STUART, Charles (1639-72)

A minor member of an Anglo-French family related to the Scottish royal house, Stuart’s fortunes were transformed first by the hazards of war, and then by the everyday misfortunes of the age. His father was one of the ten children of Esme Stuart, 3rd duke of Lennox [S]; his eldest uncle, James Stuart^†, was made duke of Richmond in 1641.When Charles was barely three years old his father was killed fighting for the king at Edgehill, and two of his uncles also died serving the king, who had intended to create the elder of them, Bernard Stuart, earl of Lichfield. When Bernard was killed at Rowton Heath in 1645, this honour was awarded instead to Charles himself, together with a second English peerage as Baron Stuart. In 1658 he was living with his aunt, the dowager duchess of Richmond at Blois, who was said to have been in dispute with another of his father’s brothers, the Seigneur d’Aubigny, concerning him. In July 1659 Lichfield was ready to return to England, and in August he was involved in an abortive royalist rising in Surrey. CCSP, iv. 97, 102, 302, 305, 331, 333; Clarke Papers, ed. C.H. Firth (Cam. Soc. n.s. lxii), 44. As a result, on 3 Sept. Lichfield was one of those summoned before the Council of State and Parliament to clear themselves of involvement in the series of risings associated with that of Sir George Booth, the future Baron Delamer. He left the country and arrived back in France at the end of September. By December he was in attendance on the king. CSP Venice, 1659–61, p. 69; CCSP, iv. 364, 389, 475, 479.

In the autumn of 1660 Lichfield’s young cousin Esme Stuart, 2nd duke of Richmond and 4th duke of Lennox [S], died of smallpox. Lichfield succeeded unexpectedly to both dukedoms. As the Venetian resident explained, Richmond ‘now takes precedence after the princes of the blood of all the grandees of the realm, to the mortification of the other dukes’, especially George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, ‘who is more ambitious and proud than the rest’. CSP Venice, 1659–61, pp. 190–1. In 1665 Richmond also inherited the seignurie of Aubigny from an uncle. In May 1666 a grant was prepared but apparently not issued for a second English peerage as Baron Cobham and a year later, on the death of his cousin Lady Mary Stuart (the 2nd duke’s sister), Richmond became entitled de jure to the Barony of Clifton of Leighton Bromswold. CSP Dom. 1665–6, p. 417.

Finances

Richmond’s social status was assured – after the death of his uncle in 1665, his nearest male relation was Charles II – but his wealth is difficult to estimate. He seems to have inherited very little from his father and it was clearly important that he made an advantageous marriage. In March and April 1660 he was actively wooing the twice widowed Lady Mansfield, ‘a very fine woman’ with ‘a great fortune’, even using the king to put his case. Bodl. Carte 214, ff. 1–2, 5, 55; CCSP, iv. 666. Through this marriage he acquired extensive lands in Dorset, and hence his appointment to the county lieutenancy and the high stewardship of Dorchester. There is no mention of lands in Dorset either in his will or in his surviving accounts, so it seems likely that he sold most if not all of the Dorset properties during his lifetime; the most significant property, the extensive estate at Bryanston, was occupied by one of Richmond’s creditors (and cousin to his wife’s father), Sir John Rogers, in the early 1660s and was later acquired by Sir William Portman^‡. C.A.F. Meekings, Dorset Hearth Tax Assessments 1662–4, p. 69; HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 265.

Within three months of his first wife’s death, Richmond had successfully negotiated a second, equally advantageous marriage. His pre-nuptial contract with Margaret Lewis was dated 21 July 1661, although the marriage itself did not take place until March 1662. She was a wealthy woman, who sold some of her lands to help Richmond pay off his debts, made over her property at Bletchington, Oxfordshire, to him, gave him a life interest in her jointure lands worth £1,150 a year and promised him a further £1,000 a year for life out of lands in which she had a reversionary interest. In all, she valued his interest in her lands at £38,000. In return she expected a jointure of £3,000 a year, although in the event Richmond’s estate was so encumbered that her jointure had to be linked to Richmond’s income as collector of alnage rather than to his lands. She was careful to settle matters so that much of her property would pass at her death to her children. As she had no children with Richmond it passed to her two sons, Edward^‡ and Thomas Lewis and also provided portions for her two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth. TNA, C108/9; CSP Dom. 1663–4, p. 528; HP Commons, 1660–90, ii. 741.

Richmond’s claim to property at Sutton Marsh and elsewhere in the Lincolnshire fens was disputed by his stepfather and was still unresolved in 1671. HP Commons, 1660–90, ii. 754–5. The Lennox inheritance had been much reduced by the effects of the civil wars: his uncle James Stuart, duke of Richmond, was said to have contributed nearly £100,000 to the cause of the king. The Lennox estates were also encumbered by the need to provide his cousin Lady Mary Stuart with a dowry of £20,000 (and an annuity to her of £1,000 a year); she married Richard Butler, the future Baron Butler of Weston, better known as earl of Arran [I], in 1664. At her death in July 1668 not all the dowry had been paid. Lands in Kent worth nearly £2,000 a year passed to the 1st duke’s widow for her life. A further £4,500 was owed to the O’Briens for the remainder of the portion of Richmond’s sister, Lady Katherine Stuart, following her marriage to Henry O’Brien^‡, Lord Ibrackan [I], in 1661. Eg. 2435, f. 9.

Later legal documents suggest that at his death Richmond had an income of £4,000 a year from lands in Westminster, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Ireland alone. Eg. 3382, ff. 160–80. Nevertheless, surviving documentation indicates heavy indebtedness, with loans in the early 1660s being obtained from Sir John Rogers (£7,500) and a mortgage of £5,000 on his principal residence at Cobham Hall, Kent, which by the time of his death had risen to £9,000. Eg. 2435, f. 49. In September 1662 his household expenditure alone amounted to over £5,000 a year and one of his servants, describing his situation as desperate, predicted inevitable ruin unless his extravagances could be curbed, especially if he continued his plans to keep a house in London. Add. 21947, f. 7. He possessed what by seventeenth-century standards must have been an exceptionally extensive collection of fine clothing. Eg. 2435, ff. 55–56; TNA, C108/53, C108/54. In 1662 Richmond’s debts were variously estimated at about £46,000 and over £57,000. Eg. 2435, f. 9; Add. 21947, f. 7. Some 20 years after his death his debts still totalled over £24,000. They included small sums owed to servants, as well as £200 to his chaplain, James Fleetwood, the future bishop of Worcester, £900 to Sir Joseph Williamson^‡ and over £1,000 to his neighbour, John Strode^‡. This list probably understates the extent of Richmond’s debts since it does not reveal the full extent of his mortgages, although it does indicate that the £900 debt to Williamson was in respect of unpaid interest on a loan of £5,000. TNA, C108/54; Eg. 3382, ff. 160–80.

Money problems and a resultant quest for office and favour provide a recurrent backdrop to Richmond’s public life. During the summer of 1660 he wrote to the secretary of state Sir Edward Nicholas^‡ in an attempt to obtain the governorship of Guernsey. In September he obtained a proclamation requiring arrears of the alnage to be paid to the trustees of his predecessor in the title; as the heir, Richmond expected that such payments would ultimately fall to himself. CSP Dom, 1660–1, pp. 79, 278. His appointment as a gentleman of the bedchamber in 1661 brought him a salary of £1,000 a year. A document from February 1666 or 1667 listed him as having £1,000 per annum from the decease of the Lady Katherine d’Aubigny in consideration of the services of her husband, George Stuart, Seigneur d’Aubigny, killed in battle serving Charles I. Morgan Lib. NY, Rulers of England, box, 9 no. 30, ‘annuities and pensions payable at the receipt of the Exchequer’.

The early Restoration period, 1660–67

Lichfield was one of the peers who accompanied the king at his entrance into the City of London in May 1660, but he was unable to attend Parliament because his earldom was one of the Oxford creations. HMC 5th Rep. 184. The ban was lifted on 31 May and he sat for the first time the following day. On 18 June the Lords ordered that his estate at Sutton Marsh should be discharged from sequestration. He sat as Lichfield until August, when he succeeded to the dukedom of Richmond. He was present on 57 days (65.5 per cent) of the remaining days before the adjournment on 13 Sept. 1660, and was named to five committees. Over the summer he was involved in an alliance with the Catholic William Stourton, 11th Baron Stourton, over the fate of the regicides George Fleetwood^‡ and Edmund Ludlow^‡. He agreed to support Stourton’s protégé, Ludlow, in return for Stourton’s help over Fleetwood. E. Ludlow, A Voyce from the Watch Tower, ed. Worden (Cam. Soc. ser. 4, xxi), 176. His connection to the Fleetwoods was perhaps James Fleetwood, the regicide’s uncle, who had been tutor to the 1st duke of Richmond’s children, and became one of the 3rd duke’s chaplains and unpaid creditors. It is not known whether his procurement of a warrant to preserve the game in Woodstock Park in favour of Sir William Fleetwood^‡ late in 1661 was a further indication of this connection. CSP Dom. 1661–2, p. 195. George Fleetwood was also related by marriage to Richmond’s influential Dorset neighbour Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, the future Bbaron Ashley and earl of Shaftesbury, and it was Cooper who acted on Fleetwood’s behalf in the Commons. Despite his support for Fleetwood, Lichfield was not tolerant of other regicides. During the clash between the two Houses over the scope of the action to be taken against them, he was adamant that Matthew Thomlinson^‡ be punished. After a heated argument with George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, he and the former parliamentarian peer William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard, entered their dissent on 23 July 1660 to the decision of the House to accept the decision of the Commons and to remove Thomlinson from the list of regicides. Ludlow, Voyce from the Watch Tower, 175.

On 26 July 1660 Lichfield, together with James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, introduced Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich, into the House. On 14 Aug. a proxy was entered in his favour by Sandwich. Also in August Lichfield petitioned, together with John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale [S], and his future brother-in-law, Arran, for the farm of the duty of coals. CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 189. This petition was renewed when he was duke of Richmond. Eg. 2549, f. 102. On 6 Sept. a proviso was added in the Commons on the bill restoring William Cavendish, marquess (later duke) of Newcastle, to his honours, manors, lands and tenements in England, to protect the jointure of Elizabeth, widow of Lord Mansfield, now the duchess of Richmond. Richmond was absent when the session resumed on 6 Nov. 1660, first attending on the 17th. He was present on 17 days, 38 per cent of this part of the session, and was named to a further two committees. On 13 Dec. 1660 he was one of the peers who signed the dissent against vacating Sir Edward Powell’s fines.

Richmond was present on the second day of the new Parliament, 10 May 1661. In the first part of the session, before the adjournment of 30 July, he attended on 32 days (50 per cent of the total) and was named to two sessional committees. In July 1661 he was expected to vote against the claim of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to the office of great chamberlain. On 23 July 1661 he registered the proxy of Edward Herbert, 3rd Baron Herbert of Chirbury. PH, xxxii. 250.

Richmond missed the opening few days of the resumed session, first attending on 25 Nov. 1661, although he was absent when the House was called at the start of proceedings on that day. He was present on 52 days (41 per cent), and was named to 15 committees. On 28 Nov. he chaired a meeting of the committee to consider the bill ‘concerning Quakers’, so he was in the chair when the Quakers ‘were called for to come in, but would not put off their hats and therefore came not in’. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 76. He reported the bill the following day, when it was recommitted. On 19 Nov. he had petitioned the crown for a grant of all the moneys and goods excepted from the Act of Pardon and vested in the king. CSP Dom. 1661–2, p. 151. On 2 Dec. he complained to the committee for privileges that a servant of his had been arrested in Derby, whereupon the committee instructed him to move the House for an order to ‘fetch up’ those responsible for the arrest. On 21 Feb. 1662 he took over the chair of the bill regulating cloth manufacture in the West Riding, and after several meeting and adjournments he reported from the committee on 28 Feb.; following the bill’s recommittal, he chaired another meeting of the committee on 5 Mar., before relinquishing the chair to the original chairman. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1, pp. 70, 145–50, 162.

On 27 Feb. John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, reported from the committee on the bill settling the estate of his uncle the duke of Richmond and Lennox, according to an agreement between Richmond, the duchess dowager, Lady Mary Stuart (her daughter) and trustees of the duchess. At this committee and again in front of the House on 3 Mar. Richmond declared that there were no other encumbrances upon the land than those contained in the paper annexed to the bill; and that he had not made any other settlement of the lands contained in the security to be given to the Lady Mary. The Lords then passed the bill. It was managed through the Commons by Sir Solomon Swale^‡ and returned to the Lords on 19 Mar. with amendments, which were agreed to. On that day Richmond was the only peer added to the committee when the uniformity bill was re-committed, perhaps in the expectation that he would support the king’s proviso in favour of ‘tender consciences’. His absence between 24 Mar. and 17 Apr. 1662 seems to have been connected to his nuptials, conducted by Gilbert Sheldon, bishop of London (later archbishop of Canterbury), at the Savoy on 31 Mar., a tour of his wife’s estates and a spot of horse-racing. Verney ms mic. M636/18, Dr. W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 27 Mar. 1662, 3 Apr. 1662, P. Denton to same, n.d. [2 Apr. 1662].

Richmond’s quest for financial reward now brought some promising successes: in August 1661 he obtained the demise of certain ‘waste and oozy ground’ belonging to the king in Dorset on condition that, after enclosure and embankment, a quarter be returned to the crown. In April 1662 he secured confirmation of the grant originally made to his uncle Richmond of feu mail and feu farms in Islay and Argyle worth 9,000 Scots marks a year, and in May he secured a grant of the farm of the subsidy and alnage on old and new draperies. He petitioned in June for the grant of a recently discovered lead mine in Lancashire. CSP Dom. 1661–2, pp. 73, 346, 374, 408, 535. Already lord lieutenant of Dorset, he made it clear that he had ambitions for the lord lieutenancy of Kent. The departure of Heneage Finch, 3rd earl of Winchilsea, for the Levant in 1662 gave him an opportunity to angle for an opportunity to share the lieutenancy with him. Winchilsea suspected his motives, seeing it as ‘the first step to crowd me out and to assume the whole power unto himself’, and the lord treasurer, Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, was appointed instead. HMC Finch, i. 206–7. In August 1662 Richmond was in Edinburgh, whence he solicited Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, for the command of one of the regiments being raised in England, hoping that his ‘intercession will prevail so far in my behalf that my serving his majesty in this kingdom may not in the least be a hindrance to me’. Bodl. Clarendon 77, f. 239. While attending the Scottish parliament, he was heavily involved in the manoeuvres of John Middleton, earl of Middleton [S], to destroy Lauderdale’s political influence by fixing a secret ballot of the 12 men to be excluded in the Scottish act of indemnity of September 1662; the ploy backfired and Lauderdale triumphed over his rival. Bodl. Clarendon 80, ff. 87–88; Burnet, i. 260–5.

Richmond was present when the 1663 session opened on 18 February. He attended on 30 days of the session (35 per cent) and was named to nine committees. Part of his absence may be explained by his attendance on the king at a race meeting in March 1663, where he suffered a serious fall. CSP Dom. 1663–4, p. 73. During his absence he entered a proxy on 6 Mar. in favour of Northampton, which was vacated by his presence on 23 March. On 30 Apr. 1663 he was absent because he joined the king in a visit to view John Evelyn’s gardens. Evelyn Diary, iii. 354. On 13 Apr. he chaired a meeting of the Ashdown Forest bill, with the concerned parties being ordered to appear on 5 May, when Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset took over proceedings. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 335. On 1 June he complained about the arrest of one of his servants and the perpetrators were ordered into custody. He attended on the last day of the session, 27 July 1663.

Predictions of a possible rising in May 1663 in Dorset and Somerset do not seem to have precipitated an early departure from London for Richmond, though continuing rumours of unrest meant that in October he was ‘busy with his militia’. CSP Dom. 1663–4, pp. 150, 296. He was still involved in the suppression of unrest by Dissenters the following February. Ibid. p. 485. However, he was present when the March–May 1664 session convened on 16 March, and thereafter attended on 27 days (75 per cent), being named to four committees. On 22 Mar. he was one of the first to oppose the reading of the letter from the earl of Bristol. Bodl. Rawl. A130, 22 Mar. 1663[–4]. Later that month he was one of the peers selected to carry a message from the House asking the king to give the royal assent to the bill for repealing triennial parliaments. He was absent between 2 and 18 Apr., excused attendance at a call on the 4th, and on the 11th given a pass to go to France with some horses. CSP Dom. 1663–4, p. 551. Somewhat ironically, given his own leisure interests, on 20 Apr. he introduced a bill against disorderly and unlawful gaming and on 3 May chaired the committee on the bill, reporting it later that day. Bodl. Rawl. A130, 20 Apr. 1664; PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 452.

Richmond’s higher attendance may have been related to his own need to be close to the court to secure a favourable decision in a dispute about his wife’s marriage settlement. Richmond wanted her to surrender her interest in the alnage so that he could secure a fresh grant, but his wife clearly feared that this would damage her financially. In a petition in March 1664 she asked the king to refer their dispute to the adjudication of ‘persons of honour’ and on 24 Mar. he accordingly referred it to Clarendon, Ashley, George Monck, duke of Albemarle, Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, Sheldon, now archbishop of Canterbury, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, and Sir Henry Bennet, the future earl of Arlington. The duchess had already contacted Manchester and Ashley but specifically asked that Albemarle be excluded from the list of referees. TNA, C108/53; CSP Dom. 1663–4, pp. 528, 532. Some agreement must have been reached, for the grants of alnage were renewed in October 1664. CSP Dom. 1664–5, p. 28. On 12 May 1664 Richmond petitioned for and was allowed his privilege in a case whereby Lady Dacre claimed a title to Sutton Marsh, Lincolnshire. She had obtained a hearing in the court of exchequer on 18 May but because a treaty accepted on both sides for determining all suits concerning the same had been lately broken off, Richmond claimed that he could not be ready in time for the trial.

In the autumn of 1664, Richmond was reported to be actively involved in organizing and reviewing the Dorset militia, who were now said to be so well trained that they ‘beget terror in the disaffected’. Ibid. p. 44. Unfortunately, he exceeded the limits of his jurisdiction and provoked a dispute with Humphrey Weld^‡, the governor of Portland and keeper of Sandsfoot Castle. When Richmond removed Weld from the commission of lieutenancy, he appealed to the king, who picked a panel of referees to adjudicate, who vindicated Weld. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 696; CSP Dom. 1664–5, pp. 109–10. In mid-November Richmond was reported to be one of the ‘gallants’ volunteering to accompany James*, duke of York, in the sea campaign against the Dutch. NAS, GD 406/1/2586; CSP Dom. 1664–5, p. 56. However, he was present when the 1664–5 session opened on 24 Nov., attending on 14 days (29 per cent), and being named to a single committee (on a bill concerning prize goods). On 28 Feb. 1665, he attended the committee considering a bill on Sutton Marsh, in which he had a personal interest, wherein he declared that he did not aim at the ‘in marsh’ at all, and offered a proviso ‘for saving the rights of all persons who have been in possession and are not ejected by law’. The committee then ordered counsel to ‘advise’ on the proviso to see if it was agreeable to both sides. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 73. There were no further proceedings before the end of the session on 2 March.

After the end of the session, Richmond had become involved either in a duel or in the threat of one over the ‘honour of a lady’ and was committed to the Tower for some three weeks, along with his brother-in-law, Lord Ibracken, and Colonel John Russell^‡ and William Russell^‡ (later Lord Russell), brother and son respectively of William Russell, 5th earl of Bedford. CSP Dom. 1664–5, pp. 280–1, 322; HMC Hastings, ii. 149. The cause of the quarrel remains obscure, apart from a reference at the end of May to Richmond’s ‘licentious’ crime. As Richmond and the two Russells were enamoured of the same court beauty, Miss Hamilton, it is possible that she was the woman at the centre of the dispute. HMC Bathurst, 1. On 19 Apr. 1665 Richmond wrote to James Butler, duke of Ormond [I], about ‘this last unhappy action’ for which he had lost the king’s favour, and asking Ormond to mediate with the king. Bodl. Carte 34, f. 143.

On 26 July 1665, en route for Dover, Richmond thanked Williamson for procuring a pass for him. He attended just three days of the session of October 1665, 20 per cent of the total. He was absent when the next session convened on 18 Sept. 1666, first attending on 17 Oct., and was present on 12 days (13.5 per cent). On 3 Dec. 1666 he attended the young James, duke of Cambridge, at his installation as a knight of the garter. TNA, ZJ, 1/1 no. 110. He last attended the Lords on 13 December.

In March 1667 rumours surfaced of a proposed marriage between Richmond and Frances Stuart, ‘La Belle Stuart’, a maid of honour to the queen, with whom the king was infatuated. The suggestion of Gilbert Burnet, the future bishop of Salisbury, that the king pretended to support Richmond’s suit in the hope that Mrs Stuart would break off the relationship when she realized just how poor he was provides a convincing explanation of subsequent events, although Richmond may also have misread the situation. Given his reputation for licentiousness, coupled with his financial situation and his track record of seeking wealthy wives, it seems unlikely that he would wish to saddle himself with a poor one, no matter how beautiful. He had already refused to marry Miss Hamilton, with whom he also claimed to be in love, because of her lack of a portion. C.H. Hartmann, La Belle Stuart,105. If Burnet is correct in stating that the king had offered to make her a duchess in her own right and to settle an estate on her, Richmond may well have thought that the king would make good his promise even if she were married to another. Burnet, i. 461–2. Grammont certainly thought it possible that Richmond commenced his relationship with Frances Stuart in order to gain the king’s favour and at least one of their contemporaries believed that the king intended to finance the marriage. Grammont Mems. 211; Carte 75, f. 512. According to Samuel Pepys^‡, Richmond had delivered an account of his estate and debts to the king on 18 Mar. and, according to one of Sir Ralph Verney’s^‡ correspondents, he had asked the king’s leave to marry her. Pepys Diary, viii. 119; Verney ms mic. M636/21, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney 21 Mar. 1667.

By 28 Mar. ‘a stop’ had been reported to the marriage on account of Richmond’s poor finances, but nevertheless the couple married two days later. Verney ms mic. M636/21, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney 28 Mar. 1667. When the king found out about the marriage, he was furious and apparently told the duchess ‘I shall never see you more’. She fled to her mother’s lodgings in Somerset House. NLS, Yester Pprs. ms 7023, Lauderdale to Tweedale, 2 Apr. 1667; Verney ms mic. M636/21, M. Elmes to Verney, 4 Apr. 1667. Richmond had joined her there by 9 Apr., ‘in great afflictions under the sense of his majesty’s displeasure’. HMC Le Fleming, 46–47. Thereafter, Richmond seems to have divided his time between Somerset House and Cobham. Add. 21947, ff. 106, 113; Pepys Diary, viii. 183–4. The incident played a minor role in the fall of Clarendon as it was widely rumoured that the lord chancellor had encouraged the marriage in order to secure the succession to the throne of his own grandchildren by suggesting either ‘that a family so near related to the king could never be left in distress’ or that it was Richmond’s ‘most certain way’ to advancement, and that this had damaged his standing with the king. Burnet, i. 462; Ludlow Mems. ed. Firth, ii. 407.

Richmond did not attend Parliament during the two-day session of July 1667. Throughout the summer of 1667 he was dealing with allegations about Dissent and sedition in Dorset, although he himself was warmly received on his visits there. Add. 21947, ff. 89, 136; CSP Dom. 1667, p. 291. He also had disputes over Scottish affairs to settle. Add. 21947, ff. 103. 109. Richmond was not present at the opening of the 1667–9 session on 10 Oct., first attending on the 17th. Interestingly, given his predicament at court, his attendance in the Lords increased. During the first part of the session, until the adjournment on 19 Dec., he was present on 43 days (84 per cent of the total) and was named to 17 committees. He was also more active in committees, on such diverse matters as inquiring into expiring laws (which he chaired on 22 Oct. and 11–12 Dec., and reported to the House on 12 Dec. that a short bill should be prepared); the condition of trade between England and Scotland (chaired 7 Nov. and was appointed to a sub-committee of five to draw up a state of the matter regarding this trade, and the adjournments of 4–5 Dec.); the prizing of wines bill (chaired 8, 11 and 15 Nov. and 3–5 Dec.); the sale of offices (chaired 12 Nov.); the bishop of Durham’s lead mines’ bill (chaired 19 and 23 Nov.); the bill for the suppression of atheism (chaired 13 and, 14 Dec.); the bill for taking the public accounts (chaired and reported 19 Dec.); and estate bills for Sir Charles Stanley (chaired the last meeting on 23 Nov. and reported on 26 Nov.) and Sir William Juxon (chaired 9 and 10 Dec. and reported 11 Dec.). PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 186, 198, 200, 203–5, 208, 210–12, 217–18, 220–3, 226–8, 233.

Richmond also chaired four meetings of the committee for privileges. On 11 Nov. 1667 he chaired the discussion on the report of a sub-committee into ‘foreign’ (i.e. Scottish and Irish) nobility; also that on how peers had deposed as witnesses in inferior courts and before the Commons, reporting on 12 Nov. that Anglesey be left at his own liberty to give information to the Commons about the payment of seamen. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, p. 30; Bodl. Rawl. A 130, 12 Nov. 1667. He then chaired the adjournment of the next meeting of the committee on 18 November. On 14 Dec. 1667 he reported that the committee for the Journal could not complete their task until the House had decided the case of minors sitting in the House; on the 16th he offered to the committee a resolution that they could not sit or vote while minors, which was agreed to, and which he reported to the House on the 18th. On 14 Dec. he chaired the committee which decided that the guardians of Charles Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun, should be privileged, duly reporting the matter on 16 December. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, pp. 31, 35.

Return to favour, 1668–72

On 20 Feb. 1668 Richmond kissed the king’s hand, signalling his return to court. Add. 36916, f. 75. He had been absent when the session resumed on 6 Feb., first attending on the 11th. He was present on 47 days (71 per cent) and was named to 12 committees. He remained an active committee man. On 16 Feb. he chaired a committee for privileges discussing how to prevent people entering the House with the king ‘under a colour of dependence’ upon him, which had inconvenienced the peers sitting near the cloth of State. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, p. 38. He chaired one meeting of the committee on the bill for exporting leather (12 Feb.), one meeting of the bill concerning the Fens (15 Feb.), the bill to improve Ashdown Forest (chaired 14 Mar.), the bill for indemnifying the late sheriffs of London (chaired 1 Apr. and reported on 6 Apr.), the bill to consider trade (adjournment 1 Apr.), the bill for ordering the accounts of administrators (chaired 2 Apr.), the bill for the better regulation of woollen manufactures (chaired 23 Apr. and reported 24 Apr.) and the bill for the preservation of the Forest of Dean (chaired 29, 30 Apr., after which his friend Arthur Capell, earl of Essex took over), from which he reported on 1 May on the petition of Sir John Wintour. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 233–5, 248, 257–8, 275–6, 280, 282. On 20 Feb. 1668 Richmond had insisted on his privilege in a dispute over the tithes of Leighton Bromswold, Huntingdonshire, which resulted in Charles Asfordby being summoned before the House. On 23 Apr. he was one of 12 peers selected to join with the Commons in waiting on the king with a joint vote promoting the wearing of English manufactures, reporting back to the Lords on the 28th.

By the end of May 1668, following the duchess’s recovery from smallpox, the Richmonds were ‘coming into great favour’ with the king. He told his sister that her ‘affliction made me pardon all that is past’; he was said to visit the duchess every night and to have given her £10,000 to buy the post of groom of the stole to the queen and another £30,000 to the duke to pay his debts. Richmond was appointed lord lieutenant of Kent (jointly with Winchilsea) and vice admiral of Kent, the latter a position that appears to have conferred neither power nor patronage, for the steward of the vice admiralty court reported in 1671 that no process or suits had been commenced there for 20 years. C.H. Hartman, Charles II and Madame, 208; Add. 36916, ff. 101–3; Add. 21948, f. 98. When Richmond presented a list of deputy lieutenants for the county, the king rejected it, arguing that some were too lowly and that there were too many names, for ‘their number rather lessens their activity’. CSP Dom. 1667–8, p. 398. In July he was politely reminded that he had not yet paid his poll tax, and one of his servants warned him that his failure to employ someone who could take an overview of his finances meant that ‘your honour, your interest and your estate will dwindle to nothing’. Add. 21947, ff. 193, 195. He attended York when the duke was sworn in as lord warden of the Cinque Ports in September, and with other senior nobles accompanied the royal brothers at the inspection of Harwich in October 1668. CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 567; 1668-9, p. 9.

Probably in November 1668, Richmond’s steward, Roger Payne, was Richmond’s nominee to receive the rent of £997 1s. 11d. reserved to the crown from a lease of the alnage of old and new draperies (which had been lately granted to Richmond, who surrendered a pension of £1,000 a year with arrears granted by Charles I and £1,180 1s. 9¾d., part of £4,000 due to him on his pension of £1,000 a year as a gentleman of the bedchamber). CSP Dom. 1668-9, p. 83. In March 1669 he was involved in a quarrel which was prevented from turning into a duel only by the intervention of Albemarle. HMC Le Fleming, 62. On 6 Apr. a pass was granted for Richmond to take 20 horses to France, and he left England at the end of the month. CSP Dom. 1668-9, pp. 267, 289-90. He seems to have spent much of the rest of the year in France dealing with the affairs of Aubigny, ignoring the advice of his friend the earl of Essex in May to sell Aubigny and use the profits to clear his English debts. Add. 21947, f. 218; HMC Buccleuch, i. 441. While at the court of Henrietta Maria in Paris in May, he received news that the building work he had commissioned at Cobham Hall had ground to a halt for lack of money. In June his agents were facing difficulty in collecting rents from his properties in Lincolnshire, he was embroiled in litigation over Sutton Marsh and faced further actions from his stepfather. He was furthermore experiencing problems collecting the alnage that were so intractable that he was advised to obtain an act of Parliament to sort them out, and that it was essential that he return to London at least a month or six weeks before the sitting ‘to prepare a way for that act, which cannot miscarry if well managed’. Add. 21947, ff. 220, 229.

During the summer, Richmond himself seems to have pinned his hopes on obtaining a royal pension and, having been advised by John Granville, earl of Bath, that his personal attendance at court was not necessary, relied on Arlington to secure it. He soon grew impatient, explaining to Arlington that he was obliged to live up to the position that ‘it hath pleased God to give me’ and that ‘his majesty is obliged both in justice and honour to support me (my family having sufficiently suffered for him)’. Both Bath and Bristol attempted to reassure him, but where Bath chose his words with care, Bristol openly warned that ‘you take very wrong measures in your affairs’. Richmond’s duchess had, it seems, made solicitations ‘even to importunity’ but had done herself little good with the king, ‘who having lent towards her with all the civility and respect imaginable she hath not answered with so much as that complaisance which she owes him in all considerations’. Nor did Bristol approve of Richmond’s joint lieutenancy of Kent, for Winchilsea was backed by ‘the powerful person’ and ‘I think it very unworthy of the duke of Richmond to embroil himself in contests for a moiety of the earl of Winchilsea’s command.’ A few weeks later, Ashley added his own advice. Referring to some past discussion about Richmond’s desire to go as ambassador to Italy, he now suggested that Richmond should instead ask Arlington for a posting as ambassador extraordinary to greet the newly elected king of Poland. He even added advice on just how the letter should be phrased ‘because the letter must be showed to the king and I fear the resentments your grace may have of your ill treatment of late might make you mingle something not so advantageous’. Ashley also warned that the autumn session of Parliament would be brief and that Richmond’s parliamentary business should be deferred until the following spring, ‘but this is a secret’. Add. 21947, ff. 231, 233, 235, 239, 247.

As a result of Ashley’s advice, Richmond delayed returning to England, though, despite his wife’s reassurances, he was very anxious about the negative effects of a scurrilous rumour that he believed was circulating at court. Add. 21947, f. 259. He also promised his support to Arlington in his quarrel with Buckingham, pledging to stand by him ‘if his majesty stands by his wife’. HMC Buccleuch, i. 437. When in September 1669 he learned of the king’s refusal to appoint him to Poland, he regretted that ‘I should be so unfortunate as always to propose things not to be granted’ and concluded that ‘I am now fully satisfied of his majesty’s intentions towards me and shall not give him any more trouble in things of this nature’, but promptly went on to remind the king of his family’s sufferings and to request a grant of some of the revenues of the recently deceased dowager queen. Add. 21947, f. 266.

On 7 Oct. 1669 it was reported that Richmond was ‘expected over out of France every day’. NAS, GD 406/1/10002 [misdated 1667]. A month later Essex wrote to him referring to a recent illness of Richmond’s and informing him that Parliament had done little as yet. Add. 21947, f. 281. Later in November Richmond drafted two letters from Paris to two unnamed peers in England asking for their help in securing him the post of lord chamberlain, if the incumbent, Manchester, succumbed to his illness. He advanced two reasons why the king should favour him: first that ‘his majesty hath often promised me many things upon the account of my wife’ and secondly that it ‘will take nothing from his majesty since (if not to me) it must be given to somebody’. Add. 21948, f. 133. On 21 Nov. 1669 Ralph Montagu, the future duke of Montagu, wrote from Paris concerning Richmond’s pretentions to succeed the ailing Manchester. HMC Buccleuch, i. 450. Richmond attended only two days at the very end of the 1669 session in December, being added to the committee for privileges on the 9th.

He was present, however, when the next session began on 14 Feb. 1670 and attended on 31 days (74 per cent) before the adjournment on 11 Apr., being named to 19 committees. He held the proxy of Charles Henry Kirkhoven, Baron Wotton (later earl of Bellomont [I]). He invoked his privilege twice, once in January over the detention of his yacht, and again on 3 Mar. 1670 over the arrest of Roger Payne; the attorney concerned, Phillip Bartholomew, was ordered into custody on the 4th, and released on 9 Mar., and a Mr Hayes apologized and was discharged on 18 March. Add. 21947, f. 287; HMC 8th Rep. pt. 1, p. 142. In the heated debates over the Conventicle bill of March Richmond was careful to draw a distinction between moderate Presbyterians and ‘ranting Quakers’. HMC Hastings, iv. 291. During March he chaired meetings of two committees considering private bills: one was for Sir Ralph Bankes^‡ of Kingston Lacy, Dorset (chaired 4 Mar. and reported the following day); the other was for settling claims to the estates of his Oxfordshire neighbour, Sir Thomas Pope, 3rd earl of Downe [I] (chaired 4 Mar.). Richmond also chaired three adjournments of the committee discussing the bill on wool (4, 17 and 22 March). On 9 Mar. he reported from the committee for privileges on a case involving Richard Vaughan, Baron Vaughan and 2nd earl of Carbery [I]. He was a determined opponent of the Roos divorce bill, entering dissents after both the second (17 Mar.) and third readings (28 March). In committee on the bill on 22 Mar. he offered a proviso on behalf of George Saunderson^‡, Viscount Castleton [I]. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 294–6, 312, 314, 316. Following its committal on 30 Mar., the next day he reported the bill for repairing highways, and on 2 Apr. was named to manage a conference on it, duly reporting back from it later in the day.

On 6 July 1670 it was reported that Richmond was ‘not well, a scurvy cough hangs on him and a weakness’. Verney ms mic. M636/24, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 6 July 1670. Later that summer, in the course of one his regular trips to Scotland, Richmond broke his journey at King’s Lynn, where he was ‘nobly entertained’. He was said to have repaid his hosts by raping the 13-year-old daughter of the merchant in whose house he was lodged, and was then forced to leave in order to escape the vengeance of the townsfolk. The king promised to leave him to be dealt with according to law, but while in Scotland he was ‘out of reach’, and likely to remain so unless ‘quickly sent for’. Add. 36916, f. 189. No further proceedings are known to have taken place, although the incident confirmed Richmond’s unsavoury reputation, with Wood describing him as ‘a most rude and debauched person’, who ‘kept sordid company’. Wood, Life and Times, i. 436; Pepys Diary, vi. 167. Grammont noted his attachment to wine, while Burnet reported his perpetual drunkenness when in Scotland in 1662, and in February 1665 Robert Paston, the future earl of Yarmouth, noted two separate occasions involving late-night revelling with Richmond and ‘his fiddlers’. Grammont Mems. 211; Burnet, i. 265; HMC 6th Rep. 364–5.

In mid-August 1670 Richmond was still in Edinburgh, where he commented on the passage of a bill against conventicles ‘much severer than ours in England’. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 377. However, he was present when the session resumed on 24 Oct. 1670, his first task being to join Buckingham in sponsoring the introduction of James Scott, duke of Monmouth. He attended on 50 days (40 per cent) and was named to eight committees, including that on 1 Mar. 1671 to draw up heads of a conference on a joint address to the king on the growth of popery. On 27 Oct. he complained to the House that he had been disturbed in his possession of Sutton Marsh in breach of privilege by James Livingston, earl of Newburgh [S], among others. Upon hearing counsel on 10 and 14 Nov., the House accepted proof that Richmond was in actual possession of the land and on 14 Nov. ordered the sheriff to ensure his quiet possession thereof. On 4 Mar. 1671 the House referred to the committee of privileges the question of whether servants of peers should be allowed to claim privilege when charged with recusancy, a result of an order allowing such privilege to Richmond’s gentleman of horse, William Gawen.

Richmond last sat on 14 Apr. 1671, shortly before the session ended. In July he was in arrears to the hearth tax (14 hearths) on his house in the stables in Duke’s Yard. CTB, iii. 915. In December he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to Denmark. It was not a prestigious posting: the Danes had never had an English ambassador before, apart from those in transit to Sweden, and were delighted to receive one of such high rank. HMC Lindsey, 253. Clearly Denmark was a post that might assuage Richmond’s constant demands for favour yet in which he could do little harm. He relinquished his lord lieutenancy of Dorset to Ashley in January 1672 and took leave of the king on 28 February. Although he was expected to depart at the beginning of April, contrary winds meant that he did not set sail for Denmark until the end of the month. CSP Dom. 1671–2, pp. 178, 255, 267, 316, 358, 377, 401.

The captain of the ship that carried him to Denmark described him as ‘as good a natured gentleman as ever I have been acquainted with’, but Richmond and members of his retinue quarrelled with at least two other members of the ship’s crew. Ibid. p. 369; Add. 21948, ff. 191, 193. On the way he created something of a diplomatic incident by using his power as lord high admiral of Scotland to grant letters of marque when some foreign ships were sighted. CSP Dom. 1672, p. 289; Add. 25117, f. 5. In England some of the foreign envoys complained vociferously that these were neutral rather than Dutch ships and Henry Coventry^‡ feared that there would be angry complaints in Parliament, especially if English ships were seized in retaliation for those ‘detained in Scotland’. Coventry was even more annoyed when he discovered that Richmond was planning to load his coach and other goods on a ship together with Coventry’s; he feared that the Dutch were so annoyed at Richmond’s actions over the prizes that they were bound to target any ship that was known to have Richmond’s goods on it. Add. 25117, ff. 16–17, 24–26, 29, 32, 60–61, 66, 69. Others were more favourable towards him, Sir John Coplestone writing that Thomas Clifford, Baron Clifford of Chudleigh, thought that Richmond ‘did exceedingly well’; ‘truly my Lord’, he added, ‘I doubt not but at your return to see you as great as any’. Add. 21948, ff. 427–8.

Richmond died in unfortunate circumstances on 12 Dec. 1672. He was variously said to have drowned when he accidentally fell into the sea while clambering out of a ship, or to have died afterwards of ‘excessive cold’ in his carriage. HMC Le Fleming, 99. News of his death did not reach England until after 10 Jan. 1673, when Coventry wrote his last letter to Richmond. Coventry took steps to ensure that the duke’s goods were taken care of and ensured that every encouragement was given to the Danes to grant the traditional present to the widowed duchess, as ‘the condition my Lord hath left her in cannot dispose her to despise such incidents as may honourably be received’. The duke’s body was returned to England in the summer. On 20 Sept. 1673 a magnificent procession escorted it from the Painted Chamber to Westminster Abbey, where he was buried. Add. 12514, ff. 72, 82–83, 116, 291–2.