CAVENDISH, Henry (1630-91)

The relationship between the first duke of Newcastle and his son, who before his succession to the peerage was styled variously Viscount Mansfield and later earl of Ogle, does not seem to have been a close one. Nevertheless, Mansfield appears to have been greatly influenced not only by his father’s staunchly Cavalier political sympathies but also by the first duke’s profoundly conservative perception of society and politics. G. Trease, Portrait of a Cavalier: William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle, 201, 203. Mansfield’s father had believed in the need to maintain the social and political eminence of the greater aristocracy, in which group he naturally numbered himself. Ideology and Politics on the Eve of the Restoration: Newcastle’s Advice to Charles II, ed. T. Slaughter, 44-51. Mansfield shared this vision and contemporaries noted that he was ‘very much fixed upon making his family great’. After his succession to the peerage it was noted that when he travelled he did so ‘like a great prince, with three coaches and about 40 attendants on horseback.’ Reresby Mems. 214-15. He also took great care to guard against anything he regarded as infringing upon either his interest or his honour. Hatton Corresp. 240. Indeed, Mansfield was extremely thin-skinned on such matters. This, combined with a certain artlessness of nature, undermined the pretensions he at one time harboured to share the national political stage with his brother-in-law, George Savile, Viscount (ultimately marquess of) Halifax. Mansfield’s loyalty to first Charles II and then James II could not hide the fact that his talents never merited appointment to great office. This was clearly demonstrated during the Revolution of 1688 when he was humiliated by the northern supporters of William of Orange’s invasion.

Early career 1660-76

Mansfield owed his place as heir to the dukedom of Newcastle to the death of three older brothers, the last of whom, Charles Cavendish, who had also been styled Viscount Mansfield, died in the early summer of 1659. After the Restoration, Mansfield represented first Derbyshire and then Northumberland in the Commons. His election to Derbyshire had been subject to a challenge and Mansfield’s life was threatened by one of his competitors. Mansfield’s father sought the assistance of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, in ensuring that justice was done to his son. Bodl. Clarendon 72, f. 102. In the Commons Mansfield was initially an adherent of George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, but over time their connection was weakened by Buckingham’s increasing association with the opposition. In 1665 when his father was advanced in the peerage as duke of Newcastle, Mansfield noted with pleasure that his father was the only new duke made at the time. Add. 75359, Mansfield to Sir George Savile, 7 Mar. 1665. From this point until his succession to the dukedom he adopted the courtesy title of earl of Ogle. That summer he was at the head of the gentry delegation to greet James, duke of York, on his progress through the Midlands. CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 503. He was also said to have been involved in a quarrel with Buckingham at Welbeck. Reresby Mems. 56-57. That December he entered into an engagement not to remarry for as long as any of his sons by his present wife remained alive and to settle his property on his present family as soon as his father died. HMC Portland, ii. 146.

In January 1666 it was rumoured that Ogle was on the point of being summoned to the House of Lords, though it was not specified whether this was by writ of acceleration or by virtue of a new barony to be conferred on him. The report encouraged Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle, to propose his heir for Ogle’s seat in the Commons but in the event Ogle remained where he was. CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 186. He responded uncertainly to news of the fall of Clarendon. While expressing his regret at the earl’s displacement he was in two minds whether to make the journey to London for the opening of the new session of Parliament. He appeared heartened by news of Buckingham’s return to favour, predicting approvingly that the duke would be ‘active’; a similar assessment was made of his friend Thomas Osborne, best known by his later title as earl of Danby, whom he thought would be ‘a great man in business.’ Add. 75359, Ogle to Sir George Savile, 20 Sept. 1667.

At the opening of 1670 Ogle was able to negotiate a highly advantageous marriage for his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, with the heir of George Monck, duke of Albemarle. Mapperton, Sandwich mss, Journal vol. x. pp. 99-101. Albemarle’s death soon after left Ogle and his father-in-law, William Pierrepont, charged with overseeing the duke’s estate as joint executors of Albemarle’s will. Ogle reputedly urged the new duke to practise ‘frugality’, though his son-in-law appears to have been disinclined to heed the advice, conceiving that ‘his father lived thriftily that his son might live the better.’ Verney ms mic. M636/23, Sir R. to E. Verney, 5 Jan. 1670; Durham UL, Cosin letter book, 5a, 60. Three years later, Ogle was said to have been gratified by the news of the death of his eccentric stepmother, whose foibles had long entertained society: ‘for had she outlived her duke, it was thought she would have much ruined that estate.’ Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. to E. Verney, 22 Dec. 1673. The summer of 1675 found Ogle engaged with efforts to dispose of his second daughter to the teenaged Robert Sutton, later 2nd Baron Lexinton. He was constrained to seek his father’s agreement and the match failed to transpire. HMC Portland, ii. 151.

Duke of Newcastle 1676-85

Ogle succeeded to the dukedom on Christmas day 1676. Soon after inheriting the peerage he promised his support to Danby (as Osborne had become) in employing his interest at Berwick on behalf of Danby’s son, Peregrine Osborne, Viscount Dumblane [S] (later 2nd duke of Leeds). Eg. 3330, ff. 57-58. Alongside of this, he was engaged with settling his father’s affairs and making arrangements for the funeral, which the late duke had desired should be ‘done with all privateness possible.’ The only people invited to the event were family members. Add. 37998, f. 241.

Newcastle took his seat in the upper House on 15 Feb. 1677, the first day of the new session. He had previously appealed to Danby for financial assistance, lauding him as someone who had ‘been much more than his father to him.’ Eg. 3338, ff. 94-95. His attendance of the House proved to be infrequent (just under 24 per cent of all sitting days) and it may be that his journey to the capital owed more to his approaching installation as a knight of the garter than any enthusiasm for the proceedings of the Lords. CSP Dom. 1677-78, p. 95. That said, between 6 Mar. and 21 May he held the proxy of William Widdrington, 3rd Baron Widdrington, and he continued to attend the House on occasion for over a month after his installation on 19 April. NLS, ms 7008, f. 33; HEHL, HM 30314.

At the beginning of July Newcastle set out for his northern estates. Savile Corresp. 64. That parliamentary business was not his first priority is suggested by his failure to return when the session resumed in December or indeed to turn out for either of the remaining sessions of the Cavalier Parliament. HMC Portland, ii. 153; LJ, xiii. 431. Local matters, such as his responsibilities for the royal forests as chief justice in eyre, appear to have occupied more of Newcastle’s attention. He may also have been concerned with an ultimately aborted attempt to settle the marriage of another of his daughters. Eg. 3331, ff. 3-4, 9-10, 16-17, 28, 33-34, 77-78; Eg. 3338, ff. 99-100; CSP Dom. 1678, p. 137. In November he requested that his son-in-law would make his excuses for his absence. He also undertook to entrust Albemarle with his proxy, which was registered accordingly on 14 January. HMC Portland, ii. 153.

Family preoccupations continued to dominate Newcastle’s affairs into the early months of 1678. In February it was rumoured that his son, Henry Cavendish, now styled earl of Ogle, was either about to or had already married the Percy heiress. In the event the marriage was not settled until the spring of the following year. HMC Rutland, ii. 46; Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 7 Apr. 1679. In March 1678 Newcastle responded to a summons to attend the next session by insisting that he was ‘no more able to go up now than he was before’. His duchess approached their daughter, the duchess of Albemarle, to persuade her husband to speak on Newcastle’s behalf so that he would not have to rely on his servants swearing at the bar of the House. HMC Buccleuch, i. 329-30. Financial concerns may also have influenced Newcastle’s disinclination to make another expensive stay in London. On the opening day of the new session (23 May 1678) he wrote to request payment of his salary as justice in eyre. Eg. 3331, f. 28.

Newcastle’s absence from both court and Parliament did not prevent him from being labelled triply vile by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. As a long-standing friend of Danby’s, the reason for such a classification is readily apparent. Given the relationship between the two men it appears at first surprising that Newcastle made so little effort to rally to his friend’s support after the lord treasurer’s fall. Browning, Danby i. 22-23. He assured Danby that he remained ‘a devoted servant to the court though I am in the country’, but declined the earl’s request that he attend the final session of the Cavalier Parliament, citing ill health. Eg. 3331, ff. 81-83. Pressure on his northern lieutenancies made by the incursions of groups of Dissenters from Scotland no doubt also made it more difficult for him to contemplate abandoning his post. In response to this threat, Newcastle emulated his father’s active suppression of conventicles and proved energetic in pursuing those suspected of disaffection during late 1678. CSP Dom. 1678, pp. 408, 410, 412-13, 418, 419-20, 431, 446. Although unwilling to appear in the House in person, Newcastle ensured that his proxy was once more entrusted to his son-in-law, Albemarle, on 19 Oct. 1678. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 364. Newcastle assured Danby in mid December that though ‘very sickly, as long as I can crawl I will venture my life to serve your lordship’, but a week before the close of the session the House accepted Newcastle’s latest excuse relayed by two of his retainers that he was so incommoded by ‘griping of the guts’ that he was in no state to attend.

News of the dissolution in January 1679 brought further requests from Danby that Newcastle would employ his interest on behalf of suitable candidates in the elections. He hoped that Newcastle would promote his heir, Ogle, as one of the county members for either Nottinghamshire or Northumberland, not least as he hoped it would bring father and son to London in time for the new Parliament. Newcastle proved once again disinclined to heed Danby’s renewed requests for his assistance. Eg. 3331, ff. 83-84; HMC Portland, ii. 153-54; HMC 14th Rep. App. ix. 405. He was listed by Danby on several occasions as a probable, though absent, opponent of the bill of attainder brought against him. If the former lord treasurer was disappointed or irritated by his friend’s failure to support him in his hour of need these feelings may have been aggravated when, on 15 Apr. the Lords refused to accept Newcastle’s latest claim that he was too ill to attend the House. HMC 11th Rep. App. ii. 142. Newcastle had already been ordered to London to be sworn a member of the reconstituted Privy Council. HMC Portland, ii. 154. He arrived in the capital towards the end of the month, taking his seat in the House at last on 26 April. Thereafter he attended on 23 days (38 per cent of the whole). On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to remain in the House during capital cases.

Despite his extensive territorial interests in the Midlands and the north, Newcastle took little discernible part in the elections to the second Exclusion Parliament. This should not, however, be taken to indicate a lack of concern for his duties as lord lieutenant of Northumberland and Nottinghamshire. He responded swiftly to an order for raising Northumberland’s militia to oppose the Covenanters’ Rebellion, for which he received the thanks of the king. CSP Dom. 1679-80, pp. 186, 197, 324. His concern for the detail of local administration, not to mention his pride, was also evident in the summer of 1680 when he expressed his dismay that a man he had appointed to the Nottinghamshire bench had been removed in the recent regulation of the magistracy. Glassey, JPs, 47; CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 543; HMC Finch, ii. 82.

Such matters appear to have remained of greater importance to Newcastle than parliamentary business. In October 1679 he wrote to Danby of his unwillingness to attend the new Parliament, asserting that he was ‘so crazy, I am fit for no place but what is very private and retired’. HMC 14th Rep. App. ix. 417. Crazy in this context meant sick, but he was not so ill as to be unable to play host to the duke and duchess of York at Welbeck during their journey northwards that autumn. Reresby Mems. 190; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 25. Newcastle’s attention seems once again to have been taken up with family matters during the summer of 1680 when he was engaged in an acrimonious dispute with his ward, Sir William Clifton^‡. Clifton’s mother had been eager to see the young man married to Lady Catherine Cavendish but Newcastle took against the arrangement and ensured that no marriage resulted. Notts. Arch. DD/4P/36/7; Add. 75353, T. Thynne to Halifax, 13 June 1680; Reresby Mems. 189-90; HMC Finch, ii. 83-85.

Newcastle’s health appears to have improved by August 1680. Towards the end of the month he wrote to Danby assuring the former treasurer that, although he did not expect the new Parliament to last longer than ten days and that he would prefer not to make the journey, he would ‘most readily go and do your lordship all the service that shall lie in my power’. Add. 28053, ff. 182-3. This time he proved more willing to exert himself and he took his place in the Lords at the opening of the new Parliament on 21 October. Present on 17 days in the session (approximately a quarter of all sitting days), just over a week after the opening he was devastated by the news of the death of his heir, Ogle. His loss left Newcastle, according to Halifax, ‘of all men living at this time the most to be pitied’. His concern was not just for the demise of his only surviving son but also for the associated financial losses, much money having been expended in settling Ogle’s marriage. Even so, the disaster to the family failed to distract him from the business in hand in Parliament. Hatton Corresp. 240; Verney ms mic. M636/34, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 3 Nov. 1680; Savile Corresp. 168; UNL, Pw1/410. He was, thus, in his place when the exclusion bill came before the Lords on 15 Nov. and he both spoke and voted against the measure. BIHR, xx. 34; Clarendon Corresp. i. 66. His support for York at this juncture earned him the duke’s favour, though Newcastle was later at pains to stress that his concerns were more for the succession in general rather than for any particular heir. UNL, Pw1, 664. Newcastle was not present in the House four days later when one of his chaplains, John Moore, was examined over an allegation that another of Newcastle’s chaplains, John Wyatt, had been arrested earlier in the year by the undersheriff of Gloucestershire and the duke’s letter of protection destroyed by the bailiffs. After further enquiry Moore admitted that Wyatt was not in fact one of the duke’s ‘domestic chaplains’ and the House resolved not to interfere in the matter. HMC 11th Rep. App. ii. 198. Newcastle resumed his place on 22 Nov. and the following month he was present in the House to witness the proceedings against William Howard, Viscount Stafford. He divided with the minority in voting Stafford not guilty.

In January 1681 Newcastle was summoned to a meeting with the king which Newcastle anticipated would lead to an offer of one of the great offices of state, possibly one of the secretaryships. Newcastle’s prediction appears to have been correct but even so he declined the king’s offer. This was perhaps due to his belief that he would be accorded only minor influence in the king’s counsels when compared with Halifax and to the fact that, as he confided to his friend Sir John Reresby^‡ during their journey from London in February, ‘he liked not the measures then on foot, and thought the times but slippery’. Newcastle appears to have been increasingly envious of Halifax and resented the fact that his former friend had not warned him of the imminent dissolution. Danby, on the other hand, had advised Newcastle that Parliament was shortly to be dissolved, thereby helping him to retain Newcastle’s loyalty to his cause. Reresby Mems. 210-11, 215, 217-18; Halifax Letters, i. 278. Tension between Halifax and Newcastle was also apparent during the protracted negotiations between the two men over a projected match between Halifax’s heir, William Savile, styled Lord Eland (later 2nd marquess of Halifax), and one of Newcastle’s daughters. According to Reresby, Newcastle was ‘not averse to the match’ but he was unhappy with the proposed terms. After much wrangling the marriage failed to transpire. Reresby Mems. 215-16, 229, 232.

Newcastle took his seat in the new Parliament at Oxford on 21 Mar. 1681 and proceeded to attend on each of the brief session’s seven days. When approached shortly before the opening to support Danby’s attempt to secure bail, Newcastle not only offered to act as surety, but also desired to be allowed to introduce Danby’s petition for bail into the Lords. Browning, ii. 96; HMC 14th Rep. App. ix. 421, 423, 424. Though this request was denied, Newcastle supported Danby’s unsuccessful attempt to obtain bail, and was one of those who spoke in his favour after the petition was presented by James Bertie, Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon). He also related an account of the day’s events to Danby, noting which lords had spoken on his side and emphasizing that he had not been responsible for the calamitous decision to allow the Lords to adjourn putting off further discussion to the next week. HMC 14th Rep. App. ix. 426, 430; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 164; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 1, folder 5, Newcastle to Danby, 24 Mar. 1681. He remained a regular correspondent of the former lord treasurer until Danby’s release in 1685. He professed himself at one point ‘extremely troubled to see how ill used your lordship is by the judges’ and in November 1682 and again in February 1684 he was one of those to sign petitions for Danby to be released. Eg. 3332, ff. 34, 74-5; Eg. 3338, ff. 163-4; Eg. 3334, ff. 20-21, 75-76, 113-14; Eg. 3358, F.

Aside from his commitment to Danby’s cause, Newcastle’s attentions were increasingly dominated by overseeing affairs in the counties where he had influence. The summer of 1681 found Newcastle noted among those thought likely to sign the Derbyshire address. His efforts to recommend the Northumberland address to the local magistrates and deputy lieutenants, though, met with opposition and a rival address was penned by Sir John Fenwick^‡. Such actions served to encourage Newcastle’s conviction that his position was being undermined and he pointed to Halifax as one of those he believed to be working against him. He was later to complain that his lack of interest at court prevented him from nominating a sheriff of his choosing. Add. 75360, J. Millington to Halifax, 27 July 1681, Sir J. Reresby to Halifax, 20 Aug. 1681; Stater, Noble Govt. 149. Nevertheless he persisted in pushing his interest. In April 1682 he proposed Reresby as successor to John Frescheville, Baron Frescheville, ‘my noble friend’, in one of the wardenships of Sherwood Forest. He did not succeed; Edward Osborne^‡, Viscount Latimer, lord warden of the Forest, resolved to keep the place for himself. Eg. 3338, ff. 159-60, 165-6. In the spring of 1683 Newcastle was engaged in an angry dispute with his wife’s kinsman, William Pierrepont, 4th earl of Kingston, over felling timber in the Forest. This prompted legal action between the two magnates and promised to spill over into the local factional disturbances. Newcastle was concerned that he could see, once again, the hand of his former friend Halifax behind the escalation but by the close of the summer he and Kingston appear to have arrived at an amicable settlement. Add. 75360, J. Millington to Halifax, 31 Mar. 1683, 21 Apr. 1683, 29 Aug.

Newcastle’s earlier inauspicious correspondence with Latimer did not prevent an attempt to unite the two families with the marriage of Latimer to one of Newcastle’s daughters. Latimer himself seems to have been unimpressed by the scheme and dismissed his would-be bride, Lady Frances, as ‘both sickly and peevish’. His father, Danby, was more disposed to press on with the alliance, provided that Frances Cavendish could have children. By the end of August Latimer appears to have been subjected to a beauty parade of all of Newcastle’s unmarried daughters. He remained unpersuaded but in the event the negotiations seem to have faltered because of the resolution of one of Newcastle’s daughters not to marry (or not to marry Latimer) and of the others being unavailable. Eg. 3334, ff. 25-26, 41, Eg. 3338, f. 167; Browning, ii. 101-2, 103. One of the latter was presumably Lady Catherine, for whom Newcastle was engaged in negotiations at the same time as result of a proposal brokered by his kinsman, William Cavendish, 4rd earl of Devonshire, on behalf of Richard Butler, earl of Arran [I] (who attended the Lords as Baron Butler). Once again, Newcastle’s unwillingness to part with ready money and preference for a settlement based on expectations once he was dead brought the discussions to a close. HMC Ormond, n.s. vi. 378-9; Bodl. Carte 70, f. 552; Add. 75360, Sir J. The prospects of marriages were reduced further at the close of 1682 when he was troubled by the first public intimation that his eldest daughter, the duchess of Albemarle, was afflicted with some form of mental instability. By the following spring he had determined that she was not mad, though driven to distraction by her own follies. ‘Our fondness to our children’ he concluded ‘brought us in to this misery.’ Reresby Mems. 284; Eg. 3334, ff. 113-14. He rejected another marriage proposal, this time from Charles Powlett, 6th marquess of Winchester (later duke of Bolton) on behalf of one of Winchester’s sons later in the year explaining his decision on the grounds that ‘disinheritances’ were ‘commonly unfortunate’. Add. 75376, f. 59.

Tory reaction 1682-5

If Newcastle struggled to cope with his family’s travails, he proved far more assured in his support for the court in the aftermath of the Exclusion Crisis when he became an active agent of the Tory reaction. His political influence was greatest in Northumberland and Nottinghamshire and it was in these counties that he chose to concentrate his political efforts. In the summer of 1682 he was in close contact with Carlisle over the appointment of a sheriff in Northumberland and in September he was ordered to take up residence at Nottingham Castle to help quell disorders in that city. Sloane 2724, ff. 92-3; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 432; Reresby Mems. 277. He assisted in the quashing of opposition groupings in both Berwick-upon-Tweed and Nottingham, and went on to play an important part in securing the surrender of these boroughs’ charters, for which he received careful advice from Sir Leoline Jenkins^‡. CSP Dom.1680-81, pp. 239, 327 487, 500; CSP Dom. 1682, pp.142, 144, 164, 205, 247-48, 282-3, 432, 459-60, 477; CSP Dom. Jan.-June 1683, pp. 2, 12, 21, 52; CSP Dom. July Sept. 1683, pp. 120-1, 353-4, 422; 1683-4, pp. 6-7, 215-16, 254, 292; CSP Dom. 1684-5, pp. 44, 160-1, 168, 179, 184-5, 198, 205, 240, 241; Add. 75359, Newcastle to [Halifax], 14 Jan. 1684[-5]; A Centenary History of Nottingham ed. J.V. Beckett, 178-9; Eg. 3334, f. 53, Eg. 3338, ff. 129-30; D.H. Hosford, Nottingham, Nobles and the North, 46-48; P.D. Halliday, Dismembering the Body Politic, 225, 226. He interceded on behalf of one Sanderson to be excused from being pricked sheriff of Nottingham, Sanderson having an income under £100 a year and being ‘devoted to his majesty’s service.’ Newcastle was also on hand to assist with the surrender and regranting of Newcastle-upon-Tyne’s charter in late 1684 and early 1685. CSP Dom. 1684-5, pp. 205, 241; Add. 75359, Newcastle to [Halifax], 9, 24 Nov. 1, 3 Dec. 1684.

Newcastle’s concerns extended beyond these boroughs to the general state of the two counties of which he was lord lieutenant, most notably at the time of the revelations of the Rye House Plot when he took a leading role in organizing the response of Nottinghamshire and Northumberland. CSP Dom. Jan.-June 1683, pp. 343, 358-9, 363, 373; July-Sept. pp. 61-62, 93-94, 120-1, 149, 199. His concern for the interests of Nottinghamshire was evident when a delay in printing the county’s address in the London Gazette prompted him to write to the secretary of state complaining that ‘we have little encouragement for our loyalty’ and threatening ‘to give over all public employment’. CSP Dom. July-Sept. 1683, p. 326. However, the affairs of Northumberland appear to have absorbed more of his energies as he found himself drawn into a bitter factional dispute among the county’s political elite. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 343-4; Sloane 2724, ff. 89-93, 131; CSP Dom. Newcastle, who in 1683 wrote that ‘I reckon myself more of Northumberland than of any country, because we were there before the conquest’, appears to have been wearied by this conflict as it prompted another threat to resign from public office. HMC Dartmouth, i. 80; CSP Dom. Jan.-June 1683, pp. 273, 295. His health may also have been an issue. In March 1683 he had written to Danby wondering that ‘I am alive labouring under such great afflictions as I do.’ Eg. 3334, ff. 113-15. Nevertheless, Newcastle remained so diligent in his approach to his duties in the localities that the secretary of state complained in 1683 that the duke’s letters were so frequent that ‘I confess myself unable to correspond with you’. CSP Dom. Jan.-June 1683, p. 52.

James II, the Revolution and after, 1685-91

After the failure to settle matters earlier, the final year of Charles II’s reign found Newcastle engaged with finalizing details of a marriage settlement between his daughter, Catherine, and Thomas Tufton, earl of Thanet. This was completed by the end of the summer. HMC Portland, ii. 157; HMC Le Fleming, 402. Newcastle excused his failure to wait on the sickly king at the beginning of February 1685 fearing that to do so would have been ‘impertinent’. Add. 75359, Newcastle to Halifax, 6 Feb. 1685. Following the king’s death shortly after, he was rumoured to be one of those likely to be reappointed to the new king’s bedchamber, but in the event he chose to resign the position (presumably on account of his health). As he confessed to Halifax, ‘a quiet life is all I desire.’ Verney ms mic. M636/39, Sir R. to J. Verney, 10 Feb. 1685; Add. 75359, Newcastle to Halifax, 14 Feb. 1685. Despite this, he was punctilious in his approach to the general election occasioned by the new king’s accession. He was one of a number of men to receive letters from Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, requesting them to assist in the election of ‘persons of approved loyalty and affection to the government’. Though Newcastle persisted in his complaint that ‘I am so sickly I fear I shall not be able to be at any election’, he nevertheless strove to meet Sunderland’s request. CSP Dom. Feb.-Dec. 1685, pp. 21, 25. Nottinghamshire was the main focus of Newcastle’s efforts and, in addition to playing an important role in the election of court candidates at East Retford, Newark and Nottingham, he also stepped into the breach to assist with the county election when the danger arose that one of the seats would fall into the hands of a Whig candidate. He professed himself particularly grateful to Kingston who by his actions had ‘suppressed the factious to that degree that they durst not offer to oppose’ the court candidates. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 350-52, 354, 356; CSP Dom. Feb.-Dec. 1685, pp. 25, 86, 105; Add. 75359, Newcastle to Halifax, 23 Mar. 1685, 13 Apr. 1685; Add. 75359, Newcastle to [Halifax], 18, 23 Mar. 1685; Add. 75360, J. Millington to Halifax, 18 Mar. 1685.

Newcastle supported two Tory candidates at the Derbyshire election and also seems to have encouraged Reresby to contest York, but his role in the return of members for Northumberland is more obscure. CSP Dom. Feb.-Dec. 1685, p. 105; Reresby Mems. 355. He appears, in the aftermath of the factional disputes of the early 1680s, to have stood aside from the county election. Although he had been appointed recorder of both Berwick-upon-Tweed and Newcastle-upon-Tyne he met with little success in his attempts to nominate one Member for the latter borough and there is no concrete evidence that he played a significant role in the election for the former either. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 344. 346, 348; CSP Dom. Feb.-Dec. 1685 p. 25, 54, 67, 81-82, 105.

Though active during the elections, Newcastle was (typically) reluctant to attend the meeting of the new Parliament. He wrote to Halifax in February that ill health would prevent him from travelling to London. By April he had altered this resolution and though ‘hardly able to creep’ was determined not to seek permission to absent himself. Even so, he reckoned that he would struggle to attend many sittings ‘I am so very infirm.’ He waited on the king later that month and took his seat at the opening of the 1685 session.Add. 75359, Newcastle to [Halifax], 14 Feb., 20 Apr. 1685. On 26 May he registered his proxy with Albemarle, which was vacated by his return to the House on 1 June, but this proved to be the final occasion on which he sat.

Having returned to his estates much of Newcastle’s time was occupied by continuing negotiations for settling the affairs of his remaining unmarried daughters, who by the loss of his son were now coheirs to his considerable fortune. HMC Rutland, ii. 106; HMC Downshire, i. 135; Reresby Mems. 229, 232, 277, 278, 344-5, 425-6, 429-30, 457-61, 464, 472-6, 582; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 378-79; Browning, ii. 101-2; Eg. 3338, f. 167; Add. 70503, f. 93; HMC Portland, ii. 157. In November 1686 Reresby recorded finding the household at Welbeck in turmoil following a serious falling out between duke and duchess over the latter’s efforts to settle their daughters’ marriages without reference to the duke. One such scheme involved the marriage of Lady Margaret Cavendish to Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury. Newcastle seems not to have objected to Shrewsbury but to the portion on which the duchess was insisting. He also objected to the way in which he was being ‘hectored’ by his wife about the business. Reresby Mems. 437-9; Add. 75359, Newcastle to Halifax, 8, 17 Jan. 1687; A.S. Turbeville, History of Welbeck Abbey and its Owners, 2 vols. (1938), i. 220-24. Alongside disagreements over the sums involved in the daughters’ portions, Newcastle insisted that his grandsons should bear the name of Cavendish as well as their fathers’ surnames. He remained unrepentant about the upset the dispute caused within the family, concluding simply ‘I can do this without anybody’s assistance.’ Add. 75360, Reresby to Halifax, 4 Dec. 1686.

As a distraction from his tempestuous family life, Newcastle continued to undertake those duties associated with his offices in the Midlands and north east over the next two years. He took steps to secure Nottinghamshire and Northumberland at the time of the Monmouth Rebellion and took an interest in the corporate politics of Newcastle and Nottingham. CSP Dom. Feb.-Dec. 1685, pp. 212-13, 245, 252, 419, 424; 1686-7, pp. 288, 417; HMC Portland, ii. 157, 159; Add. 47608, f. 198; Add. 75359, Newcastle to [Halifax], 30 July, 1686. Newcastle’s enthusiasm for such activity appears, however, to have been on the wane. When a by-election for one of the Nottinghamshire seats had seemed in prospect in the summer of 1686 he somewhat disingenuously wrote to Halifax that ‘I am a poor man, and pretend to no interest in choosing Parliament men’.Add. 75359, Newcastle to [Halifax], 23 May 1686. This seemed to be confirmed by the actions of the corporation of Retford, of which he was recorder, which sought to settle the nomination of one of their Members towards the close of 1686 without reference to him. Newcastle was offended by his exclusion from the decision and although he had no objection to the candidate, he resented the manner in which the selection had been undertaken. Add. 75360, J. Millington to Halifax, 4 Dec. 1686. Shortly before this he requested, and was granted, permission to vacate the post of recorder of Berwick-upon-Tweed, to which he had only recently been appointed. He insisted that he had previously asked not to be given the post, citing both a disinclination to be burdened with the place and concern that he had not been granted the governorship as his reasons. CSP Dom. 1686-7, pp. 231, 257, 260, 263.

It may be that a combination of personal pique and concern over the direction of affairs under the new monarch explains Newcastle’s declining enthusiasm for local politics. Reresby noted that upon meeting Newcastle in September 1685 the duke ‘made … free of his discourse in relation to affairs at court, and declared positively that he would not repair thither any more, and should be glad to be out of all manner of public employment’. This may indicate a degree of concern on Newcastle’s part as to the intentions of James II and his ministers, but Reresby also recorded that Newcastle’s freedom of expression was rooted at least in part in the ‘neglect’ he believed he had suffered when last at court, and in the failure to promote his soldier son-in-law, Albemarle. In another conversation with Reresby in August 1686 the duke made it clear that ‘he was very sensible of the king’s going on very fast in the promoting of his own religion, but [he], did resolve to be very loyal, and yet firm to his religion’. Reresby Mems. 390, 431.

It may be that it was an awareness of the potential conflict between his loyalties to the king and to the Anglican church which prompted Newcastle to take a step back from political activity, though his declaration to Halifax that ‘I resolve never to go to London. No Parliament can bring me there’ probably reveals little more than his usual unwillingness to attend the House of Lords. Add. 75359, Newcastle to Halifax, 21 Aug. 1686. As usual his preoccupation with the state of his health was also a factor and at the opening of 1687 he informed Halifax that he did not expect to live another six months. The ongoing dispute with his duchess and daughter, Margaret, also increasingly preoccupied Newcastle, not least as he considered that they were determined to ‘publish me to be the very rogue in the world.’ By the beginning of 1687 the duke and duchess were living in separate establishments. Ibid. 8, 17 Jan. 1687; Add. 75360, Sir J. Reresby to Halifax, 26 Jan. 1687. Despite this, suitors continued to angle for a match with Lady Margaret, among them the king’s bastard son, James Fitzjames, later duke of Berwick, and Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham (the first supported by Newcastle and the latter by the duchess). Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 109, 115-16, 242; CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 359; Reresby Mems. 472-6. The suit of James Hamilton, earl of Arran (later 4th duke of Hamilton [S]) failed after Arran disgraced himself while in his cups. NAS, GD 406/1/6206. Feversham’s suit appeared likely to succeed though Newcastle looked set to agree to it only with an extremely bad grace. He made it known that he believed the match was the result of intrigue between Halifax and his duchess. In the event neither suit prevailed. After the Revolution Lady Margaret married her cousin, John Holles, 4th earl of Clare (later duke of Newcastle). Add. 75360, Sir J. Reresby to Halifax, 19 Oct. 1687, J. Millington to Halifax, 29 Sept. 1688.

Contemporaries clearly believed that any concern that Newcastle experienced regarding James II’s plans to repeal the penal laws and test acts would be over-ridden by his loyalty to the crown. During 1687 Newcastle was included in three lists forecasting the likely attitude of peers to James II’s campaign. Two of these classed the duke as a likely supporter of James and only one expressed any doubts as to his sympathies. This was reflected in a report from November 1687 of Newcastle’s message to his deputies in Nottingham that he intended, as he always had, to comply with the king’s desires. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 167. Similarly, during the first half of 1688 Newcastle was active in furthering James’s policies in those parliamentary constituencies where he had an influence, and in carrying out a regulation of local officeholders in line with the court’s wishes. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 351, 352; CSP Dom. June 1687-Feb. 1689, pp.87-88, 149, 167, 175, 220, 237, 238, 244, 267, 273; Hosford, 69, 76-77; Glassey, JPs, 80. He also led Nottinghamshire’s celebrations of the birth of the prince of Wales in June 1688. HMC Portland, ii. 159. However, other aspects of his behaviour at this time may suggest a certain amount of continuing uncertainty about James II’s policies. In March 1688 it was reported that Newcastle had resigned his places. His effort to lay down his posts, if sincere, could be attributed to concerns as to royal policy, dismissed as little more than attention seeking, or once again the result of his ongoing concerns about his health. In the event, he retained his commands. CSP Dom. June 1687-Feb. 1689, p. 160; Hosford, 68; Add. 70081, newsletter, 13 Mar. 1688; HMC Le Fleming, 209. More instructive is the concern he showed at the removal of loyalists from corporate office in Nottingham, and his response to the acquittal of the Seven Bishops in July 1688. CSP Dom. June 1687-Feb. 1689, p. 138; History of Nottingham ed. Beckett, 180. At the same time that he was threatening reprisals against those who had lit a bonfire in celebration of the release of the bishops and promising further regulation of Newark’s corporation should the borough not agree to return the court candidates at the anticipated general election, Newcastle was privately drinking the health of the freed prelates. Northern Hist. xxv. 185-6.

If Newcastle did harbour private reservations as to the precise goals of James’s policies, his loyalty to the Stuart monarchy won out during the events of late 1688. In October he was one of those to offer to raise a force out of his own pocket. He was retained in his posts of lord lieutenant of Northumberland and Nottinghamshire and, following his offer, was also authorized to raise a new regiment. CSP Dom. June 1687-Feb. 1689, p.164; Morrice, 317. To these responsibilities was added the lieutenancy of all three ridings of Yorkshire. Reresby Mems. 515; CSP Dom. June 1687-Feb. 1689, p. 305, 307; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 464. He initially set about preparing the defences of the north and Midlands with some vigour but once William of Orange had landed in Torbay, Newcastle adopted a less active approach. HMC Finch, iii. 422; CSP Dom. June 1687-Feb. 1689, pp. 297, 300-1, 307, 309, 315, 318, 319-20; HMC Le Fleming, 214; Add. 41805, ff. 142-3; Reresby Mems. 525. By doing so he left himself unprepared to face the challenge mounted by his old friend Danby and his kinsman, Devonshire. Newcastle and Danby’s altered relations were already apparent in October when they disagreed over the granting of commissions to Catholics and once the rebellion was underway, Newcastle was out-manoeuvred by Danby in Yorkshire. Having lost the support of his militia there and bungled affairs in York itself, falling out with Reresby in the process, he retreated to Welbeck, where he continued to face wrangling within his family to add to his woes. Reresby Mems. 517, 525, 527-8, 532; HMC 6th Rep. 415-16; Add. 41805, ff. 243-4; Northern Hist. xxv. 185-6; Luttrell, Brief Relations, i. 472; D/Lons/L1/34, Sir E. Jennings to Sir J. Lowther, 5 Nov. 1688; Eg. 3335, ff. 80-81; Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, v. 21, f. 94. Even though he was then able to prevent Nottinghamshire’s militia from being raised in support of Devonshire’s pro-William force, he found himself effectively under house arrest. He even suffered the indignity of having all arms removed from Welbeck by Devonshire’s supporters. HMC 6th Rep. 419; Reresby Mems. 536, 585-7; HMC Le Fleming, 227.

Assessments of Newcastle’s behaviour at this time have been critical, though it has also been pointed out that a change of stance might have seriously affected his credibility. Feiling, Tory Party, 234; J.P. Kenyon, Nobility in 1688, 12; Browning, i. What is unquestionable is that the Revolution marked the end of his active political career. When Reresby visited Newcastle at Welbeck in January 1689 he found the duke:

very loyal and firm to his master the king, and consequently as angry against the earls of Danby and Devonshire, and such others as had been the actors in those parts for the Prince of Orange. He said he would be loyal to the king, firm to his religion, and act always according to law … He told me he had received a letter of summons to be at the Convention, but that he would not go nor act in that assembly; that he had offered to surrender the commission of his lieutenancies into the king’s hands before he went, but the king would not receive them; and that he would act so long as he might do it by them, but would not take any commissions from the prince or any such authority. Reresby Mems. 544-5.

Newcastle accordingly resigned his offices and declined a summons to attend the Convention. In November 1689 he undertook to send two servants to testify to his inability to attend, ‘the truth being he is a dying body.’ Even so he survived for long enough to refuse the oaths to the new regime in 1690. He also declined involving himself in the early stages of the dispute arising out of the Albemarle inheritance dispute. Eg. 3516, ff. 16-19; HMC Le Fleming, 243; Royal Society, ms 70, pp. 76-77; HMC 12th Rep. pt. vi. 278-9; CSP DOM. 1689-90, p. 528; TNA, C9/273/1. Besides this he appears to have played no further political role, though his name was on occasion mentioned in connection with Jacobite conspiracy. HMC Finch, iii. 96, 108, 322, 344; HMC Portland, iii. 471, 485; Bodl. Carte 130, ff. 337-8; Verney ms mic. M636/44, Cary Gardiner to Sir Ralph Verney, 2 July, 1690.

Newcastle spent the remainder of his life in retirement at Welbeck, where he died on 26 July 1691. Turbeville, History of Welbeck, i. 217. He was buried at Bolsover the following month on 12 August. The majority of his extensive, though heavily indebted estate (believed to be worth in the region of £9,000 p.a.), was left to his third daughter Margaret, countess of Clare. The duke’s will, composition of which had already involved him in disagreements with his four surviving daughters and their spouses (Frances, Lady Glenorchy having died in 1690), was disputed by the earl and countess of Thanet who contested that the duke had been non compos mentis at the time of composing it. Clare and Thanet even resorted to a duel to settle the issue. Despite this, Newcastle’s last wishes were eventually upheld and the Thanets’ suit dismissed in February 1694. Fuller details of the dispute are contained in the biography of the 4th earl of Clare. Contrary to rumours that circulated soon after Newcastle’s death, his marquessate did not pass to his kinsman, Devonshire, and in 1694 the dukedom of Newcastle was revived for Clare. Notts. Arch. DD/4P/49-200, DD/4P/35/73-6; UNL, Pw1/285-289; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 270; Turberville, History of Welbeck, i. 223-8; HMC Downshire, i. 434; Add. 61655, f. 3; Add. 72482, ff. 139-40; Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 14 May 1692; TNA, SP 105/60, f. 125; Bodl. Carte 76, f. 108.