BERTIE, James (1653-99)

A sufferer from ‘the black jaundice’ (an archaic term for Weil’s disease or leptospirosis) and various other unpleasant sounding maladies, Norreys succeeded to the barony at the age of four. Browning, Danby, ii. 14. Prior to sitting in the House he acquired some experience of Parliament as a result of involvement in several estate bills. WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/655. In the winter of 1670 he was concerned in a bill to permit him to settle a jointure of £2,500 on anyone he might marry while he remained in his minority. Verney ms mic. M636/24, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 30 Nov. 1670. In January 1672 it was reported that his bill had at last passed both Houses, which coincided with the completion of negotiations for his match with Eleanor Lee of Ditchley, notwithstanding some ‘underhand’ opposition from some who had appeared ‘very much for it’. Ibid. Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 14 Dec. 1671; HMC Rutland, ii. 22; TNA, C104/20, pt. 2. One of those probably opposed to the Norreys-Lee match was the new Lady Norreys’ brother-in-law, Thomas Wharton, later marquess of Wharton. The marriage brought the two men into conflict over a disputed inheritance and this animosity was later reflected in consistent political rivalry.

Unlike Wharton, Norreys and most of his immediate kin were staunch royalists. For much of his career Norreys was able to overcome the handicap of cripplingly poor health to uphold diligently the court and later Tory interest in Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Wiltshire. Duckett, Penal Laws, 209, 225. He proved to be a loyal associate of his brother-in-law Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), with whom he enjoyed a particularly close relationship. He also stood at the head of a significant parliamentary grouping comprising, among others, his brothers Charles, Henry and Peregrine. In partnership with his kinsman, Edward Henry Lee, earl of Lichfield, Norreys succeeded in dominating Oxfordshire politics in the 1680s, ousting temporarily the local Whig magnates: Wharton and John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace. After the Revolution he was also able to expand his area of influence into Buckinghamshire in direct rivalry with Wharton. VCH Oxon. iv. 123. Wharton in return challenged Norreys’s interest in Oxford and Woodstock. Robbins, The Earl of Wharton and Whig Party Politics, 90, 94, 95.

Danby’s lieutenant in Oxford, 1674-81

Early on marked out for preferment, in 1674 Norreys succeeded James Fiennes, 2nd Viscount Saye and Sele, in the Oxfordshire lieutenancy. J.M. Davenport, Oxfordshire Lords Lieutenant, High Sheriffs and Members of Parliament &c (1888), 7-8. That autumn he received a writ of summons to attend the Lords, but he did not take his seat until the following year. The reason for his failure to attend is not known. Dering Diary, 55-56. He finally took his seat in the House for the first time on 13 Apr. 1675, but he was thereafter present on just eight more days in the session (21 per cent of the whole). On 23 Apr. he registered his proxy with John Granville, earl of Bath, which was vacated by the close. Norreys then failed to attend the subsequent three sessions. On 12 Oct. he again registered his proxy with Bath and on 20 Nov. Bath wielded it to vote against the opposition-inspired motion to address the king for a dissolution of Parliament.

The turning point in Norreys’ career seems to have come in the summer of 1676 when he played host to Danby at his seat of Rycote. The visit proved the beginning of a long friendship and Danby professed the two to be ‘so in love with one another that we are both unwilling to think of parting.’ Add. 18730, f. 16; Browning, ii. 38-39. At the same time efforts were made to bring to a close the simmering legal dispute between Norreys and Wharton. Although Norreys insisted that he was willing to try for a friendly resolution he anticipated little chance of success. Verney ms mic. M636/29, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 22 Sept. 1676.

In spite of his friendship with Danby, Norreys appears to have been no more inclined to attend Parliament over the next few years and in February 1677 he once more sought to cover his absence by registering his proxy. On 14 Feb. he was recorded as having registered it with both Bath and Lindsey. It seems likely that he registered it initially with Bath only for it to be transferred to Lindsey when Bath was found to be in possession of too many proxies. The proxy was then vacated when Lindsey registered his own proxy with Bath on 22 February. Four days later Norreys registered his proxy anew with Richard Arundell, Baron Arundell of Trerice (the proxy book records that the proxy was transferred to Arundell from Lindsey).

Norreys again played host to Danby in the summer of 1677. Ibid. M636/30, J. to E. Verney, 26 July 1677. By the beginning of 1678 he seems to have lost patience with the continuous lawsuits involving his wife’s estate and sought the assistance of Sir Ralph Verney^‡ to help to resolve them. Ibid. M636/31, Norreys to Sir R. Verney, 17 Jan. 1678. Friendship with Verney may have contributed to reports that Norreys and Wharton had agreed to set up Verney for the vacant seat at Westbury in the early spring of 1678 but in the event Norreys put his weight behind his brother, Henry, instead. Ibid. M636/31, E. to Sir R. Verney, 4 Mar. 1678. Norreys played host to his neighbour, Anglesey, in September, possibly as part of his ongoing cultivation of his interest in Oxfordshire. Add. 18730, f. 46. The same month he was involved in a quarrel with another neighbour (and kinsman) John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester. There was initially some confusion about the parties involved, an early report suggesting the dispute may have been with his local rival, Lovelace. Danby seems to have interposed between the two and it was afterwards reported that the court was likely to seek the intervention of the lord privy seal (Anglesey) to resolve the matter. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 12 Sept. 1678; E. to J. Verney, 23 Sept. 1678; Sir R. to E. Verney, 26 Sept. 1678.

Norreys was again missing at the opening of the new session. On 23 Oct. 1678 he registered his proxy with Bath once more, which was vacated when he finally took his seat on 19 December. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 364. His delayed return to the House may have been related to a request that he investigate the activities of one of his deputies who appears to have been over-zealous in searching houses for arms. Bodl. Clarendon 155, f. 43. He also seems to have been once again distracted by ongoing attempts to resolve disputes over the inheritance of his wife’s estates, particularly relating to a resolution of the terms of the will of Sir Francis Henry Lee. Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 19 Dec. 1678 and 13 Jan. 1679. Norreys’ eventual return to the Lords was probably in response to the assault on Danby, but his attendance remained lacklustre and he was present on just six days in all before once more retiring for the remainder of the session.

In stark contrast to his behaviour in the House, Norreys was active in the elections for the new Parliament in espousing Danby’s interest, ‘wherever he has influence.’ Ibid. E. to J. Verney, 13 Feb. 1679. He was also a firm opponent of the exclusion from the throne of the duke of York, and he proved to be a vigorous persecutor of exclusionists within his lieutenancy. His stance made him fierce enemies. Although it was reported that his interest at Malmesbury or Westbury in Wiltshire ought to prove sufficient to secure the return of Sir Ralph Verney, his efforts on Danby’s behalf earned him a good deal of harsh treatment in Oxford, where his authority was challenged by the upsurge in popularity of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, eagerly encouraged by Lovelace and George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. Norreys was said to have been ‘hooted out of the town’ and it was reported elsewhere that he had ‘very much lost his credit in that country’. As a result his candidate at Oxford, Sir George Pudsey^‡, was rejected in favour of the exclusionists, William Wright^‡ and Brome Whorwood^‡. Ibid. Sir R. to J. Verney, 17 Feb. 1679; E. to J. Verney, 20 Feb. 1679. The county seats were divided between an exclusionist, Sir John Cope^‡ and one of Norreys’s kinsmen, Sir Edward Norreys^‡.

Norreys took his seat shortly after the opening of the new Parliament on 19 Mar. 1679, after which he was present on just under 82 per cent of all sitting days. Absent for ten days mid-session, Norreys ensured that his proxy was registered with Bath on 15 Apr. which was then vacated by his resumption of his seat on 24 April. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 550. Back in his place, Norreys undertook to speak on behalf of Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu of Boughton, who sought the House’s agreement not to compel him to attend, though Robert Bertie warned Montagu that his brother had advised him that ‘the House will be so strict as to receive no answer but what is sworn by two of the disability of your coming up.’ Northants. RO, Montagu letters, xviii, p. 66. On 2 May he introduced John Manners, then styled Lord Roos (later duke of Rutland) as Baron Manners, and on 9 May he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the method of trying the impeached lords. The latter part of the session proved the occasion of an inglorious (though perhaps apocryphal) incident in Norreys’ career. During the debate in the House on 27 May 1679 whether to grant a free conference to discuss the Habeas Corpus Amendment Act, Norreys, acting as teller for those opposed to granting the conference, ‘being a man subject to vapours’ was said to have failed to notice his opposite number, Ford Grey, Baron Grey of Warke (later earl of Tankerville), counting one especially obese member as ten. Grey was said to have seen no reason to amend his jest allowing the Whigs to carry the vote by 57 to 55. Haley, Shaftesbury, 527. On the same day he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.

Following the close of the session, discussions continued between Norreys and the other parties in the dispute over the Lee estates. It was said that his wife had begun to take a close interest in the affair too, ‘much concerned at her being kept out of her estate being now of age.’ By the close of July matters seemed close to a resolution, though it was not until the following year that Norreys and Wharton seem at last to have reached an agreement. Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 26 June 1679; M636/33, T. Yate to Sir R. Verney, 31 July 1679; J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1679, M636/34, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 25 Feb. 20 Mar. and 10 Nov. 1680. The following month, in response to reports that George Berkeley, 9th Baron Berkeley of Berkeley, was on the point of being elevated to an earldom, Danby petitioned the king from the Tower for a similar award for Norreys, his estate being ‘very great and his family on all sides eminent both for birth and their services to the crown.’ HMC Buckinghamshire, 415. For the time being he was denied the hoped-for promotion.

Norreys’ interest in Oxfordshire remained under assault during the second general election of 1679 which saw the return of two country candidates, Thomas Horde^‡ and Sir John Cope for the county seats. The city was also carried by exclusionists, though Norreys’ nominees increased their showing on the previous poll. He also enjoyed only mixed success at Westbury, where his brother Henry was returned but then removed on petition. To add to his travails Norreys also appears to have been the loser of many hundreds of pounds as the result of the death of one of his debtors, Thomas Whorwood (probably the younger brother of Norreys’s bête noire in Oxford, Brome Whorwood), in the summer of 1680. Verney ms mic. M636/34, Sir R. to J. Verney, 5 July 1680. Norreys took his seat just over a week into the new Parliament on 29 Oct. 1680 of which he continued to attend just under 47 per cent of all sitting days. On 12 Nov. he registered his proxy with Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat the following day. On 7 Dec. he divided with the minority in finding William Howard, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, series II, box 4, folder 173.

Oxford politics, 1681

Following the dissolution of Parliament, Norreys was contacted by John Fell, bishop of Oxford, in anticipation of the forthcoming elections:

Your lordship’s early care herein for the elections of this county is worthy your self and that station which you hold among us: and I hope your authority and counsel will prevail not only for the choice of fit persons, but that animosities … may be prevented in the election of them. The country I presume is so well satisfied with your lordship’s recommendation of a knight upon the last vacancy that they will readily hearken to your directions in this greater one. Bodl. Clarendon. 155, f. 39.

Fell’s reference to Norreys’ former recommendation presumably referred to Sir Edward Norreys^‡, who had been returned at a by-election in 1675 following the death of Sir Anthony Cope^‡, though Sir Edward had declined standing in the previous election. The decision to hold the new Parliament at Oxford gave much greater significance to Norreys’ position as lord lieutenant but contrary to Fell’s hopes, his authority in the county remained as uncertain as ever. Oxfordshire was traditionally split between the two parties. VCH Oxon, iv. 152-3. The north was generally reckoned to be sympathetic to the opposition (later Whig) cause, while the south was largely loyalist (Tory). The city of Oxford itself was divided between Tory university and Whig town, giving rise to frequent brawls between townsmen and students, and lively electoral encounters. The prospect of an unruly competition between the supporters of the court and the opposition persuaded Fell to propose that Lovelace and Norreys should hold a meeting of the local gentry in an attempt to limit the number of candidates and the potential for damaging public arguments. Fell wrote to Norreys again, following a meeting with Lovelace, in which he attempted to show:

the mischiefs of having many candidates set up, which as it would be [expensive] to them, would occasion trouble & divisions in the country; would also teach the populacy an ill lesson, by showing them their strength, and making them arbitrators of the differences between the nobility & gentry among themselves. Bodl. Top. Oxon. C. 325, f. 15.

In spite of all this the results were hardly encouraging for Norreys. The county election saw the return of the sitting member Horde with a challenger from the previous contest, Sir Philip Harcourt^‡; Sir Edward Norreys ended bottom of the poll. The city went to both the sitting members. New Woodstock offered better news for the embattled Norreys and demonstrated that Fell’s engagement with Lovelace had had some effect as Henry Bertie was returned with Nicholas Bayntun^‡, the latter on Lovelace’s interest.

Pressure on Norreys was not confined to dealing with the elections. He was also appealed to by Danby, who hoped to engage his kinsman’s support in his continued efforts to be released from the Tower. Danby acknowledged the particular trouble the event was likely to pose for Norreys but appealed nevertheless for his assistance:

The being of the court at Oxford gives your Lordship so much a greater share of trouble than to any other lord there, that it would not be justifiable to give you this were my concern of less consequence than to get some little show of liberty. But as my case stands I hope you will not only forgive me, but give me leave to rely upon you as one of my principal pillars. Add. 38849, f. 168.

On 17 Mar. Danby noted Norreys accordingly as one of those on whom he expected to be able to rely in the anticipated division on bailing him from the Tower. Having worked tirelessly to ensure the city was prepared for Parliament, Norreys was present on each day of the brief session and on 24 Mar. 1681 he dutifully presented Danby’s petition to the House. Sloane 3065, ff. 32-33; Add. 28040, f. 10; Morrice, ii. 273. His efforts on Danby’s behalf were frustrated, though, when the session was brought to an unexpectedly early close.

Divisions within Oxford continued to trouble Norreys following the dissolution. The anticipated demise of the town clerk that summer and the ensuing campaign for electing a new one resulted in heated exchanges between the factions as Norreys gave his support to Thomas Baker in opposition to the Whigs’ choice, Edward Prince. Bodl. Clarendon 155, f. 35. Norreys’ explanation for his hostility to Prince emphasized the latter’s disloyalty to the king rather than his enmity to Norreys:

when it was proposed in the Common Council to complement his lordship with a freedom of their town, Prince made a saucy rude speech against it, but this, my lord told him, being personal, he did forgive him; secondly, that when the address to the king was proposed in Common Council he likewise opposed that with a speech altogether as saucy and rude, and this, his lordship told him, he could not forgive. Prideaux Letters, 105.

The election became a heated affair. Norreys entered into a furious argument with the local burgess, Brome Whorwood, calling him an ‘old knave’ and beating him about the head with his stick. Whorwood responded by dubbing his assailant a ‘young rogue’. CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 680; Castle Ashby, Northampton mss, newsletter, 11 Aug. 1681. The argument may have been in part occasioned by Norreys’ frustration at being unable to secure repayment of money still owed to him by Whorwood as Thomas Whorwood’s executor. Whorwood later brought a charge of battery against Norreys at the assizes in March 1682, while Norreys brought one of scandalum magnatum against Whorwood. In the event the affair was settled by the mediation of Bishop Fell, who gained a certain currency in the town for his handling of the dispute. Prideaux Letters, 127-8.

Norreys’ efforts on behalf of Baker proved unequal to the task of overcoming the Whig majority in the city and Prince was elected despite a majority supporting Baker in the common council. Norreys complained of the behaviour of Lovelace and Whorwood and the whole ‘clan’ that had ‘stickled with all violence for Prince’ and recommended to Sir Leoline Jenkins^‡ that if possible the election should not be confirmed. Bodl. Top. Oxon. C. 325, f. 7. The selection of Prince was subsequently vetoed by the king and Baker was finally installed in office two years later. The election brought Oxford to the Privy Council’s notice, and was one of the factors in a quo warranto being brought against the city charter. Bodl. Clarendon. 155, ff. 51-52. The affair also persuaded the city fathers to retreat from their reliance on the increasingly unpopular Buckingham. In his stead they courted Anglesey, as an alternative to Norreys. Anglesey seems to have proved a poor choice as he refused to interfere with Norreys and was said to have visited him at Rycote to assure him of his good intentions, though no mention of such a visit is made in Anglesey’s diary. Prideaux Letters, 98-102; Add. 18730, ff. 88-89. Anglesey may not have been willing to cross Norreys but his refusal in no way altered the inclinations of the Oxfordshire electors and at the beginning of September it was reported that ‘if a Parliament should now be chosen, both the county and city of Oxford would send the same members as the last time.’ Add. 75362, Sir W. Coventry to Halifax, 3 Sept. 1681.

Alongside his efforts to manage the town clerk’s election, Norreys was presented with a third challenge in the summer of 1681 with the trial of Stephen Colledge at Oxford for offences committed while Parliament was sitting. Colledge had originally been arraigned in London but when the London grand jury refused to indict him, it was proposed that he be tried again in Oxford, where a more sympathetic jury could be guaranteed. Secretary Jenkins wrote to Norreys at the beginning of July communicating the king’s desire that he see to the formation of ‘a good, honest, substantial grand jury’ consisting ‘of men rightly principled for the church and the king.’ Jenkins also pressed that the judges of the Oxford circuit should ‘be present and assisting each other on the crown side’. CSP Dom. 1681, pp. 353-4. Despite the odds being stacked against Colledge, due process was seen to be done and when one of the jury members expressed himself publicly against the defendant, he was removed by the high sheriff. Letter Concerning the Tryal at Oxford of Stephen Colledge, (1681). Such minor victories availed Colledge little and at the close of August he was found guilty and executed in Oxford. The execution gave Norreys one last problem to oversee. Fearful of the potential for public disorder if Colledge was dragged through the main thoroughfares to the scaffold, Norreys arranged that the condemned man’s final journey was through back streets. HMC Le Fleming, 182.

Earl of Abingdon, 1681-8

Norreys’ efficiency in ensuring College’s conviction earned him the esteem of a number of ministers. Over the next few months rumours circulated that he was one of two peers soon to be promoted to earldoms. By February 1682 it was said that this would happen around Easter but that Norreys was vexed by reports that Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden, was to be advanced to an earldom before him. Over the next few weeks the two men fought a rather undignified battle at court in the hopes of pipping the other to the post. HMC Rutland, ii. 59, 65-67, 69; CSP Dom. 1681, pp. 374-5; Belvoir Castle, Rutland mss, letters xix. f. 61. For all this, it was not until the close of the year that Norreys was finally rewarded with promotion to the earldom of Abingdon, being one of an ‘abundance of new lords and alterations’ made at that time. His promotion was marked by the lighting of celebratory bonfires in Oxford and Bicester. Verney ms mic. M636/36, E. to Sir R. Verney, 19 Apr. 1682; A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 24 Apr. 1682; M636/37, newsletter, 30 Nov. 1682; Sir R. to J. Verney, 7 Dec. 1682; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 550. In securing the promotion he was indebted to Danby’s eager petitioning on his behalf, though it was also said that he owed his advancement to the interest of George Savile, marquess of Halifax. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 436-7; HMC Rutland, ii. 59; Arch. 2nd ser. viii. 167. In the intervening period he continued to exert his authority in the area and in early summer he entertained the Moroccan ambassador at Rycote. HMC Le Fleming, 187; Bodl. Wood d19(3), f. 52. Norreys’ interest was also sought by Danby’s son, Peregrine Osborne, styled Viscount Dunblane (later 2nd duke of Leeds), who was engaged in a case before the court of delegates over his elopement with Bridget Hyde. Add. 38849, f. 179.

By 1683 Abingdon’s star was firmly in the ascendant. In May of that year he and his countess played hostess to the duke and duchess of York during their progress through Oxfordshire. Verney Mems. ii. 338-9; Verney ms mic. M636/37, E. to J. Verney, 21 May 1683; Bodl. Wood d19(3), f. 53. In August it was reported that although the king refused to accept an address from the city of Oxford, he received the county address presented by Abingdon ‘very graciously’ though a minor disturbance then ensued when Abingdon passed out having been refused leave to kiss the king’s hand. Verney ms mic. M636/38, E. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 16 Aug. 1683. In the wake of the Rye House Plot Abingdon was actively engaged in hunting down exclusionists such as Brome Whorwood. In doing so he responded to his brief with characteristic vim and sent a flurry of reports to Secretary Jenkins revealing likely conspirators. CSP Dom. 1683 Jan.-June, pp. 353-4; CSP Dom. 1683 July-Sept. p. 1.

In spite of the opposition of Whig magnates such as Lovelace, in 1684 Abingdon was able to persuade Oxford’s town council to surrender their charter, having previously promised them that they would lose nothing from the old charter and benefit from the addition of several new grants. Prideaux Letters, 136; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 465. Wrangling over the new charter involved Abingdon in running disputes both with the town authorities and with the university, which was particularly concerned over aspects of security. The town objected to the university’s apparent dominance and resented the prospect of a nightly curfew from nine at night, which they complained was ‘clearly against law & such a slavery that none of his Majesty’s subjects any where do or can endure.’ Bodl. Top. Oxon. C. 325, f. 32. The process clearly took its toll on the fragile Abingdon and although he was assured of the king’s continuing favour by his half-brother, Lindsey, and that the conclusion should be to his satisfaction, Abingdon seems to have shared the city’s disgust at the shortcomings of the new charter. He considered the settlement to be ‘so ill that he told his majesty that he had thereby put him out of all capacity to serve him any further in that country.’ Bodl. ms Eng.lett. e.129, f. 122-3; Verney ms mic. M636/38, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 17 Apr. 1684. The whole experience caused Abingdon to complain that ‘I have had more trouble [over this business], than in any other in all my ten years’ service in that county.’ CSP Dom. 1684-5, pp. 12-13.

However discontented he was by the city charter affair, by 1685 Abingdon’s interest in Oxford was effectively unrivalled. On Charles II’s death, despite his misgivings about James II’s Catholicism, Abingdon oversaw the proclamation of the new king in Oxford. Bodl. Wood d19(3), f. 62. He also assured Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, of his unswerving loyalty to the new king. Add. 15892, f. 220. The elections of that year demonstrated both Abingdon’s willingness to uphold the court and the strength of his interest in the area. Corresp. Henry earl of Clarendon and James earl of Abingdon ed. C.E. Doble, 255. He was able to rely on loyal agents such as John Cary to establish his nominees and he also made use of his relation, the dowager countess of Rochester, though she professed that she had ‘no power’ being ‘already a dead woman.’ TNA, C104/110.

Abingdon took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament when he was introduced in his new dignity between Rutland (as Manners had since become) and Charles Dormer, 2nd earl of Carnarvon. Present on 60 per cent of all sitting days in the session, his attendance of the first half of the session was brought to an early halt by Monmouth’s Rebellion which necessitated his return to Oxford to marshal the local militia. On 18 June he registered his proxy with Carnarvon, which was vacated when he resumed his seat following the adjournment on 9 November. Punctilious in mobilizing the forces in Oxford, Abingdon oversaw the raising of new troops from the university, including a troop placed under the command of his 13-year-old son Montagu Bertie, later Venables Bertie, styled Lord Norreys (the future 2nd earl of Abingdon). Clarendon-Abingdon Corresp. 272; Bodl. Clarendon. 155, f. 63; Bodl. Top. Oxon. C. 325, f. 41; Seventeenth Century Oxford, iv. 912. Other members of the Bertie clan also made a fine display in the ranks of militia officers with Charles Bertie commenting to Rev. William Moore that ‘I see my br[other] Abingdon defended with a life guard of his two brothers & if you want another officer I desire to have the honour to serve as the 3rd brother under Lord Abingdon’s command.’ Add. 38012, ff. 3-4. Abingdon himself was frustrated at the king’s command that he remain in Oxford to secure the city, and he complained to Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, that ‘it was a great satisfaction to me to think I should be by my brothers in this action so I hope his Majesty will not think fit to coop me up here longer than till the place is secured.’ Bodl. Top. Oxon. C. 325, f. 46. Abingdon’s assiduous rooting out of Quakers (and presumably other Dissenters) before 1685 meant that when he was ordered to imprison all nonconformist preachers during the crisis, he reported that he could find none. Seventeenth Century Oxford, iv. 883; Clarendon-Abingdon Corresp. 262n; Add. 15892, f. 220. His efficiency in the face of national crisis was thrown into sharp relief by the panic evident in some quarters of the government. Clarendon complained ‘how ill it looks that his Majesty’s enemies can give such exact accounts of the rebels when we who are his servants can speak nothing certain.’ Bureaucratic muddling resulted in Abingdon’s new militia bands being equipped with matchlock muskets from the arsenal at Windsor, but with no match. Add. 15892, ff. 216, 227. Reports that the rebels had been defeated on 1 July were later proved false but in response to the tidings Abingdon provided an entertainment for the mayor and members of the corporation, ordered a bonfire to be made at Carfax and for the bells to be rung. Ath. Ox. i. ciii.

On the death of Abingdon’s half-brother, Richard Bertie, in 1686, Lindsey proposed his son, Philip Bertie^‡, for the now vacant seat at Woodstock through Abingdon’s interest, ‘that it may be more for your honour and interest to have one of your own name and family, who will absolutely depend upon your advice then a stranger or a country gentleman who will not bee so much at your devotion.’ Bodl. ms Eng. lett. e.129, f. 118. Rather than his nephew, Abingdon sought to secure the seat for his son Norreys despite the fact that the boy was only 13 years old. He approached the dowager countess of Rochester for her help in obtaining Lichfield’s support for the scheme. E. Corbett, History of Spelsbury, including Dean, Fulwell and Ditchley, 176-7; TNA, C104/110. In the event the seat remained unfilled until after the Revolution at which time Norreys was successful in securing one of the Berkshire seats, although still significantly underage. HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 633.

Abingdon’s loyalty to James II was steadily undermined by the king’s policy of toleration for Catholics. Early in 1687 he was assessed as being opposed to repeal of the Test. In May he was included among those in opposition to the king’s policies and he continued to feature in similar lists in November and January of the following year. He was one of those to be subjected to private interviews with the king to press him to change his views but he proved unwilling to do so or to put the king’s three questions to the Oxfordshire gentry. HMC Lindsey suppl. 270-2. In August he was dismissed from his lieutenancy, despite initial indications that the king was minded to leave him in post. He was replaced by Lichfield. Clarendon-Abingdon Corresp. 254; CSP Dom. June 1687-Feb 1689, p. 106; Verney ms mic. M636/42, J. to Sir R. Verney, 10 Aug. 1687; Add. 34510, f. 49. Although out of office, Abingdon remained outwardly on close terms with the king. In September he expressed his gratitude for the king’s enquiry after his health following yet another illness and took the opportunity to assure George Legge, Baron Dartmouth, of his continuing loyalty. Staffs. RO, Legge pprs. DW1778/I/i/1225. The same month it was related that the king had personally come to Abingdon’s assistance while visiting Banbury by shooting dead a bulldog that was worrying Abingdon’s horse. This may have been the same incident referred to by Dunblane when he noted his relief at Abingdon’s survival after a fall considering that ‘such an accident to his bulk might [have], proved dangerous.’ Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 42, f. 284; HMC Lindsey suppl. 49.

Despite such professions of loyalty, removal from office undoubtedly affected Abingdon’s willingness to serve, while his intransigence clearly riled the king. Following the removal of the Protestant fellows of Magdalen, Abingdon earned a reprimand for sending to the displaced scholars that he wished ‘he had preferments for ’em all, but since he had not, that they should be welcome at his house to beef & mutton.’ Verney Mems. ii. 455-6; Verney ms mic. M636/42, J. to Sir R. Verney, 25 Nov. 1687. The Catholic landlord of the Mitre Inn responded even more intemperately and provoked a riot by declaring that he wished to wash his hands in Abingdon’s blood. Ironically, it was his perceived unpopularity at court that had encouraged his election as high steward of Oxford earlier in the year. He was greeted with an address by his former adversary William Wright describing him as the ‘darling of this city.’ VCH Oxon. iv. 124-5, 179.

We… have sought & gained… the protection of one of the greatest men, a person who for his temperate zeal for the established religion his firm adherence to the laws of England & his steady & unshaken loyalty to the crown is deservedly the glory of the present & will be the wonder as well as the example of all succeeding generations. Bodl. Top. Oxon. c. 325, f. 68.

In response, in January 1688 the Privy Council ordered 31 city councillors, most of them adherents of Abingdon, to be removed. VCH Oxon. iv. 124-5. Abingdon himself seems to have had his election as high steward overturned by the king and he was replaced (briefly) by Lichfield.

Revolution, 1688-99

Encomiums in his honour by Exclusionists like Wright proved only to be the beginning of Abingdon’s unexpected transformation into a focus for opposition. In the autumn of 1688 he found himself aligned with his old rivals Lovelace and Wharton in working to further the invasion of William of Orange. Earlier that year Abingdon had been the recipient of a letter lauding Prince William’s qualities as the man ‘designed by fate to rescue Europe from the yoke of popery.’ Add. 14316, ff. 5-6. Such propaganda seems to have done its work effectively. Following the news of the prince’s landing, Abingdon was one of those to respond to the king’s summons to attend a meeting of leading peers but he almost immediately afterwards beat his way westwards to join the prince’s army. Add. 34510, ff. 166-7, 179-82; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 476-7; Eg. 3335, ff. 57-58; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, series II, box 4, folder 189. Other members of his family (with the exception of Lindsey who for the while sat on his hands) were equally forward in espousing the invasion and Abingdon’s decision also seems to have encouraged a number of his neighbours in Wiltshire to follow suit. Just as important no doubt was a sizeable contribution for Prince William’s war chest of £30,000. Morrice, Entr’ing Bk. iv. 350; Davenport, Oxfordshire Lords Lieutenant, 7n. Abingdon’s abandonment of James II was a severe blow to the regime. Cumulatively, the loss of men of his stamp along with Sir Edward Seymour, and the king’s own nephew, Edward Hyde, Viscount Cornbury (later 3rd earl of Clarendon), helped to persuade the king that he had no option but to flee. For the prince, Abingdon’s defection was as welcome as it was upsetting for James as he was known to be in close contact with both Danby, then heading the revolt in the north, and Clarendon. Burnet, iii. 355n.

For all his disappointment with James’s regime, at no stage did Abingdon support moves to replace the king with his nephew. His intention seems always to have been the summoning of a free Parliament to secure the Protestant religion and the majority of the Bertie clan took the same view. K. Feiling, Hist. Tory Party: 1640-1714, pp. 496-8. In September 1688 Abingdon’s heir, Norreys, had treated the Oxfordshire gentlemen to ‘a noble feast’ to help secure the selection of his uncle, Henry Bertie as one of the candidates in the anticipated new Parliament. Bodl. Wood diaries 32, f. 20. Having returned to London towards the end of December, Abingdon took his seat at the opening of the Convention, after which he was present on approximately 39 per cent of all sitting days. In the grand committee chaired by Danby on 29 Jan. 1689 considering the Commons’ proposal that King James be declared to have ‘abdicated’ his throne, Abingdon and Charles Gerard, earl of Macclesfield, were reported as making ‘several sharp speeches’ which ‘made the bishops a little uneasy.’ Bodl. Rawl. D 1079, f. 4. He then joined with Danby in voting in favour of establishing a regency. Two days later in a division held in a committee of the whole he voted against inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen. On 4 Feb. he voted once more against concurring with the Commons’ use of the term ‘abdicated’. He voted the same way on 6 Feb. and then subscribed the protest against the Lords’ eventual decision to accede to the Commons’ motion. Ibid. f. 14b. On 3 Apr. he was entrusted with the proxy of Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, which was vacated by Ailesbury’s resumption of his place on 15 April. At the close of May he voted against reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates. Abingdon was absent from most of the remainder of the session after 7 June. On 10 June he registered his proxy with Carnarvon and on 30 July Carnarvon exercised the proxy to vote in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill reversing Oates’s perjury conviction.

Despite his opposition to the adoption of King William and his own misgivings about the wisdom of accepting a place under the new regime, Abingdon was restored to his Oxfordshire lieutenancy, to which was joined the office of custos rotulorum. State Letters of Henry Earl of Clarendon, ii. 328-9; CSP Dom. 1689-90, pp. 21, 64, 181. His authority in the county was questioned by one John Westmoreland, who criticized that ‘the safety of the kingdom is not looked after in Oxfordshire as it ought to be when the Lord Abingdon is lord lieutenant.’ Add. 38849, ff. 193-5. Such a view reflected the criticisms of men such as Robert Pawlin, former assistant to the mayor of Oxford, who made much of Abingdon’s volte face in deserting James II and rallying to William of Orange: ‘pray don’t mistake, it is not men’s early going into the prince that can compensate for their former wickedness … It appears by some persons’ discontent since that they went in because it was not safe to do otherwise.’ Eg. 3337, f. 110. Pawlin had reason to dislike Abingdon. Having lost his place at Oxford, he had been committed to prison on Abingdon’s order, from which his friends extricated him by a writ of habeas corpus. Add. 21507, f. 55. With considerable opposition ranged against him and a number of other influential peers in the county willing to exercise their interest to his detriment, Abingdon was unable to dominate in Oxfordshire quite so completely after 1688 as he had in the years immediately before the Revolution. He remained, nevertheless, a significant figure both in the country and at court where he was reported to be a favourite of Princess Anne. Browning, ii. 220. He was also able to use his interest to secure a royal pardon for two local men, William Gilman and William Dyche, despite satisfaction in the vicinity that they had been justly convicted. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 504.

Abingdon resumed his seat for the final day of the first session of the Convention (thereby vacating his proxy). He then took his seat at the opening of the second session on 23 Oct. 1689 after which he was present on approximately 41 per cent of all sitting days. He was classed by Carmarthen (as Danby had become) as a court supporter in a list of October 1689 to February 1690. On 12 Nov. 1689 he appears to have attempted to avoid voting on the question of the validity of the patent for an English peerage claimed by Richard Grahme^‡, Viscount Preston, by joining three other peers in quitting the chamber before the question was put, but all four swiftly thought better of their actions, resuming their places and voting with the rest of the House in favour of declaring the patent null and void. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 256. Three days later Abingdon acted as one of the tellers for the division whether to recommit the clandestine marriages bill (which was carried by 24 votes to 15). On 3 Dec. he requested the House’s leave to go into the country, though it was noted by Carmarthen that he had not sought the king’s leave to do so. He continued to attend for a further fortnight but was then missing from the attendance list for the remainder of the session. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 456; Browning, ii. 220. On 20 Dec. he again registered his proxy with Carnarvon. This may have been vacated on 23 Dec. on which day it was reported that he was involved in an exchange in the committee for examinations with Macclesfield, over the ‘murder’ of Stephen Colledge. In response to Macclesfield’s motion that the murder should be looked into, Abingdon was said to have insisted that the trial had been managed ‘with all the fairness and equity possible’ and that anyone claiming Colledge to have been murdered must dub him (Abingdon) a liar. Macclesfield then allowed the matter to drop. Abingdon’s outburst was considered by some ‘very undue language’ and emphasizes his sense of insecurity at the time. Bodl. Ballard 27, f. 88; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 305.

By the beginning of 1690 Abingdon appears to have lost patience with the new regime and he considered resigning his places. He was dissuaded from doing so by Clarendon, who feared that his ally would be replaced by Lovelace. Clarendon State Letters, ii. 377. News of the imminent dissolution prompted Abingdon’s neighbour, Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, to approach Abingdon about preparing for elections in Wiltshire, where Weymouth undertook to offer his ‘ready concurrence’ to whatever Abingdon proposed. Bodl. ms Eng. lett. d. 310, f. 219. Clarendon sought Abingdon’s interest on behalf of his son, Cornbury, for one of the county seats in Wiltshire but in the event Abingdon and his son, Norreys, left the management of the Wiltshire poll to their agents and removed to Oxfordshire to oversee the family interest there. Newberry Lib. Case mss Clarendon to Abingdon, 15 Feb. 1690; Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 24, f. 161. In mid February Carmarthen wrote to Abingdon commending his efforts in balancing ‘the interest of those ill men who would otherwise over-power most of the elections both in Oxfordshire and Berkshire’ as well as acknowledging a complaint made by Abingdon and echoed by many others that his post was being opened. Carmarthen assured him that the king had been informed though ‘whether any thing will be done in it I know not.’ Salop RO, Attingham mss Carmarthen to Abingdon, 15 Feb. 1690. The Oxfordshire poll proved heated, with both Norreys and Sir Robert Jenkinson^‡ facing fierce opposition, but in the event both were returned with substantial majorities. Bodl. Rawl. letters 48, no. 26.

Abingdon took his seat in the new Parliament on 31 Mar. 1690. Present on 72 per cent of all sitting days, in April he entered his protest against the passage of the recognition bill and also dissented when it was resolved to expunge the protestors’ reasons from the Journal. HEHL, EL 9909, HM 30659 (7). He returned to the House a few days after the opening of the second session, on 6 Oct., when he voted for the discharge of James Cecil* , 4th earl of Salisbury and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower. He then proceeded to attend on just 12 days (16 per cent of the whole) before quitting the session. On 31 Oct. he registered his proxy with Carnarvon once more, which was vacated by the close.

The death of Lady Abingdon in the summer of 1691 was ‘much bewailed’ and resulted in a paean in her praise by the poet John Dryden. Within a matter of weeks rumours circulated that Abingdon was to remarry but reports at the end of July and into early August that he was on the point of making Mrs Jephson his new countess proved inaccurate. Add. 70149, A. Pye to A. Harley, 4 June 1691; Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 29 July 1691; Sir R. to J. Verney, 3 Aug. 1691. Abingdon did not allow his grief to prevent him from continuing to attempt to further his family’s interests and in September Carmarthen approached the king on behalf of Henry Bertie for the post of commissioner of prizes, which he was sure Abingdon would welcome as ‘a favour to himself.’ Browing, ii. 207-8. His attendance also improved in the subsequent session of October 1691, of which he was present on 58 per cent of all sitting days. At the close of November Carmarthen was said to have dragged himself ‘semi-sick’ to Parliament to participate in the debate arising from the case between John Danvers and Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough) relating to the manor of Dauntsey in Wiltshire, because Abingdon had ‘an interest in the confiscated goods’. HMC 7th Rep. 209. In spite of this Monmouth achieved a narrow victory and was able to secure his rights in the estate. Towards the end of the year William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, noted Abingdon among those he expected to support his efforts to secure restitution of property alienated from his family during the 1650s. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. Abingdon was absent from the final days of the session and on 1 Feb. 1692 he registered his proxy with Lindsey, which was vacated by the close.

In advance of the new session, Abingdon was appealed to by Carmarthen not just to attend himself but also to ensure that as many others as he could persuade would also make a point of being present. Absentees, Carmarthen warned, ‘will be very particularly remarked by his majesty.’ Add. 46541, f. 11. Abingdon took his seat accordingly once more on 22 Nov. 1692, after which he was present on 41 per cent of all sitting days. On 31 Dec. he voted in favour of committing the place bill and on 3 Jan. 1693 he voted in favour of passing the measure. He then registered his dissent when it was rejected. The following month, on 4 Feb. he voted with the majority in finding Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder. Two days later he registered his proxy with Lindsey again, which was vacated by the close of the session.

Abingdon spent much of the summer at Rycote, prompting a complaint from Weymouth about ‘how melancholy’ Wiltshire appeared in his absence and hoping that he would soon take up residence there again. Bodl. Tanner 25, f. 82; ms Eng. lett. d. 310, f. 220. Lovelace’s death that summer encouraged Carmarthen to approach the king to confer the now vacant chief justiceship on Abingdon, which was granted to him a few weeks later. Browning, ii. 216, 224-5; Verney ms mic. M636/47, J. to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1693; Bodl. ms Eng. lett. e. 129, f. 114; CSP Dom. 1693, p. 404. Abingdon took his place in the subsequent session on 21 Nov. 1693, of which he attended just under 23 per cent of all sitting days. Early in December his brother, Lindsey, asked him to interpose with the House to excuse his absence owing to an attack of gout and to assure the Lords that he had sent up his proxy. The proxy was registered with Abingdon shortly after on 18 Dec. and vacated by the close. Bodl. ms Eng. lett. e. 129, ff. 116, 120-1.

Abingdon’s own health took a turn for the worse midway through the session and he was consequently absent for much of January 1694. On 9 Jan. it was reported that he was ‘much out of order’ suffering from ‘a great stoppage of his lungs’. HMC Rutland, ii. 153. His condition clearly improved over the next few weeks and he was able to resume his place on 31 Jan. after which he was present for a further eight days of the session. The spring of 1694 found Abingdon involved with family matters again as various members of the Bertie family struggled to mediate between Lindsey and his son, Robert Bertie, styled Baron Willoughby d’Eresby (later duke of Ancaster and Kesteven). Verney ms mic. M636/47, countess of Lindsey to Sir R. Verney, 10 Mar. 1694.

Abingdon took his seat in the new session on 18 Dec. after which he was present on 48 per cent of all sitting days. The death of Queen Mary ten days later created problems for a number of Tories who had relied on her to lend legitimacy to the regime and on 21 Jan. 1695, in alliance with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, Abingdon moved the House for a day to consider the state of the nation. Add. 46527, f. 47; Add. 29574, f. 376; Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 144. Two days later he acted as one of the tellers in the division concerning an amendment to the treason trials bill. The following month Abingdon was perhaps unsurprisingly one of several peers to take a close interest in the attempt by Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, to secure a writ of summons and he joined with Thomas Tufton, 6th earl of Thanet, in opposing Rochester’s motion that abeyant baronies should not be revived without the king’s declaration. Add. 29565, f. 518. Abingdon failed to attend for the entirety of April but on 10 Apr. he registered his proxy with Carnarvon once more, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 1 May. His return to the House proved fleeting and he was again missing from the attendance list after 2 May though he does appear to have attended the House at least once more in the session as the following day he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning Leeds’ impeachment. In this matter he seems, unsurprisingly, to have been active on his kinsman’s behalf. Add. 28053, f. 341.

Abingdon spent the early part of the summer of 1695 engaged with overseeing his responsibilities as chief justice in eyre and in July he set out on a tour of the forests under his jurisdiction in company with Sir Edward Seymour. Add. 72532, ff. 172-3. Their progress was commended by Weymouth who pointed out that they were indulging in ‘the only innocent hunting because they break no hedges nor spoil corn.’ Add. 75368, Weymouth to Halifax, 6 July 1695. Attendance to his new role did not prevent him from continuing to take a close interest in affairs in Oxford and in September he was congratulated by the duke of Leeds (as Carmarthen had since become) for his successful handling of the mayoral election, which Leeds hoped would be ‘a good prognostic of your power for Parliament men’. Leeds then continued to recommend Sir Francis Child^‡ to Abingdon’s notice as one of the candidates at Devizes. Add. 46541, ff. 56-57.

Despite such high profile backing, Child was unsuccessful at Devizes in the general election. Elsewhere, Abingdon’s interest was also sought in Berkshire where Sir William Trumbull^‡ intended to stand as one of the shire knights. HMC Downshire, i. pt 2. 549. Abingdon complimented Trumbull on his resolution not to stand in the county ‘without the general consent of the gentlemen’, which he hoped would be forthcoming if a meeting could be arranged. He later undertook to support Trumbull’s candidacy for Oxford University when Berkshire proved difficult. Abingdon enjoyed an easier time of it in Oxford and at Woodstock where the return of his second son, James Bertie^‡ met with little opposition. Add. 72534, ff. 84-85; Add. 72533, ff. 183-4; Bodl. Tanner 24, f. 83; Add. 18675, ff. 42-43. He was able to assist at the county poll for Buckinghamshire as well, where Leeds’ son-in-law, James Herbert^‡ faced fierce competition from candidates backed by Wharton. Wharton and Abingdon had also gone head to head earlier in the summer over the election of a new mayor at Oxford. The election was said to have left ‘the candidates’ purses bleeding pretty freely’ but once again Abingdon was able to demonstrate his greater interest in the city over his kinsman and secure the return of his nominee. Robbins, Wharton, 86-87, 90, 94; Add. 46541, ff. 56-57.

Abingdon took his seat a month into the new Parliament on 27 Dec. 1695, after which he was present on 55 per cent of all sitting days. His delayed return to the capital may have been connected with his role in presenting the mayor and aldermen of Oxford to the king on his visit to the city early in November, which coincided with the appointment of Leeds and other peers as doctors of law. Bodl. Ballard 5, f. 89.

Unlike a number of other Tories who baulked at subscribing this latest declaration of loyalty to King William, Abingdon responded to news of the Assassination Plot by signing the Association in March 1696. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 29. Abhorrence of the plot in no way altered Abingdon’s essentially Tory outlook and five days after he had taken his seat in the new session on 23 Nov. 1696 he registered his dissent at the resolution to pass the Whig-inspired coinage bill. He then turned his attention to opposing the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡. On 15 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution to read Goodman’s information and three days later dissented again at the resolution to read the Fenwick attainder a second time. On 23 Dec. he voted against passing the bill and then subscribed the ensuing protest. The role of Abingdon and several of his kinsmen in opposing the king’s policies in the previous session provoked an exasperated complaint from William the following April (1697) in which he vented how ‘the whole family of Berties’ had been in opposition during the session. It was in part this that led to Abingdon’s dismissal from his Oxfordshire lieutenancy and his post of chief justice in favour of Wharton during the year. Horwitz, 193; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 123.

Abingdon took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec. 1697, after which he proceeded to attend on 55 per cent of all sitting days. In January 1698 he was involved in a family suit resulting from the marriage of his younger son, James Bertie, to Elizabeth Willoughby. According to the will of her great-uncle, in the event of Elizabeth Willoughby refusing to marry Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford, her inheritance was to pass to her kinsman, Lucius Henry Carey, 6th Viscount Falkland [S] (later titular earl of Falkland in the Jacobite peerage). Although the court of chancery concluded in Falkland’s favour, Abingdon resolved to challenge the judgment in the Lords. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, newsletter, 29 Jan. 1698; Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 44, ff. 23-24. It was presumably in relation to this that he appealed the following month for Weymouth to travel up from Longleat to take his seat in the House but Weymouth declined, pleading poor health, as did Charles Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea, who appeared disinclined to rally to Abingdon’s cause. Bodl. ms Eng. lett. d. 310, f. 222; Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 17, ff. 257-8. In spite of this on 17 Mar. James Bertie was successful in overturning the judgment, though the conclusion was thought by at least one commentator to be ‘a strange sentence’ and one that ‘will be treasured up against a time when it shall be thought proper to find fault with the Lords’ judicature.’ Abingdon and his sons were also fortunate to escape serious censure for the paper that had been circulated by Robert Bertie^‡ in support of his brother’s case. Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss vol. 1 (46), no. 84; CSP Dom. 1698, p. 162. Even so, Abingdon was compelled to offer his submission to the House on Robert’s behalf or, as Sir Miles Cooke phrased it, ‘a sacrifice of the father for the sin of the son’. CSP Dom. 1698, p. 173; Luttrell, iv. 359. The same month, Abingdon joined with those voting against committing the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe.^‡ On 11 Apr. he was entrusted with the proxy of James Tuchet, 15th Baron Audley, which was vacated by Audley’s resumption of his seat on 3 May, and towards the end of the session he moved for an address to be presented to the king to use his influence with the king of France to stop the persecution of Protestants. In this he was supported by Edward Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, and by Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, but the motion attracted significant opposition and was rejected. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 378; HMC Downshire, i. 776; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 14 May 1698. On 7 May he acted as one of the tellers for the division whether to appoint a date for the next sitting after the adjournment. Four days later he registered his proxy with Leeds, which was transferred to Carnarvon on 22 June. The reason for this switch is not clear as Leeds continued to attend beyond this date and seems not to have been in receipt of any other proxies at the time.

That summer, Abingdon was again active in canvassing for those in his interest during the elections for the new Parliament. Towards the end of July 1698 he was at Ailesbury in company with Sir John Verney^‡ (later Viscount Fermanagh [I]) and Carnarvon in support of William Cheyne^‡, styled Lord Cheyne (later 2nd Viscount Newhaven [S]). Verney ms mic. M636/50, Sir J. Verney to Dr Woodhouse, 23 July 1698. Fears that his interest might come under sustained assault in Oxfordshire proved misplaced, though he narrowly avoided fighting a duel with the disappointed Sir John Cope^‡. Bodl. Ballard 4, f. 34; Verney ms mic. M636/50, R. Palmer to Sir J. Verney, 23 Aug. 1698. Abingdon took his seat in the new Parliament on 29 Nov. but he sat for just ten days (12 per cent of the whole) before attending for the last time on 8 Feb. 1699. On his final day in the House Abingdon voted against accepting the committee recommendation to assist the king to retain his Dutch guards. Later that month he was one of several peers excused attendance at the trial of Edward Rich, 6th earl of Warwick and Holland, on the grounds of ill health. This time, he failed to rally. In the middle of March he was described as being ‘very lame’. Two months later he was struck down with ‘an ague and a most violent fever’. Bodl. Tanner 22, f. 6; Add. 75369, R. Crawford to Halifax, 18 May 1699. By the middle of May 1699 it was thought that he had succeeded in shaking off this latest attack but on 18 May his heir was sent for; Abingdon died four days later. Bodl. Carte 228, f. 311; Add. 75369, Sir G. Rooke to Halifax, 18 and 23 May 1699.

A year before his death, Abingdon had married for the second time (reports of the expected alliance had circulated from the autumn of 1697). Luttrell, iv. 292; HMC Hastings, ii. 302-3. The new countess brought with her a substantial dowry but perhaps more significantly for the ailing Abingdon who had had nine children with his first wife, the former Lady Wenman was described as ‘a very excellent housewife and manager.’ HMC Hastings, ii. 302. For all his activity as one of the most vigorous local enforcers in Oxfordshire, Abingdon had always suffered from poor health. The Grey of Warke episode of the 1670s indicated the extent of his vulnerability. The fact that he was able to overcome this to become, in alliance with Leeds, the leader of one of the most significant parliamentary groupings is testimony to his energy and ambition.

Abingdon’s demise was greeted by Arthur Charlett as ‘not surprising though very afflicting news’, while Francis Gwyn regretted prosaically that Abingdon’s death had ‘deprived him of a whist player.’ Bodl. Tanner 21, f. 71; Add. 75370, F. Gwyn to Halifax, 31 May 1699. Others took a more dramatic line and one lengthy panegyric in his honour appealed to Dryden to accord to Abingdon the same distinction he had made to Abingdon’s first countess in composing a funeral eclogue. Mirana: A Funeral Eclogue Sacred to the Memory of that Excellent Lady Eleanora, Late Countess of Abingdon, (1691); Lansd. 1039, f. 3.

O Dryden! Quick the sacred pencil take,
And rise in vertue’s cause for vertue’s sake;
Of heav’n’s the song, and heav’n-born is thy muse,
Fitting to follow bliss which mine will lose. William Pittis, Epistolary Poem to John Dryden Esq; Occasion’d by the Death of the Right Honourable James Earl of Abingdon, (1699).

Abingdon lay in state at his London home in Deans Yard, Westminster before being carried to Rycote for burial. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 520; Bodl. Tanner 21, f. 69; Verney ms mic. M636/50, Sir J. Verney to W. Coleman, 30 May 1699. He was succeeded as 2nd earl of Abingdon by his eldest son, Norreys.