Few men in the period enjoyed such a spectacular career as did Thomas Osborne, who emerged from comparative obscurity to be made lord treasurer and latterly lord president.
While he may have been more than ordinarily acquisitive in terms of the policies he pursued, Osborne was strikingly consistent throughout his career. From the time that he assumed the lord treasurership until his death, the central tenets of his creed were the security of the Church of England, achieving financial stability for the country, and hostility to the power of France. Given that he had started out as a follower of Buckingham, his religious stance was by no means obvious at the outset, but once fixed in this direction, Osborne rarely faltered.
Osborne seems initially to have made his way forward by exploiting his connections with Sir George Savile, later marquess of Halifax, and Buckingham. Osborne and Savile would later become implacable rivals, nicknamed variously the white and black marquesses (Osborne being the former as marquess of Carmarthen) but in the early 1660s they were reckoned to be friends.
Viscount Latimer, 1673-4
Latimer’s prime consideration at the time of his succession to the treasury was the vexed question of the nation’s finances, a problem that convinced him of the need to persuade the king to accept Parliament’s demands for legislation safeguarding the Church. Although at least one commentator had heralded the new lord treasurer’s appointment as ‘an excellent choice’, his tenure of office did not have an auspicious beginning.
Latimer took his seat in the House on 20 Oct. 1673 (the final day of the session) introduced between William Howard, Viscount Stafford, and his erstwhile duelling opponent, Fauconberg. Shaftesbury used the opportunity to have Latimer introduced as a way of delaying the prorogation so that the Commons were given more time to draft an address complaining about the marriage of the duke of York, to the Catholic princess, Mary of Modena. Parliament was then prorogued by commission, with Latimer serving as one of the commissioners.
Latimer’s aims as lord treasurer were summarized in a document he drafted at some point in October 1673, which asserted his intention to see the Protestant interest protected and the nation’s finances reformed.
In advance of the new session of Parliament beginning in January 1674, Latimer was entrusted with the proxy of William Ley, 4th earl of Marlborough, an impoverished peer. He took his seat on the opening day of the session (7 Jan. 1674) after which he was present on 92 per cent of all sitting days. The opening few days were dominated by the presentation of addresses from the Commons calling for the removal of two members of the Cabal from the king’s counsels: John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale [S] (sitting in the House as earl of Guilford), and Buckingham.
Progress in such initiatives was threatened by ill health. By the close of March 1674 Latimer was described as being ‘sickish’ and as a consequence it was complained of that business was no longer being done. It was not until the close of April that he finally began to recover.
In May rumours circulated of a match in train for one of Latimer’s sons but in the event nothing came of it.
Earl of Danby, 1674-85
Danby returned to town in September 1674 having, it was hoped, ‘found benefit by the Bath’.
The close of the year saw Danby’s position further underpinned amid rumours that his second son, Peregrine Osborne, later 2nd duke of Leeds, was to be raised to the peerage and various reports of lucrative marriages for his children. Among them was a match between one of his daughters and ‘the great’ Robert Coke‡ of Norfolk, which prompted Edmund Verney to comment how ‘my lord treasurer is very fortunate in making his family great by rich matches.’
Danby’s efforts to mobilize the bishops to ensure the suppression of popery resulted in their reporting early in the new year that existing legislation was sufficient to safeguard the Church of England provided it was enforced. The opening of 1675 witnessed increasing tension between Danby and Lauderdale, as the latter attempted to take credit for the development of the pro-Anglican policy.
Danby’s setting out of a clear policy probably encouraged increasing hostility to him personally. His reputation for acquisitiveness was bolstered by his actions in February 1675. It was reported that while the king had provided him with £10,000 to purchase Buckingham’s London residence of Wallingford House, he had proceeded to settle with the duke’s trustees for just £6,000, pocketing the remainder. Towards the end of the month it was also put about that the lord privy seal, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey (who had preceded him and Littleton in the treasurership of the navy), intended to accuse Danby of disposing of £200,000 without a proper warrant.
Preparations for the new session of Parliament began to dominate Danby’s thinking, though he was said to have been one of those in favour of a further prorogation.
Efforts to ensure the attendance of people thought likely to support the administration continued through the spring. On 1 Apr. 1675 Danby wrote to Henry Cavendish, styled earl of Ogle (later 2nd duke of Newcastle), at the king’s command to advise his presence ‘the first day of the session.’ He also pressed Ogle to ensure that the proxy of his father, William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, was placed ‘in some good hand.’
Preparations for the new session predominated from the beginning of October, including a further expansion of the number of pensions being paid to Members of the House of Commons and a more systematic summons to court supporters to attend the session, practices which, it has been argued, helped both to create a more formal ‘court’ party and also an opposition party of those who had not been selected.
With the failure to secure a parliamentary grant, in the immediate aftermath of the prorogation, Danby set about ordering swingeing retrenchments at court.
The new year opened with Danby determined to continue with the retrenchment of finances while struggling to maintain his influence at court, which was threatened by the king’s continuing efforts to secure a French alliance. Danby’s own preference for closer relations with the Dutch, which seems to have been expressed at a secret meeting held at the close of the previous year involving the king, York and Lauderdale, met with a distinctly cool reception.
Although by the beginning of February 1676 Danby was accounted by some to have been ‘a greater favourite than ever was the late duke of Buckingham’, his influence over the king was never secure.
By the beginning of the summer of 1676, Danby’s efforts to press forward with his religious policies seemed to be on the verge of succeeding. Early in June Bishop Morley reported to him the results of enquiries within his diocese concerning the declaration for suppressing conventicles, for which he concluded ‘there will appear neither danger in attempting nor great difficulty in effecting this great work.’
Danby was one of a minority of seven peers to find Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, guilty of manslaughter at the close of June.
In September, Danby decamped to Rycote to stay with another of his Bertie relations, James Bertie, Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon). While there he saw much of Anglesey, (someone with whom he had previously been on decidedly poor terms).
The opening of 1677 found Danby’s fortunes once again unsettled. The death of his grandson, Thomas, hours after birth, was set off against news of an impending marriage between Charles Granville, styled Lord Lansdown (later 2nd earl of Bath), and one of Danby’s daughters.
Danby took his seat on 15 Feb. 1677 after which he was in attendance on over 90 per cent of all sitting days. The opening was dominated by the attempts by Buckingham, Shaftesbury and two others to question the legitimacy of the proceedings given the length of the prorogation. Danby’s ally Frescheville recommended that the opposition lords should be punished for their actions, and Danby later that evening backed him up.
Danby was forced to accept less than he hoped for elsewhere too. A measure sponsored by him for limiting the powers of a future Catholic monarch regarding ecclesiastical appointments was rejected in the Commons.
On 10 Apr. the supply bill was finally sent up to the Lords, the king insisting on taking Danby’s white staff out of his hand to use as a ruler against the document that stretched the length of the chamber.
In spite of the disappointing conclusion to the first part of the new session, Danby appears to have emerged with his authority relatively intact. In June Willem Bentinck, later earl of Portland, arrived in England on a mission from William of Orange and at once sought out Danby for his advice. As a result of Danby’s intervention the king gave way to the prince’s request to travel to England later in the year. Later that summer Ormond returned to Ireland as lord lieutenant, a move that probably met with Danby’s tacit approval. In spite of his previously poor relations with the duke, Danby and Ormond appear to have been reconciled by this time and reports that Danby had ‘opposed his election all he could’ and supported the candidacy of Monmouth instead more likely reflected the desires of Danby’s lieutenant, Richard Jones‡, earl of Ranelagh [I]. It seems unlikely that Danby was overly concerned that Monmouth was denied the post.
Danby continued to struggle over the summer of 1677 with the king’s continued interest in an alliance with France and the procurement of a French subsidy which would enable him to avoid a meeting of Parliament. Ralph Montagu, currently ambassador in France, and later duke of Montagu, suggested that he would be able to broker an attractive offer.
By the beginning of August Danby’s negotiations with Bath over the marriage between Martha Osborne and Lord Lansdown were proving troublesome and his efforts to have his ally, Sir William Temple‡, installed as secretary of state also proved unavailing.
In spite of such reversals, rumours continued to circulate of honours that it was expected were to be lavished on Danby including talk towards the end of August 1677 that he was to be advanced in the peerage to the dukedom of Pomfret (Pontefract).
Danby’s triumph in securing the Orange match proved to be the pinnacle of his achievement in the latter months of 1677. The death of Gilbert Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, in November prompted him to renew his efforts to secure the vacant primateship for Compton but he was unsuccessful.
During the two-week interval between the adjournment in mid-January and Parliament’s resumption, Danby was engaged in close correspondence with Ralph Montagu at Paris concerning the French subsidy offers and the prospects for peace on the continent.
With the possibility of a financial settlement at last in prospect Danby seems to have considered himself at liberty to take a robust attitude to Buckingham. A half-hearted effort on the part of the king to reconcile the two men was shrugged off, while Buckingham also seemed unwilling to agree to any kind of accommodation with a man he considered to be ‘ungrateful and ignorant.’
Towards the end of March 1678, Danby was nominated one of the commissioners for treating with the emperor, the Spanish and the Dutch.
Danby received the proxy of John Poulett, 3rd Baron Poulett, on 9 Apr. (which was vacated on 3 May). On 10 Apr. it was reported that he had informed the Dutch ambassador that the prohibition on French goods was a measure intended to woo his people and to assure him that war would soon be declared against France.
Buckingham’s re-emergence as a political figure pointed to difficulties ahead. One correspondent commented in a letter to Danby of late April how Buckingham’s return to favour had become a problem, ‘for you only intended his enlargement and not to have him a courtier.’
Danby resumed his seat in the House following the brief prorogation on 23 May 1678, after which he was present on over 90 per cent of all sitting days. On 20 May he was again entrusted with Montagu of Boughton’s proxy. On 20 June he was one of seven peers to subscribe the protest at the resolution to petition the king for a bill disabling Robert Villiers from claiming the viscountcy of Purbeck. On 25 June he was nominated one of the managers of a conference with the Commons concerning the supply bill and on 11 July a manager of the conference for the bill for burying in woollen. Towards the close of the session, Danby was said to have been successful in securing a match between his last remaining unmarried daughter and the king’s natural son, Charles Fitzcharles, earl of Plymouth.
Danby’s undoubted successes in the first half of 1678 were thrown into question by the revelations about the Popish Plot. On 28 Sept. the king informed the council for the first time about Israel Tonge’s evidence, which had previously been confined to a small circle including Danby.
Such activities failed to shield Danby from the rising chorus of criticism. As early as the beginning of November 1678, it was suggested that as soon as the question of forcing York to withdraw was settled Halifax and Shaftesbury intended to turn their attention on the lord treasurer.
The king’s decision to prorogue Parliament on 30 Dec. 1678 put a halt to the proceedings against Danby, though one newsletter reported how ‘my lord treasurer laments more than any man the prorogation, which he everywhere declares, that he did with his utmost oppose.’
The dissolution presented Danby with a new set of problems as he turned his attention to managing his interest in the forthcoming elections. On 24 Jan. he communicated to Newcastle the king’s desire that he ‘promote as much as you can the choice of good Members’ in those areas where Newcastle held sway as well as recommending to the duke his own son, Dunblane, for one of the seats at Retford.
In the days leading up to the meeting of the new Parliament speculation was rife that Danby would resign his office prior to the opening in the hopes that such a gesture might satisfy those eager to see him humbled.
Unwilling to take up the offer of voluntary exile, Danby took his place in the new session on 15 Mar. but he was thereafter absent for the remainder of the session. The following day a warrant promoting him to the marquessate of Danby was drawn up and signed by Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, an indication that Danby was expected to accept the reward as compensation for his loss of position.
By the close of March 1679 evidence of the fissure between the Lords and Commons over the impeachment was increasingly apparent. One correspondent remarked that the Lords would probably be content with having Danby removed from the king’s councils and made incapable of holding office but that the Commons would not settle for such terms.
Left with little choice but to respond to the proceedings against him, on 12 Apr. Danby finally petitioned the House to be granted more time to put in his answer. Perhaps mindful of the example of the former lord chancellor, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, the same day he informed his son, Latimer, that he ‘would much rather my friends should adhere to the bill of attainder… than agree to this bill of confiscation and banishment.’
In the Tower, 1679-84
Over the ensuing days Danby struggled to rally support. A former ally, Benjamin Mildmay, 17th Baron Fitzwalter, promised to attend should his health permit but insisted that he would not commit himself without hearing the evidence.
The first half of May 1679 was dominated by disagreements between Lords and Commons over which of the Lords currently in the Tower ought first to be proceeded against.
The close of the session on 27 May 1679 and subsequent dissolution on 12 July put paid to any prospect of a speedy resolution to Danby’s predicament, though observers were divided on whether the cause of the prorogation had been on account of the bishops, Danby or ‘to save the five lords.’ Meanwhile the marriage of Danby’s daughter, Sophia, to Donatus O’Brien, styled Lord O’Brien [I], proceeded in his absence with the bride given away by Sir Joseph Williamson. Incarceration in no way tempered Danby’s demeanour. Both he and his gaolers petitioned the king in protest at the other’s behaviour, with the lieutenant of the Tower, Cheeke, complaining that Danby insisted on keeping ‘such ill hours that he could not secure him safe.’
For the next three-and-a-half years Danby proceeded to maintain a steady correspondence with family members, allies and potential supporters in the hopes of securing sufficient backing to secure his release. It was in this vein that he wrote to Charles Dormer, earl of Carnarvon, on 29 Aug. 1679, though he was at pains to emphasize that the king’s recent illness had ‘more perplexed me than all the considerations about myself.’
Once again Danby failed to take the offer of exile. His incarceration had had a dramatic effect on his already poor health and throughout the autumn reports circulated that he was sick and even at the point of death.
By the beginning of 1680 Danby and his supporters were becoming increasingly frustrated. The king was said to blame Buckingham for Danby’s ‘hard usage’ and in February Latimer informed his father that the king had also declared Ralph Montagu to be ‘as great a knave as you an honest man’ but still nothing was done to further Danby’s release.
Besides battling poor health, during the course of the year Danby (and his kinsmen) made concerted efforts to woo new allies. Laurence Hyde was now thought to be amenable to allowing Danby justice (but not favour) and by the summer Latimer believed that York too might have come around to a less negative attitude to the former lord treasurer.
enemies will not be so fierce as they have been, or at least all peers (for their own sakes) cannot but dread the consequence, if my case shall remain a precedent for others hereafter, where the common justice and benefit of the laws is denied to a lord, which every porter and footman may claim.
HMC Hastings, ii. 172.
The days leading up to the assembling of Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680 found Danby active in mustering his forces. Lindsey assured him that ‘there is to me no other motive of appearance once more upon the stage but your lordship’s concern’.
Danby’s ill fortune during the session did not prevent him from continuing to press for preferment for his family. Between January and February 1681 he wrote to the king concerning his purchase of the reversion to the mastership of the rolls.
In advance of the meeting of Parliament at Oxford, Danby compiled a series of forecasts detailing how he believed the various members would behave in any divisions taken.
The first care must be to be certain what lords are come to Oxford before my business be moved and in order to that you are to count the lords in the House daily by the list aforesaid, and particularly to see the clerk’s book every day at the rising of the House to see what lords have been sworn that day and especially the first and second days and from time to time to give an account thereof to my friends.
Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, instructions, 1680/1.
In the event of the Lords summoning him to appear at the bar, he assembled a series of heads on which he might speak should the opportunity arise.
In the days immediately following it was reported that the king now intended to have Danby released on his own authority. Danby was justifiably suspicious of such rumours but in the middle of April 1681 he petitioned the king directly again for his release from the Tower.
With matters continuing to go against him, on 18 May 1681 Danby conveyed yet another letter to the king via his son Latimer requesting a speedy trial and a final determination of his predicament.
1682 began much as the previous year had done with Danby continuing in his efforts to secure his release.
Danby was again brought before king’s bench on another writ of habeas corpus at the end of May 1682 but following a two-hour exposition of his case he was once more remanded to the Tower.
Alongside of his efforts to secure a satisfactory resolution to the problems created by his son, Danby also persisted in attempting to find a tenant or buyer for his apartments in the Cockpit as well as with his campaign to secure his release.
Hopes for Danby’s release were raised once again at the opening of 1684 on the grounds that even if the lord chief justice failed to look sympathetically upon him, a new Parliament would settle the matter finally.
Danby’s incarceration had left him weak and suffering from severe ailments, which it was believed were sufficiently serious to threaten his life or leave him a permanent invalid.
Danby’s experience over the past three years had unsurprisingly left him cynical about the king and York’s willingness to support him. Towards the end of the summer Danby retreated north to Kiveton, where he was ‘visited by all the country to a very great distance’, among them Sidney Wortley Montagu‡, who expressed his sorrow for the carryings-on of his relations towards Danby and ‘hoped I would not have the worse opinion of him for their ill behaviour.’
Reign of James II, 1685-1689
The succession of James II found Danby’s prospects uncertain. He was relieved to find the new lord chancellor, George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys, outwardly civil to him when they dined together, and he detected no indication that he was likely to be carted off to his ‘old quarters’ in the Tower, but Danby’s relations with the new king when duke of York had never been easy and he soon found himself entirely at odds with the drift of James’s policies.
Although there were early indications that he and his family could expect little in the way of favour under the new regime (Danby’s heir, Latimer, was not continued in post as a gentleman of the bedchamber) in March 1685 at the time of the elections for the new Parliament it was believed that Danby’s fortunes were once more on the turn and that he was again great at court. The mayor of Buckingham was reported to be in favour of returning Latimer rather than Verney in order to court Danby’s good will, although there was also an attempt by Jeffreys to press his own rival interest to those of Danby and Rochester (as Laurence Hyde had since become). In the end Temple and Verney were returned leaving Latimer trailing in third place.
Danby was absent from the opening day of the new Parliament but a petition was read on his behalf by Chesterfield pleading that he either be granted a trial or have his bail renewed. Calls were also made by his friends for him to have reparation for his sufferings over the past six years.
Danby resumed his seat after the adjournment on 9 Nov. 1685. Plans for the House to take into consideration the king’s speech on 23 Nov. were averted by the king ordering Parliament to be prorogued to the following February, but it seems plain that Danby intended to join a number of peers speaking critically about the king’s declaration relating to the expansion of the army and the employment of Catholics within it. In a draft dated 23 Nov. he insisted that ‘no man living can speak with more reluctancy than myself to anything which may but seem to be contradictory to his majesty’s pleasure’ before continuing to lambast elements of the king’s speech in which he detected ‘stalking horses to ill designs’. He then planned to conclude his address by seeking the judges’ opinion of the extent of the king’s dispensing powers.
With Parliament prorogued and no official platform from which he could question the direction of royal policy, Danby appears to have retreated for the time being. His broken health seems to have been his principal concern and in February 1686 he was said to be considering travelling to Spa in search of a cure for his throat condition.
Ever since his role in the negotiations for the match between William of Orange and Princess Mary, Danby had remained a correspondent of the prince. The extent to which James’s government was suspicious of the correspondence was highlighted in two separate episodes. In September 1687 (at the time of the conferences with Dijkvelt) Danby wrote to the prince to explain that he had been unable to secure permission to travel to Holland ‘with the same indifferency that it is permitted to others’ and had therefore resolved not to risk the journey.
Danby was early on at the centre of the conspiracy to bring the prince over to England to restrain James II. On the night that the bishops were acquitted he joined six other malcontents in signing a letter inviting William of Orange to invade England in defence of their liberties.
The confused situation created by the invasion complicated communication between Danby and the prince. Danby was forced to write several times insisting that he had attempted to convey despatches to Prince William that had evidently failed to get through. Shortly after this, he needed to refute rumours that he had been killed and to provide reports of his activities in fortifying York. Even though the political situation remained uncertain, Danby set about arranging for the election of his son, Dunblane, at York and he pleaded that the business relating to this and the county elections would necessitate him delaying his march south by a further three or four days.
Danby’s absence from London throughout November and most of December meant that he failed to play any part in the activities of the provisional government. His apparent unwillingness to join the prince in the west had diminished his standing in William’s eyes and he remained a figure of considerable suspicion for both loyalists and revolutionaries alike. Back in London, he attempted to make up for this by striving to act as a counterbalance to the two rival groups, pushing to the fore his solution to the constitutional crisis created by the king’s flight. He was disappointed, though, on the first day of the Convention (of which he attended almost 58 per cent of all sitting days) to lose out to his old rival Halifax, who was appointed speaker of the Lords. Despite this, Danby proceeded to play a central role in the Lords’ deliberations as chairman of a number of committees. On 25 Jan. he was missing from the attendance list but not among those marked absent at a call of the House. The Commons’ resolution to declare the throne vacant and to push for the accession of Prince William as king presented Danby with an opportunity to manoeuvre himself into the middle ground between those in favour of James’s removal and those wishing to arrive at some sort of accommodation short of replacing the sovereign, by advocating the accession of Mary as queen. When the Commons’ resolution regarding the vacancy of the throne was reported to the Lords on 29 Jan. Danby was appointed chairman of the committee of the whole House discussing it and even critics such as Roger Morrice conceded that he presided ‘very fairly and equally’ over the proceedings.
Danby’s reasoning appears to have been driven by a genuine concern for the constitutional propriety of what was being attempted as much as by raw politics. His initial reluctance to award the throne to William damaged his standing at court but he still remained unwilling to declare the throne vacant. On 4 Feb. he was one of the lords appointed to draw up reasons why they disagreed with the Commons on the question of King James’s abdication and the same day he appears to have attempted once more to employ his interest so that the possibility of Mary’s succession alone might again be explored. Speaking in the Commons, Danby’s creature, Sir Joseph Tredenham‡, allowed that the throne was vacant in as much as James had abandoned it, but he insisted that in an hereditary monarchy it was impossible for such a state of affairs to exist. He then continued to drive forward the notion of awarding the throne to James’s clear heir, Princess Mary. In spite of these efforts, the Commons persisted in their rejection of the Lords’ amendments to their resolutions by 282 votes to 151: almost all of Danby’s followers in the Commons being among those voting in the minority.
Having failed to sway the Commons and with his grouping in the Lords perhaps restricted to just three or four regular supporters, by 6 Feb. 1689 Danby seems to have conceded that continuing to push for the succession of Mary alone was impractical. Three days prior to this, William had summoned several senior politicians, including Danby, to a private meeting, at which he had impressed upon them his unwillingness to accept anything less than the crown.
On 9 Feb. Danby was named to the committee for drawing up reasons for the Lords’ amendments to the declaration of William and Mary as king and queen. With the question of the throne finally settled, Danby retired from attendance of the council and the Lords for about ten days from the 13th, the result of his own ill health and his son’s illness and death. It might also have indicated his disappointment with the way in which things had been resolved. According to Halifax, by this point Danby had begun to ‘lag in his zeal for the prince his interest’, partly because he could not hope to be appointed lord treasurer, ‘the prince having declared he would manage it by commissioners’.
Marquess of Carmarthen, 1689-94
Danby’s appointment as lord president reflected the careful balance the new regime attempted to achieve by employing men of varying interests and loyalties but it also ushered in a period of uncertainty during which the rival ministers vied with each other in their efforts to cultivate the king. In 1690 Danby emerged as the principal beneficiary of such squabbling but his period at the apex of the administration proved to be relatively brief. By 1694 his interest was once more on the wane.
Danby’s return to office was marred by the death of his heir, Latimer, during the night of 15/16 February.
For all Danby’s complaints, over the ensuing weeks several of his kinsmen secured posts and on 12 Mar. Danby himself was restored to the lieutenancy of the West Riding of Yorkshire. In April he was also successful in securing his appointment to the governorship of Hull. Having resumed his regular attendance of the House towards the end of March, Danby managed a series of conferences in April, May and July concerning the bills for removing Catholics from the cities of London and Westminster, for abrogating oaths, the additional poll bill and the succession bill. He continued to argue in favour of protection of the Church of England and on 21 Mar. he pressed for all office holders to be required to take an oath of fidelity to the king and to receive Anglican communion, as he believed that ‘any less security to be given than this cannot preserve the present constitution.’
Danby’s ambiguous stance on the legitimacy of the new regime may have driven him to join a small deputation waiting on the king at the opening of April 1689 to protest at the decision to award Frederick Herman Schomberg, duke of Schomberg, the former king’s garter. They were overruled. His concerns did not, however, prevent him from petitioning the king for his own promotion to a dukedom. His request presupposed that he was already de jure marquess of Carmarthen by virtue of the 1679 warrant.
Writing to excuse his failure to wait on Archbishop Sancroft in the early summer of 1689, Carmarthen blamed ‘multiplicity of business’ for the omission, which ‘does scarce give me leisure to get my meals, or rest as I ought to do.’
Carmarthen was unable to sway his followers to join him in supporting the move to settle the crown on the Electress Sophia and her heirs, which was mooted at the beginning of June 1689.
In spite of the concerted pressure being applied by the Commons that the king should rid himself of Carmarthen and Halifax, it was reported in mid-August 1689 that both men were to form part of a select ‘cabinet council’.
Carmarthen acted as one of the tellers for a division held in the case Fountaine v. Coke on 11 Jan. 1690. The same month he divided against the resolution that the surrenders of the City charters had been illegal. On 25 Jan. he sided with the Lords seeking to dissuade the king from travelling to Ireland in person, arguing that ‘they had no notice from the king of his resolution.’
A thin ill-natured ghost that haunts the king
Till him and us he does to ruin bring;
Impeached, and pardoned impudently rides
The council, and the Parliament bestrides.Bodl. ms Eng. poet. d. 53, ff. 53-5.
Eager to fill as many posts as he could with his kinsmen and supporters, as early as mid-February 1690 Carmarthen alerted Abingdon to the likelihood of a substantial overhaul at the treasury.
Carmarthen took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690 and was thereafter present for approximately 94 per cent of all sitting days. Evidence of his continued dominance of affairs was reflected in a rumour that he was to be advanced to a dukedom and Nottingham to a marquessate, while in the Commons his ally, Sir John Trevor‡, was elected Speaker in spite of his decidedly chequered reputation.
The presentation on 26 Mar. by Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, of the recognition bill, though, threatened to re-open the fissures in the Tory ranks by forcing them to agree explicitly to the king and queen’s right to the throne. Carmarthen appears to have opposed the measure at first in the hopes of securing significant amendments to the bill rather than out of a desire to see the measure rejected entirely. On 3 Apr. he put forward his amendments, suggesting the substitution of the word ‘confirmed’ but the following day this was rejected by 34 votes to 25. On 5 Apr. he was among the majority voting to reject in turn an amendment proposed by the Whigs but on 8 Apr. a compromise was arrived at, in part through Carmarthen’s negotiating skills, which resulted in the recognition bill being passed by the Lords. The following day, in spite of further opposition from the Tories, the Commons also voted to accept the amended bill.
By mid-April 1690, Carmarthen’s manoeuvrings had served to distance him from some of the other Tory members of the Lords. Rochester complained to his brother Clarendon how ‘the white marquess’ had ‘struck up with the Dissenters’ thereby obviating ‘all the fine promises concerning the Church.’
Shrewsbury’s resignation at the beginning of June 1690 left Carmarthen in almost unrivalled control of the administration as ‘chief minister’, though as Chesterfield pointed out ‘he has need of all his skill to keep this changeable and mutinous people to their duty.’
Pressure on Carmarthen was reflected in his loss of interest in the treasury commission that autumn. Although his ally Lowther remained a member of the board, Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, replaced him as first commissioner. Towards the end of the year, a series of rumours about plots preoccupied the government. On 28 Nov. Carmarthen received a letter warning of a second gunpowder plot and although this proved to be a fabrication, a fortnight later further information began to emerge about covert activities between England and France. As a result of information provided by Nicholas Prat, at the close of December Carmarthen secured the capture of three Jacobite conspirators while en route to France, among them Richard Grahme‡, Viscount Preston [S]. The coup helped to restore Carmarthen’s reputation and at the opening of 1691 it was reported explicitly that a series of attacks intended against Carmarthen had been derailed because of his success in foiling the Jacobite conspiracy. The departure of King William for The Hague in early January was glossed by the reassuring information that Carmarthen was to remain behind as chief minister. With the exception of a brief stint in April, the king remained overseas until the autumn. In his absence, Carmarthen held sway: the extent of his domination of the administration was reflected in a new soubriquet (an echo of that applied previously to Charles I’s minister, Thomas Wentworth†, earl of Strafford): ‘Tom the Tyrant’. This was in spite of a renewal of ill health that plagued him for much of January and into the following month.
Ironically, given his role in Preston’s capture and his consequent popularity, Carmarthen was one of a number of peers listed by Preston as being sympathetic to the former king.
Aside from making the most of his success in securing Preston, Carmarthen continued to battle over control of the treasury where by the middle of February 1691 he was complaining that he now had few friends. The problem of Ireland also loomed large in his thinking. On 6 Feb. he confessed to Nottingham his ‘anxiety for the business of Ireland, upon which (whatever may be thought to the contrary) all other things as to England will depend.’
The unsettled nature of affairs at court was highlighted by conflicting rumours of new appointments and dismissals throughout the spring and early summer. At the end of April it was said that Carmarthen was to be lord treasurer again but this was contrasted by other reports suggesting that his position was far more precarious.
Poor health and no doubt exasperation at the atmosphere at court may have tempted Carmarthen to step back from his duties. In July he complained that he was suffering from such violent colic that he could not attend council.
Poor health once again interrupted Carmarthen’s activity towards the close of November, although fears that it would prove mortal again proved unfounded.
The fevered atmosphere in Parliament in the first weeks of the session gave rise to a confused picture in the early months of 1692. Some clearly expected Carmarthen to be in danger of being displaced, though this was soon proved unfounded.
Carmarthen’s efforts to maintain his hold on office seems to have persuaded him to attempt to mediate between the queen and her estranged sister, Princess Anne, during the early summer of 1692. According to one report it was the princess who asked Carmarthen to wait on her at Sion, which he delayed doing before securing permission from the queen. In August he joined several members of the cabinet council at Portsmouth to inspect the fleet.
Carmarthen was granted a fortnight’s leave of absence in mid-September.
Carmarthen took his seat in the new session on 4 Nov. 1692 after which he was present on just over three quarters of all sitting days. The day before the opening he wrote to Rutland in similar vein to his earlier letter to Abingdon, emphasizing that it would be politic for Rutland to appear as soon as possible.
If he was prepared to acknowledge the past successes of a former foe in the person of Torrington, Carmarthen was no less willing to stand against his usual allies and at the close of the year he put himself at variance with his Bertie kinsmen by voting along with Nottingham, Rochester and Portland against committing the place bill.
Carmarthen was appointed a manager of two further conferences prior to the close of the session in mid-March. Following the prorogation, rumours circulated once more of alterations in the ministry and of promotions in the peerage with Carmarthen one of four peers reported to be promoted to dukedoms.
Carmarthen’s apparent indispensability to the queen did not prevent talk of Sunderland’s growing prominence or of the prospect of Shrewsbury and John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later marquess of Normanby and duke of Buckingham), succeeding Carmarthen and Nottingham.
Nottingham’s dismissal at the beginning of November offered Carmarthen an opportunity to consolidate his position, which was assisted further by Shrewsbury’s refusal to return to office. Carmarthen returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on almost 65 per cent of all sitting days. Excused at a call on 14 Nov, he resumed his seat three days later and at the beginning of December he joined Nottingham in objecting to the use of the word ‘declare’ within the triennial bill; it was agreed by 59 votes to 34, however, to allow the word to stand.
Carmarthen was entrusted with Danby’s proxy again on 23 Feb. 1694 and three days later with that of his son-in-law, William Fermor, Baron Leominster. Carmarthen joined Halifax and Mulgrave in opposition to the treasons bill that month and on 6 Mar. he was named one of the managers of the conference for the mutiny bill.
Duke of Leeds 1694-9
Shortly after the prorogation it was rumoured once again that Carmarthen was to be promoted to a dukedom.
Leeds took his seat at the opening of the new session on 12 Nov. 1694, when James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, and Meinhard Schomberg, 3rd duke of Schomberg, introduced him in his new dignity. Present on just over 60 per cent of all sitting days, the following month he backed the proposal for an alternative to the treason bill put forward by Normanby (as Mulgrave had since become), which provided for wilful perjury to be made a capital offence. He then subscribed the protest when the measure was rejected.
The death of Queen Mary at the end of the year threatened to diminish Leeds’ role in the administration. In the short term, though, he enjoyed a resurgence of influence: it was left to him to wait on the king and urge him not to give way to grief. Early in 1695, though, Leeds faced yet another threat to his position as consideration of a petition from the inhabitants of Royston by the Commons quickly developed into a broader examination of corruption. Sir John Trevor was one of the early targets of the investigation and Leeds’ opponents sought to bring the same kind of charges to bear against him as well. Leeds meanwhile continued to take a prominent part in the Lords’ examination of the treason bill and towards the end of January he spoke forcefully in favour of the measure being adopted as early as March in opposition to those who favoured postponing it for three years.
By the middle of February 1695 Leeds appears to have been optimistic about the progress of affairs, reporting with confidence the likelihood of sufficient supply being voted. At the close of March he was one of those appointed to try Captain Bridges who stood charged with plundering and sinking a French man-of-war rather than towing it into port as a prize.
Following the close of the session Leeds continued to attend the council in spite of heavy hints that he should remain away. He also enquired of the king whether reports that Princess Anne was to be given his lodgings at St James’s were accurate and, if they were, whether he would be compensated with alternative accommodation at Whitehall or the Cockpit.
Leeds was ill again in September but he continued to confer with his allies about the anticipated election (though Parliament was not actually dissolved until October), insisting with no apparent trace of irony that, ‘the schemes which I hear are drawn by some of our grandees makes it highly necessary to get some able as well as some honest men into the next Parliament.’ His efforts to persuade Sir William Twisden‡ to stand again were frustrated by Twisden’s terror at the expense involved but he hoped that Sir Edward Seymour might help him to a safe seat. He also recommended Sir Francis Child‡ to Abingdon, who he hoped would help him to a seat at Devizes.
With his position apparently shored up once again, Leeds took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 November. He was thereafter present on almost 69 per cent of all sitting days in the 1695-6 session. No doubt aware of his vulnerability to assault from the Commons, during the session he strove to support the administration and it may have been at his instigation that the question of the coinage was taken into consideration early on. During the debates on the state of the nation held in committee of the whole on 3 Dec. he moved for the state of trade to be taken into consideration as well as urging consideration of the coinage, though he was at pains to point out that this was a subject that ought first to be dealt with by the Commons. In a subsequent committee of the whole held the following day he was again insistent on the Commons’ involvement when he spoke in favour of the lower House’s motion for an address to the king to be drawn up.
Leeds was not immune from attack, however. Having witnessed the amended coinage bill pass the Lords on 3 Jan. 1696, he turned his attention to the defence of his heir (Carmarthen) over complaints relating to reverses at sea. In this he was joined by Torrington, the two men arguing that the matter ought rather to be considered by a select committee rather than by the whole House. Several reports noted that the true target of the investigation into Carmarthen’s conduct had been Leeds himself and that ‘it was through the son that the father was struck at.’
Leeds was among those summoned to give advice at council to consider the early revelations about the Assassination Plot. On 24 Feb. 1696 he was named a manager of the conference taking into consideration the king’s speech about the plot. The proposal of an Association was designed to force Tories to either reject it and be branded as disloyal, or by accepting it to expose deep divisions among them. Leeds responded in the debate in the Lords on 26 Feb. by arguing that it was needless given that all were united in upholding the status quo. When this failed to convince the House, he attempted instead to devise a formula that would be acceptable to the Tories and that rather than declaring the king ‘rightful and lawful’ they might instead swear that he had ‘a right to the crown of this realm, and that no other person whatsoever has any right to the same.’ Although this attracted the support of Devonshire and Portland (perhaps indicating the king’s sympathy for this form of words), Leeds’ proposal was then amended by Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, who moved the text should be further altered so that ‘the late King James’ and ‘the pretended prince of Wales’ were mentioned explicitly within the formula.
Leeds continued to hope that moderation would prevail. At the beginning of March 1696 he advised one absent peer not to trouble himself about a summons to attend the House if his health did not permit ‘unless they shall proceed with more violence than I hope they will do’ and he undertook to have him excused at the next call of the House and to inform him of the mood of the chamber. He then pointed to the Lords’ resolution to proceed against one printer for publishing scandalous material relating to peers unwilling to sign the Association as an indication that all might yet be well.
Leeds was omitted from the list of the lords justices at the close of April 1696 and at the beginning of the following month it was rumoured that he intended to retire from office, leaving Shrewsbury to succeed him as lord president.
With his position at court seriously compromised, Leeds retreated to Bath in July. He survived being ‘wetted’ on his way there by ‘two scurvy waters’ and from thence travelled to his estates in Yorkshire.
Leeds intervened again in January 1697 during the proceedings against Monmouth. Insisting that the Lords were only delivering an opinion and judgment on papers rather than apportioning blame he argued that there was no need for Monmouth to absent himself after he had delivered his defence, although he emphasized that he was of the opinion that the papers were ‘of a horrid nature’ and ‘injurious to the king’ and he was among those who considered that Monmouth should be judged appropriately as a contriver of the papers.
Leeds retained his position for a further four years though the office increasingly came to be seen as an honorific one with real power held by other members of the ministry. With less business, Leeds had sufficient leisure to indulge himself and in mid-September 1697 he seems to have been planning a post-peace trip to France with Leominster, hoping to ‘get to see Versailles before I die if I can’.
Confined to his chamber for eight or nine days by severe colic at the end of 1697, he had clearly recovered towards the end of the first week of January when he was credited with saving much of the area surrounding Whitehall from being engulfed in the blaze that destroyed the palace. According to one correspondent ‘had it not been for the duke of Leeds, I really believe all Westminster had been burnt.’
Leeds’ attention was distracted during the spring by the visit of Czar Peter, who became a regular visitor to Wimbledon, largely through his connection with Carmarthen and their mutual interest in naval affairs.
The general elections of that summer resulted in an improved situation for the Tories and Leeds appears early on to have been eager to exploit the situation in the new Parliament. Having taken his seat on 29 Nov. he was probably behind an investigation opened in the Commons into abuses in the farming of taxes as part of a wider attempt to discredit Charles and Christopher Montagu‡, against whom Leeds had a particular axe to grind over their rival claims to the office of auditor of the exchequer.
Leeds was afflicted by poor health again during the spring but by the beginning of April 1699 he had recovered sufficiently to take an interest in affairs once more. On 8 Apr. he wrote to the king at length warning him of ‘some things so prejudicial to your service that without some reformation in them I fear it will be very difficult to keep men either in Parliament or out of it.’ His particular concerns appear to have centred on the admiralty and management of Parliament. Underscoring the importance of uniting ‘the minds of your people and to take from amongst them the distinction of party’ he proposed (again) the formation of a mixed administration for which he offered his services as mediator between the factions.
Out of office, 1699-1712
Soon after the end of the session in May 1699, Leeds was required to resign his office of lord president. He was succeeded by Pembroke, whose office of lord privy seal went to Lonsdale. Although it was reported by some that the alteration had been arranged with Leeds’ knowledge, others thought otherwise.
Leeds failed to recover his posts and a new episode of illness appears to have prevented him resuming his seat in the House until a month into the new session. He finally took his seat on 19 Dec. 1699 and was thereafter present on 58 per cent of all sitting days for the 1699-1700 session. On 1 Feb. 1700 he voted in favour of continuing the East India Company as a corporation and on 8 Feb. he registered his dissent at the resolution to put the question whether the Scots’ colony at Darien was a threat to England’s plantation trade. On 23 Feb. he supported adjourning into a committee of the whole for closer consideration of the East India Company bill. In April he appears to have adopted an inconsistent attitude to the Irish grants resumption bill (of which he was named a manager in three conferences held between 9 and 10 April). Although he spoke in favour of the measure, he voted against its passage, although he was not among those subscribing the accompanying protest.
By the close of the session reports circulated that Leeds was to be recalled to office as part of a wider move in favour of the Tories.
Following the close of the session Leeds prepared for his usual journey to his Yorkshire estates. He was delayed by weight of personal business and, shortly before setting out, drew to the attention of his daughter-in-law, Lady Carmarthen, a threat to her property posed by the resolution of some of her husband’s creditors to recover their losses. Advising her to use caution about who was admitted to her home and to deposit her valuables with her brother-in-law, Coke, Leeds left Lady Carmarthen to her fate and set out for the north.
The accession of Queen Anne made little immediate impact on Leeds’ prospects of returning to office. He was restored to the Privy Council but otherwise not granted a post in the administration.
Given his support for the Church it is unsurprising that Leeds was estimated by Nottingham as likely to vote in favour of the occasional conformity bill at the beginning of 1703 and on 16 Feb. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. On 7 Jan. he presented the House with Robert Squire’s‡ petition in answer to one submitted by Wharton for a writ of error over a dispute relating to lead mines in Swaledale.
In advance of the new session, Leeds was forecast by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in two assessments drawn up in November as being likely once again to support the occasional conformity bill. Leeds then proved Sunderland right by taking his seat on 14 Dec. and voting in favour of the bill: the only day on which he attended during the entirety of the session. He also registered two dissents, first at the resolution not to give the bill a second reading and second at the resolution to throw the measure out. The death of his duchess at the beginning of January 1704 no doubt deterred Leeds from any further involvement in Parliament for the remainder of the session. In mid February he was said to have begun the composition of his memoirs, inspired by the recent publication of those by Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, the former lord chancellor. At the same time he removed to the house of his son-in-law, Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke, in Holborn and it was not until the beginning of March that he resumed public appearances.
Leeds again attended just one day of the new session (24 Oct. 1704) but in his absence he was noted among those thought likely to support the Tack. On 23 Nov. he was excused at a call of the House. On 30 Jan. 1705, in spite of their fraught relations, he registered his proxy with Carmarthen, which was vacated by the close.
Leeds took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705 but attended just nine days in the session (just over nine per cent of the whole), combining his occasional appearances in the House with attendance at the court of the mine adventurers company.
At the beginning of 1706 Leeds resolved to abandon work on his memoir and in its place he set about composition of a reply to White Kennett†, the future bishop of Peterborough’s Compleat History of England, which was in turn later put aside in favour of publication of his correspondence as a means of justifying his actions in office. Leeds’ response to Kennett’s work included a series of refutations of some of Kennett’s assertions, including ‘his false and impossible story about my vote’ concerning Duncombe.
Leeds failed to attend the third session of April 1707 at all and was consequently uninvolved in the parliamentary debates surrounding the passage of the Union treaty. The summer found him once again on his estates in Yorkshire.
Leeds returned to London in time to take his seat in the House on 27 Nov. 1708. His attendance was again sporadic, with him present on just five days in the whole session in spite of being in London for the majority of the period from the beginning of January to the middle of April 1709.
The Sacheverell trial finally roused Leeds from a period of almost a year away from the Lords. On 10 Jan. 1710 he resumed his place in the House and attended on almost 40 per cent of all sitting days. Leeds was said to have wept openly during Sacheverell’s speech before Parliament on 7 and 14 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution not to adjourn the proceedings. Despite his clear support for Sacheverell, Leeds joined several peers in quitting the chamber prior to the vote being taken on whether or nor the words judged criminal needed to be included within the articles of impeachment, perhaps conscious of the potential distraction his presence could have caused given his own experiences.
Attendance at the Sacheverell trial appears to have taken its toll on Leeds’ health.
Such slights do not appear to have prevented serious consideration of Leeds returning to office in the summer of 1710 as part of the general reshaping of the administration under Robert Harley and Shrewsbury. At the beginning of June, the queen was said to have responded to a request made by James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] for the post of lord privy seal in the new government that it was earmarked for Leeds.
Leeds returned to London early in October when he was assessed by Harley as a likely supporter of the new ministry. As such Leeds was active in seeking information on how the change of administration had been greeted in Hanover from one of his contacts there and he later made a point of writing directly to the elector and dowager electress, stressing his adherence to their interests and his long-standing support for the Hanoverian succession.
By April 1711 Leeds appears to have grown frustrated with Harley’s regime.
The summer of 1711 found Leeds as eager as ever to secure preferment for his friends and followers, but he was unable to secure a garter for Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort, his prospective grandson-in-law.
The remaining weeks of September saw Leeds continuing to attempt to exact what he desired from the administration. On discovering the queen’s desire that garrisons should be entrusted to those with foreign service experience he resigned his claims to being restored to the governorship of Hull, only to press instead for appointment to the lieutenancies of the West Riding and to Nottinghamshire seeing that his seat was ‘not a mile distant from that county.’
Having exhausted himself with his constant calls for preferment, Leeds once more gave way to ill health leaving him unable to take his seat in the new session.
Leeds’ 80th birthday merited a glowing tribute in the Tory newspaper, the Post Boy, which noted that, ‘as there are few of quality that have arrived to those years, so there are none who have been more serviceable to the Church and state.’ The paean continued with espousing the wish that Leeds might live to see ‘the utter extirpation of whiggism and its defenders.’
Leeds was buried, at his direction, in the family crypt at Harthill in Yorkshire. In his will he made provision for portions for two of his granddaughters amounting to £11,500 as well as a series of bequests amounting to over £500 to kinsmen and retainers. He expressly enjoined his executors (Danby and Bishop Bisse) to ‘avoid all insignificant pomp and ceremony and particularly not to permit my body to be (as it is commonly called) laid in state.’
Leeds appears to have been more admired than liked. Both Charles II and William III found his services at times of immense value but both were more than ready to be rid of him when the time came. Queen Mary seems to have felt the same recording how he was one ‘to whom I must ever own great obligations, yet of a temper I can never like.’