suc. fa. 9 Mar. 1649 as 2nd Bar. CAPELL OF HADHAM; cr. 20 Apr. 1661 earl of ESSEX
First sat 27 Apr. 1660; last sat 28 Mar. 1681
bap. 28 Jan. 1632, 1st. s. and h. of Arthur Capell†, Bar. Capell of Hadham, Essex and Elizabeth, da. and h. of Sir Charles Morrison‡, bt. of Cassiobury, Herts. educ. privately (Abraham Woodhead) 1648-52.1 m. 19 May 1653, Elizabeth (1636-1718), 5th da. of Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, and 1st w. Anne, da. of William Cecil, 2nd earl of Salisbury, 6s. (5 d.v.p.), 2da. (1 d.v.p.).2 d. 13 July 1683; will 28 Feb. 1681, pr. 4 Apr. 1684.3
Ld. lt. Herts. 1660-81, Wilts. 1668-72; custos rot. St. Albans ?1660-82.4
Amb. extraordinary to Denmark 1669-70; PC 1672-81; ld. lt. Ireland 1672-77; cttee of the privy council for trade and plantations 1675-81; first ld. treasury Mar.-Nov. 1679; commr. Tangier 1680-d.5
Freeman, Merchant Adventurers’ co., 1670.6
Associated with: Hadham Hall, Essex (to c. 1668); Cassiobury House, Herts (from c. 1668).7
Likenesses: oil on canvas, by Sir P. Lely (double portrait with his wife) c. 1655-60, NPG 5461; oil on canvas, circle of Sir P. Lely, 1672, Watford Museum.
Much of Essex’s early life was coloured by the civil wars, where his father’s active involvement in the royalist cause led to his execution following the siege of Colchester. Indeed, the young Capell may have spent some time in the Tower with his incarcerated father, prior to his execution.8 Between 1648 and 1652 his education was under the supervision of Abraham Woodhead, a former Oxford fellow and a distinguished Latinist, who subsequently converted to Catholicism. Following his marriage in May 1653, Capell went to reside with his father-in-law Northumberland and his second countess, that ‘devil of a woman,’ as William Harbord‡ later called her, at Petworth, Sussex.9 He was clearly perceived as a royalist, for on 8 June 1659, one of the king’s agents complained that Essex was one of many of the king’s friends left in ignorance about his plans.10 At the Restoration, Essex was restored to his Hertfordshire estates, including the family seat at Cassiobury Park, which had been forfeited during the Civil War and granted to Robert Devereux†, 3rd earl of Essex.11 Essex also owned estates in other counties, including land in Essex to the value of £1,128p.a., according to a return of 1662-3, as well as in Suffolk, Norfolk, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.12
From the Restoration to the fall of Clarendon: 1660-7
Capell was one of eight peers who attended at Westminster on 27 Apr. 1660 ‘ready to attend the service of this House having never sat in Parliament since the death of their ancestors’, and who were admitted to take their seats. Given the fate of his father, this was a very significant act of reconciliation.13 At or around this date he was classed as one of the ‘lords whose fathers have been in arms’ by Philip Wharton, 4th baron Wharton, on his analysis of their probable attitude to ‘Presbyterian’ peers. On his first day in the House Capell was named to a committee to draw up heads of a conference with the Commons on how to heal the divisions in the kingdom, which was overtaken by the king’s letter and declaration from Breda. On 4 May the order of 20 July 1642 debarring his father and eight other peers from sitting in the House was annulled. In all, Capell attended on 64 days of the first part of the 1660 session (just over 54 per cent of the total) and was named to four committees.
With the monarchy restored, the death of Capell’s father became an issue during the discussions of the indemnity bill. On 18 June 1660, Capell’s mother had petitioned the Lords concerning her husband’s execution, the matter being referred to the committee for privileges. On 7 July it was reported from the committee that Capell had been ‘put to death, contrary to the articles of war for the surrender of Colchester, without any authority from any legal power,’ and that the judges and signatories should be brought into custody.14 No doubt as a result of these proceedings, on 7 Aug. the committee on the indemnity bill reported that the four judges who had sat on the trial should be exempted from the bill.
When the House resumed on 6 Nov. 1660, Capell attended for the first time on 15 Nov., being present on a further 20 days, a little over 44 per cent of the total. He was named to four committees in December 1660. On 13 Dec. he signed a protest against the passage of the bill to vacate the fines of Sir Edward Powell. Just prior to the coronation, on 20 Apr. 1661, Capell was created earl of Essex, the warrant making explicit that this was ‘for the extraordinary merits, services and sufferings of his father.’15
Essex attended on the opening day of the new Parliament, 8 May 1661, attending 34 days of the session before the adjournment on 30 July, some 52 per cent of the total. He was introduced into the House as earl of Essex by Northumberland and Suffolk on 11 May. He was named to only three committees during this part of the session. On 11 July he voted against the case of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, for the great chamberlaincy. When the House resumed on 20 Nov. 1661, Essex was absent until 7 Dec., being excused attendance on 25 November. He attended on 65 days of the session that lasted until the prorogation on 19 May 1662, some 51 per cent of the total, and was named to six committees. On 6 Feb. 1662, Essex again signed a protest against the passage of the bill restoring Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, to his estate in Flintshire. On 19 May he signed a protest against dropping the two provisos added by the Lords to the bill for mending common highways, which the Commons had objected to as ‘assessing the Commons,’ the protest making reference to the need to assert the privileges of the House.
Essex attended on 16 days of the 1663 session, nearly 19 per cent of the total and was named to two committees. He was a better attender in the 1664 session, when he attended on 33 days of the session, nearly 92 per cent of the total and was named to five committees. He did not attend the session of 1664-65 at all, and was excused attendance on the House on 7 Dec. 1664. Nor did he attend the short session of Parliament held in October 1665. He may well have been abroad at this time. He was certainly in France by 1666, when a newsletter of 7 Apr. noted that Essex had gone post from Paris for England via Calais, upon the incorrect news of the death of the earl of Northumberland.16 On 16 Apr. 1666 Essex was granted a pass to travel to France for two years for health reasons, but he returned to England in September.17
Essex attended the opening two days of the 1666-67 session, on the second of which, 21 Sept. 1666, he and William Russell, 5th earl of Bedford, introduced Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, into the House. He was then absent for the next 10 sittings, being excused attendance on 1 October. From 12 Oct. 1666 he attended on most days. On 15 Oct. Essex and William Craven, earl of Craven, introduced Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington, into the House. On 29 Dec. he was appointed to report from the conference with the Commons on the impeachment of John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt. On 23 Jan. 1667 he entered his dissent from the resolution not to add a clause granting a right of appeal to the king and the Lords to the bill for the fire court. On 24 Jan. he was named by the Lords as one of their commissioners in the bill for examining the public accounts. Altogether, Essex attended on 58 days of the session, nearly 64 per cent of the total, and was named to 18 committees. He also attended the Lords on 29 July 1667, one of the two days of the short session called so that Charles II could inform Parliament of the peace with the Dutch.
Essex attended on 45 days of the first part of the 1667-9 session, some 88 per cent of the total. He intervened in the committee on 30 Oct. 1667 investigating the abuses among colliers, woodmongers and butchers to point out that the corporation of oastmen at Newcastle, under a patent of Elizabeth, ‘would not suffer any ships to pass out of the harbour but by their licence and regulation,’ but the committee never reported to the House. On 15 Nov. he was named to manage a conference about committing Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. This led to his appointment to manage or report further conferences on this matter on 19, 21 and 27 November. On 24 Nov. his father-in-law, Northumberland, registered his proxy with Essex, vacating it on 26 November. On 14 Dec. Essex was named to a committee to draw up the reasons why the Lords dissented to the vote by the Commons asking the king to issue a proclamation for Clarendon to appear by a certain day and for his arrest. On 16 Dec. he chaired the committee on the bill for settling lands on Sir Richard Wiseman‡ and John Plot to enable them to perform a trust, reporting it on the following day. On 16 Dec. he also chaired the committee on the bill for the taxing and assessing the lands of the adventurers within the Great Level of the fens, when a sub-committee was appointed, including Essex, to hear the parties concerned and to present proposals to the committee.18 He was named to a further 19 committees during this part of the session.
Marking time, 1668-72
Essex benefited from the fall of Clarendon, a warrant being issued on 22 Feb. 1668 for Essex to replace him as lord lieutenant of Wiltshire, a place he retained until his appointment as lord lieutenant of Ireland.19 When the session of 1667-9 resumed in February 1668, Essex attended on 47 days, some 71 per cent of the total and was appointed to a further 11 committees. He again chaired the committee on the bill for the taxing and assessing the lands of the adventurers within the Great Level of the fens on 27 Feb. 1668, which Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset reported on 2 March. On 24 Feb. he was added to the committee on Leventhorp’s estate bill, chairing the committee on 27 and 28 Feb., but not reporting it to the House.20 On 2 May he chaired the first session of the committee for privileges on Skinner’s case, when the petition of the East India Company to the Commons was voted a ‘scandalous libel.’21 In the afternoon John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, took over the chair of the committee, and continued to share this role when the committee met on 4, 5 and 7 May.22 On 7 May Essex reported a long list of precedents concerning the case, and he was named to conferences on it on 5 and 8 May.23 On 8 May the committee for privileges minute books reveals that Essex was listed as second to speak at the conference to take place the following day.24 On 4, 5 and 6 May 1668 Essex chaired the committee on the bill for the increase and preservation of timber within the forest of Dean, taking over from Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond, but the bill was never reported.25
On 13 July 1669 Essex was reported to be preparing for his embassy to Copenhagen, but he repeatedly delayed.26 He was still in England when Parliament convened for the session of October to December 1669, of which he attended on 33 days, nearly 92 per cent of the total, and was named to eight committees. On 7 Nov. 1669 Essex wrote to Richmond: ‘I find the House apt to grow into heats’ on both the ‘bill sent from the Commons to divest us from the power of judging in original causes’ and the report from the commissioners of accounts. As such he was looking forward to his employment abroad, not knowing how to ‘carry himself prudently’, and acknowledging that a wise man would not be ‘over forward to put his finger into the fire if he may avoid it.’27 Despite these misgivings, on 17 and 18 Nov. Essex reported progress from the committee of the whole on the bill for limiting of certain trials in Parliament, and on the 19th he reported the committee’s amendments. On 24 Nov. he reported from the committee appointed to consider the decay of trade, as he did also on 1, 3 and 9 December. On 25 Nov. he reported from the committee for privileges on the case of Nicholas Knollys, who claimed the earldom of Banbury, and the manner in which notice was to be given to a Member of the Commons, Richard Harrison‡, so that he could answer an appeal in the Lords. Also on 25 Nov. Essex entered his protest against the resolution that the House was able to give directions to chancery in the cause between Bernard Granville‡ and Jeremy Elwes. On 3 Dec. he reported the complaint of the committee that was considering the report of the commissioners of accounts that few of its members attended for business. The House responded by directing that the peers attend more diligently. On 9 Dec. Essex chaired a committee of the whole on the need for a bill registering lands.
Essex was still in England for the start of the next parliamentary session, and attended on 34 days of the first part of the 1670-1 session, before its adjournment on 11 Apr. 1670, 85 per cent of the total. He was appointed to 20 committees during this part of the session. On 22 Feb. 1670 he chaired a committee of the whole on the vexed question as to whether the House should erase their proceedings in Skinner’s case to restore relations with the Commons, and voted against the successful motion that they do so.28 On 8 Mar. Essex reported from the committee for privileges on the claim of Benjamin Mildmay, 17th Baron Fitzwalter, to precedency amongst the barons. On 10 Mar. he chaired the committee on Richard Beckham’s estate bill, reporting later that day.29 On 17 Mar. Essex spoke in favour of giving a second reading to the divorce bill of John Manners, Lord Roos, the future 9th earl of Rutland. Essex intervened again in favour of this bill, on 28 Mar., in the debate on the third reading, noting that a
marriage bond was broken (like as peace between Princes) not when the fact was committed, but when the injured party makes his claim to the judge, who cannot deny justice being asked it. So that the act of adultery does but put the husband in the advantage to take the forfeiture, if, and when, he pleases. … The inconveniences are cured when it shall be restrained to the relief by particular bill in a Parliament and no general law made in the case ... It may prevent the growing of the foreign practice of poisoning and killing wives.30
On 18 Mar. Essex reported from a committee of the whole on the bill for advancing the sale of fee farm rents that they needed legal advice, so the bill was referred to a select committee. On 22 Mar. he was added to the bill on the Brandon and Waveney navigation bill, effectively also adding him to committee on the bill for improving tillage, which he chaired on 23 Mar. and reported on 25 March. He received the proxy of Ailesbury (24 Mar., vacated 10 Nov.) and of William Cavendish, 3rd earl of Devonshire, (25 Mar., vacated 9 April). On 26 Mar. Essex entered his dissent against the passage of the bill to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles. On 30 Mar. he was named to manage a conference on a naturalization bill. He was also named to report the conferences on the Lords’ amendments to the conventicles bill on 30 Mar. and 4 April. On 31 Mar. Essex chaired the first of six meetings to consider the additional bill for the rebuilding of the City of London, before reporting it on 8 April.31 Also on 8 Apr. he entered his dissent against the passage of the supply bill setting an imposition on brandy.
Essex finally set out on his embassy on 22 Apr. 1670, returning to England in late August.32 The death of his brother-in-law, Jocelyn Percy, 5th earl of Northumberland, in May 1670 prompted the observation that if his daughter, the young Lady Elizabeth Percy were to die, then Northumberland’s half-sister, Lady Essex, would inherit.33 This residuary interest prompted at least one legal suit which came before the Lords on 5 Feb. 1674, in which Essex claimed parliamentary privilege. Essex, as a trustee under the will of the 4th earl of Northumberland, was in possession of land charged with various sums, including £20,000, to which his wife was the residual heir. He had been disturbed in his possession by several men, claiming to have a lease from James Scott, duke of Monmouth.34 This dispute rumbled on with Harbord informing Essex on 2 Feb. 1675 that ‘there is a bill exhibited in the exchequer in order to a trial at bar against the young Lady Percy, and your excellency is made a party.’ Depositions were entered into the exchequer in 1676. 35 The dispute re-entered the parliamentary arena when Essex petitioned on 16 Feb. 1678 complaining of a breach of privilege committed by proceedings in common pleas concerning a suit brought by Monmouth. The House ordered that Essex be granted quiet possession of the estates during the privilege of Parliament and on 19 Feb set aside a rule of the court made on 9 February.
Having returned from his embassy, when the House resumed in October 1670, Essex sat on 110 days of the remainder of the session of 1670-1, 88 per cent of the total. He was named to 39 committees during this part of the session. As in previous sessions he was an active member of committees. He reported from the committee for petitions (11 Nov.) and during December chaired committees on bills to prevent the export of wool, to prevent frauds and abuses committed by servants (reported 10 Jan. 1671), for the discovery of those who had defrauded the poor of the City of London of the monies given for their relief after the Plague and the Fire. He chaired this last on 12 further occasions, preparing fresh clauses for the bill, before reporting it on 13 Apr. 1671. During January 1671 he chaired the committees examining into the Hamburg Company (reported 14 and 20 Jan.) and investigating the petition of poor prisoners for debt. On 26 Jan. he was named to report a conference on the bill against maiming and wounding, and on 3 Feb. to prepare reasons for adhering to the Lords’ amendments. He was then appointed to manage the resultant conferences on 6, 8 and 11 February. On 14 and 15 Feb. he chaired the committee on the bill for re-vesting the power of granting wine licenses in the king, reporting it on the 15th.36
Essex played a major role in the proceedings in the Lords following the delivery of the Commons petition for an address against the growth of popery on 21 Feb. 1671. He was named to the committee to consider the three clauses to which the House disagreed, reporting the following day (2 Mar.) and being appointed a manager of the ensuing conferences on 3 and 9 March. Later in the session, on 13 Apr., Essex was named to a sub-committee to ‘draw up the test and oath’ according to the debate in the committee to prevent the growth of popery, to which the additional bill to prevent seditious conventicles was also committed.37
On 28 Feb. 1671 Essex reported the subsidy bill from a committee of the whole and on 2 Mar. he reported a conference with the Commons on the bill. On 6 Mar. he was named to report a conference on the bill for an additional excise upon beer, ale and other liquors; that day he also reported from the committee on the bill for exporting beer, ale and mum.38 On 9 Mar. he entered his dissent to the resolution of the House not to commit or engross the bill concerning the privilege of Parliament. On 13 Mar. he reported Hackett’s estate bill as fit to pass the House. On 15 Mar. he dissented from the decision of the Lords to suspend the execution of the judgment against John Cusack. On 30 Mar. Essex reported from the committee for privileges concerning the insertion of a clause concerning brandy into the bill on additional impositions despite there being a bill concerning brandy currently depending between the two Houses. This led to the proceedings of the Commons being deemed unparliamentary and dangerous.
During April, Essex reported on the estate bill of Robert Houghton (7 Apr.) and the bill for determining differences touching burnt houses (15 April). On 13, 14 and 15 Apr. Essex chaired the committees on the bill to prevent the planting of tobacco in England, and to regulate the plantation trade, and on the ‘additional’ bill to prevent the export of wool.39 He was also involved in several conferences. On 20 Apr. he was named to manage a conference on the bill for vesting certain fee farm rents in trustees. Much of the month was taken up with negotiations with the Commons on the bill for additional impositions. On 10 Apr. Essex was named to manage a conference with the Commons on their amendments to the bill and to desire their concurrence in an address to the king to encourage domestic manufactures by his own example. The answer of the Commons on 11 Apr. prompted the Lords to debate whether this answer was unparliamentary. Conferences were held on 11, 12 and 15 Apr., the last being reported on 17 Apr., on which day the Lords resolved that they had the right to amend money bills, and the committee was ordered to prepare for a conference. After the conference on 22 Apr. Essex was presumably one of the peers who was then directed to draft a further response on the subject. Earlier that day he had acted as one of the managers of the conference on the bill concerning wool.
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1672-7
Although Essex’s land holdings in Ireland were limited (amounting to 1,109 acres in or about 1675), compared to those of James Butler, duke of Ormond, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, or even William Wentworth, earl of Strafford, it made him a candidate for the lieutenancy in place of John Berkeley, baron Berkeley of Stratton.40 As early as 18 Jan. 1672, Sir Ralph Verney‡, reported that ‘’tis believed Lord Essex shall be in Berkeley’s place though the king hath not yet declared it publicly.’41 Further, on 12 Mar., Nicholas Morice‡ reported that there were rumours that Essex was to be made a Privy Councillor.42 The rumours were confirmed on 17 Apr. when Essex was appointed one of four new Councillors, and the king declared at the same time that he was sending Essex to Ireland as lord lieutenant.43 Meanwhile, Essex attended the prorogation on 16 Apr. 1672, his last appearance in the House for over three years. He set out on his journey to Ireland on 22 July, arriving in Dublin on 5 August. One of the first results of his appointment was to deprive Roger Boyle‡, earl of Orrery [I], of the power, but not the allowances, of the presidency of Munster.44
Soon after his arrival Essex fell seriously ill, leading to speculation that he would be forced to return to England.45 Essex nevertheless retained sufficient sense to congratulate Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, upon his appointment as lord chancellor. Shaftesbury replied on 13 Dec.: ‘I cannot but apprehend that I have been represented from hence to you as one that hath spoken against your lordship or some of your proceedings. If so, give me leave to say, your intelligence out of England is not so good as your excellency ought to have. For I am sure the direct contrary is only true.’46 As late as 14 Dec. Essex described his recovery as ‘not yet so perfect as to enable me to undertake a thorough consideration of those affairs which have been committed to me,’ and he was unable to use his own hand in writing on the same day to his brother-in-law, Henry Somerset, 3rd marquess of Worcester, to ask how ‘my case stands in England, and who are my friends there.’47 By the beginning of January 1673 his recovery was assured.48
When Parliament next sat, Essex was excused attendance on 13 Feb. 1673, as being ‘in the king’s service’. On 19 Mar. his proxy was registered with Ormond. Essex’s lieutenancy was also clearly having a favourable impact on Anglican circles. On 17 Feb. 1673, Bishop William Fuller of Lincoln, forwarded to Gilbert Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, a request from the Irish lord chancellor, Archbishop Boyle, that Sheldon take notice of Essex’s ‘great justice, and friendliness to our Church there; and that you would be pleased in the behalf of the bishops of Ireland to give him your acknowledgement of his favours to them.49
Essex was soon facing the perennial problem of an Irish viceroy, attempting to govern a kingdom when real power was retained in England. In the spring of 1673, Essex was much vexed by reports that Phoenix Park, adjourning Dublin Castle, would be granted by the king to the duchess of Cleveland and her sons. Essex vehemently opposed this, even if the grant were only to become operational after he had relinquished the office of lord lieutenant.50 He was aware of the potential consequences of such an attitude, writing to Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington, on 19 July 1673, that ‘I know very well the disadvantage any person that is absent has.’ At the beginning of September Sir William Temple‡, reported that Ormond ‘knew you were a man of justice and honour, and twas for that reason he believed there had been heaving at you, but he thought that was left off for the present.’51 On 24 Jan. 1674 Harbord wrote reassuringly that ‘the differences among the great ones increase daily; and Essex gets ground in the opinion of all good men, and everybody will have him treasurer, as in sick bodies so in sickly governments change is desired.’52 On 3 Feb. Essex’s proxy was registered with Ormond. On 24 Mar. Harbord assured Essex that the king was ‘abundantly satisfied’ with his conduct of the government of Ireland, and that as for the rumours of his being recalled, the king had said the purveyors of this news were rogues. Uncertainty about intentions at court nevertheless continued.53
The death of the dowager duchess of Somerset on 24 Apr. 1674 (Essex’s sister, Mary, had been married to one of her sons, Henry Seymour, styled Lord Beauchamp) saw Essex interested in the possible purchase of her London residence, Essex House.54 Essex calculated that he could afford to pay £7,000 over the course of a year if he remained in office, even though it would delay the completion of his building work at Cassiobury.55 It was to help in this purchase that on 2 Mar. 1675 a warrant was issued for Essex to receive £13,000, as a mark of royal favour.56 In the event his plans were thwarted by the purchase and development of the site by the speculative builder Dr. Nicholas Barbon‡.
On 28 Jan. 1675 the lord treasurer, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, reassured Essex that rumours naming various successors to him, were merely ‘idle reports’, which had given the king an excuse to express ‘the value and esteem he had both for your person and service.’ With Parliament due to sit in April 1675, Danby was keen that Essex would ‘by your letters influence as many of your friends as you can … to assist the making this next session a quiet and calm one.’57 Still in Ireland, Essex was unable to attend the session of April to June 1675, so on 10 Feb. he asked George Coventry, 3rd Baron Coventry, to enquire of the king with whom he should place his proxy ready for the next session, as he was unsure whether Ormond, his usual nominee, would be present. The king having left it to Essex’s discretion, he enclosed it in a letter of on 2 Mar. to Danby, whereupon, under that date, it was duly registered with the lord treasurer.58 It was no doubt in recognition of Essex as a government supporter that Danby listed Essex as likely to support the non-resisting test.
On 24 Apr. 1675, Essex asked his secretary, William Harbord, for a punctual account of ‘how matters in Parliament proceed’. His knowledge of what was going on in Westminster no doubt prompted Essex to write to Shaftesbury about the case of Barrett v. Loftus depending before the Lords. He had examined this case himself, with the help of two judges, and thought Loftus’s agent would show him the resultant report of August 1674.59 Shaftesbury may have received this letter by the time he entered a protest about the case on 10 May. Receiving parliamentary intelligence was clearly a matter of some importance for on 11 May, Essex complained that ‘Mr. Petyt does fail in sending the journals of the House of peers; there hath been but one of them come since the sitting of the Parliament, but those of the House of Commons have constantly been transmitted.’60 These were probably part of ‘the Parliament rolls and journals’, which John Evelyn noticed in Essex’s ‘large and very nobly furnished library’ on a visit to Cassiobury in April 1680.61
By May 1675, Essex thought it necessary to visit England. Primarily, he seems to have been worried about the Irish revenue farm, and felt that the only way to prevent abuses was to attend personally on the king and the lord treasurer. There had also been some debate as to whether an Irish Parliament should sit in September and the necessary preparations would detain Essex in Ireland.62 Some pretenders to the lieutenancy thought that Essex would not return, hence Strafford’s rather plaintive refrain on 14 July 1675 that he now understood that Essex ‘was not to remove from Ireland as had often of late been reported.’63
Essex left Ireland on 9 July 1675 for London, where he had arrived by 24 July. He was confident that his stay would be short.64 On 9 Aug. he left London for Bath with a ‘very great equipage’ in order to consult Danby and other ministers there.65 On 28 Sept. Essex reported the conclusion of the negotiations for the Irish revenue farm, and his instructions, and expected to return to Ireland in mid October. However, he was delayed by wrangling over the new settlement of the revenue.66
This delay meant that Essex was on hand for the session of October and November 1675, of which he attended on all 21 days, being named to 10 committees. The king also used him for other purposes. Thus, on 3 Nov. Essex was one of the Lords named by the king after a hearing in council to mediate between Thomas Colepeper, 2nd baron Colepeper, and his siblings, a dispute which was still rumbling on years later.67 On 4 Nov., according to Anglesey’s diary, Essex and George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, ‘would have had me to the bar for being of a different mind, but they did but show their teeth,’ presumably because they objected to Anglesey’s views on the Sherley v. Fagg case, in which he was the lone protester against setting a date to hear the cause.68 On 9 Nov. Essex was appointed to a four-man sub-committee to put the vote brought from Commons on 25 Oct., for recalling such of the king’s subjects as were serving in the army of Louis XIV into a joint address from both Houses. On 10 Nov. Essex, Shaftesbury and Denzil Holles, Baron Holles, were deputed by the House to compose the differences between Charles Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun, and his mother. On 19 Nov. he was named to manage a conference on preserving the good understanding between the two Houses. On 20 Nov. he was one of the chief speakers in favour of an address to the king to dissolve Parliament. He voted for the address but did not sign the protest after the rejection of the motion.
On 23 Nov. 1675, Essex referred to rumours that he would not be returning to Ireland, but noted that the king had told him the previous day ‘to prepare speedily for my journey.’ On 7 Dec. he felt was confident enough of his impending departure to suggest he would leave London on the 13th but he was again delayed by the uncompleted business of the Irish revenue.69 On 17 Jan. 1676 Essex and Anglesey spent the morning ‘about several businesses’ relating to Ireland, including a petition from Anglesey which had been referred to him. They held another meeting on 1 February.70 As Essex wrote to Sir John Temple on 22 Jan., the chief reason for his continuance in London was to protect the Irish revenue from being appropriated by Richard Jones, 3rd Viscount Ranelagh [I] or Danby for use in England, rather than for the Irish army or civil list.71 Such was the delay that at the beginning of February Peregrine Bertie‡ seemed to doubt whether Essex would actually go for Ireland at all.72 On 6 Apr., Dr. William Denton reported that ‘Essex is gone to Newmarket and from thence to Ireland if he meet with no rub there.’73 In fact he returned to London for it was there on 24 Apr. Anglesey took his leave of Essex.74 He arrived in Dublin on 4 May.75
On 2 Jan. 1677 Essex responded to a letter from Secretary Coventry of 26 Dec. 1676 concerning the next session of Parliament by informing him that his secretary, Sir Cyril Wyche‡, would be writing to English Members ‘acquainting them with his majesty’s pleasure’ and ordering them to be present for the beginning of the next parliamentary session. As Coventry had opined that Essex send his proxy ‘and put it into hands well inclined to his majesty’s service’, he added that he would send his proxy with Wyche, ‘and place it in such hands as his majesty shall approve.’ Wyche appears to have left Dublin on 13 Jan. 1677, and this was the date under which the proxy was registered with Ormond.76 Essex did not attend the first part of the 1677-8 session, held between February and April 1677, being excused on 9 Mar. 1677.
Essex was recalled in April 1677 but elected to remain in Ireland to hand over the sword of state personally to Ormond.77 This meant that he was unable to attend the short May 1677 session of Parliament. On 13 June he wrote to Danby concerning his grant from the king of £13,000, which had been agreed more than two years before: ‘this money as it would very much accommodate my own private occasions, so coming in the manner it does upon my leaving this government, as a mark of his majesty’s favour and of his approbation of my management of the affairs which have been under my charge it does more than double the value of the thing’.78
The Popish Plot, Exclusion and its aftermath, 1678-82
Back in England Essex divided his time between his London residence in St. James’s Square and Cassiobury.79 Relations with Ormond remained cordial and on 4 Oct. 1677 Essex wrote to him from London to assure him that ‘as any affair concerning Ireland shall come in debate … I shall most readily give my utmost assistance therein.’ On 15 Oct. Essex ‘presented his majesty in council’ with an account of his financial management while in Ireland, showing his frugality, although the council showed little interest in his ‘short narrative of the state of Ireland’.80 Essex attended at the treasury on Irish business on a number of occasions over the autumn and winter, on 17 and 27 Oct., 2 and 19 Nov., 21 Dec. and 21 and 26 Jan. 1678.81
Essex attended the adjournment of the House on 3 Dec. 1677, upon which day his proxy was vacated. When the second part of the 1677-78 session began, on 15 Jan. 1678, Essex was in place. He held Ormond’s proxy, Ormond ‘having had his in the same case’, which was dated 15 Jan. in the register but actually, according to Essex registered on 16 January.82 Essex attended on 56 days of the session, 92 per cent of the total, and was named to 20 committees. On 31 Jan. and 4 Feb. he chaired the committee of privileges when it discussed standing orders relating to protections.83 Irish business ran parallel to his parliamentary activity. On 12 Feb. Secretary Coventry mentioned Essex’s contributions in debates in Council about the advisability of an Irish Parliament and the methods of raising revenue. Consideration of the latter was remitted to a committee of council that included Essex. On 14 Feb. Essex supported the petition presented to the House by George Savile, Viscount Halifax, on behalf of Shaftesbury, for the latter’s release from the Tower. The result, as Sir Robert Southwell‡ reported on 2 Mar., was a rumour that Essex ‘was in some disfavour on account of his bearing up so stiffly against my lord treasurer in the quarrel of the Lord Shaftesbury. ’Tis said he is no more summoned to the cabinet, yet I believe not the discourse that he should be discharged the council.’84 It is perhaps indicative of his change in political position that at some point during Shaftesbury’s sojourn in the Tower in 1677-8 Essex had been classed as twice ‘worthy’ on his analysis of lay peers.
On 5 Mar. 1678 Essex reported from committee on Shalcross’s bill. On 8 Mar. he was named to a conference on the Commons’ amendments to the bill for the better regulation of fishing and was appointed to another conference on the bill on 19 March. On 16 Mar., when the Lords considered whether to concur with the Commons in a joint address to the king asking for an immediate declaration of war against France, Southwell reported that Essex opened the debate ‘taking notice how universally the people were bent that way’, and that ‘resolutions of this nature must depend on such preparations as had been thought of’ by the king’s ministers, which brought Danby to reply. Three days later Southwell expanded on his account to note that ‘no man more vigorous than the earl of Essex to push it on, and admiring while the danger abroad was so apparent and the whole tide of the nation set in so strong that anybody could advise the contrary.’ When the Lords resumed the debate on the 18 Mar., Essex was apparently convinced by Danby’s plea not to declare war before due preparations had been made and so the address was altered from an immediate declaration of war to one with all possible speed when occasion allowed. Following this, at the Council on 20 Mar., Essex, Danby, Bridgwater and the two secretaries were commissioned by the king to meet the Dutch ambassador and the Spanish and Imperial envoys to treat about the terms of a possible alliance.85 On 4 Apr. he voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter. On 30 Apr. he was named to report a conference requested by the Commons on the dangerous growth of popery.
On 17 Apr. 1678, the council again considered the Irish revenue. The preceding day an order had been drawn up against Ranelagh by Anglesey, Essex and Secretary Coventry, but this was challenged by Danby, and the matter was expected to be heard again, whereupon Essex was supposedly willing to charge Ranelagh with a debt of almost £100,000. Irish revenue matters, and especially Ranelagh’s accounts, continued to concern Essex throughout the summer, more discussion taking place in June 1678.86
The Lords met again on 23 May 1678, with Essex in attendance on 38 days of the session that lasted until 15 July, 88.4 per cent of the total and was named to 24 committees. On 1 June he reported from the committee on the bill to continue the act for settling the estates of intestates, reporting it again on 6 June, along with a report from the bill to prevent delays of suits. Also on 6 June he reported from the committee on the bill to enable creditors to recover debts of the executors and administrators of the executors. On 12 June he reported from the committee for privileges that the appeal of Charles Cottington from the court of delegates did not come properly before the House, which the House ordered to take into consideration on 17 June. On 15 June Essex reported from committee the estate bill of the deceased Sir Thomas Cave. On 17 June, the lord chancellor had to intervene in a quarrel between Essex and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, over some words in a debate, in order to ensure the matter went no further. On 25 June together with Shaftesbury, Wharton and two others he entered a dissent to the decision not to agree to the proviso offered by the Commons to the bill for disbanding the forces. On 27 June Essex reported a draft of an order from the committee for limiting a time for bringing in appeals from inferior courts, but the House ‘thought not fit to do any thing therein.’ On 5 July 1678 he dissented from the decision to relieve the petitioner in the case of Marmaduke Darrell v. Sir Paul Whichcot. On 8 July Essex reported from the committee on the bill for naturalizing John Schoppens and others. Also, later on 8 July, he spoke in the debate upon the appeal of Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham, against a decree in chancery in favour of Lewis Watson, the future 3rd baron Rockingham, and his wife, noting that ‘there are without doubt some cases relievable here which are not relievable below, else we must take patterns from the courts below who ought to take patterns from us’. In this case he thought there ought to have been relief below, but he was fully answered by Shaftesbury and the decree was reversed.87 On 11 and 12 July Essex was appointed to manage conferences with the Commons on their amendments to the bill for burying in woollen. On 13 July he reported an order, drawn up by the committee for privileges, limiting the time for bringing in writs of errors and petitions, which was agreed to by the House. Later in the day he was named to a conference on the method of returning bills between the Houses.
Essex attended on 57 days of the session held between October and December 1678, nearly 92 per cent of the total and was named to 11 committees, including one on 23 Oct. to examine into the Popish Plot, which he chaired on 24 occasions in November and December.88 There seems little reason to doubt Essex’s sincere belief in the Plot, as he told the privy council in 1679, ‘the apprehension of popery made him imagine he saw his children frying in Smithfield.’89 He was named t several committees associated with the Popish Plot hysteria: to draw an address for banishing papists from London and Westminster (23 Oct. 1678 ); to examine Edward Coleman and others (26 Oct.) and to examine the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey (31 October). On 29 Oct., Essex and Shaftesbury were the only peers to dissent from the decision of the Lords not to communicate to the Commons papers concerning the Plot. On 1 Nov. he was named to report a conference requested by the Commons on the preservation of the king and the safety of the government and religion. On 2 Nov. he was one of five peers appointed to examine the Lords imprisoned in the Tower for treason. Having reported on 2 Nov. on the insecurity of the House, Essex was one of the peers nominated to manage a conference with the Commons on his findings, particularly on the ill state of the roof. Also on 2 Nov., Essex was one of the peers who supported Shaftesbury’s failed motion that York be removed from the king’s counsels.90
On 14 Nov. 1678 John Lovelace, 3rd baron Lovelace, registered his proxy with Essex, vacating it on 21 November. Throughout November and December he was deeply involved in committees and conferences relating to the Plot. On 15 Nov., in a committee of the whole, Essex voted to include the declaration against transubstantiation as part of the Test. When York was exempted from the provisions of the Test on 20 Nov., he was heard to remark that Monmouth ‘affected popularity and was great with the earl of Essex and Lord Wharton, and had reason to believe there was no ill understanding betwixt him and my Lord Shaftesbury.’91 Some of his activities may have been influence by personal and family considerations. On 2 Dec. 1678 Essex reported from the committee appointed to take examinations relating to the Plot, that Richard and John Vaughan be examined at the Bar. This was part of Bedloe’s evidence of a Welsh Plot, which initially put Worcester's connections under suspicion. However, Worcester was a staunch protestant, and married to Essex’s sister, and thus these allegations got nowhere.92 On 9 Dec. he was appointed to draw up reasons for and to manage a conference on disbanding the forces in England before other forces arrived from Flanders.
On 10 Dec. 1678, Southwell offered this assessment of the opponents of the Court, naming Halifax and Charles Powlett, 6th marquesss of Winchester, as Shaftesbury’s seconds before adding ‘but none so close, so constant, and so relied upon by him as the earl of Essex.’93 His activities in relation to the Plot did not detract his involvement in wider concerns. On 20 Dec. he dissented from the Lords’ resolution to agree with the amendments to the supply bill for disbanding forces from abroad. On 23 Dec. he dissented from the negative vote passed on the motion that Danby should not withdraw from the House. Around this time an undated memorandum considered Essex and Ormond as enemies of Danby ‘upon Ranelagh’s account’, a reference to the continuing importance of Irish affairs in English politics.94
On 26 Dec. 1678 Essex was listed as voting against the decision of the Lords to adhere to their amendment to the supply bill for disbanding foreign forces, relating to the payment of the taxes into the exchequer. He entered his dissent to the decision. He was then named to prepare reasons for a conference with the Commons on the bill. On 27 Dec. he voted to commit Danby following his impeachment by the Commons. On the following day he informed the House that he had received ‘out of the country’ information from Stephen Dugdale on the Plot, which was read, whereupon Essex and Bridgwater were sent by the House to the Tower to examine William Howard, Viscount Stafford, upon it, reporting back to the House later in the day. Also on the 28th, after a deadlocked conference on the disbanding bill, Essex was one of three peers appointed to draw up a proviso for preserving the king’s right in the militia, which was debated but not decided before the prorogation on 30 December.
On 31 Dec. 1678 at the Privy Council, the king appointed Anglesey, Bridgwater and Essex to the quorum of a committee to meet daily, Sundays excepted, at 9 a.m. to examine into the Plot.95 Essex also remained busy on Irish matters. On 25 Feb. Ormond wrote to his son, Thomas Butler, earl of Ossory [I], that Essex had stated matters correctly as to the Irish revenue farm, and asking him to convey to Essex his assurance of the value he placed on Essex’s assistance on matters pertaining to the government of Ireland.96
Essex was present on each of the six days of the short session of 6-13 Mar. 1679, being named to three committees. Early in March 1679, Sir William Temple (newly returned to England) thought that Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and the duchess of Portsmouth had joined with Monmouth, Essex and Shaftesbury to ruin Danby.97 Danby concurred in so far as to regard Essex as a likely opponent in the proceedings against him. A little later, in either March or April, Danby refined his analysis: he still thought Essex a likely opponent, but had added the word ‘unreliable’ to his name. He confirmed Essex’s likely opposition in a further list of about this date. Essex’s name also appears on a list that was probably of those peers that voted for his attainder in the early stages of the bill. In the event, Essex also voted on 4 Apr. for the passage of the attainder bill, and, again on 14 Apr. when the Lords agreed to the Commons’ amendments to the bill.
Essex attended on 60 days of the session of March to May 1679, some 98 per cent of the total, missing only the fast day on 11 April. He was named to 11 committees during the session, plus the one on Danby noted below. On 18 Mar. Essex reported from the committee for privileges on the state of appeals and impeachments from the last Parliament, recommending that they should be proceeded with as they stood at the dissolution of the last Parliament, without beginning anew. They also found the dissolution did not alter the case of the five Lords in the Tower under a general impeachment. On 20 Mar., in the committee of the whole, Essex offered a proviso to the bill for the discovery and conviction of popish recusants exempting certain named individuals crucial to the king’s escape after the battle of Worcester.98 On 21 Mar., Essex spoke in the debate occasioned by a message from the Commons requesting that Danby be secured. He suggested that because the Lords had, the previous day, allowed Danby a week to answer the articles against him, ‘that unless you have new matter, you are in some sort engaged in honour to preserve him in the same state till his answer be in, it deserves consideration, therefore if you please allow a little time till tomorrow morning’, which was tantamount to supporting the adjournment of the debate.99 On the following day, after an intervention from the king, the Lords voted to prepare a bill to disqualify Danby from office, to which committee Essex was named, and he was also appointed to manage a conference with the Commons on Danby.
On 24 Mar. 1679 Essex was one of three peers ordered to examine the Lords in the Tower concerning matters mentioned in a French pamphlet about the Plot. On the same day he reported from the committee appointed two days before to draft a bill disabling Danby, after the presentation of which Danby was ordered to be taken into custody. Essex then chaired at least one session of the committee of the whole on the bill on 26 March.100 On 25 Mar. Ossory informed Ormond that although ‘Essex is doubted for his sincerity with that party, and that the king has spoken severely on him, yet I believe his aim is to succeed you.’101 This may well have been a possibility but, as Ormond pointed out in response, Essex’s appointment as first lord of the treasury on 26 Mar., in the commission that replaced Danby, ‘is such a step … that I think he will not quit it for this government at such a time as this’, especially as he was now the treasury’s spokesman and advisor to the king.102 On 27 Mar. Essex was deputed by the House to ask the king that £100 be made available at the discretion of the Lords to reward discoverers of the Plot, a task he performed again on 23 April 1679. On 29 Mar., William Ley, 4th earl of Marlborough, registered his proxy with Essex (vacated by his death in May 1679). On 31 Mar. Essex was one of three peers deputed by the House to ask the king to place restrictions on the movement in Ireland of Colonel Fitzpatrick, a leading Irish Catholic associated with the Butlers.
On 2 Apr. 1679 Essex spoke in favour of the committal of the bill to attaint Danby: ‘I agree the bill is too severe in being upon the former articles only. Yet I was last Parliament for a commitment of this case because you may as well commit for misdemeanour as for treason, it’s in your judicature. And there’s no reason to refuse committing this bill unless any will say it cannot be mended’.103 On 4 Apr. he was named to a conference on amendments by the Commons to the Danby attainder bill. He also managed a second conference on 8 Apr., and was named to draw up arguments to be offered at a third conference on the bill.
On 7 Apr. Essex ‘made a self denying motion’ for leave to bring in a bill ‘to inhibit all future lord treasurers or commissioners of the treasury to make directly or indirectly, by sale of under offices or otherwise, any other benefits or advantages than their mere salaries.’104 On 8 Apr. Essex brought in the bill, extending it also to the chief governors of Ireland. He chaired a committee on it on 15 Apr., but no further action was taken.105 On 8 Apr. Henry Coventry wrote to Ormond that Essex was not only a treasury commissioner, but also ‘of the cabinet council and seemeth to be in very good grace.’ On 15 Apr., in a committee of the whole on the state and condition of Ireland, Essex ‘very vigorously’ seconded Shaftesbury when the former ‘brought into the House a copy of Colonel Fitzpatrick’s grant.’106 Bridgwater then reported that the king be addressed to order Ormond to seize such papists as he deemed fit. A sub-committee, including Essex, was also named to consider which ports and forts should be inserted in the bill for freeing Dublin and other places of popish inhabitants.107 This led on 17 Apr. to Essex being named as one of the peers deputed to ask the king to order the lord lieutenant to put into force a series of measures for securing the Protestant religion in Ireland. No doubt interpreting the attacks on Fitzpatrick as aimed at Ormond, Ossory considered Essex as ‘one of the bitterest enemies my father has.’108
Essex was a supporter of Sir William Temple’s plan to remodel the Privy Council into a more compact body of 30, and not surprisingly, given his prominence and his treasury office, he was named on 22 Apr. to the reorganized body.109 He also pressed for the inclusion of Shaftesbury.110 As Southwell noted on 24 Apr., Essex was included on the new council committees concerning ‘intelligence, which will be for secret affairs’, and for Ireland, as well as continuing on the committee for trade and plantations.111
Charles II’s speech to Parliament on the 30 Apr. 1679, wherein he reiterated his support for reasonable limitations on any popish successor, was preceded on the 29th by a three-hour debate in the privy council, and was probably influenced by the views of Essex, Sunderland and Halifax who were emerging as the king’s most important counsellors.112 Indeed, at this time Southwell thought that Essex aimed at being made lord treasurer.113 On 8 May Essex was appointed to report a conference on the trials of Danby and the Catholic lords in the Tower. Afterwards he dissented from the decision to refuse to have a committee of both Houses consider the manner of the said trials. He was also appointed to report the conference on the supply bill for disbanding the army. On 10 May Essex was named to report another conference on the manner of holding the trials of Danby and the Popish Lords. Following this conference he voted for the appointment of a joint committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords and again entered his dissent over the refusal of the House to do this. He was named to another conference on this matter on 11 May, and then to a joint committee with the Commons to consider ‘of propositions and circumstances’ of the trials. On 13 May Essex dissented from the resolution that the bishops had a right to be present in capital cases until such time as judgment of death was to be pronounced, although, according to some notes submitted to Danby, he had apparently told the House that there was no blood in the case because there was no treason or felony contained in the articles against Danby.114 This may have been the occasion of an intervention by Essex in which he stated that ‘if the bishops would not vote in the pardon [of Danby], both the trials might be appointed in one day.’115 The vote on 13 May was explained the following day as the right of the bishops to sit until the Lords came to vote on their guilt. Interestingly, on 27 May, although he voted against the House maintaining this position, Essex was not among the large number of Lords who protested.
On 3 May Conway had reported that Halifax would succeed to the Irish lieutenancy ‘by the consent and assistance of’ Monmouth, though Essex ‘contests it mightily’.116 However, on 13 May, one of Ormond’s correspondents identified three competitors for the lieutenancy – Essex, Halifax and John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes – noting that ‘two have still mutually joined against the third; which occasions that neither succeeds in his pretensions.’ On 16 May, Essex supported Anglesey’s motion that a date be fixed for the trial of the five Catholic peers, on the grounds that their crimes were far more heinous than Danby’s, as they ‘sought the murder of the king, the change of religion, and subversion of the government’, an opinion contrary to Shaftesbury’s belief that Danby should be tried first.117
In council on 27 May, following the Commons’ vote to give a second reading to the exclusion bill a few days earlier, Essex, Sunderland and Halifax supported a prorogation.118 Southwell, at this date, saw Sunderland, Halifax and Essex as the king’s most important councillors.119 The question of whether the Parliament should be dissolved dominated debates in council and at cabinet in early July. Essex, Sunderland and Halifax supported dissolution and their views prevailed.120 The dissolution was announced to the council by the king on 10 July. According to Gilbert Burnet, the future bishop of Salisbury, the king had convinced Essex and Halifax to support a dissolution. In council they had argued that a new Parliament was essential as the king was ‘fixed in his resolutions’ concerning Danby’s pardon and against Exclusion. Burnet also noted that Essex ‘bore the censure of the party more mildly’ for his advice, ‘as he was not apt to be much heated’, and was confident that his good intentions would be acknowledged in the end.121 Certainly, Southwell on 5 July wrote of Sunderland, Halifax and Essex having a ‘monopoly’ of the king, and of Shaftesbury’s bad temper as a result.122
In June Southwell reported that in a committee of the council Essex had ‘appeared passionately concerned as touched in a point of honour’ over a sum of about £13,000 that ought to have been paid by Ormond, ‘for which a letter was given him from hence, and made the only request at parting’. Southwell continued, ‘from this and some other passages the bystanders observed there is a good store of discontent lodged in that breast.’ Henry Coventry similarly wrote of Essex’s resentment over the issue. As usual, Ossory was again concerned about his father’s position, writing on 22 July that both Essex and Halifax were being touted as candidates to succeed Ormond, and further that the former, rather than getting on with the examination of the accounts, ‘defers that and insinuates things tending to his being dissatisfied with expenses lately made.’123
Essex clearly continued to be an important adviser to the king. On 23 June 1679 along with Arlington, Sunderland, Halifax and Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, he was summoned by the king to discuss ‘the queen’s affairs’.124 In July, York wrote from Brussels that the new Privy Council (dominated by Halifax, Essex and Sunderland) were turning his brother into ‘a duke of Venice’, and that ‘I have long looked on the two first as men that did not love a monarchy, as it was in England’.125 He was sure that the ruling triumvirate were determined to prevent his return to England for the time being.126 On 8 July 1679 Ossory wrote that Shaftesbury was ‘not satisfied, nor pleased with the growing interest of my lords of Essex and Halifax.’127
Essex continued to take an active part in all aspects of government business. On 8 July 1679 he spoke (unsuccessfully) in council in favour of the complaints by the Scottish lords against the government of John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale [S].128 Temple noted about this time that ‘Monmouth had broken all measures with Lord Essex’ and that it was Essex who was ‘most instrumental’ (though assisted by himself, Halifax and Sunderland) in breaking the scheme whereby Monmouth would command a troop of 200 gentlemen for the king’s protection.129 On 21 July Essex had warned the king that the proposal was likely to cause popular distrust and fears of a standing army.130
Robartes, as reported by Danby, noted early in August 1679 the conflict between the king’s wish to make good Danby’s pardon but also to ‘be principally advised by my Lord Halifax and Lord Essex’, who opposed it. Essex was also using his tenure at the treasury to blacken Danby’s reputation: as Danby put it, he was ‘under the blackest malice of those who are entrusted with greatest power; especially my Lord Essex, who affords me not the usage of a gentleman in the liberty he takes daily of reproaching me in the treasury with expressions neither becoming him or me’.131 Attempts to control royal finances, especially by instituting economies, were crucial to the king’s ability to survive without recourse to Parliament and as Southwell had realized by 30 Sept., while Essex’s ‘parsimony’ at the treasury was favourable to the king, it was upsetting to his former allies, like Shaftesbury, who hoped that financial necessity would force the king to concede their demands. By this date Southwell also thought that Essex would not succeed in his ambition to be lord treasurer, and that, even with Halifax, he ‘cannot carry some points that would be popular’.132
Halifax and Essex were among those who advised York to return to England when the king suffered a serious illness on 21 Aug., although they wanted him to retire again when the king recovered.133 In September Essex seemed to be conducting much of his treasury business from his house in St. James’s Square, a practice that continued into October, perhaps for reasons of secrecy.134 No doubt there were also many political dinners such as that recorded by John Evelyn on 14 Sept., when Essex dined at Sunderland’s with Charles Talbot, 12th earl of Shrewsbury, John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave, Charles Fitzcharles, earl of Plymouth, Laurence Hyde, the future earl of Rochester, and Sidney Godolphin, the future earl of Godolphin.135
In October, Essex was implicated in the Meal Tub Plot.136 Temple saw it as a significant cause of the growing discontent with the court exhibited by Essex and Halifax that they were left out of the ‘secret examinations’ into it.137 Thomas Dangerfield implicated Essex in the conspiracy.138 At the beginning of November, Essex was reportedly at Cassiobury to discuss with his wife her belief that he should quit his office.139 On 4 Nov. Southwell considered Essex to be ‘most zealously prone’ to press for Parliament to meet, and on 8 Nov. to be ‘at his wits end to know what will become of matters; and as a good expedient grows very keen in the matter of the plot.’140
At the Privy Council on 9 Nov. Essex was one of those to argue argued that Parliament should sit as originally planned on 26 Jan. 1680. The king, however, would not allow a debate on the matter.141 No doubt this was a major reason why Essex resigned his place on the treasury board on the evening of 16 November. His decision to resign may have been why on 15 Nov. Henry Sydney, the future earl of Romney, had found Essex ‘apt to laugh and despise the treasury’.142 Explanations for his conduct were many and various. Francis Gwyn‡ attributed his resignation to either ‘the apprehension of the public danger or of his own or out of some private pique.’143 Another expressed the opinion that ‘the meanness of touching French money to be the reason that makes my Lord Essex squeasy stomach, that it can no longer digest his employment.’144 He retained his membership of the Privy Council, according to Burnet, at the king’s earnest desire.’145 Southwell, on the other hand, thought that Essex had resigned to demonstrate his support for the sitting of Parliament, and that after consulting Shaftesbury, he had been advised to remain on the Council.146 Essex continued to oppose the king’s decision to prorogue Parliament, seconding Temple in the council on 10 Dec. by noting that financial exigency required supply.147 Southwell, on 13 Dec., thought that Essex was so incensed by the prorogation ‘that were not Ireland in his head the privy council would not longer hold him.’148
According to Temple, Essex was keenly involved in the debates in council concerning Irish affairs, in part at least because he wanted to return to Ireland as lord lieutenant.149 Ossory too was convinced that Essex desired the lord lieutenancy. This was why, he thought, in December 1679 Essex did ‘very maliciously inveigh’ against the bill sent over from Ireland for confirming the land settlement there. The following month Ossory told his father that ‘Essex makes it his work to catch hold of anything that may prejudice you, especially in what relates to the late Irish bill.’150
When, on 28 Jan. 1680, the king told the council that he had allowed York to return, Shaftesbury issued an appeal to some of the council to resign, including Essex.151 Essex chose to remain on the Council, although his brother, Sir Henry Capell, the future Baron Capell of Tewkesbury, together with William Cavendish, then, styled Lord Cavendish, the future duke of Devonshire, William Russell, styled Lord Russell‡ and Henry Powle‡, resigned.152
When Shaftesbury revealed the Irish Plot to the council on 24 Mar., Essex apparently took it seriously and was named to a committee to consider information about the plans of the Roman Catholic archbishop of Armagh, Oliver Plunkett, and his clergy, to deliver the kingdom to the French.’153 He may have wavered briefly for on 17 Apr. Burnet wrote that Shaftesbury now ‘complains mightily’, of Essex, ‘who was at first very much possessed with a belief of it, and did of a sudden fall from it.’ However, on 15 May, Burnet thought that Essex had been convinced by the Irish informer, David Fitzgerald.154 Ormond, on the other hand, was scathing about some of the Irish witnesses, referring on 12 Apr. to ‘Essex’s tool’ as a ‘silly drunken vagabond’. So wrapped up in it did Essex become that in May the king was overheard referring to ‘my Lord of Essex and his plot.’155
On 16 Apr. 1680, the dowager countess of Sunderland thought Essex ‘as much at court as if he had more employment than a Privy Councillor, and I believe he repents he is not, now he sees the king does not do irregular things, which perhaps they did fear.’156 Essex attended the prorogation of Parliament on 15 Apr. 1680, before leaving on 18 Apr. for a visit to Cassiobury with John Evelyn; his guest noted that ‘being no friend of the D[uke of York he] was now laid aside; his integrity and abilities being not so suitable in this conjuncture.’157 On 26 Apr., at a council meeting, Essex was ordered to interrogate Colonel Roderick Mansell about rumours of the black box which supposedly contained evidence of the king’s marriage to Monmouth’s mother.158 On 5 June Essex, as one of those present at the council when the king made his solemn declaration of being married to none but the queen, was summoned to swear to this fact in chancery on 15 June.159
On 18 May 1680 Ossory reported from London concerning initiatives for Irish bills from London, noting that proposals for a test to exclude Catholic peers from the Irish parliament had been made by Essex who ‘will rest satisfied with having been the promoter.’160 During the summer of 1680, Essex remained busy. On 9 June, Sir Edward Dering‡ referred to Essex as being present at a meeting at the treasury over the excise farm, and in July he was one of those named to the court of delegates to review the decision on the Hyde-Emerton marriage.161
The death of Ossory on 30 July 1680 gave Essex fresh hopes for succeeding Ormond in the lieutenancy of Ireland.162 John Locke, writing to Shaftesbury on 5 Aug., also thought that Ormond would be recalled, though he thought it ‘hard to conceive it shall be to make way for my Lord of Essex, though he be a man of known merit.’163 In August and September, Essex was still being called to assist the king and council on Irish matters.164 According to Temple, after six months of pursuing his aim of a return to Ireland through various ‘engines’ at court, Essex changed tack and ‘began to fall into a new commerce with Lord Shaftesbury’, the latter promising to make him lord lieutenant if he joined him.165
Essex was one of the most prominent peers advising the king that York should return into exile before the Parliament sat.166 On 12 Oct. 1680, Essex, in the company of Sunderland, Halifax and Heneage Finch, Baron Finch (later earl of Nottingham), waited on York to ask him to retire voluntarily.167 As Dr. Denton reported on 13 Oct., York had been told by Essex, among others, of ‘his danger, and withal that they must secure the Protestant religion without respect of persons’. York left for Scotland the day before Parliament sat.168
Essex attended on the opening day of the session of 1680-1, on 21 Oct., when, together with James Cecil, 3rd earl of Salisbury, he introduced Halifax, newly promoted to an earldom, into the House. He sat on 58 days of the session, nearly 88 per cent of the total, and was named to 12 committees during the session, including the committee to receive information on the Plot, which he chaired between 4-21 Dec. and 5-8 Jan. 1681.169 On 1 Nov. 1680 Essex was noted as attending a meeting of the ‘committee for Irish affairs’ held at Burlington’s house.170 On 8 Nov. Essex moved the House successfully for the clerk of the parliaments to transfer to the treasury all the records in his possession relating to the estates of Jesuits executed for treason, such estates being forfeit to the crown. Essex was one of those peers who oversaw the order of 13 Nov. to erase from the Journals the proceeding of February 1677 against Buckingham, Salisbury, Shaftesbury and Wharton. On 15 Nov., Essex was amongst those who ‘were zealous and violent for’ the Exclusion bill.171 Not surprisingly he voted against putting the question that the bill be rejected after its first reading, against its rejection, and entered his dissent when the bill was rejected.
On 16 Nov. 1680, when the Lords proceeded to discuss other measures for securing the succession, Essex proposed ‘that an association should be entered into to maintain these expedients’ and the House agreed to consider one based on the precedents of Edward III and Elizabeth.172 It was also reported that Essex had moved for a clause that the strategically important governorships of the Tower, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Hull be disposed of only to those approved of by Parliament.173 Essex was named to the sub-committee to draft the proposal, presenting head of a bill which the committee adopted.174 The House agreed to draw up a bill on 23 Nov. 1680, but it was never presented to the House. On the same day Essex voted for the motion to appoint a committee to join with the Commons ‘to debate matters concerning the state of the kingdom,’ and entered a protest when the motion was defeated. On 27 Nov. he was one of five peers appointed to a committee to adjust with the Commons the methods and circumstances of Stafford’s trial, reporting from it on 30 November. On 7 Dec. Essex voted Stafford guilty of treason.175
On 13 Dec. 1680 Essex reported from the committee examining the Plot, on the exemplary services of William Southall, coroner of Staffordshire, which resulted in a request for a reward to him from the king. On the following day he reported from the same committee on the activities of several ‘papists’, and also on the discoveries made by Oates of the estates of the Jesuits: the latter was referred to the barons of the exchequer to be proceeded upon by law. On 16 Dec. Essex reported on the proceedings against Francis Dowdall, who had claimed privilege as a servant of the Spanish ambassador, and who was ordered to return to Brussels. On 21 Dec. Essex joined Monmouth and Salisbury in attacking two of York’s most prominent supporters, Laurence Hyde and George Legge, the future Baron Dartmouth. He joined in a renewed attack on York on 23 Dec., when the House debated the king’s speech of 15 December.176 Essex also took a severe attitude towards the duchess of Portsmouth who had been favouring exclusion, telling the Lords ‘plainly at last, that the kingdom would neither suffer popish favourites or popish ministers, and that like Samuel he must ask, what meant the bleating of that kind of cattle? To which he hoped the king would make the same answer with Saul, that he only kept them with his other evil councillors to be offered up in sacrifice, to please the people.’177
On 4 Jan. 1681, Essex reported from the committee examining into the Plot some information relating to Ireland, which resulted in the House voting that there had been a plot to ‘massacre the English and subverting the protestant religion.’ On 7 Jan. he entered dissent against the failure of the Lords to put the question as to whether Lord Chief Justice Scroggs should be committed upon his impeachment by the Commons and, later, against the decision not to put the question for an address to the king to suspend Scroggs from his place.
Early in January 1681, Essex denied allegations that he had been involved in drafting articles of impeachment against Ormond. When the king declared in council on 18 Jan. his intention to dissolve Parliament, Essex was said to be one of those who would have spoken against this decision had the king allowed any debate on the matter.178 On 24 Jan. he was discharged from attending the council, along with Sunderland and Sir William Temple.179 That evening a group of peers, ‘the protesting Lords’, presumably including Essex, dined at Clare House and drew up a petition that Parliament should sit at the time appointed, but in London not Oxford, which was presented to the king on 25 Jan. by Essex and 15 other peers.180 In his speech before the king, Essex alluded to various historical precedents for holding parliaments outside London, all of which had had deleterious consequences for the monarchy.181 The speech earned him the thanks of the Middlesex grand jury and of the City of London.182 It was less well received at court: he was removed from the lieutenancy of Hertfordshire and on 19 Feb. the lord chancellor was sent instructions to remove his name from all the commissions of the peace of which he was a member.183
Before the 1681 session, Danby included Essex amongst those ‘Lords as I conceive will be against me’, in the ensuing Parliament and on 24 Mar. Essex was one of the Lords that opposed a motion for Danby to be granted bail.184 Essex attended on each of the seven days of the session held in Oxford in March 1681 and was named to four committees. According to Ford Grey, 3rd baron Grey of Warke, Essex was one of the lords who ‘kept a public table, to which we every day invited several of the House of Commons, and by that means had often opportunities of discoursing with them.’185 On 21 Mar. Essex accompanied Shaftesbury to wait on the king about the case of Edward Fitzharris.186 On 26 Mar. he was named to report a conference with the Commons on the constitution of Parliament and the method of passing bills. Later in the day, he protested against the decision to proceed against Fitzharris by means of common law rather than impeachment. Grey also reported a meeting on the day before the dissolution (27 Mar.) with Monmouth, Shaftesbury and Essex about continuing to sit after the king had dissolved Parliament.187
Essex attended the proceedings relating to Fitzharris in the king’s bench on 4 and 7 May 1681; he and Salisbury asked the king to allow them access to Fitzharris to discover what he knew concerning Godfrey’s murder. The king instead ordered the judges to examine him.188 On 8 June, Essex, together with Shaftesbury, Salisbury and Anthony Grey, 11th earl of Kent, were denied access to the king; he told them to attend him at Windsor on the following day, in full knowledge that they would be present at the trial of Fitzharris at that time.189 When Essex appealed for the king to pardon Archbishop Plunkett, who had been tried on the same day as Fitzharris, declaring that from his own knowledge the charges against him could not be true, the king declined to do so, replying, ‘be his blood on your conscience’.190
On 2 July 1681, Shaftesbury was arrested, apparently asking ‘if they had no warrant for some body else, particularly for the Lord of Essex; to which they gave no answer.’191 Richard Mulys and Narcissus Luttrell‡ both reported rumours around this time that Essex would also be arrested.192 Essex was in attendance on 8 July 1681 when the grand jury at the Old Bailey threw out the presentment against Stephen College, and he was present and willing to offer bail when the judges refused Shaftesbury’s application for release.193
In late September 1681, Essex, together with Monmouth and Russell, was named by the secretary of state, Sir Leoline Jenkins‡, as being behind the somewhat belated opposition to the London mayoral candidacy of Sir John Moore‡, who was deemed too moderate in the Whig cause. At the same time Jenkins had heard that there was talk of ‘petitioning’ again, presumably for a Parliament, and that Essex, Salisbury and Bedford had been sent for to town.194 On 25 Oct., Longford thought that Essex was in favour of the attempts of the Dutch ambassador, Van Beuninghen, to obtain a promise of a declaration of war from the king against France, in the hope that it would necessitate calling a Parliament.195
On 24 Nov. 1681 Essex attended the Old Bailey when the grand jury was considering the bill for high treason against Shaftesbury, which they subsequently found ignoramus. In December it was reported that Essex, William Howard, 3rd baron Howard of Escrick, Sir Patience Ward‡ and others were ‘taking informations daily against those that promoted the Presbyterian sham plot, which they intend to prove in Parliament by undeniable witnesses.’196 Meanwhile Secretary Jenkins reminded the lord chancellor on 11 Feb. 1682 that the king wished to remove Essex as custos rotulorum of the liberty of St. Albans.197 Essex was uncowed. During March and April he participated in a round of political dinners in the City.198 He was also one of ‘many persons of quality’ with tickets to attend the Whig inspired feast of the ‘loyal protestant nobility, gentry, clergy and citizens’, that was planned to follow an anti Catholic sermon on 21 Apr. but which was suppressed by order of the king.199 On 25 July Longford reported that Essex had met with Anglesey (who had recently lost office), presumably in an attempt to enlist his support for their cause.200
The Rye House Plot
On 5 Sept. 1682, when Monmouth left London for his tour of Cheshire, Essex was one of the ‘numerous train’ that escorted him out of the city.201 Upon Monmouth’s return on 23 Sept. Essex and Shaftesbury immediately paid him a visit.202 In between, on 15 Sept., Shaftesbury, accompanied by Locke, met other Whig leaders at Cassiobury to consult on political strategy.203 On 7 Oct. ‘a deep consult’ was held there, ‘amongst the high-flying malcontents’. Even Shaftesbury, who had gone into hiding, was rumoured to have been present.204
According to Lord Howard of Escrick’s evidence at the trial of John Hampden‡, Essex was present at a meeting held at Hampden’s house in mid-January 1683.205 The first mention of plotting involving Essex made by Grey of Warke, in his later evidence, related to February 1683, when Grey recounted being told at Chichester by Monmouth that together with Essex, Howard, Russell, Algernon Sidney‡ and Hampden (the so-called council of Six), he (Monmouth) had ‘been contriving insurrections in several parts’, although Monmouth expected disagreements with Essex, Sidney and Hampden because they ‘intended a commonwealth, which could not be without the destruction of the king.’206 In April 1683, Essex missed a key meeting of the conspirators, according to Grey of Warke, because he arrived too late from the country, despite John Locke being despatched to fetch him to London on 24 April.207 Essex was however at a later meeting, a week or ten days later, according to Grey of Warke (who was absent from it), when Essex and Sidney were deputed to draw up a declaration of their aims.208
Essex was arrested at Cassiobury on 9 July 1683.209 He was carried to London by a sergeant-at-arms and conducted to Feversham’s lodgings. On the following day, he was examined in the king’s presence and committed to the Tower. Sir Charles Lyttelton‡ noted that ‘the king is very displeased with him. He is charged, as I hear, to have signed an association.’ On the 12 July having spoken to Clarendon, he ‘made protestations that he knew nothing of any design to murder the king, but he said nothing to vindicate himself from being in other designs upon the government’.210
Essex was found with his throat cut on 13 July, leading to speculation as to whether this was a case of murder or suicide. Although suicide seems likely, the length and depth of the wound sustained suspicions of foul play.211 His fate, had he survived, is uncertain but Evelyn, for one, felt that the king harboured ‘no severe intentions against him’, and that ‘he owed him a life’, a reference to Essex’s father.212 A verdict of suicide meant that Essex’s personal estate was technically forfeit to the Crown but the king waived his rights so it went instead to the executor, Sir Henry Capell, for distribution to Essex’s son and heir, Algernon Capell, 2nd earl of Essex.213 Essex was buried on 18 July 1683 in the chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula at the Tower, but his body was soon removed to Watford.214 A newsletter of 21 July recounted that it was embalmed and ‘privately placed in the vault of his ancestors without the ceremony or solemnity of the Church.’215
Contemporary opinion on Essex remained divided. Francis North, Baron Guilford, on reflection, thought that
his anguish of mind was so great considering the disappointment of his ambitious designs, the stain of ingratitude that lay upon him, for conspiring to make trouble against the king that had been so bountiful a master, and the past happy condition which he had changed for so the worse, when he deserted the king’s service, that I believe he could take no rest and his life was burthensome to him.216
But, as Evelyn put it, few believed that Essex and Russell had ‘any evil intention against his majesty or the Church, and some that they were cunningly drawn in by their enemies, for not approving some late councils and management of affairs in relation to France, to popery, to the prosecution of dissenters.’217
For the next few years the death of Essex continued to resonate in the public mind. Periodic prosecutions occurred following the publication of tracts vindicating Essex from the crime of suicide, and accusing York of being behind the foul deed.218 An attorney, Laurence Braddon, continued to make enquiries into his death, and to publish inflammatory pamphlets, until silenced by the courts. In his declaration of 1685, Monmouth referred to James II ‘hiring execrable villains to assassinate the late earl of Essex,’ and, according to John Reresby‡, one of the things promised by the prince of Orange was that the murder of Essex would be investigated.219 Once the Convention met, the Lords appointed a committee on 23 Jan. 1689 to inquire into his death, which became a smaller ‘secret’ committee on 5 February. Several people were arrested and detained for several months. The committee’s enquiries seemed to have been suspended in May 1689 and those in prison released on bail the following month.
The controversy eventually died down. Roger Morrice recorded an unidentified knight say that he was convinced of the suicide ‘because his lady said upon her best enquiry she could see no ground to make further search after his death’.220 Ailesbury was similarly also doubtful that it was homicide once he heard the story of how Essex had commended Henry Percy†, 2nd earl of Northumberland, for committing suicide the morning of his execution in 1585, a story Evelyn also picked up.221 Richard Butler, earl of Arran [I] and Baron Butler of Weston, made a similar point, but with reference to the suicide of Alderman Mark Quinn of Dublin in or about November 1674, while Essex was lord lieutenant: ‘I do not much wonder at the manner of it, for I and other persons of quality here heard him say, when Alderman Quinn cut his throat with a razor, that he thought it was an easy kind of death’.222
On 2 Nov. 1689, the Lords revived the committee appointed on 5 Feb. to examine Essex’s death, but again the enquiry petered out.223 This was probably due to the intervention of the dowager countess, who had summoned Bishop Burnet and some other Whigs to tell them of her own belief in her husband’s suicide.224 Eventually, she and Burnet utilized the London Gazette to disown some of Braddon’s claims.225 In April 1680 John Evelyn had described Essex as ‘a sober, wise, judicious and pondering person, not illiterate beyond the rate of most noblemen in this age, very well versed in our English histories and affairs, industrious, frugal, methodical, and every way accomplished.’226 This seems to have been a widely held view, with Ailesbury referring to him as ‘my wife’s uncle, a most ingenious and sweet-tempered man as ever lived.’227 Burnet noted that when Charles II was asked to solicit Essex and Holles in the Lords over a judicial matter the king declined because ‘they were stiff and sullen men’, meaning by that that they acted by their conscience’.228
S.N.H.- 1 Oxford DNB (sub Woodhead).
- 2 Collins, Peerage (1812 edn) iii. 483.
- 3 CTB, 1681-5, p. 920; TNA, PROB 11/375.
- 4 CSP Dom. 1682, pp. 73-74.
- 5 CTB, 1681-5, p. 1253.
- 6 Add. 28079, ff. 59-60.
- 7 Minet, Hadham Hall, 13-14.
- 8 Add. 32519, f. 33.
- 9 Essex Pprs. i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 255, 269.
- 10 CCSP, iv. 225.
- 11 VCH Herts. ii. 453-4.
- 12 HMC 14 Rep. IX, 281; HMC Var. vii. 328.
- 13 Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 81-82.
- 14 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/1, pp. 20, 22-23, 35-37, 47-48.
- 15 Eg. 2551, f. 129.
- 16 Bodl. Rawl. Letters 54, no. 37.
- 17 CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 354; Boyle Corresp. iii. 245; Add. 75371, St. Albans to Sir W. Coventry, 18 Aug. 1666 N.S; Verney ms mic. M636/21, Dr. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 13 Sept. 1666.
- 18 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 191, 229.
- 19 CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 244.
- 20 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 239, 242.
- 21 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/2, p. 46; Add. 25116, f. 34.
- 22 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/2, pp. 49-51, 54.
- 23 HMC 8th Rep. pt. 1, 169-71; Add. 25116, f. 40, 58; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/15; Stowe 303, f.22.
- 24 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/2, p. 55; Northumberland mss at Alnwick, xix. ff. 131-33; Poems and Letters of Marvell, ed. Margoliouth, ii. 74.
- 25 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 283.
- 26 Add. 36916, f. 139; CTB, 1669-72, pp. 710, 714; British. Dip. Reps. 1509-1688, p. 37; TNA, PRO 31/3/123, p. 32.
- 27 Add. 21947, ff. 281-2.
- 28 Mapperton, Sandwich mss, Jnl. x. 196-204.
- 29 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 303.
- 30 Harris, Sandwich, ii. 319, 327.
- 31 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 318, 326-31.
- 32 CSP Ven. 1669-70, p. 189n; Add. 21947, f. 314; CSP Dom. 1670, pp. 398, 409, 421.
- 33 BL, Verney ms mic. 636/23, Sir R. to E. Verney, 4 June 1670.
- 34 HMC 9th Rep. pt. 2, p.41.
- 35 Essex Pprs. i (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), pp. 294-5; TNA, E134, 28 Chas. II.
- 36 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 386, 394-5, 399, 401, 404, 406, 410-12, 414-15, 418-19, 422, 427, 431-3, 448, 450.
- 37 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 422, 451.
- 38 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 422.
- 39 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 451-2.
- 40 Restoration Ireland ed. C. Dennehy, 49.
- 41 Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. to E. Verney, 18 Jan. 1671[-2].
- 42 Add. 28052, f. 77.
- 43 Bodl. Tanner, 43, f. 6; Add. 28040, f. 6.
- 44 CSP Dom. 1672, pp. 417, 425, 430, 455.
- 45 Essex Pprs i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 35; Verney ms mic. M636/25, Sir R. to E. Verney, 21 Nov. 1672.
- 46 Stowe 200, f. 435.
- 47 Essex Pprs. i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), pp. 43, 45.
- 48 Stowe 201, f. 22; Longleat, Bath mss, Coventry pprs. 83, f. 224.
- 49 Bodl. Tanner 43, f. 177.
- 50 Essex Pprs i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 73; Coventry pprs. 17, f. 21.
- 51 Essex Pprs i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 102, 119.
- 52 Essex Pprs i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 164; Browning, 126.
- 53 Essex Pprs i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 169, 195, 197, 200.
- 54 Verney ms mic. 636/27, William Fall to Sir Ralph Verney, 30 Apr. 1674.
- 55 Essex Pprs i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 226-7.
- 56 CTB, 1672-5, p. 689.
- 57 Browning, ii. 54-56.
- 58 Essex Letters (1770), 67, 90.
- 59 Essex Letters (1770), 214, 250-1; HMC Var. iii. 245.
- 60 Essex Letters (1770), 270.
- 61 Evelyn Diary, iv. 200.
- 62 Coventry pprs. 84, ff. 22, 24; Essex Letters (1770), 274-86.
- 63 Eg. 3329, ff. 29-30.
- 64 Essex Letters (1770), 394, 397; Bodl. Tanner, 42, f. 171.
- 65 Bulstrode Pprs. i. 310, 312.
- 66 Essex Letters (1770), 404, 408, 413.
- 67 Add. 75366, Anglesey to Charles II, 27 Apr. 1681.
- 68 Add. 18730, ff. 4, 9.
- 69 Essex Letters (1770), 415, 421, 424.
- 70 Add. 18730, ff. 6, 7.
- 71 Essex Pprs (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, xxiv), 40.
- 72 Eg. 3338, ff. 62-63.
- 73 Verney ms mic. 636/29, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 6 Apr. 1676.
- 74 Add. 18730, f. 10.
- 75 Coventry pprs. 17, ff. 287, 296.
- 76 Coventry pprs. 84, f. 55; 18, ff. 173, 183, 185.
- 77 Coventry pprs. 84, f. 63; 18, f. 285; CSP Dom. 1677-8, p. 330.
- 78 Add. 28053, f. 107.
- 79 Dasent, History of St James’s Sq., 242.
- 80 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 29, 48, 381.
- 81 CTB, 1676-9. pp 471-2, 476-7, 479, 495, 835, 837.
- 82 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 79, 89.
- 83 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/2, pp. 134-6.
- 84 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 107, 111, 404, 411.
- 85 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 415-18.
- 86 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 423-4, 438-9.
- 87 Lord Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, ed.Yale, (Selden Soc. 79), ii. 649.
- 88 HMC Lords, i. 1, 75.
- 89 Kenyon, Popish Plot, (1972) 3-4.
- 90 Haley, Shaftesbury, 471; Browning, 298; HEHL, Hastings mss HM 30315 (180), newsletter, 5 Nov. 1678.
- 91 Life of James II, i. 526.
- 92 Kenyon, Popish Plot (1972), 107.
- 93 Bodl. Carte 38, f. 678.
- 94 Add. 28049, f. 36.
- 95 TNA, PC 2/66, p. 503.
- 96 HMC Ormonde, iv. 333.
- 97 Haley, 501; Temple, Works (1731), i. 333.
- 98 HMC Lords, i. 93.
- 99 Add 28046, f.49.
- 100 HMC Lords, i. 97.
- 101 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 1.
- 102 CTB, 1679-80, pp. 4-5; HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 14; Baxter, Development of the Treasury, 1660-1702, 32.
- 103 Add. 28046, ff. 53-56.
- 104 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 36-37.
- 105 HMC Lords, i. 119-20.
- 106 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 39, 45.
- 107 Bodl. Carte 72, f. 477.
- 108 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 54.
- 109 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 55.
- 110 Haley, 513; Temple, Works (1731), i. 334.
- 111 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 504.
- 112 Haley, 517.
- 113 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 508.
- 114 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, notes about bishops, 1678.
- 115 Bodl. Carte 81, f. 566.
- 116 HMC Hastings, ii. 387.
- 117 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 96, 103.
- 118 Haley, 522.
- 119 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 520, 530.
- 120 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 170; EHR, xxxvii. 50.
- 121 Burnet, ii. 228-9.
- 122 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 530.
- 123 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 525; v. 132, 160.
- 124 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 144.
- 125 HMC Dartmouth, i. 36.
- 126 Life of James II, i. 556, 558-9.
- 127 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 152.
- 128 Halifax Letters, i. 173.
- 129 Temple, Works (1731), i. 339-40; CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 201; Sidney Diary i. 35-39.
- 130 Dalrymple, Mems. of GB, (1790), i. 314-15.
- 131 Add. 28049, ff. 62-63, 66.
- 132 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 538-9; v. 143.
- 133 Haley, 545-6; Life of James II, i. 567.
- 134 CTB, 1679-80, pp. 194-5, 218; Baxter, 21.
- 135 Evelyn Diary, iv. 181.
- 136 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 192.
- 137 Temple, Works (1731), i. 345.
- 138 Thomas Dangerfield, A Particular Narrative of the Late Popish Design to Charge those of the Presbyterian Party with the Pretended Conspiracy (1679), 31.
- 139 Sidney Diary, i. 177-8.
- 140 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 557-8.
- 141 Verney ms mic. M636/33, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 13 Nov. 1679; Hatton Corresp., (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii-xxiii), i. 203; Sidney Diary, i. 183; HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 238.
- 142 Sidney Diary, i. 186, 189.
- 143 CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 283.
- 144 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 239.
- 145 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 26; Burnet, ii. 241-2.
- 146 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 559-60.
- 147 Hatton Corresp. i. 212.
- 148 HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 567.
- 149 Temple, Works (1731), i. 347-8.
- 150 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 253, 264.
- 151 Add. 4155, ff. 10v.-11.
- 152 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 270.
- 153 Cam. Misc. xi. 16; Macpherson, Original Pprs. i. 105.
- 154 Cam. Misc. xi. 22, 29.
- 155 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 302, 324.
- 156 Sidney Diary, ii. 41.
- 157 Evelyn Diary, iv. 199-202.
- 158 HMC Ormonde, n.s., v. 311.
- 159 CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 505.
- 160 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 321.
- 161 Dering Diary, 118; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 52.
- 162 Add. 28053, f. 188.
- 163 Locke Corresp. ii. 226.
- 164 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 388, 390, 395, 409, 411, 420, 428-9.
- 165 Temple, Works (1731), i. 350.
- 166 Hatton Corresp. i. 238; HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 454.
- 167 Kenyon, Sunderland, 58.
- 168 Verney ms mic. 636/34, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 13 Oct. 1680; HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 459; Haley, 591.
- 169 HMC Lords, i. 144.
- 170 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 474.
- 171 Timberland, i. 248.
- 172 Burnet, History, ii. 258-9; Sidney Diary, ii. 126.
- 173 Macpherson, Original Pprs. i. 111.
- 174 HMC Lords, i. 210-11.
- 175 Bodl. Carte 80, f. 823; Rawl. A 183, f. 62.
- 176 Haley, 612.
- 177 Life of James II, i. 646.
- 178 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 549-50, 563.
- 179 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 265; Knights, Pols and Opinion, 293.
- 180 Add. 28053, f. 230; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 266.
- 181 The Earl of Essex His Speech at the Delivery of the Following Petition.
- 182 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 269; Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence or News Both from City and Country,15 Feb. 1681.
- 183 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 566; CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 175.
- 184 HMC 14 Rep. IX, 426, 430.
- 185 Grey, Secret Hist. of the Rye House Plot (1754), 10.
- 186 Haley, 634.
- 187 Grey, Secret Hist. of the Rye House Plot (1754), 12.
- 188 CSP Dom. 1680-1, pp. 263-4; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 80; Add. 75356, Gascoigne to countess of Burlington, 7 May 1681.
- 189 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 94-96; Castle Ashby mss, 1092, Will. Howard to Northampton, 9 June 1681; Verney ms mic. 636/35, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 9 June 1681.
- 190 Burnet, History, ii. 287n; Kenyon, Popish Plot (1972), 204.
- 191 Castle Ashby mss, 1092, W. Howard to Northampton, 2 July 1681.
- 192 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 91; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 106.
- 193 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 95-96; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 283.
- 194 CSP Dom. 1680-1, pp. 473, 475.
- 195 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 208-9.
- 196 HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 236, 262.
- 197 CSP Dom. 1682, pp. 73-74.
- 198 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 172, 176; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 147; HMC 10 Rep. IV, 176.
- 199 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 179; Haley, 694.
- 200 Bodl. Carte 216, f. 119; D. Milne, ‘The Rye House Plot’ (London Ph.D thesis, 1949), 76.
- 201 De Krey, London and the Restoration, 264.
- 202 CSP Dom. 1682, p. 432.
- 203 Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Govt., 86n.
- 204 Bodl. Carte 216, f. 206.
- 205 Howell, State Trials, ix. 1065; Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, 363.
- 206 Grey, Secret Hist. of the Rye House Plot (1754), 42.
- 207 Grey, Secret Hist. of the Rye House Plot (1754), 51; Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, 379-80.
- 208 Grey, Secret Hist. of the Rye House Plot (1754), 59.
- 209 Ailesbury Mems. 74; V. Sackville-West, Knole and the Sackvilles, 134.
- 210 Hatton Corresp. ii. 27, 29; Add. 32519, f. 33.
- 211 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 269; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. Iv. 461.
- 212 Evelyn Diary, iv. 328.
- 213 Hatton Corresp. ii. 31; CTB, 1681-5, p. 930.
- 214 Harrison, Tower of London Prison Bk. 393.
- 215 JRL, Legh of Lyme mss, newsletter, 21 July 1683.
- 216 Add. 32519, f. 33.
- 217 Evelyn Diary, iv. 323.
- 218 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 287, 299, 306, 319, 324, 326-7, 352; Politics and the Political Imagination, ed. Nenner, 81-82.
- 219 The Declaration of the Duke of Monmouth (1685), 2; Reresby, Mems. 553.
- 220 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 461.
- 221 Ailesbury Mems. 79; Evelyn Diary, iv. 327.
- 222 CSP Dom. July-Sept. 1683, p. 202.
- 223 Hatton Corresp. ii. 141.
- 224 M. MacDonald, ‘The Strange Death of the Earl of Essex, 1683’, Hist. Today, xli. 16.
- 225 London Gazette, 28-31 July 1690.
- 226 Evelyn Diary, iv. 201.
- 227 Ailesbury Mems. 72.
- 228 Burnet, History, i. 500.