Much of Essex’s early life was coloured by the civil wars, where his father’s active involvement in the royalist cause led to his execution following the siege of Colchester. Indeed, the young Capell may have spent some time in the Tower with his incarcerated father, prior to his execution.
From the Restoration to the fall of Clarendon: 1660-7
Capell was one of eight peers who attended at Westminster on 27 Apr. 1660 ‘ready to attend the service of this House having never sat in Parliament since the death of their ancestors’, and who were admitted to take their seats. Given the fate of his father, this was a very significant act of reconciliation.
With the monarchy restored, the death of Capell’s father became an issue during the discussions of the indemnity bill. On 18 June 1660, Capell’s mother had petitioned the Lords concerning her husband’s execution, the matter being referred to the committee for privileges. On 7 July it was reported from the committee that Capell had been ‘put to death, contrary to the articles of war for the surrender of Colchester, without any authority from any legal power,’ and that the judges and signatories should be brought into custody.
When the House resumed on 6 Nov. 1660, Capell attended for the first time on 15 Nov., being present on a further 20 days, a little over 44 per cent of the total. He was named to four committees in December 1660. On 13 Dec. he signed a protest against the passage of the bill to vacate the fines of Sir Edward Powell. Just prior to the coronation, on 20 Apr. 1661, Capell was created earl of Essex, the warrant making explicit that this was ‘for the extraordinary merits, services and sufferings of his father.’
Essex attended on the opening day of the new Parliament, 8 May 1661, attending 34 days of the session before the adjournment on 30 July, some 52 per cent of the total. He was introduced into the House as earl of Essex by Northumberland and Suffolk on 11 May. He was named to only three committees during this part of the session. On 11 July he voted against the case of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, for the great chamberlaincy. When the House resumed on 20 Nov. 1661, Essex was absent until 7 Dec., being excused attendance on 25 November. He attended on 65 days of the session that lasted until the prorogation on 19 May 1662, some 51 per cent of the total, and was named to six committees. On 6 Feb. 1662, Essex again signed a protest against the passage of the bill restoring Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, to his estate in Flintshire. On 19 May he signed a protest against dropping the two provisos added by the Lords to the bill for mending common highways, which the Commons had objected to as ‘assessing the Commons,’ the protest making reference to the need to assert the privileges of the House.
Essex attended on 16 days of the 1663 session, nearly 19 per cent of the total and was named to two committees. He was a better attender in the 1664 session, when he attended on 33 days of the session, nearly 92 per cent of the total and was named to five committees. He did not attend the session of 1664-65 at all, and was excused attendance on the House on 7 Dec. 1664. Nor did he attend the short session of Parliament held in October 1665. He may well have been abroad at this time. He was certainly in France by 1666, when a newsletter of 7 Apr. noted that Essex had gone post from Paris for England via Calais, upon the incorrect news of the death of the earl of Northumberland.
Essex attended the opening two days of the 1666-67 session, on the second of which, 21 Sept. 1666, he and William Russell, 5th earl of Bedford, introduced Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, into the House. He was then absent for the next 10 sittings, being excused attendance on 1 October. From 12 Oct. 1666 he attended on most days. On 15 Oct. Essex and William Craven, earl of Craven, introduced Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington, into the House. On 29 Dec. he was appointed to report from the conference with the Commons on the impeachment of John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt. On 23 Jan. 1667 he entered his dissent from the resolution not to add a clause granting a right of appeal to the king and the Lords to the bill for the fire court. On 24 Jan. he was named by the Lords as one of their commissioners in the bill for examining the public accounts. Altogether, Essex attended on 58 days of the session, nearly 64 per cent of the total, and was named to 18 committees. He also attended the Lords on 29 July 1667, one of the two days of the short session called so that Charles II could inform Parliament of the peace with the Dutch.
Essex attended on 45 days of the first part of the 1667-9 session, some 88 per cent of the total. He intervened in the committee on 30 Oct. 1667 investigating the abuses among colliers, woodmongers and butchers to point out that the corporation of oastmen at Newcastle, under a patent of Elizabeth, ‘would not suffer any ships to pass out of the harbour but by their licence and regulation,’ but the committee never reported to the House. On 15 Nov. he was named to manage a conference about committing Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. This led to his appointment to manage or report further conferences on this matter on 19, 21 and 27 November. On 24 Nov. his father-in-law, Northumberland, registered his proxy with Essex, vacating it on 26 November. On 14 Dec. Essex was named to a committee to draw up the reasons why the Lords dissented to the vote by the Commons asking the king to issue a proclamation for Clarendon to appear by a certain day and for his arrest. On 16 Dec. he chaired the committee on the bill for settling lands on Sir Richard Wiseman‡ and John Plot to enable them to perform a trust, reporting it on the following day. On 16 Dec. he also chaired the committee on the bill for the taxing and assessing the lands of the adventurers within the Great Level of the fens, when a sub-committee was appointed, including Essex, to hear the parties concerned and to present proposals to the committee.
Marking time, 1668-72
Essex benefited from the fall of Clarendon, a warrant being issued on 22 Feb. 1668 for Essex to replace him as lord lieutenant of Wiltshire, a place he retained until his appointment as lord lieutenant of Ireland.
On 13 July 1669 Essex was reported to be preparing for his embassy to Copenhagen, but he repeatedly delayed.
Essex was still in England for the start of the next parliamentary session, and attended on 34 days of the first part of the 1670-1 session, before its adjournment on 11 Apr. 1670, 85 per cent of the total. He was appointed to 20 committees during this part of the session. On 22 Feb. 1670 he chaired a committee of the whole on the vexed question as to whether the House should erase their proceedings in Skinner’s case to restore relations with the Commons, and voted against the successful motion that they do so.
marriage bond was broken (like as peace between Princes) not when the fact was committed, but when the injured party makes his claim to the judge, who cannot deny justice being asked it. So that the act of adultery does but put the husband in the advantage to take the forfeiture, if, and when, he pleases. … The inconveniences are cured when it shall be restrained to the relief by particular bill in a Parliament and no general law made in the case ... It may prevent the growing of the foreign practice of poisoning and killing wives.Harris, Sandwich, ii. 319, 327.
On 18 Mar. Essex reported from a committee of the whole on the bill for advancing the sale of fee farm rents that they needed legal advice, so the bill was referred to a select committee. On 22 Mar. he was added to the bill on the Brandon and Waveney navigation bill, effectively also adding him to committee on the bill for improving tillage, which he chaired on 23 Mar. and reported on 25 March. He received the proxy of Ailesbury (24 Mar., vacated 10 Nov.) and of William Cavendish, 3rd earl of Devonshire, (25 Mar., vacated 9 April). On 26 Mar. Essex entered his dissent against the passage of the bill to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles. On 30 Mar. he was named to manage a conference on a naturalization bill. He was also named to report the conferences on the Lords’ amendments to the conventicles bill on 30 Mar. and 4 April. On 31 Mar. Essex chaired the first of six meetings to consider the additional bill for the rebuilding of the City of London, before reporting it on 8 April.
Essex finally set out on his embassy on 22 Apr. 1670, returning to England in late August.
Having returned from his embassy, when the House resumed in October 1670, Essex sat on 110 days of the remainder of the session of 1670-1, 88 per cent of the total. He was named to 39 committees during this part of the session. As in previous sessions he was an active member of committees. He reported from the committee for petitions (11 Nov.) and during December chaired committees on bills to prevent the export of wool, to prevent frauds and abuses committed by servants (reported 10 Jan. 1671), for the discovery of those who had defrauded the poor of the City of London of the monies given for their relief after the Plague and the Fire. He chaired this last on 12 further occasions, preparing fresh clauses for the bill, before reporting it on 13 Apr. 1671. During January 1671 he chaired the committees examining into the Hamburg Company (reported 14 and 20 Jan.) and investigating the petition of poor prisoners for debt. On 26 Jan. he was named to report a conference on the bill against maiming and wounding, and on 3 Feb. to prepare reasons for adhering to the Lords’ amendments. He was then appointed to manage the resultant conferences on 6, 8 and 11 February. On 14 and 15 Feb. he chaired the committee on the bill for re-vesting the power of granting wine licenses in the king, reporting it on the 15th.
Essex played a major role in the proceedings in the Lords following the delivery of the Commons petition for an address against the growth of popery on 21 Feb. 1671. He was named to the committee to consider the three clauses to which the House disagreed, reporting the following day (2 Mar.) and being appointed a manager of the ensuing conferences on 3 and 9 March. Later in the session, on 13 Apr., Essex was named to a sub-committee to ‘draw up the test and oath’ according to the debate in the committee to prevent the growth of popery, to which the additional bill to prevent seditious conventicles was also committed.
On 28 Feb. 1671 Essex reported the subsidy bill from a committee of the whole and on 2 Mar. he reported a conference with the Commons on the bill. On 6 Mar. he was named to report a conference on the bill for an additional excise upon beer, ale and other liquors; that day he also reported from the committee on the bill for exporting beer, ale and mum.
During April, Essex reported on the estate bill of Robert Houghton (7 Apr.) and the bill for determining differences touching burnt houses (15 April). On 13, 14 and 15 Apr. Essex chaired the committees on the bill to prevent the planting of tobacco in England, and to regulate the plantation trade, and on the ‘additional’ bill to prevent the export of wool.
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1672-7
Although Essex’s land holdings in Ireland were limited (amounting to 1,109 acres in or about 1675), compared to those of James Butler, duke of Ormond, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, or even William Wentworth, earl of Strafford, it made him a candidate for the lieutenancy in place of John Berkeley, baron Berkeley of Stratton.
Soon after his arrival Essex fell seriously ill, leading to speculation that he would be forced to return to England.
When Parliament next sat, Essex was excused attendance on 13 Feb. 1673, as being ‘in the king’s service’. On 19 Mar. his proxy was registered with Ormond. Essex’s lieutenancy was also clearly having a favourable impact on Anglican circles. On 17 Feb. 1673, Bishop William Fuller of Lincoln, forwarded to Gilbert Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, a request from the Irish lord chancellor, Archbishop Boyle, that Sheldon take notice of Essex’s ‘great justice, and friendliness to our Church there; and that you would be pleased in the behalf of the bishops of Ireland to give him your acknowledgement of his favours to them.
Essex was soon facing the perennial problem of an Irish viceroy, attempting to govern a kingdom when real power was retained in England. In the spring of 1673, Essex was much vexed by reports that Phoenix Park, adjourning Dublin Castle, would be granted by the king to the duchess of Cleveland and her sons. Essex vehemently opposed this, even if the grant were only to become operational after he had relinquished the office of lord lieutenant.
The death of the dowager duchess of Somerset on 24 Apr. 1674 (Essex’s sister, Mary, had been married to one of her sons, Henry Seymour, styled Lord Beauchamp) saw Essex interested in the possible purchase of her London residence, Essex House.
On 28 Jan. 1675 the lord treasurer, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, reassured Essex that rumours naming various successors to him, were merely ‘idle reports’, which had given the king an excuse to express ‘the value and esteem he had both for your person and service.’ With Parliament due to sit in April 1675, Danby was keen that Essex would ‘by your letters influence as many of your friends as you can … to assist the making this next session a quiet and calm one.’
On 24 Apr. 1675, Essex asked his secretary, William Harbord, for a punctual account of ‘how matters in Parliament proceed’. His knowledge of what was going on in Westminster no doubt prompted Essex to write to Shaftesbury about the case of Barrett v. Loftus depending before the Lords. He had examined this case himself, with the help of two judges, and thought Loftus’s agent would show him the resultant report of August 1674.
By May 1675, Essex thought it necessary to visit England. Primarily, he seems to have been worried about the Irish revenue farm, and felt that the only way to prevent abuses was to attend personally on the king and the lord treasurer. There had also been some debate as to whether an Irish Parliament should sit in September and the necessary preparations would detain Essex in Ireland.
Essex left Ireland on 9 July 1675 for London, where he had arrived by 24 July. He was confident that his stay would be short.
This delay meant that Essex was on hand for the session of October and November 1675, of which he attended on all 21 days, being named to 10 committees. The king also used him for other purposes. Thus, on 3 Nov. Essex was one of the Lords named by the king after a hearing in council to mediate between Thomas Colepeper, 2nd baron Colepeper, and his siblings, a dispute which was still rumbling on years later.
On 23 Nov. 1675, Essex referred to rumours that he would not be returning to Ireland, but noted that the king had told him the previous day ‘to prepare speedily for my journey.’ On 7 Dec. he felt was confident enough of his impending departure to suggest he would leave London on the 13th but he was again delayed by the uncompleted business of the Irish revenue.
On 2 Jan. 1677 Essex responded to a letter from Secretary Coventry of 26 Dec. 1676 concerning the next session of Parliament by informing him that his secretary, Sir Cyril Wyche‡, would be writing to English Members ‘acquainting them with his majesty’s pleasure’ and ordering them to be present for the beginning of the next parliamentary session. As Coventry had opined that Essex send his proxy ‘and put it into hands well inclined to his majesty’s service’, he added that he would send his proxy with Wyche, ‘and place it in such hands as his majesty shall approve.’ Wyche appears to have left Dublin on 13 Jan. 1677, and this was the date under which the proxy was registered with Ormond.
Essex was recalled in April 1677 but elected to remain in Ireland to hand over the sword of state personally to Ormond.
The Popish Plot, Exclusion and its aftermath, 1678-82
Back in England Essex divided his time between his London residence in St. James’s Square and Cassiobury.
Essex attended the adjournment of the House on 3 Dec. 1677, upon which day his proxy was vacated. When the second part of the 1677-78 session began, on 15 Jan. 1678, Essex was in place. He held Ormond’s proxy, Ormond ‘having had his in the same case’, which was dated 15 Jan. in the register but actually, according to Essex registered on 16 January.
On 5 Mar. 1678 Essex reported from committee on Shalcross’s bill. On 8 Mar. he was named to a conference on the Commons’ amendments to the bill for the better regulation of fishing and was appointed to another conference on the bill on 19 March. On 16 Mar., when the Lords considered whether to concur with the Commons in a joint address to the king asking for an immediate declaration of war against France, Southwell reported that Essex opened the debate ‘taking notice how universally the people were bent that way’, and that ‘resolutions of this nature must depend on such preparations as had been thought of’ by the king’s ministers, which brought Danby to reply. Three days later Southwell expanded on his account to note that ‘no man more vigorous than the earl of Essex to push it on, and admiring while the danger abroad was so apparent and the whole tide of the nation set in so strong that anybody could advise the contrary.’ When the Lords resumed the debate on the 18 Mar., Essex was apparently convinced by Danby’s plea not to declare war before due preparations had been made and so the address was altered from an immediate declaration of war to one with all possible speed when occasion allowed. Following this, at the Council on 20 Mar., Essex, Danby, Bridgwater and the two secretaries were commissioned by the king to meet the Dutch ambassador and the Spanish and Imperial envoys to treat about the terms of a possible alliance.
On 17 Apr. 1678, the council again considered the Irish revenue. The preceding day an order had been drawn up against Ranelagh by Anglesey, Essex and Secretary Coventry, but this was challenged by Danby, and the matter was expected to be heard again, whereupon Essex was supposedly willing to charge Ranelagh with a debt of almost £100,000. Irish revenue matters, and especially Ranelagh’s accounts, continued to concern Essex throughout the summer, more discussion taking place in June 1678.
The Lords met again on 23 May 1678, with Essex in attendance on 38 days of the session that lasted until 15 July, 88.4 per cent of the total and was named to 24 committees. On 1 June he reported from the committee on the bill to continue the act for settling the estates of intestates, reporting it again on 6 June, along with a report from the bill to prevent delays of suits. Also on 6 June he reported from the committee on the bill to enable creditors to recover debts of the executors and administrators of the executors. On 12 June he reported from the committee for privileges that the appeal of Charles Cottington from the court of delegates did not come properly before the House, which the House ordered to take into consideration on 17 June. On 15 June Essex reported from committee the estate bill of the deceased Sir Thomas Cave. On 17 June, the lord chancellor had to intervene in a quarrel between Essex and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, over some words in a debate, in order to ensure the matter went no further. On 25 June together with Shaftesbury, Wharton and two others he entered a dissent to the decision not to agree to the proviso offered by the Commons to the bill for disbanding the forces. On 27 June Essex reported a draft of an order from the committee for limiting a time for bringing in appeals from inferior courts, but the House ‘thought not fit to do any thing therein.’ On 5 July 1678 he dissented from the decision to relieve the petitioner in the case of Marmaduke Darrell v. Sir Paul Whichcot. On 8 July Essex reported from the committee on the bill for naturalizing John Schoppens and others. Also, later on 8 July, he spoke in the debate upon the appeal of Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham, against a decree in chancery in favour of Lewis Watson, the future 3rd baron Rockingham, and his wife, noting that ‘there are without doubt some cases relievable here which are not relievable below, else we must take patterns from the courts below who ought to take patterns from us’. In this case he thought there ought to have been relief below, but he was fully answered by Shaftesbury and the decree was reversed.
Essex attended on 57 days of the session held between October and December 1678, nearly 92 per cent of the total and was named to 11 committees, including one on 23 Oct. to examine into the Popish Plot, which he chaired on 24 occasions in November and December.
On 14 Nov. 1678 John Lovelace, 3rd baron Lovelace, registered his proxy with Essex, vacating it on 21 November. Throughout November and December he was deeply involved in committees and conferences relating to the Plot. On 15 Nov., in a committee of the whole, Essex voted to include the declaration against transubstantiation as part of the Test. When York was exempted from the provisions of the Test on 20 Nov., he was heard to remark that Monmouth ‘affected popularity and was great with the earl of Essex and Lord Wharton, and had reason to believe there was no ill understanding betwixt him and my Lord Shaftesbury.’
On 10 Dec. 1678, Southwell offered this assessment of the opponents of the Court, naming Halifax and Charles Powlett, 6th marquesss of Winchester, as Shaftesbury’s seconds before adding ‘but none so close, so constant, and so relied upon by him as the earl of Essex.’
On 26 Dec. 1678 Essex was listed as voting against the decision of the Lords to adhere to their amendment to the supply bill for disbanding foreign forces, relating to the payment of the taxes into the exchequer. He entered his dissent to the decision. He was then named to prepare reasons for a conference with the Commons on the bill. On 27 Dec. he voted to commit Danby following his impeachment by the Commons. On the following day he informed the House that he had received ‘out of the country’ information from Stephen Dugdale on the Plot, which was read, whereupon Essex and Bridgwater were sent by the House to the Tower to examine William Howard, Viscount Stafford, upon it, reporting back to the House later in the day. Also on the 28th, after a deadlocked conference on the disbanding bill, Essex was one of three peers appointed to draw up a proviso for preserving the king’s right in the militia, which was debated but not decided before the prorogation on 30 December.
On 31 Dec. 1678 at the Privy Council, the king appointed Anglesey, Bridgwater and Essex to the quorum of a committee to meet daily, Sundays excepted, at 9 a.m. to examine into the Plot.
Essex was present on each of the six days of the short session of 6-13 Mar. 1679, being named to three committees. Early in March 1679, Sir William Temple (newly returned to England) thought that Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and the duchess of Portsmouth had joined with Monmouth, Essex and Shaftesbury to ruin Danby.
Essex attended on 60 days of the session of March to May 1679, some 98 per cent of the total, missing only the fast day on 11 April. He was named to 11 committees during the session, plus the one on Danby noted below. On 18 Mar. Essex reported from the committee for privileges on the state of appeals and impeachments from the last Parliament, recommending that they should be proceeded with as they stood at the dissolution of the last Parliament, without beginning anew. They also found the dissolution did not alter the case of the five Lords in the Tower under a general impeachment. On 20 Mar., in the committee of the whole, Essex offered a proviso to the bill for the discovery and conviction of popish recusants exempting certain named individuals crucial to the king’s escape after the battle of Worcester.
On 24 Mar. 1679 Essex was one of three peers ordered to examine the Lords in the Tower concerning matters mentioned in a French pamphlet about the Plot. On the same day he reported from the committee appointed two days before to draft a bill disabling Danby, after the presentation of which Danby was ordered to be taken into custody. Essex then chaired at least one session of the committee of the whole on the bill on 26 March.
On 2 Apr. 1679 Essex spoke in favour of the committal of the bill to attaint Danby: ‘I agree the bill is too severe in being upon the former articles only. Yet I was last Parliament for a commitment of this case because you may as well commit for misdemeanour as for treason, it’s in your judicature. And there’s no reason to refuse committing this bill unless any will say it cannot be mended’.
On 7 Apr. Essex ‘made a self denying motion’ for leave to bring in a bill ‘to inhibit all future lord treasurers or commissioners of the treasury to make directly or indirectly, by sale of under offices or otherwise, any other benefits or advantages than their mere salaries.’
Essex was a supporter of Sir William Temple’s plan to remodel the Privy Council into a more compact body of 30, and not surprisingly, given his prominence and his treasury office, he was named on 22 Apr. to the reorganized body.
Charles II’s speech to Parliament on the 30 Apr. 1679, wherein he reiterated his support for reasonable limitations on any popish successor, was preceded on the 29th by a three-hour debate in the privy council, and was probably influenced by the views of Essex, Sunderland and Halifax who were emerging as the king’s most important counsellors.
On 3 May Conway had reported that Halifax would succeed to the Irish lieutenancy ‘by the consent and assistance of’ Monmouth, though Essex ‘contests it mightily’.
In council on 27 May, following the Commons’ vote to give a second reading to the exclusion bill a few days earlier, Essex, Sunderland and Halifax supported a prorogation.
In June Southwell reported that in a committee of the council Essex had ‘appeared passionately concerned as touched in a point of honour’ over a sum of about £13,000 that ought to have been paid by Ormond, ‘for which a letter was given him from hence, and made the only request at parting’. Southwell continued, ‘from this and some other passages the bystanders observed there is a good store of discontent lodged in that breast.’ Henry Coventry similarly wrote of Essex’s resentment over the issue. As usual, Ossory was again concerned about his father’s position, writing on 22 July that both Essex and Halifax were being touted as candidates to succeed Ormond, and further that the former, rather than getting on with the examination of the accounts, ‘defers that and insinuates things tending to his being dissatisfied with expenses lately made.’
Essex clearly continued to be an important adviser to the king. On 23 June 1679 along with Arlington, Sunderland, Halifax and Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, he was summoned by the king to discuss ‘the queen’s affairs’.
Essex continued to take an active part in all aspects of government business. On 8 July 1679 he spoke (unsuccessfully) in council in favour of the complaints by the Scottish lords against the government of John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale [S].
Robartes, as reported by Danby, noted early in August 1679 the conflict between the king’s wish to make good Danby’s pardon but also to ‘be principally advised by my Lord Halifax and Lord Essex’, who opposed it. Essex was also using his tenure at the treasury to blacken Danby’s reputation: as Danby put it, he was ‘under the blackest malice of those who are entrusted with greatest power; especially my Lord Essex, who affords me not the usage of a gentleman in the liberty he takes daily of reproaching me in the treasury with expressions neither becoming him or me’.
Halifax and Essex were among those who advised York to return to England when the king suffered a serious illness on 21 Aug., although they wanted him to retire again when the king recovered.
In October, Essex was implicated in the Meal Tub Plot.
At the Privy Council on 9 Nov. Essex was one of those to argue argued that Parliament should sit as originally planned on 26 Jan. 1680. The king, however, would not allow a debate on the matter.
According to Temple, Essex was keenly involved in the debates in council concerning Irish affairs, in part at least because he wanted to return to Ireland as lord lieutenant.
When, on 28 Jan. 1680, the king told the council that he had allowed York to return, Shaftesbury issued an appeal to some of the council to resign, including Essex.
When Shaftesbury revealed the Irish Plot to the council on 24 Mar., Essex apparently took it seriously and was named to a committee to consider information about the plans of the Roman Catholic archbishop of Armagh, Oliver Plunkett, and his clergy, to deliver the kingdom to the French.’
On 16 Apr. 1680, the dowager countess of Sunderland thought Essex ‘as much at court as if he had more employment than a Privy Councillor, and I believe he repents he is not, now he sees the king does not do irregular things, which perhaps they did fear.’
On 18 May 1680 Ossory reported from London concerning initiatives for Irish bills from London, noting that proposals for a test to exclude Catholic peers from the Irish parliament had been made by Essex who ‘will rest satisfied with having been the promoter.’
The death of Ossory on 30 July 1680 gave Essex fresh hopes for succeeding Ormond in the lieutenancy of Ireland.
Essex was one of the most prominent peers advising the king that York should return into exile before the Parliament sat.
Essex attended on the opening day of the session of 1680-1, on 21 Oct., when, together with James Cecil, 3rd earl of Salisbury, he introduced Halifax, newly promoted to an earldom, into the House. He sat on 58 days of the session, nearly 88 per cent of the total, and was named to 12 committees during the session, including the committee to receive information on the Plot, which he chaired between 4-21 Dec. and 5-8 Jan. 1681.
On 16 Nov. 1680, when the Lords proceeded to discuss other measures for securing the succession, Essex proposed ‘that an association should be entered into to maintain these expedients’ and the House agreed to consider one based on the precedents of Edward III and Elizabeth.
On 13 Dec. 1680 Essex reported from the committee examining the Plot, on the exemplary services of William Southall, coroner of Staffordshire, which resulted in a request for a reward to him from the king. On the following day he reported from the same committee on the activities of several ‘papists’, and also on the discoveries made by Oates of the estates of the Jesuits: the latter was referred to the barons of the exchequer to be proceeded upon by law. On 16 Dec. Essex reported on the proceedings against Francis Dowdall, who had claimed privilege as a servant of the Spanish ambassador, and who was ordered to return to Brussels. On 21 Dec. Essex joined Monmouth and Salisbury in attacking two of York’s most prominent supporters, Laurence Hyde and George Legge, the future Baron Dartmouth. He joined in a renewed attack on York on 23 Dec., when the House debated the king’s speech of 15 December.
On 4 Jan. 1681, Essex reported from the committee examining into the Plot some information relating to Ireland, which resulted in the House voting that there had been a plot to ‘massacre the English and subverting the protestant religion.’ On 7 Jan. he entered dissent against the failure of the Lords to put the question as to whether Lord Chief Justice Scroggs should be committed upon his impeachment by the Commons and, later, against the decision not to put the question for an address to the king to suspend Scroggs from his place.
Early in January 1681, Essex denied allegations that he had been involved in drafting articles of impeachment against Ormond. When the king declared in council on 18 Jan. his intention to dissolve Parliament, Essex was said to be one of those who would have spoken against this decision had the king allowed any debate on the matter.
Before the 1681 session, Danby included Essex amongst those ‘Lords as I conceive will be against me’, in the ensuing Parliament and on 24 Mar. Essex was one of the Lords that opposed a motion for Danby to be granted bail.
Essex attended the proceedings relating to Fitzharris in the king’s bench on 4 and 7 May 1681; he and Salisbury asked the king to allow them access to Fitzharris to discover what he knew concerning Godfrey’s murder. The king instead ordered the judges to examine him.
On 2 July 1681, Shaftesbury was arrested, apparently asking ‘if they had no warrant for some body else, particularly for the Lord of Essex; to which they gave no answer.’
In late September 1681, Essex, together with Monmouth and Russell, was named by the secretary of state, Sir Leoline Jenkins‡, as being behind the somewhat belated opposition to the London mayoral candidacy of Sir John Moore‡, who was deemed too moderate in the Whig cause. At the same time Jenkins had heard that there was talk of ‘petitioning’ again, presumably for a Parliament, and that Essex, Salisbury and Bedford had been sent for to town.
On 24 Nov. 1681 Essex attended the Old Bailey when the grand jury was considering the bill for high treason against Shaftesbury, which they subsequently found ignoramus. In December it was reported that Essex, William Howard, 3rd baron Howard of Escrick, Sir Patience Ward‡ and others were ‘taking informations daily against those that promoted the Presbyterian sham plot, which they intend to prove in Parliament by undeniable witnesses.’
The Rye House Plot
On 5 Sept. 1682, when Monmouth left London for his tour of Cheshire, Essex was one of the ‘numerous train’ that escorted him out of the city.
According to Lord Howard of Escrick’s evidence at the trial of John Hampden‡, Essex was present at a meeting held at Hampden’s house in mid-January 1683.
Essex was arrested at Cassiobury on 9 July 1683.
Essex was found with his throat cut on 13 July, leading to speculation as to whether this was a case of murder or suicide. Although suicide seems likely, the length and depth of the wound sustained suspicions of foul play.
Contemporary opinion on Essex remained divided. Francis North, Baron Guilford, on reflection, thought that
his anguish of mind was so great considering the disappointment of his ambitious designs, the stain of ingratitude that lay upon him, for conspiring to make trouble against the king that had been so bountiful a master, and the past happy condition which he had changed for so the worse, when he deserted the king’s service, that I believe he could take no rest and his life was burthensome to him.Add. 32519, f. 33.
But, as Evelyn put it, few believed that Essex and Russell had ‘any evil intention against his majesty or the Church, and some that they were cunningly drawn in by their enemies, for not approving some late councils and management of affairs in relation to France, to popery, to the prosecution of dissenters.’
For the next few years the death of Essex continued to resonate in the public mind. Periodic prosecutions occurred following the publication of tracts vindicating Essex from the crime of suicide, and accusing York of being behind the foul deed.
The controversy eventually died down. Roger Morrice recorded an unidentified knight say that he was convinced of the suicide ‘because his lady said upon her best enquiry she could see no ground to make further search after his death’.
On 2 Nov. 1689, the Lords revived the committee appointed on 5 Feb. to examine Essex’s death, but again the enquiry petered out.