LEGGE, George (1648-91)

LEGGE, George (1648–91)

cr. 2 Dec. 1682 Bar. Dartmouth

First sat 19 May 1685; last sat 30 June 1691

MP Ludgershall 1-6 Feb. 1673, 12 Feb. 1673-1679 (Jan.); Portsmouth, 1679 (Mar.)-1681

b. 1648, 1st s. of Col. William Legge‡ and Elizabeth (d. 14 Dec. 1688), da. and coh. of Sir William Washington of Packington, Leics; bro of William Legge‡. educ. Westminster, King’s Camb. 1664; L. Inn 1672.1 m. 17 Sept. 1667,2 Barbara (d. 28 Jan. 1718), da. and h. of Sir Henry Archbold of Abbots Bromley, Staffs. 1s. 7da. d. 25 Oct. 1691. suc. fa. 14 Oct. 1670. admon. 21 Nov., 1 Dec. 1691.

Groom of bedchamber to James Stuart, duke of York 1668-73; gent. of bedchamber 1673-75; master of the horse to James, duke of York, 1675-85, as James II, 1685-Dec. 1688; lt. of Ordnance, Apr. 1679-81, master Jan. 1682-Apr. 1689;3 PC 3 Mar. 1682-14 Feb. 1689.

Lt. RN 1665, capt. 1667, 1672-3; adm. 1683-4; adm. and commander of the fleet, Sept. 1688-9; capt. of ft. 1669-78; col. 1678-9, 1685-9 (R. Fusiliers); gen. of artillery (Spanish Netherlands) May 1678.

Kpr. Alice Holt and Woolmer forests, Hants 1670-d.; lt. gov. Portsmouth 1672-3, gov. 1673-82; dep. lt. Hants 16844-9; ld. lt. Tower Hamlets and constable of the Tower June 1685-Apr. 1689; master Trinity House 1683-5, elder bro. 1683-d.

Freeman, Portsmouth 1672, 1682, Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1682; burgess and gild bro., Edinburgh 1682;5 high steward, Kingston-upon-Thames 1685-9, Dartmouth 1687;6 recorder, Lichfield Mar. 1686-Oct. 1688;7 common councilman, Berwick-on-Tweed 1686-Oct. 1688;8 master, Shipwrights’ Co. of Rotherhithe, Surr. 1686-7.9

Associated with: Pall Mall, Westminster; St James’s Square, Westminster; Lewisham, Kent.

Likenesses: oil on canvas, after John Riley, c.1685-90, NPG 664.

Legge was the grandson of Edward Legge of Geashill, King’s County, Ireland, former vice-president of Munster. His father, a royalist commander in the Civil Wars, served with distinction under Prince Rupert, later duke of Cumberland, and was later taken prisoner and involved in conspiracies against the Cromwellian regime. Legge himself was a first cousin of Sir Edward Spragge‡, which may have assisted his naval career, although he received a captain’s commission from rear admiral John Kempthorne‡ in April 1667.10 In December 1684 Legge seems to have repaid this patronage by commissioning Rupert Kempthorne as an ensign in his independent company in the Tower.11

Legge entered the household of the duke of York as groom of the bedchamber in 1668. In October 1669 he succeeded his father as a captain of a foot company in the Tower. On the death of his father in 1670, he inherited the family lands in England and Ireland. In 1671 he was appointed captain of The Fairfax by York. In November 1672 he was named as the lieutenant governor of Portsmouth, again under York, succeeding as governor when York declined to take the Test in August 1673.12 Meanwhile, Legge (and his brother, William) were admitted to Lincoln’s Inn in 1672 courtesy of Francis Goodricke‡, reader of the Inn, and the uncle of Sir Henry Goodricke‡, who had married Legge’s sister in 1668. In February 1673 he was elected with court backing to the Commons for Ludgershall.  Legge was elected to the Exclusion Parliaments for Portsmouth, consistently supporting the court and the duke of York.13 Throughout his time in exile in Europe and Scotland, York maintained a correspondence with Legge who remained in London, effectively acting as one of the duke’s points of contact with the king throughout the political crisis.14 Indeed, the duke referred to him with great affection as a ‘man of conscience as well as of honour’.15 In the wreck of the Gloucester in 1682, Legge saved the duke’s life by drawing his sword and personally preventing the overcrowding of a lifeboat in which they both escaped.16

Legge’s reward for his loyalty was a peerage. Initial reports suggested he might take the title of Tilbury, an extinct barony.17 His was one of what was, by the standards of the day, a mass creation of 12 peers in November and December 1682, leading Dr William Denton to joke in a letter to Sir Ralph Verney‡, that ‘I would not have you come near London a good while for fear you should be made a Lord’.18 Some contemporaries were certainly underwhelmed by his promotion, Sir John Reresby‡, referring to Legge and John Churchill, later Baron Churchill (the future duke of Marlborough), as being ‘scarce gentlemen’.19 Legge may have hankered after an Irish peerage too because he tried, somewhat belatedly and unsuccessfully, at the beginning of 1683 to prevent Sir William Stewart from being created Baron Mountjoy [I], ‘the land or castle of that name being my lord of Dartmouth’s proper inheritance’.20

Dartmouth’s position as a member of two groups—followers of the duke of York and court Tories—saw him play a key leadership role in attempting to unite both to act as a counterweight to Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland and George Savile, earl (later marquess) of Halifax. Thus, following the disgrace of Edward Seymour‡, Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, asked Dartmouth in February 1683 how he should act towards him.21 In March Legge conferred with Seymour and Edward Conway, earl of Conway, at Littlecote, Wiltshire and was also negotiating with Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, although any plans were aborted by the court’s sudden return to London after a fire at Newmarket.22 Dartmouth approached Charles II for clemency for William Russell‡, styled Lord Russell, before his execution in July 1683, arguing that it would lay an obligation on the whole family and also referring to the services of Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, whose daughter had married Russell.23

In June 1683 Evelyn described him as ‘a great favourite of the duke’s, an active and understanding gent. in sea affairs’.24 He was heavily involved in the planning of the expedition to evacuate Tangier and demolish its fortifications, and, indeed, he was a major opponent of the alternative policy of selling it to the French. Dartmouth was not originally slated to take command of the expedition, that honour being meant for Henry Fitzroy, duke of Grafton. His appointment certainly ruffled a few feathers, Grafton’s mother, the duchess of Cleveland, remarking that ‘William Legge’s son should not have been disparaged to go vice-admiral under the king’s son’.25 At the end of July he was commissioned as admiral of the fleet and on 2 Aug. he received the command of the expeditionary forces.26 The expedition left on 19 Aug. 1683. Almost as soon as he had departed, Weymouth noted that ‘I perceive there are engines at work to lessen Lord Dartmouth, which may succeed in the duke’s family. The princess has sent for a coach and some horses, which he had taken to himself.’27 Dartmouth himself was aware of his vulnerability, having to be reassured by York in November that ‘ill men that write stories to you without any manner of colour’.28 Nevertheless, he wrote to Rochester on 29 Dec. 1683, craving the earl’s assistance, being ‘very sensible what advantage my enemies will endeavour to take of my long stay here’.29

While Dartmouth was absent he left Sir Christopher Musgrave and Richard Graham in charge of his affairs. They suggested that in order to clear his ‘considerable’ debts he should dispose of his mastership of the horse to York. Rochester, consulted on the idea, pointed out that Dartmouth was unwilling to sell the post ‘being desirous to continue in the duke’s immediate service’.30 At Dartmouth’s return he was assured by both Rochester and Sunderland that the king regarded his expedition as a success.31 This being the case, his support was eagerly sought by the court factions headed by Halifax and by Sunderland, Rochester and the duchess of Portsmouth. Dartmouth spurned both and attempted to steer a middle course, being ‘averse to fanaticism on one hand, and to popery and a French interest on the other’. Although Dartmouth’s brother-in-law, Sir Henry Goodricke, found that Danby, incarcerated in the Tower, was in favour of such a strategy, in reality Dartmouth lacked the support to make it work.32

John Dolben, archbishop of York, commended Dartmouth in April 1684 for following the advice of his friends ‘in mastering his passions and all the resentment and ill-usage’ he had during his absence.33 However, in May he also commented on Dartmouth being ‘undermined at Whitehall’ and hoped that he would not ‘blow up’.34 In August 1684 Richard Grahme‡, Viscount Preston [S], in Paris, wished that ‘something were done for our poor Lord Dartmouth’, but bemoaned that ‘he hath enemies as well as other people’.35

Despite his many offices or perhaps because of them, Dartmouth had some difficulty living within his means and securing his family’s financial future. On the occasion of his promotion to master of the ordnance, the future duke of Marlborough wrote to him that

I wish that you may live long to enjoy it, and as I wish you as well as any friend you have, so I will take the liberty to tell you that you will not be just to your family, if you do not now order your affairs so as that you may, by living within your self, be able in time to clear your estates. I will say no more on this subject at present, but when we meet you must expect me to be troublesome if I find you prefer your own living before your children’s good.36

By the end of 1683, despite York’s better fortunes and his own promotion, Dartmouth was somewhat depressed about his prospects and feared the actions of his enemies. York reassured him however that he would ‘stand by’ him, and that the combined favour of himself and the king would prevail.37 Dartmouth’s presence at the royal court at Whitehall and Windsor continued throughout 1684.38

On 10 Jan. 1685, Weymouth evinced to Halifax his unhappiness over plans to appoint Dartmouth as recorder of Lichfield under a new charter for the city. Weymouth blamed the corporation’s espousal of Dartmouth on ‘a little physician’, Sir John Floyer, Dartmouth’s brother-in-law.39 At the 1685 election Dartmouth joined with Shrewsbury, Weymouth and Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrers to recommend successfully Richard Leveson‡ to Lichfield.40 The charter was eventually issued in March 1686 with Dartmouth duly named as recorder.41 Dartmouth was also heavily involved in the negotiations which led to a new charter for Hull, mainly due to the interest he took in its fortifications.42 The death of William Alington, Baron Alington, the constable of the Tower, coinciding with Charles II’s fatal illness, Dartmouth was put in charge of the Tower by the Privy Council on 2 Feb. 1685, a measure confirmed by the new king in June 1685.43

One of York’s first appointments upon ascending the throne was to name Dartmouth as master of the horse. Dartmouth was now at the centre of the Court and perceived as a key patron in the search for royal favour.44 He had easy access to the monarch, his Whitehall lodgings being described as ‘just over against the door that led into the king’s private rooms’.45 By virtue of his influence, he also became a target. A rumour was spread that he had said ‘there could never come any good to England as long as the queen is so priest-ridden’, although the king dismissed it as ‘a malicious practice of such that had a mind to raise a misunderstanding between him and his best friends’.46

Dartmouth first sat in the Lords on 19 May 1685, the first opportunity after the succession of James II. He was introduced to the House by Ferrers, and John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton. At the next sitting, on 22 May, he was appointed to the committee for privileges and the committee for petitions. On his last day in attendance, 1 July, he acted as a teller in opposition to Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis on the question on whether the privilege cause of Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, should be heard the following day. He had sat on 23 days of the session, before its adjournment on 2 July, a little over 74 per cent of the total. He had been named to a further ten committees. He attended the prorogation of 4 Aug., and was also present on 9 Nov., when the session resumed, attending on each of the 11 days before the prorogation on 20 November. Indeed, on 10 Nov. he wrote to Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, on behalf of the king to hasten him up to London, intimating that the House would be called over on the following Monday.47 Dartmouth attended the prorogations on 10 Feb., 10 May, 22 Nov. 1686 and 15 Feb. 1687.

On 14 Jan. 1686 Dartmouth was one of the peers summoned for the trial of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), and acquitted him of the charges.48 His continuing friendship with the king was demonstrated when, in April 1686, he travelled back in the king’s coach following a viewing of the ground for the army’s camp on Hounslow Heath and went hunting with the king the following month.49 In late 1686 Dartmouth was a member of the committee of the Privy Council which was set up to review the commissions of the peace.50

In December 1685 Reresby had noted that Dartmouth was a supporter of Rochester and his brother Henry Hyde, 2nd ear of Clarendon, rather than of Sunderland, Churchill and the lord chancellor, George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys.51 That factional alignment may explain an incident in December 1686: Roger Morrice reported that following some discourse with Jeffreys, Dartmouth had accused him of ‘unmannerly and rude’ language, and only deference for the king prevented him from kicking the chancellor.52

On 28 Apr. 1687 Dartmouth entertained the king with a splendid dinner at Blackheath.53 In September he accompanied the king in a visit to Oxford.54 In October, it was reported that Dartmouth had invited Seymour to wait upon the king at Bath, but that Seymour had declined.55 This may have been of a piece with Dartmouth’s successful attempts to prevent Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, from resigning with the argument that the king needed English servants around him.56

Probably because Dartmouth was a known confidante of James II, other contemporaries throughout 1687-8 accounted him as a supporter of the king’s religious policies. Although in January 1687 Morrice reported that Dartmouth would not ‘declare’, presumably meaning his support for repeal of the Test Act and penal laws, by February he thought that Dartmouth had concurred ‘to the great point’.57 Ailesbury thought that Dartmouth was exempted from being asked the ‘three questions’ but he was presumably acquiescent in the process for he was present in cabinet in October 1687 when the three questions were delivered to Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort by James II.58 Dartmouth was on the committee of the Privy Council appointed on 20 Nov. 1687 to give effect to the decisions of the commission of regulation.59

Dartmouth was present at the birth of the Prince of Wales on 10 June 1688, and was reported to have celebrated it afterwards.60 His essential loyalism was recounted by Clarendon, who reported that on 28 June Dartmouth had tried to persuade Francis Turner, bishop of Ely, ‘to make application to the king’ and to submit before the trial of the seven bishops.61 As it became apparent that the Dutch were planning to intervene in English affairs, Dartmouth was one of the Anglican Tories, along with Jeffreys, Godolphin, and Sunderland, who urged the king to change his policies to win back the co-operation of the Church.62 Thus, on 21 Sept. Dartmouth was one of those behind the declaration by the king that Parliament would be called as soon as possible, Dartmouth having summoned Rochester and Turner to town to back efforts to ensure the king kept to his resolution of supporting the Church of England.63

On 24 Sept. 1688 the king appointed Dartmouth overall commander of his fleet, his main objective being to prevent William of Orange landing his forces in England.64 In this he failed as unfavourable weather conditions allowed the Dutch fleet to pass through the Channel while Dartmouth’s ships were trapped by the wind on their station on the Gunfleet off Harwich.65 Although he thought that the king had been tardy in recognizing the threat from the Dutch, a point acknowledged in his memoirs by James II, equally Dartmouth seemed surprised by the Dutch manoeuvres, regarding naval operations at that time of the year as rash.66 Despite this setback, he remained in favour with James II, the new secretary of state, Preston, writing on 17 Nov. that ‘notwithstanding the malice of a party at court, which hath already almost wrought our destruction, your lordship is extremely safe and happy in the king’s justice to you’.67 Indeed, on 1 Dec. the king recommended Dartmouth to the university of Cambridge as chancellor in succession to Albemarle. 

Others were not so charitable: in December 1688 Roger Morrice reported that Dartmouth had challenged James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, for the ‘base reflections’ made by the earl to the king ‘for his ill conduct of the navy’.68 Ailesbury later responded to criticism of Dartmouth by John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham), by suggesting that the pension Dartmouth later received from William was for what he had not done, that is the fleet did not obstruct the landing of the Dutch army.69 Even James II later felt on reflection that ‘whether it was religion, faction, or interest, that weighed most heavily with him, ’tis certain his loyalty was worsted in that conflict’.70 James also thought that Dartmouth wished to retain the mastership of the ordnance and Morrice pointed out in January 1689 that Dartmouth stood to lose offices in the court, ordnance and fleet worth £16,000 per annum by adhering to James.71 In reality, it seems that the decisions made by Dartmouth were taken in conjunction with his senior captains in councils of war, and inevitably, perhaps, given the uncertainty, not least in the weather, caution prevailed and offensive action was not risked.72

On 28 Nov. 1688 Dartmouth wrote to the king advocating that he call together his ‘great council and see which way a Parliament may be best called for I fear nothing will give a stop but that’.73 Upon receipt of news that the king had decided to call a Parliament, Dartmouth organized an address from the fleet on 1 Dec. thanking the king, noting in a separate letter to him that it would reveal to the world the prince of Orange’s real motives.74 As the king’s position deteriorated he asked Dartmouth to assist Henry Jermyn, Baron Dover, in arranging for the prince of Wales to be conveyed to France. Believing that this would be a disastrous move, Dartmouth refused to co-operate, suggesting that to follow such an order would be high treason and referring to ‘how prophetically I have foretold you your misfortunes’, and stating that ‘the Church of England will defend you in all your just rights’.75

On 29 Nov. the prince of Orange invited Dartmouth to join his fleet with that of the Dutch and to declare for the Protestant religion and English liberties. Dartmouth accepted the invitation on 12 Dec., following James II’s first flight from London. He stressed that he had always been a true son of the Church of England, and welcomed William’s intervention for ‘supporting our religion, laws, liberties and properties; not doubting, according to your highness’s declaration, but you will prosecute the same with the utmost regard and tenderness to the person and safety of the king, my master’. The king’s withdrawal he attributed to an unwillingness ‘to be a witness of, or consenter to what the laws and a free Parliament (which myself and the fleet addressed for 11 or 12 days ago) shall inflict on his evil advisors’.76

Ironically, two days later Dartmouth received James II’s orders (dated 10 Dec.) to take the fleet to Ireland to join with Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnell [I].77 Faced with contradictory orders, from two different sources of authority, Dartmouth described his own position as ‘almost insupportable’. His wife had counselled him on 12 Dec. to ‘be so wise to yourself and family as to do what becomes a reasonable man who I am sure is left in the most deplorable condition of any subject or servant’. She had also solicited Rochester’s advice, which was sent on the 13th, suggesting that he stay with the fleet to ensure its discipline and to write to the peers at the Guildhall for further orders, thereby avoiding any blame. Lady Dartmouth’s comment on the 15th that ‘I am in great concern for fear you should be ignorant of proceedings here to direct you how to steer’, suggests that she regarded her husband as a pragmatist. She then added in a postscript that Lord Churchill had offered to recommend Dartmouth to William.78

Meanwhile, the peers assembled at the Guildhall had sent letters on 11 Dec. to Dartmouth to ensure the two fleets did not fight with each other and to remove Catholic officers. On receipt of this letter Dartmouth called a council of war on the 13th, and replied on the 15th, referring to the assembled peers as the means ‘to preserve the king, my master, and establish the laws and properties and the protestant religion’.79 At the same time he wrote in a similar vein to Rochester, referring to both of them as ‘honest loyal Church of England men’, whose aim must be the re-establishment of the king in government and the resettlement of ‘holy religion, laws and properties’.80

In response to Dartmouth’s missive, William communicated on 16 Dec. his approval of Dartmouth’s actions, particularly his purging the fleet of Catholic officers and asked that he might have the benefit of the admiral’s advice once the fleet had returned to the Nore. On James II’s second departure, Dartmouth rhetorically asked Feversham, ‘what could make our master desert his kingdoms and his friends’? When Rochester informed Dartmouth that the Lords at the Guildhall had recognized William as head of the government and that a Convention would meet on 22 Jan. 1689, he counselled him to do nothing but obey William’s orders strictly. On 10 Jan. William ordered Dartmouth to attend him, and on 15 Jan. Dartmouth finally met William at Whitehall and delivered a full account of the state of the fleet. He was relieved of his commands in the navy and the ordnance.81

Dartmouth attended on the opening day of the Convention, on 22 Jan. 1689. On the following day, he was named to the committee for privileges and the committee for petitions. On 29 Jan. he voted in favour of the resolution that a regency was the best way to preserve the Protestant religion and the nation’s laws.82 On 31 Jan. he voted against the resolution declaring William and Mary king and queen. On 4 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons in using the word ‘abdicated’ rather than ‘deserted’. On 6 Feb. he voted against the decision of the Lords to agree with the Commons that the king had abdicated, rather than deserted, and that the throne was thereby vacant. He entered his protest when the motion passed. On 2 Mar. Dartmouth took the oath of allegiance to William and Mary, but on the 12th a warrant was signed for his replacement as constable of the Tower and lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets militia.83 On 19 Apr. he received the proxy of Ferrers. On 31 May he voted against a motion to reverse the judgments of perjury against Titus Oates, and on 30 July he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to bill reversing the judgments.84 When Parliament adjourned on 20 Aug., Dartmouth had attended on 117 days, 72 per cent of the total and been named to a further ten committees. 

On 27 May 1689 Halifax recorded a conversation with William III about Dartmouth, ‘upon the occasion of his brother Legge, he said he had some thought of allowing him a pension, but he would see how he behaved himself’.85 According to Halifax’s notes, Dartmouth, at the ‘king’s first coming pretended to his pension of £1000 p.a. he had from K. James’.86 On 3 July Halifax recorded another conversation with William III in which the king asked why ‘Dartmouth voted perpetually against him’.87 When the adjourned session of the Convention resumed on 19 Oct., Dartmouth was absent, but he attended on 21 Oct., when the Convention was prorogued.

Dartmouth was present when the new session began on 23 Oct. 1689, being named to the committee for privileges, the committee for the Journal and the committee for petitions. On 13 Nov. he again received the proxy of Ferrers. On 19 Nov. he entered his protest against the passage of the bill to prevent clandestine marriages. He was present on the last day of the session, 27 Jan. 1690, having attended on 66 days, just over 90 per cent of the total, and been named to a further six committees. Dartmouth waited on the king at the end of the session and was respectfully received. When Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, gave up the vice-admiralty in April 1690, the king offered the post to Dartmouth, who declined it saying ‘he would live peaceably and quietly under his government, but could not serve him in that place; for he had been brought up under King James, and always professed friendship to him, and received great advantages from him, and in gratitude could not fight against him’.88

In February 1690 Dartmouth backed the candidature of Nottingham’s brother, Edward Finch‡ at Cambridge University.89 Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), grouped Dartmouth with the ‘opposition Lords’ in an undated analysis, probably drawn up in advance of the new Parliament and with the instruction that he be approached by Charles Bertie‡.90 Dartmouth was absent from the opening of the 1690 Parliament, first attending on 28 Mar., when he took the oaths. On 8 Apr. he registered his protest against the passage of the bill recognizing William and Mary as right and lawful sovereigns, and confirming the acts of the Convention. He attended on 45 days of the session, a little over 83 per cent of the total, and was named to seven committees. He also attended the prorogation of 28 July 1690.

Dartmouth took his seat for the 1690-1 session when it opened on 9 Oct. 1690. On 30 Oct. he protested against the passage of the bill to clarify the powers of the admiralty commissioners. He again received the proxy of Ferrers on 8 December. He attended on the day the session was adjourned, 5 Jan. 1691 (when he was named to several conferences on the bill to suspend the navigation acts), at the further adjournments of 31 Mar., 28 Apr., and on 26 May (when Parliament was prorogued), having been present on 58 days, nearly 80 per cent of the total, and been named to a further 18 committees. He also attended the further prorogation of 30 June 1691.

James II’s secretary of state, Preston, had been captured, at the end of 1690, together with various documents from the exiled king’s supporters concerning his restoration. None of the documents were signed by Dartmouth, but he was implicated by Preston. By February 1691, Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney (later earl of Romney), had passed the information on to William III.91 In late June the attorney general reported that there was only one witness against him, and that the queen had decided against prosecuting him for misdemeanour in the face of divided legal opinion on it. The king however was ‘clearly of opinion it is absolutely necessary to clap up Dartmouth’.92 On 12 July Dartmouth was served with a warrant for arrest on a charge of high treason. He was examined by the cabinet council on 14 July about whether he had received a commission from James II or given intelligence about naval and other military matters.93 So convincing were his answers that Nottingham released him back into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms while the king’s further orders were sought.94 Only when William again expressed surprise that he was still at liberty was he committed to the Tower on 31 July.95 Dartmouth denied having betrayed military intelligence about the weaknesses of Portsmouth’s defences and receiving a commission from James II’s queen. He was said to have blamed his arrest on Jacobite enemies and an ‘old antagonist’ (perhaps Marlborough was meant), who had long sought the mastership of the ordnance and felt it was being kept open for Dartmouth to return to it.96

Dartmouth offered £30,000 bail which was refused.97 In pleading his innocence, Dartmouth reiterated, ‘I am a plain man, and I desire to answer plainly; I positively protest I have received nothing from [King James], directly or indirectly’. He insisted that he had stayed in England though ‘sure to die’ rather than ‘go to live in France’. In his last letter to Sydney, he said, ‘to find myself thus stigmatised as a traitor to my country, and that in the behalf of France, is the grieviousest burthen can possibly be laid upon me’.98

Dartmouth died in the Tower on 25 Oct. 1691, while ‘in bed with his lady’.99 His body was quickly released and he was buried at Holy Trinity Minories in the Tower Liberties on 27 October.100 He was succeeded by his son and heir, William Legge, 2nd Baron and later earl of Dartmouth.

A.C./S.N.H.

  • 1 L. Inn Reg. 313.
  • 2 Warws. CRO, DRB2/2 Sutton Coldfield.
  • 3 H. Tomlinson, Guns and Govt. 223-4.
  • 4 Staffs. RO, D742/Y/2/15.
  • 5 Staffs. RO, D742/Y/2/11.
  • 6 Staffs. RO, D742/Y/2/25.
  • 7 Staffs. RO, D742/Y/2/17; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 22, f. 123.
  • 8 CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 231.
  • 9 CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 21.
  • 10 William Salt Lib., S. ms 478/12/19.
  • 11 MM, xii. 314.
  • 12 Staffs. RO, D742/Y/2/1, 3, 5, 6.
  • 13 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. i. 238.
  • 14 HMC Dartmouth, i. 30-49.
  • 15 HMC Dartmouth, i. 40.
  • 16 Dalrymple, Mems. i. 127-8.
  • 17 Wood, Life and Times, iii. 32-33.
  • 18 Verney ms mic. M636/37, Denton to Verney, 27 Nov. 1682.
  • 19 Reresby Mems. 294.
  • 20 Bodl. Carte 216, f. 261.
  • 21 HMC Dartmouth, i. 80.
  • 22 Horwitz, Rev. Pols, 36; Kenyon, Sunderland, 93; CSP Dom. 1683 (Jan.-July), pp. 94-95, 144-5, 151-2, 154, 159; Verney ms mic. M636/37, Jo. Stewkeley to Verney, 26 Mar. 1683.
  • 23 Burnet, ii. 380.
  • 24 Evelyn Diary, iv. 314.
  • 25 J.D. Davies, Gent. and Tarpaulins, 192; HMC Dartmouth, i. 83.
  • 26 Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/i/799; D742/Y/2/14.
  • 27 Add. 75353, Weymouth, to Halifax, 8 Sept. 1683.
  • 28 HMC Dartmouth, iii. 127.
  • 29 Clarendon Corresp. ed. Singer, i. 92.
  • 30 HMC Dartmouth, iii. 121.
  • 31 HMC Dartmouth, i. 115.
  • 32 Reresby Mems. 335-6; Browning, Danby, i. 360.
  • 33 HMC Downshire, i. 29.
  • 34 HMC Downshire, i. 31.
  • 35 HMC 7th Rep. 310.
  • 36 HMC Dartmouth, i. 55-56.
  • 37 HMC Dartmouth, i. 100.
  • 38 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. i. 429.
  • 39 Add. 75353, Weymouth to Halifax, 10 Jan. 1685; CSP Dom. 1686-7, pp. 72-73; HMC Dartmouth, i. 122.
  • 40 CSP Dom. 1685, pp. 121; Ashmole Diary, iv. 1771.
  • 41 CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 72.
  • 42 P. Halliday, Dismembering the Body Politic. 228; CTB, vii. 1389, viii. 228.
  • 43 TNA, PC 2/70, p. 301; Staffs. RO, D742/Y/2/22.
  • 44 HMC Dartmouth, i. 122-8.
  • 45 Ailesbury Mems. 179.
  • 46 Add. 72481, ff. 78-79.
  • 47 HMC Buccleuch, i. 343-4.
  • 48 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 80; State Trials, xi. 593.
  • 49 HMC Montagu, 193 Bramston Autobiog. 226-7.
  • 50 Glassey, JPs, 70.
  • 51 Reresby Mems. 401-2.
  • 52 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 316.
  • 53 NAS GD 406/1/3443; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 40.
  • 54 Wood, iii. 229.
  • 55 HMC Portland, iii. 404.
  • 56 Ailesbury Mems, 177.
  • 57 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 338, 360.
  • 58 Ailesbury Mems. 162; HMC 12th Rep. IX, 91.
  • 59 Kenyon, Sunderland, 171.
  • 60 HMC Portland, ii. 53; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 43, f. 124.
  • 61 Clarendon Corresp. ii. 179.
  • 62 Miller, James II, 197.
  • 63 Kenyon, Sunderland, 217-18.Clarendon Corresp. ii. 188.
  • 64 HMC Dartmouth, i. 169-70.
  • 65 Kingdom Without A King, 19.
  • 66 HMC Dartmouth, i. 262, 267; Life of James II, ii. 58, 177.
  • 67 HMC Dartmouth, i. 184, 204.
  • 68 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 369.
  • 69 Ailesbury Mems. 186.
  • 70 By Force or By Default? ed. Cruickshanks, 100.
  • 71 Life of James II, 208; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 476.
  • 72 By Force or By Default? 94-100.
  • 73 HMC Dartmouth, i. 272.
  • 74 HMC Dartmouth, i. 275; iii. 69; HMC 5th Rep. 198.
  • 75 HMC Dartmouth, i. 215, 220, 224-5, 275-6; Life of James II, ii. 233.
  • 76 Clarendon Corresp. ii. 336-8.
  • 77 Kingdom Without A King, 32-33; Baxter, Wm. III, 241-2; HMC Dartmouth, i. 226.
  • 78 HMC Dartmouth, i. 232, 234-5; iii. 69.
  • 79 Kingdom Without A King, 68, 176-8.
  • 80 HMC Dartmouth, i. 280.
  • 81 HMC Dartmouth, i. 235, 279, 251, iii. 140-1; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 482, v. 4.
  • 82 Timberland, i. 339; Clarendon Corresp. ii. 256.
  • 83 CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 20.
  • 84 Ailesbury mss 1300/856.
  • 85 Halifax Letters, ii. 218-19.
  • 86 Chatsworth, Devonshire House Notebk. section D.
  • 87 Halifax Letters, ii. 222-4.
  • 88 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 391, 429.
  • 89 HMC Dartmouth, i. 253.
  • 90 Browning, Danby, iii. 176.
  • 91 Horwitz, Parl. Pols. 65; Bramston Autobiog. 365; HMC Finch, iii. 9-10, 18.
  • 92 HMC Finch, iii. 128, 141.
  • 93 HMC Dartmouth, i. 285-92.
  • 94 HMC Finch, iii. 156.
  • 95 HMC Finch, iii. 165, 188; CSP Dom 1690-1, p. 467.
  • 96 HMC Denbigh, v. 87-88.
  • 97 Bodl. Carte 76, f. 111.
  • 98 Beinecke Lib., Osborn Coll. fb. 190, vol. 4, pprs. written from the Tower, pp. 725-39.
  • 99 Wood, Life and Times, iii. 374; Portledge Pprs. 123; Luttrell, ii. 298.
  • 100 CSP Dom. 1690–1, p. 552.