BUTLER, Charles (1671-1758)

The death of his father in 1680 meant that the main decisions in Butler’s early life were taken by his grandfather, James Butler, duke of Ormond. Ormond ensured that provision was made for his younger grandson in the family settlements of 1681, 1683 and 1685, specifying that he was to have the proceeds of the estate of Barishool in Ireland, and, after her death, the jointure of £1,000 currently being paid to his aunt, the countess of Longford (d. 1697), the widow of Ormond’s youngest son, John Butler, earl of Gowran [I]. Add. 28939, ff. 226–7.

Part of Butler’s education took place in Paris. HMC Downshire, i. 159, 178. In May 1686 Ormond opined that ‘my grandson at Paris, I am sure, profits in all things I expected; but he is not come of a book-learned race. The court and the camp he shall be as well fitted for as his natural parts with so little learning will permit.’ HMC Ormonde, ii. 303. In August, Ormond thanked Sir William Trumbull^‡, the English ambassador in Paris, for his civilities towards his grandson, who would now be proceeding to Brussels ‘that he may look a little into the exercise of the profession [that of a soldier] he is like to undertake’. Bodl. Carte 220, f. 130. In September, Ormond expressed concern that the provision he had made would be insufficient while his daughter-in-law, the countess of Longford, was alive. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 457–8. Butler’s further education was interrupted by an outbreak of the smallpox, in late July 1687, while he was at Harwich waiting to embark for the Continent and an intended tour of Italy. HMC Ormonde, ii. 308. He was only briefly delayed from an extensive tour accompanied by a tutor and a companion. He arrived back in London in late September 1688 and soon came to the attention of Roger Morrice, who wrote in November that he was aged ‘about 15 or 16 years of age [and] has a command in the king[’s] army’. Ellis Corresp. ii. 228; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 328.

By this date it was imperative that Butler secure some employment because, after the death of his grandfather earlier in 1688, he was dependent upon his cash-strapped brother, the new duke, for payment of his maintenance, set by his grandfather at £1,000 p.a. until Lady Longford’s jointure fell in. Add. 28939, ff. 222–4. As he later recounted, Butler served in every campaign undertaken by William III, working his way through the ranks. CTP 1697–1702, pp. 404–5. Not that his contribution went unnoticed, as a draft patent for his peerage makes clear, referring to his service in four campaigns as cornet and lieutenant in the first troop of Guards, during which he had ‘performed the part of an expert commander, before he was arrived at the age of man’. Add. 28940, ff. 37–38. Given his father’s close relationship with the king, and his brother’s military commands, he was able to secure promotion through royal favour during the war. From late November 1693, there were reports that Butler would have a commission to raise a regiment of horse, and this was granted in February 1694. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 232, 242, 267; CSP. Dom. 1693, p. 433.

Military advancement went hand in hand with promotion into the ranks of the English and Irish peerage, both warrants being ordered on 15 Jan. 1694. CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 7. Butler first sat on 16 Feb., being introduced by John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, and John Ashburnham, Baron Ashburnham. His title in the attendance lists varied from Butler to Butler de Weston or simply Weston. Shortly after his creation as a peer of England he was created earl of Arran in the Irish peerage and, outside the House, was generally known by that title. He was present on 26 days of the 1693–4 session (one-fifth of the total) and was named to two committees. His newly acquired status did not solve his financial predicament. An account of about the end of November 1694 shows that he was owed nearly £3,000 by his brother for his maintenance, even allowing for the payment of over £500 for his ‘patents of honour’. Add. 28940, f. 170.

Arran was present on the opening day of the 1694–5 session, 12 Nov. 1694, and attended on 89 days of the session (70 per cent of the total), being named to 12 committees. He was present again on the opening day of the 1695–6 session, 22 Nov. 1695, and attended on 75 days of the session, 60.5 per cent of the total. He was named to five committees. On 25 Nov. he introduced Thomas Wentworth, 2nd Baron Raby, into the House and he signed the Association on 27 Feb. 1696.

Arran was once more present on 20 Oct. for the opening of the 1696–7 session, and attended on 88 days of the session (three-quarters of the total), and was appointed to 18 committees. On 23 Dec. he voted in favour of the passage of the Fenwick attainder bill. This session also saw the passage of legislation concerning the Ormond estates, which included provision for Arran to make leases of his Irish lands. The royal assent was given on 8 Mar. 1697. Arran was alert to other possibilities of augmenting his income. He petitioned for the grant of the crown’s share of the prize ship St Peter, specifically so that he could equip himself for the forthcoming campaign, noting in June 1697 that he had left the matter unresolved in order to cross the Channel at short notice when Ath was besieged by the French. Add. 28940, ff. 173–4. His influence was apparent when, with the end of the war in sight, he was able to secure the colonelcy of an older regiment, and thereby avoid the likelihood of being disbanded. Some further financial security was gained by the death, in November 1697, of the countess of Longford, which released her jointure of £1,000 p.a. CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 222, 517.

Arran was present on the opening day of the 1697–8 session, 3 Dec. 1697, and attended on 95 days, 69 per cent of the total. He was named to 24 committees. On 15 Mar. 1698 he voted in favour of the committal of the bill punishing Charles Duncombe^‡. The following day he registered his dissent over the resolution to grant relief to the appellants James Bertie^‡ and his wife, in a cause against Lucius Henry Carey, 6th Viscount Falkland [S], although he did not join the dissentients to a further vote in favour of the appellants on 17 March. Arran attended the opening day of the next session, 6 Dec. 1698, and was present on 38 days of the session (45 per cent of the total). He was named to six committees. In February 1699, he succeeded his brother as a gentleman of the bedchamber, thereby ensuring his continued presence close to the centre of power. Bodl. Carte 228, f. 278.

Arran was present as usual on the opening day of the 1699–1700 session, attending for 52 per cent of the sittings. He was appointed to four committees. He was thought likely to support the East India Company bill in a forecast of February 1700 and voted against adjourning during pleasure on 23 Feb., which was in effect in favour of the Lords going into committee to consider two amendments to the bill. In July he accompanied the king to The Hague, returning with William in October 1700. London Post, 12 July 1700; Post Boy, 22 Oct. 1700.

In attendance as normal on 10 Feb. 1701, the opening day of the new Parliament following the January elections, Arran sat on 63 days (58 per cent) of the session and was named to 11 committees. He signed a protest on 16 Apr. against a resolution to appoint a committee to draw up an address asking the king not to punish the four Whig lords until their impeachments had been tried. When the House voted to expunge the reasons for the protest from the Journal, he also signed the protest over this action. The last business of that day was a petition from Arran and his brother for a bill to enlarge the powers given by the act of 1697 towards the discharging of debts on the Butler estates. He signed the protest on 17 June following the resolution of the House to go into Westminster Hall to proceed with the trial of John Somers, Baron Somers, but he did not sign the second protest over the trial later that day. Present again on the opening day of the 1701–2 Parliament on 30 Dec. he attended on 42 days of the session, and was appointed to 11 committees. On 1 Jan. 1702 he signed the address promising the king the assistance of the peerage against the Pretender.

Arran’s military duties probably explain why he was unusually absent from the beginning of the 1702–3 session. Daily Courant, 5 Sept. 1702. He first attended on 30 Nov. 1702 and was present for 34 per cent of all sittings. In January 1703, he was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as likely to support the bill to prevent occasional conformity, duly voting on 16 Jan. against adhering to the Lords’ wrecking amendment to the penalty clause. At the beginning of March Arran purchased the 3rd troop of Guards from Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, paying him with £3000 in cash and his horse regiment, which Rivers subsequently sold for a further £3000. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 272; Add. 61292, f. 1. Most of Arran’s share of the purchase money seems to have been borrowed from Adam Cardonnel^‡. Add. 61411, f. 170.

Arran attended on 11 Nov., the third day of the 1703–4 session, and in all was present on 54 (55 per cent) of its sittings. In November 1703, Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, marked him as likely to support a bill to prevent occasional conformity. Sunderland repeated this assessment when he made his second forecast in late November or early December. Arran’s name appears on both lists of those peers voting on 14 Dec. in favour of the bill and he signed the protest against the resolution not to give the bill a second reading, as well as that against the bill’s rejection.

Arran first attended the 1704–5 session on 7 Nov. and was present on 51 days of the session, 51.5 per cent of the total. In November 1704 he was listed on what was probably a forecast of likely supporters of the Tack. At the start of 1705 there were rumours of a match between him and Lady Mary Churchill, daughter of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, although it had long been assumed she would marry the son of Ralph Montagu, duke of Montagu. Add. 28932, ff. 186–7. Despite such rumours, Arran was presumably already in negotiations for his marriage to Elizabeth Crew, a major role being taken by Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, his new wife’s stepfather. The marriage settlement was drawn up in May and the wedding took place the following month at Oatlands, just to the east of Weybridge, Surrey, and in fairly close proximity to Bagshot Park, where Arran was to take up residence. HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 158.

At the end of August 1705, Arran wrote to Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, that Richard Jones^‡, earl of Ranelagh [I], had informed him that Portland’s lease of Bagshot had run out in May. UNL, PwA 218. Arran now wanted to take possession, having purchased Ranelagh’s interest in the existing lease. CTP 1702–7, p. 387. In November 1705 Arran petitioned the treasury for a grant for three lives of Bagshot Park, and a lease was duly granted in April 1706, although legal wrangles may have delayed him taking legal possession until 1709. CSP Dom. 1705–6, pp. 122–3; CTB, xxiii. 150, 158.

Arran first attended the 1705–6 session on 31 Oct. 1705 and was present on 39 days of the session, 41 per cent of the total. He was excused attendance on 12 Nov. 1705 and next attended on the 15th. On 6 Dec. he voted for the resolution that the Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration. Arran’s marriage also necessitated a private act during this session, for which he and his brother petitioned the Lords on 29 Jan. 1706, to settle fee-farm rents in Co. Tipperary pursuant to an agreement upon Arran’s marriage. He was present when the 1706–7 session began on 3 Dec. 1706, and attended on 27 days (30 per cent). According to the presence list in the Journal, Arran was absent from the House between 10 and 28 Feb. 1707. A report of proceedings on 24 Feb. in the committee of the whole considering the articles of Union and the act ratifying and approving the treaty, nevertheless recorded that ‘Arran moved that the judges’ opinion might be asked what laws would be repealed by this Union, and what would remain in force, but that motion was rejected’. Timberland, ii. 176. Arran also attended one day of the short session of April 1707.

Arran was present when the 1707–8 session started on 23 Oct. 1707; thereafter he attended on 45 days (42 per cent). In an analysis of the first Parliament of Great Britain, compiled in about May 1708, he was classed as a Tory. He was again present when the new Parliament opened on 16 Nov. 1708, sat on 41 days (43 per cent) and was named to ten committees. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted to agree with the resolution that Scottish peers with British titles be permitted to vote in the election of Scottish representative peers.

Arran did not attend the 1709–10 session until 10 Dec. 1709. He was then present on 48 days (47 per cent). On 16 Feb. 1710 he protested against the decision not to send for James Greenshields and the magistrates of Edinburgh to be present at a hearing before the Lords. Later the same day he protested against the failure to adjourn the House before it agreed to the address requesting Marlborough’s immediate departure for Flanders, although he did not join the protest against the address itself. On 14 Mar. he protested against the decision not to adjourn the House before it had agreed to a resolution concerning procedure in impeachments for high crimes and misdemeanours, although he did not protest against the resolution itself. On 16 Mar. he made yet another protest against the resolution to put the question whether the Commons had made good the first article of the Sacheverell impeachment. The following day he protested against the resolutions that the Commons had made good the second, third and fourth articles of the impeachment, and on the 18th he protested against the resolutions limiting peers to a single verdict upon all the articles of the impeachment. Two days later he voted Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours and signed the protest against the resolution confirming the verdict.

In his analysis of 3 Oct. 1710, Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, placed Arran among those expected to support the ministry. Arran was present on the opening day of the new Parliament, 25 Nov. 1710, and attended on 58 days (51 per cent) of the session. On 25 July 1711 he petitioned the queen for his arrears of £1,250 due to him as a gentleman of the bedchamber: he stressed that he had served in all the campaigns in Flanders until the peace of Ryswick, and had afterwards purchased the command of a troop of Guards, for which he was still in debt. CTP 1708–14, p. 294. This may have been the memorial, or a related paper, that Edward Southwell^‡ referred to when writing to Lord Treasurer Oxford in June on Arran’s behalf. Add. 70257, Southwell to Oxford, 8 June 1711.

Arran attended the prorogation on 27 Nov. 1711, when he introduced Charles Boyle, earl of Orrery [I], as Baron Boyle of Marston. His name also appears on Oxford’s canvassing list of 2 Dec. for the vote on the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion. He was present on the opening day of the session, 7 Dec., and attended on 63 days (56 per cent). His name appeared on the forecast of 19 Dec. in favour of the pretensions of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton, and on the 20th he voted against the motion that ‘no patent of honour, granted to any peer of Great Britain, who was a peer of Scotland at the time of the Union, can entitle such a peer to sit and vote in Parliament’. Add. 70269. On 2 Jan. 1712, together with Orrery, he introduced three of the new peers, Thomas Trevor, Baron Trevor, George Granville, Baron Lansdown, and George Hay, Baron Hay. On 28 Feb. he was elected to Jonathan Swift’s dining club, known as the Society. Jnl. to Stella ed. Williams, 500. On 28 May he supported the ministry over the ‘restraining’ orders given to his brother in Flanders.

The death of Lieutenant-General Ingoldsby in January 1712 had given rise to reports in March that Arran would succeed him as master of the ordnance in Ireland and he was appointed in late November. Add. 60582, ff. 94–95; Post Boy, 29 Nov. 1712. This appointment necessitated a private act to enable Arran to take the requisite oaths of office at the exchequer in Westminster; it passed the Lords in July 1713. On a pre-sessional list of 1713, compiled by Swift and Oxford, Arran was noted as likely to support the ministry. He was present on the opening day of the session, 9 Apr. 1713, and attended on 25 days (32.5 per cent). He was named to two committees. He was listed by Oxford on about 13 June as likely to support the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty.

Arran first attended the 1714 session on 2 Mar., when he was named to his only committee; although he was present on 41 days (52 per cent) of the session. At the end of May or beginning of June, Nottingham forecast that he would be one of those peers likely to support the Schism bill. Arran attended on just three days (18 per cent) of the August 1714 session that followed the death of Queen Anne. In December 1714, he was removed from his office in the Irish ordnance but was appointed to the board of general officers. He was listed on 26 Jan. 1715 as a Tory who was still in office. In February 1715 he was replaced as captain of the 3rd troop of Horse Guards. Post Boy, 11 Dec. 1714, 10 Feb. 1715.

Arran’s career after 1715 will be described in the second part of this work. At the death of his older brother, Ormond, it is possible that Arran succeeded to the Irish dukedom of Ormond, but he never used this title, apparently believing that his brother’s attainder by the Westminster Parliament in 1715 effectively extinguished his Irish peerages as well as his English ones. Nor did he style himself duke of Arran, a title conferred on him in 1721 by the Pretender. After a long career, Arran died at his lodgings next to the Tilt Yard, Whitehall, on 17 Dec. 1758, and was buried on 23 Dec. at St Margaret’s, Westminster.