu’s papers on 19 December. That evening, after Montagu explained the papers to the Commons, the Commons began the process of drawing up articles of impeachment.160 Two days later, the Commons committee assigned to compose the articles reported their findings, which amounted to three main charges. Danby, it was alleged on the basis of Montagu’s information, had ‘encroached to himself regal power’ in the conduct of foreign relations; he had attempted to bring in arbitrary government, and he had negotiated for a French subsidy.161 On 23 Dec. the articles were presented to the Lords.162 His speech in response was typically robust. Opening with the disarming recognition that it was ‘not the time for me to enter regularly upon my defence’ and that there would be time enough for him to vindicate himself ‘to the full satisfaction of your lordships, and all the world’, he proceeded with a detailed critique of the charges, none of which he argued could be deemed treasonable. Turning his guns on Montagu he complained that, ‘I do not wonder this gentleman will do me no right, when he does not think fit to do it to his majesty’ and then lambasted him for being the true instigator of the policy of seeking French subsidies.163 Danby concluded by insisting were ‘the dearest child I have… guilty of [treason], I would willingly be his executioner.’164 Having thus answered his accusers, Danby then enquired whether he should leave the chamber. His friends persuaded him to keep his seat and, as Anglesey noted, ‘a new thing was done in the lord treasurer’s not being ordered to withdraw but sitting in his own case’.165 Allies of Shaftesbury noted it with unease.166 It was widely discoursed that the king might intervene once more and either prorogue or dissolve Parliament to halt the impeachment proceedings.167 On 27 Dec. a motion to commit Danby was defeated on a division.168
The king’s decision to prorogue Parliament on 30 Dec. 1678 put a halt to the proceedings against Danby, though one newsletter reported how ‘my lord treasurer laments more than any man the prorogation, which he everywhere declares, that he did with his utmost oppose.’169 Though he was also willing to see the calling of an Irish Parliament, it was opposed by Ormond who insisted that this should be delayed until the king was on better terms with his English one.170 To show that he was not complacent about the threat to the king, Danby was reported to have pressed for the execution of three of the condemned Jesuits in mid January and on 15 Jan. 1679 the French envoy, Barillon, noted that Danby was attempting to forge a new alliance with some of the principal ‘Presbyterians’ in advance of a new session of Parliament.171 At the same time it was reported that great efforts were being made by Shaftesbury and his followers to detach York from Danby’s interest.172
The dissolution presented Danby with a new set of problems as he turned his attention to managing his interest in the forthcoming elections. On 24 Jan. he communicated to Newcastle the king’s desire that he ‘promote as much as you can the choice of good Members’ in those areas where Newcastle held sway as well as recommending to the duke his own son, Dunblane, for one of the seats at Retford.173 At Buckingham it was thought that he would press for the re-election of Sir William Smith‡ (though Smith declined to stand again) and on 4 Feb. he wrote to the sheriff of Yorkshire, urging him to be kind to Sir John Reresby (who was returned accordingly for Aldborough).174 By the middle of the month he was also engaged in negotiations with Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, over the return of Members for Essex.175 At the same time Norreys was reported to be active in his efforts to secure the return of Members in Danby’s interest in Oxfordshire, though in the city of Oxford itself Norreys met with a hostile reception and was ‘hooted’ out of town to the cry of ‘no treasurer, no papist’.176
In the days leading up to the meeting of the new Parliament speculation was rife that Danby would resign his office prior to the opening in the hopes that such a gesture might satisfy those eager to see him humbled.177 Conway entered into direct negotiations with Shaftesbury and Monmouth on Danby’s account but although he found Shaftesbury willing enough to stop short of demanding Danby’s execution he was unable to convince either man to allow Danby a pardon.178 With matters thus balanced, Danby took his seat in the House for the abortive session of early March 1679, attending on four days between 6 and 12 March. Prior to this he had been one of those to witness the king’s declaration that he had not been married to anyone other than Queen Catharine in an attempt to head off the growing clamour for Monmouth to be declared legitimate.179 The following day (13 Mar.), he recorded being summoned by the king and requested to lay down his staff, in return for which the king believed Parliament would forbear his prosecution. He was also offered a pension of £5,000 as compensation for his loss of office.180 Two days later it was reported that a yacht had been made ready to carry someone (the presumption was Danby) overseas.181
Unwilling to take up the offer of voluntary exile, Danby took his place in the new session on 15 Mar. but he was thereafter absent for the remainder of the session. The following day a warrant promoting him to the marquessate of Danby was drawn up and signed by Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, an indication that Danby was expected to accept the reward as compensation for his loss of position.182 In the event the warrant did not pass the great seal and Danby was forced to wait for a decade before he was able to secure the coveted promotion. Danby’s absence from the House gave rise to rumours early on that he had resigned or fled the country, though Sir Ralph Verney‡ noted that at nine o’clock at night on 17 Mar. he still had his staff in his hand.183 Soon after this it was reiterated that he would shortly resign the treasurership and be compensated with a step in the peerage.184 As evidence of the wisdom of agreeing to such terms it was noted that the Lords had ‘been very brisk upon him already’ and it was also said that Buckingham and Latimer had quarrelled over the matter.185 The Commons, however, made clear their unwillingness to permit their impeachment to rest and on 21 Mar. Cavendish was sent up to the Lords to remind them to continue their consideration of the articles against Danby.186 Danby was advised by the king on 23 Mar. to absent himself for a while, following which Danby sought sanctuary at his brother’s house. Although he had previously been given until 27 Mar. to put in his answer, on 24 Mar. the Lords resolved on his committal, following which the king once more advised him to quit the country. This time Danby appeared willing to acquiesce but he was then hindered by the king’s refusal to furnish him with a yacht in which to make his escape.187
By the close of March 1679 evidence of the fissure between the Lords and Commons over the impeachment was increasingly apparent. One correspondent remarked that the Lords would probably be content with having Danby removed from the king’s councils and made incapable of holding office but that the Commons would not settle for such terms.188 According to Bath the king now favoured an act for banishing his former lord treasurer. On 27 Mar. the Lords sent a bill to the Commons for Danby’s banishment but this was rejected and the Commons continued with their own plans for an act of attainder.189 Danby meanwhile ‘kept private’ from 24 Mar. to 13 Apr. during which time his staff of office was delivered into the king’s hands by his son, Latimer.190 On 28 Mar. he addressed a letter to his former colleague, the lord chancellor, appealing to a sense of noble camaraderie and asking that he would ‘come up and give me your assistance’ against the bill of attainder.191 Between 1 and 2 Apr. 1679 the Lords amended the bill omitting the term ‘attainder’, effectively wrecking it.192 Danby wrote to Lauderdale on 2 Apr. to thank him for his ‘kindness’ during the debates the previous day and acknowledged the duke’s ‘willingness to have brought the bill to a question.’ The delay in doing so was attributed to the king’s intervention, which Danby professed himself unable to understand as ‘I can in no way imagine how it can be hoped to be better for me this day.’ Even so, he retained his faith in the king’s intention not only to do him justice ‘but all kindness imaginable.’193 The Lords pressed ahead with further amendments on 3 April.194 The following day, the Lords sought a conference but on 8 Apr. the Commons, their patience wearing thin, voted an address to the king to issue a proclamation for Danby’s arrest.195 At the same time he was informed by Sunderland that his hiding place at George Montagu’s house was by now an open secret.
Left with little choice but to respond to the proceedings against him, on 12 Apr. Danby finally petitioned the House to be granted more time to put in his answer. Perhaps mindful of the example of the former lord chancellor, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, the same day he informed his son, Latimer, that he ‘would much rather my friends should adhere to the bill of attainder… than agree to this bill of confiscation and banishment.’196 Two days later he was granted leave to appear before the House following the Lords’ agreement to pass the bill of attainder against him, in spite of the efforts of a minority of the House to retain their original bill for his banishment.197 On 15 Apr. he gave himself up to black rod and on 16 Apr. appeared before the House.198 Professing himself to be ‘more sorry and troubled to be pressed to abscond than for anything that can happen to me afterwards being before so wise prudent and just a court of judges,’ he then asked for copies of the charges against him before being committed to the Tower.199
In the Tower, 1679-84
Over the ensuing days Danby struggled to rally support. A former ally, Benjamin Mildmay, 17th Baron Fitzwalter, promised to attend should his health permit but insisted that he would not commit himself without hearing the evidence.200 Fitzwalter’s excuse of poor health was real enough (he died later that year) but such tepid undertakings reflected the fact that ‘the humour continues very violent against his lordship.’201 Unsurprisingly omitted from the Privy Council towards the end of April, on 25 Apr. he was again brought to the bar of the House where he delivered his plea and his answer to the articles against him.202 On 30 Apr. he was before the Lords again when he was informed that the Commons had taken exception to his plea of the king’s pardon and he was given until the following Saturday to reconsider his pleading.203 While Danby attempted to comfort himself with the opinion of his counsel that his pardon was good in law, Conway remarked in a letter to one of his correspondents, ‘what will become of [Danby] I know not… this I shall only assure you, that [the king] is no more concerned for him than for a puppy dog’.204 On 3 May Danby wrote to the king appealing to him for his assistance and pointing out that several of those most ardent to see him punished seemed to be demanding his head as some sort of solution to the nation’s ills.205
The first half of May 1679 was dominated by disagreements between Lords and Commons over which of the Lords currently in the Tower ought first to be proceeded against.206 Charles Bertie‡ reported the widespread expectation that the king would intervene by pressing forward the bill for banishing Danby as a way out of the impasse.207 Danby’s own family was divided over his fate: his son-in-law, Plymouth, was believed to be among those in opposition having declared his unwillingness to go against his conscience.208 Others stood firm. Bath informed Danby of the progress he had made in securing votes on Danby’s side. Conway, he believed, was his friend and the lord chancellor (Nottingham) ‘very zealous’.209 Towards the end of the month it was still believed that Danby retained significant interest at court and it was noted that both Bath and Sir Charles Wheler‡ were often with the king pressing Danby’s case.210 In spite of considerable pressure from the Commons and from Danby’s enemies in the Lords, the House eventually concluded in favour of proceeding with the five Catholic peers first. The decision precipitated complaints from the Commons that Danby would thereby escape, while Charles Bertie informed his kinsman how ‘all the town is full of the expedient which his majesty is said to offer in your lordship’s case viz. a bill of banishment.’ Danby himself remained confident that he would ‘meet with all the justice which any honest man ought to expect, if it be not [prosecuted] by the torrent of the multitude.’211 Despite such optimism the conditions under which Danby was confined became more severe and by the end of May he was kept a close prisoner, though he was able to forestall an attempt to insist on him being locked in his chamber at night.212
The close of the session on 27 May 1679 and subsequent dissolution on 12 July put paid to any prospect of a speedy resolution to Danby’s predicament, though observers were divided on whether the cause of the prorogation had been on account of the bishops, Danby or ‘to save the five lords.’ Meanwhile the marriage of Danby’s daughter, Sophia, to Donatus O’Brien, styled Lord O’Brien [I], proceeded in his absence with the bride given away by Sir Joseph Williamson. Incarceration in no way tempered Danby’s demeanour. Both he and his gaolers petitioned the king in protest at the other’s behaviour, with the lieutenant of the Tower, Cheeke, complaining that Danby insisted on keeping ‘such ill hours that he could not secure him safe.’213 More importantly, the preparations for new elections galvanized both sides to ensure the return of members in their interest, while Danby continued to cultivate members of the House who he hoped would support his cause. From his confinement Danby recommended to the king the promotion of his kinsman, Norreys, to an earldom, noting that ‘his estate is very great and his family on all sides eminent, both for birth and their services to the crown.’214 At the end of August he sought Sunderland’s interest on his behalf, insisting that he had ‘neither been unsuccessful in my services to you, nor ever more industrious in my life than to do your lordship those services’.215
For the next three-and-a-half years Danby proceeded to maintain a steady correspondence with family members, allies and potential supporters in the hopes of securing sufficient backing to secure his release. It was in this vein that he wrote to Charles Dormer, earl of Carnarvon, on 29 Aug. 1679, though he was at pains to emphasize that the king’s recent illness had ‘more perplexed me than all the considerations about myself.’216 The following month, with the king out of danger, he petitioned once more for his release and by the middle of the month hopes were once again raised that he might ‘not be long now a prisoner.’217 Such aspirations appeared to be borne out at the close of the September when the king issued a warrant to Cheeke for Danby’s release.218 The king meanwhile advised Danby to accept exile and assured him that nothing would be done to revoke his pardon during his absence.219
Once again Danby failed to take the offer of exile. His incarceration had had a dramatic effect on his already poor health and throughout the autumn reports circulated that he was sick and even at the point of death.220 It was suggested that his harsh treatment had won him friends and that it was thought increasingly that he was ‘unjustly retained’ in the Tower. Less positively for Danby’s cause, the close of November also witnessed the trial of one of his servants (Knox) along with one Lane who were accused of spreading reports of Oates’s homosexual tendencies in an effort to discredit his evidence. Both men were found guilty, which reflected badly on Danby.221 In December Danby’s petition to be allowed to travel to Wimbledon and stay there under house arrest to recover his health was refused on the advice of the judges.222
By the beginning of 1680 Danby and his supporters were becoming increasingly frustrated. The king was said to blame Buckingham for Danby’s ‘hard usage’ and in February Latimer informed his father that the king had also declared Ralph Montagu to be ‘as great a knave as you an honest man’ but still nothing was done to further Danby’s release.223 From his cell, Danby continued his efforts to rally support but he sympathized with Carnarvon’s decision not to trouble to return to London ‘because unless you will be pleased with the new plots, I hear of little other divertissement to be had in town.’224 By April, Danby was sick again and reduced to subsisting on a milk diet.225
Besides battling poor health, during the course of the year Danby (and his kinsmen) made concerted efforts to woo new allies. Laurence Hyde was now thought to be amenable to allowing Danby justice (but not favour) and by the summer Latimer believed that York too might have come around to a less negative attitude to the former lord treasurer.226 Talk of Parliament reassembling soon also gave rise to renewed expectations that the king might intervene in Danby’s favour and on 24 Aug. Conway again voiced the increasingly prevalent view that some of Danby’s former opponents would now support moves for his release.227 Such views gave Danby renewed hope and at the end of the month he wrote to Robert Shirley, Baron (later Earl) Ferrers, expressing his hope that his:
enemies will not be so fierce as they have been, or at least all peers (for their own sakes) cannot but dread the consequence, if my case shall remain a precedent for others hereafter, where the common justice and benefit of the laws is denied to a lord, which every porter and footman may claim.228
The days leading up to the assembling of Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680 found Danby active in mustering his forces. Lindsey assured him that ‘there is to me no other motive of appearance once more upon the stage but your lordship’s concern’.229 Ferrers undertook to do Danby ‘all the justice that is in my power.’230 By the beginning of October Danby’s cause appeared to have acquired fresh impetus and Conway was able to assure him that he had secured from the previously uncommitted Fulke Greville, 5th Baron Brooke, a profession of his ‘steadiness to serve your lordship’.231 On the first day of the session Danby submitted a petition to the House pointing out that he had by then been in prison for 18 months, that he was in poor health, a Protestant and seeking his release as the charges levelled against him fell short of treason.232 His petition was overshadowed by the consideration of the exclusion bill and by the middle of November Conway was complaining to Danby that he felt he had been misled by Shaftesbury and Monmouth.233 It had been thought that Shaftesbury might be ready to support moves for Danby to be offered greater liberty but this proved not to be the case. The support of a number of Danby’s allies for York against the exclusion bill was also thought to have dealt his case a severe blow.234
Danby’s ill fortune during the session did not prevent him from continuing to press for preferment for his family. Between January and February 1681 he wrote to the king concerning his purchase of the reversion to the mastership of the rolls.235 News of the replacement of Sunderland by Conway as secretary of state gave Danby improved hopes for release conceiving that it would be good to have ‘a friend at so near a station to his majesty.’236 Conway accepted the post even though he insisted that ‘a less station under your lordship’s protection would have pleased me better’.237 The prospect of a new Parliament offered Danby another opportunity to work for his enlargement: towards the end of February he wrote to the king for his support in securing the return of members sympathetic to his cause. Danby was concerned that the decision to hold Parliament in Oxford might deter some of his allies and was thus particularly eager to ensure that the newly created Richard Lumley, Baron Lumley (later earl of Scarbrough), would be sent his writ of summons to enable him to take his seat.238
In advance of the meeting of Parliament at Oxford, Danby compiled a series of forecasts detailing how he believed the various members would behave in any divisions taken.239 He also drew up intricate instructions for his son, Latimer, to follow to ensure that his petition to be bailed was received at the most opportune moment as well as pointing out which other members of the House Latimer would be able best to rely on.240 Danby was at pains to impress upon Latimer the importance of striking at just the right moment, emphasizing that:
The first care must be to be certain what lords are come to Oxford before my business be moved and in order to that you are to count the lords in the House daily by the list aforesaid, and particularly to see the clerk’s book every day at the rising of the House to see what lords have been sworn that day and especially the first and second days and from time to time to give an account thereof to my friends.241
In the event of the Lords summoning him to appear at the bar, he assembled a series of heads on which he might speak should the opportunity arise.242 On 18 Mar. 1681 he wrote to John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, conceding that he was unsure how he stood with him but hoping that he would do him justice and support his application to be bailed.243 The same day he appealed to Norreys to stand as ‘one of my principal pillars’ and to Lindsey to be the one to present his petition to the House.244 On that day he dispatched his sons Latimer and Dunblane to Oxford bearing his petition.245 Over the ensuing days Danby received detailed reports on the progress of his sons’ efforts to woo supporters to his cause and arrange for the submission of his petition.246 On 24 Mar. the petition was presented by Norreys with at least half a dozen peers speaking in its favour. Further consideration of the matter, however, was reserved to the following week.247 Latimer complained that those claiming to be in Danby’s interest would not do what they were asked or what they had promised to undertake.248 Newcastle, though, reassured Danby how ‘many friends’ he had and how well Clarendon, for one, had spoken on his behalf.249 Bath also sought to explain that ‘the delay till Monday next without putting the question could not be avoided without apparent prejudice and division of your friends.’250 Despite this, Danby expressed his extreme annoyance that consideration of his petition had (once again) been postponed and he blamed Halifax for the decision to delay consideration on the grounds that the business was ‘ill timed’.251 With the Lords unwilling to rush consideration of Danby’s petition, the Commons took the opportunity to present their own, requesting that the Lords would condemn Danby to death, but consideration of this too was put off till the following the week.252 On 28 Mar. 1681 Parliament was dissolved.
In the days immediately following it was reported that the king now intended to have Danby released on his own authority. Danby was justifiably suspicious of such rumours but in the middle of April 1681 he petitioned the king directly again for his release from the Tower.253 Once more, the king was advised by his council that he was unable in law to authorize his release. At the end of April Danby moved for a writ of habeas corpus in king’s bench but, having been heard in court on 2 May, he was again remanded to the Tower while the judges deliberated on the matter.254 At the same time, Ailesbury moved the Privy Council to permit Danby to accompany him to Spa for his health but he was also unsuccessful.255 On 7 May Danby composed one of his frequent memoranda noting the need to write to the attorney general to discover when proceedings were likely to commence against Fitzharris and also ‘to ask his opinion privately as to the time of my appearance.’256 The following week, on 14 May, Danby was again brought before the court but although he was said to have spoken ‘very well’ for half an hour, he was once more informed that as his case was being considered by a higher jurisdiction than theirs they were unable to grant his application for bail.257 Two days later Danby noted in his diary a further complication arising out of the testimony of Fitzharris, who claimed that Danby had been privy to the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey.258
With matters continuing to go against him, on 18 May 1681 Danby conveyed yet another letter to the king via his son Latimer requesting a speedy trial and a final determination of his predicament.259 It was reported that the king rejected the petition on the grounds that he wished to prioritize Fitzharris’s trial.260 Some thought the king was concerned that a trial would be prejudicial to his own interests. Unable to secure permission to leave the Tower on licence to improve his health, Danby resorted instead to changing his accommodation in the bastion.261 By the autumn he also appears to have entered into negotiations with Conway to have his lodgings in the Cockpit let or sold, in spite of Lady Danby’s resistance to the notion.262 News of a projected marriage between Latimer and one of the daughters of Sir Thomas Chamberlaine met with a spirited objection from Norreys who pointed out the inadvisability of arranging a match with someone who was a close kinsman of Shaftesbury. By November, when Sir John Reresby visited Danby in the Tower, Reresby commented that he was ‘not in charity with the then ministers’, who he perceived were ‘inclining too favourably’ to Shaftesbury.263
1682 began much as the previous year had done with Danby continuing in his efforts to secure his release.264 Towards the end of February he wrote to the king acknowledging messages he had received via Bath in which he had been assured of the king’s ‘resolutions of giving me my liberty.’265 In spite of such good wishes, in March when he sought permission to be allowed out on licence to visit his countess who had been injured in a coach crash his request was denied: ‘a strange severity’.266 Not for the first time the blame was levelled at Halifax for blocking Danby’s petition.267 In the midst of this, Danby continued to manoeuvre to secure the reversion of the mastership of the rolls for his nominee but at the beginning of April he was disconcerted to find one of his erstwhile allies, Thomas Colepeper, 2nd Baron Colepeper, ranged against him.268 The disappointment at the apparent loss of one ally was then compounded by news of the deaths of another, Frescheville, and of Danby’s son-in-law, O’Brien, in the wreck of the Gloucester.269
Danby was again brought before king’s bench on another writ of habeas corpus at the end of May 1682 but following a two-hour exposition of his case he was once more remanded to the Tower.270 The following month he again moved to be released by writ of habeas corpus but although the judges were now said to be divided on the issue, bail was denied him.271 Newcastle professed himself ‘exceedingly troubled to see how ill used your lordship is by the judges, for sure never man spoke so well’ as Danby had in his defence.272 In July, from his confinement, his attention was distracted from his own difficulties by the revelations surrounding Dunblane’s marriage to Bridget Emerton (née Hyde).273 No doubt concerned at the implications for his own continued imprisonment if the affair resulted in further loss of face, Danby wrote to Viscount Hyde (as Laurence Hyde had since become) to protest that Dunblane had acted without his knowledge or consent and to insist that he could ‘with great truth declare… that my other misfortunes have not given us more trouble than this act of my son’s has done.’274 To make the point of his annoyance with Dunblane clear to all, at the beginning of August he ordered his son out of town and from that month until the beginning of the autumn he was hard at work attempting to salvage the situation by rallying members of the court of delegates and other officials to use their interest on Dunblane’s behalf.275 By the close of October it was reported that the court was divided on the issue with Halifax unsurprisingly among those favouring declaring Bridget Hyde’s previous marriage to Emerton to have been valid.276 In November Danby sought to mobilize his supporters, commanding his son, Latimer, to find out the reason for William Lloyd, bishop of St Asaph, being ‘hindered coming up’ and to seek the king’s intervention to ‘remove any obstruction.’277 The following month he attempted a direct appeal to the Hyde family, writing to Clarendon to insist that Dunblane had acted unilaterally and indeed that he had done so ‘against my express command.’278
Alongside of his efforts to secure a satisfactory resolution to the problems created by his son, Danby also persisted in attempting to find a tenant or buyer for his apartments in the Cockpit as well as with his campaign to secure his release.279 In spite of an expectation that the new lord chief justice would at last agree to bail Danby ‘it being his opinion the last should have done it’, Danby’s efforts followed a familiar pattern in the early months of 1683 with the judges once again concluding their lack of competence to meddle in a case in consideration by the Lords.280 Signs in May that the judges might finally be softening in their attitude offered Danby no immediate prospect of release, though Sir Ralph Verney speculated that ‘if Lord Danby may be bailed, it is a good precedent for the discharge of the Popish lords too.’281 By the end of May Danby’s health had once again taken a turn for the worse and in June it was speculated that he was either seriously sick or dead.282 A petition made by his countess for Danby to be permitted to take the air under guard was refused.283 Danby seems to have rallied shortly after and by July he was again active in attempting to employ his interest, this time over the appointment to the archbishopric of York. Supporting the candidacy of Thomas Cartwright, later bishop of Chester, Danby stressed Cartwright’s acceptability ‘to the loyal party in that county, and that he would be highly serviceable to the king’s interest there.’284
Hopes for Danby’s release were raised once again at the opening of 1684 on the grounds that even if the lord chief justice failed to look sympathetically upon him, a new Parliament would settle the matter finally.285 Danby himself appears to have been willing to trust to nothing so uncertain. On 11 Jan. he wrote to Abingdon (as Norreys had since become) asking for his help in cultivating Judge Holloway, having found by experience ‘that the judges are much more informed by personal friendships and interests than by the law.’286 More promising were reports that Halifax was by now eager to effect a reconciliation with Danby and that he had recommended to the king the release of all the imprisoned lords in the Tower prompting a belief that they would all ‘be out in very few days.’287 Danby was brought before king’s bench again on 28 Jan. but he was once more remanded for a further week before judgment could be delivered on his case.288 At the beginning of February a new petition craving his release after 3½ years in prison was presented, subscribed by 19 peers, and on 4 Feb. he appeared once more before king’s bench only to find the judges still divided in their opinions. The two older judges were reported to have inclined to Danby but the two younger ones (including Holloway) again desired more time to deliberate.289 Danby was able to score a small success by securing an order for his reappearance at the close of term rather than at the opening of the next as the judges had initially desired and on 12 Feb. his petition to be bailed was at last granted with sureties of £5,000 a piece being provided by Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, Albemarle, Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, and Philip Stanhope, earl of Chesterfield.290 The reason for the decision undoubtedly lay in the king’s intervention on Danby’s behalf and in the assistance given by the duchess of Portsmouth.291 On the same evening that he was released Danby waited on the king, where he was granted a 15 minute audience.292
Danby’s incarceration had left him weak and suffering from severe ailments, which it was believed were sufficiently serious to threaten his life or leave him a permanent invalid.293 His experiences and ill health in no way dampened his desire to see his services recognized and towards the end of February it was reported that he was attempting to revive the process for his promotion to the marquessate of Carmarthen.294 In this he was disappointed but his release and much talked-about reconciliation with Halifax prompted speculation about the impact their alliance would have on politics in Yorkshire. John Dolben, archbishop of York, cautioned William Sancroft, archibishop of Canterbury, to use his interest with Danby to keep him from ‘falling into any design to the prejudice of the Church.’295 The association may well have inspired Danby to consider assembling a third political grouping to stand between the Whigs and Tories, but if there was any such design, it appears rapidly to have unravelled.296
Danby’s experience over the past three years had unsurprisingly left him cynical about the king and York’s willingness to support him. Towards the end of the summer Danby retreated north to Kiveton, where he was ‘visited by all the country to a very great distance’, among them Sidney Wortley Montagu‡, who expressed his sorrow for the carryings-on of his relations towards Danby and ‘hoped I would not have the worse opinion of him for their ill behaviour.’297 Soon after his arrival in Yorkshire, Danby fell ill of ‘a quartan ague’ as well as being plagued by his perennial malady of a ‘stoppage in his throat.’ By the close of the year Danby had recovered sufficiently to return to Wimbledon where news of the expected demise of the master of the rolls prompted him to remind Latimer that the reversion of the office was due to him.
Reign of James II, 1685-1689
The succession of James II found Danby’s prospects uncertain. He was relieved to find the new lord chancellor, George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys, outwardly civil to him when they dined together, and he detected no indication that he was likely to be carted off to his ‘old quarters’ in the Tower, but Danby’s relations with the new king when duke of York had never been easy and he soon found himself entirely at odds with the drift of James’s policies.298 By the middle of the reign Danby was active among the opposition.
Although there were early indications that he and his family could expect little in the way of favour under the new regime (Danby’s heir, Latimer, was not continued in post as a gentleman of the bedchamber) in March 1685 at the time of the elections for the new Parliament it was believed that Danby’s fortunes were once more on the turn and that he was again great at court. The mayor of Buckingham was reported to be in favour of returning Latimer rather than Verney in order to court Danby’s good will, although there was also an attempt by Jeffreys to press his own rival interest to those of Danby and Rochester (as Laurence Hyde had since become). In the end Temple and Verney were returned leaving Latimer trailing in third place.299
Danby was absent from the opening day of the new Parliament but a petition was read on his behalf by Chesterfield pleading that he either be granted a trial or have his bail renewed. Calls were also made by his friends for him to have reparation for his sufferings over the past six years.300 On 22 May the impeachments presented in the previous reign were overturned (a decision that prompted a protest signed by four peers).301 The following day Danby at last resumed his place in the House, after which he was present on 95 per cent of all sitting days in the session. He continued to sit during the progress of Monmouth’s rebellion, details of the campaign being relayed to him by Dunblane, who was present at Sedgemoor.302
Danby resumed his seat after the adjournment on 9 Nov. 1685. Plans for the House to take into consideration the king’s speech on 23 Nov. were averted by the king ordering Parliament to be prorogued to the following February, but it seems plain that Danby intended to join a number of peers speaking critically about the king’s declaration relating to the expansion of the army and the employment of Catholics within it. In a draft dated 23 Nov. he insisted that ‘no man living can speak with more reluctancy than myself to anything which may but seem to be contradictory to his majesty’s pleasure’ before continuing to lambast elements of the king’s speech in which he detected ‘stalking horses to ill designs’. He then planned to conclude his address by seeking the judges’ opinion of the extent of the king’s dispensing powers.303
With Parliament prorogued and no official platform from which he could question the direction of royal policy, Danby appears to have retreated for the time being. His broken health seems to have been his principal concern and in February 1686 he was said to be considering travelling to Spa in search of a cure for his throat condition.304 As the king’s efforts to secure greater freedoms for Catholics intensified, Danby was among those noted consistently to be in opposition to the proposed policies. At some point in either 1687 or 1688 Danby compiled his own list noting those he considered likely to oppose the king, perhaps drawn up in response to the meetings held that summer between William of Orange’s agent, Dijkvelt, and various members of the English opposition, including Danby. When Dijkvelt returned to Holland he bore with him a list of his own, apparently drawn up by Danby’s kinsman, Robert Bertie, styled Baron Willoughby d’Eresby (later duke of Ancaster), very likely on Danby’s instructions. Danby’s list (slightly less extensive than the one carried overseas by Dijkvelt) was dominated by members of both Houses, 55 being members of the Lords, including Danby himself and six bishops, and 86 comprising members of the Commons with a few additions. Forty of the names were annotated with ticks or crosses, Danby’s own name being marked with a tick which was crossed through. In January 1688 he was again noted among those thought likely to oppose repeal of the Test act. He was one of those in receipt of threatening letters at the close of the month.305 Danby again attracted attention when a case between him and a Catholic named Cox over the non-payment of secret service money was brought before the council.306 In spite of his prominent opposition to the king’s policies, in May 1688 it was put about that Danby had been with the king privately and that he might be appointed ambassador to the United Provinces, though Roger Morrice was quick to cast doubt upon such rumours.307 The following month Danby was proposed as one of the sureties for Archbishop Sancroft at the time of the Seven Bishops’ trial.308 He was also one of a vast ‘concourse of people of all ranks’ to attend the trial in June.309
Ever since his role in the negotiations for the match between William of Orange and Princess Mary, Danby had remained a correspondent of the prince. The extent to which James’s government was suspicious of the correspondence was highlighted in two separate episodes. In September 1687 (at the time of the conferences with Dijkvelt) Danby wrote to the prince to explain that he had been unable to secure permission to travel to Holland ‘with the same indifferency that it is permitted to others’ and had therefore resolved not to risk the journey.310 Unable to attend the prince in person, towards the end of March 1688 he sought a place for his daughter, the countess of Plymouth, in Princess Mary’s household. Once again, stealth was required. His letter to Prince William seeking the position was conveyed by Dunblane, though Danby was careful to ensure that it was delivered into the prince’s hands by the prince’s chaplain, Dr Stanley, being certain that his son’s movements were also being observed by James’s secret service.311 The birth of the prince of Wales in the summer of 1688 gave Danby an added incentive to cultivate Prince William as it was rumoured that he was thereby set to lose an annuity of £700 which was to revert to the new prince.312
Danby was early on at the centre of the conspiracy to bring the prince over to England to restrain James II. On the night that the bishops were acquitted he joined six other malcontents in signing a letter inviting William of Orange to invade England in defence of their liberties.313 According to Gilbert Burnet, later bishop of Salisbury, Danby had originally been recruited by Henry Sydney, later earl of Romney, and he in turn persuaded Bishop Compton to join the plot.314 When Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, refused to participate, some of the plotters appear to have advocated silencing the reluctant peer but Danby intervened, arguing that ‘he thought there was more danger in meddling with him than letting of him alone.’315 By the autumn of 1688 Danby had retreated from London to his Yorkshire estates to prepare for the invasion, though rumours circulated that he had in fact left England for Holland.316 A renewed bout of ill health provided him with a convenient excuse to remain away from the centre as he sought a cure at the spa at Knaresborough. Throughout this time he remained in close contact with the prince and appears to have argued strongly for a landing in the north because the west had been so cowed by the suppression of the Monmouth rebellion that no one there ‘would be forward to join the prince.’317 On 24 Nov. Morrice recorded that Danby, Lumley ‘and a dozen more noblemen’ had held a series of meetings in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire but were not yet in arms.318 By the close of the month any such pretence had been cast aside and Danby along with Dunblane and Lumley had succeeded in seizing York and imprisoning the lieutenant governor, Reresby.319 Reports of 28 Nov. that Danby was marching towards London proved inaccurate but the news of the prince’s landing at Torbay elicited a jubilant letter from Danby on 1 Dec. congratulating him on his ‘happy arrival in England’.320 The following few days found Danby under increasing pressure to justify his failure to march out from York either to join the prince en route to London or Princess Anne at Nottingham. Danby had hoped that the princess would continue her march north to join him at York, which would undoubtedly have handed to him an improved position from which to bargain with both Prince William and King James, but he made the most of the presence of his ally, Bishop Compton, with the princess and deferred to Compton’s advice that it was not practical for her to continue north to York.321
The confused situation created by the invasion complicated communication between Danby and the prince. Danby was forced to write several times insisting that he had attempted to convey despatches to Prince William that had evidently failed to get through. Shortly after this, he needed to refute rumours that he had been killed and to provide reports of his activities in fortifying York. Even though the political situation remained uncertain, Danby set about arranging for the election of his son, Dunblane, at York and he pleaded that the business relating to this and the county elections would necessitate him delaying his march south by a further three or four days.322 Danby’s evident reluctance to abandon his northern stronghold provoked an irritated response from the prince and shortly afterwards Danby was urged by one of his kinsmen to make his way to London where the prince was awaiting him ‘with all impatience.’323 Having delayed as long as he could, Danby eventually quit York and by the evening of 26 Dec. he was in London at the head of a substantial retinue comprising six coaches with around 80 gentlemen in attendance.324 The following day he received visits from the future non-jurors, Francis Turner, bishop of Ely, and William Lloyd, formerly of Llandaff, now bishop of Norwich, who later reported that Danby had been ‘very reserved’ with them. Abingdon also complained of his kinsman’s reserve towards him, though he was confident that he would ‘quickly find him out.’325
Danby’s absence from London throughout November and most of December meant that he failed to play any part in the activities of the provisional government. His apparent unwillingness to join the prince in the west had diminished his standing in William’s eyes and he remained a figure of considerable suspicion for both loyalists and revolutionaries alike. Back in London, he attempted to make up for this by striving to act as a counterbalance to the two rival groups, pushing to the fore his solution to the constitutional crisis created by the king’s flight. He was disappointed, though, on the first day of the Convention (of which he attended almost 58 per cent of all sitting days) to lose out to his old rival Halifax, who was appointed speaker of the Lords. Despite this, Danby proceeded to play a central role in the Lords’ deliberations as chairman of a number of committees. On 25 Jan. he was missing from the attendance list but not among those marked absent at a call of the House. The Commons’ resolution to declare the throne vacant and to push for the accession of Prince William as king presented Danby with an opportunity to manoeuvre himself into the middle ground between those in favour of James’s removal and those wishing to arrive at some sort of accommodation short of replacing the sovereign, by advocating the accession of Mary as queen. When the Commons’ resolution regarding the vacancy of the throne was reported to the Lords on 29 Jan. Danby was appointed chairman of the committee of the whole House discussing it and even critics such as Roger Morrice conceded that he presided ‘very fairly and equally’ over the proceedings.326 A proposal to establish a regency initially attracted wide support but was ultimately defeated by 51 votes to 48 following a strenuous intervention by Danby and Halifax. The following day, Danby shifted his support over to the loyalists by voting in favour of substituting the word ‘deserted’ for ‘abdicated’. By 31 Jan. he seems once more to have changed his position, thus while he voted in favour of declaring the prince and princess king and queen in a division held in committee of the whole, he then voted against declaring the throne vacant.
Danby’s reasoning appears to have been driven by a genuine concern for the constitutional propriety of what was being attempted as much as by raw politics. His initial reluctance to award the throne to William damaged his standing at court but he still remained unwilling to declare the throne vacant. On 4 Feb. he was one of the lords appointed to draw up reasons why they disagreed with the Commons on the question of King James’s abdication and the same day he appears to have attempted once more to employ his interest so that the possibility of Mary’s succession alone might again be explored. Speaking in the Commons, Danby’s creature, Sir Joseph Tredenham‡, allowed that the throne was vacant in as much as James had abandoned it, but he insisted that in an hereditary monarchy it was impossible for such a state of affairs to exist. He then continued to drive forward the notion of awarding the throne to James’s clear heir, Princess Mary. In spite of these efforts, the Commons persisted in their rejection of the Lords’ amendments to their resolutions by 282 votes to 151: almost all of Danby’s followers in the Commons being among those voting in the minority.
Having failed to sway the Commons and with his grouping in the Lords perhaps restricted to just three or four regular supporters, by 6 Feb. 1689 Danby seems to have conceded that continuing to push for the succession of Mary alone was impractical. Three days prior to this, William had summoned several senior politicians, including Danby, to a private meeting, at which he had impressed upon them his unwillingness to accept anything less than the crown.327 It was no doubt as a result of this ultimatum that Danby altered his stance. Certainly by 6 Feb. he had resolved to fall in with those willing to confer the throne on William and Mary jointly. He opened the latest debates that day with ‘an excellent speech’ and when the Lords at last voted in favour of agreeing with the Commons’ resolutions Danby and Halifax were said to have been ‘very instrumental’ in securing ‘this great settlement.’328 Danby’s slipperiness on the issue lost him some of his old friends. According to at least one report he had assured Abingdon only an hour before the vote that he would divide with those against declaring that the king had abdicated.329 His ambiguous position was then further highlighted by his readiness to second Nottingham’s motion that the wording of the oaths should be altered: a decision that once more set him at variance with Halifax who rejected the notion as threatening to make a mockery of the new monarchs’ title.330
On 9 Feb. Danby was named to the committee for drawing up reasons for the Lords’ amendments to the declaration of William and Mary as king and queen. With the question of the throne finally settled, Danby retired from attendance of the council and the Lords for about ten days from the 13th, the result of his own ill health and his son’s illness and death. It might also have indicated his disappointment with the way in which things had been resolved. According to Halifax, by this point Danby had begun to ‘lag in his zeal for the prince his interest’, partly because he could not hope to be appointed lord treasurer, ‘the prince having declared he would manage it by commissioners’.331 Burnet considered that Danby ‘could not bear the equality, or rather the preference that seemed to be given to Lord Halifax.’332 This was reflected in Danby’s own writings, in which he complained at Halifax’s favoured condition at court, ‘notwithstanding what I had done.’333 In spite of this, a newsletter predicted in the middle of February that Danby would be restored as lord treasurer.334 In the event he was appointed to the more marginal post of lord president.335 Roger Morrice’s assessment of Danby’s appointment was that he was ‘the worst man to be found, a French pensioner, the corrupter of that cursed Parliament.’336
Marquess of Carmarthen, 1689-94
Danby’s appointment as lord president reflected the careful balance the new regime attempted to achieve by employing men of varying interests and loyalties but it also ushered in a period of uncertainty during which the rival ministers vied with each other in their efforts to cultivate the king. In 1690 Danby emerged as the principal beneficiary of such squabbling but his period at the apex of the administration proved to be relatively brief. By 1694 his interest was once more on the wane.
Danby’s return to office was marred by the death of his heir, Latimer, during the night of 15/16 February.337 Private grief did not, however, prevent him from attempting to assert his position at court, and on 18 Feb. he wrote to the king to remonstrate with him about the distribution of offices, which he thought had been weighted unfairly against his own followers. In an effort to redress the balance he recommended that Sir Henry Goodricke‡, and his brother, Charles Osborne‡, be rewarded with places in the new regime.338 By the close of the month Danby appears to have been thoroughly disenchanted with the new state of affairs and on 28 Feb. he regaled Sir John Reresby with a catalogue of mistakes he believed the government to be committing, especially as regarded the settlement of Ireland and the king’s apparent willingness to allow the Whigs to monopolize office. So discontented did he seem that he apparently expressed the opinion that if James would only give up his Catholic followers he might be able to stage a return.339
For all Danby’s complaints, over the ensuing weeks several of his kinsmen secured posts and on 12 Mar. Danby himself was restored to the lieutenancy of the West Riding of Yorkshire. In April he was also successful in securing his appointment to the governorship of Hull. Having resumed his regular attendance of the House towards the end of March, Danby managed a series of conferences in April, May and July concerning the bills for removing Catholics from the cities of London and Westminster, for abrogating oaths, the additional poll bill and the succession bill. He continued to argue in favour of protection of the Church of England and on 21 Mar. he pressed for all office holders to be required to take an oath of fidelity to the king and to receive Anglican communion, as he believed that ‘any less security to be given than this cannot preserve the present constitution.’340
Danby’s ambiguous stance on the legitimacy of the new regime may have driven him to join a small deputation waiting on the king at the opening of April 1689 to protest at the decision to award Frederick Herman Schomberg, duke of Schomberg, the former king’s garter. They were overruled. His concerns did not, however, prevent him from petitioning the king for his own promotion to a dukedom. His request presupposed that he was already de jure marquess of Carmarthen by virtue of the 1679 warrant.341 Once again Danby was disappointed in his ambitions and according to his own recollection it was only ‘with difficulty’ that he was then able to prevail upon the king to promote him marquess of Carmarthen. It was one of almost a dozen new peerages created in April.342 On 24 Apr. he was introduced into the House in his new dignity, with Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort, and William Richard George Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, as his supporters. Prior to this, on 18 Apr., he had been entrusted with the proxy of John Manners, 9th earl of Rutland, the same day that the House had fixed for debating the overturning of Titus Oates’s perjury conviction. In the event, consideration of the case was postponed to 26 Apr. when Oates’s lawyers were finally heard. Carmarthen seems to have suffered a further relapse in his health at this time but he continued to attend the House at regular intervals through the spring and early summer and when not in London retired to Wimbledon so that he could maintain contact with affairs at court. Towards the end of May the Lords ordered Oates to be committed to king’s bench for breach of privilege for publishing a paper in which he had made reflections on Carmarthen.343 Carmarthen took the opportunity to suggest flippantly during the debates on the reversal of Oates’s conviction that rather being whipped from Newgate to Tyburn he should instead be whipped from Tyburn to Newgate. It was presumably this speech that induced the king to ask Halifax whether Carmarthen had been out of his mind when he delivered it.344 On 31 May, Carmarthen voted, unsurprisingly, against reversing the judgment on Oates. The following day he once again became the focus of complaint when John Howe‡ moved in the Commons for all impeached persons to be removed from office.345 It was reported at about this time that many motions had been tabled for removing ‘a great minister of state’, but Howe’s motion was allowed to drop following a patched-up alliance between Carmarthen and the Whigs so that they could stand together against Halifax.346 Carmarthen’s need to cultivate new allies was rendered the more necessary both by the criticism of him emanating from the Commons and by the king’s disinclination to trouble himself unduly on his minister’s account. Halifax recorded that the king had undertaken to defend Carmathen, though he ‘said it faintly enough.’347
Writing to excuse his failure to wait on Archbishop Sancroft in the early summer of 1689, Carmarthen blamed ‘multiplicity of business’ for the omission, which ‘does scarce give me leisure to get my meals, or rest as I ought to do.’348 On 6 June he was entrusted with the proxy of George Fitzroy, duke of Northumberland, and the same day he moved that the Lords should petition the king for the remainder of Oates’s sentence to be remitted. Despite this, at the end of July he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments relating to the reversal of the perjury judgment.
Carmarthen was unable to sway his followers to join him in supporting the move to settle the crown on the Electress Sophia and her heirs, which was mooted at the beginning of June 1689.349 He found himself at odds with the Commons again later in the summer over the actions of his heir, Danby (formerly Dunblane) who had been arrested on his father’s recommendation for attempting to fit out a privateer illegally. Since Danby was still a member of the Commons, between 22 and 24 June the Commons took the matter into consideration and towards the close of the month the Commons found against Carmarthen and Nottingham for acting in a manner injurious to their privileges. In mid-July the Commons moved once more for an address to be made to the king requesting that both Carmarthen and Halifax should be removed from his councils.350 At the beginning of August the assault was renewed but on this occasion only Halifax was aimed at directly. Carmarthen’s kinsmen were among those backing the motion for Halifax to be removed but although Carmarthen insisted that this was because of Danby’s personal resentment against the lord privy seal, it seems clear that Carmarthen was sympathetic to the action. In the event the adjournment towards the close of the month brought the attempt to a halt thereby saving both Halifax and Carmarthen.
In spite of the concerted pressure being applied by the Commons that the king should rid himself of Carmarthen and Halifax, it was reported in mid-August 1689 that both men were to form part of a select ‘cabinet council’.351 Following the close of the session on 20 Aug. Carmarthen secured leave to retire to the country to recover his health. The death of his daughter, Lady Lansdown, soon after added to Carmarthen’s personal grief but perhaps more significantly served also to weaken further the alliance of the Osbornes and Berties with the Granville clan.352 Carmarthen had returned to Wimbledon by mid-September in order to wait on the king at Hampton Court, but he was immediately struck down again by a relapse preventing him from doing so.353 He had rallied by the middle of October and was able to attend the final two days of the session on 19 and 21 October. He then resumed his seat in the session that followed hard on its heels on 23 October, and was present on approximately 64 per cent of all sitting days. In early December it was once again rumoured that Carmarthen was to be restored to his former office of lord treasurer, though this failed to transpire. His improved standing with the new king and queen contrasted with his poor relations with Princess Anne, a division that was thrown into stark relief by Abingdon’s ‘great favour’ with the princess, ‘where I and my whole family find as little.’354 Carmarthen classed himself as among the supporters of the court on a list drawn up between October 1689 and February 1690.
Carmarthen acted as one of the tellers for a division held in the case Fountaine v. Coke on 11 Jan. 1690. The same month he divided against the resolution that the surrenders of the City charters had been illegal. On 25 Jan. he sided with the Lords seeking to dissuade the king from travelling to Ireland in person, arguing that ‘they had no notice from the king of his resolution.’355 By the close of January tensions within all parties had reached such a pitch that on Carmarthen’s advice, the king agreed to dissolve the Convention and summon a new Parliament. With the end of the Convention came Halifax’s resignation from the government. Carmarthen appears to have offered his old rival’s post to at least two candidates as early as the previous December but on Halifax’s departure the privy seal was put into commission.356 The removal of Halifax signalled a brief period of almost unchallenged dominance for Carmarthen and by the beginning April he was accounted ‘the most active man’ both in Parliament and in the council.357 It may have been around this time that a verse satire, The Nine Worthies, was composed, in which Carmarthen was characterized as:
A thin ill-natured ghost that haunts the king
Till him and us he does to ruin bring;
Impeached, and pardoned impudently rides
The council, and the Parliament bestrides.358
Eager to fill as many posts as he could with his kinsmen and supporters, as early as mid-February 1690 Carmarthen alerted Abingdon to the likelihood of a substantial overhaul at the treasury.359 When a redistribution of offices was effected, a number of new posts were allotted to Carmarthen’s followers including Sir John Lowther, later Viscount Lonsdale, at the head of the treasury commission. Carmarthen himself was appointed one of the councillors for advising the queen during the king’s absence from the country.360 Carmarthen’s success encouraged rumours that Bishop Compton would shortly succeed Sancroft as archbishop. For all this, the elections for the new Parliament were not without their disappointments and Carmarthen expressed his concern that a number of good men were reluctant to stand ‘when it is so apparent a crisis for the Church’. Even so, his grouping fared well in a number of areas with the return of his brother, Charles, at Hull, the securing of several Yorkshire seats and a strong showing by the Berties in Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Wiltshire. In advance of the new Parliament, Carmarthen was able to reflect on the strength of supporters and sympathisers in the Lords, which he reckoned to consist of 45 peers and five bishops in opposition to Halifax’s phalanx of 34 peers and three bishops. In the Commons too, he believed he was able to call on the services of a bloc of around 50 members.361
Carmarthen took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690 and was thereafter present for approximately 94 per cent of all sitting days. Evidence of his continued dominance of affairs was reflected in a rumour that he was to be advanced to a dukedom and Nottingham to a marquessate, while in the Commons his ally, Sir John Trevor‡, was elected Speaker in spite of his decidedly chequered reputation.362 Carmarthen’s grouping in the Lords was reinforced by the summoning of Danby by a writ of acceleration as Baron Osborne as well as of Lindsey’s heir, Willoughby d’Eresby. The king’s speech delivered on 21 Mar. highlighted the question of the revenue, with one of the first pieces of business laid before the Commons being the Carmarthen-backed proposal for the king and queen to be voted supply for life. In the event the Commons preferred a compromise arrangement, whereby certain grants were awarded for the life of the monarchs but they resolved to limit the granting of customs revenues to a period of four years.
The presentation on 26 Mar. by Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, of the recognition bill, though, threatened to re-open the fissures in the Tory ranks by forcing them to agree explicitly to the king and queen’s right to the throne. Carmarthen appears to have opposed the measure at first in the hopes of securing significant amendments to the bill rather than out of a desire to see the measure rejected entirely. On 3 Apr. he put forward his amendments, suggesting the substitution of the word ‘confirmed’ but the following day this was rejected by 34 votes to 25. On 5 Apr. he was among the majority voting to reject in turn an amendment proposed by the Whigs but on 8 Apr. a compromise was arrived at, in part through Carmarthen’s negotiating skills, which resulted in the recognition bill being passed by the Lords. The following day, in spite of further opposition from the Tories, the Commons also voted to accept the amended bill.363
By mid-April 1690, Carmarthen’s manoeuvrings had served to distance him from some of the other Tory members of the Lords. Rochester complained to his brother Clarendon how ‘the white marquess’ had ‘struck up with the Dissenters’ thereby obviating ‘all the fine promises concerning the Church.’364 Difficulties also continued to present themselves from the other extreme, though an attempt by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, to table a divisive measure towards the end of April, requiring all members of the Commons to abjure King James was given short shrift. When Carmarthen attempted to present a compromise measure shortly afterwards, it too was rejected. On 12 May Carmarthen was one of a number of peers (and two bishops) named managers of a conference to be held with the Commons the following day on the bill for appointing the queen regent during the king’s absence. In spite of his failure to secure the adoption of his amended abjuration bill, by the middle of May it was reported that Carmarthen and Nottingham were so firmly in control of affairs that remaining Whig members of the administration, such as Charles Talbot, 12th earl of Shrewsbury, had resolved to quit their posts. A renewed effort to have Carmarthen removed from the king’s councils at the same time failed once more to achieve its aim.365
Shrewsbury’s resignation at the beginning of June 1690 left Carmarthen in almost unrivalled control of the administration as ‘chief minister’, though as Chesterfield pointed out ‘he has need of all his skill to keep this changeable and mutinous people to their duty.’366 The queen also noted in one of her reports to the king how Carmarthen ‘pretends to govern all’ but she remained sceptical about precisely how amicable his alliance with Nottingham truly was.367 The threat of invasion from France or from the north added to the pressures facing the administration. In the middle of the month Carmarthen reported to the king information relayed to him by Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough), concerning a feared invasion from Scotland, though he dismissed Monmouth’s warning on the grounds that he thought he had been misled and although ‘I do in my conscience believe [he] means well to your interest’ that he was essentially untrustworthy.368 Carmarthen nevertheless thought that a landing in England was imminent.369 Towards the end of July 1690 he joined a number of other ministers waiting on the City fathers to seek a loan of £100,000 to assist with preparations for beating back a potential descent on the country.370 Such fears were underscored by the setback suffered by the fleet off Beachy Head later in the summer. After it he was eager to join other members of the council travelling to Dover to enquire into the causes of the defeat, but was prevented from doing so by the queen’s insistence on his remaining in London. By the middle of August the crisis had abated with the retreat of the French forces.371 In the aftermath of the naval reversal, Carmarthen was said to have been hostile to the petition of John Churchill, earl of Marlborough for his brother, Charles Churchill‡, to be made an admiral, arguing that he would be known as ‘the flag of favour’ much as Marlborough was referred to disparagingly as ‘the general of favour.’372 Carmarthen regarded the new session due to commence that autumn of critical importance, though unlike Devonshire, who recommended a dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament, Carmarthen favoured persevering with the current one.373 On 1 Oct. he wrote to William Paget, 7th Baron Paget, underlining its importance and how ‘upon their proceedings will depend the certain fate of England and Ireland, and in a great measure that of the confederates abroad.’374 Carmarthen took his seat at the opening of the session on 2 Oct. on which day Anthony Grey, 11th earl of Kent, entrusted him with his proxy. On 7 Oct. he also received Willoughby d’Eresby’s proxy and on 27 Oct. that of Hugh Cholmondeley, Baron (later earl of) Cholmondeley, although the rules restricted him to only two proxies. On 6 Oct. he voted for the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower. Carmarthen was present on 64 per cent of all sitting days. He was attacked from all sides. Even so, he appeared relatively satisfied with the willingness of the Commons to vote adequate funds, though he fretted at the pace with which such revenue was likely to be raised.375
Pressure on Carmarthen was reflected in his loss of interest in the treasury commission that autumn. Although his ally Lowther remained a member of the board, Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, replaced him as first commissioner. Towards the end of the year, a series of rumours about plots preoccupied the government. On 28 Nov. Carmarthen received a letter warning of a second gunpowder plot and although this proved to be a fabrication, a fortnight later further information began to emerge about covert activities between England and France. As a result of information provided by Nicholas Prat, at the close of December Carmarthen secured the capture of three Jacobite conspirators while en route to France, among them Richard Grahme‡, Viscount Preston [S]. The coup helped to restore Carmarthen’s reputation and at the opening of 1691 it was reported explicitly that a series of attacks intended against Carmarthen had been derailed because of his success in foiling the Jacobite conspiracy. The departure of King William for The Hague in early January was glossed by the reassuring information that Carmarthen was to remain behind as chief minister. With the exception of a brief stint in April, the king remained overseas until the autumn. In his absence, Carmarthen held sway: the extent of his domination of the administration was reflected in a new soubriquet (an echo of that applied previously to Charles I’s minister, Thomas Wentworth†, earl of Strafford): ‘Tom the Tyrant’. This was in spite of a renewal of ill health that plagued him for much of January and into the following month.376
Ironically, given his role in Preston’s capture and his consequent popularity, Carmarthen was one of a number of peers listed by Preston as being sympathetic to the former king.377 Although Preston later retracted this, claiming that he had the names ‘only from hearsay’, the allegation was supported by information provided to Halifax that Carmarthen had ‘treated’ with King James and also by the account of Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury’s account of various discussions with Carmarthen in the aftermath of the Revolution.378 According to Ailesbury, Carmarthen admitted that ‘next to having offended so much the good God, nothing ever lay so much at my heart as what I have done against that good king, James II.’379 Carmarthen may indeed have regretted certain features of the Revolution, but there is little reason to suppose he had any desire to see the former king back.
Aside from making the most of his success in securing Preston, Carmarthen continued to battle over control of the treasury where by the middle of February 1691 he was complaining that he now had few friends. The problem of Ireland also loomed large in his thinking. On 6 Feb. he confessed to Nottingham his ‘anxiety for the business of Ireland, upon which (whatever may be thought to the contrary) all other things as to England will depend.’380 At the end of the month, fretting that the ‘affairs of Ireland do seem to me to be in so ill a posture’ he recommended to the king the appointment of a lord lieutenant to take charge of the province, naming a number of possible candidates including himself on the grounds that he ‘would rather perish in endeavouring to save this government than live to perish with it’.381 Early in March 1691 it was rumoured that he was to depart for Ireland and as late as the middle of June it was said that he had offered to lead a squadron to Galway ‘upon any penalty if he did not succeed.’382 By the middle of March it was also speculated that he would be appointed lord lieutenant of the whole of Yorkshire and be granted his coveted dukedom of Pontefract.383 Assiduous in courting the queen’s good opinion, on 16 Mar. 1691 Carmarthen entertained her to dinner in his rooms in St James’s, treating her to ‘the rarity or first of the season, viz. one dish of green peas and cauliflowers.’384 The same month he joined with Carnarvon and John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater in supporting the candidature of his son-in-law, James Herbert‡, at the by-election at Ailesbury, though in the event Herbert was defeated by Simon Mayne‡.385
The unsettled nature of affairs at court was highlighted by conflicting rumours of new appointments and dismissals throughout the spring and early summer. At the end of April it was said that Carmarthen was to be lord treasurer again but this was contrasted by other reports suggesting that his position was far more precarious.386 By the early summer rumours were spread of a campaign to force him out from his office of lord president.387 Such reports were accompanied by talk of infighting at court in which the Commons speaker, Sir John Trevor, was said to have sided with Sydney and Montagu against Carmarthen; their undignified demeanour was likened to the scuffles between ‘the creatures of old in the amphitheatre.’388 As a further indication of the charged political atmosphere, in mid-May Carmarthen dismissed a number of deputy lieutenants in Yorkshire.389 Talk of altering alliances and of jostling for places continued well into the summer.390 Early in June it was speculated that Carmarthen’s old ally, Bishop Compton, was to consolidate his alliance with Carmarthen’s family by marrying the widowed countess of Plymouth; at about the same time it was even suggested that Rochester had resolved to throw in his lot with Carmarthen.391
Poor health and no doubt exasperation at the atmosphere at court may have tempted Carmarthen to step back from his duties. In July he complained that he was suffering from such violent colic that he could not attend council.392 The following month it was thought that having secured an annual pension of £3,500 the previous month, he would take the opportunity to retire ‘if his project succeeds to Ireland’. In the event the news of the fall of Limerick at the beginning of October seems to have helped him steel himself to hold firm.393 It was thus with renewed hopes for a successful outcome for his Irish policies following a poisonous summer that Carmarthen resumed his seat at the opening of the new session on 22 Oct. 1691. At the beginning of November there were renewed reports that he was one of three peers to be advanced to dukedoms.394 Present on almost 54 per cent of all sitting days in the session, Carmarthen’s early optimism proved misplaced as the Commons quickly turned their attention to debating the state of the nation with John Howe prominent again among those speaking out against Carmarthen and his lieutenant, Goodricke. Expecting that criticism of the fleet would form a key part of the Commons’ assault, Carmarthen moved swiftly to forge a temporary alliance with Admiral Edward Russell, later earl of Orford, and in mid-November, Carmarthen’s supporters attempted to draw attention away from their leader by moving for Preston’s examination to be considered. The affair once again drew attention to the factionalism at court, with Carmarthen intent on destroying Preston, while Sydney was said to be eager to achieve his release.395
Poor health once again interrupted Carmarthen’s activity towards the close of November, although fears that it would prove mortal again proved unfounded.396 Carmarthen returned to the House determined to try to rescue his fortunes by attempting to make use of the new information provided by William Fuller in the same way that he had been able to exploit that seized from Preston. In this case the plan failed to have the desired effect and Fuller was ultimately dismissed by the Commons the following year as a ‘notorious imposter, a cheat, and a false accuser’. Carmarthen may also have been implicated in an attempt to ‘blacken Lord Nottingham’ in a further attempt to deflect attention from himself.397 In this too, though, he was unsuccessful and the Commons’ decision to turn their attention to East India Company’s accounts put more pressure on the lord president.398 On 7 Dec. he dragged himself from his sickbed to declare himself against Monmouth in solidarity with his kinsmen, Lindsey and Abingdon, but despite this it was reckoned that Monmouth would be cleared.399 The following day, reports circulated that Carmarthen was the real focus of complaint and that ‘the king’s habitual constancy cannot save him… If he does fall, he may go for an honest man; but while he does stand, he passes for a very artificial and ingenious man.’400 The remainder of the month saw the Commons turn to consideration of Preston’s papers and at the end of December debates about the settlement of Scotland found Carmarthen urging the dissolution of their assembly, which he considered to be unlawful.401
The fevered atmosphere in Parliament in the first weeks of the session gave rise to a confused picture in the early months of 1692. Some clearly expected Carmarthen to be in danger of being displaced, though this was soon proved unfounded.402 According to other reports he was on the verge of being restored to the lord treasurership.403 On 12 Jan. 1692 he registered his dissent at the resolution to receive the bill allowing Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, to divorce. His opposition to the measure resulted in a faintly comic episode on 21 Feb., when he was subjected to a verbal assault from the intemperate Edward Clinton, 5th earl of Lincoln, who had been called to the bar of the House for making disparaging remarks about Rochester during the debates over the divorce bill. At the bar, Lincoln turned his attention on Carmarthen, whom Lincoln mocked for being opposed to the divorce of adulteresses, suggesting that were it to be allowed, all of Carmarthen’s daughters would be returned to him.404 Carmarthen served as one of the managers of three conferences concerning the public accounts bill between 5 and 10 February. By the time of the adjournment on 24 Feb. he was once again thoroughly under pressure as a state of impasse was reached between the administration and its critics. The admission of Rochester and Sir Edward Seymour to the Privy Council in March signalled a further erosion of Carmarthen’s control.
Carmarthen’s efforts to maintain his hold on office seems to have persuaded him to attempt to mediate between the queen and her estranged sister, Princess Anne, during the early summer of 1692. According to one report it was the princess who asked Carmarthen to wait on her at Sion, which he delayed doing before securing permission from the queen. In August he joined several members of the cabinet council at Portsmouth to inspect the fleet.405 Later that month he responded negatively to Rochester’s proposals concerning the management of the forthcoming session, conceiving that it was in part Rochester’s obstruction that had frustrated the navy’s efforts to make the most of the La Hogue campaign.
Carmarthen was granted a fortnight’s leave of absence in mid-September.406 By the following month he had turned his mind once again to the new session of Parliament and on 22 Oct. he wrote to Abingdon noting that, ‘this approaching meeting of the Parliament will be so critical an one that it will concern every man of quality and interest in his country to be present at it.’ He hoped not only that Abingdon would be sure to appear himself but also that he would encourage his friends to do so, emphasizing that ‘the absents will be very particularly remarked by his majesty.’407 The same day, Carmarthen was noted as one of those who turned out to greet the king on his return to London.408
Carmarthen took his seat in the new session on 4 Nov. 1692 after which he was present on just over three quarters of all sitting days. The day before the opening he wrote to Rutland in similar vein to his earlier letter to Abingdon, emphasizing that it would be politic for Rutland to appear as soon as possible.409 In the course of the session he was again entrusted with three proxies: that of Scarbrough on 15 Feb. 1693, of Danby the following day and of Willoughby d’Eresby four days later on 20 February. The timing suggests that they may have been connected with the debates in the House concerning the triennial bill. Prior to that Carmarthen drew attention to himself at the beginning of December 1692 by refusing to concur with the wording of the Commons’ address commending Admiral Russell for behaving with courage, fidelity and conduct. He conceded the first two terms but, comparing the case with that of Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, demurred on the last. Having pointed out that he and Torrington had never been friends, he affirmed nevertheless that while Torrington had ‘saved our fleet in 1690 by anchoring after the battle, so I do affirm that the honourable admiral in question [Russell], by anchoring deprived us of an entire victory.’410 Naval affairs continued to dominate this part of the session with Carmarthen named one of the managers of two conferences on 20 and 21 Dec. considering the papers relating to naval matters brought to the House by Nottingham.
If he was prepared to acknowledge the past successes of a former foe in the person of Torrington, Carmarthen was no less willing to stand against his usual allies and at the close of the year he put himself at variance with his Bertie kinsmen by voting along with Nottingham, Rochester and Portland against committing the place bill.411 He was then absent from the House for the subsequent vote on the measure on 3 Jan. 1693. He resumed his seat four days later and on 17 Jan. he registered two dissents relating to the resolutions rejecting the claims of Charles Knollys (titular 4th earl of Banbury) to be recognized as a peer. Towards the end of the month he was appointed speaker and lord high steward for the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, who was accused of murder.412 With the office came a fee of £1,000 and a £500-a-day allowance, which Carmarthen put to ostentatious use by ordering a huge coach to convey him to court each day and equipping his servants in new liveries.413 Mohun’s less than dignified behaviour during the proceedings put Carmarthen’s patience to the test and at one point he was forced to refuse Mohun’s request to enquire of one of the witnesses whether or not she was a virgin in preparation for casting doubt on her testimony. Carmarthen insisted that he might only ask whether or not she was married.414 Following the conclusion of the trial, the focus of the session returned to the question of the triennial bill. Although it passed the Lords, Carmarthen encouraged his followers in the Commons to help defeat the measure in the lower House.
Carmarthen was appointed a manager of two further conferences prior to the close of the session in mid-March. Following the prorogation, rumours circulated once more of alterations in the ministry and of promotions in the peerage with Carmarthen one of four peers reported to be promoted to dukedoms.415 Although the office of lord keeper went to the Junto Whig Sir John Somers, later Baron Somers, Carmarthen retained his own place and the queen’s particular confidence.416 In July it was said that she had revoked an order allowing Carmarthen, Devonshire and Rochester to take some leave as she could not bear to be without their advice.417 News of the king’s defeat at the battle of Landen later that month spurred Carmarthen to return to London from Bath to assist at the council. Early in August he retreated to Bath once more from which he returned ‘much mended’ a few days later.418
Carmarthen’s apparent indispensability to the queen did not prevent talk of Sunderland’s growing prominence or of the prospect of Shrewsbury and John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later marquess of Normanby and duke of Buckingham), succeeding Carmarthen and Nottingham.419 Carmarthen nevertheless continued to exert his influence to the utmost and on the death of John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, he recommended that Abingdon should succeed him as chief justice in eyre Trent south. While begging the king to excuse his presumption, he also proposed his son, Danby, for the place of captain of the gentlemen pensioners, though in the event the post went to Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans, one of Charles II’s illegitimate sons.420
Nottingham’s dismissal at the beginning of November offered Carmarthen an opportunity to consolidate his position, which was assisted further by Shrewsbury’s refusal to return to office. Carmarthen returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on almost 65 per cent of all sitting days. Excused at a call on 14 Nov, he resumed his seat three days later and at the beginning of December he joined Nottingham in objecting to the use of the word ‘declare’ within the triennial bill; it was agreed by 59 votes to 34, however, to allow the word to stand.421 In spite of his previous efforts to mediate between the queen and Princess Anne, by the beginning of December Carmarthen conceded in a letter to his wife that he had failed to win over the princess. The following month found him engaged with a similarly doomed attempt to mediate between the House and the king over the Lords’ request to be permitted sight of more information relating to the naval disasters.422
Carmarthen was entrusted with Danby’s proxy again on 23 Feb. 1694 and three days later with that of his son-in-law, William Fermor, Baron Leominster. Carmarthen joined Halifax and Mulgrave in opposition to the treasons bill that month and on 6 Mar. he was named one of the managers of the conference for the mutiny bill.423 Towards the end of the month, on 29 Mar, he reported the findings of the committee established to draw up the Lords’ reasons for insisting on their amendments to the measure and the same day he was again nominated a manager of a further conference with the Commons. That month, following much prevarication, Shrewsbury at last gave way to the king’s entreaties and returned to the administration as secretary of state, trouncing any expectation of Carmarthen and Sunderland forging a new alliance. By the close of the session Carmarthen was on the back foot and he was forced to give way to the passage of the tonnage bill even though he disliked the proposals within it for raising a loan of £1,200,000 by subscription.424
Duke of Leeds 1694-9
Shortly after the prorogation it was rumoured once again that Carmarthen was to be promoted to a dukedom.425 The following month the promotion was finally confirmed with Carmarthen taking the title of Leeds rather than Pomfret (or Pontefract).426 Four other peers were advanced to dukedoms at the same time.427 In part, Leeds’ promotion at this time was considered a sop to his declining political influence in the face of a reinvigorated Whig party headed by the Junto. Eager to make the most of his new distinction, early in the summer, Leeds set out on a tour of the north in an effort to consolidate his local interest. He returned to London towards the end of July and at the beginning of August he was a prominent participant in debates in the council concerning the return of the fleet. The following month he attempted to exert his remaining interest with the king on behalf of his son-in-law, James Herbert, whom he wished to see appointed a teller of the exchequer, and in November Leeds’ influence was still reckoned to be sufficiently potent to enable him to secure the return to favour of Sir Ralph Delaval‡, whose career as a naval commander had been brought to an early close by the loss of the Smyrna fleet.428 In the event, though, Delaval remained in the cold.
Leeds took his seat at the opening of the new session on 12 Nov. 1694, when James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, and Meinhard Schomberg, 3rd duke of Schomberg, introduced him in his new dignity. Present on just over 60 per cent of all sitting days, the following month he backed the proposal for an alternative to the treason bill put forward by Normanby (as Mulgrave had since become), which provided for wilful perjury to be made a capital offence. He then subscribed the protest when the measure was rejected.
The death of Queen Mary at the end of the year threatened to diminish Leeds’ role in the administration. In the short term, though, he enjoyed a resurgence of influence: it was left to him to wait on the king and urge him not to give way to grief. Early in 1695, though, Leeds faced yet another threat to his position as consideration of a petition from the inhabitants of Royston by the Commons quickly developed into a broader examination of corruption. Sir John Trevor was one of the early targets of the investigation and Leeds’ opponents sought to bring the same kind of charges to bear against him as well. Leeds meanwhile continued to take a prominent part in the Lords’ examination of the treason bill and towards the end of January he spoke forcefully in favour of the measure being adopted as early as March in opposition to those who favoured postponing it for three years.429 He was then named one of the managers of a conference concerning the measure on 11 April.
By the middle of February 1695 Leeds appears to have been optimistic about the progress of affairs, reporting with confidence the likelihood of sufficient supply being voted. At the close of March he was one of those appointed to try Captain Bridges who stood charged with plundering and sinking a French man-of-war rather than towing it into port as a prize.430 Leeds was entrusted with Willoughby d’Eresby’s proxy on 3 Apr. and a week later he also received that of Carmarthen (as his heir was now styled). On 19 Apr. he invoked privilege on behalf of one of his servants, who had been arrested. The House ordered the man to be released and the offending bailiff to be attached and brought to the bar of the House. A rather more pressing concern emerged the same month when Carmarthen spoke out in opposition to the Commons bill for imposing penalties on Sir Thomas Cooke‡ should he refuse to reveal the whereabouts of £90,000 of missing East India Company money. The assault on Cooke, part of a wider investigation by the Commons into corruption, continued in spite of Leeds’ efforts and by the end of April the lower House’s attention was turned on Leeds himself. In spite of his declaration before the Lords that he was ‘not at all concerned in this matter’, Leeds found himself once again on the verge of being impeached. On 26 Apr. John Verney‡, the future Viscount Fermanagh [I] reported how ‘great art has been used to baffle their enquiry’ but the same day Leeds sought and was granted permission to speak in his defence before the Commons. No doubt eager to avoid a repetition of his experience of the 1680s he used the opportunity to urge them to hasten his trial. The following day the articles of impeachment were brought up to the Lords by Thomas Wharton, later marquess of Wharton, in which Leeds was accused of taking a 5,000 guinea bribe to advance the interests of the East India Company. Commenting on this latest development, Somerset concluded ‘so there will be an end of that statesman.’431 Leeds pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him but it was rumoured that an act of grace was to be introduced into the House to shield him from the threat of conviction.432 Perhaps unsurprisingly, given his previous experience of monarchs and their clemency, Leeds seems to have resolved not to trust to the good will of the king on this occasion. Instead, at the beginning of May he was said to have ‘kept open house at Hell with roast beef and pot ale’ to debauch Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley, Robert Carey, 7th Baron Hunsdon, John Colepeper, 3rd Baron Colepeper ‘and the rest of the Mumpers.’ Leeds was also said to have been working to bring the bishops in on his side in the hopes that he would be able to ‘break his fall upon their backs.’433 In the event, he was saved by the prorogation of 3 May that brought a halt to proceedings, the Commons having failed to move them on by bringing forward a key witness in time.434 Leeds still aimed to respond to his critics with a campaign in the press, approaching his daughter, Lady Leominster, for the use of a room in her London residence where he could set up a press and set his authors to work. Should her husband object, Leeds counselled her to keep the business from him.435
Following the close of the session Leeds continued to attend the council in spite of heavy hints that he should remain away. He also enquired of the king whether reports that Princess Anne was to be given his lodgings at St James’s were accurate and, if they were, whether he would be compensated with alternative accommodation at Whitehall or the Cockpit.436 Apparently oblivious to the offence he was causing, he continued with his preparations for a counter-offensive in print.437 The prorogation failed to silence Leeds’ critics. In June it was suggested that ‘a strong party’ had formed in opposition to the duke, though the cause was ascribed to ’his reconciliation with the earl of Bath’ rather than to the corruption charges against him.438 Not that the latter had been forgotten and in August a proclamation was made offering a reward of £200 for the arrest of Monsieur Robart, one of the principal witnesses against Leeds.439 Leeds joined several other peers in predicting that a new Parliament would shortly be summoned and it may have been in preparation for another lengthy sojourn in London (and in expectation that he was to lose his former lodgings) that he took the house in St James’s formerly occupied by Jeffreys towards the end of August 1695.440
Leeds was ill again in September but he continued to confer with his allies about the anticipated election (though Parliament was not actually dissolved until October), insisting with no apparent trace of irony that, ‘the schemes which I hear are drawn by some of our grandees makes it highly necessary to get some able as well as some honest men into the next Parliament.’ His efforts to persuade Sir William Twisden‡ to stand again were frustrated by Twisden’s terror at the expense involved but he hoped that Sir Edward Seymour might help him to a safe seat. He also recommended Sir Francis Child‡ to Abingdon, who he hoped would help him to a seat at Devizes.441 The ensuing elections proved largely successful for those standing in Leeds’ interest and shortly before the opening of Parliament he was one of a number of prominent Tories to be honoured with degrees by Oxford University.442 More significant was the rumoured ‘conjunction’ of ‘great planets’: the coming together of Leeds and Sunderland, which was said to have taken place at this time.443
With his position apparently shored up once again, Leeds took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 November. He was thereafter present on almost 69 per cent of all sitting days in the 1695-6 session. No doubt aware of his vulnerability to assault from the Commons, during the session he strove to support the administration and it may have been at his instigation that the question of the coinage was taken into consideration early on. During the debates on the state of the nation held in committee of the whole on 3 Dec. he moved for the state of trade to be taken into consideration as well as urging consideration of the coinage, though he was at pains to point out that this was a subject that ought first to be dealt with by the Commons. In a subsequent committee of the whole held the following day he was again insistent on the Commons’ involvement when he spoke in favour of the lower House’s motion for an address to the king to be drawn up.444 On 5 Dec. he was named one of the managers of a conference concerning the state of the coinage and he was subsequently appointed a manager of two further conferences on 7 and 11 Jan. 1696. As two rival proposals emerged for dealing with the problem, Leeds gave his backing to the scheme championed by Somers, but it was that proposed from the Commons by Charles Montagu, the future Baron Halifax, that attracted the greater support. On 30 Dec. 1695 Leeds proposed an amendment to the resulting coinage bill, largely mimicking Somers’ scheme. The following day the committee reported back in favour of his amendment which was in turn passed by the Lords. Leeds’ support for the Junto-led measure may have inspired Charles Bertie’s comment to Rutland that the question of Leeds’ impeachment would ‘sleep this sessions’.445
Leeds was not immune from attack, however. Having witnessed the amended coinage bill pass the Lords on 3 Jan. 1696, he turned his attention to the defence of his heir (Carmarthen) over complaints relating to reverses at sea. In this he was joined by Torrington, the two men arguing that the matter ought rather to be considered by a select committee rather than by the whole House. Several reports noted that the true target of the investigation into Carmarthen’s conduct had been Leeds himself and that ‘it was through the son that the father was struck at.’446 For once, sickness seems to have benefited rather than hindered Leeds as it was rumoured that ill health had left the court denuded of ministers, enabling him to make ground there. At the same time, his progress in attracting supporters in the Commons was suggested by the fact that his son-in-law Herbert’s election petition attracted a sizeable turnout of 370 Members, but once that was dealt with the attendance dwindled back to around 150.447
Leeds was among those summoned to give advice at council to consider the early revelations about the Assassination Plot. On 24 Feb. 1696 he was named a manager of the conference taking into consideration the king’s speech about the plot. The proposal of an Association was designed to force Tories to either reject it and be branded as disloyal, or by accepting it to expose deep divisions among them. Leeds responded in the debate in the Lords on 26 Feb. by arguing that it was needless given that all were united in upholding the status quo. When this failed to convince the House, he attempted instead to devise a formula that would be acceptable to the Tories and that rather than declaring the king ‘rightful and lawful’ they might instead swear that he had ‘a right to the crown of this realm, and that no other person whatsoever has any right to the same.’ Although this attracted the support of Devonshire and Portland (perhaps indicating the king’s sympathy for this form of words), Leeds’ proposal was then amended by Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, who moved the text should be further altered so that ‘the late King James’ and ‘the pretended prince of Wales’ were mentioned explicitly within the formula.448 Rivers’ intervention left Leeds’ own following divided and although most of his Osborne kinsmen and the Lincolnshire Berties conceded the point, the Wiltshire and Oxfordshire Berties (led by Abingdon) refused to do so.449
Leeds continued to hope that moderation would prevail. At the beginning of March 1696 he advised one absent peer not to trouble himself about a summons to attend the House if his health did not permit ‘unless they shall proceed with more violence than I hope they will do’ and he undertook to have him excused at the next call of the House and to inform him of the mood of the chamber. He then pointed to the Lords’ resolution to proceed against one printer for publishing scandalous material relating to peers unwilling to sign the Association as an indication that all might yet be well.450 Leeds was entrusted with Leominster’s proxy on 30 March. A fortnight later, however, he was absent from the chamber when the Association bill passed the House. He had also failed to attend the debates of the previous day (13 April).
Leeds was omitted from the list of the lords justices at the close of April 1696 and at the beginning of the following month it was rumoured that he intended to retire from office, leaving Shrewsbury to succeed him as lord president.451 On 2 May, a similar report noted that both Leeds and Carmarthen were ‘out of all’.452 As details of the plots against the king began to circulate, Leeds was one of those spoken of as being in some way implicated. On 22 May he complained to the king of information being put about by a Mr Porter suggesting that he had failed to investigate the activities of Hugh Smithson, who was believed to be a Jacobite agent in Yorkshire. Porter also resurrected tales of Leeds’s involvement in suppressing evidence relating to the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. Leeds professed himself unsure whether such slander emanated from Porter himself or whether Charles Gerard, 2nd earl of Macclesfield, had instigated its circulation.453
With his position at court seriously compromised, Leeds retreated to Bath in July. He survived being ‘wetted’ on his way there by ‘two scurvy waters’ and from thence travelled to his estates in Yorkshire.454 A report that the king had sent to him to join him in Flanders was treated with suspicion and seems not to have had any foundation.455 On his return to London towards the end of October 1696 Leeds was ‘much huzza’d in Duke Street’.456 He took his place in the House on 26 Oct, on which day he was entrusted with Kent’s proxy. He also seems to have joined with Devonshire in seeking to have Rutland excused for failing to attend.457 Leeds was named one of the managers of the conference concerning the waiving and resuming of privilege on 30 November. The main focus of his attention in the session, though, was his attempt to forestall the bill of attainder brought against Sir John Fenwick‡. In one letter to his wife noting the progress of the hearings, Fenwick described Leeds and Normanby as ‘your managers’ and in another he urged Lady Fenwick to ‘take care of yourself advise well what you do the d[uke] of L[eeds] can tell you best.’458 Leeds was certainly active in attempting to persuade the House to charge Fenwick with something less than treason. Following the presentation by Admiral Russell of the case against Fenwick in early November, Leeds did his best to stifle the bill while also continuing to do his utmost to distract attention from those absent peers reluctant to resume their places in the House. On 25 Nov. he received Carmarthen’s proxy and on 15 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution to read Goodman’s information. Three days later, he spoke out in the House against the Fenwick attainder and proposed instead that another bill be drawn up for keeping Fenwick a close prisoner for life. He was unsuccessful in his efforts and was left with little alternative but to register his dissent at the resolution to give the bill a second reading.459 During the debate on the attainder held on 23 Dec. Leeds argued forcefully for proceeding against Fenwick for high crimes and misdemeanours rather than for treason, insisting that Fenwick was not ‘considerable in the party’. While he conceded that his ‘obstinacy deserves due punishment’ he stressed that the punishment should not be ‘such as will punish all Englishmen, unless there were more necessity for it’ and that it were ‘better he should go unpunished than all the laws of the land be broke.’ Leeds was among the minority voting against passing the attainder bill on 23 Dec. and he was then one of 53 lords to subscribe the resulting protest.460
Leeds intervened again in January 1697 during the proceedings against Monmouth. Insisting that the Lords were only delivering an opinion and judgment on papers rather than apportioning blame he argued that there was no need for Monmouth to absent himself after he had delivered his defence, although he emphasized that he was of the opinion that the papers were ‘of a horrid nature’ and ‘injurious to the king’ and he was among those who considered that Monmouth should be judged appropriately as a contriver of the papers.461 Leeds was named one of the managers of the bill for prohibiting silks on 5 Mar. 1697 and on 13 Mar. he was once again entrusted with the proxy of Charles Mildmay, 18th Baron Fitzwalter. The same month and into the following one rumours again circulated that he was to be displaced as lord president. On 10 Apr. Leeds was appointed one of the managers of the conference for the bill for prevention of buying and selling of offices.
Leeds retained his position for a further four years though the office increasingly came to be seen as an honorific one with real power held by other members of the ministry. With less business, Leeds had sufficient leisure to indulge himself and in mid-September 1697 he seems to have been planning a post-peace trip to France with Leominster, hoping to ‘get to see Versailles before I die if I can’.462 The visit appears not to have happened and he returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. after which he was present on just under 62 per cent of all sitting days. Towards the close of 1697 his name was one of those mentioned in connection with succeeding Sunderland as lord chamberlain after the latter’s sudden resignation, though when one correspondent commented on the notion he rejected it, saying, ‘No person yet appears likely to take his [Sunderland’s] share of the ministry, I mean no new person such as the duke of Leeds’.463 Even so, at the opening of 1698 it was rumoured that now that Sunderland was out of the way Leeds intended to resume his attendance of council.464
Confined to his chamber for eight or nine days by severe colic at the end of 1697, he had clearly recovered towards the end of the first week of January when he was credited with saving much of the area surrounding Whitehall from being engulfed in the blaze that destroyed the palace. According to one correspondent ‘had it not been for the duke of Leeds, I really believe all Westminster had been burnt.’465 In spite of such heroic efforts, by the following month talk of Leeds resuming active participation at council had faded into the background and it was said that he was ‘more out of affairs then ever and very chagrined.’466 In March 1698 he rallied to join those members of the Lords voicing their opposition to the Commons’ bill of pains and penalties against Charles Duncombe‡. On 3 Mar. he spoke against giving the bill a second reading and on 4 Mar. put his name to the resulting dissent. On 7 and again on 11 Mar. he was named a manager of conferences relating to the Duncombe case and on 15 Mar. he was among the slim majority voting to reject the measure.467 Two days later he spoke in vindication of the lord chancellor (Somers) following the aspersions cast upon him in the printed paper distributed by Robert Bertie‡ in support of Bertie’s brother (James Bertie‡) concerning an appeal from chancery to the Lords.468 In spite of this, both Bertie brothers were later assessed as being members of Leeds’ interest in the Commons.469
Leeds’ attention was distracted during the spring by the visit of Czar Peter, who became a regular visitor to Wimbledon, largely through his connection with Carmarthen and their mutual interest in naval affairs.470 In May he was subjected to an intemperate assault in the Commons by James Sloane‡ following a further reading of Sir Thomas Cooke’s papers. Sloane, it was said, ‘would have fallen upon the duke of Leeds that since the witness was conveyed away there was as much reason for a bill of attainder as in any former case’, but the House chose to ignore him.471 Leeds was entrusted with Abingdon’s proxy again on 11 May and on 16 June he was also given that of Kent. The day before (15 June) he was named a manager of the conference concerning the trial of John Goudet. Towards the end of June 1698, in spite of his previous notoriety in relation to the company, Leeds was approached by Robert Blackburne, who had been asked to lay the East India Company’s case before him for his perusal in anticipation of the attempt to deprive the company of its charter.472 The following month he spoke out, accordingly, against the new East India Company bill but he was prevailed upon not to persist with his opposition and he seems thereafter not to have made any great impression in the ensuing debates about the measure. Increasing marginalization and lessening interest appears to have preyed upon Leeds’ mind at this time and towards the end of July he wrote to the king protesting at his treatment and how people believed he had forfeited his monarch’s good opinion. Continuing in more than usually histrionic vein he offered to leave the country if the king was truly offended with him.473
The general elections of that summer resulted in an improved situation for the Tories and Leeds appears early on to have been eager to exploit the situation in the new Parliament. Having taken his seat on 29 Nov. he was probably behind an investigation opened in the Commons into abuses in the farming of taxes as part of a wider attempt to discredit Charles and Christopher Montagu‡, against whom Leeds had a particular axe to grind over their rival claims to the office of auditor of the exchequer.474 Charles Osborne’s decision to vote against the disbanding bill in mid-January 1699 also appears to have been evidence of Leeds using his interest in the lower House. Leeds’ actions seem to have resulted in the king summoning him and Rochester to an audience in advance of the Lords’ consideration of the bill. The measure passed without incident but on 8 Feb. Leeds joined those voting against the committee recommendation to assist the king in retaining his Dutch guards.475 He then registered his dissent against the resolution to retain the troops. On 1 Mar. he was nominated one of the managers of conference with the Commons for the bill to prevent the distilling of corn.
Leeds was afflicted by poor health again during the spring but by the beginning of April 1699 he had recovered sufficiently to take an interest in affairs once more. On 8 Apr. he wrote to the king at length warning him of ‘some things so prejudicial to your service that without some reformation in them I fear it will be very difficult to keep men either in Parliament or out of it.’ His particular concerns appear to have centred on the admiralty and management of Parliament. Underscoring the importance of uniting ‘the minds of your people and to take from amongst them the distinction of party’ he proposed (again) the formation of a mixed administration for which he offered his services as mediator between the factions.476 The offer was not taken up and he was soon after prostrated once again by illness. On 25 Apr. he wrote to one of his daughters noting how he had been confined to his house for 15 days (presumably alluding to the period 4-17 Apr. during which he was absent from the House) and how having resumed his place he had contracted another cold.477 His statement that he had been present in the House the day before writing the letter (24 Apr.) is not reflected in the attendance record, suggesting that he perhaps arrived late in the day. He certainly appears to have resumed his activities in the House soon after his return as he was nominated a manager of a series of conferences on 20, 21 and 27 Apr. and of a final one before the close of the session on 3 May. Over-exertion seems once more to have compromised his health and within a fortnight of the prorogation on 4 May he was again said to have been seriously unwell having been afflicted with the ‘stop’ for five days.478
Out of office, 1699-1712
Soon after the end of the session in May 1699, Leeds was required to resign his office of lord president. He was succeeded by Pembroke, whose office of lord privy seal went to Lonsdale. Although it was reported by some that the alteration had been arranged with Leeds’ knowledge, others thought otherwise.479 According to one commentator, Leeds had not been ‘aimed at’ by those eager to see a change in the administration and had, if anything, been ‘becoming a favourite of the House.’480 Leeds was clearly disturbed by his loss of place and unsure about which offices he was to lose. He wrote to Lonsdale to ascertain whether he was also to be stripped of his governorship of Hull and his Yorkshire lieutenancy and sought satisfaction of his arrears of pay for the first of these, ‘which are due for a great while’. Eager to rescue something from the situation, he also asked that his brother, Charles, might be retained as lieutenant-governor of Hull ‘unless his majesty’s displeasure reach to every branch of my family.’481 While increasing political marginalization was one factor in explaining his removal, it seems that Leeds’ ill health was also significant. During the summer it was rumoured that he was either dead or dying as a result of which he was removed from the last of his offices.482 By the beginning of August, though, he was said to have ‘entirely recovered’, a development that threatened to upset the court’s tidy explanation that he had been removed because of his poor health.483 Subsequent efforts to explain that he had requested to be released from his duties during his indisposition failed to convince and by the early autumn he was complaining that he had still not received formal notice of his displacement.484
Leeds failed to recover his posts and a new episode of illness appears to have prevented him resuming his seat in the House until a month into the new session. He finally took his seat on 19 Dec. 1699 and was thereafter present on 58 per cent of all sitting days for the 1699-1700 session. On 1 Feb. 1700 he voted in favour of continuing the East India Company as a corporation and on 8 Feb. he registered his dissent at the resolution to put the question whether the Scots’ colony at Darien was a threat to England’s plantation trade. On 23 Feb. he supported adjourning into a committee of the whole for closer consideration of the East India Company bill. In April he appears to have adopted an inconsistent attitude to the Irish grants resumption bill (of which he was named a manager in three conferences held between 9 and 10 April). Although he spoke in favour of the measure, he voted against its passage, although he was not among those subscribing the accompanying protest.
By the close of the session reports circulated that Leeds was to be recalled to office as part of a wider move in favour of the Tories.485 Such rumours were repeated towards the end of the year with Leeds said (again) to be on the point of being reappointed to the lord presidency.486 Leeds took his seat three weeks into the new Parliament on 28 Feb. 1701, and was present on 31 per cent of all sitting days for the brief February 1701 Parliament. Midway through March he explained his continued attendance as being only ‘in compliance with the desire of some lords who have pressed me to take some share with them in endeavouring to have discovered the projectors of that pernicious partition treaty’ and he complained that he was thoroughly exhausted by the effort.487 Reluctant or not he was active in the House both speaking in debates and setting his hand to a series of protests. On 8 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to address the king to ask for the suspension of Captain John Norris‡ suspension to be lifted and on 14 Mar. he spoke out against the Partition Treaty. He then subscribed two protests against the measure on 15 Mar. and on 20 Mar. protested again at the resolution not to send the address relating to the treaty to the Commons for their concurrence. Although out of office, Leeds retained considerable interest. In May he was said to have been responsible for barring the selection of John Methuen‡ as lord keeper in succession to Somers and to have recommended the appointment of Sir Nathan Wright instead. Leeds’ former impeachment proceedings were cited in the Commons during debates concerning the forthcoming trials of the Whig lords.488 Their acquittal the following month proved accidentally beneficial to Leeds as it resulted in all impeachments pending (including his own) being discharged.489
Following the close of the session Leeds prepared for his usual journey to his Yorkshire estates. He was delayed by weight of personal business and, shortly before setting out, drew to the attention of his daughter-in-law, Lady Carmarthen, a threat to her property posed by the resolution of some of her husband’s creditors to recover their losses. Advising her to use caution about who was admitted to her home and to deposit her valuables with her brother-in-law, Coke, Leeds left Lady Carmarthen to her fate and set out for the north.490 He had returned by the late summer and in September 1701 he was summoned to a private audience with the king, which was said to have lasted for an hour. Later that year he presented the address from the town of Leeds (to the surprise of Charles Boyle, 2nd earl of Burlington, who had expected to do so himself).491 Early the following year, ‘the novelists of the town’ put it about (again) that Leeds was to be restored to office, but nothing came of it and in spite of such signs of growing interest Leeds’ attendance of the ensuing session was cursory.492 Having taken his seat in the new short-lived 1701-2 Parliament on 30 Dec. he was present on just seven occasions (seven per cent of the whole) prior to the dissolution.
The accession of Queen Anne made little immediate impact on Leeds’ prospects of returning to office. He was restored to the Privy Council but otherwise not granted a post in the administration.493 In March he joined two other members of the council in taking their places at the board, but rumours of his imminent appointment as lord chamberlain that circulated towards the end of June proved to be illusory.494 Before the new Parliament met, Leeds wrote to Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, recommending the son of the mayor of St Albans to him as his chaplain, ‘in case you be elected Speaker… (as I hope you will be).’495 Two days after taking his seat on 21 Oct. 1702 (after which he attended a little over a third of all sitting days) he wrote to one of his daughters noting in approving tones Sir Edward Seymour’s ‘very good and bold speech for the Church of England’ and taking great relish in remarking the dejected condition of the Whigs.496 No doubt one reason for his renewed optimism was the prospect of a reinvigorated Tory party working to his advantage in his efforts to secure the reversion of the office of auditor of the exchequer for his son, Carmarthen, over the claims of Charles Montagu, (now become Baron Halifax). Their rivalry resulted in words being exchanged during the course of the occasional conformity bill debates, following which Carmarthen demanded satisfaction from Halifax on his father’s behalf.497 The dispute persisted into the following year but without a satisfactory resolution for either party.
Given his support for the Church it is unsurprising that Leeds was estimated by Nottingham as likely to vote in favour of the occasional conformity bill at the beginning of 1703 and on 16 Feb. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. On 7 Jan. he presented the House with Robert Squire’s‡ petition in answer to one submitted by Wharton for a writ of error over a dispute relating to lead mines in Swaledale.498 He then subscribed the protest of 22 Jan. against the resolution to dismiss Squire’s petition. Besides such matters, the year also saw Leeds increasingly preoccupied by family difficulties. In May he expressed himself pleased to learn that Rutland seemed confident of his good intentions as he was concerned that there had been a cooling off between them.499 More important were the growing tensions between Leeds and his heir. He wrote in fierce terms to Carmarthen, who had plunged the family into crisis by his decision to live openly with his mistress, Mary Morton, expostulating ‘I fear the devil has taken such strong possession of you that there is scarce any room left for hopes of that reformation.’ Carmarthen’s indebtedness was an additional worry and Leeds complained that he had been compelled to alter his settlement for a third time as a result of Carmarthen’s behaviour. He continued to chide his wayward heir, ‘all these matters are inconsiderable in comparison with the concern of your soul which must perish eternally for your being guilty of so much perfidiousness and falseness to God as well as to your wife and parents.’500 Leeds continued his efforts to bring Carmarthen back into line over the summer, though he confided to one correspondent that he despaired ‘of his reformation unless some course can be taken against the woman’, whom Carmarthen had taken to describing as his marchioness even though his wife was still living.501 Such dramas appear to have taken their toll and in August he fell sick once again. Early in the autumn his duchess was also said to be on the point of death, though she lingered until into the following year.502
In advance of the new session, Leeds was forecast by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in two assessments drawn up in November as being likely once again to support the occasional conformity bill. Leeds then proved Sunderland right by taking his seat on 14 Dec. and voting in favour of the bill: the only day on which he attended during the entirety of the session. He also registered two dissents, first at the resolution not to give the bill a second reading and second at the resolution to throw the measure out. The death of his duchess at the beginning of January 1704 no doubt deterred Leeds from any further involvement in Parliament for the remainder of the session. In mid February he was said to have begun the composition of his memoirs, inspired by the recent publication of those by Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, the former lord chancellor. At the same time he removed to the house of his son-in-law, Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke, in Holborn and it was not until the beginning of March that he resumed public appearances.503 Further family disappointments arose in the course of the year. In the summer his daughter, Lady Plymouth, married her chaplain Philip Bisse, later bishop of St Davids and Hereford, ‘to the no small grief of her ancient father.’504 He was on a list of lords (and Members of the Commons) drawn up by Nottingham in 1704, which perhaps indicates support over the ‘Scotch Plot’.
Leeds again attended just one day of the new session (24 Oct. 1704) but in his absence he was noted among those thought likely to support the Tack. On 23 Nov. he was excused at a call of the House. On 30 Jan. 1705, in spite of their fraught relations, he registered his proxy with Carmarthen, which was vacated by the close.505 An assessment of peers’ expected allegiance relating to the succession recorded Leeds as ‘uncertain’, though it seems unlikely that he would have been sympathetic to a Stuart restoration without a clear undertaking from the Pretender that he would uphold the Church of England. At the end of June Leeds retreated to his Yorkshire estates, where he stayed till the beginning of the autumn.506 The general election that summer saw his interest continuing to hold firm even in those areas far removed from his immediate field of operations at Kiveton. He was said to have been ‘a friend’ to Browne Willis‡ at Buckingham, who was returned following the decision of Sir Richard Temple‡ to sit for the county.507 In neighbouring Bedfordshire, a list of clergy voters in the county compiled for the Whig candidate Lord Edward Russell‡ included one of Leeds’ chaplains, Mr ‘Hotckis’ [Hodges?], incumbent of Caddington, among those ‘votes which appear desperate’.508 The assessment proved prescient and at the poll, Lord Edward was driven into third place in the face of a strong Tory advance backed by the local clergy.
Leeds took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705 but attended just nine days in the session (just over nine per cent of the whole), combining his occasional appearances in the House with attendance at the court of the mine adventurers company.509 He was marked excused at a call of the House on 12 Nov. and failed to resume his place until 4 December. Two days later during the church in danger debates, he insisted that not only did he consider the church in danger and that it would remain so without the act against occasional conformity, but ‘that the queen had in discourse with him, declared herself of that opinion.’510 He then divided predictably enough with those convinced the church was in danger and was one of the peers to subscribe the protest at the failure to carry the resolution.511
At the beginning of 1706 Leeds resolved to abandon work on his memoir and in its place he set about composition of a reply to White Kennett†, the future bishop of Peterborough’s Compleat History of England, which was in turn later put aside in favour of publication of his correspondence as a means of justifying his actions in office. Leeds’ response to Kennett’s work included a series of refutations of some of Kennett’s assertions, including ‘his false and impossible story about my vote’ concerning Duncombe.512 In March he sought to improve his financial situation by converting his stock of £4,000 in the mine adventurers company into an annuity of £240. Leeds quit London for his estate at Kiveton towards the end of May 1706. He remained there until early October when he returned to London to see about making further alterations to his will. Leeds spent the majority of the remainder of the year at Wimbledon and attended the House on just one day at the close of the year when he was also one of those present at a service of thanksgiving at St Paul’s.513 The early part of 1707 was dominated by Leeds’ continuing effort to settle his will and with other family issues, including an effort to secure permission for his grandson, Lieutenant James Herbert‡, to serve on active duty even though he was still underage.514
Leeds failed to attend the third session of April 1707 at all and was consequently uninvolved in the parliamentary debates surrounding the passage of the Union treaty. The summer found him once again on his estates in Yorkshire.515 He finally resumed his place in the House on 23 Oct. 1707 after which he attended on just under 18 per cent of all sitting days. The following summer he was noted as a Tory in a list of peers’ party affiliations. In spite of his failure to play an active role in the debates surrounding Union, Leeds took a close interest in the elections for the Scottish representative members, not least because his son, Carmarthen, possessed a vote by virtue of his Scots viscountcy of Dunblane. Leeds received reports from Daniel Defoe towards the end of June on the condition of Scotland and the same month he put pressure on Carmarthen to cast his vote in favour of John Ker, duke of Roxburgh [S], against Carmarthen’s own inclination.516 The summer of 1708 was marked by further family developments as Leeds successfully brought to a conclusion a match between his granddaughter, Elizabeth Herbert, and Sir John Cotton‡, that had been in train since the spring.517 He then made his by now regular retreat to Yorkshire for the duration of the summer months.518 From there he joined with one Mr Bates in providing a mortgage for Leominster for £5,000 secured on lands in Sheppey, though as Leeds confessed in his journal the arrangement was ‘but a fiction it being in trust for me.’519
Leeds returned to London in time to take his seat in the House on 27 Nov. 1708. His attendance was again sporadic, with him present on just five days in the whole session in spite of being in London for the majority of the period from the beginning of January to the middle of April 1709.520 During this time he appears to have been engaged with business relating to the mine adventurers and on 21 Feb. 1709 he subscribed £6,000 to the Bank of England in the name of William Hammond of Wimbledon (the sum made up of £5,000 of his own money and £1,000 of Cotton’s).521 Three months later, two thirds of this sum was lent to Sir Nathaniel Herne.522 Towards the end of May 1709 rumours circulated that Philip Bisse was either to be advanced to the bishopric of Chichester or to be made a peer, his expected promotion in part owing to a recent reconciliation between Leeds and his daughter.523 In the event neither proved to be correct and it was not until 1712 that Bisse was finally advanced as bishop of Hereford. Leeds spent much of the summer of 1709 in a continual progress between the court and the seats of various kinsmen. By September he appears to have resolved to re-establish himself with a central London base and so took a lease on Lindsey House from his kinsman, James Bertie‡.524 In November he moved his household from its quarters in Wimbledon to the new London residence and that winter various rumours circulated that Leeds was either already or on the point of being married to ‘a gouty lady’, but these were all denied.525
The Sacheverell trial finally roused Leeds from a period of almost a year away from the Lords. On 10 Jan. 1710 he resumed his place in the House and attended on almost 40 per cent of all sitting days. Leeds was said to have wept openly during Sacheverell’s speech before Parliament on 7 and 14 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to adjourn the proceedings. Despite his clear support for Sacheverell, Leeds joined several peers in quitting the chamber prior to the vote being taken on whether or nor the words judged criminal needed to be included within the articles of impeachment, perhaps conscious of the potential distraction his presence could have caused given his own experiences.526 If this was so, his concern did not prevent him from subscribing the accompanying protest. On 16 Mar. he delivered a long speech of his own justifying his role in the Revolution while arguing in favour of Sacheverell’s interpretation of resistance theory.527 Had the rising against James II not succeeded, he averred, it would merely have been a rebellion.528 He then protested twice more against the resolutions that the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment. As expected, Leeds then voted in favour of acquitting Sacheverell, although his conclusion that he would ‘vote the doctor a fool or a madman, but wondered where the high crimes or misdemeanours were’ appeared less than wholeheartedly supportive.529 He then registered his dissent at the guilty verdict.
Attendance at the Sacheverell trial appears to have taken its toll on Leeds’ health.530 He had presumably recovered by the beginning of May when he presented addresses to the queen from the West Riding and from Lichfield; on 20 May he presented Sir George Cooke‡ to the queen with an address from Doncaster and on 29 May he introduced Robert Sacheverell‡, who presented the queen with the address from Nottingham.531 The same month there was talk of a reconciliation being facilitated between Leeds and Rochester by Ormond, no doubt part of the broader resurgence in the Tory party at the time.532 Such developments may have encouraged Sunderland to investigate the presence of a large cache of correspondence from the Pretender at Leeds’ London residence in the hopes of tarnishing Leeds’ reputation. Although it seems unlikely that Leeds was directly in touch with the exiled court, the implication was that members of his household may have been and the information about the presence of the letters appears to have come from Carmarthen.533
Such slights do not appear to have prevented serious consideration of Leeds returning to office in the summer of 1710 as part of the general reshaping of the administration under Robert Harley and Shrewsbury. At the beginning of June, the queen was said to have responded to a request made by James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] for the post of lord privy seal in the new government that it was earmarked for Leeds.534 Later the same month the duchess of Marlborough was said to have protested at the prospect of her son-in-law Sunderland being displaced by someone recommended by Leeds. The idea prompted her to remind the queen of Leeds’ previously odious deportment towards her and she continued to complain at the removal of the Whigs and their replacement by the likes of Leeds and his allies.535 In spite of rumours later in the summer that Leeds was actively seeking appointment as lord privy seal and his own journal noting ‘a conference of consequence with her majesty’ held in June, neither the queen nor Robert Harley appear to have been overly eager to see the duke returned to office.536 Leeds was thus forced to be satisfied with lesser returns. In July he was promised the continuance of his pension from the post office for life. Peter Wentworth noted a discussion with a Mr Scarbrough about reports that Leeds had waited on the queen to advise her to continue the present Parliament. According to Scarbrough ‘that was a damned lie’ and Leeds remained adamant that a new Parliament was absolutely necessary.537 Whichever was truly the case, in September Leeds was present at council when the writs for the new Parliament were ordered.538 Later the same month he was offered a further sop by being restored to the lieutenancy of the East Riding.539
Leeds returned to London early in October when he was assessed by Harley as a likely supporter of the new ministry. As such Leeds was active in seeking information on how the change of administration had been greeted in Hanover from one of his contacts there and he later made a point of writing directly to the elector and dowager electress, stressing his adherence to their interests and his long-standing support for the Hanoverian succession.540 During that month he divided his time between London and attendance on the queen at Hampton Court, whom he petitioned for a recorder to be appointed for the town of Leeds.541 He was also present at a dinner attended by Harley and other dignitaries though he caused some amusement to the person placed next to him, as Leeds was by then notorious for not eating owing to his throat disorder.542 Having resumed his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, Leeds attended on approximately 36 per cent of all sitting days in the 1710-11 session, his presence in the House once again interrupted by bouts of ill health.543 On 11 Jan. 1711 during the proceedings over the petition from Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, the earl of Galway [I], and some of the other army commanders concerning the conduct of the war in Spain, Leeds protested that the petition was irregular and that no notice should be taken of it.544 The following day, he intervened again during the debate over the employment of the term ‘ministers’ or ‘cabinet council’ to insist that as the queen had given members of the cabinet leave to communicate what they knew of the matter, ‘no offence could be taken if any person cleared himself.’545 Leeds attempted to take advantage of his improved position to recommend Henry Bertie‡ for one of the expected vacancies in the customs commission or on the council of trade in early March 1711.546 As a further indication of his continuing close relations with the Berties, Leeds was entrusted with the proxy of Henry Bertie’s brother, Montagu Venables Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon, a few days later on 12 March. The month saw a contraction in Leeds’ old circle of acquaintance with the deaths in quick succession of Charles Bertie and his steward at Lindsey House. Leeds also appears to have continued to attempt to protect the interests of his family from the more reckless behaviour of his heir by taking out ‘an exemplification of the sentence pronounced in the spiritual court’ confirming Carmarthen’s marriage to his marchioness.547
By April 1711 Leeds appears to have grown frustrated with Harley’s regime.548 A desire to keep Leeds in line may have given rise to rumours both that he was to be restored to his old post of lord president and that the queen had resolved to hold meetings of the council at Hampton Court to make things easier for the almost octogenarian duke, though age did not prevent him from being one of the peers to bear the pall at Rochester’s funeral in May.549 In the event, the appointment failed to be made but Leeds continued to profess his support for Harley’s administration and in June, having failed to be present when Oxford (as Harley had since become) was sworn in as lord treasurer at the exchequer, he assured him that as he intended ‘to pay you my real services I hope you will excuse me if I fail sometimes in ceremonious ones.’550
The summer of 1711 found Leeds as eager as ever to secure preferment for his friends and followers, but he was unable to secure a garter for Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort, his prospective grandson-in-law.551 He was no less interested in acquiring places for himself and in mid-July he waited on the queen in the hopes of persuading her to appoint him to the lieutenancy of all Yorkshire as well as to the wardenship of Sherwood Forest.552 His interest in re-establishing himself in his native county persisted into the late summer when he wrote to Oxford to warn him of Wharton’s efforts to buy up burgages in the county. The threat to the Tories in Yorkshire offered Leeds a further bargaining tool for persuading Oxford and the queen to restore him to his former lieutenancies, which, he explained, ‘King William took unjustly from me’.553
The remaining weeks of September saw Leeds continuing to attempt to exact what he desired from the administration. On discovering the queen’s desire that garrisons should be entrusted to those with foreign service experience he resigned his claims to being restored to the governorship of Hull, only to press instead for appointment to the lieutenancies of the West Riding and to Nottinghamshire seeing that his seat was ‘not a mile distant from that county.’554 In October he was finally offered the chief justiceship in eyre for Trent north, which appears to have satisfied him for the time being.555 His appointment was achieved in the teeth of bitter opposition from the duchess of Newcastle, who had pleaded with Oxford to take the place himself to protect her from ‘such a man’ as Leeds, ‘who has a particular malice to me.’556
Having exhausted himself with his constant calls for preferment, Leeds once more gave way to ill health leaving him unable to take his seat in the new session.557 At the beginning of December he was noted among those peers who should be canvassed in advance of the No Peace without Spain motion but on 7 Dec. he entrusted his proxy to Beaufort, which was not vacated until Leeds’ return to the House the following June. In his absence, he was reckoned a likely supporter of permitting Hamilton to take his seat as duke of Brandon. His absence from the House did not prevent him from continuing to plague Oxford with a series of requests for places for his kin (particularly Beaufort) and in the middle of January 1712 he also sought the queen’s assistance in his efforts to recover some of the possessions of Charles Mallett, a bastard son of Viscount Latimer, who had recently been murdered out in the Levant.558 The beginning of the year found Leeds once more concerned with family settlements, with a view to excluding his heir, Carmarthen, from a controlling interest following his death.559
Leeds’ 80th birthday merited a glowing tribute in the Tory newspaper, the Post Boy, which noted that, ‘as there are few of quality that have arrived to those years, so there are none who have been more serviceable to the Church and state.’ The paean continued with espousing the wish that Leeds might live to see ‘the utter extirpation of whiggism and its defenders.’560 Although absent from the attendance list that day, on 28 May 1712, Leeds was noted among those who supported the ministry by voting against the motion to overturn the duke of Ormond’s ‘restraining orders.’ Leeds’ first recorded sitting in the session occurred just over a week later on 6 June, almost a year to the day since his previous appearance, and he thereafter proceeded to attend on a further seven days before quitting the chamber for the last time (just over 6 per cent of the whole). On 12 June he had a conference with the queen at Kensington about ‘some removes of officers in her guards’ and following the close, he continued to play an active role at court, presenting a number of addresses to the queen and petitioning for further rewards for his family.561 On 2 July he introduced an address from the corporation of Leeds to the queen, which was followed by a lengthy and bibulous session at a local tavern.562 Shortly after, Leeds set out for his estates in Yorkshire.563 He was taken ill en route while staying with his son-in-law, Leominster, at Easton Neston in Northamptonshire, where he died on 26 July, ‘to the great grief of all good men’ having been seized with violent wretching and vomiting.564 He was succeeded in the title by his Carmarthen, as 2nd duke of Leeds.
Leeds was buried, at his direction, in the family crypt at Harthill in Yorkshire. In his will he made provision for portions for two of his granddaughters amounting to £11,500 as well as a series of bequests amounting to over £500 to kinsmen and retainers. He expressly enjoined his executors (Danby and Bishop Bisse) to ‘avoid all insignificant pomp and ceremony and particularly not to permit my body to be (as it is commonly called) laid in state.’
Leeds appears to have been more admired than liked. Both Charles II and William III found his services at times of immense value but both were more than ready to be rid of him when the time came. Queen Mary seems to have felt the same recording how he was one ‘to whom I must ever own great obligations, yet of a temper I can never like.’565 His constant manoeuvring and cajoling clearly irritated some and bemused others but the essential direction of his policies was simple enough: financial stability and the establishment of a happy medium between the factions and parties. Given the former it is ironic that his financial schemes tended to be byzantine in complexity and to have offered ample scope for more or less dubious practices; for all the good intentions of the latter, it was still as the framer of a court party that he most clearly recognized, not as a figure of honest mediation. His efforts to build an Anglican loyalist party under Charles II always appeared compromised by the king’s refusal to commit clearly to such a scheme. At the heart of Leeds’ achievements was the construction of his vast network of kinsmen and retainers made possible by his keen eye for a good marriage. In spite of this and in spite of his longevity what is most striking is the degree to which his real impact was telescoped within two relatively brief phases of his lengthy career: from 1674 to 1679 and from 1688 to 1694, and that in neither period did he manage to achieve his objectives. Imprisonment robbed him of greater significance in the latter years of Charles II and the rise of the Junto prevented him retaining his position at the court of William III. By the succession of Anne he was a creature from a different age, impossible to ignore but no longer a serious contender for real power in spite of rumours of office that continued to circulate up to his death.
R.D.E.E.- 1 Add. 28051, f. 21.
- 2 Evelyn, Diary, iii. 21-2.
- 3 TNA, PROB 11/537.
- 4 HEHL, EL 8456.
- 5 CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 61; CSP Dom. 1695, pp. 111-12.
- 6 TNA, SP 29/42/62.
- 7 Add. 75363, Weymouth to Halifax, 10 Jan. 1685; London Gazette, 26-29 July 1712.
- 8 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 48.
- 9 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 254.
- 10 Chatsworth, Cork mss, misc. box 2, Burlington diary.
- 11 Post Boy, 26-29 Nov. 1698.
- 12 TNA, PRO 30/32/55.
- 13 TNA, LC5/201, ff. 76-7.
- 14 UNL, Pw1, 352.
- 15 Add. 22267, ff. 164-71.
- 16 Verney ms mic. M636/40, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 1 Sept. 1685; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 114.
- 17 This biography draws on A. Browning, Thomas Osborne earl of Danby and duke of Leeds, 1632-1712.
- 18 Bodl. Tanner 26, f. 81.
- 19 Add. 75359, Mansfield to Sir G. Savile, 16 Sept. 1664; Hatton Corresp. ii. 149; Add. 28042, f. 93.
- 20 Add. 28040, f. 3.
- 21 Add. 75359, Ogle to Sir George Savile, 20 Sept. 1667.
- 22 Verney ms mic. M636/26, Sir R. to E. Verney, 19 May 1673.
- 23 NLS, ms 7006, f. 28.
- 24 Verney ms mic. M636/26, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 17, 28 July, 25 Aug. 1673.
- 25 NLS, ms 7006, ff. 30-2.
- 26 Carte 77, f. 638.
- 27 Browning, Danby, ii. 63.
- 28 Horwitz, Rev. Pols. 10.
- 29 Eg. 3328, f. 96.
- 30 HP Commons 1660-90, i. 470-1, 474, 489-90.
- 31 PRO 31/3/130, ff. 16-17.
- 32 PRO 31/3/130, ff. 38-40; Add. 28040, f. 9.
- 33 Essex Pprs. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), i. 168.
- 34 Add. 70119, T to Sir E. Harley, 24 Mar., 11 Apr. 1674.
- 35 PRO 31/3/131, ff. 17-20.
- 36 Eg. 3340, f. 13.
- 37 Verney ms mic. M636/27, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 21 May 1674.
- 38 Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. to E. Verney, 28 May 1674.
- 39 Verney ms mic. M636/27, J. to E. Verney, 9 June 1674.
- 40 Bodl. ms Film 293, Folger Lib. Newdigate mss, LC. 57, 7 July 1674; Carte 243, f. 134.
- 41 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 1, folder 2, Orrery to Danby, 25 July 1674.
- 42 Eg. 3338, ff. 52-3.
- 43 Bodl. ms Film 293, Folger Lib. Newdigate mss, LC. 79, 81.
- 44 Carte 72, f. 229.
- 45 Eg. 3328, f. 125; Bodl. ms Film 293, Folger Lib. Newdigate mss, LC. 107; NAS, GD 406/1/5914.
- 46 PRO 31/3/131, ff. 109-112; Carte 38, f. 177.
- 47 Eg. 3338, ff. 50-1; Verney ms mic. M636/27, E. to J. Verney, 23 Nov. 1674.
- 48 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E.Verney, 7 Dec. 1674.
- 49 Verney ms mic. M636/28, E.to Sir R Verney, 10 Dec. 1674.
- 50 Eg. 3384, f. 12.
- 51 Verney ms mic. M636/28, E. to Sir R. Verney, 18 Jan. 1675.
- 52 Carte 72, f. 253.
- 53 Browning, Danby, ii. 55.
- 54 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 11-12.
- 55 Carte 38, f. 241; CSP Ven. 1673-5, p. 353.
- 56 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R to E. Verney, 8, 22 Feb.1675.
- 57 Verney ms mic. M636/28, E. to Sir R. Verney, 11, 25 Feb. 1675.
- 58 NLS, ms 7007, f. 25.
- 59 Eg. 3327, ff. 95-6.
- 60 Carte 38, f. 282; Reliquiae Baxterianae, iii. 156.
- 61 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 19-24; Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E.Verney, 22 Mar. 1675.
- 62 HMC Portland, ii. 150.
- 63 Browning, Danby, i. 153.
- 64 Reliquiae Baxterianae, iii. 167.
- 65 Verney ms mic. M636/28, J. to E. Verney, 15 Apr. 1675.
- 66 Ibid. J. to Sir R. Verney, 28 Apr. 1675.
- 67 WSHC, 1300/254-256; HMC 15th Rep. VII, 176; Tanner 285, f. 153; Verney ms mic. M636/28, J. to Sir R.Verney, 6 May 1675.
- 68 Eg. 3327, f. 106.
- 69 Browning, Danby, ii. 59.
- 70 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 33-6; Haley, Shaftesbury, 382-3.
- 71 Essex Pprs. ii. 32.
- 72 Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 11 Aug. 1675.
- 73 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 37-40.
- 74 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 376-7.
- 75 Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 9 Sept. 1675.
- 76 Browning, Danby, i. 170-3.
- 77 Tanner 134, f. 206.
- 78 NLS, MS. 7007, f. 160.
- 79 Timberland, i. 183.
- 80 Bodl. ms Eng. hist. e. 710, ff. 14-15, Carte 72, ff. 292-3; HEHL, EL 8418.
- 81 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 29 Nov. 1675.
- 82 Browning, Danby, iii. 86-7.
- 83 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R. to. Verney, 30 Dec. 1675.
- 84 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 49-51.
- 85 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R. to E. Verney, 10 Jan. 1676.
- 86 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R. to E. Verney, 24 Jan. 1676; Carpenter, Protestant Bishop, 22, 30-32; CSP Dom. 1693, pp. 448-50.
- 87 Eg. 3338, ff. 62-3.
- 88 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 54-7.
- 89 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 23 Mar. 1676.
- 90 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 61-74; Verney ms mic. M636/29, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 6 Apr. 1676.
- 91 Verney ms mic. M636/29, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 12 Apr. 1676;Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 13 Apr. 1676.
- 92 PRO 31/3/132, ff. 98-100, 103-6.
- 93 Eg. 3329, f. 119.
- 94 Browning, Danby, i. 193.
- 95 Verney ms mic. M636/29, E. to Sir R.Verney, 12 June 1676.
- 96 State Trials, vii. 157-8; HEHL, EL 8419; Add. 70120, [Andrew Marvell] to Sir E. Harley, 1 July 1676.
- 97 Eg. 3330, ff. 105-6; PA, LGC/5/1, f. 69.
- 98 Eg. 3330, f. 3.
- 99 Add. 18730, f. 16.
- 100 Browning, Danby, ii. 38-9.
- 101 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 24 Oct. 1676.
- 102 Eg. 3329, f. 53.
- 103 Northants. RO, Montagu letterbook iv. 77.
- 104 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 379.
- 105 Haley, Shaftesbury, 417-18; Carte 79, ff. 37-38; Browning, Danby, i. 215.
- 106 HMC Rutland, ii. 38-39; Belvoir Castle, Rutland mss Add. 7, letter 57.
- 107 Browning, Danby, i. 219.
- 108 Horwitz, Rev. Pols, 12.
- 109 HMC Rutland, ii. 40.
- 110 Verney ms mic. M636/30, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 23 Mar. 1677; J. to Sir R. Verney, 26 Mar. 1677.
- 111 Browning, Danby, i. 220-1.
- 112 Add. 29571, f. 388.
- 113 Add. 75375, ff. 42-3; Add. 75376, ff. 16-17.
- 114 Verney ms mic. M636/30, J. to Sir R. Verney, 21 June 1677.
- 115 Add. 39757, f. 50.
- 116 Browning, Danby, i. 237-9.
- 117 Verney ms mic. M636/30, Sir R. to E. Verney, 9, 16 July 1677.
- 118 Ibid. J. to E. Verney, 26 July 1677.
- 119 HMC Portland, iii. 355-6.
- 120 Add. 39757, f. 53.
- 121 Verney ms mic. M636/30, W. Fall to Sir R.Verney, 26 Aug. 1677.
- 122 Browning, Danby, ii. 381-442.
- 123 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 387.
- 124 Bodl. ms Eng. lett. c. 144, ff. 192-3.
- 125 Add. 18730, f. 31.
- 126 LPL, MS 942, 31.
- 127 Browning, Danby, ii. 61.
- 128 Carte 68, f. 234.
- 129 Carte 72, ff. 367-8.
- 130 Add. 28051, ff. 39-40.
- 131 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 106.
- 132 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 404, 408; HMC Rutland, ii. 46.
- 133 Eg. 3331, f. 5.
- 134 Reresby Mems. 136-37.
- 135 HEHL, EL 8464; Carte 72, f. 374.
- 136 Carte 72, ff. 369-70.
- 137 Carte 72, f. 365.
- 138 Add. 39757, f. 102.
- 139 Verney ms mic. M636/31, J. to Sir R. Verney, ?10 Apr. 1678.
- 140 Ibid. W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 11 Apr. 1678; HMC Rutland, ii. 49.
- 141 Reresby Mems. 140.
- 142 Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R. to J. Verney, 29 Apr. 1678.
- 143 Add. 28051, f. 41.
- 144 Add. 29556, f. 429.
- 145 Eg. 3352, f. 111.
- 146 Verney ms mic. M636/31, J. to Sir R. Verney, 16 May 1678.
- 147 Northants. RO, G2826; Verney ms mic. M636/31, J. to E. Verney, 30 May 1678; HEHL, HM 30315 (140); HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 442.
- 148 Add. 29572, f. 10.
- 149 Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R. to J. Verney, 29 July 1678.
- 150 Ibid. newsletter, 8 Aug. 1678; Carte 103, f. 228.
- 151 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 3, folder 54.
- 152 PRO 30/11/279, no. 98.
- 153 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 4 Nov. 1678.
- 154 Carte 38, f. 653.
- 155 HEHL, HM 30315 (180).
- 156 Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1678.
- 157 Carte 81, f. 380.
- 158 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 1, folder 9, Bishop Lloyd to Danby, 15 Nov. 1678.
- 159 Carte 72, f. 429.
- 160 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 20 Dec. 1678.
- 161 Browning, Danby, i. 307-8; Add. 38849, f. 241.
- 162 Carte 72, ff. 371-2; Browning, Danby, i. 309.
- 163 Timberland, i. 225-9.
- 164 HEHL, EL 8423.
- 165 Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to E. Verney, 26 Dec. 1678; Add. 18730, f. 49.
- 166 Add. 28049, ff. 34-35.
- 167 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 23 Dec. 1678.
- 168 Carte 72, f. 437.
- 169 Carte 39, f. 1.
- 170 Bodl. ms Eng. hist. c. 37, ff. 99-101.
- 171 Chatsworth, Devonshire Collection1/F; PRO 31/3/142, ff. 25-26.
- 172 Add. 28053, f. 133.
- 173 HMC Portland, ii. 153.
- 174 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 27 Jan. 1679.
- 175 Eg. 3331, f. 96.
- 176 Verney ms mic. M636/32, E. to J. Verney, 13, 20 Feb. 1679.
- 177 NLS, MS 7008, ff. 191-2.
- 178 Add. 28053, f. 140.
- 179 Carte 130, f. 291.
- 180 Add. 28043, ff. 7-8.
- 181 Tanner 39, f. 213.
- 182 Add. 28094, f. 47.
- 183 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 17 Mar. 1679.
- 184 HMC Le Fleming, 158.
- 185 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 20 Mar. 1679.
- 186 Add. 28046, ff. 49ff.
- 187 Add. 28043, ff. 7-8.
- 188 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 24 Mar. 1679.
- 189 Add. 28049, ff. 16-17; Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 27, 28 Mar. 1679.
- 190 Add. 28040, f. 10; SCLA, DR98/1652/182; London Gazette, 24-27 Mar. 1679.
- 191 Add. 28049, ff. 18-19.
- 192 Add. 28047, f. 419.
- 193 Browning, Danby, ii. 77-78.
- 194 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 3 Apr. 1679.
- 195 Carte 72, ff. 482, 492.
- 196 Browning, Danby, ii. 80.
- 197 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 48-49.
- 198 London Gazette, 14-17 Apr. 1679.
- 199 HEHL, EL 8424; Add. 28043, ff. 13-14; Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to E. Verney, 17 Apr. 1679.
- 200 Add. 28053, f. 150.
- 201 Northants. RO, Montagu letters, xviii. p. 66.
- 202 HMC Var. Coll. ii. 394; London Gazette, 24-28 Apr. 1679.
- 203 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 71.
- 204 Carte 81, f. 572; HMC Hastings, ii. 387-8.
- 205 HMC 9th Rep. ii. 456.
- 206 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 93.
- 207 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 409.
- 208 Verney ms mic. M636/32, P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 14 May 1679.
- 209 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 408-9.
- 210 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 517.
- 211 Add. 28054, ff. 200-1.
- 212 Add. 28049, f. 50.
- 213 Verney ms mic. M636/33, J. to Sir R. Verney, 2 June, 3 July 1679.
- 214 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 414-15.
- 215 Add. 28049, ff. 70-71.
- 216 Add. 38849, f. 165.
- 217 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 416.
- 218 HMC Lindsey Supp. 34.
- 219 TRHS ser. 4, xii. 114-15.
- 220 Domestick Intelligence, 10 Oct. 1679; Verney ms mic. M636/33, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 23 Oct. 1679, C. Gardiner to same, 24 Nov. 1679.
- 221 Add. 70082, [Anon], to Sir E. Harley, 25 Nov. 1679; Carte 228, f. 163.
- 222 Add. 70081, newsletter, 6 Dec. 1679.
- 223 Add. 28051, ff. 51-2; Add. 28053, ff. 152-3.
- 224 Add. 63650 L, ff. 25-6.
- 225 HMC Portland, iii. 365.
- 226 Add. 28053, ff. 156-7; Add. 28049, f. 104.
- 227 Add. 28053, f. 179.
- 228 HMC Hastings, ii. 172.
- 229 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 419.
- 230 Add. 28053, f. 186.
- 231 Add. 28053, f. 197.
- 232 Eg. 3331, f. 130.
- 233 Add. 28053, f. 203.
- 234 Add. 28053, f. 205.
- 235 Eg. 3353, ff. 23-4.
- 236 Add. 28053, f. 232.
- 237 Add. 28053, ff. 234, 236.
- 238 Add. 28049, f. 132.
- 239 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, Danby’s forecast for his bail, 17 Mar. 1681.
- 240 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, private instructions, 17 Mar. 1681; Browning, Danby, ii. 93-4.
- 241 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, instructions, 1680/1.
- 242 Add. 28043, ff. 30-4.
- 243 HEHL, EL 8431.
- 244 Add. 38849, f. 168.
- 245 Add. 28040, f. 10.
- 246 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 423-5.
- 247 Carte 79, f. 164; Carte 222, ff. 274-5; Sloane 3065, ff. 32-3; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 273.
- 248 HMC Lindsey, 426-7.
- 249 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 1, folder 5, Newcastle to Danby, 24 Mar. 1681.
- 250 Add. 28053, ff. 253-4.
- 251 Add. 28049, ff. 134-5.
- 252 Verney ms mic. M636/35, E.to J. Verney, 26 Mar. 1681; Smith’s Protestant Intelligence, 24-28 Mar. 1681.
- 253 Add. 28040, f. 10.
- 254 Add. 28040, f. 10; Verney ms mic. M636/35, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 2 May 1681.
- 255 Add. 75355, Clifford to countess of Burlington, 3 May 1681.
- 256 Add. 28042, f. 86.
- 257 Carte 222, ff. 302-3; Verney ms mic. M636/35, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 16 May 1681.
- 258 Add. 28040, f. 10; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 9, Yard to Poley, 17 May 1681.
- 259 Add. 28042, f. 86; HMC 14th Rep. IX, 434; Carte 222, f. 305.
- 260 Add. 28040, f. 10.
- 261 HMC Rutland, ii. 57.
- 262 Add. 28053, ff. 271, 274, 281.
- 263 Reresby Mems. 236.
- 264 Eg. 3332, ff. 22-3.
- 265 Eg. 3332, ff. 18-19.
- 266 HMC Rutland, ii. 66.
- 267 Eg. 3332, ff. 28, 36-39, 48, 74-75; Add. 28050, ff. 70-71.
- 268 Eg. 3353, ff. 39-40, 41-42; Eg. 3332, ff. 61-62.
- 269 Eg. 3338, ff. 130, 159-60.
- 270 Eg. 3332, ff. 94-103, 106-23; NLW, Wynnstay family and estate, L398; Carte 232, ff. 109-10.
- 271 Verney ms mic. M636/36, J. to Sir R. Verney, 19 June 1682; Eg. 3333, ff. 21-49; Add. 63776, f. 8; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 199-200; Loyal Protestant and True Domestick Intelligence, 17 June 1682.
- 272 Eg. 3334, ff. 20-21.
- 273 Add. 38849, f. 179; Add. 28051, ff. 120-1.
- 274 Clarendon Corresp. i. 74-75.
- 275 Add. 28051, ff. 126, 127, 133-7; Browning, Danby, ii. 107-8.
- 276 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 233-4.
- 277 Eg. 3334, ff. 66-67.
- 278 Add. 28051, f. 160.
- 279 Eg. 3384, ff. 28-29, 94-95, 96-97, 109-10.
- 280 Add. 75353, Weymouth to Halifax, 20 Jan. 1683; NAS, GD 157/2681/32.
- 281 Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. to Sir R. Verney, 21 May 1683; Sir R. to J. Verney, 24 May 1683.
- 282 Tanner 41, f. 2; Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R.Verney, 7 June 1683; Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 7 June 1683.
- 283 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 32, Yard to Poley, 8 June 1683.
- 284 Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 11 June 1683; Tanner 34, f. 63.
- 285 Add. 28053, ff. 312-13.
- 286 Add. 34079, f. 44.
- 287 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 439.
- 288 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 40, Yard to Poley, 28 Jan. 1684.
- 289 Eg. 3358 H; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 41, Yard to Poley, 4 Feb. 1684.
- 290 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 300-1.
- 291 Add. 28049, ff. 220-1.
- 292 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 41, Yard to Poley, 15 Feb. 1684.
- 293 Add. 29582, f. 143; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 41, Yard to Poley, 22 Feb. 1684.
- 294 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 41, Yard to Poley, 29 Feb. 1684.
- 295 Tanner 34, f. 279.
- 296 Browning, Danby, i. 360.
- 297 Browning, Danby, ii. 123-4.
- 298 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 446.
- 299 Sainty and Bucholz, Royal Household, i. 132; Verney ms mic. M636/39, W. Busby to Sir R. Verney, 24 Mar. 1685; Sir R. Temple to same 1 Apr. 1685; J. Verney to same, 8 Apr. 1685; Add. 28087, f. 37.
- 300 Bodl. ms Eng. hist. c. 46, ff. 37-40.
- 301 Carte 72, ff. 545-6.
- 302 Add. 28050, f. 48.
- 303 Browning, Danby, ii. 132-3.
- 304 HMC Rutland, ii. 105.
- 305 Add. 28053, ff. 345-6.
- 306 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 43, f. 43; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 236.
- 307 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 258.
- 308 Tanner 28, f. 76; Carte 76, f. 28.
- 309 Add. 34510, ff. 131-4.
- 310 Dalrymple, Mems. ii. 80-81.
- 311 Browning, Danby, ii. 119-21.
- 312 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 43, ff. 142-3.
- 313 Browning, Danby, i. 385; Kingdom without a king, 17.
- 314 Burnet, iii. 278.
- 315 Burnet, iii. 279.
- 316 Eg. 3338, ff. 131-2.
- 317 Burnet, iii. 303; Kingdom without a king, 19.
- 318 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 345-6.
- 319 Eg. 3335, f. 74; Carte 130, f. 309.
- 320 Verney ms mic. M636/43, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 28 Nov. 1688; Browning, Danby, ii. 144.
- 321 Browning, Danby, ii. 145-6; Eg. 3336, f. 26.
- 322 Browning, Danby, ii. 149, 150, 152.
- 323 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 456.
- 324 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 452.
- 325 Clarendon Corresp. ii. 236-7, 239.
- 326 Clarendon corresp. ii. 256; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 504.
- 327 Horwitz, Rev. Pols. 79.
- 328 BIHR, liii. 84; Eg. 3346, f. 14.
- 329 Chatsworth, Devonshire House Notebook, section ‘A’, f. 1.
- 330 Horwitz, Rev. Pols. 82.
- 331 Reresby Mems. 547-8.
- 332 Burnet, iv. 6.
- 333 Add. 28042, f. 34.
- 334 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 2.
- 335 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 210, ff. 357-8.
- 336 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 2.
- 337 Wood, Life and Times, iii. 299; Add. 70014, f. 155.
- 338 Browning, Danby, ii. 161-2.
- 339 Reresby Mems. 558.
- 340 Bodl. Ballard 45, f. 58.
- 341 Browning, Danby, ii. 162.
- 342 Add. 28042, f. 34.
- 343 Add. 70270, R. Harley to wife, 25 May 1689.
- 344 Halifax Letters, ii. 218-19; Add. 75367, ff. 31-2.
- 345 Add. 70270, R. Harley to wife, 1 June 1689.
- 346 Browning, Danby, i. 452-3.
- 347 Add. 70270, R. Harley to wife, 4 June 1689; Halifax Letters, ii. 219; Add. 75367, ff. 31-2.
- 348 Tanner 27, f. 36.
- 349 Browning, Danby, i. 454.
- 350 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 158.
- 351 Verney ms mic. M636/43, J. to E. Verney, 14 Aug. 1689.
- 352 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 582; Eg. 3338, ff. 134-5.
- 353 HMC Finch, ii. 246-7.
- 354 Browning, Danby, ii. 220; HMC 14th Rep. IX, 456.
- 355 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 384, 386.
- 356 Chatsworth, Devonshire House Notebook, section B, f. 4.
- 357 Add. 72516, ff. 106-7.
- 358 Bodl. ms Eng. poet. d. 53, ff. 53-5.
- 359 Salop RO, Attingham mss, Carmarthen to Abingdon, 15 Feb. 1690.
- 360 Add. 17677 KK, ff. 407-12; Add. 70270, R. Harley to wife, 7 June 1690.
- 361 Browning, Danby, iii. 173-8.
- 362 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 517.
- 363 Horwitz, Parl. Pols. 54-5.
- 364 Glasgow Univ. Lib., MS Hunter 73, lviii.
- 365 Add. 72516, ff. 108-9; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 442.
- 366 Kent HLC (CKS), U1590/c7/19.
- 367 Dalrymple, Mems. iii. 93.
- 368 Ibid. 92-6,131-3.
- 369 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 64.
- 370 HMC Le Fleming, 281.
- 371 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 46; Browning, Danby, ii. 185-7.
- 372 Dalrymple, Mems. iii. 124-6.
- 373 Dalrymple, Mems. iii. 119-20.
- 374 SOAS, Paget pprs. PP Ms 4, box 4, bdle 26, f. 1.
- 375 Paget pprs. PP Ms 4, box 4, bdle 26, f. 9.
- 376 Browning, Danby, ii. 189-90; Add. 70015, ff. 14, 16; Paget pprs. PP ms 4, box 4, bdle 26, ff. 13-14.
- 377 Carte 130, f. 324.
- 378 HMC Finch, iii. 309; Chatsworth, Holland House notebook, section C, f. 2.
- 379 Ailesbury Mems. 196.
- 380 HMC Finch, iii. 10.
- 381 Browning, Danby, ii. 195-6; CSP Dom. 1690-1, pp. 270-1.
- 382 Add. 70015, ff. 23, 101.
- 383 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 311.
- 384 HMC Le Fleming, 320.
- 385 Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R.Verney, 12 Mar. 1691.
- 386 CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 350.
- 387 Add. 72516, ff. 132-3.
- 388 Tanner 26, f. 59.
- 389 Add. 70015, f. 81.
- 390 Carte 79, f. 369.
- 391 Add. 70015, ff. 96, 99.
- 392 HMC Finch, iii. 138.
- 393 TNA, C233/8, f. 158; Add. 70015, f. 151.
- 394 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 304.
- 395 Verney ms mic. M636/45, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1691.
- 396 Verney ms mic. M636/45, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 24 Nov. 1691.
- 397 Horwitz, Parl. Pols, 71.
- 398 Carte 130, ff. 330-1.
- 399 HMC 7th Rep. 209.
- 400 HMC Downshire, i. 389-90.
- 401 Add. 70119, R. to Sir E. Harley, 29 Dec. 1691.
- 402 Add. 70119, R. to Sir E. Harley, 6 Feb. 1692.
- 403 Ballard 20, f. 171.
- 404 Ballard 22, f. 24.
- 405 Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 28 May, 3 Aug. 1692.
- 406 CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 443.
- 407 Add. 46541, f. 11.
- 408 Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 22 Oct. 1692.
- 409 Belvoir Castle, Rutland mss Letters & Papers, xx, f. 123.
- 410 Ailesbury Mems. 295-6.
- 411 Ranke, History of England, vi. 198-200.
- 412 TNA, C231/8, p. 299; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 3, folder 113, Yard to Poley, 24 Jan. 1693; Carte 79, f. 475.
- 413 Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 1 Feb. 1693.
- 414 Tanner 25, f. 7.
- 415 Tanner 25, f. 21.
- 416 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 59-60.
- 417 Add. 75353, Weymouth to [Halifax], 2 July 1693.
- 418 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 140; Add. 70124, A. Stephens to Sir E. Harley, 4 Aug. 1693; Verney ms mic. M636/47, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 9 Aug. 1693.
- 419 Add. 72482, ff. 134-5.
- 420 Browning, Danby, ii. 216, 224-5.
- 421 HMC Hastings, ii. 232-3.
- 422 Add. 17677 OO, ff. 153-5.
- 423 Add. 17677 OO, ff. 191-3.
- 424 Add. 17677 OO, ff. 243-5.
- 425 Add. 17677 OO, ff. 247-50.
- 426 CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 121.
- 427 TNA, SP 105/60, f. 138.
- 428 Verney ms mic. M636/47, J. to Sir R. Verney, 15 Sept. 1694.
- 429 Add. 17677 PP, ff. 132-5.
- 430 Paget pprs. PP ms 4, box 4, bdle 26, f. 57; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 456.
- 431 Add. 29565, f. 290; Castle Howard, J8/37/11; Add. 47131, ff. 9-13; Add. 75368, Weymouth to Halifax, 27 Apr. 1695.
- 432 HEHL, EL 8988, Bolton to Bridgwater, 30 Apr. 1695.
- 433 HMC Portland, ii. 173.
- 434 Add. 70275, Sir C. Musgrave to R. Harley, 16 May 1695.
- 435 Leics. RO, DG 7 Box 4950, bdle. 22, Leeds to Lady Leominster, 10 May 1695.
- 436 UNL, PwA 1002.
- 437 Leics. RO, DG 7 box 4950, bdle 22.
- 438 UNL, PwA 1434.
- 439 Verney ms mic. M636/48, J. to Sir R. Verney, 17 Aug. 1695.
- 440 Add. 72486, ff. 6-7; CSP Dom. 1695, p. 346.
- 441 Add. 46541, ff. 56-7.
- 442 Ballard 5, ff. 89-90.
- 443 Add. 75368, [Weymouth] to Halifax, 21 Oct. 1695.
- 444 HMC Hastings, iv. 310-14.
- 445 Belvoir Castle, Rutland mss letters xxi, f. 118.
- 446 HMC Hastings, ii. 256.
- 447 Add. 72486, f. 22.
- 448 Add. 17677 QQ, ff. 297-9.
- 449 HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 194, 199, 201, 20-6; Browning, Danby, i. 533-34.
- 450 Bodl. ms Eng. lett. c 589, f. 194.
- 451 HEHL, HM 30659 (69).
- 452 Verney ms mic. M636/49, J. to Sir R. Verney, 2 May 1696.
- 453 UNL, PwA 1004.
- 454 Verney ms mic. M636/49, J. to Sir R. Verney, 18 July 1696.
- 455 Ibid. J. to Sir R. Verney, 21 July 1696.
- 456 HMC Hastings, ii. 284.
- 457 Belvoir, Rutland mss, letters xxi, f. 134.
- 458 Add. 47608, ff. 25-6, 44-5.
- 459 WSHC, 2667/25/7; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, i. 133.
- 460 Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/1/6, ff. 96-8.
- 461 Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, i. 164-6, 168-76.
- 462 Leics. RO, DG 7 box 4950, bdle 22, Leeds to [Lady Leominster], 14 Sept.
- 463 Add. 61653, ff. 27-30.
- 464 Ibid. ff. 30-1.
- 465 Cumbria RO, D/Lons/L1/1/41/14; HMC Lonsdale, 108; Lancs. RO, DDKE/acc.7840 HMC/1058, P. Shakerley to R. Kenyon, 6 Jan. 1698.
- 466 Add. 61653, ff. 44-6.
- 467 CSP Dom. 1698, pp. 129, 145; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 44, ff. 57-8.
- 468 Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss, 46, no. 84.
- 469 HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 199, 207.
- 470 Flying Post, 29-31 Mar. 1698; Post Boy, 31 Mar.-2 Apr. 1698.
- 471 Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss, 47, no. 25.
- 472 Eg. 3347, f. 10.
- 473 Add. 63630, ff. 112-13.
- 474 HP Commons 1690-1715, iv. 880.
- 475 Suff. RO (Ipswich), Gurdon mic. M142(1), vol. ii, p. 31.
- 476 Add. 63630, ff. 122-5.
- 477 Leics. RO, DG7, bdle 22, Leeds to his daughter, 25 Apr. 1699.
- 478 Add. 75369, R. Crawford to Halifax, 18 May 1699.
- 479 Add. 75369, Sir G. Rooke to Halifax, 18 May 1699.
- 480 HMC Johnstone, 110.
- 481 Cumbria RO, D/Lons/L1/1/41.
- 482 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 2, box 2, folder 46, no. 93, Bridgwater to Blathwayt, 1 Aug. 1699; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 545.
- 483 Post Boy, 29 July-1 Aug. 1699.
- 484 Kent HLC (CKS), U1590/c9/8.
- 485 Ballard 10, f. 40.
- 486 Carte 228, ff. 341-2.
- 487 Leics. RO, DG 7, box 4950, bdle 22, Leeds to Lady Leominster, 18 Mar. 1701.
- 488 Cocks Diary, 159.
- 489 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 64.
- 490 Add. 38849, f. 204.
- 491 HMC Var. Coll. viii. 85.
- 492 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 13 Jan. 1702.
- 493 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 12 Mar. 1702.
- 494 Post Boy, 10-12 Mar. 1702; Add. 72498, f. 46.
- 495 Add. 70250, Leeds to R. Harley, 23 Sept. 1702.
- 496 Leics. RO, DG7, box 4950, bdle 22, Leeds to Lady Leominster, 23 Oct. 1702.
- 497 Badminton House, Coventry pprs. FMT/B1/1/1/20; Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 12 Dec. 1702.
- 498 Nicolson, London Diaries, 160.
- 499 Belvoir, Rutland mss, letters xxi, Leeds to Rutland, 23 May 1703.
- 500 Eg. 3385, ff. 88-9.
- 501 Ibid. ff. 90-1.
- 502 Add. 70075, newsletter, 2 Oct. 1703; Add. 28040, f. 64.
- 503 Add. 28040, ff. 65-6.
- 504 Verney ms mic. M636/53, Fermanagh to M. Cave, 17 Aug. 1704.
- 505 Add. 28041, f. 2.
- 506 Ibid. f. 6.
- 507 Tanner 20, f. 57.
- 508 Christ Church, Oxford, Wake mss 3, ff. 311-12.
- 509 Add. 28041, f. 6.
- 510 Timberland, ii. 160.
- 511 WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60.
- 512 Add. 28042, f. 114.
- 513 Add. 28041, ff. 9, 11, 12-13.
- 514 Ibid. f. 13; Add. 61589, f. 73.
- 515 Add. 28041, f. 14.
- 516 Lincs. AO, Yarborough mss 16/7/1; Add. 28055, ff. 406-9.
- 517 Leics. RO, DG7 box 4950, bdle 23, letter A17; Add. 28041, f. 17.
- 518 Add. 28041, f. 17.
- 519 Ibid.
- 520 Add. 28041, f. 18.
- 521 LPL, Ms 1770, f. 74; Add. 28041, ff. 18-19.
- 522 Add. 28041, f. 19.
- 523 Wake mss 17, f. 215.
- 524 Add. 28041, f. 20.
- 525 Ibid. f. 21; Add. 72494, f. 145; Add. 28052, f. 135.
- 526 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 46, ff. 257-8.
- 527 HMC Portland, iv. 534-5.
- 528 Browning, Danby, i. 564.
- 529 Add. 72494, ff. 171-2.
- 530 Eg. 3339, ff. 103-4.
- 531 Add. 28041, f. 23; Post Boy, 30 May-1 June 1710.
- 532 Add. 72495, ff. 4-5.
- 533 Add. 61500, f. 149.
- 534 Add. 61418, ff. 150-4.
- 535 Ibid. ff. 94-7, 124-8.
- 536 Add. 28041, f. 23.
- 537 Wentworth Pprs. 139.
- 538 Add. 28041, f. 25.
- 539 Ibid. f. 24.
- 540 Eg. 3339, ff. 138-9; Add. 28041, f. 27; Browning, Danby, ii. 235.
- 541 Add. 28041, f. 27.
- 542 WSHC, Ailesbury mss, 1300/1077.
- 543 Add. 70026, f. 290.
- 544 Timberland, ii. 312.
- 545 Ibid. 321.
- 546 Add. 70250, Leeds to R. Harley, 7 Mar. 1711.
- 547 Add. 28041, f. 28.
- 548 HMC Portland, iv. 674.
- 549 Worcs. RO, Hampton (Pakington) mss, 705:349/4739/1 (i)/53, 55.
- 550 Add. 70250, Leeds to Oxford, 1 June 1711.
- 551 Ibid. Leeds to Oxford, 2 June 1711; Add. 28041, f. 30.
- 552 Add. 28041, f. 30.
- 553 Add. 70028, ff. 179-80.
- 554 Ibid. ff. 197-8.
- 555 Add. 28041, f. 32; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, f. 324.
- 556 HMC Portland, ii. 233.
- 557 Add. 70250, Leeds to Oxford, 15 Nov. 1711; Add. 72495, f. 102.
- 558 Add. 70250, Leeds to Oxford, 31 Dec. 1711, 10 Jan. 1712; Add. 70029, ff. 8, 16, 18; Add. 22222, ff. 22-3.
- 559 Add. 28041, f. 33; Add. 70273, An Abstract of his Grace the duke of Leeds’ settlement, 19 Jan. 1712.
- 560 Post Boy, 21-23 Feb. 1712.
- 561 Add. 28041, ff. 35, 37.
- 562 Bodl. Rawl. letters 17, f. 4.
- 563 Add. 70250, Leeds to Oxford, 6 July 1712.
- 564 Add. 72495, f. 83.
- 565 Queen Mary Mems. ed. R. Doebner, 29.