An apprentice peer, 1660–88
Butler was a scion of the leading Anglo-Irish family in the seventeenth century. Family tradition marked him out as the proponent of an old-style Cavalier ethos: Protestant, open and generous. As well as a distinctive High Church Tory political style, he inherited crippling financial troubles, which his vast expenditure made worse. On his mother’s side, he also had an entrée into Dutch society, which placed him in a position to gain considerably from the Orangeist Revolution of 1688, albeit at some cost to his loyalist reputation. He maintained a dual role in the Augustan polity, as a soldier and a courtier politician, serving twice as lord lieutenant of Ireland. Eventually, the pressure of events was to force him into exile, and a long association with the Jacobite cause.
As early as 1678, Butler’s grandfather, James Butler, duke of Ormond, was taking a keen interest in the education of his grandson, and likely eventual heir. His concern in moving him from Orange to France and then to Oxford was to make him ‘a good Christian, a good and useful subject and an honest man’. He was settled in Oxford by late February 1679, under the watchful eye of John Fell, bishop of Oxford. Likewise, the old duke made plain his opposition to an early marriage for his grandson with Lady Elizabeth Percy, the Northumberland heiress. After the death of his father, Butler, now styled earl of Ossory, became the direct heir to the Ormond patrimony and his grandfather’s interest intensified. The old duke became even more concerned with securing the family’s future, and hence heavily involved in the negotiations surrounding his grandson’s marriage. In May 1680, the fortune offered by the younger daughter of Simon Bennet of Buckinghamshire was under consideration. Bennet was a relative of Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington, and had the advantage of offering a large cash sum with his daughter.
In September 1680, the daughter of the recently deceased John Poulett, 3rd Baron Poulett, was offered as a possible spouse by her uncle Colonel Edward Cooke, as was Lady Catherine Cavendish, one of the daughters of Henry Cavendish, 2nd duke of Newcastle.
As Ossory proceeded towards his majority, honours were bestowed upon him. In August 1682 he was allowed the rights of precedency due to the son of a duke of Ireland, and in September 1682 there was some talk of him succeeding to the garter of John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale.
An adventurous voyage to Calais in one of the yachts of Peregrine Osborne, Viscount Dumblane [S], the future 2nd duke of Leeds, in late March 1684 may have persuaded Ormond in April to allow Ossory to attend the French campaign, ‘to remove him from a very idle, slothful way of life’, although he thought joining other nobles at the camp of the French army likely ‘to be more chargeable to me than instructive to him’.
By October 1684, Charles II had come to a decision to replace Ormond as the lord lieutenant of Ireland with Rochester.
The accession of James II did not alter Ormond’s political position, although his replacement in the viceroyalty was not Rochester but the latter’s brother, Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon. Ossory continued to rise to positions in keeping with his social rank. He was appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber on 16 May 1685. He was also issued with a writ on 14 May to attend the Parliament called following the accession of James II. As Baron Butler of Moore Park he duly attended on the opening day of the session on 19 May, aged 20, and took the oaths. When the Lords next sat, on 22 May, Francis Newport, Viscount Newport, successfully proposed a motion that all the peers under the age of 21 should be ordered to withdraw until they had obtained their majority, and this brought his attendance to an end for that session.
As Ossory was now a young widower, without a male heir, attempts were soon underway to find him another wife. As early as February 1685, Sir Robert Southwell‡ had been engaged in a project to marry him to the duke of Beaufort’s daughter, Lady Mary Somerset.
When the 1685 Parliament resumed on 16 Nov. 1685, Ossory was excused attendance because he was still underage. The death of his uncle the earl of Arran, Richard Butler, Baron Butler in the English peerage, in January 1686 occasioned some dispute over his will, and the estates which fell to Ossory. One assessment of Arran’s estate suggested debts of just over £16,800, with an income (optimistically forecast) of £4,450 p.a. With interest and other payments of just over £2,000, this left an annual income due to Ossory of about £2,437.
On 29 Jan. 1686, Ossory received a commission to be colonel of a regiment of the Irish foot guards, in succession to his uncle Arran, an appointment received with general satisfaction according to Clarendon.
Ossory, having now attained his majority, attended the prorogation on 15 Feb. 1687. He continued to divide his time between waiting on the king and retreating back to his family in the country, although he did attend James II during his tour of the north-west in the autumn of 1687.
Revolution 1688–9
Ossory succeeded his grandfather on 21 July 1688, and steps were taken immediately to ensure that his political position was secured. The dean and chapter of Westminster were approached to choose the new duke as their high steward, and duly did so, although ‘other Lords were put up in competition with him but none of the rest had above one third of the voices’. Similarly, the University of Oxford moved rapidly to choose Ormond as their new chancellor, on 23 July, before the king could send a mandate imposing someone more sympathetic to his religious objectives. In this case he defeated Halifax by 188 votes to 45.
Ailesbury later recollected that it was in about August 1688 that Ormond had almost let him into the secret of the design against James II, only to be dissuaded from confiding in him by the more cautious Thomas Maule, groom of the bedchamber to Prince George, of Denmark. As well as disappointment over office, Ailesbury attributed Ormond’s involvement to the promptings of the zealous James Douglas, styled Lord Drumlanrig, the future 2nd duke of Queensberry.
James II’s turn to the Tories in the autumn of 1688 saw reports that Ormond would inherit his grandfather’s garter, Roger Morrice noting that he ‘has been educated by the Tories, and is looked upon as a very principal pillar of that party’. He was among those Tories who subscribed the petition for a free Parliament on 16 Nov. 1688. Ormond then deserted from the army, together with Prince George, Drumlanrig and Henry Boyle†, the future Baron Carleton, joining Prince William on 24 Nov. 1688, and causing Tyrconnel to brand him as the ‘first rebel of your family’.
Ormond attended on the opening day of the Convention, 22 Jan. 1689, and was appointed to attend Prince William in order to ascertain when both Houses of Parliament could present him with their joint address of thanks. On 25 Jan. Ormond and Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, introduced George Fitzroy, duke of Northumberland, into the House. Nevertheless, Ormond was not such a convinced supporter of the Williamite Revolution as his early support for the prince might suggest. Ailesbury had noted the influence of his former father-in-law, Rochester, on the young duke, even though Ormond had remarried.
Ormond remained consistent in his attitude, voting on 31 Jan. 1689, in the committee of the whole House, against declaring William and Mary king and queen. On 4 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons in using the word ‘abdicated’ rather than ‘deserted’, and was appointed to draw up reasons for a conference on the matter. On 5 Feb. he was named to manage the resultant conference; the following day he voted against agreeing with the Commons that James II had ‘abdicated’ the throne, and was noted as a dissentient. The king was not deterred by these votes from further favouring Ormond and at the end of February 1689 he was appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber.
Back in the House, on 9 Apr. 1689 Ormond and Beaufort introduced Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, into the House, and on the 20 Apr. Ormond performed the same duty with Somerset for the duke of Cumberland, the title under which Prince George took his seat. On 22 Apr. 1689, George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton, registered his proxy with Ormond. On 22 May Ormond was excused attendance following a call of the House. On 31 May he voted against reversing the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. He was granted leave to go beyond the sea on the king’s service on 3 June and sat for the last time that session on 6 June, depositing his proxy with Rochester on the following day, and reportedly leaving for Flanders on 8 June.
Meanwhile, proceedings in the Commons proved to be of great interest to Ormond. At the report of the committee appointed to consider the distressed condition of Irish Protestants on 16 May 1689, it was noted that Ormond had not been included in any of the lists compiled of such people, and consequently it was resolved that the committee appointed to draw up the resultant address be instructed to ask the king to take particular notice of his plight. On 22 May, the address reported from the committee included a paragraph asking the king to favour Ormond owing to his ‘great merits and sufferings’. After being recommitted twice, this address was finally agreed on 15 June, complete with the special recommendation of Ormond. The king’s response, on the 19th, was to promise his assistance when the House furnished him with the means so to do.
By mid-July 1689, Ormond was on campaign, attracting the favourable notice of Prince Waldeck, and in August distinguishing himself at the battle of Till.
Reign of William and Mary 1690–4
Ormond attended on the opening day of the 1690 Parliament, 20 March. He was present on 26 days during the session (48 per cent of the sittings) and was named to three committees. He was excused attendance on 31 Mar. 1690 following a call of the House. Ormond accompanied King William to Chester in June 1690, embarking with him for Ireland, and serving during the campaign.
The gains to be made – or in Ormond’s case, the losses to be recouped – again focused his attention on Irish forfeitures. In particular, he was keen to exercise his right under his county palatinate jurisdiction to the forfeitures of rebels in co. Tipperary. To this end, he approached the king, who referred his request to the commissioners for forfeited estates; they denied that they had the power to determine the matter, so at the beginning of December 1690 Ormond petitioned the Irish lords justices for an order permitting his officers to seize the goods and estates forfeited within his county palatine, and for the commissioners to restore what they had seized. They promptly passed on his petition to the judges to consider and report, which presumably they did, for there is evidence that Ormond successfully protected his rights.
The background to all this activity was Ormond’s deteriorating financial position, which the Irish campaign made much worse through his inability to collect any rents. First, there was the debt inherited from his grandfather, which in May 1688 stood at £98,500 and required interest payments of £6,000 p.a.
Having regained control of his estates, Ormond was faced with how to manage them effectively, given that he was essentially an absentee owner. As Israel Feilding wrote in November 1691, ‘I could heartily wish that the duke of Ormond would take a little more of himself on this side, for I fear his fortune under a very negligent way of management.’
In late May 1691 Ormond was reported to be going to Flanders, where he served in the campaign.
On 9 Feb. 1692, George Rodney Brydges‡ presented a clause to the Commons on Ormond’s behalf to be added to the Irish forfeitures bill.
Ormond’s close relations to Prince George were highlighted in February 1692, when he was one of those who paid a visit to Princess Anne at Sion House. This friendship was also used by the king, who got Ormond to convey to the princess of Denmark a peremptory message that she should remove the countess of Marlborough from her house. Towards the end of March 1692 Ormond left England to join the campaign, arriving in Flanders at the beginning of April.
In May 1692, Longford, one of Ormond’s trustees for managing his estates, again put forward the idea that Ormond obtain a grant of ‘all forfeitures within his own estate’, in order to forestall other applicants, or indeed the grants being blocked once their value had been ascertained. Another of Longford’s schemes for maximizing Ormond’s income revolved around the patent that had been granted by Charles II to his uncle Arran for coining farthings, the profits of which appeared to have been diverted by the nominal grantee, Sir John Knox, and his executor, Roger More. In June 1692 Longford favoured obtaining a fresh grant and applying the profits to pay off Arran’s debts.
Ormond returned to England with the king in October 1692, and received a sobering analysis of his finances from Longford. For the year ending in May 1693, Ormond could expect rental income of just over £21,000 (excluding the butlerage and prizage, assigned to Sir Stephen Fox‡), of which deductions for ‘my wife’s jointure and the list of interest for your debts, pensions and annuities’ amounted to just over £8,000, leaving a shortfall of just under £12,900. He then issued a warning of the dire consequences of defaulting on his interest payments to his creditors.
Ormond attended on 25 days during the session of 1692–3, 23 per cent of the total, and was named to two committees. His prolonged absence between 22 Nov. 1692 and 11 Jan. 1693 was partly covered by the issue of a proxy, to Rochester, on 6 Dec. 1692. Rochester duly cast his proxy on 3 Jan. 1693 against the motion to pass the place bill. Ormond was back in the House to vote Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder on 4 Feb. 1693.
The duke came gradually to see the virtue of a single person taking charge of his affairs in Ireland. In March 1693 he reorganized the management of his estates, appointing a former baron of the exchequer in Ireland, William Worth, the sole manager, and thereby superseding the commission he had set up following his grandfather’s death.
He embarked at Gravesend with the king on 31 March 1693.
Reign of William III, 1695–1702
Ormond attended the Lords on 48 days of the 1694–5 session, 38 per cent of the total, and was named to one committee. On 12 Nov. 1694 he and Meinhard Schomberg, 3rd duke of Schomberg, introduced both the duke of Leeds (the former Danby) and William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, into the House. On 25 Feb. 1695 the Lords read for the first time a bill for vesting certain manors, lands and tenements belonging to Ormond, in Ireland, in trustees, to be sold, and enabling him to make leases for raising money to discharge the debts and encumbrances of his grandfather, for raising portions for any younger daughters and for securing the duchess’s jointure of £2,000 p.a. However, no further progress was made on the bill.
In April 1695 Ormond wrote to Sidney Godolphin, Baron Godolphin, asking for a response from the lords of the treasury to his request for a patent for the coining of pence and two-pence pieces in Ireland.
As usual, the summer of 1695 saw Ormond in the Low Countries with the king.
In October 1695 Worth reported that two bills relating to Ormond’s county palatinate jurisdiction had been despatched to London for approval by the Privy Council, and that Ormond’s estate bill had arrived back from England following its approval there, it having been sent from the Irish parliament to the Privy Council for approval in September 1695.
Just prior to the next parliamentary session, Ormond played host as chancellor on 9 Nov. 1695 during the king’s visit to Oxford University, despite prior warning from Shrewsbury that the visit would be of such a short duration as to preclude a formal dinner.
In March 1696 Ormond petitioned for a lease of some lodgings adjoining Whitehall for 42 years at some small rent, which the crown would be able to resume on payment of £1,800, the amount expended by the petitioner on the premises. This was probably granted, as Ormond still had lodgings in Whitehall at the time of his attainder in 1715. In May 1696 he petitioned for a grant of several leases and mortgages worth about £4,000, which were held under him and his grandfather in Ireland and which had become forfeit to the king. This was a variant to the parliamentary requests, and for the same reason, in consideration of the great damage that his estate had received by the late troubles in Ireland. This petition was renewed in November 1696, presumably to no effect.
Ormond again spent the campaigning season of 1696 in Flanders, following which it was reported in October that he had brought over all his equipage in anticipation of the Peace.
On 22 Jan. the Lords gave a first reading to a bill to enable Ormond to raise money by the sale of woods, to make leases of lives renewable forever, for the payment of debts, and for encouraging the English plantation in Ireland. Under the management of Rochester this bill passed rapidly through the House, being amended to include in its provisions Ormond’s brother, Arran. The Commons also dealt with the matter quickly, under the management of Francis Gwyn, and it was returned to the Lords with minor amendments on 12 Feb. 1697, receiving the royal assent on 8 March. In essence this amended the Irish act of 1695, probably because the duke did not wish to alienate land permanently through sales. Under the operation of this act over £115,000 was raised in fines.
While Ormond travelled to join the camp of William III in May 1697, his duchess was preparing to travel to Ireland.
Ormond took his seat in the Irish House of Lords on 10 Nov. 1697, much to the trepidation of the lords justices, who feared that the duke would attack some of the grants of forfeited lands made to Henry Sydney, earl of Romney, in Tipperary, and revive his claim to them under his palatine jurisdiction.
Ormond left the duchess in Dublin around 21 Nov. 1697, and landed at Chester.
In keeping with a more Irish orientation to Ormond’s affairs, no doubt necessitated by the need to both maximize his income and reduce his expenditure, as early as January 1698 it was reported that representatives of Count Tallard, the new French ambassador, were in negotiations to rent his house in St James’s Square.
Peace and renting out his London house probably determined Ormond to try another period of residence in Ireland. On 2 Aug. he was reported to be intent on spending some time there, and he travelled to Ireland via Chester, arriving in Dublin about 16 Aug. and attending the Irish parliamentary session.
Ormond arrived back in London on 3 Nov. 1698.
On 10 Apr. 1699, Ormond was reported to have given up ‘his commission of the command of the Guards on a point of command’ between Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle, and himself.
Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, reported from Dublin on 1 May 1699 that the duchess of Ormond was sailing for England the next day.
Ormond attended the Lords on 49 days during the 1699–1700 session, nearly 54 per cent of the sittings, and was named to two committees. In February 1700, he was forecast as likely to support the bill continuing the East India Company as a corporation. On 22 Mar. he was one of the nobility reported to be accompanying the king to Newmarket and on Easter Sunday he attended the king to the chapel royal.
Ormond attended the Lords on 59 days during the 1701 session (just over 54 per cent of the total) and was named to four 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 impeached Lords until their impeachments had been tried. The protest was subsequently expunged from the Journal, and Ormond then joined in signing the protest over this action.
Ormond was present at the prorogation of Parliament on 7 Aug. 1701, and again on 18 Sept. according to the Post Boy, although his name was not recorded as being present in the Journal.
Early years of Queen Anne, 1702–10
By 1702 Ormond’s rental had been reduced to about £15,733, and he was still energetically searching after alternative sources of revenue.
Further evidence of Ormond’s association with Rochester occurred early in the new queen’s reign, when Marlborough became apprehensive about Ormond’s demands concerning the expedition to Cadiz: ‘I shall explain the matter more at large to Lord Rochester and such others as her majesty shall think fit to entrust.’ In the summer Ormond commanded the land forces during the assault on Cadiz, the unsatisfactory nature of which saw him contemplate a complaint against Sir George Rooke‡, the admiral in charge of the fleet. When Marlborough heard in November 1702 that Ormond was likely to complain about Rooke, he counselled caution, regarding all parties to the expedition as culpable in its failure.
Ormond attended the Lords on 29 days during the 1702–3 session (32 per cent of the sittings) and was named to seven committees, reporting from one, a naturalization bill, on 13 January. On 12 Nov. 1702 he attended the queen to St Paul’s for the public thanksgiving for the previous year’s campaigns, carrying the sword of state.
On 4 Feb. 1703, Ormond was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in place of Rochester, ‘being an honour which he had a considerable time aimed at’.
On 20 Feb. 1703 Ormond submitted a memorial to the lord treasurer, setting out his purchase from John Latten of a lease of 31 years on Richmond Lodge, which he now wished to surrender in return for a lease of three lives. He secured a lease for 99 years by December of that year.
Ormond came into conflict with Marlborough over military appointments to Irish regiments, and particularly over the new regiment which he was given leave to raise in September 1703, despite it being against policy for a viceroy to command a regiment in Ireland.
In the 1703–4 session, the Irish parliament promoted a bill to prevent the further growth of popery, one particular provision of which threatened Captain George Mathew, a relative of Ormond, upon whom he depended for the smooth running of his estate at Kilkenny. Ormond declined to remove this clause, ‘to avoid what people are so apt to call here favour to papists’.
Thwarted of his recessional break, Ormond made plans for a quick departure from Dublin following the end of the Irish parliamentary session. He landed back in England on 21 Mar. 1704, and set out from Chester to London on the 22nd, leaving his wife and daughters in Ireland once more.
Ormond departed from London in October, landing in Dublin on 15 Nov. 1704.
Ormond’s time in Ireland was spent anxiously watching English parliamentary proceedings over the linen industry and the effects that this would have on the Irish bill promoting the export of linen and on the session over which he was presiding.
wishes the bill may never come back, but you know how improper it is for him to interest himself on these accounts during his government, and therefore he desires you would serve and assist him with all privacy and speak to the solicitor general [Harcourt], on his behalf and who else you think fit.
Add. 28893, ff. 95–96, 101–2.
Edward Southwell reported on 22 June 1705 that Ormond ‘is preparing for England next week’. He landed at Chester on 26 June, arriving in London on the 29th.
Ormond attended the Lords on the opening day of the session, 25 Oct. 1705, and for 38 days altogether, nearly 40 per cent of the total. He was excused attendance on 12 Nov. following a call of the House, but he was present on the 15th when he introduced Ralph Montagu, duke of Montagu, into the House. In the division on 6 Dec. he was listed as voting that the Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration. In December the bishop of Kildare recounted how he had been in discussion with ‘the new manager’ of Ormond’s estates, upon which he described the situation as ‘very bad, the expedients of raising money for want of it in the kingdom fail and should they take place, all would not do without the continuance of the government for a considerable time longer’, which perhaps gave an extra edge to the various rumours surrounding Ormond’s continuance in office.
On 29 Jan. 1706, a petition was read in the Lords for a bill enabling Ormond and Arran to settle fee-farm rents in co. Tipperary, pursuant to an agreement upon Arran’s marriage. The bill was duly given a first reading on 7 Feb. and reported, by Rochester, on the 15th. It was returned from the Commons with some amendments on 28 Feb. and passed. In April it was reported that Ormond would be retained in the lieutenancy of Ireland, ‘because of a competition among the Whigs who should have his place’, Wharton, Bolton and Evelyn Pierrepont, 5th earl of Kingston, being in contention.
Ormond attended the Lords on just 13 days of the 1706–7 session, 14 per cent of the total. However, he attended the cabinet four times in December 1706, five times in January 1707 and four times in February.
In July 1707, the Irish parliament considered ‘heads of a bill to revive powers granted to his grace by former acts of Parliament’, which was another extension of the legislation of 1701. Ormond’s appointee as Irish lord chancellor, Cox, managed it through the council in August, so that it was ready to be despatched to London for approval. When it was returned to Ireland, the bill passed the Irish House of Lords in November 1707, ‘as fast as the forms would allow it’, receiving the royal assent as an act enlarging the time for executing several powers and authorities given to Ormond and Arran, by several former acts of parliament, and for making effectual and confirming the bargains, sales, fee-farms and leases made by them.
The death of the lord steward, Devonshire, in August 1707 prompted speculation that Somerset would succeed him, and that Ormond would step into Somerset’s office as master of the horse, but the office went to Devonshire’s son.
Ormond first attended the 1708–9 session on 19 Nov., when he introduced Queensberry as duke of Dover. In all, he was present on 33 days of the session, nearly 35 per cent of the total. At the beginning of January 1709, Marlborough wrote, ‘I am told that 33 [Ormond], is desirous of parting with his employments, but I hope at this time her majesty will not allow of it, since it must turn to her disservice.’
Interestingly, given that he was a Scottish peer and a long-term associate of Queensberry, on 21 Jan. 1709 Ormond voted in favour of the motion that a Scots peer with a British title had the right to vote in the election for Scottish representative peers. His supporters continued to harbour thoughts of his return to office in Ireland, and Wharton’s secretary, Joseph Addison‡, at least, felt that some of the current opposition in the Irish parliament was propelled by the hope that making the government there appear to be in difficulty might lead to Ormond’s return; he referred to the ‘Ormond and Rochester party’ in August 1709.
The Oxford ministry, 1710–15
Ormond was present on 15 Nov. 1709, the opening day of the 1709–10 session, attending in all on 40 days of the session, nearly 39 per cent of the total. On 30 Nov. he acted as a pallbearer at the interment of Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland.
On 14 Mar. Ormond dissented from the decision not to adjourn before the House considered precedents concerning impeachments, but did not protest against the actual resolution that in prosecutions by impeachments for high crimes and misdemeanours the particular words supposed to be criminal are not necessary to be expressly specified. Two days later he protested against the resolution to put the question that the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment against Sacheverell. He protested again on the following day, against the resolutions that the Commons had made good the second, third and fourth resolutions of the impeachments. On 18 Mar. he protested against the resolutions limiting peers to a single verdict of guilty or not guilty upon all the articles of impeachment. On 20 Mar. he voted Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, and duly entered his dissent.
According to Bishop Compton’s chaplain, Ralph Bridges, on 1 May 1710, a little while previously Ormond had attempted to reconcile Rochester and Leeds.
On 6 Aug. 1710, Ormond acted as a pallbearer at the interment of his aunt, the dowager duchess of Devonshire, in Westminster Abbey.
On 21 Oct., before the opening of the 1710 Parliament, Ormond’s daughter Lady Mary Butler married John Ashburnham, 3rd Baron Ashburnham, who had recently succeeded his brother to the title. Matters had been under negotiation in August and, according to Swift, this was ‘the best match now in England, twelve thousand pounds a year, and abundance of money’.
Ormond first attended the 1710–11 session on 27 Nov., being present on 53 days of the session, just under 47 per cent of the total. On 29 Nov. Mohun (nominally a Whig) registered his proxy with Ormond, further evidence of the campaign waged by Harley to convince Mohun to take a place on the admiralty board.
Ormond again sought to defend Irish interests in February 1711, when Scottish interests attempted to promote a bill in the Commons to tighten the laws prohibiting the export of flax from Scotland to Ireland. In alliance with Whig lords, he was able to guarantee Irish exports access to the colonies for a further six years, and effectively destroyed the prohibition of Scots flax exports to Ireland.
On 5 Mar. 1711, Sir Alexander Cairnes, now a member of the Irish commons, petitioned for a bill to establish a purchase deed made with Ormond of some lands in Ireland. As this bill had the consent of Arran, the judges had no grounds to object to it, and it was managed rapidly through the House of Lords by Rochester, being sent to the Commons on 16 Apr., where it was managed by Sir Thomas Hanmer‡ and returned to the Lords with only minor amendments on 16 May, before receiving the royal assent. Ormond was present at the meeting of the cabinet on 8 Mar. when Guiscard stabbed Harley. Once overpowered, Guiscard begged Ormond to kill him, presumably counting on his Ormond’s previous acquaintance with his kinsman the comte de Gusicard, who had ensured his recovery from his wounds at the battle of Landen, to guarantee him a quick end.
When Rochester died on 2 May 1711, Ormond’s closeness to his former father-in-law was emphasized by his appointment as chief mourner at Rochester’s funeral on 10 May.
Ormond arrived back in London on 7 Dec. 1711, just in time to attend the opening day of the session.
Ormond was the major beneficiary of Marlborough’s dismissal from all his posts, being named to replace him as colonel of the Grenadier Guards and shortly afterwards as commander-in-chief of the queen’s forces in Great Britain.
On 28 Jan. 1712, Swift reported a meeting with Ormond and the prolocutor of convocation, Francis Atterbury, the future bishop of Rochester, concerning a lobbying matter delegated to Swift by Lord Treasurer Oxford ‘to contrive some way to keep’ John Sharp, archbishop of York, ‘from being seduced by Lord Nottingham’, an important matter given that ‘there is but a slender majority in the house of Lords; and we want more’. On 31 Jan. Ormond was one of the commissioners named by Queen Anne to pass the malt bill, as he was again on 3 and 25 March.
Ormond’s appointment as general led to some disquiet, Swift noting in March 1712 that ‘his friends are afraid the expense of this employment will ruin him, since he must lose the government of Ireland’.
On 7 Apr. 1712 Ormond deposited his proxy with Oxford, in preparation for his journey to Flanders to take command of the army. He had already taken the precaution of conveying his house in St James’s Square to Arran, in trust to sell it to pay his debts.
Ormond is the finest Cavalier and most complete gentleman that England bred, being the glory of that nation, of so noble spirit that he would sacrifice all for his Church and sovereign, very popular, his great affability winning the hearts and affections of all people; yet [I] cannot say his grace is much concerned in the ministry, because he acts most by direction, and has no great sway in the cabinet.
HMC Portland, v. 157.
On 19 May 1712, Harcourt informed Oxford that Ormond’s bill ‘enabling to sell his palatinate to the queen’ was ready, and asking whether there should be a clause in it remitting the crown and quit rents out of Ormond’s estate, the act of resumption making these rents inalienable. On the 25 May he added that the bill had been settled by the attorney-general, Sir Edward Northey‡, and was ready to be brought into the Commons. The issue of the quit rents was still threatening to delay the bill, possibly until the following session, and on 26 May Harcourt wrote asking for authority to allow Northey leave to offer the bill to the Commons ‘this morning’.
Ormond may have felt considerable discontent at being ordered not to engage the enemy, under the so-called ‘restraining orders’, which had occasioned a set-piece debate in the Lords on 28 May 1712. Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, almost acknowledged the point in late August when he explained to Ormond why he had to remain with the army until the end of the campaign and Matthew Prior‡, at Fountainbleau, informed Oxford at the beginning of September that ‘Monsr. Torcy judges the duke of Ormond’s stay in Flanders absolutely necessary’.
The death in London on 27 May 1712 of William Keith, 8th earl of Marischal [S], necessitated a by-election for the vacancy among the Scottish representative peers. In July, William Cochrane‡ put Oxford in mind of the need to mobilize the votes on behalf of the court, specifically noting ‘the duke of Ormond’s proxy as Lord Dingwall’s’, although in the event the election of James Ogilvy, 4th earl of Findlater [S], was unanimous. In October the failure of William Delaune to obtain an Irish bishopric, despite being backed by Ormond among others, demonstrated the limits of Ormond’s ecclesiastical patronage in Ireland.
Ormond arrived back in London on 3 Nov. 1712 and waited on the queen the following day.
Ormond was present on 26 Mar. 1713 at the prorogation of Parliament. On 10 Apr. it was reported that he had been appointed lord lieutenant of Norfolk, in place of Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend.
Despite more rumours suggesting that he would become master of the horse, in June 1713 Ormond was made lord warden of the Cinque Ports, with Ashburnham as his deputy.
In July 1713, Ormond received a grant on the Irish revenue of a pension of £5,000 p.a. for 15 years,
in consideration of many good and faithful services as well in the beginning of our reign in the hazardous and successful undertaking at Vigo (particularly acknowledged by both Houses of Parliament) and as captain general of our forces in Flanders the last year, by which and in many other former services to the crown we are fully satisfied you have much lessened and impoverished your own estate.CTP 1720–8, p. 295; Post Boy, 16 July 1713; CTB, 1713, pp. 281, 316.
This was not, however, to be paid while he remained lord lieutenant of Ireland. Sir Stephen Fox thought that this grant ‘may presently give ease to his affairs, if his grace will follow the advice of his trustees’.
Ormond was also in contact with the Jacobite court from October 1713, and, owing to the perceived failings of other Tory ministers, he was increasingly courted from the turn of the year.
Ormond first attended the 1714 session on 2 Mar., being present on 41 days of the session, nearly 52 per cent of the total, and was named to one committee. On 17 Mar. Banastre Maynard, 3rd Baron Maynard, registered his proxy with Ormond, and on 21 Apr. Ashburnham did likewise. Ormond’s name appeared on Nottingham’s forecast, drawn up between 27 May and about 4 June, of those likely to support the bill to prevent the growth of schism. In May he was one of the peers in a symbolic vote for the Catholic heir against a Protestant claimant in an appeal before the Lords.
Ormond was given a key personal and political role following Beaufort’s death in May 1714. According to a newsletter, he was to be named as the acting lord lieutenant of Hampshire and Gloucestershire during the minority of Henry Somerset* [289], 3rd Duke of Beaufort, and he was given a supervisory role over the young man in the duke’s will. In July he was deeply involved in the ministerial manoeuvrings, although it was not always clear to observers where exactly he stood. On 1 July, Dr William Stratford wrote in disbelief that Ormond was leaning towards the Bolingbroke faction within the ministry.
Ormond signed the proclamation for the accession of George I but he was not one of the regents previously named by the new monarch under the Act of Settlement.