BUTLER, Richard (1639-86)

As a younger son, Butler chose the army as a career, exploiting his extensive contacts to secure preferment. He was appointed to the guards in 1662, and the following year his father used his influence with Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, to ensure that he was named to the Privy Council of Ireland. Ibid. n.s. iii. 68. From 1662, he was known by contemporaries by his title of Arran, which, as his father explained to a resentful William Douglas-Hamilton, duke of Hamilton (who held the Scottish title of that name), was ‘belonging to Ireland’, it ‘having long been the inheritance of my family, as I hope it shall shortly be my son’s.’ Bodl. Carte 199, f. 115. Arran also had a theoretical income of £3,000 p.a. bestowed upon him by his father. Mapperton, Sandwich mss, Jnl. x. 342. Needless to say, this sum was not always forthcoming due to the financial difficulties of his father. Bodl. Carte 49, f. 459.

Arran’s arrival in London in January 1664 prompted Sir Nicholas Armorer to joke to Sir Joseph Williamson^‡, ‘if you can find him a rich wife and send him back soon it will be kindly done.’ CSP Ire. 1663-5, p. 351. He was certainly in the marriage market, for the following month Anglesey reported that Arran ‘flies at a fair game, and none shall more wish and assist his good success than myself.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. iii. 139. This may refer to Arran’s courtship of the duke of Richmond’s daughter. After their marriage his wife’s status was confirmed by a royal declaration that she continue to be placed as the daughter of a duke. CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 9. The attractiveness of the match was summed up by Thomas Carte, ‘if she had left issue, her child would have inherited all the duke of Richmond’s estate in Scotland, and would have been heir-at-law to the duke of Buckingham’s estate in England.’ Carte, Ormonde, iv. 219-20.

The Butlers were keenly aware of their residual interest in Buckingham’s estate, and anxious to protect it. Thus, upon the duchess of Richmond’s marriage to ‘Northern Tom Howard’ in November 1664, and the reports that she was with child, Ormond suggested to Buckingham that he settle his estates on Lady Arran. Hatton corresp. i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii), 40-42. This concern also explains Arran’s sudden dash across the Irish Sea to London in March 1667, following Buckingham’s arrest, in order to ensure that if his offence proved capital, leading to a forfeiture, the king could be swiftly reminded of his wife’s ‘innocence, and of the merit of her father and of his family.’ CSP Ire. 1666-9, pp. 318-19l; Bodl. Carte 48, f. 440. Another consequence of his marriage was the conveyance by his mother-in-law, the dowager duchess of Richmond, of her unexpired rights to the aulnage in Ireland. CSP Ire. 1663-5, pp. 604-5. Arran then procured a grant from the king of the same for 61 years, upon surrender of his previous patent in September 1666. CTB, 1716, p. 384. This was just one of a number of financial expedients which attracted Arran as he struggled to live within his means.

Arran was in England when his wife died in Ireland on 3 July 1668. Verney ms. mic. M636/22, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 9 July 1668. This prompted Arran to return there to settle his affairs and discharge his debts. He intended to return to England and keep a watching brief on his father’s affairs in Parliament, but Ormond was of the opinion that Arran would be better able to serve him in Ireland than elsewhere, particularly as the intentions of the new lord lieutenant, John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes were so uncertain. HMC Ormonde, n.s. iii. 437-8; Bodl. Carte 50, f. 58. Financial troubles continued to plague him, for when he wrote to William Legge^‡ in October 1670 to proffer his excuses for not attending the Commons, he opined that the real reason for his continued stay in Ireland was that he was unable to raise the money for the journey unless all the rents owed to him were paid. Staffs. RO, Dartmouth mss D(W)1778/I/i/301.

In April 1671, when it was rumoured that James Scott, duke of Monmouth would replace John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton, in Ireland, Arran was named as one of his possible deputies. Add. 36916, f. 219. Court politics remained very much part of Arran’s role, even when his father was out of office. In May 1671, it was reported that ‘Lady Clanbrassil is coming over with the lord lieutenant’, as a calculated ploy to entice the king away from Nell Gwyn. CSP Dom. 1671, p. 238. As Edward Conway, the future earl of Conway, wrote, ‘you cannot imagine how my Lord Arran and many others do value themselves upon the account of managing Lady Clanbrassil on this affair.’ Rawdon Pprs. 251. Military service also attracted Arran. In February 1672 his mother wrote that he was going to sea with James Stuart, duke of York, and in June 1672, he saw action, as a volunteer, in the naval engagement of Southwold Bay. HMC Ormonde, n.s. iii. 448-9.

Baron Butler 1673-80

At the beginning of 1673 rumours were circulating of new peerage creations, Arran being mentioned as ‘earl of Leighton in Huntingdonshire, where he hath £1200 a year by his wife’. This grant was stopped because of Lady Catherine O’Brien’s claim to the barony of Clifton of Leighton Bromswold. Verney ms. mic. M636/25, Sir R. to E. Verney, 30 Jan., 3 Feb. 1673. She petitioned the crown in October 1673 over the matter, and then on 8 Jan. 1674 petitioned the Lords, who decided in her favour on 7 Feb. 1674. In June 1673 Arran married Dorothy Ferrers, who came from ‘one of the best and ancientest families of England, formerly earls of Essex. The portion is £12,000, and but one sickly young man, her brother, between her and £3,000 a year after her father’s decease.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. iii. 452. The rumours of new peerage creations resurfaced in August 1673 when Dr. William Denton wrote: ‘we talk of four new Lords’, including Arran. Verney ms. mic. M636/26, Denton to Sir R. Verney, 25 Aug. 1673. Arran was summoned on 17 Oct. 1673, as Baron Butler of Weston, ‘a manor of his own’, and took his seat at the prorogation on 20 Oct., being introduced by Charles Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun, and John Belasyse * [304], Baron Bellasyse. Williamson letters (Cam. Soc. n.s. viii), 168-9. He then attended on all four days of the short session held a week later, being nominated to two committees.

Arran attended on 33 days of the 1674 session (87 per cent of sittings) and was named to two committees. He did not attend the session that began in April 1675, and was excused attendance on the 29th. Nor did he attend the short session held later that year, depositing his proxy on 14 Oct. 1675 with his father (which was cancelled when Ormond entered a proxy for himself) and was excused attendance on 10 November. While in Ireland Arran was left to sort out the affairs of his brother, John, earl of Gowran [I], who died in April 1676, which included his substantial debts and the outstanding part of the portion due to him from his marriage to Lady Anne Chichester, who subsequently married Francis Aungier^‡, 3rd Baron Aungier [I], later earl of Longford [I]. HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 14. In England by 30 June 1676, he found Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis not guilty of murder. State Trials, vii. 157-8.

Arran wrote from Dublin on 4 Sept. 1676, ‘I find the whole matter concerning Lord Ranelagh’s [Richard Jones^‡] miscarriages is left to be tried by his excellency here, which I am afraid will signify little as long as the other stays in England, and has such countenance given him there.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 14. When Arran arrived in London on 18 Nov., he brought with him the concerns of the lord lieutenant, Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, over Ranelagh’s financial mismanagement. Stowe 210, ff. 331-2. As Ranelagh himself wrote on 25 Nov., ‘Lord Arran is here and the thundering representation against me came over with him, but it is as yet kept asleep.’ CSP Dom. 1676-7, p. 433. Arran attended on 35 of the 49 sittings between February 1677 and the adjournment on 16 Apr., 71 per cent of the total, and was named to 14 committees. He then attended on four of the five days in May. There was little doubt about his political position, Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury classifying him as ‘twice vile’ on his list of lay peers dating from 1677-8.

Following Ormond’s reappointment as lord lieutenant, Arran accompanied his father to Ireland in August 1677. He did not stay long, Ormond reporting on 8 Jan. 1678 that Arran was about to embark ‘for England to do his duty in the House of Peers.’ HMC Ormonde, ii. 266-7. He carried with him memorials on various topics of interest to the lord lieutenant, such as the Irish revenue (and Ranelagh’s accounts), the army, forts and Roman Catholics and nonconformists. Arran arrived in London on 13 Jan. 1678 although he saw little prospect of bringing ‘the affair of the Irish revenue under consideration notwithstanding this adjournment’, because of the current preoccupation with the prospect of a war. He immediately began a whirl of social visits. Regularly corresponding with his father, Arran was keen to discover Ormond’s attitude to the vexed question of whether to allow the Irish parliament to be called, even asking his father to ‘let me have some private instructions how to discourse upon that subject when it falls in my way.’ Ormond, in turn, advised Arran on how to put himself into a position to influence the king and the duke of York, by attending not only at the drawing rooms, but also at their rising, and, especially, at their retiring. Arran seems to have consulted Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington, on many matters, but he noted that on Irish affairs, and particularly the problem of Ranelagh’s accounts, Arlington was excluded from the discussions at the treasury. Ibid. n.s. iv. 84-98.

Arran attended on 57 days of the session that resumed in January 1678 following adjournments the previous May, July and December (93 per cent of the total, and an attendance of 83.5 per cent for the session as a whole). He was named to a further seven committees. One major matter of concern to Arran, as elucidated in a letter from Ormond, was the parliamentary outcry over the export of Irish wool to England’s competitors, for which Ormond blamed the corrupt practices of English customs’ officials. To combat these, Ormond sent his own ideas to Arran in the hope that they would be adopted. Ibid. ii. 268-9. He instructed Arran to consult Danby first, because the matter concerned the king’s officers, and then he was to introduce the ideas into the Lords’ committee, if one had been appointed to deal with the export of wool from Ireland. If necessary, in the Commons, Sir Cyril Wyche^‡ was to be used to perform the like task. Arran continued to enjoy a full social life, attending a ball on 4 Feb. 1678 at the house of Henry Jermyn, earl of St Albans, where the duke and duchess of York ‘danced with us until four o’clock this morning,’ before attending the proceedings in the Lords on 5 Feb. concerning Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke. Ibid. iv. 101-2, 116-19. On 16 Feb. he accepted the proxy of William Feilding, 3rd earl of Denbigh. On 4 Apr. he voted Pembroke guilty of manslaughter. However, matters did not go smoothly for Arran; his brother, Ossory, took umbrage at not being consulted over Arran’s interventions in Irish affairs, although Ormond pointed out this was a natural development considering Ossory’s absence abroad, and his imminent departure to the continent again. Ibid. iv. 108-10.

With a Parliament likely to be called in Ireland to sit in May, in March 1678, Arran made the revealing comment that his wife ‘had as lief go to Jamaica as Ireland.’ On 7 May 1678 Ormond wrote of his desire to have Arran in Ireland as soon as he could ‘get off’, but the prospect of a new parliamentary session in England made that unlikely. Ibid. iv. 126-8, 142-3. Arran attended on 33 days of the session of May to July 1678, 77 per cent of the sittings, plus the adjournment on 1 Aug. 1678. He was named to two committees. In June 1678, Arran provided an unofficial conduit for Ormond to suggest to the king a way in which he could put troops disbanded in England on to the Irish establishment. He left for Ireland on 7 Oct. 1678, although both Longford and secretary of state, Henry Coventry^‡ both urged his quick return, because he was thought to be a useful prop for Ormond’s interest, ‘being very well with the king and duke, and in good esteem with all men here.’ Ibid. iv. 212, 214.

At the end of March 1679, Longford again suggested to Ormond that he should immediately send Arran back to London: as ‘an eye-witness of all transactions’ in Ireland, Arran would be able to ‘give a more authentic state of things’, better indeed than anyone else by virtue of the ‘place he has in the House of Lords, and a title to be with the committee [perhaps the committee of examinations, investigating the Popish Plot] when he pleases.’ At the end of April Ormond even considered asking leave to come over to defend himself in person, leaving Ossory as lord deputy, or Arran and the lord chancellor [Michael Boyle, archbishop of Armagh], as lords justices. Ibid. v. 3-4, 72.

In March-April 1679, Danby listed Arran as doubtful in his calculation of likely voting intentions in the proceedings against him, probably because he was likely to be absent, and on 12 Mar. Arran was listed as a court lord who was absent from the House. His name also appears on a list of about April, which indicated his likely opposition to the early stages of the attainder bill against Danby. He was excused attendance on 9 May because he was attending to his duties in Ireland. At the end of January 1680, Arran was still ensconced in Dublin, writing to Secretary Coventry about Irish matters, while his father recuperated from an attack of the gout. Ibid. v. 269.

Ormond’s lieutenant, 1680-6

The death of his brother Ossory at the end of July 1680 saw an increased role for Arran, as his father’s chief lieutenant in political and family affairs. Longford immediately recognized this, referring on 5 Aug. to Arran as the only one in the family that could do the king active service. He thought that Arran had ability, courage and integrity, but that he lacked industry owing ‘to his too great inclination to good fellowship.’ Bodl. Carte 243, f. 494. Further pressure was put upon Ormond to sanction Arran’s return to England, Longford arguing in early September that his ‘being here when the Parliament meets may be of importance, for he has good interest in my Lord Russell [William Russell^‡], who will be the leading man in the House of Commons, and his lordship can himself represent the true state of affairs in the House of Lords.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 413.

Arran arrived in London on 29 Oct. 1680. The following day he waited on the king, who took him ‘into an inner room and there discoursed with him (after he had shut the door himself) near half an hour.’ As Arran noted, ‘I am very sorry that I brought not some narrative along with me, for it would have been of great use to us’, and that ‘I should have delivered an account first, and not let your adversaries begin’, for John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace had already told the committee for examinations that he ‘knew a person of great quality and estate in the kingdom of Ireland who would inform them, he being lately come over, of the miscarriages of the government since the discovery of the Plot.’ Ibid. 453, 455-6, 462, 467-8, 469-70.

Arran first attended the Lords the same day, 30 Oct. 1680, and was present on 45 days of the 1680-1 session, 68 per cent of the total. Despite the advice of the clerk of the Parliaments that he could sit in the House after taking the Test, he was forced to withdraw when someone pointed out that no writ had actually been issued to him. On the next day’s sitting, 3 Nov., now armed with a writ, he was added to the committee examining the Plot, where Ormond’s ‘enemies hope to pinch’ him. He was named to a further two committees. According to his later testimony, Arran intervened (probably on either 4 or 6 Nov. 1680) to justify the actions of Sir John Davies, the Irish secretary, in dealing with information proffered to him about the Irish Plot: ‘I am sure if I had not answered for him in the House, that he would come over upon my intimation of what was then moved in the House, he had been sent for by order of their Lordships, and that perhaps in custody.’ Ibid. 469-70, 474, 586-7.

Longford was sure that Arran’s arrival in London had made Ormond’s enemies pause for thought and that ‘since he took his place in the House of Lords there has not been one public flirt at your grace, whereas before it was every day’s entertainment.’ Nor was Arran’s impact limited to the upper House, for he was arranging for copies of documents useful for Ormond’s vindication to be circulated among Members of the Commons. Longford thought Arran ‘so dextrous in everything he undertakes here that all the rest of your grace’s servants are become useless to you, for he leaves nothing for us to do.’ On 9 Nov. 1680 Arran intervened unsuccessfully in an attempt to get the Lords to read the relevant documents presented to them on Ireland, but he did manage to get them referred to the Commons, where Ormond’s friends could make another attempt to use them. He was also able to intervene in the committee examining the Plot to inform the chairman, Shaftesbury, that in Ireland ‘all the depositions taken in relation to the Plot were as impartially taken as ever his Lordship took any, to which he made no reply, neither has he ventured to have a fling at you since my being in the House, and I thank God I have overcome the awe of speaking there.’ Ibid. 479-81, 483-5.

Meanwhile, in October 1680, Lady Arran was thinking of returning to Ireland, even though her doctors advised against it, since she was probably pregnant. Bodl. Carte 243, f. 518. Arran may have given part of the reason for this hazardous move, when he wrote on 9 Nov. that his wife had spent £1,200 in four months, ‘which is no small inconvenience to me; but she is so very sensible of her fault in it that I have not been so severe as perhaps another would have been in my place.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 483-5.

On 15 Nov. 1680, Arran’s name was included on all three of the contemporary lists of peers who voted to reject the exclusion bill at its first reading. Arran’s main concern at this time was that Ormond would be moved against as a perceived friend of York, and either addressed against or impeached. Ibid. 489. On 19 Nov., Ormond sent Arran a paper explaining why he had issued a proclamation for disarming Protestants, and that it had been done with the advice and approbation of a numerous council. Bodl. Carte 219, ff. 178-179. On 4 Dec. Arran remained uncertain about the outcome of the trial of William Howard, Viscount Stafford, noting that despite the peer’s ‘weak’ defence, Oates, Dugdale and Turberville, the three witnesses against him, ‘are not thought so credible witnesses by some of the Lords as the managers of the evidence would have them pass for.’ On 7 Dec. he voted Stafford not guilty of treason. In late December Arran was still concerned to discover the potential charges against Ormond, sending them over to Ireland on 1 Jan. 1681 so that they could be refuted. HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 519-21, 533-4, 537, 543.

On 3 Jan. 1681 he acquainted the Lords that Sir John Fitzgerald, Colonel Peirce Lacy, and Lieutenant Colonel Bradley, who had been sent for out of Ireland, were now in custody and attending at the door, but that Theobald Bourke, Baron Brittas [I], had fled. The Lords then ordered them to be examined by the committee looking into the Popish Plot. On 4 Jan., although the House voted that there was a plot in Ireland, Arran intervened in the debate on Ireland to challenge the assertion ‘that papists were better armed in Ireland than the Protestants, but I cleared that point and satisfied the House to the contrary’. On 8 Jan. Arran excused his failure to write a long letter with reference to the long sitting of the House that day. On 10 Jan. he reported a conversation with Essex, in which Arran had challenged him as the source and promoter of the articles against his father, and even threatened to reveal some of Essex’s miscarriages in the government of Ireland. Ibid. 544-50.

On 15 Jan. 1681, Arran wrote, ‘I have so much work upon my hands now and have nobody to help me,’ a reference to his continual round of engagements relating to Irish affairs, particularly the revenue. On 22 Jan. he reported that the king had commanded his attendance at the Parliament called for Oxford in March, although he had some thoughts of a rapid visit to Ireland. Unfortunately, such a visit might be of limited value for ‘whatever you may conclude on that side, matters may so alter when my back is turned as may make those measures you may prudently take impracticable when I return.’ Ibid. 551-3, 559. An indication of Arran’s role as a key political associate of his father can be seen in Ormond’s comment that unless Arran stayed for the Oxford Parliament, ‘whatever Lord Shaftesbury shall say, upon the falsest information touching affairs of Ireland, will pass for current truth; and hasty resolves may be made upon it’. Interestingly, Arran also offered Ormond the opportunity to respond in print to any matter relating to Ireland or himself, ‘I can get it put into one of those news books by the favour of an active justice of the peace here.’ Ibid. 559-60, 572-4.

In February 1681 Arran informed his father that some members of the grand jury of Middlesex had intended to indict both of them as recusants, together with York and the queen, but that the witnesses refused to swear against them. On 15 Feb. Arran ‘assisted at the debate’ in the committee of council appointed to look into the posture of affairs in Ireland. On 8 Mar. Arran wrote to Ormond, ‘I find you judge very right, for the court is in such a hurry that there will be no time to mind the affairs of that country [Ireland].’ On 17 Mar. Danby grouped Arran among those peers ‘such as I conceive will be for my bail if they are there’. Arran travelled to Oxford in the company of Philip Stanhope, 2nd earl of Chesterfield (his former brother-in-law), and attended every day of the 1681 Parliament. He was named to two committees. According to Arran, the ‘Commons having run so very high in their votes upon our not admitting of the impeachment against Fitzharris, I suppose was the reason that made his majesty dissolve this Parliament very abruptly this morning, for the Lords had no summons to be in their robes.’ Back in London, on 1 Apr. he informed his father that unless the king commanded the contrary he would begin to plan his return to Ireland. Even so, ‘the clearing myself from this place will take me up some time, though I could not without shame live at a lower rate than I have done.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 9, 25, 33-34.

On 16 Apr. 1681, Arran wrote that the king had directed him to apply, in Irish matters, to Laurence Hyde, soon to be created Viscount Hyde (later earl of Rochester), Edward Seymour^‡ and Lord Conway, but Ormond thought that he should not exclude the secretary, Sir Leoline Jenkins^‡ from his routine applications. Ibid. 36; Bodl. Carte 219, f. 236. The chief Irish business before the king was the vexed case of the Irish revenue, and whether to accept the offer to farm it.

On 9 June 1681, Arran was called as a witness for the defence at the trial for treason of Edward Fitzharris in Westminster Hall, although he appeared to be of little help to the defendant. State Trials, viii. 374. As Arran recounted, ‘by his first question [Fitzharris], would have had me own the seeing that damnable libel the day I dined with him; but he got nothing by it, for I said indeed he would have read a libel to me but I told him I would not hear it’, and further that ‘if he took such courses he would bring himself to the mischief he was now in danger of.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 81-82.

From June 1681 onwards Arran attended regularly at the treasury, where the vexed question of the farm of the Irish revenue took up many meetings. At the end of July Arran came to London to attend the prince of Orange, opting on 4 Aug. to dine with the prince rather than join the ‘apprentices’ treat for the statesmen,’ which he had not been commanded to attend. Also in August, Arran was involved in discussions over whether the Irish informer, William Hetherington, should be prosecuted for scandalum magnatum against Ormond, an action revived in November when Hetherington found himself lodged in the Compter prison. Later in August Arran was considering a short visit to Ireland, ‘to discharge the family I have at Dublin and put off the house, which is a great charge to me,’ even if he had to return to England for the winter. However, his trip was continually postponed, and he was still in London in March 1682. Ibid. 81-82, 114-15, 120-1, 129-30, 136-7, 220-1, 233-4, 301, 309-10, 348. Meanwhile, following Ormond’s decision to visit England, Arran was named as lord deputy in March 1682. Bodl. Carte 219, f. 321; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 318; Add. 28875, f. 214. On 3 May, shortly after his arrival in Ireland he was sworn lord deputy. According to Primate Boyle, ‘my lord deputy puts himself to no difficulty for the discharge of his government. He is his father’s son, and does his work with as much ease as if it were natural and came to him by descent.’ HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 359, 394-5.

On 3 July 1683 Ormond reported to Arran the current criticism of his government, namely that ‘military commands and civil offices’, were being sold; that many army officers, magistrates and justices of the peace were disaffected, and that ‘disaffected persons are countenanced’. Ibid. vii. 61-62. Arran spent the summer of 1683 in Dublin, as advised by his father, so as to maintain a close watch on Protestant nonconformists. Bodl. Carte 219, ff. 490, 504. In November Ormond reported renewed criticism of Arran’s style of government. The complaints may be divined from Arran’s missive to his father on 17 Nov. in which he wrote that in order

to divert myself from the trouble that many very crabbed businesses gave me, I did go to sup abroad often, and sat up with the ladies at cards longer than I am convinced was proper for one in my station, and by that means did not rise very early; but though I do not give audience so early as others in this employment have done, yet I must boast that persons have suffered as little delay under my government, as in any of my predecessors. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 160-1.

He had now given up such behaviour to avoid giving ammunition to his enemies.

The king’s insistence that Ormond return to Ireland in the summer of 1684 caused Arran some surprise: ‘I despair of ever having a regular family, since there are always fresh occasions given for probable pretences to keep it divided. In the mind I am in, I am for sending directions to my wife not to prepare for coming over, not knowing where to live with her.’ There was also the familiar refrain about his debts; on 9 July 1684 he sent over a servant to England ‘to take a particular account of mine and my wife’s debts ... and though I believe we may owe more than we guess, I am not afraid to look into them, and doubt not but to get the better of them within a twelve months’ time.’ Ibid. 252-3, 256-7.

With Ormond safely ensconced in Dublin, Arran set out for London, arriving on 5 Nov. 1684, just when it was being ‘briskly reported’ that Rochester was to be lord lieutenant of Ireland. Bodl. ms Eng. Lett. c. 53 f. 125. He carried with him Ormond’s letters to the king, together with other accounts of Irish business, but on 6 Nov. the king ‘having owned to me that he had written his mind to you about your removal, and the sending my Lord Rochester in your place, I had the less discourse with him upon the subject.’ Bodl. Carte 232, ff. 290-1; 217, f. 51. Arran harboured some resentment about his father’s removal; when Ormond’s letter to Rochester of 3 Dec., in which he was somewhat sharp in his opinions, appeared in public, he was suspected of having leaked it. Ormond was deeply embarrassed explaining that Arran ‘being in the place where my chief and last concerns of that nature are transacted, I thought it needful he should be informed of all that had passed, or should pass, relating to my remove from this government, and therefore sent him a copy of that letter, not with the least imagination that he could possibly think it fit for him to impart it or the contents of it to any man, or so much as to own to your Lordship that he had it.’ Fortunately, Rochester sought to play down the incident, which was just as well as Arran appeared unrepentant. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 304-5, 312-13; Bodl. Carte 217, f. 109. No doubt this attitude prompted Ormond to renew his criticism of Arran’s mode of living, writing to him on 10 Dec. to chastise him for eating and drinking too much in the company of inferiors, like John Ellis^‡, which would ensure he was not taken seriously, or entrusted with important information. Bodl. Carte 220, f. 98; 118, f. 9.

The intention was still that Arran would serve as lord deputy in Ireland, and then hand over the lieutenancy to Rochester. CSP Dom. 1684-5, pp. 281-2; HMC Egmont, ii. 143. According to Sir Robert Southwell^‡, Arran left London on 19 Jan. under something of a cloud, ‘his majesty’s displeasure is grounded on the behaviour of Mr. Ellis an industrious ta[l]ker who has been too much countenanced.’ He hoped to be at Chester on 24 Jan. 1685. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 15, f. 99; Bodl. Carte 217, f. 109. The arrangements for Arran’s lord deputyship were then overtaken by the death of Charles II: Rochester was appointed lord treasurer, and a new set of lords justices were named by James II. With a new monarch to pay their respects to, Arran joined his father in travelling to England, reaching London in April 1685. One consequence of the new regime was that Arran lost his regiment of horse, but he appears to have received some compensation for this. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 339.

In the Parliament called following James II’s accession, Arran attended on 45 days of the 1685 session, 94 per cent of the total, and was named to 12 committees. On 19 May 1685, he introduced Richard Lumley, Baron Lumley, Ralph Stawell, Baron Stawell, and John Churchill, Baron Churchill. He also successfully moved that Richard Power, earl of Tyrone [I], be called to the bar. Tyrone had been imprisoned (like the popish lords and Danby), but had been released in 1684, though bound to appear at the next sitting of Parliament. He was ordered to attend until the House considered the case. Bodl. ms Eng. Lett. c. 46, f. 41. Arran’s military experience was used in June 1685, when he was appointed to command the Irish troops ordered to England in the wake of Monmouth’s rebellion. CSP Dom. 1685, pp. 237.

According to Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, on 14 Jan. 1686 Arran attended the trial of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer, and, as the lowest peer in rank, was the first to give his verdict of not guilty. Ailesbury Mems. i. 135. Ailesbury was mistaken because Arran was not called to be part of the lord high steward’s court. Howell, State Trials, xi. 515. His presence was also unlikely because on 9 Jan. he had been taken ill ‘in great torture with a pain like a pleurisy and fever’. The illness worsening, he took the sacrament from Dr. Thomas Tenison, the future archbishop of Canterbury, and suffering more ‘tormenting agonies’, he died on 25 Jan. 1686. Ellis Corresp. i. 10-11, 33-34. He was buried two days later in Westminster Abbey. Westminster Reg. (Harl. Soc. x), 215.

The countess of Arran apparently showed little distress at the demise of her husband and seemed keen to challenge the nomination of Longford as the executor of the will, which had been made on 7 Jan. 1678, just prior to a hazardous winter crossing of the Irish Sea. Ellis Corresp. i. 138, 147-8. In it he named Longford and Sir James Cuffe as his executors, and referred to a settlement of April 1673, and the powers therein contained, for raising money to pay off his debts, the predominant theme of the will. Cuffe having died in 1678, Longford was left as the sole executor, a responsibility he seemed desirous to avoid, being willing to act as the nominal executor, while the real work was to be done by someone else, preferably a nominee of Ormond’s. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 406. In April 1686, it was noted that Ormond had devolved his rights to his grandson, James Butler, then styled earl of Ossory, later 2nd duke of Ormond, and ‘how far Lady Arran will agree to an administration of his choosing, is doubtful.’ Ellis Corresp. i. 110-11. This led to considerable debate among the lawyers, with several being canvassed for their opinions. Bodl. Carte 60, ff. 212, 124; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 438. Eventually, in August, Gerald Bor was named as executor to administer the will, upon the recommendation of the lord chief justice, Sir John Keating, although steps had to be taken for both Longford and the countess to renounce their executorships. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 408, 447, 452-3, 457-8. According to one calculation, Arran left debts of £16,825; the total was still over £16,000 in 1691. Add. 28938, f. 174; 28939, ff. 100-1. The ultimate beneficiary of the estate was his nephew, Ossory. A final assessment may be left to the historian of the Ormond family, Thomas Carte:

though no man was more active, more eager, and more intrepid in danger, he did not much care for business of another nature. This indisposition did not arise from any want of parts or capacity (for his were very good, and his best friends complained of him for not exerting them, as he might for his own honour and the support of his family), but from a fondness for pleasure. It was this indisposition which drew him into some excesses in point of drinking; though this was owing in a great degree to another quality, which is too amiable to be abused, as it too often is, by the importunity of others; for he had an infinite deal of good nature. Carte, Ormonde, iv. 680.