Second son of the lord chancellor, ‘honest Lory’ Hyde was more able than his older brother, Henry, though his talents were offset by a tendency to drink too much and by a reputation for being ‘easily wound up to a passion.’
During his career of almost three decades in the Lords, Hyde proved to be one of the foremost leaders of the high Tory interest and a stalwart of the Church of England. In spite of this he was more willing to work with men of differing views than is often acknowledged. Though not a very accomplished orator, he grew to be one of the most respected members of the House on account of his close knowledge of procedure.
Early career to 1681
Following much of his youth spent with his family in exile, Hyde returned to England at the Restoration when he was elected (while still underage) for Newport in the Convention. The following year he transferred to Oxford University, which he proceeded to represent until the dismissal of the Cavalier Parliament. Through his father’s interest he was also preferred to the household office of master of the robes. Three years later it was reported that he was also to be made keeper of the privy purse but this proved not to be the case.
The fall of Clarendon in 1667 seems not to have damaged Hyde’s career. He made a rare speech in the Commons in defence of his father but managed the affair so dexterously that he inspired comparison with Brutus. Thus while he protested his father’s innocence, he insisted that he would be the first to call for his punishment should he be guilty. Such careful handling of a situation that could have proved terminal to his prospects meant that he remained largely untarnished by his father’s fall, despite murmurings that ‘some wonder that the earl of Clarendon’s two sons should still keep their places’ and rumours that circulated between December 1667 and February 1668 that he would be forced to give up the mastership of the robes.
Having survived this crisis, and a subsequent bout of smallpox, Hyde continued to thrive. In 1673 it was rumoured that he was one of three courtiers to be granted peerages. Although this failed to come to pass, by the mid 1670s he had developed a career as both courtier and parliamentarian, and in 1676 he was despatched on his first diplomatic mission (though this posting later caused him some embarrassment after it was reported that he had delivered a speech espousing Catholicism).
For the first two Exclusion Parliaments Hyde transferred to Wootton Bassett, a manor that he had previously purchased for £30,000 and where he exercised considerable interest.
Hyde failed to stand for the Oxford Parliament, though he remained a close adviser to the king and was said to have counselled terminating the session early. He also featured in Absalom and Achitophel as the loyal Hushai. The following month he was raised to the peerage as a viscount, an honour that the king was said to have intended to confer on him some time before.
The Tory Reaction, 1681-5
One of Hyde’s first actions following his ennoblement (acting in concert with his brother) was to recommend their father’s former chaplain, William Levett, to the post of principal of Magdalen Hall in Oxford, left vacant by the death of their kinsman, Dr Hyde. Although there were other contenders for the place, Ormond agreed to the appointment.
The same month Hyde was present at an interview between the king and the prince of Orange and in August he attended a ‘noble treat’ laid on for the prince by Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle.
Hyde’s growing interest at court was not simply owing to his managerial abilities. Colonel John Churchill, (later duke of Marlborough) reckoned him ‘the best man living’.
Hyde’s return from Scotland coincided with growing tensions within the administration concerning the direction of foreign policy, financial mismanagement and over affairs in Ireland. Disagreement over these and other matters helped provoke a spectacular falling-out between Hyde and Halifax. Fears of other divisions were no doubt reflected in the fact that Ormond was forced to assert on more than one occasion that his relationship with Hyde remained entirely amicable.
I shall never be able to do the part of my father either to his grace, or in any other share of the king’s service, but I will never be wanting in all the duty I can pay both to the memory of the friendship that was between my lord duke and my father.Bodl. Carte 232, ff. 101-2.
Hyde’s family suffered a further loss in May 1682 when his younger brother, James Hyde, and about 150 others went down with the Gloucester while in attendance on York. Although York was severely criticized for the way in which he managed his own escape from the wreck while leaving others to perish, the affair appears to have done nothing to damage York’s relationship with Hyde.
Over the summer Hyde was distracted by other family issues. First by the crisis that arose over the disputed marriage between Hyde’s cousin, Bridget, and Peregrine Osborne, styled Lord Dunblane [S] (later 2nd duke of Leeds), and later by a more positive event when Hyde’s daughter, Henrietta, married Ormond’s grandson, James Butler, earl of Ossory [I] (later 2nd duke of Ormond).
As Hyde’s interest continued to grow, at the close of July 1682 it was again put about that he was on the point of being made lord treasurer.
Hyde’s continuing domination of court was recognized by his promotion to the earldom of Rochester. That said he was one of a dozen men to be granted new titles between November and December 1682 and the king’s largesse at the time led at least one commentator to joke to one of his correspondents not to come to London for fear that he too would be made a peer. As was often the case, there was at first some uncertainty over what the title was to be. At least two commentators reported that Hyde had been created earl of Falmouth.
be sure to make it your perpetual care to be known for an honourable man, a religious man to God, an obedient subject to the king, and a good friend to all that have been kind to me … be sure no increase of honour, and greatness make you proud, it is the most impertinent of all the imperfections a man can be guilty of.Add. 75375, ff. 20-21.
The new year found Rochester once more engaged with affairs at court, which it was noted was now divided between ‘Tories Whigs and Trimmers.’ Rochester was among the foremost members of the ‘thoroughest Tories’.
For the time being Rochester was able to counter Halifax’s accusations, but the assault on his character brought out his most choleric side and left the two men more bitterly divided than ever. When Halifax proposed a new financial scheme, Rochester not only opposed it but advised other speculators to have nothing to do with Halifax’s plan.
Rochester’s feud with Halifax persisted throughout the summer and in July it was reported that the two peers had exchanged words at a meeting of the council.
If relations within the council remained tense, Rochester continued to benefit from his leading role in government. Following the suppression of London’s charter, part of a broader governmental crackdown, he was one of the commissioners appointed to supervise affairs in the city.
While pressure from Halifax continued to build, Rochester seems to have made a positive effort to cultivate alternative allies. Towards the end of April he agreed to lend his support to the nomination of John Lake, bishop of Sodor and Man (later bishop of Chichester) to become the new bishop of Bristol at the instance of his friend, Francis Turner, then of Rochester (later of Ely) even though his ‘inclinations were leaning towards another.’
Discussion of continuing changes at court persisted into the following month but by October 1684 such reports appeared to be on the point of being settled by the king’s decision to replace Ormond with Rochester as lord lieutenant of Ireland. Informing Ormond of his resolution, the king insisted that Rochester was ‘every way fit for it, and in one respect fitter than any other man can be, which is that the near relation he has to you makes your concerns and those of your family to be his.’ York echoed this by assuring Ormond that Rochester would ‘have all the care imaginable of you and your family’s concerns.’ Although Ormond responded that had he been asked to name a successor Rochester would have been his choice, the appointment threatened to sour relations between the two men, with Ormond convinced initially that Rochester had plotted to supplant him.
Rochester’s appointment to Ireland was interpreted as a sign of his weakening interest. John Dolben, archbishop of York, doubted that he would have agreed to take on the post had he been in a freer position at that point.
The downturn in Rochester’s fortunes coincided with continuing disputes with Halifax over the hearth tax. By February 1685 Halifax was convinced that he had sufficient evidence against Rochester to present to the king but he was forestalled by Charles’s sudden collapse and death on 2 February.
The reign of James II 1685-8
Rochester’s emergence as chief minister in the new administration signalled his reward for years of clear loyalty to his former brother-in-law. With his renewed supremacy came expectations and at the beginning of April, the lord chief justice, Jeffreys, sought his intervention to dissuade Sir Thomas Lee‡ from assisting the opposition in Buckinghamshire.
Alongside attending to his increasing responsibilities, Rochester’s attention was also taken up with family issues. Towards the end of July he had the difficult experience of writing to the new countess of Ossory (Lady Mary Somerset). He directed that the letter should be delivered to her ‘at her coming out the chapel’ and assured her of his ‘concern and tenderness in particular for my Lord of Ossory’, whose second marriage had come only months after the death of the previous countess, Rochester’s daughter.
I doubt not but you do me the right to believe that no man in the world is more concerned that I am, for all manner of satisfaction to you, and besides that your marriage was absolutely necessary for the good of your family, and … I assure you, there is no family in England that I should have been half so well pleased to see you allied with, as that you have chosen.Ibid. Rochester to Ossory, 31 July 1685.
While Rochester was engaged in assuring his former son-in-law of his good wishes, the ‘peevish’ Lady Rochester became embroiled in an angry dispute with Princess Anne, in whose household she was employed as a lady of the bedchamber.
At the opening of 1686 Rochester waded into the middle of a long-running dispute between James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S] (later duke of Dover), and the Hamiltons in an effort to reconcile the two parties. His efforts backfired, with the duke of Hamilton refusing ‘to be wheedled with fair words’ and later attributing to Rochester the management of all ‘underhand projects’ conducted against his family.
Divisions in the council were once more to the fore by the early summer of 1686. Jeffreys was now thought to be attempting to forge a new alliance with Rochester in opposition to Sunderland in the hopes of encouraging the adoption of ‘moderating counsels.’ Despite this, Rochester’s position seemed increasingly under threat and at the beginning of June it was rumoured that he was to be put out for being a good Protestant. The same month he was said to have indulged in a furious argument with Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel [I], over the appointment of the vice-treasurer of Ireland. In July Morrice concluded that Rochester’s interest was ‘broken’.
Rochester was present at the inaugural meeting of the commission on 3 August.
Rochester was indisposed in mid September 1686. The following month was marked by renewed reports of alterations at court. Speculation of ‘mighty endeavours of late to remove not only the lord lieutenant of Ireland but the lord treasurer of England also’ circulated in several quarters, with others reporting that Rochester was to be put out and his office put into a commission comprising Powis, Godolphin and John Belasyse, Baron Belasyse.
It may be supposed that his nieces [Princesses Mary and Anne], and all his interest has mediated to their utmost power with many tears. It is in vain here to plead merit or obedience, for never man was more obsequious to the will of another than this treasurer has been to the king’s will.Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 331-2.
Although James had determined not to continue Rochester in post, he professed himself eager to demonstrate that it was not on account of any wrongdoing that he was being supplanted. On 6 Jan. 1687 Colonel Werden informed Clarendon that Rochester had had ‘the good fortune to leave [his place], with as much honour and reputation, and with as signal marks of his having served the king well, as ever any man left any place.’
Rochester was named as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament on 15 Feb., but he failed to attend the sitting and by the following day he had retreated to Twickenham to be with his wife, who was said to be in a ‘weak condition’.
Rochester had returned to England by November when he was again noted as a supporter of repealing the Test. His attitude attracted criticism and at the close of the month he was castigated by some for having been over zealous in persuading the people in his lieutenancy to vote in favour of the king’s measures. Morrice, on the other hand, reported to the contrary that Rochester’s advice to his deputies had been deliberately couched in such a way as to encourage them to refuse to comply.
The beginning of 1688 found Rochester still noted among the supporters of repeal. He spent the early weeks of the year in a bustle of activity shuttling between meetings at his brother’s house, which were also attended by Bishop Turner, the ostensible reason for these being Clarendon’s ongoing legal struggle with the Queen Dowager. In March he joined Clarendon at Cornbury and the following month he was one of a large party at Clarendon’s smaller seat of Swallowfield.
Rochester seems to have played no role in the trial of the seven bishops, opting instead to retreat to Bath during the proceedings.
Rochester’s role in the drafting and signing of the petition to the king was said to have provoked the annoyance of the queen. His apparent abandonment of the king by supporting the petition may also have helped give rise to a later rumour that he was by now (improbably) embroiled in a pro-Orangeist conspiracy to overthrow James. At a meeting held the night before James left for Salisbury, Rochester, Bishop Compton, Churchill and others were said to have agreed to the seizure and, if necessary, assassination of the king. Rochester’s role was to accompany the king to Salisbury so that he could pass on details of the king’s counsels to the prince. The role of assassin was reserved for Churchill.
Rochester returned to London on 26 Nov. and the following day he was present at the ‘hastily summoned great council’. Convinced of the need to sue for peace he advised sending for the prince and summoning Parliament.
The ensuing negotiations between the commissioners and the prince were brought to a close by the king’s flight from London in the early hours of 11 December. James’s decision to flee set in motion a plan that had been devised by Rochester and Bishop Turner to call a provisional government into being to fill the void. Later the same day, Rochester, Turner and 25 other peers and bishops assembled at the Guildhall to take command of the situation. Rochester’s pre-eminence at this point was indicated both by the appointment of his former treasury secretary, Francis Gwyn, as secretary to the assembly and also by the fact that once William Sancroft had declined to do so it was Rochester who presided at the opening session. Over the next few days Rochester maintained a hectic pace of work within the provisional government. On their first day he informed the assembly of information that Catholics had been seen in arms at Hounslow, prompting an order for them to be disarmed. More importantly, he was also one of four members nominated to draw up a declaration to the prince, though he declined being named one of those to present the declaration and requested that some older earls should do so instead. Rochester continued to attend the majority of the ensuing sessions but he was soon supplanted as chairman by his rival, Halifax. Rochester and Halifax’s fractious relations soon came to the fore. News of the king being taken in Kent prompted disagreement over how best to deal with the men who claimed to have captured James; though they concurred that Prince William should be informed of the latest events. They also each backed calls for only a small number to be sent to escort the king back so that it would not appear as if he was being brought back under restraint.
Rochester attended the morning session of 14 Dec. but then absented himself in the afternoon to inform his brother of the king’s capture. He resumed his place the following day, when he was the signatory of a number of orders, and on 16 Dec. he accompanied his brother to Windsor, where Prince William had since established himself. Snubbed by the prince, who pointedly invited only Clarendon to dine with him, Rochester retreated to New Park.
Events were once more thrown into confusion by news of the king’s second flight early in the morning of 23 December. The following day Rochester was one of three lords to demand an enquiry into the circumstances of the king’s escape, and he was also to the fore in proposing that the council should have questions put to it in writing and that its answers should be recorded. On 25 Dec. Rochester signed the two addresses, calling for the convening of a convention and asking the prince to take on the government of the kingdom until such time as the convention could meet.
In spite of his resolution to co-operate closely with William and Mary, Rochester faced considerable obstacles in overcoming their early suspicion. As the year drew to a close there was little indication that he would be likely to benefit from the new regime and his relationship with the prince and princess seems not to have offered him any special access. As Sir Philip Musgrave‡ informed Dartmouth, Rochester now professed himself to be, ‘a great stranger to all affairs, and it is visible that he is not countenanced more than any other nobleman.’
William and Mary, 1689-94
Rochester’s campaign to reassert himself began early in the new year. He was at last able to secure a private meeting with the prince, though there were few signs of improved relations. Prince William upbraided him for failing to visit him when he had been in the Low Countries in 1687 and appeared unimpressed by Rochester’s explanation that he had been strictly forbidden from doing so. Rochester’s subsequent activities in the early stages of the Convention can have done nothing to reassure William about his intentions.
Rochester took his place at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on 90 per cent of all sitting days. On the opening day of the session he was one of 14 lords nominated to draw up an address to the prince. A week later, on 29 Jan., having spoken ‘with great passion and violence’, Rochester acting in concert with Clarendon and Nottingham, moved and then voted for the establishment of a regency.
In spite of these early setbacks, of the two brothers it was Rochester who was to prove the more amenable to the new state of affairs. Clarendon proved unwilling to accept James’s replacement and retired from court and Parliament while Rochester opted for grudging acceptance. It is possible that there was some deliberate coordination between the brothers in this but for the while Rochester continued to attempt to persuade Clarendon to do as he had done and take the oaths. On 3 Mar. he was able to report that he had finally succeeded in being received by the queen at Hampton Court.
Rochester’s gradual rehabilitation coincided with a growing crisis in Clarendon’s affairs. Although Rochester succeeded at last in convincing his brother to return to town on 6 Mar., he was unable to persuade him to take the oaths and at last agreed to approach Nottingham about procuring Clarendon a passport to leave the country. Despite their differing attitudes to the new regime, Clarendon and Rochester continued to see each other frequently, but there are indications that Rochester grew less inclined to discuss affairs with his brother and on 22 Apr. their plans to dine together were scrapped as the House continued to sit until after 4pm.
In the absence of ministerial responsibilities, Rochester steadily acquired a commanding role in Parliament as one of the most prolific chairmen of committees. On 8 Apr. he reported from the bill to permit Isaac Searcy to change his name to Searle, which was considered fit to pass without alteration, and the same day he reported from the conference for considering the bill for removing papists from London. On 17 Apr. he was named one of the subcommittee of six charged with making the remainder of the Dissenters’ toleration bill agree with the amendments. He then reported from a further conference concerning the bill for removing papists, noting that the Commons had refused to agree to the proviso recommended by the Lords, ‘because it was not parliamentary’. The following day he reported from the Lords’ committee appointed to re-examine the proviso as amended by the Commons, which was at last agreed to by the Lords as well. Rochester was one of a number of peers to register their protests against the passage of the recognition bill on 1 May. A week later, on 8 May, he reported from the committee considering the bill for rectifying mistakes in the bill for removing papists.
While Rochester steadily developed a new career for himself in the House, his relations with his brother appear to have deteriorated. On 15 May he entertained his brother at dinner but was annoyed to be upbraided by Clarendon for having been present at the instalment of William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, and Frederick Herman Schomberg, duke of Schomberg, as knights of the Garter the previous day. The Lords’ adjournment from 17 to 22 May allowed Rochester to retreat to New Park for a few days, but he resumed his seat on 22 May when he reported from the committee for the bill for the development of Arundel Ground and was again nominated manager of a conference. Three days later he acted as one of the tellers for the motion concerning Titus Oates, which was carried by 29 votes to 18. Clarendon and his family dined with Rochester again on 29 May at which Rochester advised his brother to leave town, but the brothers were together the following day at a dinner also attended by the archbishop of Dublin and bishop of Leighlin.
Throughout the early summer of 1689 Rochester continued to bear a heavy burden of committee work. On 7 June he was also entrusted with Ormond’s proxy as well as that of Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton. On 15 June he was noted as having been present in the House, but later the same day he retired once again to New Park. The following day (a Sunday) he entertained his brother there and discussed the current proceedings in the House, reassuring him that the brouhaha over the absent lords seemed to have abated for the while.
Rochester’s workload continued unabated through July. On 5 July he reported from the committee for the bill for investing in Oxford and Cambridge the right to present clergy to livings held by papists and on 10 July from the committee for the tanned leather bill. On 15 July he reported from the committee for the succession bill and the following day, having reported from a further select committee, he reported from the conference with the Commons concerning the bill. On 19 July he reported from the committee for privileges and on 24 July from the select committee concerning the bill for imposing duties on coffee and tea. Two days later he reported from the committee concerning the Lords’ reason for insisting on their amendments to the Titus Oates bill and then reported from the ensuing conference with the Commons. On 27 July he reported from the committee established to draw up the Lords’ response to the Commons’ rejection of the Lords’ amendments to the coffee and tea bill and two days later reported from a further conference on the succession bill. On 30 July he was one of several managers to report from a conference held with the Commons concerning Oates. The same day he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments concerning the reversal of perjury and the following day he reported from two further select committees. He then reported from one final conference concerning the attainder bill before the House was adjourned.
In the midst of this full programme, Rochester was himself the subject of interest in the Commons over whether or not he ought to be excepted from the bill of indemnity. In the event the Commons resolved without a division to include him within the bill’s provisions.
Following a month of combined political negotiation and relaxation, Rochester returned to London in the first week of October in preparation for the new session. He took his seat on 21 Oct. after which he was present on 95 per cent of all sitting days. Following a call of the House of 28 Oct., he warned his brother to keep away from London as the House seemed likely to summon peers who had failed to attend. On 15 Nov. Rochester reported from the committee for the bill for preventing minors’ clandestine marriages. The same day he wrote to his brother now urging him to return to London where Lady Clarendon lay seriously sick. He had left the capital for New Park by the time Clarendon arrived there the following day.
By the late autumn of 1689 the court was once again riven by familiar ministerial squabbling. Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough) attempted to persuade Rochester to ally with him against Halifax but Clarendon urged his brother not to allow himself to be motivated by revenge. By the opening of December the king’s attitude had hardened. Rochester reported to his brother Nottingham’s conviction that the king intended to turn against the Church of England interest. Clarendon thought the rumours merely ‘fine stories, given out to amuse and wheedle people.’
Neither the infighting at court nor William’s apparent resolution to turn to the Whigs curbed Rochester’s indefatigable committee work. Over the course of the next two months he reported from nine committees, including that considering the draft bill for relief of those Catholics willing to take the oath of fidelity. The session also brought to light unwelcome reminders of Rochester’s association with the controversial policies of Charles II’s administration in its final years. On 20 Dec. he was present at the cabinet council when John Tillotson, later archbishop of Canterbury, was examined about the death of Lord Russell. The same day he was again entrusted with Lexinton’s proxy, having already received that of Fulke Greville, 5th Baron Brooke, two days previously.
Although Rochester seems to have had no qualms about working closely with the new regime, his immediate circle retained a large proportion of men unwilling to accede to the revolution settlement. Rochester celebrated the beginning of the new year by dining with his brother, and on 18 Jan. 1690 he was again present at a dinner with his brother also attended by Bishop Turner and Thomas Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells. On 25 Jan., two days before the close of the session, he was the only Tory peer not to oppose putting the question that the king should be requested not to go to Ireland. On 28 Jan., the day following the prorogation, Clarendon called on Rochester at his London home, having pointedly avoided doing so while Parliament was in session. The brothers then returned to Clarendon’s home, where they were joined at dinner by James II’s former mistress, the countess of Dorchester.
Following the dissolution, Rochester was successful in employing his interest on behalf of his old Commons’ ally, Francis Gwyn, at Christ Church.
to give you a particular account by letter of all the turns, not to say tricks used in the getting it through our House and how many times some of our greatest lords absolutely changed their minds in their votes while it was committed … in short I have not seen a more complete contrivance and the rest you shall know when we meet.
To add to the confusion of the times, Rochester continued to relate how ‘the white marquess [Carmarthen], and I are quite out, so I think he is with Lord Nottingham, and that he is, I mean the white, quite struck up with the dissenters, and all the fine promises concerning the church and the good bishops quite vanished.’
Rochester’s concerns over such matters did not prevent him from continuing to dominate in committee work and other aspects of the House’s business. On 23 Apr. 1690 he reported from the committee for Sir Robert Fenwick’s bill and on 2 May acted as one of the tellers for the division over whether to adjourn during debates on procedure in engrossed bills. The motion to adjourn was defeated by 41 votes to 52. Rochester reported from another committee on 3 May and on 8 May he was again entrusted with Lexinton’s proxy. On 13 May he reported from the committee considering the amendment to a proviso drawn up by the Commons to the bill for enabling the queen to act as regent in the king’s absence. Two days later he reported from the committee for the Hudson Bay Company bill, and on 17 and19 May he reported first from the committee of the whole and then from the select committee appointed to consider the white paper manufactory bill.
Despite the brothers’ troubled relationship with the king and queen, Rochester remained close enough to the monarch for William to advise him to warn Clarendon to be careful, as the king professed to know full well that Clarendon was plotting against him.
During the parliamentary recess, Rochester was frequently in his brother’s company and in mid June 1690 the brothers visited Bishop Turner at Putney, where they also found Bishop Ken, and Thomas White, of Peterborough. Their summer was rudely interrupted by news received late at night on 24 June that a warrant was out for Clarendon’s arrest. Rochester advised his brother not to abscond and the same night officers arrived to take Clarendon into custody. The following day Clarendon was committed to the Tower.
In spite of having such a close association with a suspected Jacobite, Rochester’s position at court seemed strengthened rather than lessened by the close of the summer. In September he was listed as one of the peers of the Privy Council.
Rochester was added to the committee for the orphans bill on 1 Dec. and between 17 and 18 Dec. he reported from two further committees as well as reporting from the conference for the earl of Salisbury’s bill. At the close of December he was elected one of the commissioners for inspecting the public accounts. In common with all the other peers elected he sought, and was permitted, to be excused.
Rochester’s concentration on business was interrupted once more at the beginning of 1691 when his brother was again arrested and incarcerated in the Tower, though it was not until 15 Jan. that he was able to ‘surprise’ Clarendon with a visit. The ensuing few weeks were punctuated by further visits to his captive brother.
The early autumn of 1691 found Rochester much courted amid continuing speculation of his imminent return to office, though opinion was divided over whether he would be lord lieutenant of Ireland, lord president or lord privy seal. The only condition thought likely to be imposed upon him was that he would be required to ‘come zealously into the service of the court’. According to Richard Hill, such reports were grounded on a belief that by then William was able to turn to ‘few men of capacity whom he and Lord Portland [Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland], will trust.’ Towards the end of the year Hill had revised his opinion in response to reports that Carmarthen’s position appeared increasingly vulnerable, pointing out that Carmarthen’s enemies would not press the point for fear of bringing in Rochester in his place.
It was in this uncertain state of affairs that Rochester took his seat in the new session on 27 Oct. 1691. Present on 85 per cent of all sitting days, he proved once more to be active as a chairman of committees and manager of conferences. On 6 Nov. he was again entrusted with Somerset’s proxy. On 11 Nov. he carried the sword before the king, sparking further comments that he was ‘in much favour.’
As well as concentration on the House’s business, Rochester was also intent on defending his privilege. On 23 Nov. the House ordered that John Wilkins of Wootton Bassett should be taken into custody for arresting Rochester’s bailiff, Charles Cruse, in defiance of Rochester’s privilege. On 1 Dec. the House heard that Cruse had been arrested at the suit of Hugh Jones the elder and Hugh Jones the younger. Wilkins and both Joneses were ordered to be brought to the bar along with another man, Charles Skull, to account for their actions. Ten days later the House accepted Wilkins’ submission.
Rochester’s brief alliance with Carmarthen seems to have faltered by the close of 1691. In early November Rochester was said to have allied himself with Godolphin in support of the suspected Jacobite plotter, Monmouth, and in opposition to Carmarthen. On 16 Dec. he was listed by Derby, among those Derby believed to have been in favour of his efforts to reclaim some of his family estates in 1685.
Private concerns once again came to the fore towards the close of January 1692. On 22 Jan. the House read a petition submitted by Rochester seeking leave to resort to the law courts over a dispute with Grey, 3rd Baron Grey of Warke (later earl of Tankerville), concerning lands that had been stripped from Grey and awarded to Rochester in the wake of the Monmouth Rebellion. On 2 Feb. the matter was referred to the committee for privileges.
Along with defending his own possessions, Rochester continued his activities in the House as he became increasingly embroiled in the disputes over the accounts bill. On 27 Jan. he was entrusted with Burlington’s proxy. During February he reported from three committees and on 5 Feb. he informed the House that the managers had delivered the public accounts bill to the Commons. Three days later he reported from the subsequent conference with the Commons concerning the public accounts and he reported from a further conference on 10 February. The measure was one to which Rochester was said to be firmly opposed. It had been reported in January that he was at the head of those lords wishing to insist on the appointment of additional commissioners as a means of wrecking the bill and by the beginning of February he was thought to be ‘the great opposer of the bill of accounts.’
In spite of his heated opposition to various measures before the House, the beginning of February 1692 was once more marked by feverish reports of Rochester’s likely return to government. According to one account, Sir Edward Seymour‡ was to be secretary or lord privy seal, Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney (later earl of Romney) was to go to Ireland while Rochester would be ‘prime minister’.
If Rochester’s relations with the king and queen were vastly improved, the same can not be said for Princess Anne. She complained to the countess of Marlborough of an interview she had held with Rochester in February 1692, during which he ‘talked a great deal of senseless stuff’ concerning the effort of the king and queen to force her to dismiss Lady Marlborough. She refused to comply.
June 1692 found Rochester involved in council meetings held aboard a battleship preparing for a descent on France and, later in the month, needing to respond to news of the latest Jacobite plot.
Rochester took his seat on 4 Nov. 1692 after which he was present on 89 per cent of all sitting days. The same month his heir, Lord Hyde, was returned for Launceston at a by-election.
Rochester reported from a further three committees during the remainder of the session. On 16 Feb. 1693 he was the somewhat unlikely recipient of Lovelace’s proxy, and on 24 Feb. he again acted as one of the tellers on the question whether to repeat the order in Dashwood v. Champante, which resulted in a tied vote. On 4 Mar. he was one of three peers appointed by the House to attend the king to discover when the Lords might wait upon him with their address. Three days later the same three peers (Rochester, Bridgwater and Nottingham) were appointed to attend the king again to inform him about the mutiny bill.
In the middle of May Rochester was one of a number of privy councillors ordered down to Portsmouth to enquire into the management of the fleet. Later that month his enquiries took on a very personal dimension when he appears to have suffered a further bereavement by the death of a younger son, who was said to have been serving as a volunteer on board a ship commanded by Sir Francis Wheeler bound for Barbados.
Rochester remained in town for much of the early summer of 1693 and in June he was present at the hearing for the case Bridgman v. Holt.
Rochester took his seat at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, on which day he was again entrusted with Somerset’s proxy. He was present on almost 80 per cent of all sitting days, during which he reported from three committees and as many conferences. Soon after the session’s commencement, the House ordered the attachment (again) of Hugh Jones, elder and younger, for breaching Rochester’s privilege. The debates surrounding the passage of the triennial bill found Rochester in rare alliance with Halifax, speaking in favour of the measure in opposition to Carmarthen and Nottingham.
Rochester remained active into the new year. On 5 Jan. 1694, he protested again at the resolution not to insist on the Lords’ amendment to the place bill. On 11 Jan. Rochester and Godolphin were ordered to attend the king to request his permission for members of the council to provide the Lords with an account of the intelligence sent to the lords of the Admiralty relating to the sailing of the French fleet out of Brest. Rochester reported the king’s initial response the following day and on 15 Jan. he reported again, that although the king believed the House was in possession of all the information it needed, he would accede to their request. On 7 Feb. he reported from the committee preparing heads for a conference with the Commons about the intelligence relating to the Brest fleet, and on 12 and 15 Feb. he reported the results of the conference. Two days later Rochester acted as one of the tellers in the division whether to adjourn the debate over the dispute Montagu v. Bath. The motion was rejected by ten votes and Rochester then proceeded to vote against reversing the dismission of the court of chancery. On 26 Feb. he spoke in favour of passing the treason bill but it was thrown out without a division after it was made plain that the king was opposed to its passage.
Rochester’s support for at least two measures opposed by the king may have contributed to his exclusion from the council of advisors to the queen during the summer. Sunderland’s hostility was a more serious factor and Sunderland had advised a reduction in the overall size of the body to help ease Rochester out. Nevertheless, later in the summer it was rumoured that efforts were being made to reconcile the two men.
William III’s reign, 1694-1702
Rochester’s exclusion from the queen’s council did not prevent the continuation of his pension of £4,000 from the civil list nor did it preclude him from participating in debates in the Privy Council concerning the summoning of the Irish Parliament. In common with Nottingham he thought should it should be recalled in September rather than delaying to the following spring.
The queen’s sudden death from smallpox threatened to throw affairs into some uncertainty. Although Rochester does not seem to have been concerned by William continuing as monarch without the legitimizing presence of Mary, he joined with Nottingham to raise the question whether Parliament was dissolved as a result of the queen’s death (writs having been issued in the names of both monarchs).
On 25 Jan. 1695 Rochester spoke in Nottingham’s support during the committee of the whole considering the state of the nation.
In the middle of February 1695 Rochester’s attention turned to other matters. On 16 Feb. he participated in the debates surrounding the petition of Sir Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, to be granted a writ of summons. Rochester argued against the restoration of the Willoughby barony.
Having failed to get his way on several key pieces of legislation, Rochester resumed his position as one of the most active committee chairman during the final weeks of the session. On 11 Apr. 1695 he reported from the committee for examining John Maurice and on 16 Apr. he informed the House of the proceedings of the committee nominated to investigate Sir Thomas Cooke‡. The following day he reported from the committee taking the examination of Sir Robert Clayton‡ and then reported both from the committee appointed to consider what should be raised at the conference with the Commons concerning Cooke, as well as from the conference itself. Five days later (22 Apr.) he informed the House that the committee had examined the ballots for the peers elected to meet with the Commons to examine Cooke and that 13 peers had been chosen (of whom he was one). Rochester reported from one final committee on the last day of April, and on 2 May he reported the reasons to be offered at a conference why the Lords could not agree with the Commons’ amendments to the bill concerning Cooke. He then, once more, reported the conference’s proceedings.
Rochester turned his attention to Ireland during the summer. It was reported that his nephew by marriage, Henry Boyle, later Baron Carleton, who had spent part of the summer at New Park, intended standing for the speakership of the Irish Parliament: his prospective candidature, promoted by Rochester, was illustrative of Rochester’s willingness to continue to co-operate with a family member even though Boyle had deserted the Tories for moderate Whiggery.
Rochester took his place in the House three days into the new session on 25 Nov., after which he was present on 87 per cent of all sitting days. The focus of his attention during the session appears to have been the question of trade and the coinage. Soon after taking his seat he urged the House to turn its attention to the question of the coinage, participating in two committees of the whole on 3 and 4 December. He urged the necessity of addressing the bad condition the coin was in, of the need to recall clipped specie and of the need for an address to the king to request that all coin above sixpence be called in. He also reported the committee’s opinion that merchants trading in the Indies should attend the House to provide evidence of the ways in which the Scots East India Company might damage their trade.
Besides his activities relating to trade and currency, Rochester was again assiduous in his management of select committees and in other areas of the House’s business. He also, once more, offered his assistance (with his brother, Clarendon) in mediating between the duchess of Beaufort and earl and countess of Ailesbury in their ongoing dispute.
On 17 Feb. Rochester reported from the committee considering the act for continuing the act prohibiting trade with France.
Rochester was one of a number of peers to express their concern at the wording of the Association at the close of February and on 13 Apr. he joined Nottingham and Normanby (as Mulgrave had become) in urging moderation during the debates in the committee of the whole concerning the bill for securing the king’s person.
With the Fenwick affair dominating the parliamentary agenda, Rochester took his place in the House almost a fortnight after the opening of the session on 2 Nov. 1696, after which he was present on almost 86 per cent of all sitting days. On 2 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to insist on amendments to the bill for remedying the state of the coinage. The following day he reported from a committee for a private bill and on 10 Dec. from the committee considering information from the Admiralty. In spite of his apparent sympathy towards Shrewsbury, Rochester proved hostile to the efforts to proceed against Fenwick by bill of attainder. On 15 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution to read Goodman’s information, and on 18 Dec. he spoke out against a statement made by Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, in which Bolton had asserted that no one could be for the government and yet against the bill. He then proceeded to vote against giving the bill a second reading and registered a further dissent when the resolution was carried. Rochester laid out his reasons for opposing the bill in detail. He listed five points, among which was the lack of credible witnesses against Fenwick (an echo of his former complaint about the proceedings against his brother Clarendon). He argued that:
passing the bill would encourage enemies to the government showing it to be in a very tottering condition, when for its preservation, it’s forced to leap over all our laws and fly to so extraordinary a method to take away the life of one poor man.
WSHC, 2667/25/7; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, i. 133.
Rochester continued to oppose the proceedings, commenting critically on 22 Dec. that, ‘a government that must be supported by cordials cannot be long lived.’
The new year saw no abatement in Rochester’s involvement in the aftermath to the proceedings surrounding Fenwick as he became similarly involved in the subsequent investigation into Monmouth’s activities. Following Monmouth’s three-hour speech in his own defence on 9 Jan. 1697 and an intervention by Leeds, Rochester was said to have ‘emptied the House’, though it is not clear whether this was by an unusually rambling speech or by a call for strangers to be removed from the chamber.
In the midst of such great national events Rochester continued to involve himself in more peripheral issues, and on 21 Jan. he was appointed one of the mediators to attempt to bring about a reconciliation between Huntingdon and his heir, George Hastings, styled Lord Hastings (later 8th earl of Huntingdon). On 23 Feb. 1697 he was entrusted with the proxy of George Berkeley, earl of Berkeley. Rochester also continued to report from numerous committees, informing the House of proceedings in 11 committees between 27 Jan. and 10 April. On 19 Mar. he reported from the conference considering the bill for prohibiting India silks and on 14 Apr. from the committee of the whole for the bill for the imposition of duties on tin and drugs. The following day he subscribed the protest against the resolution not to agree to the committee’s amendment to the bill for restraining the number of stock-jobbers.
In spite of his refusal to vote in favour of the Fenwick attainder, Rochester was again said to be very friendly with Shrewsbury at this time and on 23 Jan. Shrewsbury wrote to thank Rochester for his assistance during the proceedings.
Rochester took his seat in the new session on 7 Dec. 1697, after which he was present on 85 per cent of all sitting days. By the close of the month it was put about that the Whigs were growing increasingly suspicious of Sunderland and Rochester’s continuing alliance.
During the remainder of the session, Rochester reported the findings of a further 16 committees as well as taking the chair in committees of the whole and serving as a conference manager. On 28 Feb. 1698 he reported from the committee of the whole considering the act requiring retailers of salt to sell by weight, and on 3 Mar. he entered his protest against the resolution to pass the divorce bill of Charles Gerard, 2nd earl of Macclesfield. On 4 Mar. he reported from the committee considering Mohun’s petition to be brought quickly to trial. The same day he presented to the House the bill for restraining excessive law suits. He then reported from the committee for the bill later that month and between 31 Mar. and 4 Apr. also reported from two committees of the whole considering the further refinement of the measure.
The focus of the session proved to be the proceedings against the Tory member, Charles Duncombe‡. Having already registered his dissent at the resolution to read the bill for punishing Duncombe a second time, Rochester reported from the committee for devising heads for a conference with the Commons about the business on 7 Mar. and the same day reported from the ensuing conference. He reported from a subsequent conference concerning Duncombe’s punishment on 11 Mar. and on 15 Mar., having been consistent in his opposition to the measure throughout, he voted to throw the bill out. Two days later he revealed once again his willingness to support a political opposite by reportedly speaking up for the lord chancellor (John Somers, Baron Somers) against the aspersions made by Robert Bertie‡ that Somers was guilty of corruption. On 18 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the libel penned by Bertie reflecting on the proceedings in chancery relating to the case Bertie v. Viscount Falkland.
Rochester was entrusted with Weymouth’s proxy on 3 May 1698 and on 19 May he also received that of Nathaniel Crew, Baron Crew (bishop of Durham). The following month he was one of a trio of peers approached by John Methuen over Methuen’s fears for the effects the woollen bill was likely to have on Ireland. All three undertook ‘to secure it for this session’. They proved as good as their words and succeeded in having the measure put off for a week, ‘in such a manner that I hope we shall certainly gain our point’. On 3 June Rochester was present at a meeting at which were also Methuen and Godolphin (another of the three) as a result of which the woollen bill was laid aside.
Rochester reported from the committee appointed to draw up the heads for a conference concerning the trial of Jean Goudet on 16 June. He then reported from the ensuing conference later the same day and from a subsequent conference on 21 June. In the midst of this, he also reported from the committee nominated to draw up the reasons for the Lords failing to agree with the Commons’ amendments to the bill confirming to the bishop of (Winchester Peter Mews) his lease of Alverstock waterworks.
The close of the session found Rochester involved in negotiations with Shrewsbury, who was eager to find a suitable country seat, for the lease or purchase of Cornbury Park. By this time Clarendon’s financial difficulties had become so acute that Rochester considered the sale of the family estate the only way to save his brother from disaster. In August 1698 he admitted to Shrewsbury that a report that he was minded to purchase it himself ‘was not without ground’, but he assured the duke that his ‘pretensions shall be no hindrance to your designs.’ Despite the urgency of the situation, Clarendon proved obdurate and by mid October Rochester was forced to inform Shrewsbury of his inability to persuade Clarendon to part with the house.
For all Rochester’s earlier willingness to speak on Somers’ behalf, he remained eager to keep the Junto in check. To this end he prepared to employ his interest to thwart the Junto-backed Sir Thomas Littleton‡ in his efforts to secure the speakership in the new Parliament. In October Rochester joined Leeds and Nottingham in offering his backing to John Granville, later Baron Granville of Potheridge, for which he also seems to have secured Abingdon’s support.
Having presumably rid himself of gout, Rochester finally took his seat in the new Parliament on 3 Jan. 1699, after which he was present on almost 88 per cent of all sitting days. The following day he introduced Henry Nassau d’Auverquerque*, as earl of Grantham. Reports soon circulated of anticipated alterations in the ministry with Godolphin tipped to become secretary of state and Rochester (again) lord treasurer.
Following the close of the session, Rochester spent much of the summer in progress around the country. At the beginning of July it was reported that he was to travel to Chippenham (in Wiltshire) with Ormond and Ranelagh and on 16 July he was expected in the environs of Longleat.
Rochester returned to the House almost a fortnight into the new session on 29 Nov. 1699, after which he was present on 87 per cent of all sitting days. On 11 Jan. 1700 he resumed his familiar role in the House reporting from the committee considering a report concerning the bishop of Derry, and during the remainder of the session he reported from a further 11 committees, including that appointed to draw an address relating to the Scots colony at Darien. On 1 Feb. he voted in favour of continuing the East India Company as a corporation, and on 23 Feb. he voted in favour of adjourning into a committee of the whole to discuss amendments to the East India bill.
Rochester’s intense concentration on business in the House hindered him from responding to renewed queries by Shrewsbury about leasing Cornbury that month, but by the end of the first week of March he was able to report to the duke that he had at last ‘finished the bargain with my brother that I have been some time about, and so the house and park and all belonging to it is in my hands’ and the whole ‘not the less at your service.’
Following the close of the session, Rochester was again the subject of rumours that he was one of those expected to be brought in as a member of the cabinet council and as a lord justice during the king’s absence.
By mid November the shape of affairs was becoming clearer. Rochester, it was said, would not leave for Ireland until after the close of the forthcoming parliamentary session, but he would be empowered to appoint a deputy, ‘a favour not usually granted’.
Rochester’s restored credit may well have been behind rumours circulating in January 1701 that one of his daughters was to marry the recently ennobled Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax.
Rochester took his seat in the new session on 10 Feb. 1701. Present on 86 sitting days in the session (more than three-quarters of the whole), his new responsibilities seem to have had some impact on the extent of his activities in the House, but he still found time to report from the committee considering the state of the fleet on 21 and 22 February. He proceeded to report from a further three committees during the course of the session, including that for vesting the estate of Humphrey Hyde in trustees, as well as from at least one case brought before the committee for privileges. On 27 Feb. he was nominated by James Annesley, 3rd earl of Anglesey, as one of four lords to attempt to mediate with Anglesey’s estranged countess. On 3 Mar. Rochester reported the peers’ failure to convince Lady Anglesey to return to her husband and read out her reasons for refusing to be reconciled. This failure did not prevent Rochester from again being named as a mediator between another warring couple at the close of the month. On this occasion, he was more fortunate and by the end of April he was able to report a successful outcome with Nathaniel Fiennes, 4th Viscount Saye and Sele, and the dowager viscountess (his stepmother) coming to an agreement.
In the midst of such efforts, Rochester was also prominent in working to thwart efforts by the Junto to regain the initiative. On 18 Mar. he registered his dissent against a resolution relating the passage of the partition treaty and the same day he was one of a number of peers to oppose (unsuccessfully) an amendment to the address put forward by Wharton. On 20 Mar. he dissented again at the resolution not to send the address relating to the partition treaty to the Commons for their concurrence, and on 16 Apr. he protested once more at the resolution to address the king to desire him not to punish the impeached lords until their impeachments had been tried. He then protested at the resolution to expunge the text of the former protest from the Journal. Rochester continued to put his name to protests relating to the impeachments through early June and on 17 June he voted against acquitting Somers. He then subscribed two further protests at the resolution to acquit.
The close of the session brought the question of Rochester’s impending departure for Ireland back to the head of the agenda. The issuing of a warrant on 18 July allowing him £3,000 for equipage prompted expectation that he would leave later that week.
Rochester’s sojourn in Ireland proved relatively brief. Although in late October he claimed to know nothing of a time for his likely return to England, in early December he was granted leave to return in time to take his place in the new session of Parliament. Later that month it was speculated that the king would be forced to turn to a triumvirate of Rochester, Marlborough and Godolphin to oversee the ‘conduct of his affairs’ and that Rochester would be replaced in Ireland by Ormond.
The Church in danger, 1702-7
Out of office once more in spite of the great expectations of the previous year, Rochester took his seat in the House on 3 Feb. 1702, after which he was present on 27 occasions in the session (27 per cent of all sitting days). The king’s death on 8 Mar. offered Rochester the prospect of renewed interest as it appeared likely that his niece, Queen Anne, would look with greater favour on the high Tories than her predecessor had and would offer to men like Rochester greater opportunities for securing the Church of England. On 18 Mar. he was sworn of the new Privy Council and the following day it was also said that he was expected to resume his place in Ireland: an oversight by which his commission had never been revoked formally facilitating an early resumption of his duties there.
In the midst of such speculation, Rochester proceeded to participate in negotiations with Godolphin, Harley and Nottingham over the text of the queen’s speech.
Soon after the dissolution, Rochester was said to be readying himself again for his return to Ireland.
Business in London seems to have been chiefly responsible for keeping Rochester from his duties on the island. He also seems to have been engaged with using his interest on Dalkeith’s behalf.
Having apparently remained in the vicinity of London throughout the summer, Rochester took his seat in the new Parliament on 21 Oct., after which he was present on 55 per cent of all sitting days during which he reported from three committees. By then an authority on parliamentary procedure, in early January 1703 Rochester intervened during the third reading of one bill when Richard Cumberland, bishop of Peterborough, attempted to insert an amendment. Rochester objected that the bishop’s action was irregular, but he desisted when it was pointed out that the amendment was merely intended to correct an error in transcription. The point of Rochester’s principal interest in the session, though, was the occasional conformity bill. He was critical of the timing of the bill, but his argument that it was a just measure if unseasonable did not prevent him from being assessed as a likely supporter of the bill, and on 16 Jan. 1703 he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. He was prominent too in other matters brought before the House. On 9 Jan. he intervened in the debate over the wording of the address, which brought him into conflict with Somerset, and on 11 Jan. during the debates in a committee of the whole considering the bill for Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, Rochester moved that a clause relating to the act of succession should be read before they continued with the debate. When it was moved to resume the House, Rochester objected and called for the committee of the whole to continue where they would be able to speak with greater freedom. His motion was rejected by 54 votes to 46. Ten days later (21 Jan.) he again drew upon his knowledge of parliamentary procedure to argue against permitting Richmond to bring in an appeal as this would have the effect of stopping the case when Parliament was prorogued. On 22 Jan. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to dismiss the petition of Squire and Thompson in their appeal against Wharton.
Aside from his activities in Parliament, Rochester maintained a close interest in his family and in the latter part of November 1702, he approached Lady Marlborough to ask the queen to secure a place in the bedchamber for his daughter, Lady Dalkeith, a move that the countess found all the more surprising given his previously ‘very barbarous’ behaviour towards her. Rochester’s willingness to appeal to someone with whom he was on such bad terms echoed a tale told by Bishop Burnet and recorded by William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, that Rochester had approached Burnet to ask his assistance in restoring Rochester to Queen Mary’s favour, citing the gospel justification that he had always been the bishop’s enemy.
By the beginning of February 1703, it was clear that Rochester had no intention of making the journey back to Ireland. He was relieved of the position and replaced by Ormond. There was some uncertainty how Rochester might be compensated for the loss, though the lord treasurership was again mentioned. His behaviour seems to have raised questions about his standing at court. On 11 Feb. it was noted that he had returned to London after a break at New Park, but that he had not been at court, though two days later another report emphasized that he had been there and insisted that he remained firmly in the queen’s favour.
Rochester joined his son and granddaughters in contesting a case with John Granville, Baron Granville of Potheridge, in the early summer of 1703 over the raising of money to pay portions to, among others, Rochester’s younger grandchildren.
Rochester took his seat in the new session on 10 Nov., after which he was present on two-thirds of all sitting days. In advance of the session, he was assessed again (this time by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland) as a likely supporter of the occasional conformity bill. Sunderland’s prediction was then mimicked in a later forecast of 26 Nov., and Rochester was among those listed as having voted in favour of the bill on 14 December. He then registered his dissent against resolutions not to give the bill a second reading and to throw the measure out. Personal matters also proved significant during the session for Rochester. On 9 Dec. he brought before the House a complaint against William Townshend, whom he accused of taking possession of one of his estates at Witney in Oxfordshire. Townshend was ordered to be attached, but he was later discharged having acknowledged his offence. On 21 Dec. Rochester was also involved as one of those named in a bill presented to the House for making an agreement between him, Grey of Warke and Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville) relating to lands in Durham, Northumberland and Berwick.
Besides these matters, Rochester seems not to have made much impression on the early weeks of the session. His lack of activity clearly weighed upon him and on 17 Dec. he wrote to Harley (who had attempted to wait on Rochester) assuring him that, ‘if I did know one minute that you could be at leisure for so idle a man as I am, to wait on you, you would be troubled with me.’ In a subsequent letter five days later, Rochester again assured Harley of his intention to wait on him, though he was eager that it should not be thought he had any business to discuss, ‘when indeed I have none.’
Rochester’s greater activity in the House did not disguise the increasing tensions within the administration. In January it was reported that Ormond was ‘governed by my lord Rochester endeavouring to divide the Irish protestant interest into high church and low church.’
In September 1704 Rochester was in town, busy with overseeing the publication of the final volume of his father’s History of Rebellion.
Rochester’s evident irritation with the state of affairs had in no way abated by the beginning of December. He was said to have been one of the Tories whose zeal had turned to rage, ‘and they resolve to leave nothing undone to bring back their party to a majority.’ Their first target was said to be the Speakership of the Commons and once that had been achieved it was reported that they intended to bring Rochester in at the head of a new ministry.
Rochester was noted (inaccurately) as a Jacobite sympathizer in a list of peers compiled in April 1705.
The following day (30 Nov. 1705), Rochester seconded the motion proposed by Halifax (though from a rather different motivation) for a day to be set aside to consider reports that some were disaffected to the church and prompted that it should be set down on the order sheet as a day to debate whether or not the church was in danger under the current administration.
Rochester’s assault on the government coupled with his agitation for an invitation to Electress Sophia undoubtedly did him considerable harm in his relations with the queen. As the duumvirs’ administration became more entrenched and increasingly dependent on Whig support, Rochester’s interest also underwent a significant decline. In December Richard Hill was thought to have been removed from his place on Prince George’s council at the Admiralty and replaced by Sir Stafford Fairborne‡, a move that prompted one commentator to note how ‘my Lord R[ochester], has not interest enough to protect his friends.’ In the event Fairborne was forced to wait until the following year before joining the council and Hill retained his place.
In the midst of such heats, Rochester continued to dominate in committee work. He was also entrusted with the proxy of his son-in-law, Francis Seymour Conway, Baron Conway, on 8 Dec., which was vacated by Conway’s return to the House a month later. From late January until the beginning March 1706 Rochester reported from committees on 22 occasions. From late December he was also an active member of the committee for the records, along with his Junto rivals Halifax and Somers.
Despite his uneasy relationship with the administration, Rochester maintained an ostensibly amicable correspondence with Marlborough during the summer.
The Scots and Sacheverell, 1707-11
As part of his efforts to undermine the administration of Godolphin and Marlborough, Rochester appears to have turned his attention to Marlborough’s duchess, whom he sought (once again) to displace from the queen’s favour. Over the next few years the queen distanced herself from Duchess Sarah turning instead to Abigail Masham. How significant Rochester’s role was in bringing this about is uncertain, but the duchess appears to have become suspicious even of close kin, including her brother-in-law, Edward Griffith, who she accused of entering ‘into my Lord Rochester’s project’ of separating her from the queen.
Rochester took his seat in the first British Parliament on 30 Oct. 1707, after which he was present on almost 72 per cent of all sitting days, during which he reported from eight committees. On 20 Nov. he was noted as one of those to second the call made by Wharton for a committee to be appointed to hear the testimony of a number of merchants relating to the condition of the fleet. Others supporting the motion included the Junto peers Orford, Somers and Halifax.
It was an indication of Rochester’s continuing centrality in politics that during the ensuing crisis in government precipitated by the Whig ministers refusing to continue in office with Robert Harley, Rochester’s name was put about as a likely successor to Godolphin in the event of Harley succeeding in retaining his post as secretary.
Rochester was, unsurprisingly, listed as a Tory in an assessment of May 1708. Later that summer Sunderland commented to the duchess of Marlborough the difficulty of predicting how Rochester (and Haversham) might behave in the forthcoming session, pointing out that, ‘As for what they will do in anything it’s pretty hard to judge of them because they don’t act upon any steady principle.’
Matters relating to Scotland dominated the opening of 1709. Following a characteristically lengthy opening harangue by Haversham, Rochester spoke in the House on 12 Jan. concerning the recent attempted Jacobite invasion of Scotland.
Rochester’s support for the rights of Scots peers may have been one of the reasons for his selection as godfather to one of Hamilton’s sons in November 1709. The same month he suffered the loss of his brother, Clarendon.
Rochester’s personal affairs did not prevent him from taking his seat in the House two days later, after which he was present on 77 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Dec. he seconded another long speech made by Haversham calling for a debate on the state of the nation, though the duchess of Marlborough remarked that Rochester did so in only ‘a very few words’ and that he ‘looked very dejected and old.’
In addition to these activities, and in spite of the duchess of Marlborough’s assessment that he looked old and jaded at the turn of the year, Rochester remained a prominent member of the House. He was to the fore in registering his dissent to measures that did not agree with him. On 16 Feb. he registered three dissents concerning resolutions relating to Greenshields and to the Commons’ address to the queen requesting Marlborough’s immediate departure for Holland. Between the beginning of February and first week of April 1710, he also reported from 20 committees. On 17 Feb. he reported from the privileges committee considering the petition of Lawrence Fiennes, 5th Viscount Saye and Sele, to be permitted a writ of summons. On 27 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the Lords’ reasons for disagreeing with an amendment to Southwell’s bill and the same day reported from the ensuing conference with the Commons about the measure. Three days later he reported from the conference concerning amendments to the Edistone lighthouse bill, and on 5 Apr. he reported from a further conference considering the copyright bill.
The changing political situation that emerged in the aftermath of the Sacheverell trial and that saw Shrewsbury brought back into the administration as lord chamberlain, also found Rochester again at the centre of negotiations among Tory peers expecting to benefit from the new state of affairs. In May Ormond was said to have been actively promoting a reconciliation between Rochester and Leeds.
For all his denials of being engaged in the formation of the new administration, Rochester was subjected to verbal abuse from a small group of ‘evil disposed persons’ in early August, who gathered outside his lodgings in the Cockpit to drink ‘confusion to his lordship and all his friends and damnation to Dr Sacheverell.’
Rochester’s return to power did not come without opposition. Charles Boyle, 4th earl of Orrery [I] (later Baron Boyle) strove to impress on Harley that it could not be for his (Harley’s) interest ‘to fling more power into my Lord Rochester’s hands than was absolutely necessary’.
Rochester took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, after which he was present on almost 73 per cent of all sitting days. In advance of the session he had been entrusted with the proxy of Thomas Lennard, earl of Sussex, and between 12 and 14 Dec. he also held his son-in-law, Conway’s proxy. In spite of the difficulties he had met with in Cornwall, the elections had served to increase Rochester’s interest in the administration with his party reckoned the strongest grouping in the Commons.
Rochester was one of those present in council in March 1711 when the marquis de Guiscard made his attack on Harley. He was also one of those to examine Guiscard in gaol two days later (19 March).
Rochester’s death came as a considerable surprise. On 1 May he was present in the House for the debates over the land grants bill, and the same day he wrote to the secretary of state, William Legge, 2nd Baron (later earl of) Dartmouth, to inform him that there would be no need of a cabinet meeting the next day.
Although by the time of his death Rochester was no longer the dominating figure he had once been, his long career both in Parliament and in prominent roles within a variety of administrations made his loss a significant one. His interests had spanned trade and finance as well as support for the church and monarchy. His expertise as a parliamentary man of business is one of his lesser known qualities. So too was his ability to work constructively with men of very different principles. An appreciation of these sets his more choleric tendencies in a somewhat different light.
Rochester was buried on the evening of 10 May at Westminster Abbey. Although Godolphin in a parting spiteful jibe remarked that it would ‘not be a great funeral’, a number of the great officers of state were in attendance.