The Life and Career of Arthur Annesley, Earl of Anglesey (1614-1686) Rebecca Kathern Hayes-Steuck

Home , Algernon Markham, Arthur Haselrig, Declaration of Breda, Earl of Antrim, Earl of Arran (Ireland), Earl of Arran (Scotland)

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Emerging from the Shadows: The Life and Career of Arthur Annesley, Earl of Anglesey (1614-1686) Rebecca Kathern Hayes-Steuck

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

EMERGING FROM THE SHADOWS:

THE LIFE AND CAREER OF

ARTHUR ANNESLEY, EARL OF ANGLESEY (1614-1686)

Rebecca Kathern Hayes-Steuck

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2005

______Peter Garretson Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

______C. John Sommerville Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

______James Sickinger Outside Committee Member

______Paul Strait Committee Member

______William J. Tatum Committee Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation could not have been written without the support and friendship found at Florida State and elsewhere. The love of family and friends provided my inspiration and was my driving force. It has been a long journey and completing this work is definitely a high point in my academic career. I could not have come this far without the assistance of many individuals and I want to express my deepest appreciation to them. Since the passing of my major professor, the incomparable Dr. Richard L. Greaves, I was fortunate to gain a mentor in Dr. C. John Sommerville. Ironically, it was he who started me on my path as a historian while obtaining my Bachelor’s degree at the University of Florida. His encouragement and advice led me to Florida State and Dr. Greaves. It was Dr. Greaves’ wish for Dr. Sommerville to serve as my dissertation advisor and I feel blessed to have worked with both. Without their belief in me I could not have developed confidence in my abilities as a historian and teacher and for that I am truly grateful. I have learned a great deal from them and I will never forget the valuable lessons they taught me. The faculty and staff at Florida State are the most dedicated and generous people that I have ever met and I feel honored to have worked with them. Their guidance has served me well and I owe them my heartfelt appreciation. My committee members deserve a special note of praise, for they have watched over me since my first days as a graduate student. I wish to thank Dr. Peter Garretson, Dr. Paul Strait, Dr. Jeff Tatum, and Dr. James Sickinger for providing numerous hours of advice and critiques. Their examples, as researchers and as teachers, continue to serve as guidelines for my academic career. Debbie Perry and Chris Pignatiello also deserve my sincerest thanks, their friendship and assistance has meant more to me than I could ever express. They have

iii gone above and beyond their job descriptions to help me and countless other graduate students. They are priceless treasures and the department is lucky to have them. I must also thank the Strozier librarians and staff for their assistance as well as the Congress of Graduate Students, for their grants allowed me to continue my research in London. While traveling abroad, I had great help at the following institutions. I would like to thank the staff at the British Library, London; Bodleian Library, Oxford University; Public Record Office, Kew Gardens; and the National Library of Ireland, Dublin. Their kindness and assistance will always be remembered. Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends. The people I have met while in graduate school have become my closest and dearest friends, and counselors, and to all of you I give my love and thanks. My parents, Carper and Leona Hayes, have always believed in me and helped me reach my goals. Their support forged my desire to achieve all that I could in life. I owe them everything and wish I could show them just how much I love and appreciate them. My husband, Daniel Steuck, whose love and encouragement allowed me to finish this journey, already has my heart so I will just give him a heartfelt “thanks.” Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to my lost “father,” Dr. Greaves, who left us too soon. I hope that this work makes you proud.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………….…. vi

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………….…vii

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………..1

1. EARLY LIFE AND NAVIGATING THE CIVIL WAR IN IRELAND: TO 1649 …..8

2. A CHANGE OF LOYALTIES: 1649-1660 …………………………………………31

3. THE RESTORATION GOES SOUR: 1660-1667 ……………………………..……46

4. THREATENED WITH DISMISSAL: 1667-1673 …………………………………..74

5. POWER RESTORED: 1673-1678 ………………………………………………..…97

6. POPISH PLOT AND IRISH BUSINESS: 1678-1681 …………………………..…127

7. QUARREL WITH ORMOND AND FALL FROM POWER: 1679-1682 ………...159

8. RETIREMENT AND PERSONAL SCHOLARSHIP: 1682-1686 ………………...185

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………...200

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………...211

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH …………………………………………………………..221

ABBREVATIONS

Add MS Additional Manuscript, British Library

Bodl. Bodleian Library, Oxford

CCP Calendar of Carte Papers (London: M. Cooper, 1744)

CCSP Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers Preserved in the Bodleian Library, 5 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970)

CJ Journals of the House of Commons, 1547-1714, vol. 8

CSPD Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1603-1714

CSPI Calendar of State Papers Relating to Ireland

DNB Dictionary of National Biography

HMC Historical Manuscripts Commission

LJ Journals of the House of Lords, 1767, vol. 10

MS/MSS Manuscript, British Library

NIL National Library of Ireland, Dublin

PRO SP Public Record Office (London), State Papers

ABSTRACT

Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, played an essential role in the English Restoration and was a prominent individual in Anglo-Irish politics before and after. He was one of the major figures who bridged the political divide between England and Ireland. His career spanned a period of some forty years. And yet he has received next to no attention from historians, compared with contemporaries such as Clarendon, Buckingham, and Arlington. Only a thirty-year-old study by Douglas Greene is devoted to his life and career, which is showing its age as historians are devoting increasing attention to this era. The present dissertation will take a closer look at this essential figure in the light of new evidence and fresh perspectives. Recent scholarship, particularly religious studies, offers a more complete view of the Restoration. Prior to this, most assumed that Protestant dissenters were not a credible threat to the British government; however, scholars such as Richard Greaves proves this notion invalid. The dangers of nonconformity were quite real and those who supported dissenters, as Anglesey did, often paid the price politically. We know more now about the convoluted political relationships within a greater Britain, as a result of the work of Ronald Hutton, Jonathan Scott, Tim Harris, and Brendan Bradshaw, just to name a few. Older views of the Cabal government have been overturned. More awareness exists about Charles II’s personal control over policy. Also, the inner workings of parliament are better understood, especially the use of crown managers within the house of lords. We are more curious about how Anglo-Irish politicians maintained their balance in the tricky conditions of the new British politics. For in comparison with more familiar periods of the Civil War or the Revolution, Anglesey’s was a time of treacherous court intrigues, religious disappointment, and constitutional uncertainty.

vii A broader theme is the complicated political relationship that existed between England and Ireland and how certain individuals, such as Anglesey, were able to sustain their political careers in both countries, though not without a certain amount of risk. Connected to this is the complex nature of Anglo-Irish politics and how political careers rose and fell depending on governmental factions and intrigues. The Anglo-Irish politicians, men who served both countries as Anglesey did, are crucial if we are to bring these kingdoms’ histories closer together. Anglesey’s connections with the nonconformist religious community in England and Ireland, primarily the Presbyterians, will also be examined to gain further insight into how these groups survived periods of persecution that occurred throughout the Restoration. Throughout his career, Anglesey was truly a political realist very cautious about making hard decisions, preferring to tread a moderate path, one which others followed during these tumultuous times. The one tendency that endangered that path was his sympathy for dissent, though he never went to any real extremes even with this personal belief. Indeed, Anglesey was one to push for “comprehension” rather than toleration. Survival meant compromise whether over political, religious, or personal issues and above all else the earl of Anglesey was a survivor. For most of his life Anglesey sought two goals, advancement for himself and for the Anglo-Irish interest. He helped steer Anglo-Irish politics through turbulent times like the Restoration, two Dutch wars, various plots and threats of rebellion, the Exclusion Crisis, and growing tensions between Court/Country factions and the king. His long career and contributions have been ignored for too long and it is time to bring Anglesey out of the shadows and onto history’s center stage.

viii

INTRODUCTION

1 A broader theme is the complicated political relationship that existed between England and Ireland and how certain individuals, such as Anglesey, were able to sustain their political careers in both countries, though not without a certain amount of risk. Connected to this is the complex nature of Anglo-Irish politics and how political careers rose and fell depending on governmental factions and intrigues. Anglesey’s connections with the nonconformist religious community in England and Ireland, primarily the Presbyterians, will also be examined to gain further insight into how these groups survived periods of persecution that occurred throughout the Restoration. Although Anglesey appears on the fringes of English history he has yet to take a dominant position, something that needs to be corrected in light of his high governmental positions as vice-treasurer of Ireland, secretary of the navy, and privy seal, offices that placed him at the forefront of policy-making for both England and Ireland. Though several excellent works exist on the Restoration period, few have attempted to analyze the complex workings of Anglo-Irish politicians and the way these men maneuvered themselves into high political office. In a recent study of Ireland, Jane Ohlmeyer notes that several prominent seventeenth century political figures still remain in the shadows of history. Her list includes Anglesey as well as men he had close dealings with during his career, James Butler, duke of Ormond, Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnell, and Murrough O’Brien, lord Inchiquin.1 It is easy to see Ohlmeyer’s point, as there is no published biography for Anglesey. The only work to examine Anglesey’s political career is an unpublished 1972 dissertation written by Douglas Greene.2 For its time period this dissertation does an admirable job discussing Anglesey’s life, but it is quite outdated in terms of secondary sources, sources that have changed how the academic world views Restoration Britain. As such, a new analysis of Anglesey is needed, one that uses recent scholarship and new interpretations of seventeenth century politics, especially in the realms of religion and the supposed existence of political ‘parties.’ Regarding primary sources additional ones are studied, which include correspondence found in the Essex, Clarendon, Carte, and Tanner papers. A more in-depth analysis of the Stowe and Borlase

1Jane Ohlmeyer, “Introduction: A Failed Revolution,” In Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641- 1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 6.

2 collections as well as parliamentary journals offer different views and arguments. These documents are essential for a more accurate depiction of Anglesey’s contributions. By dissecting this dissertation’s findings and drawing on new research involving primary and secondary sources, a fresh interpretation of Anglesey’s life and political career will provide further insight to his character and the Restoration. The world of Restoration Britain is still not entirely clear to us. Even with the explosion of scholarship during the past fifteen years, the second tier of courtiers and politicians remain in the shadows. Men like Anglesey appear in those works as lesser, insignificant figures even though without them the world of Restoration politics could not have functioned. His moderate, though sometimes inconsistent, policies and views were representative of many at this time. As a former parliamentarian who switched sides to welcome the Restoration and then flourished under it, his achievements and failures offer us a valuable opportunity to try to understand those difficult years. Building a government with loyal allies, former enemies, and those who had changed sides was not an easy task. Forgiveness sounded simple on paper, but in practice was hard for many to undertake. Forging new political careers, building complex webs of alliances, achieving financial strength through patronage, were just a few of the many goals of Anglesey and his contemporaries. Adding to these convoluted times, was the issue of Ireland. Anglo-Irish relations had always been complicated and if we are to understand the relationship between the two countries we must study the men who straddled the divide between them. The Anglo-Irish politicians, men who served both countries as Anglesey did, are crucial if we are to bring these kingdoms’ histories closer together. They were tightly intertwined since the thirteenth century, but with the Irish rebellion and the civil wars their relations were strained more than ever, especially with the Restoration and the various acts of settlement. Anglesey’s role within those events can give us some insight into their relations, thus the earl can serve as a prism, a window into Restoration politics and Anglo-Irish relations and through him we can achieve a more complete understanding of that world and those times.

2Douglas Greene, “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey: 1614-1686” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972).

3 Anglesey has received only cursory treatment by Restoration historians. He is thrown casually into their works as needed and dismissed just as quickly as someone without importance who should not be regarded as a “great man.” The only work devoted to Anglesey, Greene’s thirty-year old dissertation, agrees with a remark made by one of Anglesey’s enemies, that Anglesey was insignificant during their age. Only Jane Ohlmeyer, T.C. Barnard, Aidan Clarke, Douglas Lacey, and Andrew Swatland acknowledge the earl’s importance, though Ohlmeyer, Barnard, and Clarke’s focus is on the Commonwealth and Protectorate periods. Lacey calls him the most important of the Presbyterian leaders who changed their positions to support Charles II. Swatland acknowledges Anglesey’s role in the house of lords during Charles II’s reign, citing him as “experienced and industrious” and playing a leading role in processing legislation. New works on the Restoration have exploded onto the scene since Greene’s dissertation and a fresh perspective is needed to correct some of his interpretations.3 To begin with, Greene emphasizes less than eight years of Anglesey’s career, which he admits in the preface to his work. This is not enough to understand the earl’s role in court life. Also, he focuses all of his attention on Anglesey’s respect for England’s “traditional constitution,” which admittedly was an important theme in his career. However, Green uses it to exclusively explain the earl’s actions from his decision to support the Restoration to his actions during the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis. Greene relies on this as a primary motivation too often, which simplifies events. He can also be careless when it comes to interpreting primary sources. One example of this is in his conclusion where he fails to question the sincerity of the duke of Ormond, who described Anglesey as insignificant. Greene concurs with this statement, but Ormond was now a steadfast enemy of the earl’s and would not have said anything positive about him. If we look back to the time when the two men were close, Ormond had nothing but

3Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 418; DNB, “Annesley,” 475; Ohlmeyer, “Introduction: A Failed Revolution,” 6; T.C. Barnard, “The Protestant Interest, 1641-1660,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 232; Aidan Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland: The End of the Commonwealth, 1659-1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 155-156, 177, 256-258, 286-287; Douglas Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England: 1661-1689 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 6, 42-43, 52; Andrew Swatland, The House of Lords in the Reign of Charles II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 4, 16, 55, 57, 79; Greene, 64, 279-280.

4 praise for Anglesey and regarded him as extremely important for Irish and English affairs. Greene himself had earlier admitted that during the 1660s Anglesey was deeply involved in Anglo-Irish affairs and was one of the wealthiest men in Britain.4 With the patronage he dispensed and the power he wielded at court, how then could he later be dismissed as having an insignificant life and career? Indeed, we should not dismiss any of Charles’ office holders as insignificant, especially ones who served him in two realms. Anglo-Irish politicians helped him maintain control over Ireland, where plots and threats of rebellions continued to flourish, and England where factionalism sometimes threatened to tear the realm apart. One might judge his importance by the number of enemies who attacked him for a multitude of reasons. Early in his Restoration career, while serving as vice-treasurer of Ireland and the English navy, he faced opponents due to his ties with Clarendon and Ormond and his handling of Irish and English finances. Though he briefly lost power between 1667 and 1673, his greatest appointment was still ahead of him, as lord privy seal. While lord privy seal, Anglesey played a major role in handling politics for Ireland and England, overseeing them during the years of religious conflict, with the Declaration of Indulgence and Test Acts, and another Dutch war. He advised the king on relations with France and the Netherlands, encouraged tolerance toward Protestant dissenters, and pushed for reform of the English navy and Irish militia. For the first time, Anglesey was truly torn due to his sympathy with nonconformists and dislike of Catholicism. Opposing the Test Acts meant allying with James, duke of York, and Catholicism, something Anglesey found extremely hard to do. His inner turmoil over this may have led to his determination to stand firm against Catholicism in the future. This he did when he voted for excluding James from the succession. It was a momentous decision for Anglesey and cannot be attributed to mere fear from accusations that he was involved in an Irish Catholic plot. Anglesey’s remaining four years, 1682-1686, began with some excitement but ended in relative solitude. In 1682-1683 he met quite often with Monmouth and nonconformist sympathizers and rumors flew that he was involved in the Rye House Plot. His home was searched in June 1683 and six months later he was examined by the privy

4Greene, ii-iii, 8, 54, 83, 95, 115-116, 275-276, 279-280.

5 council. However, the evidence was lacking and Anglesey was never formally charged. Indeed, aside from private meetings with Monmouth and others, which had actually begun in late 1679, far earlier than the plot’s beginning, there were no solid ties to bind Anglesey to this plot. After attending lord Russell’s trial in July 1683 and Algernon Sidney’s trial in November, Anglesey spent his time at Blechingdon, his country estate in Oxfordshire, focusing on scholarship. Only three of his works were published during his lifetime, the other four were published posthumously, while his history of Ireland was never published. The notes from his history offer us a compelling look at Anglesey’s extreme loathing of Irish Catholicism as well as his harsh condemnation of Ormond. These works focused on various subjects, from religion to politics, emphasizing the importance of the law and ancient constitution as well as the king’s right to offer indulgence to nonconformists. Anglesey also continued to devote his time and money to creating an impressive library. This he had undertaken since the 1660s, and by the time of his death had a massive collection of ancient, medieval, and early modern works, concentrating on the political and religious histories of England and Ireland. In re-examining Anglesey’s life there are several factors regarding his career and Restoration politics that should be emphasized. First, as president of the council of state during the Interregnum he controlled English and Irish policy. While holding this office he also helped bring about the Restoration, guiding the negotiations. As a moderate who tried to reconcile his nonconformist sympathies with intolerant Anglican policies, he represented the difficulties inherent in the Restoration itself. As vice-treasurer of Ireland, Anglesey also shaped Irish policies, working hard to obtain economic solvency for that country. How he was jostled from one political office to another demonstrates the uncertain nature of Charles’ court. Anglesey’s perseverance, his loyalty to the king in the house of lords, allowed him to regain power and as lord privy seal he possessed more influence and patronage than ever before. The crisis of the Popish Plot reawakened his religious convictions igniting his deep-seated fears of Catholicism. The earl voted for exclusion because of his personal abhorrence and fear of Catholicism. It was not due to intimidation as others have implied. Anglesey faced various crises and accusations during his career and would not have defied Charles without strong convictions. He lost

6 the privy seal for several reasons. His public quarrel with Ormond contained criticisms of the duke and late king’s conduct in Ireland during the Civil War. This infuriated Charles II who still nurtured anger over the earl’s support of exclusion and growing closeness with Monmouth and nonconformists. The king might have forgiven these activities had Anglesey proved loyal in parliament; however, the earl’s interpretation of history gave Charles a reason to dismiss him. Thus, with no service to provide the king Anglesey had become inessential to Charles. The earl’s life and political career should deepen our appreciation for the difficulties faced by seventeenth century politicians. The events experienced by Britain included civil wars, rebellions, rumored plots, political and economic crises. Throughout it all, Anglesey served England and Ireland diligently, providing wise judgment while in power and attempting to follow a steady path of moderation. His contributions were significant, particularly during the Interregnum, the years of Ireland’s land settlement, and as lord privy seal. For too long have men like the earl of Anglesey been relegated as “second-rate” politicians who have no true importance to historians. He played a vital role in British politics and religion and has dwelled in the shadows long enough, dismissed as insignificant, especially when the sources tell such a different story. Thus, in order to understand how Restoration politics functioned, as well as Ireland’s role in this period, it is necessary to study individuals like the earl of Anglesey whose multi- faceted political career overlapped both countries.

CHAPTER ONE: EARLY LIFE AND NAVIGATING THE CIVIL WAR IN IRELAND, TO 1649

Arthur Annesley, future first earl of Anglesey, was born to an English gentry family that had gained property in Ireland during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, becoming part of the Protestant “New English” land owners who had steadily gained political power. The Annesley family resided in Dublin when Arthur was born on 10 July 1614, the eldest son of Sir Francis and Dorothy Annesley. His father later gained the titles baron Mountnorris and viscount Valentia. Annesley would emulate parts of his father’s political career as Sir Francis also held several official positions – secretary of state, vice- treasurer, and treasurer at wars of Ireland. Francis’ political connections included a friendship with the lord deputy of Ireland, Sir Arthur Chichester, Arthur Annesley’s godfather and namesake. Thus, from the beginning of his life, Annesley was connected to the upper levels of Irish politics, which was a natural extension of family life.1 Not much evidence exists regarding Annelsey’s early life and schooling; however, he apparently had good tutors. He traveled to England in 1624 to attend the Hadley school in Middlesex, later describing his tenure there as one where he was the “honor” of the school. In 1630 he attended Magdalen College, Oxford, receiving his degree in 1634. A contemporary flattered Annesley by remarking that at Oxford he was surely “an Ornament of that place, and an Eminent Proficient in all Academical Learning.”2 Admittedly, this was written to appeal to Annesley’s ego and does not necessarily reflect his academic standing. Sir Francis suggested that he enroll at Lincoln’s Inn to study Common Law, a subject for which he developed a life long

1DNB, “Annesley;” Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, A Letter from a Person of Honour in the Countrey (London, 1681), 4; MS Clarendon 92, f. 169a.

2Sir Peter Pett, The Happy Future State of England (London, 1688), 3.

8 interest. The next logical step for Annesley was a grand tour of Europe, an educational trip that most young noblemen experienced. He and his brother, Robert, were granted a three-year travel license and visited Italy, Switzerland, and France. During a later chapter of Annesley’s life when he was facing charges of crypto-Catholicism, one of his defenders mentioned this trip, stating that it was undertaken so that Annesley “might by all means imaginable be confirmed in your [Annesley’s] aversion against the Papal Usurpations and Arbitrary Government.”3 This implies that Annesley had always held a strong dislike to Catholicism, which usually was linked by Protestants to arbitrary government; however, again, this statement must be viewed as an effort to answer suspicions and may not reflect a real motive on the part of Sir Francis or his son. Regardless of the reasons for the trip, it was cut short after only two years as Robert died in Rome and Annesley was recalled home. His father was experiencing professional and personal problems – he was under a sentence of death. Thus, by mid-1636 Annesley arrived in England and reached Dublin that fall.4 Beginning in 1634 the current lord deputy of Ireland, viscount Thomas Wentworth (the future earl of Strafford) attacked Sir Francis Annesley, now lord Mountnorris, accusing him of corrupt financial practices. Wentworth had several goals regarding Ireland: reform the Irish army, increase revenues, and reduce the political power of the New English. The latter issue involved the growing tendency of the New English to steer Irish politics in the direction that benefited them and not necessarily the king. Wentworth meant to eliminate that problem by getting rid of certain administrators and replacing them with those loyal to the lord deputy. He intended to increase both the king’s power and his own by ignoring private interests, and focus instead on the good of the community and the state. Earlier authors have implied that Wentworth, like archbishop William Laud, pushed for the implementation of a “thorough” government; however, Wentworth only casually used this phrase in a letter to Laud. At the time no one referred to their policies as “thorough,” which became a posthumous label.5 One

3Ibid.

4PRO C/108/188; PRO C/108/226.

5J.P. Kenyon, Stuart England (New York: Penguin Books, 1978).

9 policy the lord deputy was highly interested in was increasing the revenue of the crown and Anglican Church, which had suffered due to the concealment of obligations of knight service by New and Old English landowners. Both also held crown and church lands at absurdly low rents. Wentworth by-passed Common Law and brought charges against these men at the prerogative court of castle chamber.6 Wentworth would not tolerate office holders who lined their own pockets and this was part of his condemnation of Mountnorris, vice-treasurer of Ireland. Beginning in May 1634, Wentworth used an order from the English privy council to forbid Mountnorris from taking percentages on the Irish revenue, an order that the latter refused to obey. New charges of corruption were brought in 1635 and Mountnorris at first hinted he would resign his office, but then announced he would place his case in King Charles I’s hands. He may have hoped that Wentworth’s enemies at court, especially Queen Henrietta-Maria, would intercede. Mountnorris’ relatives also intervened; one story relates that a kinsman dropped a stool on Wentworth’s sore, gouty foot, while a brother insulted the lord deputy during a review. Surely the family realized that Wentworth would retaliate; therefore, they must have been confident, perhaps overly so, in their standing with the king. Mountnorris himself aspersed Wentworth at a dinner party and hinted that further revenge would be taken, leading to a reaction in July 1635 when the lord deputy obtained royal permission to bring Mountnorris before a court martial. Charles also granted Wentworth a formal investigation into charges of the vice- treasurer’s corrupt financial practices. On 12 December before the council of war, as an army captain, Mountnorris was charged with speech disrespectful to his commander that could have led to mutiny, an offense punishable by death. The sentence of death was pronounced though Wentworth promised Mountnorris he would appeal to the king because, as he confessed later, his real purpose was to remove Mountnorris from office by frightening the vice-treasurer into resigning. Mountnorris, after being imprisoned for three days, was promised freedom if he would admit that the sentence was just. He refused and as a result lost all his offices. His removal from power haunted him and he spent the remaining years of his life attempting to regain these offices. He demanded

6Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution: 1631-1714 (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1961), 6-11, 86.

10 Arthur return from the Continent so that he could journey to England to petition the king. A dutiful son, Annesley did as he was asked, writing to the queen in hopes that she would move against Wentworth.7 Mountnorris was allowed to travel to England in June 1637 and Wentworth’s enemies in England condemned his actions and a committee of the Long parliament was appointed to examine the case in late 1640.8 Annesley and Mountnorris would get their revenge, as this case was one of many issues that helped pull Wentworth, now the earl of Strafford, from power.9 Annesley’s personal life underwent an important transition in 1638 when he became a married man. He wed Elizabeth Altham, daughter and heir of Sir James Altham, a baron of the Exchequer. They would have several children, including James who later became the second earl of Anglesey, Altham who gained the title first baron Altham, and Richard who afterwards was the third baron Altham. His eldest daughter, lady Frances, married Sir John Thompson, first baron Haversham, while another daughter, Philippa, married Charles Mohun, third baron of Okehampton. The other daughter, lady Elizabeth, married Alexander MacDonnell, third earl of Antrim. This marriage into a prominent Irish Catholic family demonstrates Annesley’s ability to temporarily suspend his personal religious beliefs to gain an important political alliance. The tensions that built up between Charles and parliament possessed deep roots, for the king’s policies, as well as his advisers, became contentious issues within parliament, especially the house of commons. Charles’ refusal to call a parliament between 1629 and 1640 led to a buildup of frustration and resentment among its members. The session of 1629 convinced Charles there was a conspiracy designed to subordinate his authority.10 This led to an eleven-year period of “personal rule” where Charles reverted to using dubiously legal practices to deal with his financial needs. Issues like ship money, tonnage and poundage, the sale of monopolies, impositions,

7HMC 12, Appendix, 2:151.

8CSPD, 1637, 252.

9Wentworth was created baron of Raby and earl of Strafford on 12 January 1640 and shortly after became lord-lieutenant of Ireland.

10Kenyon, Stuart England, 107.

11 distraint, and the increase of court fees and fines led to the alienation of almost every social class. Religious changes added fuel to the fire as Charles and archbishop Laud went about restructuring the Anglican Church. Both men wanted to restore the church, believing it had lost respect and influence. They also felt that sectarians threatened the unity of the church and so these reforms were undertaken with a desire to bring back what had been lost. Altars were railed (the use of the word “altar” was controversial in itself) and churches were restored and rebuilt to be more aesthetically pleasing. They tried to suppress “lecturers” and end illegal religious services.11 The attempt to tighten censorship over publications was fought hard as Puritans who criticized the Anglican Church in print were arrested, tried, and punished usually through mutilation.12 Probably the most antagonistic issue involved the court of high commission, which Laud presided over. It dealt with high profile cases, such as censorship or heresy, and used conciliar justice. Conciliar justice became a major issue for the Long parliament because it used the oath of ex officio, had judges but no jury of peers, and the accused had no right to legal representation. This was the same type of justice used in the court of star chamber and would be a major factor in the dissolution of both courts. Charles’ actions during this time were all hotly debated and these matters, combined with a growing mistrust of the king, eventually resulted in civil war. Annesley later noted that the 1630s was a time marked by discontent and jealousies.13 These jealousies would bubble up to the surface when Charles was forced to call a parliament in 1640. Scholars speculate what actions Charles would have taken had he not been forced by external circumstances to call a parliament.14 The reason for doing so was because he

11These were called conventicles and were usually Baptist or Congregationalist in nature.

12The four most famous cases involved H. Burton, a minister whose ears were chopped off; W. Prynne, an attorney branded on both cheeks; J. Bastwick, a doctor whose ears were chopped off; and J. Lilburne, an unlicensed publisher who was whipped through the streets of London.

13Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, The Earl of Anglesey’s State of the Government and Kingdom: Prepared and intended for His Majesty, King Charles II. In the Year 1682, but the Storm Impending With a short VINDICATION of His Lordship from several Aspersions cast upon Him, in a pretended LETTER that carries the Title of His MEMOIRS (London: 1694), 4.

14Robert Ashton, The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution, 1603-1649 (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1978); Hill, The Century of Revolution; Conrad Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990); Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-century English Political Instability in European Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000);

12 had managed to incite the Scots to war. His policies there included an Act of Revocation, purging the privy council, and ordering the Scottish Presbyterian Church to use the English Book of Common Prayer. The Scottish clergy reacted by drawing up a National Covenant stating that though they were loyal subjects of Charles they would defend the Christian religion (meaning the reformed religion of the Church of Scotland) at all costs. Charles at first allowed the clergy to hold a meeting of general assembly, but then tried to dissolve them once he realized they refused to compromise. Instead of disbanding, they began a program of reform, seizing control of the church from Charles. They re- established Presbyterian Church government, abolished bishops and the Book of Common Prayer, and sacked all non-Presbyterian clergy. This challenge to Charles’ authority could not be ignored and as he refused to compromise over matters of religion, especially when it concerned his supremacy, he chose war. This war, the First Bishops’ War, ended disastrously for Charles and the resulting Peace of Berwick meant humiliating concessions from the king, ones he had no intention of keeping. The Scots did not trust Charles so they refused to disband their army and he responded by proroguing both parliament and the general assembly. This situation meant the king had to call an English parliament in November 1640. Charles’ need for subsidy monies was so great that he could not dissolve parliament until they granted his financial needs. Thus, he was forced to witness hostile attacks against his closest advisers. Laud was impeached and sent to the tower in December 1640. But the first blow came against Strafford, for anger had been growing amongst members of parliament who resented the lord deputy’s policies. They used his Irish career to attack him and his treatment of Mountnorris became one of the many articles of impeachment. On 10 November the parliamentary committee for Irish affairs named a sub- committee to deal with complaints against Strafford’s government in Ireland. Edward Hyde, first earl of Clarendon, later claimed that the lord deputy’s extreme treatment of Mountnorris was one of the most decisive issues for Strafford’s impeachment.15

Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529-1642 (New York: Harper and Row, 1972); Perez Zagorin, The Court and the Country: The Beginning of the English Revolution (New York: Atheneum, 1971).

15Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England (Oxford, 1829), 1:388.

13 Accusations were drawn up and he was committed to the Tower of London. The first article stated that he had “traitorously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realms of England and Ireland, and instead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government against law, which he hath declared by traitorous words, counsels, and actions, and by giving his majesty advice by force of arms to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.”16 On 30 January the commons approved the articles and sent them up to the lords. The fear that Strafford would use an Irish army to invade England was intense for most parliamentary members and they quickly moved to have him tried and executed for treason. The trial began on 22 March 1641 and Strafford went to the scaffold on 12 May. It is interesting to note that during the commons’ investigation the Old and New English of Ireland formed a committee to complain about Strafford’s government. Annesley gave six hundred pounds for its endeavor, for not surprisingly his family was eager to see Strafford punished, granting them revenge.17 The rest of 1641 went badly for Charles who felt coerced into signing bills which stated the illegality of ship money, dissolved the courts of star chamber and high commission, and basically gave up control of parliament, for now the king could not dissolve that body without its consent. However, the spark that ignited the Civil War was the Irish rebellion in November 1641. Why the Irish Catholics rebelled must be answered by examining several factors, including religion, politics, and economics. They were worried over the growing Puritan power within the English parliament; that their lands might be reduced; and there had been long standing Gaelic resentment against their overlords. Also, the Ulster Catholics saw how much the Scots had gained in their revolt. Most scholars argue that the revolt must be explained in the broader context of politics within the “three-kingdoms.” They conclude that political dislocations in Scotland and England helped trigger the uprising and then events within Ireland helped worsen relations between the king and parliament.18 For Charles and parliament the key issue became who would command the

16LJ, 4:97.

17MS 4816, General History of Ireland, 34.

18Nicholas Canny, “What Really Happened in 1641,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641- 1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 26; Conrad Russell, The Fall of

14 army sent to crush the rebellion, raising the all-important issue of trust. This set off a tug of war between parliamentary leaders and Charles over the appointment of military leaders and ministers, with neither side willing to compromise. This lasted for the duration of 1641 and early 1642. In January, Charles’ attempt to arrest the more troublesome politicians failed and though he appeared to be willing to compromise and give up even more prerogative powers to parliament he was only biding time. His refusal to give up control over the militia to parliament was probably the last issue that could have delayed war and by summer both sides were maneuvering for control over key areas and the queen had been sent to the continent to raise money and gather supplies. In July parliament named a committee of public safety to function as an executive body and established an army and navy. The king pronounced the members of parliament traitors and ordered all able-bodied men in northern England to join him at Nottingham. The royal standard was raised there on 22 August 1642, symbolically marking the beginning of the civil war. When the civil war erupted Arthur Annesley was in England, but he did not openly choose sides at this time, a trait that characterized much of his political career. There are hints that he may have been leaning toward parliament. This makes sense as it was parliament, not Charles, who punished Strafford for his actions in Ireland. Annesley’s brother-in-law, James Zouche, privately described Annesley as a rebel who bore arms against the king. Parliament tried to sequester Zouche’s lands in 1643 and that October Annesley went to a committee meeting to try and save his brother-in-law’s Surrey estate. He testified again in the spring of 1644 that the Zouches were loyal to parliament.19 This indicates that Annesley had some influence with parliament, for he and his father did remain in England during the Irish revolt’s first four years. The reasons for that could have been simply that they feared traveling to Ireland during such a turbulent time when reports of Catholic massacres of Protestants were frequent.

the British Monarchies: 1637-1642 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 373-400; Ann Hughes, The Causes of the English Civil War (London: Macmillan Press, 1991), 57-61; Derek Hirst, Authority and Conflict: England 1603-1658 (London: Edward Arnold, 1986), 209; Kenyon, Stuart England, 134.

19PRO C/108/188; PRO C/108/189.

15 When Charles I learned of the Irish rebellion in 1641, he reappointed James Butler, earl of Ormond as lieutenant-general of the army.20 Ormond’s mission must be studied because it is then that he and Annesley begin their long relationship, which later developed into a close friendship. Also, Ormond’s treaties with the Confederate Catholics were criticized by Annesley in the 1680s, leading to a huge falling out between the two men. Their dispute serves as an insightful look into the personal nature of Restoration politics. Thus, we must first review the beginning of Ormond and Annesley’s relationship during the Civil War. The Irish lords justices refused Ormond’s initial decision to attack the rebels immediately. This cautious policy led to the spread of the rebellion, and by 1642, a Catholic Confederacy, with its capital at Kilkenny, was formed. This confederation consisted of native Irish and the Old English of Connaught and Munster.21 Annesley later denounced them for shedding innocent Protestant blood, causing grief, and creating turmoil for Ireland. For Annesley, it would be unthinkable to negotiate with men such as these. Thus, Ormond’s later decision to treat with them greatly disturbed Annesley. With the Confederates, Ormond now faced an enemy that contained many of his close friends and relatives. The privy council sent him on expeditions to destroy not only the rebels but also any towns that harbored them.22 The situation became even more convoluted with the addition of a Scottish army. At the king’s request general Robert Monro led a Protestant Scottish army to Ulster, which was not under Ormond’s control. In mid-September, Charles issued a new commission to Ormond, making him lieutenant-general of the army. This commission differed from his previous one because

20Ormond’s first appointment as lieutenant-general had lapsed when Strafford died. See J.C. Beckett, The Cavalier Duke: A Life of James Butler-1st Duke of Ormond, 1610-1688 (Belfast: Pretani Press, 1990), 23; Thomas Carte, The Life of James Duke of Ormond; Containing an Account of the Most Remarkable Affairs of His Time, and Particularly of Ireland Under His Government, 2nd ed., 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1851), 2:3.

21One historian argues that this was not an alliance between two parties, but instead was the joining of individuals who bound themselves together to redress common grievances. He compares this to the actions of the Scottish covenanters in 1638. See Patrick J. Corish, “The Rising of 1641 and the Catholic Confederacy, 1641-5,” in A New History of Ireland, vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), ed. T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin, and F.J. Byrne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 299; Carte, 2:4-6, 357-360.

22Beckett, The Cavalier Duke, 23-25.

16 it specified that Ormond would hold his post directly from the king, not the lord- lieutenant. That same month he was created a marquis.23 In October, Ormond further proved his devotion to the king and the royalist cause when two parliamentary commissioners were sent to Dublin and attended meetings of the Irish privy council. They attempted to win the army’s support, but due to the marquis’ influence the army officers instead sent a letter to the king reassuring him of their loyalty. Without completing their mission, the commissioners returned to London in February 1643.24 Annesley was in England for these events and though there is no written testimony as to his feelings he must have been as deeply frustrated as the other parliamentarians. Before the commissioners had departed, the king contacted Ormond and other royalists in Ireland regarding the Catholic Confederacy. In January 1643, Charles had issued a commission to the marquis and six others ordering them to meet with representatives from the Confederacy and obtain a statement of grievances. Ormond and the commissioners contacted the Confederate Catholics in February, inviting them to send representatives to discuss a cessation and peace on 23 February in Drogheda. The Confederates refused to convene at Drogheda but agreed to assemble on 17 March at Trim.25 When these negotiations became public many years later, Annesley was infuriated. He viewed these contacts as acts of betrayal against the Irish Protestants. Ormond did not attend this meeting, for he was leading his army toward New Ross. However, he proved unable to take the city, and with supplies running short, he decided to return to Dublin. A few miles out of New Ross, his force met with a much larger one led by Thomas Preston, the Confederate commander in Leinster. The marquis’ army put

23Carte, 2:295-296; DNB, “Butler, James.”

24Carte, 2:297-299; Corish, “The Rising,” 303-304.

25Corish, “The Rising,” 305-306. At the meeting the Confederates stated their grievances. They “complained that the party now in arms against the king in England had openly plotted their extermination. They asked for a repeal of the penal laws. . . . They accused Parsons by name of continuing Strafford’s policy of confiscation, and asked that he be dismissed. They asked that no English statute should bind in Ireland. . . . Finally, they asked for redress of their grievances in a free parliament, that is, a parliament representative of the men of estate in the kingdom, and with Poynings’ law suspended while it was in session.”

17 the Confederates to flight, and though this victory was not decisive,26 he demonstrated his ability as a commander by defeating a veteran officer who had been leading troops before Ormond was born. The king continued to show his trust in the marquis when he issued a commission ordering him to seek a one-year truce with the Catholic Confederacy on 23 April.27 The purpose of this truce was to gather an army, led by Ormond, and bring it to Chester to assist the king in his fight against parliament. To protect himself from the anger of the parliamentary party, which was overwhelmingly Protestant, the marquis brought the matter before the privy council twice. He urged its members to express their opposition in letters to the king and also offered to break off negotiations with the Confederates if the council could provide £10,000 for the army’s support. However, the council was not willing to oppose the king openly and could not raise the money, so Ormond continued to communicate with the Confederates.28 He was very cautious and would not make the first formal diplomatic move. In these negotiations, he used all the advantages he possessed, including his family’s influence. The peace with the Confederates was signed on 15 September 1643, and the terms were as follows: each side was to retain the territory it currently held, prisoners were to be exchanged, safe conducts were to be granted to Confederate delegates who wanted to lay their grievances before the king, and the Confederates were to pay the king £30,000. Though no substantial points had been decided, the agreement did establish an armistice for one year. Even more impressive, the truce allowed the king to avoid making real concessions.29 Annesley condemned this treaty and his reaction was echoed by many, for the truce did not secure peace in Ireland. Instead, it created division among Irish Protestants since they questioned the alliance of

26Ibid., 306; Carte, 2:435-437.

27Corish, “The Rising,” 306.

28Beckett, The Cavalier Duke, 29-30. In conjunction with the king’s maneuverings, Queen Henrietta Maria instructed Randal MacDonnell, marquis of Antrim, to go to Ireland to “persuade the Irish to reach a reasonable compromise.” She also asked him to inform Ormond of his mission. This began a chain of events that would come close to compromising Ormond’s integrity. Antrim’s later actions and the king’s defense of Antrim after the Restoration created problems for Ormond’s government in both Ireland and England. See Jane Ohlmeyer, Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: The Career of Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim, 1609-1683 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 119.

29Carte, 2:521-523; Corish, “The Rising,” 308.

18 the royal cause with the Catholics, and by March 1644 the Ulster Protestants had decided to resume hostilities. Meanwhile, Ormond’s success led to his appointment as lord-lieutenant of Ireland in November 1643. He was formally sworn in on 21 January 1644 in Christ Church Cathedral. With the renewal of hostilities, Ulster was irretrievable and the new lord- lieutenant soon lost the support of Munster when, in July 1644, Murrough O’Brien, earl of Inchiquin, declared for parliament.30 However, the peace with the Confederate Catholics remained strong. By February 1645, the king was now so desperate for aid that he sought it from any source, including the Catholics of Ireland, and negotiations therefore continued. The king instructed Ormond to make peace and only voiced two restrictions. The lord-lieutenant must not endanger the security of the Protestant subjects, and the king’s regal authority should not be compromised. However, another person was involved in these talks. In August 1645, the king sent the earl of Glamorgan to secure military aid from the Catholic Confederates. Though Ormond allowed him to take part in discussions and travel with the Confederates, he was unaware of Glamorgan’s royal mission. After accompanying the Confederates to Kilkenny, Glamorgan signed a treaty on 25 August guaranteeing that the Roman Catholics would have free and public exercise of their religion, retain any church property and churches held since 23 October 1641, and possess any churches not in Protestant hands when the treaty was made. The Confederates promised to equip 10,000 men and keep the treaty a secret until the force landed in England.31 At the time and later on in his writings, Annesley denounced that treaty as treacherous and vile, that it betrayed the Irish Protestants and the English people. In contrast to Glamorgan’s promises, the lord-lieutenant resolved not “to grant to the Irish either the Penal Laws to be taken off or that they should keep any of the churches now in their possession.” Neither would he grant, “free exercise of religion [or] a free Parliament.”32

30Carte, 3:48-51, 117; CSPD, 1644, 406.

31Carte, 3:198-204.

32PRO SP 29/510/13.

19 Parliament entered the Irish scene by sending commissioners over. Looking back to the question regarding Annesley’s early parliament sympathies one can surmise that he did have some connections because in April 1645 he was one of three men appointed as commissioners for Ulster.33 Annesley must have possessed parliamentary connections or he would not have received that appointment. The commissioners faced difficulties raising money for the journey and their trip was delayed. Their arrival in mid-October saw them not as commissioners, but as “governors of Ulster,” for the Long parliament had improved their titles. Their orders were to unite the Protestant forces of Ireland, meaning Ormond and Monro’s armies, with parliament’s army.34 This would not be an easy task. Ormond was unaware of Glamorgan’s negotiations when he resumed talks with the Confederates in September. He made some progress, but the arrival in November 1645 of the Papal Nuncio, Giovani Baptista Rinuccini, resulted in new problems for the marquis. Rinuccini met with Glamorgan in December at Kilkenny, and the two decided on new concessions for the treaty. They signed this treaty on 20 December 1645, establishing that the next lord-lieutenant would be Catholic, and the Catholic bishops “were to sit as lords spiritual in the Irish parliament.”35 A treaty of this nature would have confirmed Catholicism as the established church of Ireland. Though all of Glamorgan’s negotiations were to be kept secret, Ormond obtained a copy of the August treaty, and on 26 December, Glamorgan was brought before the council and charged with treason. He did not reveal the king’s involvement though it must have been suspected. The Confederate council at Kilkenny refused to negotiate until Glamorgan was released. This occurred on 22 January 1646, and he returned to Kilkenny and found Rinuccini less inclined to speak with him. Rinuccini had received a copy of a treaty signed on 20

33The other two men were colonel William Beale and Sir Robert King.

34 Richard Bagwell, Ireland Under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, vol. 2, 1642-1660 (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909), 95; CSPD 1644-1645, 290-291, 391, 414, 505; Acts and Ordnances of the Interregnum, eds. C.H. Firth and R.S. Rait (London: HMSO, 1911), 1:677; HMC, 6 Report, Appendix (House of Lords MSS), 781; CJ, 4:276, 282.

35Patrick Corish, “Ormond, Rinuccini, and the Confederates, 1645-9,” in A New History of Ireland, vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), ed. Moody, Martin, and Byrne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 318; Carte, 3:219-323.

20 November 1645 between Pope Innocent X and Sir George Digby on Queen Henrietta Maria’s behalf. The terms were even more generous than Glamorgan’s.36 Digby had expressed his reservations about this earlier in August. He was afraid it would “be resented by the marquis of Ormond, who having committed to him the management of the affairs of Ireland, and having discharged that trust so faithfully and prudently, may think himself injured in such negotiations by the by.”37 However, the treaty had proceeded, and Glamorgan now agreed to obtain ratification of the Roman treaty from the king by 1 May 1646.38 If this failed, the December treaty he had made with Rinuccini would be resumed. The Roman treaty was not published, and the Confederates were allowed to continue negotiations with Ormond.39 When Annesley and the other commissioners discovered that Charles was attempting to treat with the Catholics they were shocked and sent the documents they uncovered to the Long parliament. They were published to prove Charles was a proponent of Catholicism.40 Though the king denied he had approved the treaty, Annesley later wrote that most people believed Charles had.41 Annesley and Beale, one of the Ulster governors, wrote a letter condemning the king’s actions, arguing that he had betrayed the Protestant faith.42 Though their accusations against Charles aided parliament’s cause, they did not achieve their primary goal, which was to unify the Protestants. The Scots, under Monro, never accepted parliament’s authority in Ulster and their refusal to cooperate upset Annesley.43 It is not surprising that the Scots resisted since the governors had insisted the Scots give up control of certain northern provinces,

36Corish, “Ormond,” 319. Sir George Digby was the queen’s secretary.

37PRO SP 29/510/48.

38Glamorgan was desperate to obtain an Irish army to help raise the siege of Chester.

39Corish, “Ormond,” 319.

40The Irish Cabinet: or His Majesties Secret Papers for Establishing the Papall Clergy in Ireland (London, 1645), 3-13; CJ, 403-404; Add MSS 25,277, ff. 26v-67.

41MSS 4816, f. 31.

42MS Tanner 60/2, f. 350. This explains Annesley’s later condemnation of Ormond and Charles I’s actions.

43MSS 4816, f. 32v.

21 including Belfast, to parliament. With no way to enforce this demand the negotiations stalled, just as they would later falter with Ormond.44 From the beginning Annesley and Ormond’s relations were rocky, beginning as they did on opposite sides of a war, forming a friendship during the Restoration, and ending with a much-publicized feud over each other’s conduct during the Civil War. Looking at their behavior in Ireland during the Civil War, they always treated each other with respect. This must have helped ease tensions during such troublesome times, for one would surely rather deal with a respected opponent instead of an implacable enemy. The governors of Ulster attempted to reach an agreement with Ormond in February 1646 and Annesley wrote anxiously to Sir Maurice Eustace, a friend of Ormond’s, asking for help in convincing the lord-lieutenant.45 Negotiations continued on through May, but by then the governors were tired of the delays and firmly believed that a settlement could not be reached without the Scots’ involvement.46 The Scots were no longer in Ireland but had left for Scotland once Charles had surrendered to the Scots at Newark.47 However, parliament was unaware that Ormond was secretly working with the Confederates, for when it became widely known that the king had publicly disavowed Glamorgan’s actions48 the Confederates decided to work only through the lord-lieutenant. They signed a treaty with him on 28 March 1646. Once again, the marquis had managed

44MS Tanner 60/2, f. 350; CJ, 443, 544. Annesley felt real fear regarding the Confederate army, noting that it was better disciplined and had more experienced captains than the Protestant forces. Most believed that only by uniting the various Protestant factions would they be able to suppress the Catholic revolt. See Rolf Loeber and Geoffrey Parker, “The Military Revolution In Seventeenth-Century Ireland,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 88.

45MS Carte 16, f.157.

46This belief did not reflect the opinion of the new Parliament appointed lord-lieutenant, Philip Sidney, viscount Lisle (son and heir of the second earl of Leicester and nephew of the earl of Northumberland). Lisle came to be identified with the anti-Scottish party at Westminster and was associated with the political Independents. His group, which controlled English policy in Ireland by the end of 1646, pushed for the exclusion of the Scots, distancing themselves from Ormond, and using a “scorched-earth” solution towards Ireland – i.e. “conquest, confiscation, and colonization.” See John Adamson, “Strafford’s Ghost: The British Context of Viscount Lisle’s Lieutenancy of Ireland,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 134-135.

47MS Carte 17, f.388.

48PRO SP 29/513/23.

22 to obtain very favorable terms for the king.49 He was not conceding more than he had previously offered. The Confederates again agreed to provide troops for the king, but by the time the treaty was signed, Chester had fallen to parliamentary forces. Also, the Scots had captured the king on 11 June and they told Ormond that he was not to treat with the Confederates at the king’s command. Ormond knew that this was not the king’s wish and so the treaty was published on 30 July in Dublin and on 3 August in Kilkenny.50 Annesley and the other governors were quite angry and formally denounced the treaty. Upon hearing the news, Digby wrote: “happily he [Ormond] may have obtained a peace upon a better bargain.”51 The lord-lieutenant received a letter from the king expressing his “full approbation of all your [Ormond’s] proceedings in the Treaty of Ireland.”52 However, in the fall of 1646, this treaty came too late to help the king. Division plagued the Confederates. Owen Roe O’Neill, commander of the Ulster army, was committed to Rinuccini. O’Neill persuaded another commander, Thomas Preston, to break his agreement with Ormond and side with Rinuccini, who dismissed the Supreme Council of the Confederates, imprisoned most of its members, and appointed a new council with him as president. Rinuccini was now poised to attack Dublin.53 With no money to pay his troops and hardly enough food to sustain them, Ormond was in a desperate position. He sent men first to the Scottish agents in Ulster, but they refused to provide troops. With no other alternative, the marquis began talks with representatives of the English parliament who had heard of “the difference and division that is now grown between the earl of Ormond and the Popish Irish rebels, [and were] desirous to make the best improvement thereof.”54 Annesley was involved in these

49The treaty contained a general pardon for all offences since 1641 and an Oath of Allegiance to replace the Oath of Supremacy, which meant recusants would be eligible to hold royal governmental positions. Also, estates confiscated during Strafford’s regime would be restored. See Beckett, The Cavalier Duke, 36.

50Corish, “Ormond,” 320. The Scots later handed the king over to parliament after receiving half of the agreed upon £400,000. What was to be done with Charles sparked a fierce debate among parliament.

51PRO SP 29/510/74.

52PRO SP 29/510/155.

53Corish, “Ormond,” 321.

54CSPD, 1645-1647, 479.

23 initial discussions and is listed as one of the commissioners for Dublin with “power to displace disaffected and to give commissions to well-affected, and to assure the papists that have not adhered to this rebellion that the parliament will take them into consideration as they shall carry themselves in this action . . . .”55 The lord-lieutenant offered to transfer Dublin to parliament’s control. After parliamentary ships appeared, Ormond discovered that the representatives had no authority to consent to his terms, and he refused to accept parliament’s offer. One scholar has suggested that lord-lieutenant Lisle’s policies may have influenced this refusal. John Adamson remarks that Ormond backed away from parliament between October 1646 and March 1647, a time when Lisle’s intentions regarding Ireland were becoming known. Once it looked like Lisle would not be reappointed Ormond became more willing to hand Dublin over to parliament. Adamson also conjectures that Annesley may have helped convince Ormond to delay surrender until Lisle was no longer in power, as Annesley’s father, viscount Valentia, was a major critic of Lisle. Of course, one should not be too hasty to attribute Ormond’s Irish policy to a single factor. Obviously, many other reasons came into play as noted above and in the following.56 When the parliamentary army arrived, the Confederate forces hastily retreated. After the marquis’ refusal of the representatives’ offer, the parliamentary forces left for Ulster. Unable to reach an agreement with parliament, Ormond opened negotiations with the Confederates. However, it soon became apparent that Rinuccini’s authority could not be overthrown, and in February 1647, the lord-lieutenant formally offered to surrender Dublin and the other garrisons he commanded on parliament’s earlier terms. Parliament accepted after directing Ormond to send hostages, including one of his sons.57 Parliamentary forces arrived at the end of March, and on 19 June, the marquis signed a treaty with the commissioners. Annesley was one of the commissioners present to take possession of the military garrisons. He wrote in June, “We are well advanced in our

55HMC, Egmont, 1:389. The other commissioners were colonel Sydney, Sir Robert King, Sir Robert Meredith, colonel John Moore, and colonel Birch. Sydney was the lieutenant-general and governor of Dublin. J.S. Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast: William Mullan, 1867), 79, 100.

56Adamson, “Strafford’s Ghost,” 146-147.

57Carte, 3:279-282, 300-304; CSPD, 1645-1647, 526, 529.

24 transaction with the lord of Ormond, and hope to write (by the next) the Parliament masters of all these parts.”58 The treaty stated that Ormond retained control of Dublin Castle until 28 July. Protestants and Roman Catholics were not to be deprived of their property, and noblemen and officers had the option of leaving with Ormond. The latter received funds to discharge the debts accrued by his army, £3,000 in currency plus £11,000 in bills of exchange. This last clause was designed carefully so it would not appear that the marquis was accepting a bribe. Interestingly, out of all the commissioners it was Annesley and Sir Robert King who tried to uphold this agreement. This probably indicated Annesley’s desire to assist Ormond, a man he held in high esteem. Later that year they urged parliament to pay Ormond his bills of exchange, writing of their attempts to Ormond’s friend, Sir George Lane. Lane commented to Ormond that Annesley had stressed his desire to “serve” Ormond, insisting he would bring the matter to the house of commons.59 There appears to be no political gain for Annesley in this, but merely a desire to assist a respected peer. When parliament stalled Annesley and King wrote a letter to remind the House of its honor that should always be upheld. Though they failed to get the bills of exchange, they had proved their trust to the marquis who in February 1648 asked the two to help his wife and family travel to meet him.60 While Annesley went out of his way to aid Ormond he was able to defend himself from later charges that he had recognized Ormond’s authority over parliament’s. While the details of the treaty were being hammered out, Annesley commented that “the distemper in those [Irish] parts increases, which makes me wish that all sides would agree to send the army entire . . . .” 61 Distemper must have also affected the commissioners, for in a July letter Annesley wrote about a conflict amongst his peers. Apparently Sir Robert Meredith had remarked that the others had agreed to act by commission from Ormond while he remained in Ireland. This infuriated Annesley who felt that Meredith was out of sorts due to the death of his son. Annesley stressed that he

58HMC, Egmont, 1:414.

59Carte, 3:393-394.

60CJ, 5:349-350; MS Tanner 58/2, f. 562, 684.

61HMC, Egmont, 1:404.

25 had never agreed to such a thing and would do nothing “from which the Parliament might receive dishonour or discontent . . . .” Annesley was always touchy regarding his honor and reputation. His letter continued by commenting on the sad state of the treasury and fears regarding the rebels’ strength. He concluded with the wish that “England may not be too secure concerning Ireland, which yet lies grasping for ought I can see.”62 When the time expired, Ormond left for England on 28 July 1647.63 Annesley aided the commissioners in their attempt to bring Presbyterian worship to Dublin, but hoped to leave shortly after Ormond’s departure. He was delayed, however, which greatly frustrated and upset him. His rather dramatic rant over having to stay highlights the problems of being a politician during this time. He stated that it was a great injustice to remain any longer, for “when I engaged in this service, to the neglect and ruin of my own affairs, I did it upon condition that I might have liberty to return when I pleased after the transaction finished with my Lord of Ormond . . . .” He echoes earlier concerns regarding finances, stating that “I hope none will blame me to come away when all is spent and no certainty of more. Mutinies are not appeased with fair words.”64 Annesley got his wish not long after, sailing from Ireland in early August.65 Annesley probably wanted to return to England quickly for financial reasons, but also for political ones. In January 1647 he had been appointed one of the privy councilors for Ireland. He and several others were the first men to be named so without royal approval.66 He also was a member of the house of commons. On 27 April 1647 he had been elected knight of the shire for Radnor.67 One historian notes that those best able to influence Irish policy were the Irish landowners – John Clotworthy, William Jephson,

62Ibid., 432-433.

63Carte, 3:305-310.

64HMC, Egmont, 1:438.

65MS Tanner 58/1, f. 421; HMC, Egmont, 1:433.

66Adamson, “Strafford’s Ghost,” 136.

67CJ, 5:118; DNB, “Annesley.”

26 John Temple, and Arthur Annesley.68 It was these Anglo-Irish ministers who truly understood Irish affairs. Annesley’s actions in parliament reflect his affiliation with the Political Presbyterians.69 He opposed the extreme actions of the Independents, who had become associated with the radical rank and file members of the New Model Army. This polarization is seen in an army-started rumor that the royalists had helped Annesley get elected to parliament. It has been argued that actions like these demonstrate the army’s ongoing desire to disgrace the Political Presbyterians. Further rumors were spread regarding Annesley’s political ties, one hinting that he was part of a commission to disband several army regiments. Again, the perception among the army was of Annesley as an enemy, not an ally, and was probably a correct one. Annesley demonstrated his Presbyterian sympathies by a vote on 7 September 1647. In the house of commons there was a motion to expel the Presbyterian leader, John Glyn, and the Presbyterians responded by voting against this, including Annesley.70 Thus, we can describe his political career during the late 1640’s as one influenced by religious and Irish issues. On many different occasions the commons placed him on committees to deal with Irish affairs.71 He also presented to parliament a list of actions necessary to protect the Protestants in Ireland, stating that “all Papists and Popish recusants be disabled and made incapable of being magistrates, officers, or commissioners in Ireland, and also of any practice in the law Common or Civil, either in public or private, or to sit or serve as members in either of the houses of Parliament in Ireland, or to have any military

68T.C. Barnard, “The Protestant Interest, 1641-1660,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641- 1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 221.

69There were four different groups within parliament – Political Presbyterians (moderates led by Denzil Holles who supported the institution of monarchy), Political Independents (radicals gravitating toward a republican government and led by Sir Arthur Haselrig, Sir Henry Vane, and later by Oliver Cromwell), Religious Presbyterians (believed in a church hierarchy with power coming from below), and Religious Independents (wanted no church hierarchy, said individual congregations have power). See David Underdown, Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 70; Kenyon, Stuart England, 154-155; Jane Ohlmeyer, “Introduction: A Failed Revolution,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 17; Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament: 1648-1653 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 8.

70Clarke Papers, ed. C.H. Firth (Oxford, 1894), 2:157; Douglas Greene, “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey: 1614-1686” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972), 35; Underdown, 70, 366; CJ, 5:295.

71CJ, 5:322, 327, 373, 426, 427; Add MS 4769, ff. 46-49; CSPI, 1647-1660, 1-12, 14-25, 29-33, 35-37.

27 employment in that kingdom.”72 Annesley’s hostile feelings toward Catholics are obvious in this statement and will continue to be reflected throughout his political career. Events were moving swiftly for parliament as they faced a major crisis with the escape of Charles on 11 November 1647. He fled to the Isle of Wight and began negotiating once more with the Scots. A settlement known as the Engagement was reached whereby Charles agreed to establish a Presbyterian Church in England and Scotland; however, the Scots split over this treaty because many did not trust the king. This resulted in a Scottish army that was not the superior force it might have been. It was enough, however, to begin the Second Civil War in the spring of 1648.73 This was a critical time for parliament and its various factions. Charles’ actions had convinced the army officers that the king could never be trusted and their path toward a republican form of government was now set. Others joined with the Presbyterians and in a vote on 28 April 1648 refused to alter the current government of England, i.e. the monarchy. Annesley was once again part of the Presbyterian voting bloc.74 His actions demonstrate that he was far from a political radical. Thus, a split within parliament was growing more and more likely. Uprisings in Kent, Essex, and Wales were all suppressed by parliament and when the Scots invaded and fought the Battle of Preston in August 1648 they were also defeated. The following months were crucial ones for the future of parliament, for in November Oliver Cromwell managed to unite the two key radical forces, the Independents and the Levellers.75 Cromwell had his son-in-law, Henry Ireton, draw up the “Remonstrance of the Army,” which agreed to have biennial parliaments, a written constitution, and strip the monarchy and house of lords of their power, making them

72Carte, 67, ff. 169-170; Greene, 37.

73Robert Ashton, Counter Revolution: The Second Civil War and its Origins, 1646-8 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), 30.

74Ibid., 41; Underdown, 97; CJ, 5:547.

75The Levellers were “born” in July 1646 and by spring of 1647 they had organized themselves and had agents going door to door to drum up support for their movement. This is considered by some as the first serious attempt to organize people for a political purpose. It resulted in a March petition to: end mandatory tithes, end monopolies, decentralize the law courts, end the imprisonment of debtors, end the power of the monarchy and house of lords, and establish religious toleration.

28 ceremonial institutions. This helped solidify Cromwell’s control over the radicals and Cromwell increasingly dominated negotiations between the king and parliament. At first an agreement was reached whereby the king would give up control of the army for twenty years and abolish episcopacy, but the army (and Cromwell) by this time were convinced the king could never be trusted. The army quickly moved to take control of London on 2 December and on the sixth Cromwell sent colonel Thomas Pride into parliament with a list to remove 470 members. Out of this list 100 later made their peace and were able to get back into parliament. Older versions of this event have simplified it as an even split between Independents and Presbyterians, where the latter were ejected in this purge, leaving parliament to the Independents. This in fact is much too simplistic a view of Pride’s Purge, for though the majority that remained were Independents, some political Presbyterians did remain. The remnants of the Long parliament are henceforth called the “Rump.”76 Unfortunately for him, Annesley was among those removed in the purge. 77 He was too much of a moderate to remain in power at this time. The remainder of 1648 saw the king put on trial and executed on 30 January 1649. In March the house of lords was abolished and England was transformed into a Commonwealth, with rule by an executive council of state and the Rump house of commons. As a moderate, these events must have horrified Annesley and an examination of his actions during the remainder of the Interregnum will offer further insight into his political and religious views. Looking back, Annesley’s early life was heavily shaped by his father’s experiences as an Anglo-Irish minister. He chose parliament over the king during the Civil War because he believed Charles I had betrayed the ancient laws of Britain. As a parliamentary governor of Ulster he played a decisive role in Irish affairs during the 1640s. He attempted to unite Monro’s Scottish forces with Ormond’s royalists to combat the Confederate Catholics whom he regarded as vile and truly evil. This failed, primarily due to Monro’s stubbornness and Ormond’s secret dealings with the Confederates as he and Charles had their own agenda. Though he and Ormond later became close allies

76Worden, 4, 5, 9, 10; Worden, along with J.H. Hexter and Underdown, have proven that there were several smaller groups within parliament, which frequently overlapped depending on the issue. They all argue that the split within parliament brought about by the purge was an artificial one.

29 those secret negotiations would end their friendship. Annesley was one of the commissioners who accepted command of Dublin from Ormond after the lord-lieutenant was forced to leave. He also took care of Ormond’s family and made sure the lord- lieutenant received his compensation. Thus, though Annesley retired from politics with the purge of parliament, he would not remain out of power for very long.

77Arthur Annesley, England’s Confusion (London, 1659), 13-15; DNB, “Annesley.”

CHAPTER TWO: A CHANGE OF LOYALTIES, 1649-1660

Unfortunately records during the Protectorate and Commonwealth periods contain few references to Annesley. Collections of personal letters combined with state papers provide a cursory overview of his actions, but more substantial records do not appear until the Restoration. This may have to do with Annesley’s initial dislike of the new regime and its methods. His involvement with politics eventually commenced, but it appears he was hesitant after King Charles I’s execution in January 1649. Annesley had been against the formation of the new republic, disapproving of both regicide and the abolition of the house of lords. However, rather than completely alienate himself and his family he chose instead to survive, a choice many had to make in these tumultuous years. Following Annesley’s career during the 1650s will illustrate how he carefully walked the political tightrope, attempting to maintain his familial lands while at the same time working to restore some of the nobility’s privileges. Never one to miss a political opportunity that could also salvage his conscience, Annesley later became part of the movement to restore Charles II and played a significant role in the king’s return. This set in motion his rise to power, culminating in several high political positions, achievements no one would have predicted back in 1649. Thus, before his climb commences one must begin with his internal and external struggle to accept the new government. Annesley has recently been credited with helping guide Ireland through the turbulent 1650s.1 He and Roger Boyle, lord Broghill (future earl of Orrery) are described as two of the most astute Protestant politicians. Similar in their goals, yet different in their methods, their friendship and rivalry illustrates the factionalism of seventeenth

1T.C. Barnard, “The Protestant Interest, 1641-1660,” in Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641- 1660, ed. Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 232.

31 century politics. All this is true, yet the author who makes these statements does not begin a detailed discussion of Annesley until 1659, though Broghill’s activities during the 1650s are mentioned. It is apparent that there is not a great wealth of information regarding Annesley for this time period. Frustrating though it is, to gain a picture of Annesley’s activities one must piece together what evidence exists and view it within the context of the turbulent events of the 1650s. The complicated relationship between England and Ireland must be studied to understand how the Restoration came about and the role that Annesley played. Just after the king’s execution Annesley remarked that though he disagreed with the new republic he could not take actions against it, citing promises to God.2 This may have to do with the fact that in February 1648 Annesley had taken the National League and Covenant.3 He emphasized his anger over the dissolution of the monarchy and house of lords, but initially made no move to try and change it. Although one author argued that Annesley “took no action to restore the old government” that is incorrect because he eventually did take action, though it was delayed.4 Other politicians echoed Annesley’s prudence and it is important to remember that many who survived the Interregnum by acquiescing with the new government later reaped rewards during the Restoration by jumping on Charles II’s bandwagon in 1658-59. It was impossible to remain completely inactive if one wished to preserve his lands and titles. It would be interesting to know what Annesley, who was in England at this time, thought of Oliver Cromwell’s actions in Ireland in August 1649. The siege and capture of Drogheda and Wexford resulted in the death of almost 5,000, including civilians. Though Cromwell justified the executions by calling up images of the October 1641 rebellion and massacre of Protestants and citing the “righteous judgment of God,” the death and destruction wrought must have horrified many. Cromwell left Ireland, leaving military command in the hands of his sons-in-law, Henry Ireton and Charles Fleetwood, as well as Edmund Ludlow. After Cromwell’s departure this began a pattern

2HMC, Ormonde, n.s. 1:144-146.

3CJ, 5:470-471.

4Douglas Greene, “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey: 1614-1686” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972), 40.

32 of land redistribution that was to have major repercussions during the Restoration. Annesley was anxious over the state of his Irish holdings, but could not leave England until he took the Engagement, vowing to be loyal to the new government. He did this in the fall of 1652, next appearing on the political scene in June 1654. At this point several major events had occurred. Between 1651 and 1659, Ireland had been reduced to the status of a “conquered colony.”5 Parliamentarian representation was restricted to thirty members at Westminster. A commissioner governed the country and reported to the commander-in- chief. The only three to hold the position of commissioner were Ireton, Fleetwood, and Cromwell’s son Henry.6 The commissioner’s main task was to deal with the unpaid soldiers and officers demanding compensation. In August 1652, the English parliament passed the Act for Settling Ireland, punishing those who had aided the king or the Irish rebels and using expropriated land to reward parliamentary soldiers. It divided Protestants into two broad categories: those who had been loyal to the Crown and those who had cooperated with parliament. Individuals in the first group were “made liable to the forfeiture of one-fifth of their estates,” whereas those in the second were rewarded “in debentures.”7 The Irish were especially targeted because the Cromwellian settlement aimed to reconstruct the “entire pattern of land ownership.”8 It expropriated a great majority of Catholic landowners, who were forced to settle on smaller holdings in the west. The intention and end result were to secure sources of wealth and power even more firmly in the hands of Protestant colonists. Due to this act, the ‘Old English’ lost some political authority.9 Long-term effects occurred for after the Restoration it was practically impossible to undo the Cromwellian settlement; royal authority would remain

5Margaret MacCurtain, Tudor and Stuart Ireland (Dublin: Gill and MacMillan, 1972), 153.

6R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland: 1600-1972 (London: Penguin Press, 1988), 103-104.

7Aidan Clarke, Prelude to Restoration in Ireland: The End of the Commonwealth, 1659-1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 11. Debentures were short-term, interest bearing notes representing indebtedness.

8Foster, 110.

9MacCurtain, 158.

33 dependent on the new landowners’ goodwill.10 Thus, in both England and Ireland in the years prior to and during the Restoration, Charles II was forced to rely on the support of men who had served Cromwell and who were firmly entrenched in their local governments. For men like Annesley and Broghill this helped secure their political positions. Major changes within England had also occurred which would affect Irish policy. A new executive body in England was created in early 1649, the council of state whose members came from the house of commons and army officers. Cromwell decisively defeated Charles II at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651 and abolished the Scottish parliament. The First Dutch War was currently raging (1652-54) though it would end in England’s victory. Cromwell also negotiated a treaty with Portugal, opening up trade between Portuguese territories and England. Though successful overall in his foreign policies, Cromwell struggled on the domestic front regarding his relations with the Rump parliament. He became so frustrated with what he deemed its “stubbornness” that he ordered troops to dissolve it in April 1653. The new body called to meet by Cromwell and the council of state was the nominated assembly, also known as the Barebones parliament, which was made up of 140 men. They were not elected, but instead were selected by the council of state. This new body was responsible for the change from a Commonwealth to a Protectorate for on 13 December 1653 it presented Cromwell with the “Instrument of Government,” naming Cromwell as the lord protector, the chief executive officer in England. Another major change occurred in 1657 when Cromwell accepted the “Humble Petition and Advice,” agreeing to appoint an upper house of parliament. Seven months after Cromwell became lord protector Annesley reappeared as a petitioner for the Irish Protestants, asking Cromwell to rescind the order to remove Catholics from five Irish counties. This would have left landowners without enough tenants and could have damaged both productivity and the economy. The government intended to replace these men with disbanded soldiers from Cromwell’s Irish army. Other participants in this petition were Broghill, Sir John Clotworthy, Sir Paul Davies,

10Foster, 114.

34 and John Percival. The final decision was to allow some Catholic tenants to remain, but they had to convert to Protestantism in the next six months.11 Like Broghill, Annesley was savvy enough to realize that outright hostility to the new regime would be foolish and that some reconciliation could gain benefits. He traveled to London in May 1655 to pay homage to the lord protector. Cromwell at this time had named Fleetwood as the lord deputy of Ireland and Annesley was quick to proclaim his allegiance.12 Again, one should not read too much into Annesley’s claim to be Fleetwood’s dutiful servant as this was most likely merely token acknowledgement of a new overlord. It was politically astute to state one’s obedience and loyalty if one wished to obtain a grant or other favor, which was ultimately Annesley’s goal, for just two years later he requested the positions of secretary of state (his father’s former office) and clerk of the signet. He made sure to appeal to not just the Irish council of state but also to Henry Cromwell, whose 1657 appointment as lord deputy was forthcoming. Annesley was denied, but apparently had gained the approval of Henry who commented on how highly both he and his father thought of Annesley. The earl attended Oliver Cromwell’s re-inauguration as lord protector in June 1657, writing to Henry that the ceremony was conducted “with magnificence and order.” 13 It may be that Broghill’s close friendship with Henry Cromwell also benefited Annesley as one scholar notes that Broghill had become extremely close and influential with Cromwell.14 Broghill and Annesley had worked together regarding the earlier economic petition and though the earl did not play a large role in Broghill’s push for an Irish militia, to replace the standing army, Annesley may have offered some support for Broghill. As usual Annesley did not fully commit himself to any one scheme, but a partial alliance with Broghill would have given him closer ties to Henry Cromwell who became lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1658.

11HMC, Egmont, 1:543, 549, 551, 552, 565; Greene, 41.

12MS Lansdowne 821, f. 3.

13A collection of the state papers of John Thurloe. Containing authentic memorials of the English affairs from the year 1638, to the restoration of King Charles II, ed. Thomas Birch (London, 1742), vol. 6, 777; Clarke, 82; Greene, 42; Kathleen M. Lynch, Roger Boyle First Earl of Orrery (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1965), 89.

14Barnard, “The Protestant Interest,” 233.

35 After the death of Oliver Cromwell in September 1658, the political situation in England became increasingly unstable, which gave royalist conspirators fresh hopes. The new colonists in Ireland split between those who wished to continue the Protectorate and those who wanted to recall the Rump parliament and the rule of the army leaders. The established Protestants (or Old English) had been forced to come to terms with the commonwealth government and the recognition that they had gained more from Cromwell and parliament than Charles I. As political disunity continued and it became apparent that the restoration of Charles II was increasingly probable, there was a unified demand from the Protestant community to preserve the benefits obtained under the Commonwealth.15 Though Ireland had lost its parliament it was allotted thirty seats out of four hundred in the new English Parliament called by Richard Cromwell, now lord protector. Annesley was elected as the Dublin representative, pledging to improve the Irish economy by reducing customs duties between Ireland and England.16 One scholar has called Annesley the “undoubted star” of the 1659 parliament.17 However, he failed in his biggest effort, which was to create a separate Irish legislative body. During the Protectorate the Irish parliament was abolished and a legislative union between the two countries was proposed. Annesley was in the minority in his opposition to the union, as the majority of English politicians were not ready to provide Ireland with a distinctive legislative system. Within the English parliament, Ireland’s thirty seats were clearly miniscule and Annesley may have believed that an unfair taxation system would result. He opposed the legislative union of Ireland and England, but it passed parliament anyway. He must have been quite disappointed that the “old constitution” was not restored.18 One can theorize that this disappointment might have helped convince him that only a return to monarchy under Charles II would bring about the “old constitution.”

15Clarke, 19.

16MS Lansdowne 823, f. 287.

17Barnard, “The Protestant Interest,” 237.

18MS Lansdowne 823, f. 259; Richard Bagwell, Ireland Under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, vol. 2, 1642-1660 (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909), 356; Greene, 44.

36 Further frustration is noted in his speeches regarding the restoration of the house of lords. Annesley, among others, pushed for the return of hereditary peers believing it was necessary if the country was to be whole again. He argued that the “Humble Petition and Advice” was not legal and a country without all its constituent parts could never work, that balance would never be achieved without a house of lords.19 In April 1659, the general council of the army dissolved the English parliament. The general council recalled the 1653 parliament and the day it assembled some of the secluded members, including Annesley, demanded admission to the chambers. Although they were denied, Annesley continued to lead the push for re-admittance, returning several times, including an incident in January 1660.20 Richard Cromwell relinquished his position on 25 May. Upon hearing this news, the lord deputy of Ireland, Richard’s brother Henry, sent word to Ulster, Munster, and Connaught to bring soldiers to Dublin. Fearing possible uprisings by royalists or Catholics, Henry prepared Dublin to withstand a siege. In England, there was speculation as to what would happen in Ireland and Scotland, as the forces of Henry Cromwell and George Monck were much larger than those in England. The commissioners of the Irish parliament were officially appointed by the English parliament on 7 July. The act that authorized their appointment also declared certain laws and ordinances that were to be enforced in Ireland. Most of these dealt with matters that had been altered by acts of the Long parliament. Seven of the Irish commissioners were instructed to review officers of the Irish army in England. The commissioners had orders to replace any officers suspected of doubtful religious opinions or hostility to the republic. After the removal of the Cromwell brothers and Fleetwood, thirteen of forty-three regimental command positions were changed. Overall, about a forty percent turnover in officers resulted.21

19Diary of Thomas Burton, esq., Member in the Parliaments of Oliver and Richard Cromwell from 1656 to 1659, ed. John Rutt (London, 1828), vol. 4, 241-243, 288; Ibid., 3:591.

20Ronald Hutton, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658-1667 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 43, 88.

21Ibid., 66.

37 Ludlow was appointed commander-in-chief of the Irish forces on 4 July, and the speaker invested him on the eighteenth.22 Ludlow’s immediate concern arose in early August after Sir George Booth’s rising broke out in Lancashire and Cheshire. This linked some royalists and Presbyterians but not the exiled monarchy. Booth was defeated on 19 August and captured several days later; however, some feared that another uprising might follow in Ireland. Many people were placed under house arrest, orders were issued to expel Catholics from Galway town, and city governors were reminded to license those who sought to leave their provinces. Widespread nervousness continued as rumors of plots led to the disarming of the Irish in various cities.23 The tensions between the English parliament and the army continued, and even the royalists in exile were aware of the situation. One observer remarked that “Parliament is in a very unstable condition. Most think it will be shortly dissolved, or at least purged by Lambert and the Army.”24 The army presented parliament on 22 September with the ‘Derby petition’ protesting against its failure to prepare for dissolution and the arrangements for the army’s command. Though parliament rejected this petition, a second one followed. Parliament cashiered nine army officers, annulled Fleetwood’s commission, and gave control of the army to seven commissioners. The army responded on 13 October by preventing the house from meeting. The council of state only stepped down on 25 October when the army council proposed a committee of safety to replace it. The new government, which included Ludlow, was formed on 26 October.25 Before leaving his post in Ireland on 18 October, Ludlow selected commissioner John Jones as his successor, and he also left Sir Charles Coote with increased power. After his arrival in England, Ludlow discovered that the army’s attempt to establish a government had failed. Most members of parliament had refused to deal with the army.

22Ibid., 67. Ludlow had served as an Irish commissioner from 1650 to 1654 and as commander-in-chief from 1651 to 1655. He had joined the Dublin Baptist congregation in 1654.

23Ibid., 68-75.

24CSPD, 1659-1660, 234.

25Clarke, 87-88.

38 Nine members on the council of state claimed authority and were backed by a promise from Monck to bring his army from Scotland if necessary. Monck wrote to the committee in Ireland declaring his support for the expelled parliament “against ambition and tyranny”26 and asked Ludlow to do the same. However, the response from Ireland was probably not what Monck expected. On 4 November, he received an answer from several officers who stated that they were troubled by Monck’s attitude and would not approve of anything that would engage “any part of the Armyes or fforces of these nations against their brotheren” and offered to mediate between him and the English army.27 However, another faction in Ireland (including Sir Charles Coote and Sir Theophilus Jones) had reassured Monck that it would assist him. Thus, he was well aware that the army in Ireland was not united.28 The next major event for Ireland was the Dublin coup, which was a bloodless event. It began at 5:00 p.m. at Dublin Castle when approximately thirty soldiers rushed through the postern gate. They gained access through the efforts of colonel William Warden and captain John Joyner who had asked the sentinel to let them leave. The invading soldiers overpowered the castle guard, and horse troops rode through the town with Sir Theophilus Jones and major Edward Warren at their head. They secured the five Irish commissioners as well as the commanders of the Dublin garrison. Fellow conspirators seized Carlow, Drogheda, and other garrison towns throughout Ireland. Their associates included Coote, Broghill, lord Montgomery, and possibly Sir Audley Mervyn.29 A week after the coup, the council of officers asked Coote and Broghill to come to Dublin and establish a provisional military government. This council attacked Ludlow’s recent behavior, accusing him of having “disobliged the parliament’s friends” as well as failing to return to his post in Ireland. In the letter, the council members asked

26Ireland’s Fidelity to the Parliament of England, in Answer to a Paper, Entitled The Petition of the Officers and Soldiers of Duncannon (London: n.p., 1660), cited in Clarke, 97.

27Joseph Meyer, ed., “Inedited Letters of Cromwell, Col. Jones, Bradshaw and Other Regicides,” Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, n.s., 1 (1860), 274.

28Clarke, 98.

29Clarke, 1-2, 109.

39 the commissioners to advise them if they should accept Ludlow as commander. Dr. Henry Jones drafted the letter, which was signed by his brother Theophilus and John Warren. On 26 December, the council unanimously agreed that Ludlow’s conduct in England demonstrated that he did not support parliament, and it refused to admit him unless parliament, the parliamentary commissioners at Portsmouth, or the council of state ordered it. Unknown to many, the council of officers was also reporting to Monck, who in late December had marched into England, his intentions unknown.30 James Butler, earl of Ormond, writing in January 1660, was unsure of Monck’s motives: that Monck should declare . . . for this individual parliament and a free commonwealth, and march towards London (as some say) with his whole army, leaving Scotland to be kept upon the matter by the Scots, are matters which induce me to expect something from him, at least beyond what he pretends; . . . But what his further intentions are, or for whom, I will not so much as guess. . . . It is true all of our side write as if they were pleased with the face of things; but I see no particulars that warrant so much satisfaction. I will hope it is a general inclination towards the king, grounded on as general a despair of settlement without him; which they are better able to observe than describe.31

The officers in Ireland needed solid approval from parliament. Ultimately, their relationship with parliament was affected by Ludlow, who did not believe they were committed to serving parliament. On 9 January, the officers proclaimed Ludlow a traitor and wrote to parliament requesting his recall. Several days later, Ludlow was asked by parliament to come to London and account for his affairs in Ireland. The house was only slowly recognizing the tensions between Ludlow and the officers, for parliament did not receive the declaration of 28 December or the articles of impeachment against Ludlow until 19 January. The documents were read aloud and a new commission was appointed for Ireland.32 However, the council of state never issued the new commissioners’ instructions. Thus, Ireland had no authorized government. Instead, it was ruled by an

30Clarke, 119-130; HMC 78, Hastings, 2:362.

31Thomas Carte, The Life of James Duke of Ormond; Containing an Account of the Most Remarkable Affairs of His Time, and Particularly of Ireland Under His Government, 2nd ed., 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1851), 3:698-699.

32Clarke, 136-143. This new commission consisted of Sir Charles Coote, Sir William Waller, Henry Markham, John Weaver, and Robert Goodwin.

40 interim government consisting of a committee of safety and an army commission chosen by the council of officers.33 In England, Monck decided to end the Long parliament by allowing the purged members to re-take their seats on condition that they dissolve and summon a new parliament. Annesley was one of these members and in fact had been the leader of the 1659 push to readmit the secluded representatives. They met at his London residence to plan their campaign. Annesley also served as part of a three-man committee that recommended the manner and method by which parliament should be summoned. On 21 February 1660, these members took their seats, and on the twenty-third, they elected a new council of state. Annesley’s hard work paid off as he was appointed president of this council. This must be marked as the beginning of his rise in power and the obvious recognition of his influence and ability. Scholar Aidan Clarke comments that this council had an obvious opportunity to influence Irish events and as president Annesley steered Irish policy. From here on he would continue to climb the ladder of political authority. Another interesting fact is that by this time Annesley had been in touch with royalists abroad and at home, most notably John Mordaunt, viscount Avalon. Those in England reported that Annesley was trying to convince Monck to work with the royalist agents. Royalists commented that the “Council of State are for the greater part moderate, if not right men. Mr. Anesly is President, a very able and good man, one of the best there . . . .”34 They felt he was definitely the king’s man and so they were confident Annesley would succeed. Not just royalists, but the king himself was delighted to have Annesley working for the restoration. Charles wrote a letter stating his pleasure with Annesley’s actions and praising the earl’s “great zeal to advance my interest . . . .”35 Regarding the new council of state, it had immense powers over Irish affairs as it was instructed to establish civil government and officers for both Ireland and Scotland. It immediately began revising the Irish government, for on the twenty-first the council of officers in Ireland was removed from power. Parliament appointed Monck commander-

33Ibid., 146.

34The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State, ed. Sir George F. Warner (London: Camden Third Series, vol. XXXI, 1920), 4:205; Clarke, 156.

35MS Clarendon 70, f. 46.

41 in-chief on 25 February. Monck’s appointment included command of land forces in all three countries. In late February, he wrote to the regiments in Ireland reassuring them that writs would be issued for a parliament representing all three countries. On 8 March, a bill was introduced that called for a new parliament on 25 April, and on the sixteenth, the Long parliament dissolved itself. 36 The next body assembled called itself the Convention parliament and met between April and December 1660. Annesley’s royalist relations probably helped him win a seat for the county of Carmarthen and he retained his position as president of the council of state. In late January, a representative assembly, the general convention of Ireland, chaired by Sir James Barry, organized but did not meet until 2 March. This body was not asserting its rights over the English parliament but met out of political necessity. The country needed some type of government to help guide it through those confusing times. Standing committees were created to deal with universities, trade, and revenue. One committee was formed to justify the convention’s existence and state its purposes. Its primary concerns involved religion and land. The convention wanted an orthodox church supported by tithes and would not countenance any form of religious dissent. The convention also issued orders to civil and military authorities that dangerous Papists should be removed from cities, forts, and garrison towns for a distance of two miles. While it was dealing with internal affairs, the English council of state appointed new commissioners for Ireland on 8 March, though the convention did not receive notice of the appointments until mid-March. These commissioners were lord Broghill, Sir Charles Coote, Sir William Bury, and Hugh Clotworthy. All of these men, except for Coote, were Presbyterians, a fact that historian Ronald Hutton does not believe is coincidental. Clarke also argues that the reason Presbyterians were chosen is because Annesley was primarily responsible for selecting the commissioners. By now Annesley’s Presbyterian sympathies were becoming known. Also, the connections between Broghill and Annesley have already been well established. Annesley, acting as president of the council of state, had the authority to profile and approve all of these men and parliament had earlier designated Irish affairs to this council. One observer noted that Annesley

36Carte, 3:702-703; Clarke, 154-155, 168, 246.

42 ruled over all decisions concerning Ireland.37 Two items Annesley did involve himself with were taxation and the courts of justice in Ireland. On 7 March he went to parliament, asking for Irish and Scottish taxes to be reduced or have the payment period extended. The latter occurred and then later on the fifteenth he brought a bill to continue the existing proceedings of the Irish justice courts. This was also agreed upon.38 After learning of the new appointments, the convention responded by issuing a declaration to Annesley, stating that it was dealing with important affairs and would inform the council of its decisions. The commissioners from England arrived in late March and began to take charge. In early April, the council of state ordered the convention to dissolve but it refused until late April when it decided to adjourn on 1 May; it planned to meet again on 7 June.39 The exiled royalists began talks with Monck in early March 1660. As has already been mentioned, Annesley had been trying to convince Monck to meet with the royalists and was successful.40 Annesley was already in contact with Ormond and Mordaunt. The earl’s importance was known to the royalists, for lady Mordaunt commented that Annesley “most certainly rules the whole affaires of Ireland.”41 Annesley went one step further by agreeing to spy on certain individuals, mainly Political Presbyterians his former allies, who sought to prevent royalist nobles from taking their seats in the house of lords.42 This was part of the larger issue regarding amnesty. Though some scholars, Hutton and Douglas Greene, have condemned Annesley as treacherous for these actions one should not. First, in Annesley’s mind he was already committed to the king’s restoration and second, Annesley had always pushed for a powerful house of lords. It would make no sense at this point for Annesley to side with those who wanted to prevent

37CJ, 7:860; Clarke, 256. Historian T.C. Barnard notes that the “helmsmen” who helped steer Ireland through the “reefs of the 1650s” were Broghill and Annesley who were the “most adroit Old Protestant pilots.” See Barnard, “The Protestant Interest,” 232.

38CSPI, 1647-1660, 718.

39Clarke, 245-255, 266, 272, 289.

40Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), 2: 215.

41Clarke, 257.

42MS Clarendon 72, f.19; CCSP, 3:721, 729-732.

43 hereditary peers from taking their traditional places. One of those same scholars, Greene, notes how deeply Annesley felt regarding the “old constitution” so it is odd that this author would suggest Annesley’s behavior was unsavory and surprising.43 Monck met with the royalist representative, Sir John Grenville, reassuring him he had always intended to restore Charles. After several weeks of negotiating, the Declaration of Breda was signed and issued on 4 April. Its construction was a joint effort between the king, Ormond, Sir Edward Hyde, and Sir Edward Nicholas.44 The Irish convention, though it was without news from England, issued a declaration on 1 May condemning the execution of Charles I.45 On the same day, the Convention parliament received the Declaration of Breda, and both houses voted for the restoration of the monarchy. Annesley was part of the majority who voted for the king’s return without limitations or restrictions.46 The Irish convention’s representatives in London must have been disappointed that the king’s declaration made no mention of Ireland. Annesley, as president of the council of state, did address one issue for Ireland by drawing up Broghill’s commission as lord president of Munster and appointed John Percival, William Penn, William Fenton, and William Hawkins as members of Broghill’s council.47 The king was proclaimed in London on 8 May and in Dublin on 14 May. He entered London on 29 May and began establishing his government. He appointed a privy council, which mixed royalists, Cromwellian supporters, and “middle of the roaders.” This last group describes those who had supported parliament during the Civil War but opposed some of the following regimes. Annesley belonged to the latter category and was one of the king’s appointees to the new privy council. More than anything this illustrates how important Annesley’s recent roles in government had been. He had

43Greene, 45, 52; Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 134-135. Scholar Andrew Swatland states that Annesley and others began organizing themselves in early 1660 to achieve a Stuart restoration partly because they wanted a reinstated house of lords. See Swatland, The House of Lords in the Reign of Charles II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 16.

44Hutton, Charles II, 128-129.

45Clarke, 290.

46Hutton, Charles II, 131.

47Clarke, 294, 295.

44 proven his worthiness as a member of parliament and as head of the council of state. Also, his contributions to the king’s cause had been rewarded. Clearly his diligence and caution had paid off. Shortly after this, the Irish convention sent a delegation to the king with a list of requests. It asked him to appoint royal courts, call an Irish parliament containing Protestants, and establish the Church of Ireland as it had existed under Charles I.48 The king met with the delegation in mid-June, and on the twentieth the privy council appointed a sub-committee to deal with Irish affairs. The negotiations that followed indicated that the priority in Ireland was to “exorcise the Catholic threat once and for all.”49 This concerned not just religion but also the land settlement. Though there were divisions among Irish Protestants, the latter were determined to prevent the restoration of Catholic land owners. Cromwellian officers who had gained Irish holdings during the 1650s expected to retain their land while royalists assumed they would be compensated for their loyalty to the king. The Catholics hoped for toleration and the recovery of their estates. In Ireland, these divergent interests would repeatedly clash during the Restoration and would provide an endless source of frustration for Annesley, Broghill, Ormond, and every Anglo-Irish politician who attempted to impose their visions onto Ireland.

48J.G. Simms, “The Restoration, 1660-1685,” in A New History of Ireland, vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), ed. Moody, Martin, and Byrne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 420.

49Clarke, 312, 317.

CHAPTER THREE: THE RESTORATION GOES SOUR, 1660-1667

As we have seen Arthur Annesley’s political rise began with his appointment to the council of state in February of 1660 and then to Charles II’s privy council the following May. He rose quickly in Charles II’s government becoming vice-treasurer of Ireland, which ensured him a seat on the council for Irish affairs, and as a commissioner on the appeals committee. During these first years of the Restoration Annesley worked tirelessly with the duke of Ormond, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, on Irish business. His efforts to get the Acts of Settlement and Explanation for Ireland passed solidified his role as an Anglo-Irish courtier, one who was determined to improve both his personal situation and his fellow countrymen’s. His concern over the Irish economy meant he struggled to prevent the passage of the Irish Cattle Bill and to increase Irish revenue. Annesley’s close relationship with Ormond is emphasized in the earl of Antrim’s case as both men struggled to see justice done and prevent someone who did not deserve the king’s pardon from obtaining it. Though Annesley later switched his allegiance from Ormond to Antrim, mainly due to a marriage alliance, his constant efforts to unmask enemies of both the duke and himself reiterated his devotion to Ormond. That is interesting in that this strong bond would later be tested and broken over similar issues as the Antrim case, that is, individual conduct during the civil wars. Personal attacks on Annesley appear to have arisen from his close relationship with Ormond, his Irish lands, and association with Protestant dissenters. Throughout this period not only do we witness the struggle to establish a fair and equitable Restoration settlement, but also major crises such as the great fire of London, the return of the plague, and the Second Dutch War. Annesley began his Restoration career as a member of the Convention parliament and Charles’ English privy council, the latter appointment a reward for his conduct

46 during 1659. Annesley also gained a seat on two committees, one for tendering the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and the other a committee on Irish affairs, made up primarily of Presbyterians from the English privy council. By fall 1660, he became vice- treasurer of Ireland, his father’s former office. On 20 April 1661 Arthur Annesley became the first earl of Anglesey. Clearly his support for Charles during the final years of the Protectorate had paid off. One of the most pressing issues for Anglo-Irish relations at the beginning of the Restoration was the Irish land settlement. Much land had exchanged hands after the civil wars and Anglo-Irish royalists wanted lands returned or desired compensation for their services. The nature of this settlement was complicated and remained an important political factor for Anglesey and other ministers throughout Charles’ reign. In the summer of 1662, the bill returned to the Irish parliament with an anti-Catholic preamble and was passed in early fall. The Act of Settlement gave the king all lands of the Cromwellian confiscation except college or church property. The act excluded the estates of “innocent” Catholics and Protestants who were to receive their holdings immediately.1 However, the act “was far from giving satisfaction to all parties, or indeed to all persons of any one part.”2 Seven commissioners, appointed for twelve months as a court of claims, granted 141 decrees of innocence to Protestants and 566 to Catholics.3 This leniency upset many Protestants, whereas Catholics were dissatisfied since many claims were never heard because the time limit had expired. Other problems developed due to insufficient land. This was a concern raised in 1661 by secretary Sir Edward Nicholas, who stated: “It is believed that most of the provisoes will have to be left out lest there should not be enough land for restorable persons.”4 The king also worried over

1By His Majesties Commissioners Appointed for Putting in Execution an Act of Parliament, Intitled An Act for the Better Execution of His Majesties Gracious Declaration for the Settlement of His Kingdome of Ireland, and Satisfaction of the Several Interests of Adventurers, Souldiers, and Other His Subjects There (Dublin: John Crook, 1662).

2Thomas Carte, The Life of James Duke of Ormond; Containing an Account of the Most Remarkable Affairs of His Time, and Particularly of Ireland Under His Government, 2nd ed., 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1851), 4:116.

3CSPI, 1660-1662, 577. These seven commissioners were Henry Coventry, Sir Edward Deering, Sir Richard Rainsford, Sir Thomas Beverly, Edward Smith, Edward Cooke, and Winston Churchill.

4Ibid., 418; HMC series 5, report 6, 316.

47 misuse of power and influence, remarking that Anglesey was on the committee for Irish affairs while he lobbied for land restorations and other personal issues. However, when Charles issued a royal declaration in November 1660 regarding the confirmation of new landowners’ titles, he still included a special provision for the security of Anglesey and other parliamentarians.5 The Irish government worked hard to obtain an Act of Explanation (1665) that forced soldiers and adventurers to surrender a third of their lands to Protestants whose property had been returned to Catholics. The act also restored a small amount of land to Catholics. Anglesey was one of several who pushed hard for two years, from 1663 to 1665, to get this act passed through the English parliament. Drafts were constantly being rewritten and letters from Anglesey to Ormond emphasize the frustration and hope that accompanied each attempt: “I believe when all is done the reasonableness of the new Act cannot be judged of till the proportion and value of lands to be restored shall be compared with what shall be left to do it withal, when all interests provided for in the other Act . . . shall be satisfied.”6 The passage of this act was an arduous process due to clauses inserted to benefit prominent individuals; however, the final version still angered many. The Protestants, who gave up a third of their holdings, became embittered, and Catholic demands were not fully met. The Irish were especially worried over the outcome as evidenced by Anglesey’s concern that Ormond would be “able to moderate the Irish in their exceptions to the bill, that there may be a close.” Attempts to reach a settlement dragged on as obstructions came up with almost every attempt to pass the bill. Anglesey worried that unless a solution was reached “all will be in danger” and that “all private interest in Council and Parliament should give way for a general good.”7 One factor, which worsened the situation, was the great distrust the English had regarding the Irish commissioners. These commissioners wanted to enter England to help push the bill along. The king’s advisers argued that these men did so out of personal interest and would “endanger or distress” the settlement. Therefore, Anglesey warned

5Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 148.

6HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:67.

7Ibid, 69, 76, 77, 81, 84, 87, 90.

48 Ormond he should not encourage those attempts. Each new draft brought more complaints from both the English and the Irish. One commentator, obviously no friend to Anglesey, remarked that the current bill, which would have resulted in a “happy establishment” was altered by Anglesey, “who is naturally dishonest,” to the extent that no one would vote for it. Anglesey insisted that only his and Ormond’s perseverance with the king and their allies could bring the bill to fruition. But the earl also chastised Ormond when new amendments and additions were slow to arrive in England. He warned that the debates were at a halt until the changes arrived and “it is necessary they be hastened, for the bill gets no advantage by this long pause, there being more [members] active to find or make faults than to justify the bill.” The wait had produced an “unsettled state” in Ireland and word of this had reached Anglesey in England. Sir Thomas Clarges brought the amendments to England in October 1663 and Ormond warned Anglesey that angry Irish agents were traveling over as well. The duke trusted Anglesey would continue in his valiant efforts and prevent any harmful alterations.8 The slow process of debating the bill’s new additions dragged on. Anglesey complained that both English and Irish objectors were allowed to attend council where the bill was read. However, the earl was pleased that parliament was prorogued until 12 January due to the angry temperament of its members. He felt that a brief break might obtain better results as he was worried about the “new sort of fanaticism in politics.” Anglesey worried over a new faction that had formed, which seemed to thwart his and Ormond’s plans. The earl listed Henry Jermyn, earl of St. Albans, lord John Berkeley, secretary of state Henry Bennet, and John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale. Anglesey asserted that these men, who were members of the committee for the bill, pushed through a measure to pass responsibilities of the bill onto the attorney general and solicitor and implied that there was an ulterior motive for doing so. This group of men passed a measure that enabled the attorney general and solicitor, with aid from the Irish commissioners, to create a new bill. Thus, in December it was ordered that Mr. Henry Coventry and the three Irish commissioners prepare the draft of a bill to incorporate the Explanatory Bill and the Act of Settlement. Many were concerned that the Irish

8Ibid., 93, 96, 98; CCSP, v, 325. Clarendon MS 80, ff. 116-117.

49 commissioners were too biased to take part, but the faction managed to convince both the king and duke of York that it was a good solution. Anglesey complained that he had done his best to procure a “good and safe settlement for Ireland,” but Ormond’s bill and amendments were “cried down without perusing” and Anglesey’s arguments fell upon deaf ears. Other letters warning about the Irish commissioners and their connection to serious events between Anglesey and Ormond will be discussed later. Anglesey continued to stress his faith in Ormond and believed the commissioners would soon realize that Ormond, the council of Ireland, and the English privy council understood Irish issues better than the commissioners. The earl made a good point that “it’s a great deal more easy to find fault with, and object against the work of others, than to mend it or make better.” Anglesey was also worried over the appearance of Irish Roman Catholics in London. Between them and the newly formed faction Anglesey was constantly fretting over the Irish settlement. He warned Ormond that Lauderdale was a “dangerous practicing man” who “appears too earnestly for the Irish” and who “doth no good office” to Ormond. Anglesey remarked that he sometimes felt unable to do much to counter these attacks, for he “hath not those evening opportunities and familiarities” with the king that others had and abused.9 In early January 1664 a bright spot appeared on the horizon for Anglesey when he announced that the commissioners might soon admit they could not handle the bill and give up their responsibility. Anglesey and the lord chancellor, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, believed they could convince the king it was necessary for him to send a letter to the Irish parliament asking that some of their members come to England to assist with the bill. Anglesey and Clarendon contrived all this so that Ormond and other trusted advisers could journey to England. Both men were trying to keep this a secret and the enemies unaware. Unfortunately this plan never came to fruition and Anglesey continued to try and monitor affairs. Though Anglesey’s gout often inflicted him with bouts of pain and kept him in bed, he labored as a member of the Irish council, trying to push the Irish commissioners along. Of course he made sure others realized how he struggled to work through his pain and how it showed his zeal for Ormond’s service and “the good of that poor kingdom.”

9HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:104, 105, 109, 110, 112, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123.

50 He was willing to attend the council meetings and “strain a point with my gout.” Anglesey grew quite frustrated with their slowness and remarked that he doubted any real progress could be made because of the “divided counsels” that seemed to govern affairs in England. The earl also implied that if the duke would come over great advancements in the affair would occur.10 From Anglesey’s reports it would appear that he and Ormond continued to remain the closest of friends who were in agreement regarding politics and proposals. However, an interesting letter from Ormond to Clarendon angrily blamed Anglesey for the bill’s delay. The duke stated, “Anglesey’s queries which trouble the commissioners do little to advance the work. The delay favours only those who drive the trade of bribery.”11 Apparently Ormond did not see Anglesey’s watching over the commissioners as an asset; instead, he viewed the earl’s efforts as a hindrance. The lord-lieutenant also vacillated between having sympathy for Anglesey’s bouts of gout to being sarcastic and snide when commenting on the delays caused by the earl’s illness. In one letter he said that though Anglesey had been “very infirm; he is a faithfull and very able servant.” Interestingly, he went on to say that should Anglesey die Ormond wished to nominate the earl’s successor as vice-treasurer of Ireland. So, obviously political power and patronage was never far from his mind, even when a close ally was near death! A later letter illustrated the duke’s impatience with Anglesey. Ormond wrote, “Anglesey’s gout keeps [me] from being informed of the exceptions to the establishment which he is likely to subscribe to.”12 Although his frustration with the slowness of Irish affairs sometimes flared to the surface, Ormond usually remained calm and indeed seemed troubled to hear when Anglesey was suffering greatly. He always acknowledged Anglesey’s efforts and prayed he would recover swiftly from the attacks.13 Anglesey soon found himself facing disparagement by others as well. Ormond warned him in December 1663 that though he had always represented him as a servant of

10Ibid., 133, 137, 146, 147, 149.

11CCSP, v, 378. Clarendon MS 81, ff. 133-134.

12CCSP, v, 378. Clarendon MS 79, ff. 102-103, f.80, f. 290, f. 292.

13HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:266.

51 great ability for the Crown, the king and the duke of York were not satisfied with his “deportment in Parliaments and Councils.” This mainly had to do with Anglesey’s behavior toward nonconformists, whom he tended to support. Anglesey’s behavior stemmed from his belief that moderation was the best way to establish peace, but he feared that others, who might already be jealous of him, would see it differently. Anglesey responded to this letter on 23 January 1664, stating that he had tried to avoid being part of a party or faction, and he expressed his surprise that Ormond had heard such things about the king’s displeasure. Anglesey claimed that he had only received increasing favor from the king and hoped Ormond heard nothing more to the contrary. Unfortunately for Anglesey, his problems with jealous courtiers were far from over, for they returned the following March. He first complained to the duke about the “enmity and reproach” he had to endure over the Bill of Settlement. Anglesey was also afraid that a recent incident involving George Digby, earl of Bristol, would be distorted to make him appear disloyal to Clarendon. Apparently Bristol had written Anglesey, enclosing another statement of submission to the king. Anglesey delivered the letter, but the king returned it to Bristol sealed and wanted nothing to do with him. Anglesey was concerned that “those that wish me ill have gotten some general inkling of a letter sent to me, and would blow it up to my disadvantage as if I were no friend to my Lord Chancellor.”14 Anglesey tried to reassure Ormond that he would never jeopardize his relationship with Clarendon by aligning himself with Bristol. He had also professed this to Clarendon and felt that both he and the king were satisfied with his explanations. Anglesey’s fears were legitimate, for courtiers at times had no compunction about twisting facts to suit their purposes. The next major scandal involved Anglesey’s lands in Ireland (in 1661 he had been granted the estates of the regicides Edmund Ludlow and Theophilus Jones)15 as well as his connection with Ormond. He was attacked by Sir Theophilus Jones, who claimed that Anglesey held lands in Ireland “in custodium to the value of five thousand pounds a year,

14Ibid., 132, 140, 141, 152.

15DNB, “Annesley.”

52 at the rent of ten.”16 Anglesey dismissed this scandal as ridiculous and tried to convince Ormond that he continued to have the king’s confidence. These rumors arose at the same time that criticism increased about the lord-lieutenant’s handling of Irish affairs. Sir Richard Rainsford and Coventry spoke harshly against the duke in the English privy council. Anglesey defended Ormond and the Irish privy council by saying that they “understood the affairs of Ireland better than any other pretenders.” He believed that those who tried to disparage the lord-lieutenant’s government only hurt themselves and actually lost “much of their credit with [the king] for being so earnest upon so little or no ground.”17 By criticizing Anglesey’s use of Irish holdings, Rainsford and Coventry also cast suspicion on Ormond’s government along with other accusations about his leadership. Further attacks by Rainsford on the Bill of Settlement occurred on 2 April 1664. Anglesey wrote to Ormond that Rainsford had spoken harshly against the lord-lieutenant and the Irish council’s actions regarding the settlement. Anglesey defended them from charges of “partiality” by asserting that no one on the English privy council would be so biased that they would “refuse to refer any [of] their concernments in the act to all the judges of England.”18 Rainsford and others kept up this assault, and on 3 May 1664, Anglesey wrote to the duke that the Bill of Settlement was still creating problems, and that Clarendon believed part of this was due to the Irish council’s refusal to pass such “reasonable provisoes as (your Grace) would make for (the) (Irish).” Anglesey expressed his concern about the way certain individuals in England viewed Ormond’s dealings with the Irish, as “too many accuse (you) for having been too (favourable) to the (Irish) already.”19 Rainsford continued to voice complaints, but these focused on the way grants in custodium were handled, which reflected negatively on Ormond as he and the barons of the exchequer had sole responsibility for granting them. Several of the other

16HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:158. A custodium was a three-year grant by the exchequer of lands in the Crown’s possession.

17Ibid., 159.

18Ibid., 162.

19Ibid., 167. The parentheses indicate translated ciphers completed by Ormond after he received Anglesey’s letter.

53 commissioners implied that the custodium lands the king possessed were worth £30,000, but they were granted at only £6,000 rent. Rainsford used Anglesey as an example, claiming he had 40,000 acres in county Cork that he rented in custodium for £10, from which he made £400. Anglesey defended himself and the duke by arguing that the duke and the barons of the exchequer should be heard in such cases. Furthermore, Anglesey explained that when a person received an estate valued much higher than what he was paying in custodium, it was due to the king’s desire to offer such grants as “boons to deserving persons.” Anglesey emphatically denied the assertion against him, and he was so convincing that the king and council “fully credited me to the shame of the commissioners” and went so far as to offer to make Charles his sole heir if there were any truth to those claims.20 While Anglesey believed he had eased any worries the king had about his behavior, a letter from Charles to him the same month refuted his claim. The king wrote that he was suspected “of great mismanagement of the Irish revenues which passed through his hands.”21 These charges led to his switching posts and later being dismissed from office. Anglesey experienced other instances where he was slandered and questions were raised regarding his competency and standing with the king. These issues will be discussed later. Another court of claims, appointed to administer this act, sat from 1666 to 1669. Anglesey reported to Clarendon that the court of claims was making “great progress” in the settlement, but Protestants could not receive finality until the doubts of the commissioners were resolved. Though the earl expected many complaints he did not believe there were any real causes for them. He warned that the Irish Catholics would try to disrupt the entire settlement, but hoped that the end result would produce “as much settlement as can reasonably be expected.”22 However, Catholic resentment culminated with a petition to the king presented by colonel Richard Talbot in 1671 asserting the people’s loyalty, but complaining that their lands had not been restored. This led to the appointment of a committee, and later a commission headed by Prince Rupert, to

20Ibid.,163.

21PRO SP 29/88/84.

22CCSP, v, 540. Clarendon MS 84, ff.129-130.

54 investigate the settlement. Protestants viewed this as an attack on their lands and protested. In 1673, the English house of commons agreed and demanded the king recall the commission and dismiss Talbot from his military command. Charles assented, recalling the commission and exiling Talbot.23 The struggle over land in Ireland continued during the 1670s and remained a significant part of Irish politics for decades. Attacks against political figures were commonplace during the Restoration and Anglesey’s experiences highlight the growing factionalism prevalent at Charles’ court. Indeed, his friendship with Ormond often served as a lightning rod for enemies of the lord-lieutenant who attempted to use the earl and duke’s friendship and business dealings against them. Key issues were raised regarding Anglesey, including his handling of financial matters, his conduct while at court, his religious affiliation, and his personal holdings. The land issue was discussed earlier so now it is important to examine these criticisms against Anglesey. His early career under Charles II started out promising enough. Letters indicate that the king in late 1663 was quite happy with Anglesey’s behavior and actions. This in turn pleased Ormond who currently looked to Anglesey to assist in influencing both parliament and the king over Irish affairs. Anglesey’s reports were valuable to Ormond and they ranged from discussion of politics to religion to the temper of the people. When contentious issues divided parliament Anglesey was quick to relate these happenings to Ormond. Occasionally the earl would chastise Ormond if he felt affairs were not being handled properly, especially when Anglesey believed the duke was not interceding for his supporters, as he should. However, these criticisms came very rarely in the early years of the Restoration. It was not until later that deep-seated feelings of animosity were uncovered between the two men. Instead, during these years Anglesey was quick to defend Ormond and report any aspersions against the duke, even remarks by the lord chancellor were passed along. More distressing was Anglesey’s belief that a strong faction had formed against him and Ormond, made up of the earl St. Albans, Charles lord Berkeley, secretary Bennet, and the duke of Lauderdale. His worry over their actions corresponds to a major crisis that arose regarding Randal MacDonnell, marquis of

23J.G. Simms, “The Restoration, 1660-1685,” in A New History of Ireland, vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), ed. Moody, Martin, and Byrne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 422-426.

55 Antrim. The Antrim affair is significant in that it highlights the struggles at Charles’ court, many of which erupted over past conduct during the Civil War. The case of Antrim also demonstrates the close relationship between Anglesey and Ormond and how quick Anglesey was to defend Ormond’s government.24 The marquis of Antrim was imprisoned in the Tower of London from July 1660 through May 1661. His role in Irish affairs during the 1640s and Charles’ later defense of his actions upset many who felt Antrim should be punished not rewarded. Among the charges against him was the assertion that he had joined the Roman Catholic Confederacy before the peace of 1649 and had backed Rinuccini’s treaty with Glamorgan.25 The Catholic Confederates had made Antrim lieutenant-general of their army, and he signed the Oath of Association. Bitterly disappointed by Ormond’s refusal to grant more concessions to the Confederate Catholics in late 1645, Antrim had written to his cousin that Ormond “was ever false, and now it will be discovered. We must think only of Ireland. . . . I am beholding to the King for his good opinion, but I will rely on myself and not on him or any about him, they were ever base and so they will ever be.”26 Antrim had stirred up the Irish rebels against the lord-lieutenant and consistently opposed the latter’s attempt to establish peace in 1649. One scholar believes Antrim’s desire to become lord-lieutenant of Ireland was his primary goal.27 Antrim was also found to have been in correspondence with parliamentarians shortly after January 1649. Furthermore, he had attempted to turn Ulster against Charles between 1649 and 1651 and aided in dispersing printed papers among the garrisons in Ireland, reputedly to “debauch” the soldiers. He had received yearly stipends from Henry Ireton, one of Cromwell’s commanders-in-chief in Ireland, and had allegedly been employed by him to cause disturbances; however, these accusations were merely rumors in July 1660 when the main charge was brought against Antrim. The English privy council accused him of

24HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:68, 78, 103, 117, 119.

25R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland: 1600-1972 (London: Penguin Press, 1988), 98.

26PRO SP 29/513/6.

27Patrick Corish, “Ormond, Rinuccini, and the Confederates, 1645-1649,” in A New History of Ireland, vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), ed. Moody, Martin, and Byrne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 325.

56 having “aspers[ed] the memory of the late king in reference to the scandal raised against him of being author of the Irish rebellion,” which ironically was one of the few charges of which he was innocent.28 Antrim’s wife began writing the king and his secretary on behalf of her husband, whose “estate has been long out of his hands only for his loyalty.”29 Another problem Antrim faced was the large debt he had accrued. Though Antrim and his wife pleaded for his release, his opponents attempted to build a strong case against him. Depositions were taken in early February 1661 from men who were in Ireland and had witnessed Antrim’s behavior during the 1640s. In early April, Ormond and several others examined Antrim regarding his activities in Ireland. Antrim continued to plead for his release, and in a letter to the king asked why “when all others are pardoned [he] finds his fleece dry and himself broken which hath more imprisoned his soul than his body.”30 In May 1661, the king referred Antrim’s case to the Irish council, and Antrim was released on bail and ordered to appear before the lords justices in Ireland within six weeks. Though they continued to examine Antrim, the Irish council did not have enough evidence to convict him.31 In late October 1662, the council cleared Antrim of the charge of implicating Charles I in the Ulster rebellion. The complicated nature of the Irish land settlement, the question of religion, and the government’s concern for security factored into the Antrim affair and the controversy that surrounded it. The affair was one of several events that influenced political alliances as well as Anglo-Irish relations. In late October 1662, Antrim had been found innocent; however, the lord- lieutenant found it “impossible to persuade the [Irish] Council to approve your [the king’s] Bill for restoring the Marquis of Antrim to his estate.”32 After learning of this, Antrim applied for a hearing before the English court of claims. This caused the families

28Carte, 4:155-156; Jane Ohlmeyer, Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: The Career of Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim, 1609-1683 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 259.

29CSPI, 1660-1662, 50.

30Ibid., 70, 207-209, 217, 294, 493.

31Ibid., 348, 354, 363-364, 382, 384, 389.

32CSPI, 1663–1665, 13.

57 who had acquired his Irish lands during the interregnum to panic, including lord Massereene, who called for a further investigation into Antrim’s behavior. In February 1663, Charles referred Massereene and others to an English ad hoc committee made up of Clarendon, St. Albans, George Monck (duke of Albemarle), Algernon Percy, (earl of Northumberland), and Denzil, lord Holles. This committee ruled in Antrim’s favor and urged him to reapply for a trial before the court of claims. On 10 July 1663, Charles declared to Ormond that Antrim was innocent and ordered the duke to assist him in repossessing his Irish holdings by expressing the king’s opinion to the court of claims.33 The king’s letter and instructions to restore Antrim sparked fierce debates in the Irish council, which ignored his request and declared to Bennet, that they were justified in withholding the king’s letter from the commissioners until “we have represented to the King certain matters which do not seem to be known to him.”34 Antrim responded to their refusal by obtaining a copy of the king’s letter and having his wife deliver it to the commissioners before his trial on 20 August 1663. The English commissioners were divided over this as some, such as Sir Richard Rainsford, Sir Thomas Beverly, and Winston Churchill, believed the king’s letter was enough and wanted Antrim declared an innocent Catholic. Others, including Sir Edward Dering, insisted that the case be reheard because of new evidence. Over twenty witnesses testified for the prosecution, though the evidence showed that by the regulations of the Act of Settlement Antrim should not retrieve his holdings. Even so, Antrim was inexplicably restored to his property and declared an innocent Catholic by four votes to three. This declaration led to public opposition by the adventurers and soldiers who had acquired farms on Antrim’s lands. The case was far from over, for in October the king reversed the commissioners’ verdict, claiming that Antrim’s crimes had been greater than previously thought. In mid- November, the king appointed another ad hoc committee to review the case and the controversy continued for two more years, culminating in another reversal in 1665 which

33Carte, 4:163.

34Ibid., 211.

58 resulted in the restoration of Antrim’s estates. After this, Antrim distanced himself from any national political activities.35 Several important threads linked Antrim’s supporters. Understanding why these individuals chose to promote his cause against Ormond helps untangle the complex relationships of the Restoration period and indicate how they influenced Anglo-Irish politics. The alliance included the queen mother, Henrietta Maria; St. Albans; Orrery; colonel Gilbert Talbot; Holles; Sir Daniel O’Neill; secretary Sir William Morris, who handled Ormond’s letters; Bennet; and Joseph Williamson, Bennet’s secretary. A combination of motives connected these individuals. First, marriage ties linked some of the participants. O’Neill, groom of the bedchamber, was Antrim’s wife’s uncle. Gilbert Talbot’s involvement was motivated by promises of financial rewards and his brother-in- law, Orrery, who also sought his assistance. One of the most important incidents relating to marriage occurred later in 1665 when Anglesey changed sides shortly after his daughter married Antrim’s younger brother and heir that same year.36 This marked one of the few times in early Restoration politics that Anglesey turned away from Ormond. However, marriage was not the only motivation for Antrim’s supporters. Greed influenced some people’s decisions to aid Antrim as he promised financial reward to Bennet, Morris, and Williamson. They in turn agreed to help secure the speedy process of letters and petitions, provide Antrim with information, and have the king sign certain documents.37 Antrim took advantage of their greed to ensure their assistance. This desire for money and land was an important factor in most individuals’ decisions to move against Ormond; the duke’s inability to please every petitioner who desired a favor, or the restoration of lands, led to resentment and anger. At this time there was no single, fully united coalition, and several people plotted against Ormond through rumors or remarks made to the king. Thus, the Antrim affair, which first brought together these individuals

35In January 1668, Antrim was pardoned for all crimes and offences. See CSPI, 1666-1669, 564.

36Ohlmeyer, Civil War and Restoration, 272. Although Ohlmeyer acknowledges the marriage ties, her study is confined to Antrim and does not consider the animosity that existed before and after the Antrim affair between Ormond and many of Antrim’s supporters.

37Ibid., 271.

59 against Ormond, in combination with bitterness over the Irish land settlement and religious policies, provided impetus for Ormond’s eventual removal from office. Anglesey first warned Ormond about his concerns relating to the Antrim affair on 22 August 1663, claiming, “I wish I had all the proceedings transmitted concerning my Lord of Antrim, because I find artifice where it should not be, and which, I am sure, a true state of the matter of fact would enable me to easily clear.”38 Most of this concern was due to the rumor, first spread in the fall of 1663, that Ormond was secretly supporting Antrim. In October, Anglesey wrote to the duke from England that “some have endeavoured too boldly to asperse (your Grace) [;] . . . it’s insinuated by (Antrim’s) friends that (your Grace), though he [you] joined openly with (the) (council) against (him), yet underhand (you) did (his) business, and that your letters hither will shew it.”39 Anglesey explained that two of those involved in spreading tales were lady Antrim and the queen mother. Ormond told Anglesey that he had “received notice of the reports raised there of my great kindness to my Lord of Antrim, and of the art I had used to serve him and deceive the council.” The lord-lieutenant defended himself further by stating that it would not have made sense for him to mislead the council when he “had the King’s warrant” for supporting Antrim. He appeared disgusted by the stories and expressed contempt for “those that take liberty to make me more cunning than I am or desire to be.”40 The same day, Ormond wrote a letter to the king acknowledging he had heard the rumors against him and expressed concern that if they were believed by people in Ireland, he would “lose some of the credit of which the whole is necessary for your service.”41 The duke believed he had convinced the king that the reports were false. Anglesey reassured him that “the blemish some endeavoured to cast on your Grace in this affair is now fallen upon themselves, and your Grace appears the person all might know

38HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:77.

39Ibid., 89. The parentheses indicate translated ciphers completed by Ormond after he received Anglesey’s letter.

40Ibid., 91.

41CSPI, 1663-1665, 252.

60 you to be, above reproach.”42 However, the political turmoil in Ireland was far from over. Beginning in November 1663, Anglesey reported that a man was disparaging Ormond’s government in Ireland, particularly his handling of the king’s revenue. The man apparently believed he could greatly increase the king’s revenue in Ireland if given the chance, and he also had an “ill opinion of the Army.”43 Neither Anglesey nor the lord-lieutenant mentioned the critic’s name but my research indicates that it was Berkeley. In response, Ormond sent the king “some observations upon the matters which I hear are being discussed to my prejudice at Court.”44 In May 1664, Anglesey claimed that Berkeley had been speaking out against the army in Ireland, calling it “rotten and bad,” and he had spoken so before.45 Berkeley’s importance lies in his connection with St. Albans and Bennet, both of whom were Antrim supporters. In 1667, he would join the movement to remove Ormond from office. Anglesey warned Ormond about these men, who on 12 December 1662 had met all day. Anglesey believed them bold enough to undertake anything,46 and he remained convinced that Bennet may have been holding back some of his letters to Ormond. He told the duke on 28 November 1663 that if some of his letters failed to reach him it might be because “some have been more presumptuous than was fit.”47 Bennet could have acquired the lord-lieutenant’s letters from secretary of state William Morris, another of Antrim’s supporters, who was in charge of handling Ormond’s correspondence with the king.48 In addition, it worried Anglesey that he found the duke “nibbled at by vermin in the dark, for though I have hunted for them none will appear openly against you.”49

42HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:97.

43Ibid., 106.

44CSPI, 1663-1665, 301.

45HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:167.

46Ibid., 118.

47Ibid., 107.

48Ohlmeyer, Civil War and Restoration, 271.

49HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:111.

61 Anglesey was so concerned about the aspirations cast against Ormond that on 30 November he spoke privately with the king, who reassured Anglesey that he was pleased with the lord-lieutenant. Nevertheless, Anglesey was still troubled with his inability to “fix on” all those who “wound so in the dark.”50 Later, in December, Anglesey described the meeting between Bennet, St. Albans, and Berkeley, and how Ormond’s government was being aspersed in London. Anglesey believed it would be best for the duke to come to England as soon as possible, for he was also concerned about James Hamilton’s actions. Hamilton was Ormond’s nephew, and though he was faithful, Anglesey was worried because Hamilton had grown “too confident of a (relation of your Grace now at Court)” and had showed this unnamed relation Ormond’s letters. The troublesome part was that this relative had in turn shared the letters with St. Albans and Bennet; the latter had then gone to Hamilton and expressed his resentment over the contents of one of them.51 Anglesey used this incident as an example of how few at court could be trusted and continued to warn the lord-lieutenant of how he was misused through the passage of his letters, which occasionally fell into the wrong hands. Anglesey, however, appeared more concerned with Bennet’s handling of the letters, for on 22 December, he warned Ormond that when his letters were in Bennet’s hands, “more (see) them . . . than should.”52 Anglesey stated that some had become dissatisfied with the lord-lieutenant, and the earl worried that they would “strive to countermine in matters they should not be troubled with.” He went on to tell the duke that Lauderdale was dangerous because of his apparent close connections with the Irish. Anglesey admitted that Lauderdale’s motivations were most likely based on kindness, but he still wanted Ormond to be on his guard, for Lauderdale “doth no good office to ([the] Duke of Ormond) in his station.”53 The lord-lieutenant responded to Anglesey’s concerns on 26 December, reassuring him that he had received a positive letter from the king reaffirming his faith in Ormond’s

50Ibid., 113.

51Ibid., 119. Unfortunately, Ormond did not decipher most of this part of the letter and thus some of its meaning is lost.

52Ibid., 123.

53Ibid.

62 government. The duke did admit the difficulty he had defending himself against rumors, and he likened it to fighting “with the air.”54 In early January, Anglesey wrote that he and Clarendon wanted the lord- lieutenant to come to England as soon as possible. The circumstances surrounding the Antrim affair and other events in Ireland had grown more troublesome. Anglesey cautioned the duke to beware of those “cold friends” in London where reports had “grown dark” over the Antrim situation.55 Anglesey also told him that a problematic incident had arisen involving Charles MacCarty, lord Muskerry. Apparently Muskerry’s father, the earl of Clancarty, had reproached him for appearing to favor the Irish Catholics in the land settlement. As a result, Ormond had written to the earl. Muskerry was furious over the letter and believed that Anglesey had informed the lord-lieutenant about his pro-Irish activities in London. Anglesey denied that he was responsible, though he admitted to the duke that Muskerry supported the Irish. The connections between these men are significant. Clancarty was married to Ormond’s sister, which made Muskerry Ormond’s nephew. Thus, the lord-lieutenant would have been concerned with his nephew’s activities in London, especially if he was associating too closely with the Irish, something that might hurt Ormond’s reputation. However, this is not the only significant marriage alliance, for Muskerry’s wife was the only daughter and heir of the earl of St. Albans, one of Antrim’s main supporters.56 This had to have greatly influenced Muskerry’s dealings with the Irish as well as his attitude towards the duke, for it pulled him in two directions at once. These were not the only family members causing Ormond problems in London. According to Anglesey, Hamilton, the lord-lieutenant’s nephew, had grown extremely jealous over the few concessions given to certain Irishmen. Anglesey advised Ormond that he should see this jealousy as a sign of who Hamilton and others believed the duke’s friends were, and in turn this affected others’ views at court, especially those who thought Ormond was already too generous with the Irish. Anglesey cynically added that,

54Ibid., 131.

55Ibid., 138.

56Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, s.v. “Clancarty, Donough.”

63 regardless of how some felt about the lord-lieutenant’s actions toward the Irish, he was sure they would suddenly appear as Ormond’s friends once he arrived at court. It also concerned Anglesey that Hamilton had recently attempted to sabotage his relationship with the duke. Anglesey wrote that Hamilton had recently tried to persuade him that Ormond “did not care for him, and would not do anything for him.”57 Anglesey diplomatically responded by assuring Hamilton that he would continue to serve the lord- lieutenant, for he had rewarded Anglesey so much already. Anglesey also grew concerned about Bennet’s activity at court regarding Ormond and Irish affairs. He greatly wished the secretary of state were a “thorough friend” to the lord-lieutenant, for there were problems with the Bill of Settlement.58 Part of this involved a lack of support for Ormond’s views on the settlement, which greatly distressed Anglesey. He hoped that once the duke came to England things would improve, though he continued to lament the “unsteadiness” of the resolutions and the “ungroundedness of discourses concerning the settlement of Ireland.”59 Anglesey’s warnings to Ormond truly represent the dangers of Restoration politics. Along with his involvement in the Irish land settlement, Anglesey also worked with the king on the religious settlement. Anglesey’s religious sympathies often led to criticisms from others and questions about his trustworthiness. After examining the fierce struggle over religion and the question of toleration it will become obvious why many were so touchy over this issue. Besides the land settlement, the government’s primary concerns for Ireland in 1660 were obtaining security and stability for Protestants as well as the re-establishment of Episcopal polity. Before the king’s London arrival the convention in Dublin had decided to restore the bishops to demonstrate their willingness to return to order. Commissioners from the convention met with Charles on 21 June 1660, asking for that restoration along with toleration for moderate Protestant dissenters. That request was swiftly met with archbishops and bishops named in the following two days. Ormond had the task of naming the deans and archdeacons. Interestingly, these

57HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:138.

58Ibid.

59Ibid., 149.

64 measures preceded any appointments in the English church. Presbyterian ministers from Ulster arrived in July to demand that Charles honor the Solemn League and Covenant and asked for the removal of bishops. The Irish commissioners, including Anglesey, were hostile to the ministers, as appointments had already occurred. The ministers changed the wording of their appeal and Anglesey, perhaps swayed by their attempts to humble themselves, presented their requests to the king. Charles did agree to protect their separate religious meetings if they could not accept the Episcopalian Church.60 Anglesey’s intervention for the Ulster Presbyterian ministers is not all that surprising when considering his own personal religious views; however, one must remember that Anglesey was always willing to concede certain issues. He was rarely a hardliner. Though the ministers were probably not shocked by their less than warm welcome, there was bitterness over Anglesey’s apparent “betrayal” of his Presbyterian brethren. An Irish Presbyterian wrote that while Anglesey was a “professed friend to the Presbyterians” after advancing to high places and honors within the government he “disowned Presbyterian principles.”61 One should not take this statement too closely to heart, for Anglesey’s actions demonstrate his attempts to support Presbyterianism. He argued against a bill that tried to exclude Presbyterians from the established church of England. He pointed out that parliament should not determine the religious settlement without the guidance of the king. However, as a moderate and survivor Anglesey did not always hold fast to his Presbyterian allegiances. He wanted a religious settlement that would bring together Anglicans and Presbyterians and was willing to sacrifice one of the strongest Presbyterian beliefs, opposing Episcopal authority, to obtain unity. He openly clashed with Presbyterians over this issue in October 1660. At a joint meeting Anglesey argued against the limitation of bishops’ power in ordination. He perhaps realized that to reach a compromise resolve over certain issues must be softened. In regards to the king’s Declaration Concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs, issued at the end of October and which Anglesey helped prepare, it stated that the bishops had to accept the advice of Presbyters

60Richard L. Greaves, God’s Other Children: Protestant Nonconformists and the Emergence of Denominational Churches in Ireland, 1660-1700 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), 37; J.C. Beckett, The Cavalier Duke: A Life of James Butler-1st Duke of Ormond, 1610-1688 (Belfast: Pretani Press, 1990), 79; Hutton, Charles II, 149.

61J.S. Reid, History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Belfast: William Mullan, 1867), 248-250.

65 before making important decisions. Anglesey hoped that liberty could be extended “to men of peaceable spirits,” for he noted that in the push for uniformity “the people seem to be rather provoked than conquered.”62 This remark is quite insightful regarding the state of people’s minds over the religious issue. Anglesey was a political and religious realist his entire career. He attended Anglican services and, unlike his wife, did not frequent illegal conventicles. One report mentioned her presence, along with the countesses of Valentia and Peterborough, at a conventicle in Covent Garden on 5 August 1664. One can assume that had Anglesey opposed conventicles he would not have allowed his wife to attend. He, however, seemed to have been cautious in his religious professions. Anglesey’s feelings regarding Protestant dissenters is marked by his choice of personal chaplains. Edward Bagshaw, a known Separatist, became Anglesey’s chaplain in 1661 but only stayed until early 1663. He left because he was arrested and his papers seized for treasonable practices. Bagshaw had argued that though he was loyal to Charles the government had no power to enforce certain religious matters. He was committed to the Tower in January. Another nonconformist took over in 1665, Benjamin Agas who remained in Anglesey’s employ until 1673. His last personal chaplain, Henry Hurst who was also a dissenter, held the position from 1677 until Anglesey’s death. The earl also socialized with nonconformist leaders such as John Owen and Thomas Gilbert and had a brief relationship with George Fox, though Anglesey did not support Quakerism as a religious movement.63 Sometimes these relations drew criticisms from others. Ormond warned Anglesey in December 1663 that the king and the duke of York were unhappy with the earl’s support of nonconformists, noting that he “always inclined to their favour, and cast difficulties in the way to all means that have been proposed to induce them to conformity, or to secure the peace of the kingdom against them.” Ormond chided Anglesey that he had opened himself up to these type of objections though the duke acknowledged those

62HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:71.

63CSPD, 1663-1664, 678; Douglas Greene, “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey: 1614-1686” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972), 59-60; Greaves, Deliver Us from Evil: The Radical Underground In Britain, 1660-1663 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 164-165; Ronald Hutton, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658-1667 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 180.

66 actions were done out of “a charitable desire to do good offices, or from a belief that moderation and lenity is the likeliest way to gain dissenters and to establish tranquility.” However, Ormond cautioned that this plan could have the opposite effect because it could create jealousy when one was “single in the opinion, or supported by very few” and which could bring “a prejudice upon the most reasonable things you can say.” He concluded that he only sent these warnings out of friendship and kindness. Anglesey responded with the statement that “I knew my own weakness too well not to believe I had given some cause in Parliament and Council for those to find fault whom I most desired to observe and please.” Interestingly Anglesey did not apologize for his support of nonconformists, indeed he did not even mention them by name. Instead he merely acknowledged his own “weakness” over personal concerns and thanked Ormond for bringing the king’s displeasure to light. The earl insisted that he had always been careful to avoid being seen as part of a party or faction and that he always did his duty by serving the king faithfully. He was distressed that Ormond should have heard there was dissatisfaction on the king’s part and insisted “I cannot accuse myself to have deserved it.”64 Though at times Anglesey paid for his support of religious dissenters, he continued to fight for toleration on their behalf. Anglesey’s career serves as testimony to his devotion to Irish affairs. One of the more controversial issues for Anglo-Irish politicians was the Irish Cattle Bill. This bill had first been proposed by the English house of commons in 1663. This bill restricted the importing of cattle from Ireland after 1 July each year and from Scotland after August. It was passed not as a separate bill but as a clause in a general act for the encouragement of trade. The act, which took effect in 1664, significantly hurt the Irish economy, for cattle had been the principal export.65 Anglesey’s frustration over its passage is evident in a letter to Ormond. The earl remarked, “though I represented as effectually as I could the mischiefs thereof to his Majesty, it was not possible for me to prevent it.” Anglesey felt that the only way to prevent Ireland from falling into ruin was

64HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:131-133. Eminent religious historian, Richard L. Greaves, describes Anglesey as a “friend of nonconformists.” See Greaves, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 143.

65Carte, 4:237; Simms, 443; Hutton, The Restoration, 251; Richard Bagwell, Ireland Under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, vol. 3, 1660-1690 (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1916), 69-71.

67 to set up a trade of “stall feeding and barrel beef.” Ormond reassured Anglesey that nothing more could have been done. However, both men were suspicious over the bill’s intent, believing it was passed out of selfish motives and to harm the Irish economy.66 In 1665, the English house of commons passed a bill to reduce further the import of Irish cattle,67 but Charles convinced the lords to ignore it. Although this second bill had not passed, the first bill continued to wreak havoc on the Irish economy.68 Soon after, new concerns arose over the bill for prohibiting the importing of Irish cattle. The lord-lieutenant and others suspected the Cattle Bill would be introduced in the English house of commons in September 1666. The 1663 Act for Encouragement of Trade had already hurt the Irish economy. The new bill, which would ban all cattle trade from Ireland, was feared because people believed it would damage the economy even further and prove “ruinous to all classes.” The lord-lieutenant argued that since the passage of the 1663 bill “many of the inconveniences and miseries . . . are come in like a flood upon this your Majesty’s kingdom, whereby the hopeful progress we were in of bringing it to a condition of subsisting of itself and bearing its own charge without burden to your Majesty’s revenues in England is frustrated.”69 He and Anglesey believed that this new bill would not only prove ruinous to Ireland but also to England by raising the price of beef and corn (wheat).70 Anglesey warned that the bill would be fatal to Ireland.71 The duke reiterated his earlier complaints that the people had sunk into poverty, which was dangerous because of the threat of war. He used this reasoning to justify increasing the army in Ireland, for with the “restraint on cattle, the discontents of the people shall increase, and . . . revenues be further lessened.” If the new bill were to pass, the lord-lieutenant proposed that Charles allow him to call an Irish parliament and

66HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:64, 66, 74.

67CJ, 8:617, 619-620; Paul Seaward, The Cavalier Parliament and the Reconstruction of the Old Regime, 1661-1667 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 243; Hutton, Restoration, 251; Foster, 127- 129.

68Simms, 443.

69CSPI, 1666-1669, 176, 183.

70Carte, 4:240.

71MS Carte 47, f.66, f.138.

68 prepare bills for “repealing the statutes in force in Ireland prohibiting the export of sheep, wool and other commodities into any part of the world but England,” and acknowledged that it was difficult for the king to decide on a matter “when the whole of one of your kingdoms demand one course and some people in the other demand another.” However, Ormond argued that in this instance the benefits for England would be few, but the loss for Ireland “universal and great[;] we think that the greater evil which will fall on Ireland . . . should outweigh the small advantages which certain Englishmen may gain by the prohibition.” Accompanying this letter was an eight-page memorandum opposing the bill. The duke also sent Anglesey to argue against the bill once it reached the English house of lords.72 Anglesey grew increasingly distraught but was hopeful the king and duke of York would continue in their opposition.73 Before it was brought before the house of commons, the fire of London occurred on 2 September 1666. After learning of the fire’s destruction, Ormond collected funds for the relief of Londoners.74 This included the subscription and transportation of 30,000 cattle to London. Charity was Ormond’s motive; however, many Englishmen saw the donation as a “politic contrivance to put a stop to the bill for prohibiting Irish cattle.” Several days after the fire Sir Robert Temple presented the bill to the house of commons.75 Anglesey reported that while the king still opposed it most within the house of commons who were for it were from the north and the west.76 Ormond was disheartened but believed whatever negative impact the future act might have, he had done all he could by presenting evidence of its deadly nature to the king. He lamented, the king “alone can judge whether the infallible destruction of a whole kingdom and people is to be admitted to prevent the possible damage which may fall in some proportions upon some persons in another; and so that matter is left to the event it shall

72CSPI, 1666-1669, 183-185, 209, 533-542.

73MS Carte 47 f.66, f.138.

74PRO SP 29/174/81; HMC 78, Hastings, 2:369.

75Carte, 4:257; MS Carte 217, f.166, f.336.

76MS Carte 217, f.166, f.336.

69 please God to give it.”77 The king had publicly stated his dislike of the bill and professed he could not assent to “so unjust a thing.” However, it quickly passed through commons on 13 October.78 Against Ormond’s and many others’ wishes, the bill eventually passed the house of lords. Its progress through that house was much slower than in the commons. Clarendon fiercely opposed the bill, and Anglesey’s arguments were persuasive to many; however, the bill passed on 23 November by a vote of sixty-three to forty-seven. After being sent back to the commons with amendments it was eventually approved on 14 January 1667, and the king signed it on the eighteenth.79 Seaward, Bagwell, and Winifred Gardner, Lady Burghclere, convincingly argue that Charles’ change of heart was due to his need for money and that he capitulated to gain a more complacent parliament.80 It would always be bitterly resented within Ireland, brought up in letters any time the economic situation was mentioned. Reports noted that later that year, “Ireland is in a good posture, notwithstanding the almost intolerable prejudice done by the late Act . . . .”81 Anglesey was disappointed after the passing of the Cattle Bill; however, he had other pressing concerns regarding the safety of Ireland due to the onslaught of the Second Dutch War in 1665. This war briefly shifted the focus away from internal factional fighting to an outside threat. During the course of the war, plague broke out in England and the destructive London fire occurred on 2 September 1666. These events created a need for political unity, though not everyone ceased plotting. Anglesey, Ormond, and other government officials were mainly concerned with security; many feared a French

77CSPI, 1666-1669, 217.

78Carte, 4:262; CJ, 8:626-635; HMC 78, Hastings, 2:372-373; Seaward, 252-254.

79Carte, 4:263-266; LJ, 10:74-75, 80-91; A Proclamation for Due Execution of the Late Act of Parliament Against Importing Cattle from Ireland, and Other Parts Beyond the Seas (London: John Bill and Christopher Barker, 1667); Seaward, 266-270, 291-292.

80Seaward, 268; Bagwell, 3:75; Winifred Gardner, Lady Burghclere, The Life of James First Duke of Ormonde, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1912), 2:126.

81PRO SP 29/206/148.

70 invasion of Ireland,82 but rumors of impending plots and disturbances also circulated.83 Though most of these proved false, the fears they ignited created greater tension throughout Britain and influenced government policy.84 In response to these threats, Anglesey and the lord-lieutenant constantly asked the king for more funds to pay the soldiers’ arrears. Both men were worried that an unpaid and angry army would be extremely dangerous in the face of an invasion. This proved true when some soldiers mutinied in 1666. In all three kingdoms a mounting public dissatisfaction with the war arose after continuous losses and the insulting blow to English pride when the Dutch sailed up the Thames, burned several ships, and towed the English flagship away. When England sued for peace in July 1667, attention focused once more on internal politics, especially concerning Clarendon. Paul Seaward contends that the war, plague, fire, and declining economy led to instability in English politics and feelings of uncertainty among courtiers.85 Beginning in March 1665, the Dutch war caused many in Ireland to be concerned about the lack of revenue and inability to pay the soldiers. Secretary Bennet was told that neither the repression of “domestic dissatisfaction” nor the repulsion of foreign invasions could be accomplished if money were lacking.86 These financial problems were also related to the Cattle Bill. Ormond complained that he would be unable to pay his army unless Bennet and the king could obtain “the repeal of so much of those Acts of Parliament in England as obstruct, or rather, destroy our trade.” If that could not be

82France had signed a treaty with the Netherlands in 1662. See J.P. Kenyon, Stuart England (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1978), 200. War was proclaimed against France in February 1666. See CSPI, 1666-1689, 49.

83CSPI, 1666-1669, 33-35, 54, 126, 131; HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:213, 225, 229, 231; Richard L. Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet: Radicals and Nonconformists in Britain, 1664-1677 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 3, 7-11, 32-37, 41; Greaves, God’s Other Children, 88-89, 92-93; Greaves, “‘That’s no good religion that disturbs government:’ The Church of Ireland and the Nonconformist Challenge, 1660-88,” in As by Law Established: The Church of Ireland Since the Reformation, ed. Alan Ford, James McGuire, and Kenneth Milne (Dublin: Lilliput Press, 1995), 120, 125; Seaward, 246.

84Greaves, God’s Other Children, 378; Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet, 110, 244-246.

85Seaward, 244.

86CSPI, 1663-1665, 553.

71 accomplished, the lord-lieutenant wanted parliament to send Ireland “£30,000 yearly, till those acts are repealed or till we shall after the settlement have found out some other way of exporting those commodities we are forbidden to transport into England and the English plantations.”87 As vice-treasurer of Ireland, Anglesey echoed these concerns to Bennet: The country here is in a more sad and miserable condition than I ever knew it before. His Majesty hath here a great people, but ‘tis a nation of poor. I much apprehend that if the act prohibiting the transport of cattle, and the war with Holland, continue another year, here will be desolation and no possibility to maintain the army, there being no such thing as money or trade.88

Anglesey had been tirelessly lobbying for an increase in Irish funds since 1663. At times he was successful, but a thousand pounds here and there would not be enough. It was considered a triumph when he secured £60,000 to be sent over in English currency. Another financial burden was the financial subsidies charged on Irish nobility residing in England. Ormond pleaded with Anglesey to help “repair ourselves out of the subsidies.” However, in that endeavor it appears that Anglesey met with no success. Ormond also complained to the earl that the returns of the hearth money was short to which Anglesey responded that until the current collection practices were reformed problems would continue. As reported by Anglesey, expenses continued to outpace Irish revenue. He tried to warn the king that if Ireland did not receive more financial assistance it might be lost forever, implying it was ripe for revolt and or invasion. Anglesey believed the discontented Irish might have welcomed either of those events. The economic situation had apparently become so bad that “small parties begin to pillage the English in many counties.” Anglesey feared that “unless they be suppressed in time, no man can tell what these beginnings of mischief may grow to.” His other concern was that “disquiets will increase and the country grow dangerous to live in; and then His Majesty’s revenue here, which depends upon a quiet state of things, will totally fail.” He bitterly remarked that men should not criticize him for the state of the Irish treasury as he had worked hard to maintain and put to use the few funds available. Anglesey also acknowledged Ireland’s economic struggles and how the people struggled to pay taxes, which they could not

87Ibid., 642.

88Ibid.

72 afford.89 Clearly this dire economic situation effected Anglesey’s political goals and career, for his drive to help his homeland was a constant theme throughout his life. The Restoration settlement failed many peoples in many different areas. It was a long, hard fought battle to obtain an Act of Settlement for Ireland and even that required a later Act of Explanation, neither of which was satisfactory to all sides. Anglesey’s role in the early Restoration period was that of a combatant being knocked down, but who refused to stay down. He continued to rise up, seeking retribution both for himself and other Anglo-Irish landholders. As vice-treasurer of Ireland he diligently attended council meetings pushing for more contributions to increase Irish revenue. He fought hard against the passage of the Irish Cattle Bill and though he and his allies failed in their endeavors their perseverance is commendable. He remained careful in his friendships, making note of those who could not be trusted and those who might turn easily from friend to foe. Indeed, the constant intrigues and political betrayals were only just beginning for Anglesey. As he reported to Ormond, his close friend and ally, enemies were especially hard to spot when they hid like vermin in the dark. Attacks on Anglesey worsened in the next phase of his career, as charges of mismanagement would lead to his removal from high office. However, he did not go down without a fight and though he endured political oblivion for a time he did return to achieve even more influence and power under the watchful eye of the king.

89HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:56, 72-73, 80, 106, 108; MS Carte 46, f.130, f.214; MS Carte 47, f.71, f.148, f.74, f.154; CCSP, v, 540. Clarendon MS 84, ff. 129-130.

CHAPTER FOUR: LIVING UNDER THE SHADOW OF DISMISSAL, 1667-1673

Anglesey faced a particularly difficult chapter in his political career between 1667 and 1673, for it was in mid-1667 that charges of mismanaging the Irish revenue were raised against him. He was fortunate not to lose power altogether as he initially was asked to swap places with the treasurer of the navy; however, more aspersions would be raised against his handling of that office resulting in his 1668 suspension. During this time he still actively promoted Irish interests, including reforming the Irish militia and trying to obtain more money for the Irish government. Anglesey’s relationship with Ormond continued to be a major factor in his personal and professional life, though there were early hints of trouble between them. His health suffered due to numerous attacks of the gout. The earl’s diary provides insight on his concerns over his personal salvation, questioning his religious commitment to God. He also frequently lamented his loss of power and desired to find favor once more with the king. Though he experienced a loss of influence at court he never gave up petitioning the king, demanding to have his case brought to review when delays seemed to drag the affair on endlessly. His diary lists every meeting he had with the king, including promises made and confidences shared. The king’s waffling and toying with Anglesey illustrates Charles’ own vacillating nature. Anglesey’s tenaciousness, and constant hounding of the king, and the earl’s continued efforts to stay involved in courtly life resulted in his personal restoration to power. The next saga of his life would witness the culmination of his career, obtaining the office of privy seal. But before this rise occurred, one must first examine how he struggled to stay afloat during the increasingly tumultuous political world of Restoration London. News first broke of Anglesey’s position swap in June 1667, though the actual change occurred a month later. He wrote to Ormond that he was switching offices with Sir George Carteret. Anglesey became treasurer of the navy, while Carteret was now

74 vice-treasurer of Ireland and was also treasurer at war. Charles’ biographer, Ronald Hutton, believes that the change was enacted to keep Carteret from being attacked after the disastrous loss to the Dutch in May when their navy burned three of Charles’ ships and towed away his flagship. As treasurer Carteret would have born much of the people’s anger. Charles decided to save Carteret by switching him and Anglesey and using a scapegoat, Peter Pett, the commissioner in charge of the Chatham dockyard, to blame for the Dutch success. Anglesey did not appear happy with the swap, evident in his letters. He apparently worried that he would be unable to serve Ormond and Ireland to the extent that he had been doing. He wrote, “I beseech your Grace not to thinke me lesse your servant because I am more out of the way of receiving favours and obligations from you . . . .” Anglesey also hinted that the change may have resulted from rumors of his mishandling of Irish affairs. He remarked that he always tried to promote the good of Ireland and in that endeavor he “cannot well be suspected of backwardnesse in.” It appears that he was already being defensive in regards to his conduct. Some believed that the swap may have been related to Anglesey’s loss of influence at court, remarking that “his interest in this Court is so small” that he received cold answers when he attempted to obtain grants of patronage for his supporters. Anglesey later wrote that he was pleased Ormond was not angry over the exchange and continued to stress his devotion to both the duke and Ireland, stating “And I hope your Grace will not so farre discharge me your thoughts in relation to my assisting in his [majesty’s] service there but that when the exigency of his [majesty’s] service here in the naval affaires will permit . . . your Grace may expect me there as much at your devotion and his [majesty’s] service as ever.”1 Ormond was indeed disturbed to learn of the exchange, writing to his son that he feared while the transition occurred “we may suffer here by the vacancy and God knows wee neede not greater difficultys then those wee labour under.” The duke also wrote to Carteret assuring him that while he was not surprised that the switch occurred in these times of “so many alterations” he had full faith in Carteret’s friendship and allegiance. He wished to work with Carteret so that he might understand the state of the Irish revenue and see that there was an urgent need to “keepe life in this Government and to prevent the

1MS Carte 47, f.78, f.162, f.80, f.166; Stowe MS 744, f.144; Ronald Hutton, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658-1667 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 272.

75 disturbance of it . . . .2 Ormond’s fears were not initially realized, but Anglesey’s defensiveness proved sound. Soon accusations about his mishandling of the revenue were flying about court. As vice-treasurer of Ireland and a close friend of Ormond’s, Anglesey had already been under attack in 1664 from the lord-lieutenant’s enemies while they continued to make derogatory comments about Ormond. In April 1664 Sir Richard Rainsford and Henry Coventry had attacked the Bill of Settlement and accused Ormond and the Irish council of being overly partial to their friends. When Anglesey attempted to defend the duke, Rainsford and Coventry turned on him and claimed that Anglesey possessed 40,000 acres in county Cork, which he rented in custodium for £10 though he made £400. Rainsford also complained about how other custodiums were managed by Ormond.3 Though these accusations ceased, they were revived in 1667. Anglesey reported in February 1667 that Sir Paul Davies and others “have been very inquisitive into my Accounts.” The earl was upset, remarking it “is not expedient that the state of the Treasury should be too commonly known.” This was only the beginning as more inquiries were later made into Anglesey’s management of the Irish revenue as well as Ormond’s handling of the government. The earl of Orrery accused the earl of squandering large sums of the Irish treasury for private warrants. Later that year Anglesey noted, “some are busy to make inquiry of the carriage of affaires in Ireland, out of the same humour which is now very busy here to find fault and prepare matter[s] of complaint.” Discontentment with the land settlement in Ireland, basically there was not enough land to keep Catholics, Protestants and former parliamentarians content, continued to fuel anger which enemies of Ormond and Anglesey were only too happy to use for their own gain. Anglesey reported that several who encouraged the angry adventurers often attended council meetings, suggesting that malcontented troublemakers

2MS Carte 48, f.74, MS Carte 49, f.249, f.400; Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 248.

3HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:159, 162.

76 were placed among the high offices of power at court. While no one as yet made open aspersions against Ormond there were many whispers and rumors.4 On 26 June 1667 a warrant was issued to the attorney general to prepare a document of surrender for Sir George Carteret’s office of treasurer of the navy. They also prepared a grant for that office to be issued to Anglesey. Other warrants dealt with the transfer of salaries and for all naval bills to be addressed to Anglesey. This was all formalized between July and September, with Anglesey receiving his patent on 2 July.5 However, an interesting document brings to light the king’s feelings about charges against Anglesey. Apparently, the king felt that since Anglesey was “suspected of great mismanagement of the Irish revenues which passed through his hands, he is not to be trusted with the treasure of the navy, till he has given better satisfaction.”6 Unfortunately the entry is not dated, but one can assume based on its contents that it was written in mid- 1667 just before Anglesey became treasurer of the navy. It bears commenting on because the charges of mismanagement that plagued Anglesey in both offices resulted in his being suspended from the office of treasurer of the navy in 1668 after holding it for just a little over a year. However, he was kept extremely busy in that year tolling through necessary duties that his position required. While some of the navy business may seem monotonous these accounts are important to understanding later accusations against Anglesey. It seemed more than coincidental, for many at court and in Ireland, that the earl would face the same charges so soon. Much of Anglesey’s daily business involved handling accounts payable and prize money, as well as funds that came from the Dutch East India Company. Payment was also due to naval officers and sailors who fought in the recent Dutch war. Ships patrolling the coasts had to receive pay rolls for the sailors as well as repair charges. However, soon complaints began being raised that the money was not forthcoming. Many feared that violence might erupt if the sailors’ salaries continued to remain unpaid

4MS Carte 217, f.187, f.378, f.202, f.407, f.203, f.409, f.204, f.411; Kathleen M. Lynch, Roger Boyle First Earl of Orrery (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1965), 133.

5CSPD, 1667, 235, 349, 411, 440; PRO SP 29/207/113, 29/ 211/123, 29/211/125; MS 480860, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 2 July 1667.

6PRO SP 29/88/84.

77 and this did become an issue in June 1668 with the workmen at Chatham Yard. Disorderly acts committed by those workers led Anglesey to scramble to find the funds needed to pay them. Other criticisms revolved around how some people did not understand why there was not enough money in the treasury, commenting that the exchequer had always been able to meet such needs, yet Anglesey could not seem to find the funds. The dearth of funds caused Anglesey to borrow £50,000 for the seamen’s wages. Sir William Coventry, brother to Henry who had already attacked Anglesey and Ormond over the Irish Act of Settlement, constantly denounced Anglesey’s actions in letters to friends. Coventry criticized the earl for his explanations made to the treasury commissioners, stating that they were confused and implying Anglesey was not being forthcoming in his reports. Others said that amounts had been “misemployed” and that cash very frequently was drying up. Anglesey admitted that a “new sale of ships must be appointed with speed.” One ship captain, St. John Stevenson of the Sapphire, bitterly complained that unless Anglesey’s order for money came soon Stevenson would sail without being paid. Representatives for the surgeons who traveled on the navy ships requested their overdue payments, stressing those that had not been paid since Anglesey became treasurer. Men from the ship Revenge were so discontented that the captain’s clerk fretted that until they were paid off he would have to sail with no crew, for the men refused to sail. Anglesey was forced to solicit more money from the lords of the treasury. He also grew angry when the navy commissioners allowed ships to be equipped and sent out and then demanded pay which was not available. He sternly told them that until they received papers from his “hand allowing it” no ship should be set up and sent out. The treasury commissioners soon raised questions about sums noted as unaccounted for and which should have been used to repay specific bills. Yet these bills were still listed as having unpaid, outstanding payments.7 While dealing with a struggling treasury and constant demands, Anglesey also had to play political games at court, a normal happening for Restoration politicians. An ongoing problem for Anglesey in 1668 involved factionalism and political attacks. He had to choose sides and deal with the battle going on between George

7PRO SP 29/216/66, 29/216/128, 29/220/17, 29/220/81, 29/221/76, 29/221/101; CSPD, 1667, 446; CSPD, 1667-1668, 21, 25, 34, 87, 101, 263, 362, 455, 515, 535.

78 Villiers, duke of Buckingham, and Ormond. It seems likely that Buckingham began to focus his efforts on discrediting Ormond because of the lord-lieutenant’s friendship with the earl of Clarendon. Buckingham and Clarendon had been enemies for years, which was partially due to their vastly different personalities. Buckingham was the king’s constant companion and provided entertainment, often by mocking Clarendon’s behavior. He had been accused by Clarendon and secretary Henry Bennet, currently baron Arlington, of casting the king’s horoscope, a treasonable offense, in early 1667. After evading arrest on several occasions, Buckingham surrendered shortly after the Dutch raid but was nevertheless cheered by the London crowds. The charges against him could not be proved, and Buckingham was released. He was furious with Clarendon’s actions and decided that Clarendon’s removal was not enough. Buckingham convinced the king in October to support impeachment by arguing that without such action parliament would not vote the money Charles needed. Coventry refused to support this, but Arlington agreed. The charges, which ranged from bribery to injustice, were presented to the house of commons on 26 October. At first, they were rejected for lack of proof, but the Austrian ambassador claimed that Clarendon had betrayed secrets to the French during the war. The commons voted for impeachment, but the house of lords was deadlocked since the ambassador offered no compelling evidence. Furthermore, Clarendon had the support of many peers, including Anglesey, lord Ashley, and the duke of York. These divisions paralyzed parliament at a time when Charles desperately needed financial grants to relieve his war debts. After it was rumored that Charles planned to recess parliament, call a tribunal, and sentence Clarendon to death, the earl left for France on 29 November 1669, and parliament banished him for life.8 Buckingham now turned on those who had supported Clarendon, especially Anglesey and Ormond. Buckingham would not have succeeded in creating a coalition against Ormond without the complex ties and alliances that had been formed during the Antrim affair in the early 1660s.

8PRO SP 29/216/19; CSPD, 1667-1668, 25-27, 32-33, 64, 81; CSPI, 1666-1669, 446-449, 455, 490-493; HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:279; Hutton, Charles II, 248-253; Hutton, The Restoration, 275-284; Thomas Carte, The Life of James Duke of Ormond; Containing an Account of the Most Remarkable Affairs of His Time, and Particularly of Ireland Under His Government, 2nd ed., 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1851), 4:302-311; Winifred Gardner, Lady Burghclere, The Life of James First Duke of Ormonde, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1912), 2:138-139; Maurice Lee Jr., The Cabal (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1965), 18, 21-24.

79 Although Buckingham appears to be the primary agent in Ormond’s 1669 fall, he could not have won without support from numerous individuals who were either visible or hidden enemies of the lord-lieutenant. As tensions escalated Anglesey and others urged Ormond to come to England and defend himself. On 14 December 1667, he had asked the king’s permission to travel to England.9 Ormond did not depart for England until 24 April. His decision to go was motivated by the realization that the earl of Orrery had turned against him. Before approaching Orrery, Buckingham had asked Anglesey about aiding in the effort to impeach Ormond. Anglesey refused to be bribed by fear or favor and warned the lord- lieutenant. Orrery was then solicited, and though he initially refused, he later agreed to go to England. He hinted that Buckingham had invited him and the others involved in questioning Ormond’s handling of the Irish revenue.10 Ormond entered London on 6 May 1668 and was received by the king with civility, and the latter seemed satisfied with his management of Irish affairs. Charles assured him he would be allowed the same freedom he always had regarding the management of Ireland. Orrery was delayed by gout and did not appear until mid-June 1668.11 After arriving at court, Orrery claimed there was enough revenue in Ireland to cover both the military and civil lists, and had the money been managed properly Charles would not be in debt. A commission, which included Buckingham and John, lord Robartes, was appointed by parliament to inquire into the misappropriation of Irish revenue. Its findings were what Ormond knew to be true already, that his and Anglesey’s accounts were correct, and that the king’s warrants had largely contributed to the mounting debt in Ireland. Thus Ormond and Anglesey’s only faults were having obeyed the king’s orders to pay warrants before the land establishment was satisfied. The commission also discovered that in 1661, when Ormond became lord-lieutenant, the

9HMC 36, Ormonde, n.s., 3:281-282; Carte, 4:329.

10CSPI, 1666-1669, 602; Carte, 4:330-333; Lynch, 142-144. Lynch, Orrery’s biographer, discusses in great detail Orrery’s slanderous remarks against Anglesey, which basically accused the earl of being a former parliamentarian who lost his position of treasurer due to his incompetence. Orrery also implied that the earl abused his position to increase his personal finances.

11Carte, 4:332-337.

80 expenses exceeded the revenue by £60,645, but in 1668 when he left Ireland, the shortfall was only £31,136. This accounted for the arrears due to the civil and military lists. Additional arrears of rents and payments, amounting to £115,737, were due to the Crown, so the only Irish debt unprovided for in 1668 was £61,165. This was a far cry from the £488,000 that Buckingham’s faction claimed was owed to the king.12 However, the charges raised against Anglesey would not be as easily dismissed, for enemies soon raised questions about not only Irish revenue, but also the naval accounts. As tensions mounted at court in early 1668, Anglesey wrote a very illuminating letter to Ormond regarding the state of affairs there: That which really saddens my heart . . . is . . . to see what a sad and declining state affaires are and all confidence among men so broken by late intrigues and cabals that there are scarce any two that dare trust one the other but every man is jealous of his neighbor and those in power practicing to supplant one another and wants and debts increasing. I meet with my share of injuryes and lyes which though none dare avow they presume to defile his majesties’ ears with and according to the small method first assaulting the outwork designs are laid to me first, but some spare not to betray themselves so farre as to their confidents to confesse that it is that they may the surer hurt another wheren god praeserve and whom I have warned often of their conspiracy.13

Anglesey lamented that he had done nothing but been a faithful servant to the king, but it appeared he was destined to suffer from the jealousies of others. One gentleman at court commented that people were very unsatisfied with the management of the Irish treasury and were determined to inquire further into it.14 Rumors began circulating that Anglesey was being urged to part willingly with the treasurer of the navy position so the king could grant it to Sir Thomas Osborne, but that Anglesey was refusing to do so.15 While worries plagued him regarding the possible loss of office, he also bemoaned his loss of lands in Ireland, writing to Sir Edward Dering, “I lost great quantityes of the best land in Ireland and unlesse I be reprised answerably I shall receive great damage in addition to the meane profits which I have lost so many yeares, besides my vast losses by the

12Ibid., 4:337, 338, 340, 341.

13MS Carte 217, f.215, f.433.

14Ibid., f.218, f.439.

15CSPD, 1667-1668, 259.

81 rebellion . . . it is in your power to oblige me with justice . . . .” He continued to complain a month later, noting that the losses he sustained occurred while being “six yeares out of my lands by Decrees.”16 This was a constant source of bitterness for Anglesey and he spent a great deal of time trying to win compensation from the king. However, more pressing were the charges of mismanagement and, as the clamors for an examination of his accounts grew louder so did Anglesey’s worries. Ormond commented to George Carteret that Anglesey was already at a disadvantage with the king and though the earl seemed confident the charges would be removed Ormond was nervous. The duke cited two complaints to be raised, one that Anglesey “gave preference to warrants besides the Establishment in consideration of profit, and next that warrants for his own use are in the numbers.” This meant that the earl was being accused of selling warrants for his own profit and giving himself preferential treatment. Ormond believed that if proved it would be considered a misdemeanor but was at a loss to see how these examinations would help the king’s cause and current problems.17 Financial woes continued to plague the naval treasury and Carteret grumbled that he needed to pay numerous sailors but could find nobody that would advance money to pay off Anglesey’s bills, emphasizing that he placed the blame for these troubles squarely on Anglesey.18 This denouncement occurred just before Anglesey received official notice from the king on 7 November 1668 that he was suspended from office and had to “deliver up to Sir Thos. Osborne and Sir Thos. Littleton, appointed Commissioners for the Navy Treasurership, the house lately used for that office, excepting one room needful for keeping your papers and making up your accounts.” Shortly after a warrant was issued for paying all moneys due for naval affairs to Osborne and Littleton. Later in September 1671, another change occurred whereby the king granted sole duties for the position of treasurer of the navy to Osborne.19 One scholar, Hutton, states that Anglesey’s fall was a blessing because of his laziness and the energy of his replacement,

16Stowe MS 745, Dering Correspondence, 3:16, 3:19

17MS Carte 49, f.366, f.606.

18CSPD, 1668-1669, 53.

19Ibid., 56, 83; State Papers Domestic, Entry Book 26, f. 115.

82 Osborne.20 And it is true that by training Osborne was much better prepared and suited to handle the treasury accounts than Anglesey. But we may note that one of Anglesey’s first worries apparently was an earlier promise to compensate a Henry Grant who had lost his ship to the war effort. The earl had not yet issued the moneys and wished the naval board would find a way to grant payment. He lamented, “the tears of this afflicted old man have often grieved my heart.”21 It is rather touching that his initial response was to think of those less fortunate than he who might also be harmed by Anglesey’s suspension, a sentiment that seems to dispute Douglas Greene and others’ depictions of a courtier who thought only of himself. Anglesey must have been in a state of semi-shock, for though there were rumors of his possible dismissal those were almost always present at court in Restoration England. Often they were spread by one’s enemies, but while some were fictitious others contained threads of truth as Anglesey soon discovered. It is frustrating that in his personal diary he skipped from 12 October 1667 to 9 May 1671, so that source provides no light for this particular subject; however, later entries do contain bitter comments regarding his treatment by the king and the triumph of his enemies. While altruistic in his first response, Anglesey quickly turned to personal concerns and on 5 December presented a petition to the king: to know in what manner he shall give better satisfaction in his accounts, whether to his Majesty in person, or to his Commissioners. Finds that he is under his Majesty’s displeasure for suspicion of great miscarriages in the management of the revenue as Treasurer-at-War in Ireland; and that, until better satisfaction, he is not to be trusted with the Navy treasure. With answer thereon that the Commissioners are still sitting on the accounts of Ireland, and that the King will be glad to hear that the petitioner has given them satisfaction.22

He also lashed out against the navy commissioners, stating that he knew of their list of £2,000 in unpaid assignments and snipped, “had I not been interrupted in paying, they had all been complied with . . . [and] I often paid before I had received the money.” One wonders how he actually accomplished that latter claim unless he used some form of a

20Hutton, Charles II, 261.

21CSPD, 1668-1669, 84.

22State Papers Domestic, Entry Book 18, f. 345.

83 treasury warrant. It is obvious he was coldly seething over the accusations; however, he was willing to work with them to find solutions if they allowed him to continue on as a “sensible member of [their] number.” 23 It appears that they were not willing to respond favorably to that particular offer. The affair dragged on to the frustration of Anglesey and his accounts were supposed to be released to the navy commissioners in October 1669, at least they were requested then. Anglesey’s impatience was evident in a 13 October letter to the navy commissioners, complaining that he attended court as instructed with the necessary documentation but was never called to meet. He begged them to “appoint a speedy day, that we may not all be charged with neglect in the dispatch of this account.” He stressed how hard it was for him to labor for so long under such a serious charge.24 By the 28th Anglesey’s case still had not been heard and as he bitterly stated to the navy commissioners, “Finding you failed to sit upon my account of the Navy, I entreat that a speedy day may be appointed to go on with it. You only allow one day in the week, and if that be not punctually observed, I shall be long before I am discharged of my account.”25 As time dragged on, Anglesey next turned to the king seeking relief. In a 24 November petition he wrote: I think it my greatest misfortune to have fallen under your Majesty’s displeasure, though not doubting that it will prove on examination to be undeserved. I will keep from the least suspicion of unfaithfulness, and beseech a restoration of your good opinion. As you were pleased, on my suspension from office a year ago, to declare that I should not lose to the value of 3d. in my fees, I beg an order to receive the profits due on payment made for the Navy, since 2 Nov. 1668, as a pledge that your Majesty has not cast me off.26

Anglesey’s political savvy warned him that unless he found favor with the king his case might not see the light of day anytime soon. Unfortunately for the earl, he would remain out of favor until April 1670. All of these financial accusations are significant because they had repercussions for Anglesey’s political career. Charges of revenue mismanagement were quite serious

23CSPD, 1668-1669, 158, 159.

24Ibid., 516, 530.

25Ibid., 554.

26Ibid., 589.

84 and after being suspended from office there was the possibility that the earl would not regain his political power and influence with the king. Apparently Anglesey’s Irish treasury accounts were still under investigation as the barons of the Irish exchequer responded in December 1669 to an English inquiry regarding his records.27 Obviously some were still unsatisfied with that affair, most likely the court enemies of Anglesey and Ormond. These intrigues and examinations of that account continued throughout 1671 and into 1672. During 1671, Anglesey constantly petitioned the king to have his suspension raised. However, the earl met with refusal in this matter, though the king mentioned granting Anglesey a pension of £3,000 a year for life in lieu of a restoration to the position of vice-treasurer. Even after Anglesey begged to be reinstated and promised to surrender the office of his own accord, he found the king “hardened.” Anglesey concluded by stating that all he expected was justice. He labored through July, but to no avail. Interestingly, in June 1672 he was granted that pension. Just obtaining that took a year, for he began writing about the possibility of the king signing a warrant for the pension in 1671.28 Anglesey wrote to the current lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the earl of Essex, of how he had been mistreated in the handling of his case. The earl stated that though he owed moneys for both his Irish lands and to settle his accounts while vice-treasurer, money was owed to him from the king, which would satisfy those debts. Anglesey argued: And having sent for my writings out of Ireland for that purpose when the Duke of Buckingham and other Commissioners sat upon my Accounts at Essex house . . . it would be strange, that whilst the business depends here before his majesty upon his Reference to the Lord Berkeley late Lord Lieutenant I should be now prosecuted there, and be forced again to adventure my vouchers thither, and want them here to satisfy his majesty when he will afford a hearing which I daily expect.

Anglesey stressed what a hardship this would cause him and he prayed that Essex, who had already gained a reputation for treating his servants justly, would not allow any harm to befall the earl, a loyal subject of their king. He promised that should a decision be rendered which required more payments that he would make swift reparations, for severe

27CCP, 37, ff.107-109.

28MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 19 June 1671, 2 July 1671, 8 July 1671, 9 July 1671. See below, pg 16.

85 prosecution would not be needed. All of this Anglesey swore as Essex’s most humble and faithful servant. Apparently his plea worked for he later wrote to Essex thanking him for his aid. What the earl wanted, and desperately needed, was a stop made in the proceedings against him, for another bill had been drawn up against him in the court for the Irish exchequer. This bill laid more charges against him by Sir Maurice Eustace and Sir Richard Kennedy. Anglesey got his wish for the stop in November 1672, as Essex received notice that the king had consented to a halt in this case. Others seemed relieved as well, remarking that Anglesey’s suspension should be removed and that the former proceedings against him were shameful and should not be used in the future. However, this must not have meant that all of Anglesey’s financial debts had been paid, for in January 1673 the king declared that Anglesey owed £7,000 to Sir Richard Bellingham. Bellingham’s father, Sir Daniel, had been Anglesey’s deputy when the earl was vice- treasurer of Ireland. One can assume Anglesey was not happy to learn of this development; however, none of his letters make reference to this new financial ill.29 Other individuals at court were, like Anglesey, annoyed with the long, drawn out nature of the naval case, worrying that unpaid bills would cause distress and possibly violence. Some demanded their accounts be settled before Anglesey’s case was dismissed and the money scattered.30 An account of the navy debt in early 1670 apparently revealed that Anglesey’s financial accounting differed from the weekly certificates. Unpaid bills had continued to increase and Anglesey urged the navy commissioners to resolve the case quickly so that justice could be served to those waiting for their payments.31 His hopes rose in July 1671 when he was told that the king was pondering his naval account. The earl hoped this might bring a conclusion to that business. He was relieved when on 11 July the council heard his case and decided that Anglesey had “kept to rules in the Treasury better than those before or after me.” Anglesey bitterly commented that though they felt that way he still had not received true justice. Entries in his diary for early and

29MS Stowe 200, Correspondence of Essex, 1:258, 315, 351, 463-464; MS Carte 51, f.92; CSPD, 1672- 1673, 431. Most of these attacks were due to Anglesey’s ineptness while in office mingled with jealousy and factional rivalries.

30CSPD, 1670, 10, 246.

31Ibid., 206, 228.

86 late 1672 imply that he was still meeting with Sir George Carteret and others about the naval account and other business.32 Anglesey also worried about financial matters in regards to his lands in Ireland, petitioning in January 1670 that since the “quit rent charges . . . exceed double the annual value of the lands, they may be reduced . . . .”33 This issue also dragged on and he spent much of the 1670s trying to obtain relief from his financial distress. In July 1671 he reported that after having spoken to the king about those quit rents34 Charles signed the warrant that same night.35 He gained more relief from these ills in June 1672 when a warrant was issued to grant him all his fees owed as well as a pension of £3,000 a year for life, which would cease should he be reappointed as treasurer of the navy. The fees were those that had accrued between the dates of 2 November 1670, when he had been suspended, to 25 June 1671. Apparently the latter date was when his accounts had been audited, a venture he had trusted Samuel Pepys and other commissioners to oversee fairly. Thrilled to have finally won a victory, Anglesey wrote to Pepys that he hoped to receive the first payment soon. If he could not get the entire sum he prayed that at least £1,000 or £1,500 would be forthcoming as his needs were quite pressing.36 However, the matter was not so easily resolved. In September 1671, Anglesey complained that Arlington had told the king that before Anglesey received his warrant for the £3,000 he should surrender the office officially. Anglesey was furious, as this clause had not been mentioned before but “left as the security for my due payment as appears by the draft of the warrant.” A new warrant was not drawn up and agreed upon until September 1672 and the matter continued on through October with Anglesey meeting with the lord keeper about receiving his moneys. Anglesey told the king that this was “not Lord Arlington’s

32MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 8 July 1671, 10 July 1671, 22 February 1672, 19 December 1672, 28 December 1672.

33CSPD, 1670, 35.

34Quit rents were land taxes charged by the king as a feudal acknowledgement of tenure.

35MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 12 July 1671; CSPD, 1671, 382.

36Ibid., 10 June 1672; CSPD, 1672, 273, 276, 442, 572.

87 first ill office to me.”37 This is interesting because it demonstrates the animosity between these two politicians, which had continued to grow since the early 1660s. Also, their strained relations are further highlighted by Buckingham’s attempts to win Anglesey over to his faction. Buckingham and Arlington were always rivals for power, only combining forces when maneuvering against a common enemy, as they did against Ormond. Thus, the animosity between Arlington and Anglesey would be exploited by Buckingham who shared religious ties with Anglesey as a fellow supporter of nonconformists. Their relationship is discussed in connection with Anglesey’s religious and political connections to Buckingham. Anglesey’s concerns for the poor men still attempting to obtain relief from their own financial burdens are striking. He continued to petition the naval commissioners, requesting they settle outstanding debts. These had still not been paid in July 1671 and he warned, “it will be extremely inconvenient and clamorous if the 3,000l ordered to the poor of the Chest be not presently paid.” Anglesey argued that if this matter was not taken care of immediately it might lead to social unrest. Apparently he succeeded slightly in this cause, for the next day £500 of the £3,000 was paid.38 Anglesey also succeeded in winning back the king’s favor, for he had received notice that he was readmitted to the privy council in April 1670. This was excellent news for the earl who obviously had found favor with the king, presenting him with the chance to weld power at court once more. Historian Andrew Swatland argues that Charles relied upon his privy councilors to manage the house of lords. They often directed government business through passage in the lords. He lists Anglesey as one of six privy councilors who managed almost ninety percent of conferences, most of which involved government agendas.39 Clearly Anglesey’s importance in parliamentary business is just one more reason a new examination of his life and career is warranted.

37MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 13 September 1671, 2-3 September 1672, 8 October 1672.

38CSPD, 1671, 364, 366.

39CSPD, 1670, 185; Andrew Swatland, The House of Lords in the Reign of Charles II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 102. This is just one of many valuable secondary sources that were published after Greene’s 1972 dissertation, which provide very different views regarding the nature of Charles’ domestic and foreign policies and the nature of Restoration London.

88 Interestingly, Anglesey’s diary does not report on this first year back, beginning again in May 1671. Also, there is not a great deal of evidence regarding his activity for 1670. However, in 1671, he dove back into court life, giving reports on the settlement of Ireland. Apparently a committee for Irish business was held in the council chamber just to hear one of his reports. In April he sat on a subcommittee assigned the preparation of an oath to help distinguish between loyal and disloyal Catholic peers. This was in reaction to a harsh commons’ bill meant to reform and tighten the conviction of Catholics and enforcement of existing laws.40 Beginning in June some of the privy council sat every day as a committee for Irish affairs. Anglesey’s diary details his attendance at this committee, also noting when the king attended council. At one meeting in June the earl gave his report concerning the state of Ireland. Apparently his remarks angered Ormond and Arlington although unfortunately Anglesey did not indicate what in particular upset them. Other contentious issues were raised between Ormond and Anglesey in October 1672. In the margins of his diary Anglesey noted that the following entries were an account of the “king’s justice to me” and “Ormond’s enmity.” After spending the morning at council, the king told Anglesey that he had directed his personal grant to pass and expressed his confidence in the earl. Anglesey thanked him and hoped he would deserve new favors from the crown. Later that same day a heated dispute arose over the granting of money in repayment of quit rents due to a captain Ross. Ormond and St. Albans were in discussion about it and Ormond supposedly hinted that Anglesey had taken bribes. Anglesey wrote that Ormond was the one who engaged in this practice while lord-lieutenant, but Anglesey always refused them. The earl also noted that Ormond was spreading rumors to the king that Anglesey had grown angry when he was denied the purchase of an estate, which led to some of his underhanded actions. Anglesey reported that the king did not believe these falsehoods and that Ormond later apologized and made “great professions of friendship” in front of the lord chancellor and other high officers of state. Anglesey felt that he had been “delivered from a continued slander.” This account sharply contrasts with the united front Ormond and Anglesey had presented in the late 1660s regarding charges of

40Swatland, 190.

89 financial mismanagement in Ireland. Here then is a hint of the mounting tensions between Ormond and Anglesey that erupted in 1679.41 In July 1671 a warrant was drawn up to appoint a committee to examine and report on the settlement of Ireland. On that board sat Prince Rupert, the duke of Buckingham, the earls of Anglesey and Lauderdale, the lords Holles and Ashley, Sir John Trevor, and Sir Thomas Chicheley. This committee appears to have met quite often that September and November for Anglesey’s diary mentions many sittings. On 29 November, 1 December, and 11 January 1672 the commission met with the king at privy council to discuss Irish business. At these meetings they resolved a problem regarding officers in the Irish army. Problems in Ireland caused them to meet through the early months of 1672. Anglesey was also summoned as part of an extraordinary council where he gave advice against what he described as the king’s seizing men’s moneys, though his opinion was not followed. This incident refers to the “Stop of the exchequer,” which meant suspending repayments of loans and using the freed up cash for Charles’ wartime expenses, especially the navy that badly needed the money. Thomas, lord Clifford, put the idea for this in play. These expenses were part of the Third Dutch War (1672-74), for though England had signed the 1668 Triple Alliance against France with the Netherlands and Sweden, Charles had signed the secret Treaty of Dover with France in 1670. Clifford was also privy to these negotiations and supported the king’s alliance with France. This treaty was enacted in 1672 when France invaded the Netherlands and England was now part of a new war against the Dutch. The “Stop” proved wildly unpopular as most of the privy council felt as Anglesey did. Scholar Maurice Lee emphasizes that not all exchequer orders were subject to this “Stop.” Also, Charles promised six percent interest on the principal and interest for the withheld payments. It did obtain enough money to pay current bills, although the real financial problems were not solved. Lee also notes that Charles and Clifford were depending on a quick military victory against the Dutch and on financial gains large enough to begin repayment before parliament reconvened. Neither of those goals was

41MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 1 October 1672, 21 November 1672.

90 realized and Charles was forced to sign a peace in 1674 because parliament refused to vote him more moneys.42 Anglesey, though he had opposed the “Stop” and the war, continued to rise in the king’s favor. Hutton believes, and I concur, that the reason for this is because the earl diligently worked for the court in parliament. Anglesey was rewarded with another appointment in September 1672. This position was as a commissioner to inquire into the Irish settlement. This meant he would help review prior land grants as well as new appeals. Anglesey served with Prince Rupert, the dukes of Buckingham and Lauderdale, the earls of Arlington and Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper), Richard Jones, viscount Ranelagh, lords Holles and Clifford, Henry Coventry, and Sir Thomas Chicheley. They met that fall with the king about Irish corporations 43 Obviously Anglesey was still valued as an important informant regarding Ireland as his knowledge and expertise in that arena was well known. During this rise back into the king’s good graces, Anglesey’s diary reveals his concern for matters of religion and personal salvation. He had begun reading the Bible devoutly and pondered the “great decay of piety” within Britain. He questioned his religious commitment, wondering if it was enough. Anglesey resolved to begin recording his life, a chronicle to help inspire him. He intended to “leave a memorial thereof to my posterity for imitation and to give God the glory of his guidance and mercy toward me . . . .” The earl also hoped to write a history of times past, to reveal the truth of the recent wars, particularly the Irish rebellion.44 Anglesey also reflected on his fall, theorizing that perhaps God allowed him to fall because of pride and drink. He thanked God for helping bring him to that realization as he now abhorred such vices and had moved away from them. He mentioned reading works on Catholicism and its corruption, books he praised for depicting the true character of that church. He also noted that his

42Lee, 149, 151-154.

43CSPD, 1671, 284, 285, 322, 323, 358; State Papers Domestic, Entry Book 34, f. 182; MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 6 June 1671, 8 June 1671, 9 June 1671, 22 June 1671, 6 September 1671, 7 September 1671, 11 September 1671, 15-23 September 1671, 6-29 November 1671, 1 December 1671, 2 January 1672, 11 January 1672, 24 January 1672, 8 February 1672, 20 February 1672, 1 May 1672, 31 October 1672, 2 November 1672. Henry Bennet’s title of baron Arlington was raised to the first earl of Arlington in 1672.

44 MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 16 May 1671.

91 own work, which denounced Catholicism, would also emphasize the cancerous nature of the Roman church. Reflections about personal salvation and attacks against Catholicism found an outlet in his publications about religion. These will be discussed later, for they represent a different facet in Anglesey’s career and life. However, his religious ties with nonconformists continued during this time and affected his current political relationships. His social circle illustrated his nonconformist connections, for he often dined with well- known nonconformists, including Dr. John Owen. His diary also contains references to his attendance at chapel. This is interesting because apparently he often attended the morning court chapel at Whitehall and then heard his own minister later in the afternoon. The nonconformist whom Anglesey supported between 1665 and 1673 was Mr. Benjamin Agas. One can trace through the diary that on almost every Sunday the earl followed this pattern of traveling to Whitehall in the morning and returning home to listen to Mr. Agas in the afternoons.45 One might conclude that during this particularly trying period for Anglesey, both politically and financially, he turned to religion for comfort. Religion might also help explain the developing friendship between Anglesey and Buckingham. The later was known for his support of nonconformists. Many nonconformists viewed him as a champion of toleration. Evidence shows that he did solicit nonconformist support. Richard Greaves theorizes that this attempt was partly due to Buckingham’s desire to make the duke of Monmouth Charles’ recognized heir. However, Greaves concludes that Buckingham’s primary concern was always himself and his own personal enjoyment of intrigue.46 This view of Buckingham is also supported by his contemporaries as evidenced by a letter describing the duke as the head of the fanatics. One man believed that Buckingham fancied himself as another Cromwell

45Ibid., 28 May 1671, 11 June 1671, 21 June 1671, 25 June 1671, 23 July 1671, 13 August 1671, 22 October 1671, 19 November 1671, 26 November 1671, 27 October 1672, 17 November 1672, 8 December 1672, 9 February 1673, 16 March 1673, 30 March 1673; Richard L. Greaves, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 138; Richard L. Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet: Radicals and Nonconformists in Britain, 1664-1677 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 128; Greaves, John Bunyan And English Nonconformity (London: Hambledon Press, 1992), 5.

46Greaves, Glimpses of Glory, 329; Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet, 44-45, 192-195, 232; Swatland, 150.

92 and that “the fanatics expect a day of redemption under him.”47 Political advantages as well as religious affiliations can help explain the growing closeness between Anglesey and Buckingham. The earl’s diary documents various dinners and visits by Buckingham at Anglesey’s home throughout 1671. It also appears that Buckingham began hinting at political favors and advancement for Anglesey, all of which was connected to the earl’s continued friendship and support of Buckingham. Anglesey quoted Buckingham as declaring his confidence in the earl’s friendship and the duke’s desire to have Anglesey made lord chancellor. After being asked his opinion on that, Anglesey replied that he had no ambition toward that office, as it was an “envious and troublesome employment.” Buckingham’s answer was that someone had to possess it and that he felt could get it for Anglesey whom he felt would be a good friend. He warned the earl not to mention this to Arlington who would inform the king and put a negative spin on the appointment in order to try and defeat it. Anglesey appeared skeptical of these promises, observing that Buckingham kept trying to “induce” him by making various claims of his abilities to placate others who might object to the nomination.48 Though Anglesey may have been doubtful of Buckingham’s intentions or abilities to fulfill these promises, their meetings and dinners continued. Others within Buckingham’s circle were also being conciliatory toward Anglesey. He noted that after dinner with Berkeley he was told that “all were for my being [lord] keeper.” Others told Anglesey that he was to receive the office of privy seal. Anglesey’s private reaction was that he did not desire any office unless “better courses be steered.” One can assume he meant his recent trials and experiences at court after losing his office of treasurer.49 More dinners with Buckingham parallel his spending time at court “about [the] Duke of Buckingham’s business.”50 One interesting example of this was an April 1671 controversy within parliament. The disagreement arose over the imposition rate on sugar in the Foreign Commodities

47CSPD, 1667-1668, 259.

48MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 4 June 1671, 19 July 1671, 25 August 1671, 26 August 1671.

49Ibid., 25 August 1671, 26 August 1671.

50Ibid., 3 November 1671, 9 November 1671.

93 Bill. While past scholars have argued that the animosity resulted from the house of commons questioning the lords’ right to amend money bills, Swatland argues that contemporaries like Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich, credited it to a division within the privy council. This dispute, according to Swatland, arose between two factions, one led by Buckingham and the other by Arlington. Apparently Anglesey and lord Denzil Holles, as Buckingham’s allies, persuaded the house of lords that if the commons’ claims were deemed valid this might mean the loss of the lords’ right of emendation. Clearly many of Anglesey’s contemporaries were beginning to view him as an ally of Buckingham. Also, this reflects Anglesey’s strong views on the lords’ hereditary rights. He also met frequently with Berkeley and Clifford, the latter a close friend of Arlington’s, which shows just how convoluted these factions and supposed friendships at court were. Additional allusions were made in April 1672 to a new position for Anglesey. He was told that he might be given mastership of the rolls instead of resuming his old office as treasurer of the navy. Anglesey responded that he would be pleased to serve the king in any way he could. He always kept track of meetings with the king, implying that any time spent with the monarch, especially those rare times in private, were quite important to the earl. He also noted that on 30 November, while spending time at Whitehall with Charles, he spoke with him about his condition and services. The king replied that he had not forgotten Anglesey’s contributions and that the earl would soon be employed anew. At the same time he cultivated a closer relationship with Clifford who was rising higher in court politics, becoming treasurer of the exchequer in December 1672. Anglesey wrote that he accompanied Clifford to be sworn in as treasurer and often dined with him in early 1673. The earl was also growing closer to Shaftesbury, an ally of Buckingham, and another strong supporter of nonconformity. Anglesey wrote that on 18 November 1672 he went to congratulate Shaftesbury on being made lord chancellor and after this visited several times with him.51 These new connections apparently served Anglesey

51Ibid., 17 June 1671, 13 April 1672, 11 May 1672, 12 June 1672, 21 August 1672, 9 October 1672, 18 October 1672, 31 October 1672, 18 November 1672, 30 November 1672, 5 December 1672, 24 January 1673, 28 January 1673, 2 February 1673, 6 February 1673, 24 February 1673; Swatland, 134; Greaves, Glimpses of Glory, 328-329; Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet, 229-230.

94 well, for he soon gained one of the highest state offices, becoming lord privy seal in April 1673. The best word to describe Anglesey during the period 1667-1673 is survivor. He struggled valiantly to stay afloat amid the tumultuous political rapids, trying to navigate to secure, solid ground. Restoration politics were unstable and ever changing and many lost their positions with no chance of recovering favor, i.e. Clarendon. Anglesey had learned a valuable lesson; that to get back in Charles’ good graces one must work continuously, laboring to obtain audiences and keeping one’s name known at court. Often one had to switch sides, allying with a former enemy as Anglesey did with Buckingham. Continual loyalty to one’s friends was not always possible, though Anglesey tried to look out for others’ interests as well as his own. Personal survival was usually a politician’s top priority during Charles’ reign. Though Anglesey failed in his offices of vice-treasurer of Ireland and treasurer of the navy, he does not deserve all the blame for his shortcomings. The very nature of these positions, ongoing battles within parliament and between the king and his courtiers, and the divisive character of factional politics meant that holding a high court office was challenging. Performing under these pressures required a hard working, energetic personality and for those particular offices, an aptitude for financial matters and keen organizational skills. None of those matched Anglesey’s strengths. In short, he was not well suited for either position and his best efforts proved fruitless. After his suspension from office Anglesey moped for a while, but quickly threw himself back into court life. He worked hard to obtain relief from his financial troubles and fought off continued accusations. He also strove to help others who had been harmed by his suspension, trying to get payments for those whose accounts were in arrears. Anglesey sought strength in his faith, reading religious works and attending chapel regularly. Like many moderates he balanced his personal convictions with obedience to the state, attending morning services at Whitehall and hearing his own chaplain, a nonconformist, in the afternoon. The strain in his political relationships crossed over into his personal friendships. Tensions between him and Ormond began to grow after the two battled charges of mismanagement within the Irish government. It is not coincidental that both men fell from power almost at the same time, Anglesey in 1668

95 and Ormond in 1669. Interestingly both emulated phoenixes in rising back to power, for Anglesey was readmitted to the privy council in 1670 while Ormond gained his third appointment as lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1677. Anglesey gained his pinnacle first, becoming lord privy seal of England in 1673. The next phase in his career witnessed his actions as privy seal and as a commissioner for Irish affairs. He would work hard to promote Irish interests and would continue to struggle with personal financial and land issues. This would also be a time of religious reflection as he pondered writing works to help promote Protestantism and combat Catholicism. These leanings were reflected in his actions at court regarding bills on religious toleration, anti-Catholic legislation, and later events such as the Exclusion parliaments and Popish Plot. So Anglesey survived a low point in his career by working hard to find strong alliances at court that ultimately resulted in his successful return to power. Thus, surviving Restoration politics was rather like navigating through white water rapids. In order to surmount the highs and lows one had to possess a strong will to persevere as well as the necessary tools to reach safety or in Anglesey’s case powerful friends, an ability to negotiate, and the personal drive for self-fulfillment and power.

CHAPTER FIVE: POWER RESTORED, 1673-1678

For Anglesey 1673 was a year of hope and a chance to redeem his political career. He had received a new opportunity to make himself a valuable member of court, for in April he obtained the office of privy seal. This was one of the more prominent offices within Charles’ government, offering opportunities to issue patronage and influence domestic politics. If used properly it could be a powerful tool for an ambitious politician, someone looking to control policy and ally with powerful court factions. During Anglesey’s first five years as privy seal he faced numerous challenges, but nothing as serious as the forthcoming Popish Plot and the Exclusions Crisis. However, Anglesey had to deal with the responsibilities of this new position, while trying to obtain financial relief and dealing with the always tumultuous world of court politics. His relationship with other Anglo-Irish courtiers, including Ormond, influenced his personal and professional decisions. The wide range of Irish business Anglesey had to deal with stretched him almost to his limits as he and Ormond still struggled to guide Irish policy in what they felt was the best direction. Anglesey used his new office to try and grant favors to friends and families, balancing this with a quarrelsome parliament and fighting off slanders against the government. Religiously he continued to focus on his personal devotion and began writing a book of prayer and decided to eventually write one countermining the Jesuits. A major event was the current lord-lieutenant, the earl of Essex’s, recall and his replacement by Ormond, which would have serious repercussions later on for Anglesey after he and the duke had an intense falling out. Other significant events included the Dutch War (which had began in 1672), further entanglements with France, the contentious Declaration of Indulgence (issued in 1672 but discussed in the context of its repercussions in 1673), and subsequent Test Acts. Anti-Catholic and nonconformist

97 sentiments, which were always prevalent in early modern England, seemed more pronounced in the 1670s and would culminate later in the Popish Plot. Anglesey’s reactions to these events, his attempts to govern during these uncertain times, shed light on his personal struggles as well as Restoration politics. Rumors began swirling in early 1673 that Anglesey would be granted the privy seal. Ormond wrote to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the earl of Essex, that there was no other who could “reasonably contend” with Anglesey for the position.1 Pride resounds in Anglesey’s diary entry where he wrote of the king’s kindness in giving him the privy seal. One historian suggests that James, duke of York, may have played a large role in this appointment, although the evidence is not entirely substantial. Rumors are often hard to pin down and one cannot always give credence to them. In fact, most likely the reason Anglesey gained the position was because of his hard work for Charles in parliament. Though he had been disgraced with the loss of the treasurer office, Anglesey had continued to promote court policies. Charles may have been impressed with the earl’s devotion or perhaps felt he was innocent of the financial charges. Another possibility is that the king wished to irk the factions at court who were Anglesey’s enemies, for Charles delighted in playing off groups against each other. Regardless of the reason, Anglesey did receive an impressive reward for his loyalty. The earl obtained a copy of the patent and the draft for the warrant on 14 and 15 April and was formally sworn in on 16 April. He took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy as well as the Oath of the privy seal on 24 April. He later took the Oaths of Declaration in June. The latter was part of the recently passed Test Act, which imposed on all holders of public office a declaration denying transubstantiation, and they also had to provide a certificate, registered in a court of law in public session, proving they had recently taken Anglican communion. The following day Anglesey saw his new lodgings at Whitehall. Although thrilled with the appointment, Anglesey soon found himself being nibbled at by his own vermin, for some had told the king that it was unreasonable Anglesey should be given his £3,000 pension and the privy seal post. The earl feared that the king would listen to these jealousies because apparently the king had told Arlington

1Stowe MS 201, Correspondence of Essex, 2:369.

98 about these doubts. However, things were settled in Anglesey’s favor after he spoke with the king about those concerns, although the earl did struggle to get his payments, evident in a May letter. Anglesey complained that though he had initially directed that £1,500 be paid into the treasury chest for unpaid debts, now that his naval accounts had been settled he wanted that particular payment returned. The king, who apparently was in a terrific mood regarding Anglesey, directed later that month that £2,000 be “allowed to the Earl of Anglesey in his accounts as late Vice-Treasurer and Treasurer at War of Ireland, which was paid by him to Theobald, Earl of Carlingford, in obedience to two warrants dated 3 Dec. 1663 and 3 May 1664.” This gave relief to Anglesey regarding past issues of debts and payments. Another benefit came when a warrant was issued to pay him £4 a day instead of the ancient payment of sixteen dishes of meat.2 Anglesey’s financial troubles did not end here, for in October 1675 he petitioned the lord-lieutenant “setting forth his losses in Ireland and hard measure in the Court of Claims, and the non-payment of his pension of 600l. a year there, and praying his case may be examined with the means of relief he shall offer.” He waited for several months, during which he spent much time praying to God that he would be freed from debt and awarded his arrears and pension. The king responded to this petition in June 1676 with a lengthy statement: Warrant, after reciting the petition of the Earl of Anglesey for relief, he being deficient of his reprisals in Ireland above 600l. a year, and most of the rest of his reprisals being very barren lands and so clogged with an unreasonable quit-rent as to be of no considerable advantage to him, some of them in the barony of Beare and Bantry, co. Cork, and in the most barren baronies of Wexford, Carlow, and Kerry not yielding so much clear profit as the quit-rent, and for some of them near three quarters of the yearly value being paid for quit-rent . . . effectual letters patent to be passed [by the lord treasurer] to the said Earl and his heirs or to his nominees of so many lands and hereditaments in Ireland discovered by the said survey to be undisposed of and disposable to the uses of the said Acts as shall be sufficient to satisfy the reprisals yet deficient to him, and further authorizing and requiring him [the lord treasurer] out of the said 4,000l. to make such abatement to the said earl of the said quit-rents as shall be just and reasonable . . . .3

2MS 480860, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 11 April 1673, 14-15 April 1673, 16 April 1673, 21 April 1673, 24 April 1673, 25 April 1673, 10 June 1673, 3 October 1673; CSPD, 1673, 206, 289, 324, 325; Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 307.

3CSPD, 1675-1676, 340; CSPD, 1676-1677, 8, 190-191, 500.

Anglesey thanked the lord-lieutenant for taking care of this issue promptly and for recognizing the “hard usage” the earl had to endure for all these years. Another crisis involved money still owed to the crown from his tenure as vice- treasurer of Ireland. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Anglesey and Richard Bellingham had not settled their differences and in early 1673 the issue was again raised. Remember that Richard was the son and heir of Daniel who was the deputy for both Anglesey and Sir George Carteret, Anglesey’s replacement. In September 1673, Anglesey recorded in his diary that he spent time with the lord treasurer, Thomas Osborne, plotting against Bellingham. That October Anglesey also met with the duke of York and the rest of the council at Osborne’s home defending himself against Bellingham’s charges. Anglesey wrote that he was successful in persuading the lord treasurer to accept his and George Carteret’s accounts instead of Bellingham’s numbers. In December 1675, the lord-lieutenant of Ireland issued an order that nothing pass regarding Anglesey or Carteret’s accounts in Ireland until unresolved financial matters were cleared. Anglesey wrote Essex complaining about this in May 1676, believing it was Bellingham who convinced the attorney general to file a bill in the exchequer ordering the lord-lieutenant to take such action. Anglesey feared this would prevent him from gaining his financial reprisals, though this did not happen as evident from the above discussion regarding his quit rents and lands. Apparently by March 1676 Anglesey, George Carteret, vice-chamberlain of the household who had succeeded Anglesey as vice-treasurer, and Bellingham all still owed the crown. The king issued a warrant to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland to order the attorney general to “prosecute in equity the said persons for all such sums as shall in equity appear due to the Crown” and the barons of the exchequer were to issue their judgment, but not to execute it until Charles learned of their decision. In January the following year, the king issued a warrant to appoint a commission to deal with Anglesey’s response whereby he stated that due to health

100 reasons he required those prosecution proceedings to halt. Obviously Anglesey was not above using his bouts of gout as a shield to hide behind.4 This issue still had not been laid to rest in early 1678, for Anglesey wrote to the current lord-lieutenant, Ormond, of the “undeserved scrutinizes and examinations” that the earl still faced. Apparently, a new order had been issued to create a commission to examine Anglesey and George Carteret’s accounts, which meant Ormond was supposed to take action. Anglesey argued that first, his personal deputy, Daniel Bellingham, was long since dead and that since then the earl had discovered errors in Bellingham’s private accounts. Anglesey believed that Richard Bellingham was behind the new “extrajudicial” commission to “wound me undefended.” The earl was also surprised that one of the intended commissioners was a Mr. Taylor, who “hath already made wrong certificates,” and Alderman Peter Wybrants who Anglesey mocked as being one of Daniel Bellingham’s “sureties, for true accounting . . .” implying this man had already proven unreliable. Anglesey stated that he trusted Ormond’s justice would not allow for “such an illegal commission of inquiry” and begged the lord-lieutenant to “delay the King’s warrant till you certify your opinion hither and give an opportunity for me to be heard . . . .” Anglesey also wrote of the difficult times both men had faced: But though I have . . . vindicated myself with honour, and both your Grace and I stand acquitted by His Majesty in Council from the foul and false charge of mismanagement of his revenue, yet I find the same evil spirit which assaulted me openly heretofore, now underhand and by surprise practicing against me, and endeavouring to make your Grace the instrument, not only of injuring me, but, in consequence and by a aside wind, yourself . . . .5

Anglesey’s skillful attempts to remind Ormond of their bonds as aspersed statesmen and comrades in arms was interwoven with his feelings of outrage at this renewed attack. It is an interesting testimony to the earl’s inner turmoil over these continued accusations over finances. In fact, Anglesey bemoaned his financial woes and hardships for the remainder of his political career, constantly petitioning to be compensated for his losses and it appears that, at least in his mind, he never received

4MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 19 September 1673; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 1 June 1676; Stowe MS 209, Correspondence of Essex, 10:307; Stowe MS 210, Correspondence of Essex, 11:1, 3-5, 87; CSPD, 1675-1676, 450.

5HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:83-84.

101 complete justice. Regarding the earlier complaints against Anglesey’s pension, apparently one of the men arguing against it was viscount Ranelagh, longtime enemy to Anglesey. Ranelagh bitterly complained to Edward, viscount Conway, how unfair it was for the earl to receive both honors.6 As this was not the first time Ranelagh had attacked Anglesey, it probably came to no surprise to the earl who later joined once more with Ormond to oppose Ranelagh’s actions in Ireland. Anglesey duly noted the king’s affection as well as congratulations for his privy seal appointment given by his fellow politicians. Charles expressed his trust in Anglesey and how much he valued the earl’s service. The king commented that he expected even more examples of Anglesey’s devotion now that the earl had received this new honor. Anglesey reported the numerous visitations he received from important nobles who wanted to convey their best wishes. He mentioned all those who came to his home; the lord treasurer, Clifford, the chancellor of the exchequer, lord Devonshire, the earl of Berkshire, and various other lords and gentlemen.7 For Anglesey it must have meant a great deal to have powerful men coming to see him personally, commending his triumph. Surely he understood the machinations of court politics, when someone’s career began to advance people invariably tried to latch on, hoping for personal gains to come their way. Regardless of their reasons for doing so, those men still paid homage to Anglesey, an event he marked as an important occasion in his life and one that must have made him feel on top of the world, watching and enjoying the culmination of a long held political dream. Shortly after his appointment Anglesey was fast at work, attending privy council meetings and those for the committee on Irish affairs. He also spent time reviewing records of the court of requests. Anglesey dutifully logged his attendance in his diary also noting when he met specifically with the king, the duke of York or high-ranking officials, such as Arlington or the lord treasurer. One instance saw the king commending Anglesey for his hard work and discussing important business regarding the court of

6CSPD, 1673, 164.

7MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 22 April 1673, 23 April 1673, 24 April 1673, 25 April 1673, 26 April 1673, 27 April 1673, 29 April 1673.

102 requests.8 Clearly these meetings were not just about performing his duties, but also were chances to impress the king in order to gain additional favors, and to make influential contacts at court. Anglesey must have believed he had succeeded in the latter goal as he wrote about spending a great deal of time with the lord treasurer, Clifford, who promised that before he gave up his position he would help Anglesey become good friends with the soon to be lord treasurer, Sir Thomas Osborne. Interestingly, Ranelagh also came with promises that he and the duke of Buckingham would bring Osborne and Anglesey closer together. This is illuminating for it hints that Ranelagh and Buckingham’s friendship with each other and Osborne could extend to include Anglesey, a quite intriguing but not completely improbable notion. Anglesey soon learned the king intended to appoint him to the admiralty commission, an appointment that would consume a great deal of time and energy, but one that the earl accepted nonetheless. Charles was of course careful to couch it in flattering terms, telling Anglesey that he “depended chiefly on [Anglesey’s] care and skill therein.” This may not have been too far from the truth, as one historian notes that this commission handled all the real work and minute details for naval affairs. A warrant passed on 22 June to create a commission for the office of lord high admiral, which had become vacant. This commission was later renewed in October 1674 and May 1677. James had been forced to resign as lord high admiral due to the recently passed Test Act. Anglesey wrote that he took the Oaths of Declaration on 29 July 1673. Ronald Hutton describes that act as a “mine” which resulted in the resignations of two principal councilors, James and Clifford in June 1673. Although Clifford argued vehemently against it in the house of lords, Hutton finds that Charles, at least, made no effort to stop it. The MPs had made funding for the Dutch war contingent upon this act’s passage, but Hutton is still surprised that considering the results of James’ resignation the king did not appear more distraught. One theory is that Charles was hoping for a quick military victory, as he had with the stop

8MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 3 May 1673, 5 May 1673, 7 May 1673, 9 May 1673, 13 May 1673, 19 May 1673, 27 May 1673, 3 June 1673, 15 June 1673, 16 June 1673; CSPD, 1673, 331.

103 on the exchequer, which would allow him to renounce or ignore the act later on.9 It definitely stands out as another example of Charles’ often unpredictable behavior. Throughout the years 1673-1678, Anglesey recorded his meetings of the admiralty commission. He faithfully documented his attendance, which serves as an important record of his career. Other committees, which took up a great deal of his time, were those for the privy council and several on Ireland, foreign affairs, the treasury, and African trade. The committee for Irish affairs was primarily responsible for reviewing the Act of Settlement’s proceedings, regarding land distribution, and regulating corporations, while a committee for trade and plantations oversaw economic matters as well as the creation of different settlements. In 1675 Anglesey was appointed to a new commission to regulate the Irish settlement, for many had complained that Ormond and the earlier commission had failed to distribute securities and arrears. Occasionally Anglesey became riled at these various meetings and would speak out against certain measures. Apparently while meeting in June 1673 as the committee on Irish affairs, the earl “made a hundred objections” against the rules for regulating the corporations in Ireland. Richard Butler, the earl of Arran and Ormond’s eldest son, supported them, speaking for himself and Essex, the current lord-lieutenant. Anglesey’s objection was directed against the Oath of Supremacy now being taken by everyone in office and some other issues regarding corporations. Apparently, he felt the oath was too harsh against nonconformists. Arran noted that no one else on the committee supported Anglesey and the vote was to report to Charles that the rules were advantageous to him. They also voted to lift the suspension of the corporation rules. Thus, it appears that Anglesey lost that battle in parliament over Ireland. Several other committees that the earl attended were on domestic affairs and ranged from rioting measures to dealing with the appointment of sheriffs within the exchequer. There are often gaps of several months where it appears that Anglesey was not at committee as much; however, these were usually spent in parliament or were times of illness.10

9MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 17 June 1673, 26 June 1673, 29 July 1673; Stowe MS 202, Correspondence of Essex, 3:136; CSPD, 1673, 385; CSPD, 1673-1675, 373; CSPD, 1677-1678, 136; J.P. Kenyon, Stuart England (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1978), 208; Hutton, Charles II, 301-302.

10MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 26 June 1673, 27 June 1673, 5 July 1673, 7 July 1673, 21 July 1673, 22 July 1673, 26 July 1673, 28 July 1673, 30 July 1673, 2 August 1673, 4 August 1673, 8 August 1673, 9

104 On 5 February 1673, the king asked parliament for money to aid the navy and the army and reduce his debts. He also warned the houses not to meddle with the Declaration of Indulgence, which had been proclaimed on 15 March 1672, two days before the declaration of war. A majority in the house of commons was determined to make the king renounce his claim to suspend penal laws in religious matters by refusing to pass the desperately needed war grants. One scholar, Andrew Swatland, argues that there was an anti-popish fervor that swept England during the 1670s, which had several sources. Among them were the court’s religious policies and Louis XIV’s growing power. In fact, according to historian Jonathan Scott, scholars have failed to recognize that Britain’s national history has been intimately connected over many centuries with the history of Europe. He stresses that the nature and importance of the Anglo-Scots-Irish interaction is difficult to assess outside the European framework of which it was a part. Thus, the English fear of popery spanned the century and crossed all social boundaries and is inexplicable in a purely English context. The counter-reformation, spearheaded by France in the second half of the seventeenth century, witnessed many victories and meant that continental Protestantism was fighting for its survival. Scott declares that was the context for the fear of popery within England. Another major factor was the duke of York’s conversion and marriage to a Catholic princess in 1673. That same year he refused to take Anglican communion and had surrendered his offices due to the Test Act. Most everyone in England was now aware that the heir to the throne was Catholic. Other

August 1673, 11 August 1673, 13 August 1673, 16 August 1673, 18 August 1673, 9 September 1673, 18 September 1673, 20 September 1673, 26 September 1673, 6 October 1673, 10 October 1673, 15 October 1673, 22 October 1673, 1 November 1673, 12 November 1673, 18 November 1673, 19 November 1673, 22 November 1673, 25 November 1673, 26 November 1673, 1 December 1673, 5 December 1673, 19 December 1673, 24 December 1673, 7 March 1674, 11 March 1673, 27 March 1674, 8 April 1674, 22 April 1674, 22 May 1674, 27 May 1674, 5 June 1674, 26 June 1674, 10 July 1674, 17 July 1674, 24 July 1674, 29 July 1674, 12 September 1674, 23 September 1674, 3 November 1674, 9 December 1674, 12 December 1674, 14 December 1674, 2 January 1675, 6 January 1675, 7 January 1675, 14 January 1675, 19 January 1675, 20 January 1675, 21 January 1675, 29 January 1675, 3 February 1675, 12 June 1675, 17 June 1675, 22 June 1675, 12 July 1675, 19 July 1675, 23 July 1675, 28 July 1675, 4 August 1675, 11 August 1675, 30 August 1675, 4 September 1675, 11 September 1675, 16 September 1675, 20 September 1675, 25 September 1675, 2 October 1675; MS 18730, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 7 October 1675, 9 October 1675, 13 October 1675, 8 November 1675, 19 January 1676, 1 February 1676, 5 February 1676, 26 February 1676, 18 March 1676, early-mid June 1676, 4 August 1676, 1 November 1676, 22 November 1676, 23 November 1676, 11 April 1677, 5 May 1677, 2 June 1677, 7 June 1677, 20 June 1677, 26 June 1677, 7 July 1677, 20 July 1677, 4 October 1677, 24 October 1677, 25 October 1677, 25 October 1677, 2 November 1677, 3 November 1677, 24 April 1678; Stowe MS 202, Correspondence of Essex, 3:213, 218, 220, 224, 225; CSPD, 1675-1676, 364.

105 events were the 1670 Treaty of Dover, England’s alliance with the preeminent Catholic power, France, and the Dutch War which seemed odd considering England was allied with Catholics against a Protestant country. When Charles raised an army and stationed it in Blackheath, the hills above London, many feared the king was plotting to use a standing army to establish popery and arbitrary government. For most Englishmen those two things went hand in hand, as evident in France.11 Historian Tim Harris contends that those two issues, popery and arbitrary government, were the main themes driving politics in 1673. Thus, the king was correct in his fear that the houses might make demands on him regarding the declaration, for on 1 March 1673 Charles was faced with strong opposition from the commons. When he asked the house of lords for advice, Charles and the lord chancellor, Shaftesbury, probably expected their support; however, both were surprised by the lords’ reservations. The lords decided to draft a bill of advice for the king and both Clifford and Anglesey drew up proposals. Clifford’s goal was to reduce objections regarding the royal prerogative by recognizing the king’s power to suspend religious penal statues as long as the laws were named and the ecclesiastical issues had been dealt with previously outside of parliament. Anglesey’s paper argued that the king could not suspend or dispense with penal laws without the advice and consent of parliament and then only for a period of five years. This once again demonstrates Anglesey’s long held beliefs regarding parliament’s ancient rights. Due to subsequent moves on Charles’ part, neither proposal was passed within the lords. Ormond and Arlington argued that Charles should not give in to the commons’ demand, while Lauderdale, Shaftesbury, and Clifford contended that anything should be sacrificed for the war. On 8 March, the king surrendered to the commons, tearing the seal off the declaration. In his diary, Anglesey wrote that the 8th was a “strange day in parliament.” Later rumors swirled that those who had opposed the king during that parliamentary session were in danger, specifically Arlington, Anglesey, Buckingham, Lauderdale, and possibly Ormond. Swatland finds it fascinating that later on the lords did not divide as violently over the right to suspend penal laws against

11Andrew Swatland, The House of Lords in the Reign of Charles II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 191-192; Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-century English Political Instability in European Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 11, 14, 30; Hutton, Charles II, 284, 297-298.

106 Protestants. Instead, they agreed with this right so long as it did not include Catholics. Anglesey always supported legislation such as this. Also, this strongly emphasizes the anti-Catholic feelings among the lords and really the majority of Englishmen.12 Thus, Anglesey had participated in one of the turning points of English history. One scholar has described 1673-1674 as a pivotal moment in Charles’ relationship with parliament. Apparently attendance in the house of lords was the highest it had been since 1664, with opposition peers supporting anti-Catholic laws, having the duke of York particularly in their sights. The core of this country party, as Swatland calls it, contained angry Protestant peers and included Shaftesbury, Holles, and Buckingham who would become founders of the Whig party. Shaftesbury had shifted from a strong supporter of the king to an opposition leader because he believed Charles had rebuffed him during the March 1673 parliament when Charles had allowed the house of commons to issue judgment regarding the lord chancellor issuing writs outside of parliament. Commons declared against the writs’ validity and Shaftesbury felt that Charles had abandoned him. He was also angry that the king had withdrawn the Declaration of Indulgence in a manner that seemed to agree with the commons’ opinion that it was illegal. The final blow came on 9 November 1673 when Shaftesbury lost the great seal and position as lord chancellor and was replaced by Heneage Finch, the current attorney general. One source stated that Anglesey was disappointed that he had not been given the post, but the earl made sure to note that he took the opportunity to visit with Finch two days after his appointment, accompanying him, along with other nobles, to hear him sworn in at the chancery court. Finch later visited Anglesey on the 15th, although

12MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 16 April 1673; Stowe MS 203, Correspondence of Essex, 4:325; Richard L. Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet: Radicals and Nonconformists in Britain, 1664-1677 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 224. Tim Harris, “Introduction: Revising the Restoration,” in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, ed. Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 3. The Declaration of Indulgence suspended all penal laws against Catholics and Protestant dissenters. It allowed the latter to meet for worship if they received licenses from Charles and gave Catholics permission to hear mass in private. It was presented as a means to produce stability and encourage immigration. Hutton contends that Charles was reluctant to issue it but was pressed by his brother (James, duke of York), Shaftesbury, Buckingham, Clifford, Arlington, and Lauderdale. Greaves argues that the toleration of Catholics was part of the king’s French-oriented foreign policy, which also gave new life to the radical movement. Shortly before its announcement, the king had ordered the Irish lord-lieutenant, Berkeley, to appoint Irish Catholics as justices of the peace and to admit them to corporate towns to improve trade. According to Hutton, both Berkeley and the Irish privy council opposed these actions but obeyed Charles’ wishes. Hutton believes that the king was listening to the advice of “court Catholics.”

107 Anglesey did not mention why. One historian, Maurice Lee, argues that because Charles withdrew the Declaration of Indulgence and allowed the house of commons to besmirch Shaftesbury, he turned his efforts to supporting a program of anti-Catholic legislation, particularly the new Test Act. He used tactics of “scaremongering” in January 1674 when he spoke in the lords of a planned revolt by 16,000 London Catholics. Swatland points out that when a motion was passed urging the king to issue a proclamation that would banish Catholics ten miles from London, the house of lords almost unanimously approved it.13 The only dissenting voices were the duke of York, James Compton, earl of Northampton, and Anglesey. We must ask ourselves why Anglesey sided with York or why he would oppose an anti-Catholic measure, considering his own feelings regarding Catholics. Swatland refers to Anglesey as a ‘client’ of York. This is an intriguing statement, for it obviously implies a contractual type of relationship. Indeed, Anglesey did spend a great deal of time with the duke and he commented on these meetings regularly in his diary, including one incident where he kissed the duchess of York’s hand and spoke Italian and French to them both. This ostensibly was done to impress the royals with Anglesey’s education and abilities. Another visit was made to the duchess of York alone, indicating that making alliances with the wives of powerful men might also pay off in the future. These close ties were also illustrated in other incidents over anti- Catholic legislation. In April 1675, Anglesey noted that while meeting with Danby and Finch he used many arguments against the Test Act and new oath. Anglesey also wrote that the king ordered this meeting at Danby’s home. Swatland implies that these meetings, and he uses that one as an example, are evidence of Charles and Danby’s efforts to “coordinate tactics in both Houses before and during a session.”14 Swatland does not note Anglesey’s objection to the oath in the Test Act, only commenting that the three men met to discuss objections, leaving the reader to assume they were all in agreement with the new bill, which was not the case at all. Swatland uses

13Stowe MS 203, Correspondence of Essex, 4:173; MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 27 May 1673, 15 June 1673, 10 July 1673, 12 August 1673, 3 October 1673, 6 October 1673, 8 October 1673, 21 October 1673, 9 November 1673, 11 November 1673, 15 November 1673, 18 November 1673, 26 November 1673, 28 November 1673, 29 November 1673; CSPD 1673-1675, 13; Lee, 221.

14Swatland, 193-195.

108 a passage out of Anglesey’s diary; however, he either misread or intentionally misinterpreted the entry. For we know that several years later, on 1 March 1677 two government-sponsored bills were introduced in the lords that insisted that the children of royal family members be educated in the Protestant church and that Charles’ successor had to obey the clauses within the Test Act. If they did not heed this they would lose the right of ecclesiastical patronage. Swatland believes this was Danby’s attempt to protect the church from a Catholic ruler. Opposition to this bill came from the duke of York and his closest associates, of whom Anglesey was apparently one. He and others entered their dissent in the house of lords’ journal after the bills were read. Another instance of Anglesey defending the royal family occurred in 1677 when some members claimed parliament was automatically dissolved due to the fifteen-month prorogation. The majority of peers disagreed, including Anglesey and Finch who argued that the king’s authority was “unlimited” regarding prorogation.15 This reflects their belief in royal power and for Anglesey his long held belief in the ancient constitution. This did, however, put the earl in a delicate position as he had voted against the majority of the lords and may have led to the creation of more enemies As a member of the foreign affairs committee, Anglesey helped draft the Treaty of Westminster in early February 1674, thus ending the Dutch War. Also during this year, Anglesey faced a vicious assault by Arlington. Their rather distant relationship, which was never a real friendship, was strained to the breaking point that March, for Arlington’s attack was quite public, something that exceeded the usual boundaries of factional infighting. Apparently it occurred after the privy council meeting where Anglesey had passed lord Rochester’s grant at Charles’ command. Something about the procedure infuriated Arlington who slandered the earl in front of the lord chancellor and others. Anglesey quotes him as saying, “that I understood not the duty of my place, that he never looked for better from me, that by God I served everybody so . . . .” Clearly the earl was distraught and the day after it occurred he went to the duke of York to inform him of the incident. It is interesting that he went to the duke first and waited another four

15MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 19 April 1675, 21 September 1675, 1 October 1675; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 6 November 1675, 29 April 1676, 10 October 1676, 4 November 1676, 16 July 1677, 15 October 1677, 25 April 1678, 8 May 1678; Swatland, 114, 252-253.

109 days to see the king. This might have been due to the king’s inability to see Anglesey earlier, but that seems doubtful, for Anglesey did not mention that as a reason. Thus, if Anglesey felt more comfortable going to York first there has to be some motivation for doing so. This may reflect his closer ties with York during these years. When he did see the king he told him of Arlington’s attack, complaining that he had never aspersed any fellow servants in such a manner. The king’s reaction was that Arlington’s insolence would not go unpunished. Other courtiers expressed their opinions of the incident, offering Anglesey sympathy and support, although frustratingly Anglesey does not provide their names in his diary, meaning they were either not important enough to mention or he did not deem it necessary to remind himself.16 Anglesey continued to experience attacks on his character, though the next ones arose in Ireland. This incident is significant as it demonstrates the uncertain nature of political alliances. Anglesey always believed he and the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the earl of Essex, were close allies who shared common goals for Ireland. However, Anglesey soon became disillusioned over their relationship. In April, Essex indicated in a letter that Anglesey had an “underlaid dealing” regarding a Dublin business venture. Most of the letter is in code, but the tone implies these were illegal or at least suspect involvements. Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of information regarding this event, but it does indicate that Anglesey did not have the full loyalty of Essex, although the earl seemed to believe that he could count Essex as one of his good friends. Perhaps this was yet another example of keeping one’s friends close, but one’s enemies closer. Interestingly, in July rumors were flying that Essex would soon be dismissed, though this did not actually occur until 1677, and one of the names bandied about for his replacement was Anglesey. One of Essex’s allies wrote him about this and if he had heard of these claims earlier this might serve as a reason for Essex’s previous hostility towards Anglesey. More charges of Anglesey’s illegal activity arose in May 1675. Sir Maurice Eustace reported to Ormond that it was believed in Dublin that “My Lord Privy Seal promoted this proceeding, in favour of one Mr. Coppanger, to whom his Lordship is indebted in a sum of £1,000, and that he hath gained . . . payment thereby; thus frustrating

16MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 27 March 1674, 28 March 1674, 29 March 1674; Essex Papers ed. Osmund Airy, vol. 1 (New York: Camden Society, 1965), 187.

110 the King’s justice, and the honour of the Ministry, for low ends of his own . . . .” This could be related to the earlier business mentioned by Essex; however, we cannot be certain as Anglesey did not comment on these charges in his personal letters or diary.17 These troubles indicate the dangerous nature of court life and the jealousies and intrigues that went along with political power. A misunderstanding arose in early July 1675 with Anglesey writing to the lady Essex how “troubled” he was to learn that the lord-lieutenant “should write to Mr. Godolfin, that he knew I had promoted the calling of a Parliament in Ireland, purposely to hinder his [Essex’s] coming over.” Anglesey protested that he had not recently mentioned holding one there, either to the king or any ministers. The only exception, according to Anglesey, was “when I obeyed your [Essex’s] commands concerning 123 [Ormond] I told the king that whensoever he thought fit to call a Parliament in 125 [Ireland] I apprehended no obstruction to what [you] designed for his Majesties Service, but from the Interest which 123 [Ormond] would make against it.” This is a fascinating bit of information, for it appears that Anglesey was maligning Ormond to gain Essex’s favor. Before jumping to any major conclusions regarding Anglesey’s loyalty, one should note that such letters were a typical way to address ministers in power. One would always want to shift blame and this statement may have had an element of truth, perhaps a small piece anyway. Also, Anglesey was trying to persuade Essex that he personally did not oppose Essex’s visit. Anglesey was not lying regarding the Irish parliament, for an earlier diary entry dated 25 June said that though he had to draw up a dispatch for holding a parliament in Ireland it was against his judgment. This issue was resolved by mid-1675, for Anglesey and Essex appeared, at least outwardly, to be on good terms. That July Anglesey was warning the lord-lieutenant of “ill blood” stirring in London regarding politics in general. However, that November Anglesey wrote in his diary of Essex showing his teeth because he and Anglesey disagreed over parliamentary affairs. Generally, Anglesey wrote to Essex of foreign news and important events at court, for example when the queens’ chamberlain was dismissed due to the “designe of Popery.” Relations were cordial enough by February 1676 for Anglesey to dine with

17MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 22 April 1674, 25 June 1675; Stowe MS 205, Correspondence of Essex, 6:53, 336; Hutton, Charles II, 321.

111 Essex after the day’s business was completed. They also spent time together in April of that year, late 1677, and early 1678, though it primarily involved Irish affairs. Also, when it became obvious that Essex was to be recalled Anglesey wrote to him of his sorrow, displeasure, and continued desire to serve Essex. It was quite common for courtiers to report London happenings to the lord-lieutenant in Ireland, for contact with men in power often brought rewards. He was also quick to try and maintain some relations even when Essex was being removed, for the latter was not completely out of favor with the king, and it was always important to have allies at court, a place where enemies and friends constantly traded places.18 Another incident where Anglesey felt attacked had happened earlier, in January 1674. Anglesey reported that he was “being saucily used by my Lord Gerard in the bedchamber” and the earl quickly ran to the king with his complaint.19 The vision of Anglesey as a whining tattler is hard to put from one’s mind, but to be fair the earl had no other recourse except the king. How was one to gain favors without the monarch’s support; however, Charles must not have always welcomed these reports, in fact he encouraged the mocking of courtiers, for he appreciated a sharp wit. One has to wonder about Charles’ opinion, for he must have sometimes felt he presided over a court of squabbling children, although in truth he often set these men against each other and then sat back to watch what happened. Sometimes this was done for political reasons, others for personal enjoyment. The dangers of court life were recognized by most courtiers, with one man commenting that though he had only recently left London he knew that “the cabals are much altered to what they were, and, I believe, may be as much changed again by the time I get thither, for those bodies in all places are very fluctuant, and possibly in no place more so than in London.”20 This is one of the more accurate depictions of London’s constantly changing political world.

18MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 4 November 1675, 1 February 1676, 18 April 1676, 24 April 1676, 15 October 1677, 29 April 1678; Stowe MS 208, Correspondence of Essex, 9:154; Stowe MS 211, Correspondence of Essex, 12: 334; MS Carte 53, 243, ff. 246-247; Clement Edwards Pike, ed., Selections from the Correspondence of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, 1675-1677, Camden Society, 3d ser., vol. 24 (London, 1913), 69, 71-72, 84.

19MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 5 January 1674.

20CSPD, 1673, 172-173.

112 Late 1674 was also a disturbing time for Anglesey due to family quarrels. His daughter, Philippa, and her husband, Charles Mohun, third baron of Okehampton, were “desperately out again.” Anglesey’s word choice implies that these heated arguments had happened before. Anglesey blamed his “ingratious daughter” who went against all of his advice and behaved “irreligiously.” She told her father she would rather be “a common whore” than submit to her husband’s will. Anglesey was so upset he declared that if she had not been married he would have beat her. He called her an “impudent baggage” and said that she “carried her self like a whore,” ending with the statement that he would see her no more. All of this was after her husband had sworn to never “strike her nor give her ill words.” Those accusations indicate severe disapproval on Anglesey’s behalf and clearly had to do with her deportment and her faith, or lack thereof. It would be helpful to know the spark that set this incident off, but Anglesey did not refer to any specific details. Though his words seem harsh and final, apparently they were spoken in the heat of an argument, for on 2 December Anglesey spent the day reconciling his daughter and son-in-law and had dinner with them.21 That does seem to be a rather long time for the married couple to be out of sorts; apparently Philippa, like her father, could hold a grudge and prove quite stubborn when riled. As we shall see, Anglesey exhibited the same traits late in life when he entered into a bitter struggle with his one time friend, Ormond. On 13 April 1675 parliament was called in London and the king knew he needed more supporters within parliament. So, Charles not only made efforts to secure firmer ties of allegiance, but he also sent a frigate to bring Ormond over.22 The main topic of debate was religion and it centered around Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, lord treasurer of England, who had emerged as the new defender of the Anglican faith.23 Danby had

21MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 13 September 1674, 2 December 1674.

22Thomas Carte, The Life of James Duke of Ormond; Containing an Account of the Most Remarkable Affairs of His Time, and Particularly of Ireland Under His Government, 2nd ed., 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1851), 4:491-493; J.C. Beckett, The Cavalier Duke: A Life of James Butler–1st Duke of Ormond, 1610-1688 (Belfast: Pretani Press, 1990), 109.

23Swatland credits Danby as helping transform politics between 1673-1679 during his tenure as lord treasurer. During this time, the author notes that political polarization increased and both court and country parties developed in the houses of parliament. Danby’s use of Anglican policies appealed to former

113 replaced Clifford in June 1673 and began accumulating power and court connections. Danby had also become the chief minister in Arlington’s absence, for the latter had been sent by Charles to negotiate between Prince William of Orange and the French. Danby intended to manage parliament by satisfying the house of commons’ religious prejudices. In late 1674, Danby announced his plan to secure the Anglican church against all enemies, including Catholics and Protestant nonconformists. He gathered bishops opposed to religious toleration and privy counselors for a conference the following January. They recommended the full enforcement of the statutes against both Protestant and Catholic nonconformity.24 Ultimately, the king was persuaded by the privy council to issue a proclamation ordering the execution of the laws against “popery and dissent” and revoking the licenses for dissenting conventicles.25 However, parliament would be prorogued before anti-Catholic bills passed, a measure that further angered Presbyterian peers, including Anglesey. Swatland refers to him as one of the dominating members of the lords and one who was also a member of Shaftesbury’s “Malcontent” group, which now included Arlington, Ormond, and Buckingham. Parallel with this development was the duke of York’s attempt to form an alliance with the Presbyterians, for James promised to obtain liberty of conscience for them in exchange for them not questioning his right of succession in the lords.26 Obviously, Anglesey could have played an important role in these dealings had the Presbyterians trusted him more, but since the early 1660s they had regarded him with suspicion and doubt. When parliament opened on 13 April 1675, the king announced his intention to support Danby’s policy of suppressing Catholicism and asked for money to increase the navy. He also offered the houses the opportunity to protect “religion, liberty, and

Royalists and bishops and also angered former Parliamentarians who wanted a more “comprehensive” church. See Swatland, 242.

24MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 26 June 1673; Stowe MS 202, Correspondence of Essex, 3:250; Mark Goldie, “Danby, the Bishops and the Whigs,” in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, ed. Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 81; Hutton, Charles II, 326-327; Carte, 4:500.

25Goldie, 82.

26Swatland, 243, 244.

114 property.”27 Several days later, Danby placed a bill before the house of lords that prescribed an oath for all members of parliament and office holders not to alter the government of church and state. The bill passed with only Anglesey arguing that it was extremely unfair to dissenters. Clearly, his religious convictions are revealed at times when harsh measures were threatened against dissenters; however, he did not jeopardize his political standing over this issue. The earl’s diary does not contain a specific reference to the bill, but it does state that Anglesey sat in parliament from the early morning until three o’clock, quite a long sitting, and indicates that lengthy debates must have occurred. Both houses decided to thank Charles, but Shaftesbury, Arlington, and Ormond opposed this measure because they were unwilling to collaborate with Danby. Arlington’s allies then unsuccessfully attempted to impeach Danby, but Anglesey was careful to keep cordial relations with Danby, dining with him at various times throughout 1675-1677. This was typical of Anglesey who was always careful to hide his personal animosities and keep as many allies as possible.28 Charles prorogued parliament on 9 June 1675 when quarrels broke out between the two houses. The new session opened in October with the king asking parliament to safeguard the church, provide taxes for the navy, and solve the revenue problem. The commons responded unfavorably with bills to limit the crown’s powers to raise taxes and imprison and established a committee to investigate Danby. They refused to offer Charles more than £300,000. Disputes between the two houses arose once more, and Charles again prorogued parliament for fifteen months.29 Before parliament was prorogued a second time, Buckingham, Shaftesbury’s ally, spoke on 16 November in the house of lords supporting relief for Protestant dissenters. On the twentieth, Shaftesbury attacked the concept of divine right monarchy as a serious threat to the Magna Carta. In addition, he also anonymously published Two Seasonable

27Hutton, Charles II, 328.

28Ibid., 327-328; Goldie, 82; MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 13 April 1675; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 18 October 1675, 18 May 1676, 23 May 1676, 13 September 1676, 15 September 1676, 20 September 1676, 3 November 1677, 4 November 1677, 28 December 1677.

29Hutton, Charles II, 330-331; MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 9 June 1675. See above, pg 15, for the condemnation of this lengthy prorogation and Anglesey’s reaction to the attacks on Charles.

115 Discourses Concerning This Present Parliament, which provided his reasons in favor of dissolving parliament and holding frequent elections. He argued that a church that did not have parliamentary support could only be maintained by military force, which was unacceptable. Shaftesbury suggested a loose alliance between Protestant dissenters and Catholics and hoped a new parliament might provide the latter relief and the former liberty. During the fall of 1675, an anonymous Letter from a Person of Quality, to His Friend in the Country appeared. The author argued that supporters of the new Supplementary Test Bill intended to make the government “absolute and arbitrary.” The government responded by denouncing the publication of seditious libels on 7 January 1676. Debate at court raged and, according to Greaves, the dispute was a popular subject in coffee houses.30 Buckingham and Shaftesbury were sent to the tower in February 1677 for their claim that parliament was automatically dissolved because it had been prorogued for over a year.31 During this prorogation, Anglesey and Ormond faced more troubles with Irish issues, again in the realm of finances. Although Ormond wanted to return to Ireland, he was forced to stay and defend himself against charges of financial mismanagement during his lord-lieutenancy. These charges related to earlier contentions against Anglesey and Ormond by their enemies. It is important to analyze this affair because this enemy would haunt Anglesey throughout his career. Ranelagh, had in August 1671 concluded a contract with the Crown to manage the Irish finances. He and his partners would collect payments due from the farmers of the revenue, and they would meet all charges, civil and military, on the Irish establishment. Ranelagh had calculated there would be a large surplus to reward him and his partners. Throughout his management of the revenue there were tensions between him and Anglesey, as well as other Anglo-Irish courtiers in London. One worried that Ranelagh had too great an influence with the king. Anglesey, serving as privy seal, had to deal with defalcations and other matters that involved Ranelagh. Anglesey appeared highly frustrated in July 1673 while struggling to untangle Irish finances and moneys supposedly owed to the farmers. The amounts put

30Ibid., 329-330; Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet, 229-330; Goldie, 83. Greaves and Goldie believe that document was written by Shaftesbury.

31Hutton, Charles II, 341; Greaves, Enemies Under His Feet, 233.

116 forth by Ranelagh and his partners were being questioned by others, primarily the farmers of Charles’ revenue within England. Ranelagh complained to Essex of these questions, stating that though he and his partners had been backward in some of the payments they had been “forward” in others. Apparently, the army in Ireland had not been paid, which was an obvious concern for Essex. Anglesey sympathized with Essex, stating how sorry he was that Ranelagh and his partners “try the utmost patience of ye [the] army under your Excys [Excellency’s] command . . . .”32 By summer 1675, when the undertaking was to end, Ranelagh’s accounts were in disorder and the payments due in almost every governmental department were heavily in arrears. Ranelagh blamed Ormond, claiming that he had left the administration in debt and the finances in chaos. Ranelagh also looked to Anglesey as a scapegoat, which caused the earl to remark on how Ranelagh “useth us all very ill . . . .” Ranelagh also bitterly complained of enemies at court, though he did not list specific individuals.33 These troubles with the Irish revenue demonstrate how contentious financial matters were for Ireland and England. Anglesey earlier struggled with attacks on his character regarding Irish and English finances, though with this recent issue he played the role of accuser. His and Ormond’s troubles with Ranelagh were far from over. Ormond obtained a promise from Charles that the charges would be investigated and they were in May 1676. Anglesey wrote to Essex that the king was satisfied that there had been no mismanagement of the finances during Ormond’s lord-lieutenancy. Anglesey also reported that the king was pleased with his and Ormond’s petition relating to the Ranelagh affair. However, it did not end here, for Ranelagh continued to petition the king for assistance in early 1677 regarding the complaints of non-payments. The king obliged with a warrant to the lord-lieutenant to aid Ranelagh and his partners in obtaining the debts and arrears owed. What this resulted in was most likely not what Ranelagh planned. The king, probably irritated over Ranelagh’s failures and the long drawn out nature of this event, ordered Essex and Anglesey to audit Ranelagh’s accounts. When they did they discovered he was in debt to the king by a sum of £50,000. This was not

32Stowe MS 202, Correspondence of Essex, 3:172, 184; Stowe MS 205, Correspondence of Essex, 6:53, 57; Selections from the Correspondence of Essex, 72; CSPD, 1673, 412, 483.

33Stowe MS 210, Correspondence of Essex, 11:366.

117 the end of Anglesey’s dealings with Ranelagh who was even more an embittered rival after this incident than he was before. Even after the accusations were dismissed against Anglesey and Ormond, the latter remained in England. Historian J.C. Beckett contends that beginning in the summer of 1675, Ormond had heard rumors at court that Essex was to be dismissed. Beckett believes the hope of restoration kept the duke in London.34 These struggles, both in London and in Dublin, reflected larger problems with Anglo- Irish relations. An excellent quote highlights one man’s frustrations regarding Ireland: “I take Ireland to be a body sick of many diseases, and if you cure but one, it will die of the rest.”35 One can be confident that Anglesey shared this outlook, for it seemed that whenever one Irish trouble was resolved another was raised. Anglesey lost a valuable ally in 1677 when Essex was dismissed. This was largely due to maneuverings by his enemies at court, including Ranelagh and Danby, who had tried to divert £20,000 of Irish revenue annually to the English treasury. When he discovered their scheme, Essex began an investigation of Ranelagh’s accounts.36 Hutton argues that such an inquiry was political suicide since it “threatened to ruin the system by which England now profited from Ireland and reveal Charles’ own connivance in some rather shady dealings. . . . [Thus,] it had become essential to change lord-lieutenants.”37 However, this might not be the true reason, for Charles was the one who ordered the audit of Ranelagh’s accounts by Essex and Anglesey. Another theory is provided by J.C. Beckett who argues that Essex fell victim to the machinations of many rivals, not just Danby, Lauderdale and Ranelagh, but also due to a crisis in Scotland. Beckett tries to imply that the king was unwilling to use Irish troops in Scotland so long as Essex was lord-lieutenant, but he does not provide a plausible reason as to why this was the case.38

34Stowe MS 202, Correspondence of Essex, 3:235; Carte, 4:501-522; Beckett, The Cavalier Duke, 110-111; Beckett, “The Irish Viceroyalty in the Restoration Period,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 20 (1970), 64; CSPD, 1676-1677, 558-560; CSPD, 1678, 152.

35Stowe MS 209, Correspondence of Essex, 10:309; CSPD, 1673, 172-173.

36Richard L. Greaves, God’s Other Children: Protestant Nonconformists and the Emergence of Denominational Churches in Ireland, 1660-1700 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), 112- 113; Hutton, Charles II, 338-339; Beckett, “The Irish Viceroyalty in the Restoration Period,” 63-66.

37Hutton, Charles II, 339.

38Beckett, “The Irish Viceroyalty,” 65-68.

118 For whatever reason, Charles had grown tired of Essex as lord-lieutenant of Ireland and he was dismissed in 1677. Danby, Ranelagh, and Lauderdale chose Edward, viscount Conway, to succeed Essex as governor of Ireland, though James, duke of Monmouth, would receive the title of lord-lieutenant.39 However, this did not please the duke of York, who viewed Monmouth as a potential rival in the succession for the throne, and he persuaded the king to reinstate Ormond. One wonders if Anglesey’s close ties to York had anything to do with this decision, for the earl and Ormond had remained close friends. Essex held no harsh feelings toward Ormond and was not disgraced by his replacement, for the king added him to the foreign affairs committee. However, an ally of Essex wrote that Danby and Ranelagh were greatly upset over Ormond’s appointment.40 Whether or not Anglesey may have had advance warning of it, and there is a chance that he did, Carte believes the news came as a surprise to Ormond. On the day of his appointment, when he arrived at court, Charles remarked, “‘Yonder comes Ormond; I have done all I can to disoblige that man, and make him as discontented as others; but he will not be out of humour with me; he will be loyal in spite of my teeth; I must even take him in again, and he is the fittest man to govern Ireland.’”41 That quote could also have been used to describe Anglesey’s actions after his first loss of office in 1668. The duke returned to Dublin and was sworn in as lord-lieutenant on 24 May 1677. Throughout these years in power Anglesey did not neglect his spiritual needs. Indeed, he carefully recorded his meetings with religious scholars and preachers. His concern over his personal salvation continued as a major theme in his life, one that we can assume acted as a double edged sword, for it both resolved and caused worry and despair. At times Anglesey felt confident and secure in his religion, though at other times he was quite depressed and concerned over his soul. These correlations between religion and mental conditions, such as feelings of depression and inadequacy, have been explored extensively with regards to a major seventeenth-century religious figure, John

39Danby, Ranelagh, and Lauderdale planned to have Monmouth as a titular head of Ireland with Conway doing the real work as the lord deputy.

40Stowe MS 212, Correspondence of Essex, 13:13; Greaves, God’s Other Children, 113; Hutton, Charles II, 340.

41Carte, 4:522-523.

119 Bunyan. In his work, Richard Greaves argues that one can use psychological manifestations to show how they impact a person’s religious beliefs.42 One can read Anglesey’s agonies over personal salvation in his diary entries and attempts to begin writing works to aid his religious growth and help others. For example, after receiving the sacrament he prayed that “the Lord grant that it may be sanctified to me to all those ends for which it was [intended], that I may be thereby be nourished . . . and confirmed in my most holy faith, having all corruptions mortified and graces quickened that I may become a new man.” He wrote similar pleas upon taking the sacrament at other times. Most of his entries mention the preachers he listened to while attending court services. In the afternoons he spent time with his personal chaplain, Mr. Benjamin Agas who was on hand the day Anglesey took the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and for the privy seal. Occasionally, others attended him in the afternoon and one can presume these were men of similar religious leanings, such as Dr. Fell, Dr. Martin, and Mr. Squib. A permanent change occurred on 26 May 1677 when Mr. Delamote arrived to take up residency as Anglesey’s personal chaplain. Anglesey noted that on that day he particularly enjoyed Delamote’s sermon on Romans 12:2. Anglesey always listed the more important speakers at Whitehall, such as the dean of Durham, Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Burnet, whom he called a “good Scotch preacher,” Dr. Allestree, and Dr. Heywood. Anglesey enjoyed Dr. Heywood’s sermon so much that the king ordered it printed at the earl’s request. Other names of importance were the bishops of Salisbury, Gloucester, Bath, Lincoln, Rochester, Dr. Frompten, Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Littleton, Dr. Lamb, and Mr. Barnes. Anglesey referred to the latter as one who preached a “strange sermon of the authority of the church and blind obedience.” Apparently, Anglesey did not enjoy that particular subject.43 These men represented a variety of viewpoints, including Latitudinarians and

42Richard L. Greaves, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 1-10.

43MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 13 April 1673, 24 April 1673, 27 April 1673, 4 May 1673, 12 October 1673, 30 November 1673, 8 March 1674, 13 March 1674, 15 March 1674, 20 March 1674, 22 March 1674, 25 March 1674, 27 March 1674, 3 April 1674, 19 April 1674, 4 August 1674, 30 May 1675; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 17 October 1675, 6 February 1676, 1 June 1676, 16 July 1676, 5 November 1676, 12 November 1676, 22 April 1677, 26 May 1677, 17 June 1677.

120 High Churchmen, not surprising really considering the changing nature of Charles’ outward religious views. When the earl did approve of a sermon he elaborated at length upon it, as he did when Dr. Hoare preached at Whitehall on 28 October 1677. Anglesey describes the excellent job Hoare did when he discussed charity and preached against religious divisions among brethren. On several occasions he dined at the bishop of Oxford’s and the archbishop of Canterbury’s homes and on another fellows from Magdalene College supped at Anglesey’s. Attending the consecration of the bishop of Oxford, Dr. Compton, at Lambeth Chapel is also highlighted in the earl’s diary, as is the consecration of Dr. John Fell, the dean of Christ Church, who was also raised to the bishopric of Oxford. Another important event was the consecration of Dr. Lamplaugh as the new bishop of Exeter. Anglesey obviously enjoyed attending religious events as well as spending evenings with learned religious scholars, though one wonders if he discussed his own personal views of church doctrine.44 Anglesey also elaborated at length on his involvement with the Oxford founder’s feasts both in 1676 and 1677. In August 1676 he was at Queen’s College spending time with the bishop of Oxford and wrote of the need for good relations with the benefactors who were so necessary for all of the respective colleges’ maintenance. He again stressed this in September 1677, urging friends to continue their contributions. In August 1677 he mentioned his involvement with the chancellor of Oxford, Ormond, who was visiting the campus. Anglesey met Ormond and escorted him and his wife to Christ Church and attending the various speeches and dinners. The earl also noted that his son, Richard, welcomed Ormond with a speech at Magdalen College. While Ormond was at Oxford, Anglesey attended him and dined with both Ormond and the bishop of Oxford at Christ Church College, attending sermons, and visiting with the bishop of Lincoln at Queen’s College. The final day saw entertainment in the theater written for Ormond and later lectures were given. After attending these last events, the earl retired to his home in Blechingdon.45

44MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 5 August 1677, 28 October 1677, 18 May 1674, 19 May 1674, 6 December 1674.

45MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 4 August 1677, 5 August 1677, 6 August 1677. Also spelled Bletchington.

121 Anglesey was also quick to mention the times he visited with the king at church. Any opportunity to gain the monarch’s eye was seized if one had any ambition or political plans. He also recalled an incident with the duke of York, which occurred on Christmas after the earl and the king received communion. Anglesey noted that York left chapel as soon as the bishop of Chester finished his sermon. This smacks of disapproval on Anglesey’s behalf and one wonders at his political connections with an open Catholic. This will be intriguing to reflect upon later, for Anglesey’s writings and printed works denounced Catholicism and always linked it to the “horrid” rebellions within Ireland. His themes of political disloyalty and Catholicism were common for this time, so what should be studied is his ability to accept the duke of York’s political aid while loathing the man’s religion. It is not altogether surprising, for York had already tried linking himself to Presbyterians, pushing for liberty of conscience within the established church. One can only wonder whether these outreaches were enough to ease Anglesey’s conscience?46 Another interesting and related theme that winds through Anglesey’s diary is his observance of 23 October, a day he called the beginning of the “great and horrid rebellion of Ireland.” On those days he stayed at home and “praised God for my deliverance.” He also praised the Lord for Ireland’s deliverance. Clearly this was an important anniversary for the earl, one where he pondered his personal role in the rebellion and reflected on its horrific events. Relating to those events were works that Anglesey planned to write. He listed several of his intellectual goals, one of which was to “write the truth of the history of the late times” to replace those works where “others are obscured by flattering him who had good luck but little or no merit.” To whom was he referring? As we shall see, it appears that Ormond was the figure in question. To gain more information regarding the Civil War, Anglesey planned to contact Dr. George for his writings and papers.47 Another objective was to write a book “countermining the Jesuit order which was instituted to support the papacy and countermine pure religion.” He planned to show their deception by examining their printed letters and books. He also wanted to show

46MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 18 October 1673, 1 November 1673, 24 December 1673, 25 December 1673, 6 September 1674, 25 December 1674, 2 January 1675, 2 February 1675; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 5 November 1675, 14 May 1676, 22 October 1676, 26 May 1677, 18 October 1677, 1 November 1677, 5 November 1677, 23 December 1677, 25 December 1677.

47MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 23 October 1673

122 their “chief lying wonders . . . their vanity and falsehood.” Such bitter, contemptuous feelings regarding Jesuits must have also been directed in some manner toward Catholics, especially those he suspected of disloyalty. Again, one wonders at his inner feelings regarding the duke of York and how he justified that alliance to his conscience. Perhaps by publishing works such as these he hoped to countermine his necessary associations with men like James, although he appeared to be the only open Catholic with whom Anglesey allied.48 Finally, he wanted to write a book of prayer to “end the unbrotherly controversy between self and suddain prayer since both are lawful and useful.” He also reflected on the religious divisions that plagued Protestants, commenting on “how good men being nonconformists though agreeing in foundations [,] the work for peace should be mutual and the strife end in who should be best.” Related to this was talk in early 1673 that at the quarter sessions for Oxfordshire at Easter an order was issued to execute laws against “Popish Recusants and other Dissenters” and justices were summoned in June before the privy council. The summoning was linked to Anglesey who supposedly instigated the hearing. Other reports noted that at the hearing the earl “endeavoured to incense his Majesty and the Council against them [Catholic recusants and dissenters] . . . .” These claims are intriguing for this would be an open instance of Anglesey pushing for persecution over tolerance and specifically against Catholic recusants and dissenters in general. No reference to this event is made in Anglesey’s diary, but as the source is the commons’ journals its validity seems solid. A final instance regarding religion and rumors occurred in January 1677 when Anglesey was told of aspersions linking him to a Papist and the “good old [Catholic] Cause.” The confider wrote how “prodigiously strange that the devil should so far influence men as to assert lies that have not the least colour of truth.” He was astonished at the boldness of the letter, which contained “one of the loudest and most impudent lies I have ever heard of.” It is strange that Anglesey would be linked to a Catholic plot, considering his involvement in bills designed to persecute Catholic recusants. However, such accusations and rumors, which in normal circumstances one would dismiss as ridiculous, would play a major role in the Popish

48MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 24 June 1677.

123 Plot, the next crucial religious event on the horizon.49 Overall, between 1673-1678 Anglesey’s plans were large in scope and his intent was to provide religious guidance and truth (as he defined it) to those seeking to understand the late wars and that included his own search for internal peace and reassurance. Another major theme throughout this time in Anglesey’s life was patronage. Patronage was the lifeblood for courtiers, for it was the force that obtained favors and made careers. Advancing someone led to his gratitude and favors earned in return. Obviously, patronage for one’s family often came first and this was the case for Anglesey who after becoming privy seal in 1673 possessed the power and influence to help his relatives. One scholar makes an excellent point about the significance of kinship, arguing that it had a “powerful influence on shaping political loyalties in the House because many peers were related through blood or marriage.” Those ties were often the foundation for patronage. In September 1673, Anglesey approached the king for a barony in Ireland for his son, James. The king agreed and James became baron Altham, the title previously belonging to his now deceased maternal grandfather. That same month the king granted Anglesey’s brother, captain John Annesley, the command of the next troop of horse that fell vacant. However, by December 1674 that position still had not been formally granted and Anglesey wrote to Essex requesting assistance in the appointment. Anglesey later moved Essex for a command of captain of horse for his nephew, Francis Annesley. These military commands were common expressions of patronage. Anglesey also asked Essex to help his nephew, Gwynne, in his Irish endeavors. Part of this involved lands Anglesey was personally interested in obtaining for himself. He used Gwynne as a middleman with Essex, since Anglesey could not be in Ireland. Apparently Essex also employed one of Anglesey’s son-in-laws, Tyrone, in his service, for which Anglesey was quite grateful. Other relations received assistance when Anglesey moved the king for various appointments and financial grants.50

49MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 20 August 1677, 19 May 1678, 4 July 1679; CJ, 9:308; CSPD, 1676-1677, 287-288, 508-509; CSPD, 1677-1678, 347-348, 357.

50MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 8 September 1673; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 7 July 1677, 19 December 1677; Stowe MS 209, Correspondence of Essex, 10:377; Stowe MS 210, Correspondence of Essex, 11:141, 223; Stowe MS 211, Correspondence of Essex, 12:7; Swatland, 251; Linday Levy Peck, Court Patronage And Corruption In Early Stuart England (Boston: Unwin Hyman Inc., 1990), 3-5.

124 An interesting event occurred on 19 October 1677 when Anglesey brought his grandson, James Annesley, to be “touched” by the king. This was an ancient practice dating back to the Merovingians of Europe and came from the belief that the king had powers, given by God, to heal illness or provide blessings. Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, and later Anne, as well as Louis XIV, performed this on people infected with skin diseases, but it had also evolved into a practice of touching children for luck of sorts. Regardless of Anglesey’s personal beliefs over “touching” it is still interesting that he brought his grandson, even if it was only for political reasons.51 Other instances of patronage involved Anglesey’s attempts to aid individuals who were not relatives, for example Orrery who asked Anglesey to write to Essex regarding requests for lapsed money. Sometimes Anglesey asked courtiers to employ certain men as secretaries. From the king Anglesey requested a dean’s position for Dr. Cartwright, a close friend. Another friend, Mr. William Davies, was assisted in obtaining employment through Sir Edward Dering. Anglesey also attempted to settle disputes over land or finances, especially within Ireland, and this led him to write to the lord-lieutenant for assistance.52 Ties of patronage were a common and necessary part of early modern politics. They were used to procure political and religious appointments, military posts, employment, financial rewards, and land redistribution. They provide a blueprint for historians, for we can often trace political alliances and betrayals through the network of patronage. Between 1673 and 1678, Anglesey was at the pinnacle of his political career in terms of power and influence. As privy seal he wielded great authority, which he sometimes used to promote his personal beliefs regarding religion, but more often than not he tried to gain more favor with Charles and the duke of York, which meant sometimes suppressing his religious views. The issue of the Test Acts was especially challenging, for though Anglesey supported harsh laws against Catholics, he did not always welcome them against Protestant dissenters. Overall, this attempt to reconcile

51MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 19 October 1677.

52MS 480860, Diary of Anglesey, 11 September 1673, 9 June 1674, 29 December 1674, 22 June 1675; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 18 January 1676, 20 June 1677; Stowe MS 745, Dering Correspondence, 3:113; Stowe MS 212, Correspondence of Essex, 13:314; CSPD, 1675-1676, 80.

125 politics and religion must have been difficult for Anglesey, although he had been learning to walk the political tightrope at court for some time now. Wrestling with his conscience must have proved challenging and indeed as his diary shows he often pondered his worthiness regarding salvation and God’s love. The foul deeds committed during the Civil War, especially those he believed carried out by Irish Catholics, haunted Anglesey who desperately sought for some way to clarify them. He wanted to write a book about what happened and it was this desire that later led to a major confrontation with Ormond and the destruction of their friendship. That alliance, however, remained strong during this time, for once more both men fought off charges against their financial dealings in Ireland. Anglesey’s ongoing battle to salvage his personal fortunes and estates proved tiring for the earl. He used whatever connections he could to fight off his enemies and Ormond remained an important ally. Though Anglesey was still close to Ormond, he did not allow that friendship to override political necessity, which is why during Essex’s tenure as lord-lieutenant Anglesey was careful to cultivate a working relationship with Essex, one he hoped would benefit him and his family in Ireland. Indeed, Anglesey kept ties with many other powerful ministers, including Clifford, Danby and Shaftesbury, figures who were often at odds with each other. Thus trying to pigeonhole Anglesey as a supporter of a particular faction is difficult, for like many he switched sides as benefited his fortunes and beliefs. This tactic would prove useful in the next major chapter of his life, one that witnessed a significant crisis for Charles’ court, the Popish Plot and Exclusion Parliaments. The challenge over which side to choose was daunting, for the wrong choice could mean a fall from power. It is probably fortunate that Anglesey could not see what awaited him on the horizon. Before looking to that chapter, we must look back over these important years, 1673-1678 and conclude that when assessing Anglesey’s political career up to this point one has to admire his ability to survive in the troubled waters of Restoration England. It was that survival instinct, in conjunction with his inner beliefs, which he had to rely upon during the remaining years of his life and which later led him to make the wrong decisions.

126

CHAPTER SIX: POPISH PLOT AND IRISH BUSINESS, 1678-1681

Plots, feelings of panic and fear, political backstabbing, and a scramble to gain more power and or favor at court, were at their height in the years 1678-1681, years which witnessed the Popish Plot and attempts to exclude the duke of York from the succession. For Anglesey, serving as privy seal meant being in the center of this maelstrom, fighting to survive politically and wrestling with his conscience over the question of a possible Catholic monarch. The Popish Plot unearthed deep-seated fears among many Englishmen, including Anglesey, fears of arbitrary rulers, tyranny, the abuse of power, and the question of religious freedoms. As Anglesey struggled to find his own place amongst the various court factions, he also dealt with old enemies such as Ranelagh, and issues like the Irish revenue and land settlement. New accusations surfaced against the earl, this time involving an Irish plot. A realignment of power in London involved the downfall of the powerful earl of Danby, and Anglesey was amongst those who pushed for Danby’s removal. This issue, the Popish Plot, and factional politics all played a role in the question of excluding York from the succession. Eventually, Anglesey chose to draw away from York who had served as an important ally of the earl’s in the 1670s. Instead, Anglesey moved toward Charles’ illegitimate son, James duke of Monmouth, tying himself firmly to this “rising sun.” The abandonment of York might have been due to Anglesey’s religious beliefs and fear of Catholicism as a political force. This is indicated by the earl’s strong desire to begin his history of Ireland and explain the atrocities committed by Catholics during their rebellion and the Civil War. Concurrently, Anglesey worked to obtain favors and positions for his family and close friends, for the wheels of patronage continued to turn at court and in Ireland. Marriage alliances were made with the hopes of gaining more influence and power. All of these things went to the core of Anglesey’s world and were a severe strain on his emotions and

127 his politics. Remaining in power through those events was a confirmation of his skills as a courtier and his inner strength. Anglesey’s diary is testimony to how busy his life was with privy council meetings, various committees for Ireland, the navy and trade, as well as his parliamentary duties in the house of lords. Before news of the Popish Plot broke, Anglesey spent early and mid-1678 dealing with normal business and attempting to use his connections to aid his family. In June he bragged how in parliament he and others “saved the settlement of Ireland,” while in August he pleaded with the king for a title of honor in Ireland for his second son, Althan. Anglesey wanted this because he was in the midst of arranging a marriage for his son with Alicia Leigh. They settled the terms of the agreement and the two were married on 3 September.1 The long-standing feud between the earl and Ranelagh was not finished, for the matter had not yet been finalized by the treasury or the king. Anglesey had received a temporary respite in August, for Ormond wrote to him that he had not heard anything from either Ranelagh or Anglesey’s agent. Remember, in May Ranelagh’s accounts had been audited, much to his ire, by the earl of Essex and Anglesey, and they found him to be in debt £50,000 to the king. A year later the issue was still being debated, for Ranelagh traveled over in mid-October 1679 to settle his accounts. Anglesey urged Ormond to ensure the arrears were finalized, praying that the matter would soon end. However, by January 1680 Anglesey was once again dealing with Ranelagh and this account. These financial tensions between Anglesey and Ranelagh were not over, for later during Anglesey’s fight to retain office the issue of his Irish accounts would be raised. This matter illustrates the hardships faced by Anglo-Irish politicians who tried to manage affairs for both kingdoms. Also, after fighting with Ranelagh over the Irish revenue, Anglesey was faced with severe illness. The day parliament was prorogued, 1 October; Anglesey had to be carried out of bed to attend. This was due to a severe attack

1MS 18730, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 25 May 1678, 31 May 1678, 1 June 1678, 12 June 1678, 19 June 1678, 15 July 1678, 18 July 1678, 27 July 1678, 1 August 1678, 3 August 1678, 9 August 1678, 2 September 1678, 3 September 1678.

128 of gout, which kept him ill until 24 October. By that time parliament was again meeting and reports of the Popish Plot had begun.2 This plot was the brainchild of Titus Oates and Israel Tong. Oates had a diverse religious background, serving as a Baptist chaplain in the 1650s but later ordained as an Anglican minister in Kent. He then became a chaplain in the navy, but was fired and later arrested, convicted of perjury. In 1677 he traveled to the continent and was becoming a Jesuit, but was kicked out of college and returned to England the next year. Tong had a doctor of divinity degree from Oxford and was a faculty member there in the 1650s, but was removed in 1660. He received a parish church in London and was the author of several inconsiderable books against Catholicism; overall, he was a minor intellectual. The two created this plot in 1678 and by October parliament was investigating their allegations. At the core was a great Catholic conspiracy where Jesuits would assassinate Charles and the duke of Ormond and massacre Protestants. Presbyterians in Scotland and Irish Catholics were implicated as was France and the papacy who reportedly financed the venture. When the king first learned of this in August he thought it ludicrous and gave the papers over to the earl of Danby to investigate. He proceeded so slowly that Tong tried to hurry things by passing forged letters to James’ confessor. Charles grew increasingly upset with this matter and referred it to the privy council on 28 September, primarily to get rid of it, according to his biographer Ronald Hutton. However, it did not end there because when Oates appeared before the privy councilors he managed to appear credible, though, according to John Kenyon, it later seemed more apparent that Oates was making up a great deal as he went along. His seemingly detailed account of a conspiracy included monks, friars and several Catholic peers. While Oates did not charge the duke of York directly, he did accuse Edward Coleman.3

2MS 18730, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 15 January 1680, 1 October 1678, 2-24 October 1678; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:161, 184; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:221, 232; CSPD, 1678, 152; CSPD, 1680- 1681, 150.

3Mark Knights, Politics and Opinion in Crisis: 1678-81 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 3; John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972), 43-51, 66, 119, 125; Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 358-361.

129 As it happened, Coleman was a former secretary to James. Coleman’s correspondence did contain letters to Louis XIV’s confessor regarding Catholic plots in England. Anglesey commented that for two days the house of lords heard Coleman’s examination, but at first did nothing. The final result of Coleman’s trial was that it greatly undermined Oates’ standing. However, that was not to come until later. At the moment, the privy council reacted by ordering the lords-lieutenant to mobilize militia to search Catholic homes for arms. The council stated that a massive Catholic conspiracy had been discovered. People began reporting about strange conversations and it was upon their instructions that Coleman’s home was searched and the letters found. To make things more suspicious, the London magistrate who had first heard Oates’ tale, Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, was found murdered on 17 October. Amongst the growing panic over the plot most assumed Catholic plotters had killed him. In Ireland, Ormond arrested an individual named by Oates, archbishop Peter Talbot, who eventually died in prison. For his part, Charles remained unconvinced, but by October he had to deal with a parliament which was all too eager to believe.4 The majority of the house of commons accepted Oates’ tales and placed in prison Arundell of Wardour along with four other older Catholic peers. Next the commons, led by lord William Russell, denounced James and joining in their criticism were the lords, who were being pushed along by the earl of Shaftesbury. The earl of Danby also tried to harness this anti-Catholic movement and advised the king to give James over to the opposition. Tensions obviously arose between Danby and James. This only added to the already strained court environment. Anglesey wrote that on 2 November parliament moved against James and it seems that the attack had begun. The privy council urged Charles to take action and he did on 3 November, requiring his brother to withdraw from the privy council and foreign affairs committee. The king continued to bow to the commons’ pressure, agreeing to exile Catholics from London, requiring them to stay within five miles of their homes, though Charles did not accept this as applying to men at his court. James was exempted from having to take the oaths of supremacy and

4MS 18730, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 29 October 1678; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:478; The Talbot family numbered among the main enemies of Ormond and had conspired to pull him from power in the 1660s.

130 allegiance. Commons next passed a bill to remove Catholics from parliament and the government moved its allies in the lords to delete James from the bill’s provisions. It is easy to understand why the historian, Richard Greaves, argues that between 1673 and 1688 no issue created more concern and fear in English politics than James’ religion. Jonathan Scott echoes John Kenyon and Greaves who contended that the sense of danger felt in Britain was increased due to the almost unstoppable successes of Catholicism on the Continent. Scott emphasizes the important role of Ireland, noting that due to its geographic position England felt “surrounded” by the European Protestant crisis. This was especially noticeable in France where Louis XIV’s persecution of Huguenots upset those in Britain who believed Charles would mimic Louis’ use of a large army and centralized bureaucracy, tools to strengthen royal authority.5 After James narrowly escaped this attack, the duke of Ormond was the next great minister targeted, which is not surprising considering his Irish Catholic relatives and allies. His handling of the Popish Plot brought much criticism from his enemies, for during the early years of the Popish Plot he chose to wait and watch, to not jump quickly to any conclusions or actions. Anglesey supported the duke in this policy, agreeing that hasty acts lead to disaster. This policy did not sit well with the earl of Orrery, long time enemy to both Anglesey and Ormond. Orrery began pestering Ormond to take immediate action in the fall of 1678. Ormond argued that would produce more trouble than it was worth. Orrery’s response was to send letters to London accusing Ormond of negligence. Members of parliament saw these letters, as did the court. Whispers of the existence of insolent Catholics, who were being given free reign by Ormond, began circulating, though the duke’s friends averred that they originated from the “Charlatan of Munster,” Orrery. Ormond concurred; stating that it was “plain enough” that Orrery was involved. More accusations regarding Irish plots supposedly mishandled by Ormond came from Orrery in 1679 during the frantic period of the Popish Plot. Hutton believes Ormond

5MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 2 November 1678; Hutton, Charles II, 361; Richard L. Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688-89 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 1, 2; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 1-2; Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth- century English Political Instability in European Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 11, 14; Scott, “England’s Troubles: Exhuming the Popish Plot,” in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, ed. Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 114; Knights, 25.

131 survived this new attack due to the unwavering support of Charles and the duke’s personal courage and calmness. He also had the support of courtiers such as Anglesey who worked hard to keep Ormond in good favor with the king.6 Ormond’s son, the earl of Ossory, wrote that Anglesey’s friendship and respect was quite valuable for the lord-lieutenant. During this time, Anglesey wrote of his love for Ormond, providing him with important information and rumors. One such rumor that Anglesey wrote of hinted that Ormond’s policies would bring rebellion, arguing that “the late proclamation published there for the Papists to bring in their arms gives them twenty- one days to do it, and that their use of firearms by license is intimated in the same, which is looked upon as an advantage held forth to the Sectaries, and a warning to the Irish to hide and conceal their arms . . . .” It was reported that out of ten or twelve companies in one regiment there were no Protestants, except for two. They were to be used for a great rebellion/massacre. Anglesey warned that these tales were written with the “highest asservations for truth, and with so much apprehension of danger, that they intimate inclinations to send away wives and children . . . .”7 Anglesey did not necessarily believe these rumors, but he did worry over the state of the garrisons and prayed that the Protestants would not be a “sacrifice to the Irish treachery, and implacable thirst for their blood and estates.” Anglesey’s worries were not taken lightly, for Ormond did take note of the people’s fears. Upon the lord-lieutenant’s instruction the Irish privy council took moderate action, ordering Catholics to disarm and exiling their clergy. The majority of Catholics were ignored, provided they did not try to disturb the peace. Anglesey continued to report to Ormond on proceedings in London, mentioning the arraignment of Coleman who was to be tried soon. Other trials were to follow and Catholics had already been disarmed. The government had also ordered the arrest and trial of priests. Anglesey wrote of the bill which passed both houses to “turn all Popish Lords out of Parliament,” and exciting news such as frequent unsolved murders and the fact that all the “traffic with Rome and France is discovered.” His desire to keep Ormond knowledgeable about events was a means of maintaining allies during

6HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:220; Hutton, Charles II, 362, 363; J.C. Beckett, The Cavalier Duke: A life of James Butler-1st Duke of Ormond, 1610-1688 (Belfast: Pretani Press, 1990), 115-117.

7HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:219-220, 242-243, 251-252.

132 this tumultuous time. The earl worried that someone was trying to cause trouble for him and the duke and he stressed his loyalty and friendship for Ormond.8 This in fact would be an issue that arose later and the tensions did not, in fact, arise from an outside influence, but from Anglesey himself. Reports involving the Popish Plot and Ireland continued to pervade court politics in London and Dublin throughout the fall of 1678. Oates’ testimony was being regarded as gospel in the commons. Some of the lords, including Strafford, were lamenting the “overspreading condition of Popery in Ireland and that if some care were not taken in that all other cares were in vain.” After this was stated, Anglesey rose to the Irish government’s defense, stating that “effectual orders had been given and that my Lord Strafford had been present at the giving of them.” Apparently he was not fully believed by all and the lords appointed a time to view those orders. Anglesey also planned on warning Ormond of possible dangers in Dublin, though he did not state precisely what those might be. Most likely they dealt with the Talbot family who was continuing to cause problems for the Irish government.9 Throughout November and December 1678, both houses of parliament continued to hear reports and examinations relating to the Popish Plot. Anglesey kept an account of these meetings in his diary. It is valuable because it often provides information regarding unofficial meetings held outside of parliament and the privy council. Thus, his diary helps us understand the inner workings of court politics and factional maneuvering. By late November, the privy council appointed a committee to review all of the materials relating to the plot. Those on the committee included the lord privy seal, Anglesey, secretaries of state Joseph Williamson and Henry Coventry, Danby, Ormond, Arlington, the lords Ailesbury, Bridgewater, Fauconberg, and Maynard. Essex also attended its daily meetings regularly. On 12 December the house of lords gave formal control over the examinations to this committee. Then on 31 December in the privy council the king declared that committee was to sit daily and particularly recommended its care to “the

8Ibid., 219-220, 252-254; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:220.

9HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:461-463, 479. There were rumors in 1664 that due to the earl of Orrery’s ties with the Talbot family, most of whom had plotted against the duke during his lieutenancy, Orrery and Ormond were at odds with each other. This is interesting considering the later attack on Ormond, led by Orrery, over Ormond’s leniency toward Catholics.

133 vigilance of the Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Bridgewater, and Earl of Essex . . . .” Thus, Anglesey served as the director of these examinations. It was also ordered that papers from both houses should be sent to this committee in order to frame the indictments, but this resulted in a loud debate over whether a trial by indictment could proceed due to previous events. Anglesey referred to this committee as a “secret” one and indeed it appears that beyond the inner workings of government, the public at large was not aware of their meeting. During this busy time of meetings, Anglesey also recorded the numerous times he and the other officials had to take the Oaths of Declaration. Apparently parliament believed that measures such as these would help weed out Catholics from within the inner chambers of government. Besides keeping track of these oaths, the committee was also responsible for handling evidence on Coleman’s trial as well as statements of accusation and depositions.10 Anglesey’s diary is one of the few sources that mention the early attacks on Danby dated 23 December. Danby was ordered to withdraw from parliament and was accused by the commons of treason. The lords did not agree with this, but after Montagu’s revelations it was a hard battle for Danby’s defenders. However, this did not mean that the lords sided with the other house. Even after the commons approved the documents of impeachment on 23 December, the lords heard Danby’s defense and on the 27th announced their refusal to imprison him. To save his servant and allow tempers to cool, Charles prorogued parliament on 30 December, setting the next meeting for 4 February. Anglesey did not agree with this decision, stating that “by whose advice [it was given] God knows . . . .” The earl believed that this would give the wrong impression to the people, that the king and Danby had something to hide. Anglesey was correct, for indeed the people’s anger and fear did increase as it appeared that Charles was not intent on uncovering the plot. Those feelings intensified when the king refused to execute the three Catholics who had already been convicted. Danby even urged him to do so, but Charles would not because he did not believe that the plot was true. This changed later with the emergence of a new informer who corroborated the evidence

10MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 24-29 October 1678, 2 November 1678, 4-8 November 1678, 13 November 1678, 19 November 1678, 20-21 November 1678, 23 November 1678, 24-29 November 1678, 30 November, 2 December, 3-7 December 1678, 9-18 December 1678, 20-21 December 1678; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 129-131.

134 against the three condemned Catholics as well as three of the five Catholic lords in prison. Charles announced that he was now convinced of the plot’s existence and ordered the three men hanged. He also appointed one of the opposition to the privy council, the earl of Salisbury.11 Now many were increasingly eager to focus on Danby, for though parliament was prorogued the committee of examinations, which Anglesey served on, continued to meet though the mood was not as hostile there as it was in commons. Charles had increased its number and placed the running of it in the hands of Anglesey, Bridgewater and Essex. He had earlier suggested his intention to do this. Kenyon argues that the king did so because those men had strict Protestant ties and few connections with Danby. Charles also issued another order for the committee to assume possession of all papers relevant to the Plot, which the parliament clerks still had. Anglesey noted that the king often attended the committee’s meetings, which probably reflected Charles’ new desire to appear supportive of the investigation.12 Charles angered the privy council when, on 24 January, he announced he was dissolving the current parliament and wanted writs issued for a new one to meet on 6 March. This did not sit well with many, including Anglesey who bitterly remarked that the king ordered that “with out asking our advice . . . .” Hutton states that Danby was responsible for the dissolution though Charles’ rudeness in handling it was all his own, for he told the privy councilors that debate was not necessary because the councilors feared parliament more than him. The king also listened to Danby’s suggestion to have James go into exile before parliament met in March. This would not protect James in the long run, though it might have provided a temporary relief. James went to the Spanish Netherlands, which Kenyon feels was a mistake for it was the headquarters of Catholicism’s English missions. The elections did not yield the results that Charles and Danby had hoped. In his opening speech Charles stressed his intent to deal with dangerous Catholics and the army and asked for money to disband and improve the navy. None of this was out of the ordinary, but then Charles supported Danby’s candidate for

11MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 23 December 1678, 30 December 1678; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:494; Hutton, Charles II, 365-366.

12MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 20 January 1679, 22 January 1679, Kenyon, Popish Plot, 135.

135 speaker of the commons. This angered the commons greatly. Their rage convinced the king that Danby had to retire. However, instead of demoting Danby the king gave him a large pension and promoted him to marquis. This drove both houses into a frenzy and the commons began drawing up another bill of impeachment against Danby.13 Up to this point Anglesey had been absent from the lords due to a bout of gout. He was back by 22 March, a day where both houses felt the king insulted them, for Charles summoned the commons to the lords, “without the assistance of any paper.” Once there he told both houses that “he expected some progress in public affairs, but found this business of my Lord Treasurer obstructed all; whereupon he was come to put an end to that . . . telling them he had granted him his pardon before this Parliament met . . . [and that] he would remove him from his presence and councils.” Charles also told them that Danby’s prior actions had all been undertaken at the king’s command and that the matter was now closed. The commons challenged the king’s right to pardon Danby and his high handedness with parliament. The lords decided to pass a bill stating that Danby would be banished from the king’s presence and would not be allowed to sit in the house or have any pension granted, particularly the £4,000 per annum that the king had already marked for him. The commons also sent a message via Anglesey to have Danby “immediately secured.”14 Rumors continued to fly regarding Danby and it was reported that he spoke against Oates when he said, “There goeth Oates, the saviour of this nation, but I hope to see him hanged within this month.” Charles told Danby to disappear in Europe before the lords ordered his arrest. When Danby did not flee the king supported a measure in the lords to banish him, just as Clarendon had been treated years before. The commons threw the bill out and beginning on 2 April the lords began debating the bill of attainder against Danby, which had been sent up by the commons. For several days they discussed the plot and Danby. Anglesey is mentioned as one of those who helped “manage” relations between the lords and commons regarding the attainder bill. He is also listed as one of the primary speakers for the lords regarding these actions. On 14 April both

13MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 24 January 1679; Hutton, Charles II, 366-371.

14MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 15-21 March 1679, 22 March 1679, 24-31 March 1679; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:368-370; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 149-151.

136 houses decided to prosecute Danby with a bill of attainder. One source notes that Anglesey and lord Roberts were the two who moved the king for his assent to the bill and Charles replied that he would do so on the 16th. However, before the king could do so Danby surrendered on the 16th to prevent the bill from being passed, presumably with the king’s knowledge and support.15 Later in May Anglesey and Shaftesbury were called to the bar within parliament because they had exchanged extremely heated words while in session. Anglesey was quite angry over two of Shaftesbury’s remarks. First, Shaftesbury called Danby’s pardon an “arbitrary pardon.” Anglesey took objection over that phrase, which he felt criticized the king. The other phrase that had both Anglesey and Essex on edge stated, that “in aggravating the crimes of the Earl of Danby beyond those of the other five Lords this expression happened, ‘that the Earl of Danby is a great man still.’” This implied that Danby remained a great man even after his recent imprisonment and again implied a criticism of the king who had refused to strip Danby of his power. One of Shaftesbury’s allies protested that this was supposed to have read “he may be a great man still.” Anglesey may or may not have been satisfied with this explanation, his diary does not indicate his final thoughts. Though it seems a small thing, something as little as wording could inflame tempers during such a tense time. A later incident arose over a debate within the lords who were discussing the upcoming trials. It involved Anglesey and an exchange of heated words between him and the marquis of Winchester. Apparently Winchester attacked Anglesey “as if he sought to govern the House. But that was quenched.” Like the incident with Shaftesbury, this illustrates the very tense nature of the plot and how it affected parliamentary members who had to deal with the investigation and trials.16 A major change involved Danby’s former office of lord treasure. That position was now held by a commission instead of just one man. Charles chose Essex to head this body, most likely due to the fact that the powerful noble had grown increasingly critical of the government within parliament. Two other committees were appointed one

15HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:504; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:31, 51; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 1-11 April 1679, 14-17 April 1679.

16HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:103.

137 specifically for Ireland, which was headed up by Anglesey, Essex, the earl of Salisbury, and the lords Halifax, Roberts, and Mr. Seymour. However, these were not the last of the major changes which were carried out in Charles’ government during the Popish Plot.17 One of the biggest changes came on 20 April when the king decided to dissolve the privy council and appoint a new one. Anglesey wrote that the new body was not to exceed thirty, previously it was forty-six in number, and that on the 21st he was sworn in with the others. Hutton notes that the majority were those who had recently opposed the king, for Shaftesbury was now the lord president. Within that body a committee of intelligence was created, which included Monmouth, the lord Chamberlain, Essex, Sir William Temple, the lord Chancellor, lord President, and two secretaries. Its duties were to prepare important items for submission to the privy council. Thus, it functioned as a kind of sub-committee to the privy council with the ability to help steer policy. Anglesey also received an appointment to this group and referred to the first meeting as being in “very secret councel.” Another change came in the admiralty commission, which Charles replaced with new members. That body was also headed by Shaftesbury. Anglesey gained reappointment to this commission as well, which indicates his continued importance at court and the king’s reliance on him. He was also much more involved in the handling of the trials and investigations than previous authors have mentioned. For example, he stood up for the Queen against accusations given against her in June 1679 within the privy council. Another issue he was involved with dealt with the new committees appointed to oversee the plot. Apparently when committees of investigation for both houses met, they did not behave expeditiously, but instead proved slow and cumbersome. This especially was true involving a bill to try the five peers being detained for their involvement in the Popish Plot. The lines of communication were not being kept open and so Anglesey offered a new way to handle affairs between these two bodies. The earl suggested having established meeting times and specific men to act as couriers between the two houses. He also pressed to have a trial date set for the five lords who had petitioned to have one established, though he was temporarily thwarted by the lord president who wanted more time to review the lords’ impeachment and how the trials

17HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:97.

138 should proceed. Anglesey was not trying to weaken the prosecution, but merely insisting that the lords’ rights were upheld. Anglesey also argued for the rights of the bishops to have votes at trials, joining the lord chancellor, lord Ailesbury, and lord Roberts, along with the bishops. This group insisted that the bishops had the right to sit at the trial, for they “equally ought to do it at least as any other Peers, and that the House could not dispense with them; so that the debate was, as it were, yielded in favour of the Bishops without a question.” That was one victory for Anglesey and looks back to his earliest political views regarding the establishment of Britain’s ancient constitution and the hereditary rights of the peers.18 The decision to create a new privy council and committees indicate the king’s belief that giving the opposition more power, keeping his enemies closer, would result in their loyalty. Charles was mistaken in this belief, for by late April the commons decided to deal with James, arguing that his religion had helped encourage an environment where Catholic plots would flourish. These were indeed troubled times with one courtier remarking that “there are some who, having malice, would do anything that they could, and others, without malice, would do anything which they thought popular, even to save themselves, and on the other side avoid it as they think it might do themselves hurt.” This truly sums up the problematic nature of choosing sides during this crisis and how slippery the slopes of politics and religion remained.19 During these times of extreme fear and suspicion, Anglesey also suffered from attacks on his behavior and supposed involvement in an Irish plot. The charges were quite serious and impeachment was even threatened. This plot was entirely false. It was created by Shaftesbury who was aided by Essex. Shaftesbury sent agents to England to prove there was new uprising being planned, which would help him undermine Ormond’s position and rid himself of other Anglo-Irish enemies. In March 1679, Shaftesbury and Essex presented their information to the English privy council. Ormond, Ossory, and Anglesey were all attacked for their supposed involvement in this plot. They were

18MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 20 April 1679, 21 April 1679, 29 April 1679, 24 June 1679; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:505-506; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:32, 100-101, 106-108; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 154; Hutton, Charles II, 371, 373.

19HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:505.

139 singled out because of their prominence in Irish affairs and their moderate stance during the Popish Plot. Another warning came to Ormond that both he and Anglesey were to be accused by a Mr. Bennett, the man who had made the assertion regarding the masses, for it was said that the government of Ireland was “too indulgent to Papists.” These were not charges to be taken lightly. Accusations were made in the commons that Anglesey had been involved in the “consenting and advising” of the entire Irish plot. After the commons had finished with the case the house of lords began hearing testimony in November 1680. One witness, Owen Murphy, stated that the Catholic titular primate, Plunkett, claimed he had been given money from Ormond. Plunkett denied saying it, remarking that he had received “less encouragement” from Ormond than the previous lord-lieutenants, Berkeley and Essex. The author of this report, Ormond’s son, Arran, wryly commented that the earl of Essex did not appreciate that comment. Another complaint against Ormond was that the plot would have been made known to him sooner had he listened to the testimony of the priest Ronan Maginn, but after Ormond refused to meet with him Maginn died. This implied inept handling on Ormond’s part and indirectly the king. Arran warned that Shaftesbury was all too willing to condemn Ormond based on the duke’s cautious approach to dealing with the Irish Catholics. The lords decided to first meet with the commons to discuss this business before coming to any solid conclusions. Arran also noted that though the committee appointed to consider the case was supposed to have all the examinations and documents sent to Ormond and the privy council they had not done so. Instead, Arran feared they relied only on the witnesses’ new examinations. He stated that the witnesses were now swearing “bloodily against my Lord Anglesey,” especially one named Macnamara. This same witness would be part of the Meal Tub Plot. Meanwhile, the earl of Longford reassured Ormond that Arran had been so diligent in London in justifying Ormond’s actions and was so trusted in his understanding of Irish affairs that the duke’s enemies were forced to turn to new tactics. Longford added that in the presentation of evidence nothing had appeared against Ormond and the materials were to be passed on to the commons. However, Longford echoed Arran and Ormond’s earlier frustrations that none of the papers sent over by Ormond and the Irish privy council had been examined by the committee though they had been ordered to do so by the king and English privy council. He did reassure Ormond

140 that after the king had heard of Murphy’s charges regarding Ormond, Charles commented that he refused to believe Ormond would ever be involved in such a plot. Also, others stepped forward to insist that Anglesey had always been devoted to creating “further disturbance to the titular Popish clergy” in Ireland.20 However, another part of this plot also caused grief for Anglesey and his family. Dangerfield had earlier named Anglesey’s son-in-law, the earl of Tyrone, as a member of the plot. He claimed that Tyrone had encouraged the French to invade England and Ireland. This had led to Tyrone’s arrest in 1679 . Anglesey did all he could to free him and in April 1679 Ormond’s son, Ossory, reported that Anglesey had shown him “a paper of my Lord of Tyrone’s complaining much of the hard usage he has had. I will endeavour to send you a copy of it.” Ormond’s response was that he had not yet received a copy of the information, given under solemn oath, against Tyrone but once he did he would pass it along to Ossory. The duke believed that once it was shown “it will appear to my Lord Privy Seal that I could not have proceeded otherwise than I did.” Apparently, the earl was upset that Ormond had not taken swift action to help Tyrone. During an earlier meeting of the privy council in April 1680, Anglesey made a motion that Ormond “should be written to take off the Earl of Tyrone’s bail, but it was likewise the opinion of the Board that nothing should be resolved upon in that matter till your opinion were likewise known upon it, and I was likewise ordered to write to you for it.” However, witnesses against Tyrone were traveling to England and Ormond believed they intended to make a complaint, “but whether against the Government, the judges, the jury, or against them all . . . I know not.” Ormond questioned the character of the men who were giving testimony, lending some support to Anglesey’s questioning of the accusations against Tyrone. The duke prayed that the Irish government would be heard regarding “anything that shall be objected against our proceeding.” Some claimed that Anglesey supported the plot that he wrote two letters to Tyrone that encouraged Tyrone to “go on vigorously with the matter in hand [the plot].” Macnamara, Anglesey’s old enemy from the other plot, also stated that Anglesey “had so great credit amongst the Papists that they prayed for him at Mass, and he heard his parish priest often pray for him.” The earl of

20Hutton, Charles II, 391-393, 397, 400, 407-408; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:369, 449, 506, 574; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 27 August 1680, 4 November 1680.

141 Conway wrote of these accusations against Anglesey, which were presented to the house of commons. Knowing of Anglesey’s extreme dislike for Catholic plotters these charges were quite farfetched and ludicrous; however, suspicions ran rampant throughout all of Britain and no one could be certain of their fate during these tumultuous times. Even though Anglesey sat on a committee of council for “suppressing popery” in early 1680, he was not above suspicion. This was due to his Irish Catholic marriage ties, which made him suspect in the eyes of his enemies.21 Ormond faced that same problem. All of these plots and rumors led to talk of his replacement, going back to early 1679 when reports came in that articles of impeachment were going to be drawn up against Anglesey in the house of commons. By that August, stories were floating through court that Oates planned to put in articles against Anglesey in parliament and that another witness, Mr. Jennison, “had reflected much upon my Lord Privy Seal . . . .” Concurrently, rumors were floating about that Ormond was to be removed as lord-lieutenant of Ireland, showing the apparent dissatisfaction some at court had with the handling of Irish affairs. As the debates and examinations continued through early 1681, reports rose that the evidence provided by Macnamara and others regarding Anglesey’s involvement with Tyrone’s plot was to be considered to see if an accusation of treason would be brought against the lord privy seal. It is curious that with all of these dangerous accusations Anglesey does not make reference to it very often in his diary. Besides an earlier entry where the committee for Irish affairs was opening up Tyrone’s case, the only other mention of Tyrone is a visit he made to Anglesey in December 1680 as well as their actions in November the following year. Apparently, Anglesey accompanied Tyrone to the king’s bench and provided bail for him.22 We must consider if this support of Tyrone proved harmful for Anglesey later on in his political career and during the remaining years of the Popish Plot crisis. This issue eventually did die down because no real evidence existed and several of the

21Anglesey’s daughter, Elizabeth, had married Alexander MacDonnell, third earl of Antrim. This was one of the more prominent, and infamous, Irish Catholic families.

22HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:551; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:97, 193, 298-299, 479-481, 485, 546; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 31 January 1680, 8 December 1680, 14 November 1681.

142 witnesses were deemed unreliable. Also, Shaftesbury stopped his attack, becoming caught up in the Exclusion Crisis. During the heyday of the Irish plot another plot also arose and caused Anglesey even more trouble. This was the Meal-Tub Plot. This arose in 1679 contrived by a Mr. Thomas Dangerfield. He claimed he knew of a plot against James, accusing Shaftesbury, Essex, and Halifax. When this failed to pan out his story changed, he claimed there was actually a Catholic plot against the king. Dangerfield had planted the evidence, in a meal-tub, but again the threat was considered real enough at first. Thus, by1680 Dangerfield was willing to turn against James and he began attacking Shaftesbury. Dangerfield testified that the duke was involved in the main Popish Plot as was lord Peterborough who planned to kill the king. Dangerfield also swore to the committee that York gave him “great encouragement to go on vigorously to kill the King, and gave him out of his own pocket twenty guineas . . . and that [he had been sent] to my Lord Anglesey to know when it would be seasonable to broach the [other] plot.” Thus, Dangerfield was now claiming that James and Anglesey were both involved in the Meal Tub Plot. In October and November 1680, Anglesey spent many meetings in parliament hearing Dangerfield’s “false informing against me in the house of Commons” and listening to the testimonies of Catholic priests. As usually, the rumor mills were kept busy with accusations and one report came to Ormond, stating that Anglesey had “thirty masses a day said for him in Ireland.” Dangerfield claimed that Anglesey was corresponding with and encouraging the lords in the Tower. This is intriguing because, as mentioned earlier, in December, Anglesey pressed for a date to be set for the lords’ trial, something they specifically requested. Thus, one wonders was this accusation true, but just not in the sense and scope that Dangerfield implied? Sadly, Anglesey experienced a very bitter betrayal by his own son, James. To save himself he did not defend his own father from Dangerfield’s accusations. He merely stated that if his father were guilty he was ashamed to be related to him. This must have wounded the earl quite deeply, although unfortunately his diary does not mention his son’s abandonment. Overall, there was not enough evidence to really bring down Anglesey, which was not really the opposition’s goal. This is evident, for after the testimony was heard in the commons, the house voted they would “take into their consideration the suppression of

143 Popery and the prevention of a Popish successor.” Apparently, shades of the exclusion issue was already beginning to seep into parliament. Ormond was furious that investigations into these claims were being made without his knowledge, bitterly remarking that it is “something extraordinary to have inquiry made after treasonable practices in Ireland and the Chief Governor left out, for if he be not to be trusted with that certainly he ought not to be with the kingdom.” One wonders if others back in England, specifically Ormond’s enemies, were not coming to the same conclusions.23 Anglesey’s actions in the lords regarding a bill against Catholics brought further suspicion upon him. He opposed a bill which said that no Catholic could inherit any lands, but that the next Protestant bloodline should inherit and if there was no one of blood then an informer against a Catholic can have the whole estate. Also, “no Papist widow can have a jointure, no Papist practice the law, physic, or any trade . . . and many more things of this nature . . . .” Apparently no one said anything against this extremely harsh bill except for Anglesey “who was laughed at and sat down again.” This is intriguing for it illustrates Anglesey’s inability to take a harsh, unfair stance against Catholics. While he did not trust many and held great contempt for the participants in the Civil War, he did not promote the degradation of Catholics or taking away their basic civil rights. However, during times where hard lines were being drawn against Catholics, who were being seen as synonymous with traitors, it was dangerous to appear as a moderate, a path both Anglesey and Ormond always strove to find.24 1681 did in fact witness Anglesey struggling against more charges of treason and plotting. There was a new facet to this as some were now beginning to step forward to try and discredit Oates. Thus, the crisis over this false plot was beginning to die down. Recent charges against the Irish government were made in October 1681, for Irish examinations involving several Catholic laity and priests stated they were willing to swear “high treason against the Duke of Ormonde, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Sir John Davys . . . .” Anglesey’s name appeared with this group in December; however,

23HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:21, 34, 220, 272, 298-299, 461-462, 466-467, 477-478; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 20 February 1680, 26 October 1680; CSPD, 1680-1681, 68; Douglas Greene, “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey: 1614-1686” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972), 178-179.

24HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:456.

144 now there were new informants stepping forward to denounce Oates’ claims. Owen Murphy, the earlier informant against Plunkett, reported that he was first approached by an ally of Oates, William Hetherington, about how he could make a great fortune by producing evidence for the Popish Plot and that this plan included gathering “informants” in England and Ireland. Murphy stated that he was convinced by Hetherington into signing a paper swearing that “the King was Papist . . . and that the Queen, the Duke of York, the Duke of Ormonde, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Earl of Arran, Sir William and Sir John Davys and others were concerned in the Popish plot, in bringing in the French, in changing the government to Popish jurisdiction . . . .” Murphy disclosed that Oates also supposedly planned to attack those figures listed as well as the “Duke of York, the Earl of Anglesey, Lord Halifax and both the Lord Hydes . . . .” The outcome of this was to remove those men who stood “for the King’s right . . . [so] the King’s power would be weakened and of no effect.” Thus, Oates and his allies feared that Anglesey and other staunch supporters of the king could imperil the plot and Murphy claimed that Oates’ and the other informers’ ultimate goal was to kill the king and his loyal subjects. Murphy also stated that Hetherington had undertaken attacks on Ormond, Anglesey, and others with pure malice in his heart and that many accusers were being paid to bring charges against those lords. Murphy also charged Shaftesbury with the encouragement of those designs and, again, the intention was to “destroy the King and Government by perjury.” Individuals were promised seats on the privy council and landed estates.25 All of this exemplifies the dangers of subordination and encouraging men to lie under oath. Both sides in this crisis struggled to find witnesses to prove that the other side was lying. When justice is corrupted in this manner then anyone can be a target. In late 1680, the first of the five Catholic lords to be tried and executed was viscount Stafford. Stafford was one of the five Catholic peers accused by Oates and others of involvement in the Popish Plot. His wealth and status had made him practically immune from the penal laws and he maintained a “mass centre” if not an actual chapel within his town home. Kenyon argues that Stafford’s behavior made him seem quite

25CSPD, 1680-1681, 494-495, 623-625.

145 suspicious, that he was a “busy, meddling man; the most likely to be mixed up in something rash and shady.” He traveled abroad often, visiting France in 1678. After his arrest, he offered to reveal information regarding Catholics’ plans in the 1670s, but this seems to have been a ploy to buy time. In 1678, Oates named Stafford as one of the financiers of the plot to assassinate the king. Stafford, along with the other four Catholic lords, was imprisoned shortly after Oates’ testimony. They were impeached that November. Ironically, Stafford and two others were members of the lords’ committee, which sat on the Popish Plot. Another informant, Stephen Dugdale, was arrested as a “notorious Catholic” and in his deposition named Stafford as one of the plotters. After hearing this information, the king offered Stafford a full pardon if he would confess, but the viscount refused, stressing his innocence and demanding a quick trial. That he did not get, for he was imprisoned in late 1678 and though the trial was originally set for May 1679 it did not happen until 29 November 1680. Stafford’s abrasive personality had made him quite a few enemies and combined with the “evidence” against him he was the first to be tried. The lords heard his case and the lord chancellor presided, while Charles distanced himself from the proceedings. Sir William Jones handled the prosecution and the trial lasted for seven days, the only one for this plot that carried on for over a day. By this time another accuser had stepped forward, Edward Tuberville. Combined with Oates and Dugdale’s testimony, the oral evidence against Stafford appeared to be solid, though no written evidence was provided. Historian Andrew Swatland argues that the lords did their duties judiciously without any bias. Anglesey’s records indicate that the lords did spend a good amount of time discussing the case. Although many lords by now thought very little of Oates, including Anglesey, if they supported Stafford they would appear to be supporting popery. Thus, the viscount was found guilty, fifty-five to thirty-one. Anglesey noted that he gave his vote “quickly” for the condemnation of Stafford. He also offered an insightful view into the nation’s fear and obsession with Catholicism when he chastised the major of Gloucester for his harshness against Protestant dissenters. Anglesey warned him that “extreme severities against any sort of sober Protestants are so apt to be interpreted into some kind of compliance with the Popish design against the whole Protestant religion.” Truly this shows the nature of British politics; whereas harsh treatment of dissenters was earlier encouraged by many, now it would be looked upon as

146 a sign of “popery.” Though James appealed to Charles to be lenient, the king signed the warrant for Stafford’s beheading. In total, three dozen would be executed for a plot that never actually existed.26 During the heyday of the Popish Plot another issue rose to dominate British politics, one that had a direct correlation in the minds of many to the issue of Catholicism, tyranny, and absolutism. That issue was the succession of James, duke of York, a known Catholic who had remarried a Catholic and would apparently be the next ruler of Britain. It is the point at which we can begin using the terms Whigs and Tories to discuss the opposition and court factions, which steered policy and conflict during the 1680s. The importance of faction, though, cannot be denied, as Mark Knights points out. During the 1670s the attacks on various court ministers were not coordinated by solidly formed parties, but by coalitions of factions which changed constantly.27 As mentioned previously, when Charles called for elections of a new parliament in early 1679 the results were not what he wanted and were instead a huge victory for the opposition. Focus began to shift in this new parliament to the duke of York’s religion, which the commons declared had encouraged the growth of Catholic plots. Also, as Knights indicates, the succession was now entangled in the “factional intrigues of Whitehall.” Also, Danby’s rise and fall had left behind suspicion and distrust, which many found hard to get past. The frequent arguments and rivalry between Shaftesbury, the new lord president of the council, and the earl of Halifax also caused tensions in the newly formed privy council, which is reflected in the careers and politics of men such as Anglesey who wrote of the court’s divisive nature. Thus, faction cannot be ignored as part of the driving force behind the exclusion issue. This erupted first in parliament in March 1679, causing historians to dub this the first Exclusion Parliament. During this

26MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 30 November 1680, 1-2 December 1680, 4 December 1680, 6 December 1680, 7 December 1680; CSPD, 1680-1681, 45; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 28, 40, 82-83, 138-142, 154-155, 201-203; Hutton, Charles II, 396; Andrew Swatland, The House of Lords in the Reign of Charles II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 76, 87, 196, 232. There does appear to be some discrepancy with these figures, for while Kenyon quotes the numbers 55-31, Swatland states that the count was 30-17.

27Hutton, Charles II, 373; Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom, 14; Knights, 27-28; Tim Harris, Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society, 1660-1715 (London: Longman Group, 1993), 80. Scott argues that there were no Whigs or Tories between 1678-1683 because these groups were mostly the same people. See Scott, “England’s Troubles: Exhuming the Popish Plot,” 126-127.

147 parliament Shaftesbury and other opposition members began maneuvering against James, who after Charles’ encouragement had left for Flanders.28 The attack began in the commons where a bill was introduced to remove James from the succession. One of Shaftesbury’s allies, Thomas Bennett, was the first put on the committee to draw up a succession bill and it is his April speeches in the commons that first offer the idea of securing measures for protection against a Catholic ruler. Debates raged through the first two weeks with Bennet pushing hard for banishing James and introducing penalties if the duke violated this. Issues such as the legitimization of Charles’ son, Monmouth, were also raised. Others who wanted James excluded totally from the succession supported harsher lines. This Exclusion Bill passed commons in only two readings. The king initially responded with an offer of limitations on his successor. These were that the next king, if he were Catholic, would have no authority over ecclesiastical appointments, no power to dismiss members of the privy council, military officers, or judges. This offer was accepted by the Halifax, Essex, Sunderland faction, but made others suspicious. Thus the two main rival factions within parliament had divided between limitations and outright exclusion. Charles decided to end the issue by proroguing parliament on 27 May. Anglesey comments that the king “prorogued us unexpectedly till August 14” and prayed for God to “avert dangers by it.” However, this course of action did not bring about satisfaction for anyone involved and the king decided to dissolve parliament altogether on 10 July. Almost every privy councilor opposed this once they learned of Charles’ plan a few days before, including Anglesey who, along with the lords chancellor and chamberlain, argued against the dissolution in front of the king. Anglesey also dined with Shaftesbury after the meeting and stated in his diary that Essex and Halifax supported the dissolution, against Anglesey’s judgement. Overall, the earl’s position over this seems to indicate his desire to stand with the Shaftesbury group. However, both sides had courted Anglesey that July, invitations to dinner from both Halifax and Shaftesbury had been issued. Thus, the earl’s support must have been deemed valuable enough to pursue. At this point, Anglesey appeared to support limitations on James and not outright exclusion. After the dissolution was announced,

28Knights, 48-53; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 149-150, 156, 183-185; Harris, Politics Under, 83-84; Swatland, 231; Scott, “England’s Troubles,” 108-127.

148 Anglesey prayed for the king and spent the day doing his duties with “a sad heart.” He wrote to Ormond about the debate and his attempt to prevent the dissolution. The earl lamented that “God send good success herein and guide the people to make a wise and moderate choice, or else I doubt we are out of the frying pan into the fire by a new Parliament, which is to meet on Tuesday, the 7th of October next.”29 Those words must surely have echoed in the thoughts of others who felt that this delay would only heighten tensions and fears over the succession. The next phase of exclusion came that fall when Charles called for new parliamentary elections and Shaftesbury was dismissed from the privy council. However, this parliament was prorogued before it ever met and for a full year, October 1679 to October 1680 it did not sit at all. Charles spent much of this time dissembling with his ministers, meeting with the various factions and keeping them in the dark regarding his intentions. He seemed intent on keeping close ties with men such as Anglesey who wrote about various private and public audiences with Charles. The earl also spent more time with Shaftesbury and other members of his faction, indicating Anglesey’s close relationship with this Whig group, though these bonds were far from solid and changed the following year. Anglesey also wrote of his surprise at seeing members of these different factions with the king and often invited to the same dinners, which happened to Anglesey when he found himself dining with Sunderland in late August 1679. Anglesey though appeared to be open to closer ties with the opposition and he mentioned dining with Sunderland and Essex in early 1680.30 This was also a time where the king sought increased financial aid from Louis XIV and also grew quite ill in late August 1679. Anglesey was concerned with this

29MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 30 December 1678, 8 January 1679, 22 January 1679, 1 February 1679, 22-31 March 1679, 1-5 April 1679, 7-11 April 1679, 14-17 April 1679, 20 April 1679, 21 April 1679, 22- 26 April 1679, 29-30 April 1679, 2-12 May 1679, 13-26 May 1679, 27 May 1679, 3 July 1679, 6 July 1679, 10 July 1679, 24 July 1679, 25 July 1679; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:506-507; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:102, 152-153; Hutton, Charles II, 373, 384; Knights, 48-53; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 149-150, 156, 183- 185; Harris, Politics Under, 83-84; Swatland, 231; Scott, “England’s Troubles,” 108-127.

30MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 14 July 1679, 15 July 1679, 25 July 1679, 30 July 1679, 6-8 August 1679, 28 August 1679, 29 August 1679, 1 September 1679, 9-12 September 1679, 17 September 1679, 26 September 1679, 30 September 1679, 1-2 October 1679, 4 October 1679, 9 January 1680, 10 January 1680, 15 January 1680, 21 February 1680, 25-26 February 1680; Hutton, Charles II, 386; Knights, 56-62, 64, 230.

149 illness and rushed to the king’s side immediately. The earl visited with the king quite often in late August, a prudent measure for a statesman hoping to keep his monarch’s favor. During Charles’ illness he recalled James to Edinburgh and then to England. This had not been consulted upon with the privy council and Shaftesbury’s fury is what led to his suggestion that James be imprisoned until parliament met. The Halifax, Essex, Sunderland group decided to join with James to strip Monmouth of his offices, though they also wanted James to return to Brussels if Monmouth agreed to leave. Charles became convinced it was necessary for Monmouth to retreat and the duke left office that September. Shaftesbury’s reactions to James’ return ultimately resulted in the earl’s dismissal from office on 14 October. On 17 October parliament was formally prorogued until 26 January 1680. James’ arrival though was not greeted with support and fierce opposition from the privy council had Charles ordering him to return to Scotland on 27 October. Anglesey attempted to discuss York’s coming over and limit the length of his stay, but the king would not listen to his motion, calling it “unseasonable.”31 The other current hot issue was the sitting of parliament and in November councilors such as Essex and Anglesey urged Charles to allow a meeting. Anglesey wrote that he dealt “very freely with the king and council . . .” but to no avail. Essex was so angry he resigned as first lord of the treasury, replaced by James’ brother-in-law, Lawrence Hyde; however, Essex did remain on the privy council. Recently, Anglesey appears to have been seeking a different approach to power. Before he had used James as a way to gain patronage through Charles; however, recently he had begun to turn away from the duke. James’ religion was causing Anglesey problems, as he was finding it hard to reconcile the duke’s Catholicism with his personal feelings of friendship for James. The earl may have been looking for new avenues of patronage, for he spent time in late 1679 trying to shore up support for Monmouth who returned in November. Hutton notes that Monmouth had been promised he could return once the parliamentary session ended, but with its postponement he had yet to be summoned. Also, Charles’ coldness toward Monmouth was mainly due to his association with men of the “opposition” and if the

31MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 26 August 1679, 27 August 1679, 28 August 1679, 29 August 1679, 30 August 1679, 31 August 1679, 1 September 1679, 14 October 1679; Hutton, Charles II, 386; Knights, 56- 62, 64, 230.

150 king looked favorably upon his son he was extending that same favor to this group. Thus, Charles had stripped Monmouth of all his offices, except master of the horse, and banned him from court. Proving he could continue to survive court politics, Anglesey began corresponding with Monmouth in early October and then visited with the king. It appears that Anglesey was trying to “reconnect” the duke and king’s relationship, for he wrote about long, private conversations with Charles “in favour of the Duke of Monmouth wherein he was very open to me, after dinner having the kings leave I went to the Duke of Monmouth.” Monmouth visited Anglesey on 1 December along with other “friends.” This growing closeness with Monmouth signifies somewhat of a change in Anglesey’s political leanings; however, it should be noted that just a few months later, in February 1680, he attempted to lobby the king through James regarding a personal financial matter. Perhaps he sensed that his fate was better tied with Monmouth than York, realizing the opposition to James might raise a barricade to his succession. Regardless, it is significant that at this particular time Anglesey attempted to build a stronger relationship between himself, Monmouth, and Charles.32 Shaftesbury and his allies put pressure on Charles in December by presenting him with a petition for parliament’s sitting. They had it printed and distributed throughout the kingdom, which resulted in Charles’ calling his privy council and informing them of his intention to prorogue parliament for eleven months. Anglesey described this decision as a “fatal and dismal resolution” and prayed, “the Lord save England.” He and every other privy councilor, except Sunderland, Lauderdale and another few, loudly protested against this. Charles finished by ordering the printing of the petition stopped and the documents declared illegal and seditious. Then in January 1680 he decided to recall James from Scotland, who, after his arrival, primarily stayed withdrawn from politics, occasionally asking for a French alliance and toleration of Catholics. Though he was refused he did not press the issue and appeared content to stay withdrawn from both politics and patronage at court. Charles’ closeness with his brother, at least in the personal realm,

32MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 12-13 October 1679, 9 November 1679, 30 November 1679, 1 December 1679, 9 December 1679, 18 December 1679, 25 December 1679, 26 December 1679, 29 January 1680, 9 February 1680, 17-18 February 1680, 10 April 1680, 19 June 1680, 29 June 1680, 5 July 1680, 19 July 1680, 26 July 1680, 23 August 1680, 23 September 1680, 9 October 1680, 15-16 October 1680, 18 October 1680, 21 October 1680; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:545, 551, 575; Hutton, Charles II, 386; Knights, 56-62, 64, 230.

151 made a contrast with his treatment of Monmouth who refused to return to exile or provide information on his unsavory allies. The king also published a denial of marriage with Monmouth’s mother, Lucy Walter. This increased Monmouth’s determination to oppose James and now the lines of factions began to encircle more tightly around the two possible successors. Anglesey’s role in all of this appears to be that of a man walking a very fine line, for he seemed to waver in his choice of sides.33 By examining the various dinners and meetings held with members of both groups it is possible to discern a pattern in Anglesey’s maneuverings. After pushing the king to deal favorably with Monmouth in late 1679 and early 1680, Anglesey also dined quite often with Charles and his supporters, men like York, Sunderland, and Essex. He probably believed that the king’s disfavor with Monmouth was not likely to end anytime soon and since the earl had his own personal agendas he was determined to stay on Charles’ good side. Anglesey’s concerns revolved around his lapsed money, which he began petitioning for in mid-1679. He spent a great deal of time at the committee of the treasury arguing about allowances that were due him. He also appealed to Ormond to help him gain favor with the king in this matter, pleading of his need for it, having “lately married a daughter.” That was the marriage of his daughter, Ann, to Sir Francis Wingate in early January. By late 1679, Anglesey petitioned the king directly about “honors” that were due, and his frustration with Charles’ slowness to act echoes in his diary pages. Anglesey, never one to back down from a financial issue, continued to harp on about this and in January 1680 was promised he would be “paid as well as my lord chancellor” and that Charles would speak to the treasury on his behalf. Not surprisingly, nothing was resolved by that February and Anglesey was frustrated to such an extent that he let loose a stream of complaints onto the king. He met with Charles early and “laid plainly open my condition and ill usage desiring him I might be better dealt with after 20 years faithful service . . . .” He was disappointed by the king’s lack of frankness, which the earl “had reason to expect and painfully deserved . . . .” Charles promised he would speak to the treasury about payment, complimenting Anglesey for being one who had “prest him least of any for money and served him well.” The king’s ability to flatter and cajole stands out

33Hutton, Charles II, 386, 390; Knights, 69.

152 markedly in these dealings with Anglesey, although the earl must have suspected this show of sincerity.34 Hoping to find an outlet of patronage through James, Anglesey went to see him on 25 February and paid the duchess of York a visit in early March. After these preliminary social meetings, he saw James on 8 March to push his case, acquainting the duke with “how ill I was used in not being paid.” James promised to assist with the king. However, as mentioned earlier James seemed reluctant to get involved with court patronage and by July the only financial relief Anglesey saw was a small draft for his navy allowance, the larger payment still being withheld. There may have been resentment on James’ part regarding Anglesey’s recent support of Monmouth. Though he spent time with both Charles and James in October-November 1680 there were still no rewards forthcoming. It is interesting to speculate that this treatment by the king, combined with Anglesey’s feelings toward Catholicism and James, may have pushed him back into Monmouth’s corner that fall when the next wave of the exclusion crisis broke.35 In early fall 1680, negotiations between Sunderland and Shaftesbury began over Sunderland’s desire to get a smooth relationship running between the houses once parliament met. They discussed terms of limitations for James and outright exclusion, demonstrating what Knights calls an attempt to “rally all anti-York groups into one alliance, which was to be tied to the Court.” He is referring to Sunderland’s attempt to unite all parties and push for exclusion and he had the support of many at court, including the Spanish and Dutch ambassadors. James still had his supporters with Laurence Hyde (the future earl of Rochester) and Henry Hyde, earl of Clarendon who both urged the king to dissolve parliament before it met, in order to save York. Debates raged in the privy council over this issue and the sitting of parliament. Anglesey, Sunderland, Essex, Halifax, Louise, duchess of Portsmouth (the king’s current favorite) and Sidney, lord Godolphin all urged Charles to sacrifice James and exile him, earning the trust and favor

34MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 15 July 1679, 24 July 1679, 26 July 1679, 10 December 1679, 18 December 1679, 25 December 1679, 8 January 1680, 9 January 1680, 26 January 1680, 18 February 1680, 21 February 1680.

35Ibid., 25 February 1680, 26 February 1680, 1 March 1680, 8 March 1680, 27 March 1680, 10-11 April 1680, 19 June 1680, 29 June 1680, 5 July 1680, 19 July 1680, 21 July 1680, 26 July 1680, 23 August 1680, 17 September 1680, 23 September 1680, 9 October 1680, 11 October 1680, 15 October 1680, 16 October 1680, 18 October 1680, 29 October 1680, 13 November 1680; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:137, 163.

153 of a distraught nation and parliament.36 This issue split the council down the middle and after failing to convince James to convert to Protestantism, Charles ordered him back to Scotland. Parliament finally sat on 21 October and was warned by Charles to ignore the matter of the succession. Instead, the commons ignored his advice and in the first week of sitting decided to exclude James from the throne. The Exclusion Bill passed the house on 11 November and was sent to the lords on the 15th where it was defeated by a vote of sixty-three to thirty.37 In the lords’ journal and in a letter to Ormond, Anglesey is named as one of the thirty, including Sunderland, who supported the bill. Clearly the earl was ready to take a firm stance against James’ succession. This does seem surprising at first, for normally the earl was reluctant to take a harsh stance over a hotly contested issue such as this. However, it does suggest the extent of his disappointment with James and perhaps, as mentioned earlier, his personal fears regarding a Catholic ruler. The French ambassador, Paul Barrillon d’Armoncourt, marquis de Branges, and Daniel Finch both reported that Anglesey supported the bill because he was frightened by Dangerfield’s accusations in the house of commons. As discussed earlier, in October 1680 Dangerfield had named Anglesey as a conspirator in a supposed Irish Catholic plot. Finch and Barrillon believed that was why the earl took a stand against James, to distance himself from a known Catholic. However, this does not seem likely, for Anglesey did not appear truly frightened, only worried and annoyed, by Dangerfield’s charges. Also, voting for the Exclusion Bill was a monumental decision, one that marked his political path not just with Charles but with James, who could possibly be the future king. Thus, for Anglesey to make this decision based on fear alone does not make sense.38

36HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:459-460; Knights, 74-75; Hutton, Charles II, 394. Knights lists Anglesey as one of those who opposed ordering James away, but more primary sources back Hutton’s contention that Anglesey supported the measure. Overall, it makes more sense that Anglesey would support it, for by this time he had grown tired of Charles and James’ stalling over his personal finances, realizing he would get no patronage from James, and may have decided that James’ leaving was best for England. Also, his disgust with Catholics seems to have been growing as he began expressing a desire to write a book denouncing their behavior in the late Irish rebellion.

37MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 21 October 1680, 26 October 1680, 28 October 1680, 29 October 1680, 4 November 1680, 9-10 November 1680, 11 November 1680; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:488, 561-563.

38CSPD, 1680-1681, 68; LJ, 14:666.

154 The other significant privy councilor who stood with Anglesey was Sunderland. The commons was furious with Charles and demanded that he restore Monmouth to his offices and sent word they would do nothing for him unless he sacrificed James. They threatened to vote the lord chancellor, Halifax, Hyde, and Anglesey as “evil counsellors . . . to be removed from the King’s presence.” Halifax and Hyde were first named, and this makes sense as they had opposed the bill, but the other two were apparently “accidental motions introduced against the sense of the managers.” This was reported to Ormond by an anonymous source. The commons did not act on this, but did continue to push Charles and for six weeks the king had to deal with attacks on advisers and the exclusion issue. High tensions led the council to debate proroguing parliament for a few days, which Anglesey admitted might be a wise decision during these “crazy” times. However, he apparently did not really support this. On the 10th, Charles prorogued parliament until the 20th. This would take explaining and Anglesey wrote how he and others met with the king on the 15th and “argued hard for the parliament’s sitting . . . .” Finally, on 18 January 1681 Charles declared parliament dissolved and called for a new one to meet at Oxford in March.39 This idea appears to have resulted from Charles himself, for it took the privy council by complete surprise. Anglesey’s anger fairly leaps from the pages of his diary where he wrote, “This morning at Council his majesty declared with out asking (yea refusing to take) their advice, his dreadful resolution of dissolving the parliament and calling another to meet at Oxford March 21.” Like the others, Anglesey must have felt bitter and frustrated over the king’s treatment of parliament and the council. He also wrote in the margin that when Salisbury attempted to protest the king had him silenced; whereupon Salisbury resigned, the king deleted Salisbury’s name from the register, and Salisbury stormed out of the chamber. Charles also purged others from the council on the 24th, including Essex, Sunderland, and Sir William Temple. Anglesey did not comment directly on this expulsion although he did state that the king “put” them from council. Since this was a group of men he not only frequently dined and spent time with, but also

39MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 9 January 1681, 10 January 1681, 15 January 1681, 18 January 1681; Knights, 78-79, 121, 141; Hutton, Charles II, 395-399, Harris, Politics Under, 86-87; Swatland, 231.

155 recently had become very close political allies with over exclusion, one can assume the earl was not pleased with their dismissals.40 The short meeting of parliament in March 1681 was missed by Anglesey altogether who recorded falling ill with the gout on 21 February and not recovering until 22 May. This might have been a diplomatic illness, for the earl tended to fall ill during times of crises, which will show in the following chapter on his dispute with Ormond. Whether the illness was true or faked, the result was Anglesey’s absence from the Oxford parliament. Interestingly, just before its meeting and Anglesey’s illness he had a lengthy dinner with Monmouth and other associates. That lends weight to the notion of Anglesey's shifting allegiance from James to Monmouth, for the earl’s anger at the king’s dissolution of parliament was just another reason for him to court the “rising sun.” The Oxford parliament was a remarkable one, opening on the 21st with Charles promising a compromise to satisfy all. His terms were a regency established after his death making James king in name only with William III, prince of Orange, and Mary (James’ eldest daughter) ruling as joint protectors. The commons rejected this and began designing a new Exclusion Bill and for the first time in the lords it was proposed that Monmouth be named Charles’ successor. Amidst these events Charles had concluded another secret treaty with France granting him a large stipend. Thus, after being faced with the commons’ obvious entrenchment for an exclusion bill and his gain of financial independence from parliament, at least for the moment, on the 28th Charles summoned the commons to the lords’ chambers and there, dressed in full regalia, he dissolved parliament.41 After the dissolution Anglesey continued on as before, sitting with the privy council at Hampton Court and tending to his various committee duties. However, one intriguing facet of his life was his frequent meetings with controversial figures, at least in

40MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 24 January 1681; Knights, 78-79, 121, 141; Hutton, Charles II, 395-399, Harris, Politics Under, 86-87; Swatland, 231.

41MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 5 February 1681; 21 February-22 May 1681; Mark Goldie, “Danby, the Bishops and the Whigs,” in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, ed. Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 99-100; Alan Marshall, The Age of Faction: Court Politics, 1660-1702 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 119, 123; Knights, 96-98, 316-317; Hutton, Charles II, 399-403.

156 Charles’ eyes, like Monmouth, Shaftesbury, Essex, and Salisbury. These would continue in the later years of Anglesey’s career, even after his fall from power in 1682, and will be revisited. Anglesey also sought patronage for his family and allies and thus visited often with the king, moving for these favors. He also spent more time working on his history of Ireland, which he hoped to have more time for as well as a work on the “English divines.”42 Those goals would be realized in the latter days of his career and life. Anglesey began these troubling years locked in the ongoing struggle with Ranelagh over the Irish revenue. As before, he found no solution to this problem and it continued to plague him with worry. Another Anglo-Irish enemy, Orrery, made matters difficult for Anglesey and his close ally, Ormond, insinuating that Ireland had been mismanaged under their rule. Orrery brought up the older charges against Anglesey because he was trying to besmirch Ormond by linking past mistakes to the current issue of the Popish Plot. The Popish Plot brought numerous problems for Anglesey, for it helped spawn an attitude of panic and accusations flew throughout Ireland and England. Anglesey faced charges that he was involved in an Irish Catholic plot, which seems ludicrous knowing as we do his strong anti-Catholic feelings, and the Meal Tub Plot, another Catholic plot to kill the king, but this one originating in England. The first plot also saw the earl’s son-in-law accused and arrested. Ormond treated this charge quite seriously, angering Anglesey who expected more leniency for Tyrone. Though Anglesey triumphed over these accusations, he also had to face serious political decisions. When parliament began to push for Danby’s removal, he ultimately sided with the opposition faction, also known as the Whigs. Charles’ increasingly arbitrary actions, dismissing and proroguing parliament several times, refusing to let his ministers handle these political crises, angered Anglesey who tried to convince the king that he too was subject to the ancient laws. The earl also grew disenchanted with Charles’ delay over his financial troubles. False promises from Charles and James irritated Anglesey who began meeting more often with Whigs as well as Monmouth. With the Exclusion Crisis, Anglesey again sided with Shaftesbury and the Whigs, though

42MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 22 January 1680, 19 May 1681, 28 May 1681, 2 June 1681, 16 June 1681, 24 June 1681, 18 July 1681, 21 July 1681, 25 July 1681, 28 July 1681, 30 July 1681, 9-11 August 1681, 12-13 October 1681, 14-15 October 1681, 28 October 1681, 2 November 1681, 4 November 1681, 14 November 1681, 20 November 1681, 22 November 1681, 28 November 1681, 6 December 1681.

157 at the beginning he merely supported limitations put on James. Eventually, the earl became convinced that a Catholic successor would prove too dangerous and disruptive for England. Thus, he voted for exclusion, a brave decision for a moderate who tended to favor the safe paths within politics. Overall, Anglesey survived the years of crisis fairly well, keeping his office and appointments and gaining some favor for his family. However, he emerged from the struggle with perhaps a different view than before. Distrust and dissatisfaction with the king’s treatment of religion, the succession, and Anglesey’s personal financial issues created a more jaded attitude, more openly critical of Charles. This criticism also began to look backward toward Charles I’s reign and began to merge with a desire to present the “truth” of the late rebellion in Ireland, including the government’s role in it. The yearning to vent and pour forth his knowledge emerged during the next chapter of Anglesey’s life, which witnessed a fierce, public battle with Ormond. Thus, the ensuing pamphlet war, Anglesey’s growing ties with dissenters, and his dismissal from office were all closely linked and provide yet another prism from which we can view Restoration politics.

158

CHAPTER SEVEN: QUARREL WITH ORMOND AND FALL FROM POWER, 1679-1682

Beyond a doubt the culminating point in the earl of Anglesey’s political career was his publication war with the duke of Ormond, which occurred between 1679-1682. The vicious verbal and written battles between the former friends were brought before the English privy council and the king, ultimately resulting in Anglesey’s dismissal from office. The accusations and charges revolved around the events of 1641-1646, which included the Irish rebellion and Civil War, focusing particularly on Ormond’s actions and his dealings with the Confederate Catholics. The controversy initially arose with the earl of Castlehaven’s memoirs and Anglesey’s critique and response to them. It is not clear who published Anglesey’s letter, but the public uproar over his remarks was considerable. The ensuing outrage amongst politicians is significant, highlighting not only the factionalism of court politics but also lingering tensions between royalists and former parliamentarians. Clearly, the divisions of the Civil War had not yet healed, and the issue of whether certain individuals should have been allowed to reenter the political stage had not been laid to rest. Important to remember is that all of this took place during the tumultuous, dangerous years of the Popish Plot, when the atmosphere was already heightened with feelings of discord, distrust, and fear. That obviously played a role in the court’s treatment of Anglesey and the overall issue. He felt quite betrayed by Charles’ decision to side with Ormond and his bitterness oozes from his diary pages. Most likely this quarrel was not the only reason Charles removed Anglesey from office, but it was a convenient and plausible one. Thus, we must also analyze the other factors for the earl’s removal. Again, his actions during the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis played a large role in his fall, though Anglesey did not want to acknowledge any personal culpability for his dismissal. Instead, he played the role of the martyr, complaining of his ill treatment

159 and lamenting the king’s hard heart. He also wrestled with financial troubles, bemoaning the lack of justice in that matter as well. Once again the specter of the Civil War was being raised, though instead of battles fought in the field these particular ones were fought in the press and private correspondence of officials. The end result is a chance to peer into the world of Restoration politics and see how the Civil War’s legacy continued to affect careers and people’s perceptions of both the past and the present. Interestingly, several contemporary accounts were written regarding Anglesey and Ormond’s quarrel, by men who either wanted to create trouble or preserve history. Motives obviously varied depending on the individual, but for the historian there is a wealth of information, from pamphlets to letters, discussing the two “great ones’” falling out. As mentioned previously, Anglesey and Ormond’s friendship, which began with Charles’ restoration, had been steady up until this moment. Aside from occasional disagreements, nothing had truly threatened their relationship. As late as November 1679, Ormond’s son, Ossory, wrote of Anglesey’s loyalty and friendship and the importance of keeping him as an ally. Ossory mentioned he was always impressed with Anglesey’s “goodwill” toward Ormond and Irish affairs. Ormond realized he needed Anglesey, something he conveyed to him quite often in letters. Both fought for Irish interests and during the Popish Plot looked out for one another, defending each other against enemies and rumors. To break apart this friendship it took an apparently simple act, a letter written by Anglesey addressing the earl of Castlehaven’s memoirs on the Irish rebellion and Civil War. Before that letter was written and published though we must first turn to Anglesey’s interest in writing his own history of those events.1 In 1676, Anglesey first wrote of his desire to compose a narrative on the “late times,” focusing on the Irish rebellion and Ireland’s role in the Civil War. He repeated this vow in 1679, planning to write to others to collect papers and documents for his research. Some such contacts were Dr. Edmund Borlase, Henry Jones, bishop of Meath, and the countess of Orrery. Borlase had published his own history in late 1679.

1A True Account of the whole Proceedings Betwixt his Grace James Duke of Ormond, And the Right Honor. Arthur Earl of Anglesey Late Lord Privy-Seal, Before the King and Council, and the said Earls Letter of the second of August to His Majesty on that Occasion (London: 1682), i; HMC 6: report 7, 743; HMC 1: reports 1-2, 213; MS Carte 39:1; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 4:219-220, 251, 274; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:232.

160 Anglesey wrote to Borlase quite often, discussing his work and Anglesey’s own, as well as the treatment he expected to receive. The earl enjoyed Borlase’s work and intended to reread it and provide editorial comments. Anglesey feared some might try to stifle their works, both of which sought to provide “true and impartial accounts of what our former security produced, to instruct posterity never again to adventure the Crown of Ireland and the safety of England upon so hazardous and unequal terms . . . .” That phrase referred to the peace treaty settled by Ormond with the Confederate Catholics in 1646. This seemingly lofty goal is truly what Anglesey believed he would eventually produce, a factual account of the wars that highlighted the various sides’ actions within Ireland. Anglesey also wanted to show the true nature of Catholicism, which he greatly feared, particularly in Ireland, believing it produced “woolvish natures.” He felt that “nothing can contribute more effectually, then by the truth of history to undeceive that ignorant and unhappy people, and to let them see how they have been seduced to their ruin . . . .” The earl also prayed that the Irish Catholics would realize their inability to “ravish that government and country from the crown of England, to which not only by voluntary submission but by parliamentary consent they have been subject so many generations . . . .” He had nothing but contempt for Irish Catholics whom he referred to as being “barbarous,” a “burden and mischief” to England rather than a help. These letters to Borlase are valuable in that they highlight Anglesey’s feelings for Irish Catholics and his ongoing sense of outrage at their continued existence. He called them “vipers” and “evil spirits” and hoped that his own history would soon “vindicate truth, and the aspersed innocent protestants against artifice . . . .”2 Sadly, Anglesey’s work, entitled The General History of Ireland from the First Footsteps thereof in Antiquity to this Time, is lost to us. He may never have completed it, though some of his notes for it do survive. Anglesey’s passion for this subject is obvious, unfortunately for him his opinion and views of the wars were not popular with either the court or the king. By August 1680, Anglesey had seen Castlehaven’s memoirs; supposedly only he and the king viewed them. Anglesey’s portrayal of his relations with Castlehaven makes

2MS 18730, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 1 June 1676, 4 July 1679, 22 January 1680; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:573; Sloane MS 1008, f.262, f.264; Kathleen M. Lynch, Roger Boyle First Earl of Orrery (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1965), 236.

161 it seem as though his critique of the manuscript was not only warranted, but also appreciated. He implied in his letter to Castlehaven this very sentiment. However, Castlehaven added a postscript to his work, complaining of Anglesey’s comments and expressing his delight over the earl’s fight with Ormond, which arose over Anglesey’s response to the memoirs. Apparently, Castlehaven did not appreciate Anglesey’s review of the memoirs and accused him of making many mistakes in his assessment. Anglesey received a copy of the work from Borlase. To understand Anglesey’s response it is necessary to first review Castlehaven’s work. Also, Anglesey’s letter to Castlehaven, which was printed for all to see, will be examined to illustrate the passages that offended Ormond. Anglesey entitled this work a letter; however, as this document is seventy-six pages in length and reads as a literary review that term is a misnomer. It was published in October 1680, but postdated 1681 and begins with how Anglesey could not “approve all” in Castlehaven’s history. Though he praised Castlehaven’s effort, he had serious problems with the earl’s portrayal of Irish Protestants as well as the actions of various parliamentary figures. Anglesey stressed several times that Castlehaven had joined with rebels, men who did not deserve history’s respect. He was also offended that Castlehaven had dedicated the book to the king, stating that was a “dangerous” thing to do especially given the current situation with the Popish Plot, for it appeared to tie the king to a work which appeared to justify a Catholic revolt. Instead, Castlehaven’s history showed how difficult things were for an Irish Catholic royalist, someone who initially opposed the Confederate Catholic rebels in 1641. However, the lords justices did not accept Castlehaven’s assistance, accusing him of treason based on his religion. They refused to trust him because of his Catholic background. This is what Castlehaven claimed turned him to the Confederate Catholic side. A talented military strategist, Castlehaven led them to a series of victories before breaking with them in 1646 over their refusal to sign a peace with the royalists. He joined with Ormond’s forces and fought for the royalist side. Thus, in his work he tried to present a more balanced picture of the rebellion and war, for he admitted that both sides committed “great cruelties” and atrocities. Furthermore, he also pointed out the hypocrisy of parliamentarians, men who “loudly cry out against the Irish, but speak not a word of their own Rebellion . . . .” These kinds of statements did not sit well with the

162 former parliamentarian, Anglesey, who was highly insulted by Castlehaven’s description of the rebellion as a time when “the whole Nation finding themselves concerned, took Arms for their own defence . . . .” Anglesey was outraged that this was “the chief ground by which your Lordship would justifie the most formed and dangerous Conspiracy and Rebellion that ever was in that Kingdom . . . .” He was shocked that Castlehaven would try to portray the rebellion as a “just and a lawful War,” for it was far from that in Anglesey’s opinion. Neither did Anglesey believe Castlehaven was justified in siding with the Confederate Catholics, indeed he chastised Castlehaven quite severely over this, arguing that, your Lordship cared little for the Justices (as how could your Lordship, when you were associated with those who had bid defiance to God and the King) yet your Lordship quickly saw a proof, how civil and merciful they had been to you hitherto, when they upon your escape, shewed you they had power enough to pursue you, and pillage and burn your House in your Mountain view, and use your Family as Enemies, which they might have done before, but their constant course was to endeavour the re-gaining those who had faltered in their Allegiance . . . .

Thus, Anglesey slammed Castlehaven for his criticisms of the lords justices who he felt could have been much harsher toward Castlehaven and his family.3 Castlehaven’s decision to join with the Confederates was “strange” to Anglesey, for those Irish had “shed so much innocent English Blood in full peace . . . .” That, for Anglesey, must mean that Castlehaven had been “resolved in the justice of their cause from the beginning . . . .” Thus, Anglesey believed Castlehaven’s story was completely false and that he always intended to ally with the Confederates, whose cause he supported. For evidence Anglesey mentioned how deeply involved Castlehaven became, taking the Confederates’ Oath of Association, sitting on their main council, and serving as general of the horse. The council and assembly of the Confederates is dismissed as a mere “party of bloody Papists” who had risen in rebellion against their lawful king and had “neither Legal nor Regal Authority.” Anglesey also focused on Castlehaven’s claim

3Sloane MS 1008, f.279; James Touchet, earl of Castlehaven, The Earl of Castlehaven’s Review: Or His Memoirs Of His Engagement and Carriage In The Irish Wars (London: 1684), 3-5, 10-14, 29-31, 43-51, 54-58, 61-79, 113-115, 120-125. 130-137; Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, A Letter From A Person of Honour in the Countrey Written to the Earl of Castlehaven Being Observations and Reflections Upon his Lordships Memoires Concerning the Wars of Ireland (London: 1681), 1, 7-10, 40, 48; MS Carte 39, ff. 292-298.

163 that there were many “learned in the Law” amongst the Confederates. It is them Anglesey blamed for orchestrating the rebellion and writing a constitution. He hoped that example would “awaken his Majesty and Parliament of England, and the Government in Ireland, to provide against the continuance of such dangerous instruments, as the Popish Lawyers have shewed themselves to be . . . .” Clearly Anglesey was reacting to the current jittery atmosphere at court where accusations flew and trials were conducted without solid evidence.4 All of these observations and assessments were offered with outward sincerity by Anglesey who apparently believed Castlehaven would welcome them as a chance to correct his history and publish a more truthful account. The previous remarks were upsetting for Castlehaven, but it was the following comments on the peace signed between Ormond and the Confederates that made Anglesey’s letter such a contentious one. First, Anglesey claimed that the “Irish did the English more hurt, and advantaged themselves more by the Cessation and two first Peaces, than ever they did or could do by open force after the first Massacre.” Then he went into an assessment of Ormond and his family, noting that the duke was the first Protestant among his Catholic relatives and pointing out his numerous relations who served as commanders in the Confederate army. Anglesey then criticized Glamorgan and Ormond’s signing of the cessation and the two peace treaties, which were so “ruinous” to the English. He also stated that the peace treaties were against the law and acts of parliament in both countries. Anglesey stressed that “all the Proceedings of the Rebels in Arms, and all their Demands, were Treason: That the English and Protestants had the Laws on their side, which the Irish by combination and force did break, and designed wholly to subvert . . . .” He also argued that most of the English nobles in Ireland and the Protestants in general opposed the cessation and peace treaties. Anglesey hinted that the duke’s compassionate peace treaty was designed to help the Irish, but did “great hardship and damage to the English.” He believed Ormond’s familial connections played a role in that decision because the duke’s Irish Catholic relatives had joined with the Confederates. However, he also stated that Ormond was also an opportunist who changed with the tides. In response to Ormond’s portrayal of himself as a “true English

4Anglesey, A Letter From A Person of Honour, 50-51, 55-56.

164 Man and faithful Subject” Anglesey expressed disbelief and doubt. The reason why Anglesey distrusted Ormond’s assertion, as well as his behavior during the wars, was the fact that, by the Forfeiture and Punishment of the Irish his Lordship and Family are the greatest gainers of the Kingdom, and have added to their Inheritances vast scopes of Land, and a Revenue three times greater than what his Personal Estate was before the Rebellion; and most of his increase is out of their Estates who adheared to the Peaces, or served under his Majesties Ensigns abroad; which shews, that whatsoever of Compassion or Natural Affection, or otherwise, might incline him to make those Peaces, he is in Judgment and Conscience against them; and so hath since appeared, and hath advantage by their laying aside.

Anglesey also said the same about the duke of York, the earl of Arlington, lord Lanesborough and others. Anglesey concluded that the final peace signed with the Confederates was “the most destructive of all to the English and Protestants, but suited best with the Confederate Design of establishing the Romish Idolatry, which your Lordship in your Oath of Association engaged as deep in as any . . . a fit basis for a Faction, only supported by Fraud and Cruelty.” He was addressing Castlehaven directly for he had signed the Oath of Association, but this also slammed Ormond for signing the cessation and peace. Obviously, that depiction of Ormond’s character and the peace treaty would not flatter the duke, but instead infuriated him. Anglesey had not finished, for he went on to chastise Castlehaven again for being “involved in the guilt of Treason . . . .” He also criticized Ormond, stating that he and the other chief governors encouraged the Irish to “keep up a War against the English.” However, Anglesey thought this was actually beneficial to the English, for the Irish were eventually subdued entirely due to their war weariness. Anglesey concluded with another warning about Castlehaven’s views on religion and the Confederates being wrong and misguided, but signed the letter “Your Lordships Affectionate Friend and Servant.”5 One can assume that Castlehaven did not view Anglesey in such a loving light. In early 1681, Anglesey wrote Borlase about the published letter, assuming he had seen the discourse. Anglesey seemed upset by its publication, stating that it “was not intended or sent by him that wrote it, to the press; however it got abroad by the general liberty taken to print any thing.” It is possible that the letter was published by someone

5Ibid., 61-70, 72-75.

165 who wished to stir up more fervor at court, for it emphasized the Catholic massacre of Protestants and implied that Ormond had sympathized with the Catholics. Since the Popish Plot had heightened fears of “popery” it makes sense that someone wishing to encourage those feelings would have had a motive in publishing Anglesey’s letter. Of course there is also the possibility that Anglesey himself wanted people to know about Ormond’s conduct during the war. Anglesey was growing increasingly disillusioned with the king and York and was struggling with the issue of a Catholic successor. His decision to vote for exclusion illustrated his resolve to oppose Catholicism. It makes sense that with his desire to publish his own history he wanted to make the truth as he saw it available to the public. Thus, publishing his review of Castlehaven’s memoirs would provide an opportunity to present his views even without his history being complete. It gave him a chance to test the waters to see how it would be received.6 Ormond’s reception of it was predictable and by February he had seen both Anglesey’s and Castlehaven’s works. He wrote to his son, Arran, that both contained huge mistakes “in matters of fact” and “incoherent deductions.” Ormond did not want to respond to Anglesey publicly, stating he was afraid to “enter into a contest in print with such a man as my Lord of Anglesey, a man I have seen detected in publick of misinformation and mean artifices for sordid summs, and yet never blush at the matter, but appeare the next day as brisk and confident . . . .” He expected though that the king would wish Ormond to say something in his own defense, “though I can hardly vindicate my own actings, but I must reflect upon those of a numerous and considerable party in one conjunction with whom he was in rebellion.” For his part, Arran hoped that Ormond would respond to Anglesey’s accusations as he was infuriated over the charges and did not want his family’s name besmirched. He also reported that men at court were discussing the affair and wondered at Ormond’s silence. The quiet lasted until November, as Ormond was busy with more pressing matters, such as the Popish Plot, charges relating to his government of Ireland, and his handling of that crisis.7

6Sloane MS 1008, f.293.

7HMC Ormonde, n.s., 5:581-582.

166 Finally, Ormond decided to address the matter with a letter to Anglesey on 12 November. He wrote of his anger at how harshly Anglesey had treated him. At first he did not believe it had been penned by Anglesey, for he would not think the earl would treat him so. His son, Arran, and Sir Robert Reading convinced him that it was Anglesey’s doing, repeating the earl’s claim that he did not want it published. Ormond’s response to that was “then let the World Judge whether Pen, Ink, and Paper are not dangerous Tools in your Hands . . . .” Ormond had decided to write Anglesey to “vindicate Truth, my Master the late King, my self, my Actions and Family, all Reflected on, and traduced by that Pamphlet . . . .” He ended the letter by calling Anglesey an “Incompetent Judge of my Actions, and a partially engaged and an unfaithful Historian.” Obviously Ormond was incensed over Anglesey’s interpretations of events and for the normally mild-mannered duke this was quite an outburst and show of emotions.8 When this document appeared in print Anglesey began complaining that Ormond “had dealt unkindly by him” in publishing the letter, something the duke denied. It was suggested that Arran could have had it published. Whoever was responsible, its publication caused the king and half a dozen of the lords of the council to reproach Anglesey over it. Anglesey bewailed the duke’s ire and “dissatisfaction with him.” One of Ormond’s allies, the earl of Longford, bluntly told Anglesey that he had “very unnecessarily and unfriendly, as well as unjustly, provoked” the duke with his observations. Anglesey seemed surprised at this, remarking that he had read over the book three times and could not find out what would give Ormond a “distaste.” Longford replied that he failed to see how Anglesey could not understand since “the latter part of it [the book] was stuffed with nothing else but reflections upon [Ormond’s] government at that time” and that they were brought in quite “abruptly, and unprovoked . . . that the book seemed to be writ merely for that intent and purpose.”9 Anglesey kept pressing to know specific passages that Ormond objected to and Longford named where Anglesey stated that the duke’s acquisitions from the new

8MS Carte 39, ff.253-254, ff.255-256; MS 11968, “A Letter From His Grace James Duke of Ormond, In Answer to the Earl of Anglesies Observations and Reflections Upon the Earl of Castlehaven’s Memoires Concerning the Wars of Ireland,” 12 November 1681.

9MS 11968, “Letter from Anglesey to Ormond,” 3 December 1681; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:258-259.

167 settlement were three times as much as his old estate. Longford argued that Ormond’s new acquisitions were not more than £3,000 per annum. Anglesey objected, averring that he had copies of the duke’s old rent rolls, copies of his claims and the decrees of the commissioners of the court of claims. Longford fired back that whatever information the earl had was incorrect. Another issue Longford mentioned was the cessation and the two peace treaties, stating that Anglesey had made several errors when discussing them. Ormond had also been offended over Anglesey’s claim that the duke had offered to serve the parliament. Anglesey stood firm over this, arguing that it was true and that Sir Paul Davys was authorized by Ormond to make proposals to the parliament, ones that said Ormond would either go to London, beyond the seas, or serve in Ireland as parliament desired after he surrendered up Dublin. Anglesey based this account on a copy of Davys’ instructions, which he possessed. By this point Arran had entered the conversation and said, “he would be hanged if your Grace ever made a proposition barely of serving the Parliament without some condition that might give you the opportunity of keeping the army together to serve the King when a fair occasion offered.” Anglesey was not deterred, asserting that his paper offered evidence of his claim. The debate occurred while the courtiers were waiting for Sunday services to begin and ended with the king’s arrival and entrance into the chapel. This incident demonstrates the tense feelings that surrounded Anglesey and Ormond’s argument. Longford and Arran were shocked that Anglesey did not realize why the duke was so upset, while Anglesey claimed that he was only stating the truth and expected a powerful minister to own up to his actions.10 Anglesey was either very naïve, obtuse, or was playing a role, for his response to Ormond was that of an innocent observer who did not understand the duke’s anger. He wrote of his surprise over Ormond’s “sharp” tone and promised an explanation. However, instead of a simple reply Anglesey’s letter was published for all to read. That infuriated Ormond who did not want a public battle between two of the king’s ministers to heighten tensions at court. Anglesey feigned ignorance over its publication, though he most likely was the one responsible. In Anglesey’s printed response he argued he had been misinterpreted and misjudged. He took great offense to Ormond’s remark regarding

10HMC 6: report 7, 743; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:258-259.

168 pen and paper being dangerous tools in Anglesey’s hands, stating that he remembered a time when “they were serviceable to the King’s Restoration, and constant Service of the Crown, or craved in aid by your Grace . . . .” Anglesey claimed that when his complete work of history appeared his “Integrity and Impartiality shall appear . . . .” Though he was being assaulted with attacks on his character he resolved “to hold on to the first approved Law of a good and faithful Historian, which is, that he should not dare to say any thing that is false; and that he dare not but say any thing that is true . . . .” He felt no remorse in aspersing Ormond’s character, but merely stated that he had told the truth and would be vindicated with his history. He also listed various issues that he continued to question and wanted more information on: First, the intrigues of the cessation and commissions for them and the two peace treaties of 1646 and 1648 that were “forced upon the King by the rebellious Irish;” second, the grounds and transactions about depriving Sir William Parsons from being one of the lords justices and then dismissing him, Sir Adam Loftus, vice-treasurer, Sir John Temple, master of the rolls, Sir Robert Meredith, chancellor of the exchequer, from the council table; third, the mystery of Glamorgan’s Peace and his punishment; fourth, the several “ungrateful expulsions” of Ormond by the Confederate Roman Catholics; fifth, the passages concerning the parliament’s present of a jewel to Ormond; sixth, the battles, reliefs, sieges, and chief encounters in the duke’s time; seventh, the proceedings between Ormond and the Roman Catholic assembly of the clergy in 1666 with the commission for their sitting; eighth, the plot for surprising Dublin Castle with the examinations and what offenders were executed; ninth, anything else that Ormond “judges of import to have conveyed to posterity.” When Longford viewed this response, which Anglesey showed him before sending it to Ormond, he stated “there will be no room for any accommodation . . . .” He also believed Anglesey would publish the letter, which he did, for “though he is a man meanly thought of by all parties, yet it will be matter of great rejoicing to your enemies that you should engage in a paper quarrel with him . . . .” Thus, Longford urged Ormond not to lower himself with a published response. He continued to warn Ormond of Anglesey’s anger throughout December 1681.11

11MS 11968, “A Letter From the Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesey Lord Privy-Seal In Answer to His Grace the Duke of Ormond’s Letter of November the 12th 1681, About His Lordships Observations and

169 Apparently, Anglesey showed the king his evidence against Ormond, which was the duke’s 1645-1646 instructions to Davys regarding the surrender of Dublin and the parliamentary negotiations. Anglesey was trying to discredit the duke and support his own claims. Longford felt he did so out of “malice” because he was so enraged over the publication of Ormond’s letter. After receiving both of Anglesey’s letters, the non- printed and printed ones of the 3rd and 7th of December, Ormond believed that the first was less severe because his own letter had not yet been published. He felt that Anglesey was provoked because of the publication, though the duke did not admit he was personally responsible for it being made public. Instead, he commented that if Anglesey decided to keep publishing his letters that “as insignificant as he is in this age, his names of Privy Seal and Anglesey in another may gain credit with those who knew him not . . . .” This is a far cry from his earlier praising of Anglesey’s great loyalty, friendship, and how well he performed his duties for the king. Regarding the charge over Davys’ instructions, Ormond responded that what he “offered the Parliament was no secret, but is in print . . .” and he vowed to find a copy of it. If Davys had offered anything more Ormond claimed it was without his knowledge.12 One can sense Ormond’s deep frustration and his deep-seated animosity toward Anglesey. Clearly the friendship was over. Throughout early and mid-1681, the court was abuzz with Anglesey and Ormond’s feud with letters flying back and forth between England and Ireland. Anglesey passed out copies of his letter to Ormond at court. Another report arose that Ormond had given the lord chancellor authority to treat with Cromwell while he was in Ireland. Longford believed it a falsehood, but it was “caught up greedily by your enemies and improved as much as they can to your disadvantage.” Ormond received supportive letters from various sources about Anglesey’s attacks, especially as printed copies of both men’s letters began to circulate around London. Ormond expressed his frustration with fighting against “so slippery and incorporeal an antagonist.” He was still furious over the claim about his offer to serve parliament. He admitted that he offered to serve against the Irish

Reflections upon the Earl of Castlehaven’s Memoires concerning the Rebellion of Ireland, 1682; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:262.

12HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:265, 277.

170 rebels after they had broken the peace, but that he never “offered to take commission from the Parliament or act in any other than the King’s . . . .” He disputed the charge as ridiculous, concluding that Davys “must be a knave or my Lord of Anglesey a liar.” Longford sympathized with Ormond’s struggle, noting how difficult it must be to deal with an adversary such as Anglesey who “will never be out of countenance, nor silenced by any detection [that] can be made of any falsehoods he published though never so authentically proved.” At first he urged Ormond to stay out of a paper war, though the lord chamberlain felt Ormond should employ another to pen his responses and have them published for his own defense. Longford wanted it declared that “no subject now living can pretend to an equal merit” with Ormond. This would avoid Ormond having to intervene himself, yet it would counter the aspersions of Anglesey. To convince the duke of the necessity of a response, Longford mentioned that Anglesey had pushed Dr. Borlase to make an answer to Castlehaven.13 This was true, for Anglesey wrote to Borlase thanking him for his help in vindicating the Protestants in Ireland and his devotion to uncovering the truth. Borlase’s Brief Reflections on Castlehaven’s memoirs was published in 1682 and in the preface he stated that he was encouraged to write this by the “person of honour” who had earlier responded to Castlehaven. That person of course was Anglesey. Anglesey appreciated Borlase’s support and the documents he provided regarding the late wars. In his answer, Borlase argued that the cessation and peace treaties of 1646 and 1648 were “more destructive to the Protestants and English interest in that kingdom than either the first massacre or the whole rebellion, and all this is cast upon [Ormond].” An anonymous pamphlet entitled “The Third Part of the No Protestant Plot” also appeared which contained more malicious comments about Ormond. Longford believed that new attacks would continue to surface until the duke dealt with Anglesey’s “bold lies.” However, there was good news for Ormond as the king appeared to be on the duke’s side. Charles commented in front of Longford and Castlehaven that Anglesey was “like a madman, for he fell foul upon his friends as well as enemies, having in his observations treated [Ormond] very ill.” This must have reassured Ormond greatly, though given Charles’

13HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:293, 311, 319, 323-325.

171 slippery nature and treatment of his servants it would not have made him feel completely safe.14 Throughout 1682 Ormond continued to receive advice on how to handle the situation with Anglesey. Secretary Coventry agreed with Longford and the lord chamberlain that Ormond should have another man write a defense and have it published. Ormond seemed convinced by these arguments, replying that “something shall be prepared in answer to my Lord of Anglesey and other later libellers misguided by him and other false intelligencers . . . .” Anglesey would have objected to that portrayal, for he wrote to Borlase that he stood by his claim regarding Ormond and Davys and that he had the papers to prove it. He commented that if Ormond was “willing to widen this controversy” he hoped he would not be blamed. Anglesey felt as if he was the true defender for the Protestants, that he needed to “justify” their actions against the most “execrable Rebells that ever were under the sun . . . .” Ormond was already planning to travel to England if this issue came before the king and planned to bring a copy of his defense. Longford was thrilled to learn this, writing that the king told him that after reading Anglesey’s observations on the memoirs he resolved to “attack” Anglesey the next time they spoke. Longford took this occasion to remind Charles that Anglesey had served as a commissioner for the parliament in Ulster, adding that while there Anglesey denied relief to Protestant officers, including lord Donegal, who had refused to take the Covenant. Also, Charles “justified” Ormond for negotiating the cessation and both the peace treaties with the Irish. Apparently, he felt that Ormond’s behavior reflected back on his father, Charles I, thus an attack against Ormond’s actions was one against the former king. The dispute was about to enter a new phase with the involvement of the king and privy council who would sit in judgment and decide once and for all who was telling the truth.15 Indeed, the game was now going to be played out not in pamphlets or letters, but in the privy council in front of the king. In June 1682, Ormond decided to take the

14Sloane MS 1008, f.297, f.321, f.329; Edmund Borlase, Brief Reflections On The Earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs Of his Engagement and Carriage In the Wars of Ireland: By which, the Government at that time, and the Justice of the Crown since, are Vindicated from Aspersions cast on Both (London: 1682), A4b, 26, 31-33, 38-40, 46-67.

15HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:329, 333, 343, 354-355, 391; Sloane MS 1008, f.331.

172 argument to Charles, probably believing, as his allies implied, that the king would side with him. Fortunately, between Anglesey, Ormond, state ministers, and an anonymous source we have detailed documents about this case’s hearing. Someone published an account of the proceedings in 1682. Ormond later argued that Anglesey was responsible for having the narrative printed and an anonymous source agreed. It would be like Anglesey to do so, for he probably believed that he would at least be vindicated publicly if the proceedings were published.16 The affair began with Ormond’s petition to the king given before the privy council on 17 June. To fully understand all of the duke’s charges and complaints against Anglesey it is necessary to print Ormond’s petition in its entirety: That the Earl of Anglesey Lord Privy-Seal, in the Year 1681 caused a Book to be Printed (whereof he hath acknowledged himself to be the Author) intitled A Letter from a Person of Honour . . . . That in the said Book there are divers passages and expressions which are not only untrue, but reflecting in a high degree upon His Late Majesties Government, and particularly in Relation to the Rebellion and War in Ireland, and to the several Cessations and Peaces made by His, and Your Majesties Authority and Command. That in the said Book the Lord Privy-Seal hath Malitiously endeavour’d to Calumniate and Asperse the Duke of Ormond, by calling in question his Faithfulness and Loyalty to his Late Majesty, the Sincerity of his Profession in point of Religion, and insinuating that the Cessations and Peaces (destructive as he says to the English and Protestants) were advised and procured by him the said Duke, out of his Affection to the Irish Popish Rebells, because he was Allyed to many of them in Blood and by Marriages. That the Lord Privy-Seal in the course of above Twenty Years free and friendly Acquaintance and Correspondence with the Duke of Ormond, never thought fit to give him any intimation of his Lordships Intention to write a History of the Wars of Ireland, and other transactions there, wherein both the Duke and his Lordship (tho of opposite Parties) had a great part, but chose rather to seek for information from the Earl of Castlehaven, and to publish his Observations on the Earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs, in a Conjuncture when his Reflections in his Book and his Letter of the Seventh of December, 1681, to the Duke of Ormond, might not only do most mischief to him, but to the Government. The Duke of Ormond humbly conceives that at least, while the Lord Privy-Seal and he have the honor to be of your Majesties Privy Council, and in the stations they are, it will not be fit for him to publish such an Answer to the Lord Privy-Seal’s Book and letter, as

16A True Account, i-iv; HMC 1: reports 1-2, 213; HMC 6: report 7, 743; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 11 April 1682; CSPD, 1682, 359-362, 401-402, 511-512.

173 might otherwise be necessary in Vindication of Truth, His Late Majesties Justice and Honour, and his own Integrity. It is therefore most humbly proposed, That Your Majesty would be pleased to appoint a Committee of your Privy-Council to look over the Lord Privy-Seal’s Book, and to call his Lordship and the Duke of Ormond before them, and if upon Report from them, it shall appear to your Majesty that the Earl of Anglesey has fallen into the Mistakes and Errors herein laid to his Charge, That then your Majesty would be pleased to Consider of the best and most Authentick means how Reparation may be made to all that are injured by the Earl of Anglesey’s Book and Letter, and to prevent the Credit his great Place, supposed Knowledge (especially in the Affairs of Ireland) and his pretended Candor and Impartiality may give to his Writings, in these and future times.17

These complaints are at the heart of Ormond’s argument regarding Anglesey’s response to Castlehaven’s memoirs. He took issue with the charges over the cessation and peace treaty, namely that they were drawn up because of the duke’s familial ties to the Confederate Catholics and that they were extremely harmful to the Protestants in Ireland. Ormond asserted that Anglesey could have asked him in the twenty years prior to all this for documents relating to his actions in Ireland, but he did not nor did he ever inform Ormond of his intention to publish a history. Ormond concluded that they were made to asperse both him and Charles I, mainly due to the fact that Anglesey fought on the opposite side from the king during the late wars.18 Ormond’s document was well received at court, where Charles announced he would hear the affair in council, ordering that a copy of the letter be delivered to Anglesey. Indeed, the general tone at court seemed to favor the duke. Secretary Leoline Jenkins commented that all men were “extremely sensible of the injury done to the Lord Lieutenant and approve of the way he has taken to vindicate himself and the late King.” The king also commanded the earl and Ormond to attend council on Friday, 23 June, at three o’clock. Anglesey had been stricken by a case of the gout, though Arran remarked he thought the earl was merely pretending. Anglesey’s diary stated he was ill with the gout from 16 May to 12 July. He prepared a response explaining this condition on 18 June. Anglesey planned to attend on the 23rd, though with his current affliction of gout

17MS Carte 39, f.263; A True Account, 1-2. The italics are the original author’s own.

18Ibid.

174 he was wracked with pain and deprived of the use of his legs. If need be he would have someone carry him to council.19 This letter also contained a lengthy reply to Ormond’s statement given in council. Anglesey began by explaining that he wrote his observations after reading Castlehaven’s memoirs in which the English and Protestants were “unjustly dealt with” and where the Irish rebels were “professedly justified” in conducting the most “Excreable Rebellion that ever was in the World . . . .” Interestingly, Anglesey stressed the fact that he immediately wrote a response without benefit of writings or notes. This is the first time the earl claimed he wrote without documentation, perhaps he felt this would mitigate criticism as he could always argue that this emotional reply did not have the benefit of research. Anglesey then objected to Ormond bringing their argument before the king and council, after the duke had his own letters printed and making “so open a litigation thereof in Print . . . .” The earl believed it was “below the dignity” of the king and council to deal with Ormond’s “private Quarrel of his own making . . . .” Indeed, Anglesey felt the matter had already been concluded, as most people Ormond had appealed to seemed satisfied that Anglesey had vindicated himself. Of course Anglesey did not provide any actual names of these supposed individuals. The earl denied that his observations or responses to Ormond had in any way reflected negatively upon Charles I’s government. Anglesey believed Ormond had made the charge that Anglesey had acted with “malitious Calumny or Scandal” against the duke because that was a charge punishable by law. The earl expressed amazement that after twenty years of friendship Ormond would allow their friendship to be so “easily cancell’d and turned into rancor and ill returns . . . .” As for Anglesey’s hostility toward Ormond he replied that the duke should not be surprised, for the earl could not bear his wounds “patiently, and without just resentment.”20 Anglesey also objected to Ormond’s contention that he was never informed that the earl planned to write a history of the Irish wars. Anglesey contended that many years ago he told the duke’s secretary, Sir George Lane, who possessed Ormond’s papers and

19A True Account, 3; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 16 May-12 July 1682; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:392; CSPD, 1682, 252.

20A True Account, 3-7.

175 writings pertaining to public affairs, about his intended history. Lane promised Anglesey his assistance, but that never was forthcoming. Ormond’s derogatory comments about Anglesey’s ability as a historian were highly offensive to the earl. He huffily remarked that since he had been “versed above forty years in publick Affairs, without blemish or dishonour, and intends by your Majesties permission, to Dedicate his History to your Self, which sure he would not be so weak as to offer, if any thing were to be in it of the nature the Duke presageth . . . .” Anglesey hoped Ormond would accept Charles’ decision, if it favored him, to eventually allow the history to be published. Anglesey intended to present the work to the king before it went to press as it was meant to honor not just Charles, but also his father. It was not being written to praise any one party or to cover up the “Errors or Miscarriages” of any individual officials. This was a direct slam on Ormond’s activities, stressing the earl’s intention to show the truth, no matter how ugly, about the duke’s alleged actions during the wars. Regarding Ormond’s comment on Anglesey seeking out Castlehaven as a source for his history, the earl contended he only used information relating to military actions because Ormond had used Castlehaven as a general.21 Fearing that the duke’s remarks about him and Anglesey being of “opposite Parties” might turn the king against Anglesey, a former parliamentarian, the earl took time to explain his actions in Ireland and England during the civil wars. In short, Anglesey defended his actions because he was serving under the authority of both houses of parliament, authority given to them by Charles I for governing affairs in Ireland after the rebellion had broken out. He conveniently left out the fact that Charles I was almost forced to concede this, and did not comment on the king’s use of Ormond to combat parliament in Ireland. He also ignored Charles’ role in approving the cessation and peace treaties. Anglesey then listed his own actions, again all based on parliamentary commission, ending with his acceptance from Ormond of the articles for the surrender of Dublin. The earl also mentioned his dedication to preserve the church, defend the king and the laws, and preserve his personal estates; duties all performed during the Restoration. The rest of Anglesey’s letter contained complaints against Ormond’s

21Ibid., 7-9.

176 handling of the current affair. He was upset that the duke had his letter published, especially given Ormond’s recent statement to the king and council that he thought it dishonorable to publish a response to Anglesey considering they were both of the privy council. Anglesey did not understand why the printing of Ormond’s earlier “Virulent” letter was acceptable, when he refused to publish any more replies. Anglesey felt it was “too late and dishonourable” for the duke to appeal to the king and council, especially after the publication of the first letter. Anglesey hoped the king would force Ormond to make his response public as the earl was prepared to be “trampled upon,” and feared that unless the duke was commanded to do this he would instead engage in whispers and insinuations in private.22 The earl then took a crack at the duke’s financial gains under Charles II, remarking that Ormond “hath partaken more deeply of your Royal Bounty and Favor, than any other Subject . . . .” He compared this with his own position, sadly noting that he had “not paid my Debts incurred in your Majesties Service, nor preferred my many Children, nor grown Rich by my Service and great Place, though my Ancestors and I have received Titles of Honor, and Marks of Favor from your Majesty and Predecessors, for divers Generations.” The remark about his children not being preferred is incorrect, for as this work has shown Anglesey did receive titles and honors for his offspring.23 Finally, Anglesey hoped Ormond would “content himself by your Majesties Favor to Govern one Kingdom under you, without involving this in his Concerns, or offering to impose his Dictates upon your Majesty and Council of England, who have Wisdom to appoint Committees, or take other course for business . . . without the direction of the Parties concern’d . . . .” Anglesey belabored this point, insisting that it was beneath the king and council to be called to “justify what the Duke hath injuriously published against the Earl . . . .” The earl stood by his comment that the cessation and peace treaties were destructive to the English and Protestants, arguing that he had not been the first to say this. He also defended his aspersions against Ormond, stating that though it was against his nature to quarrel he had no choice after being “branded as a

22Ibid., 9-12.

23Ibid., 12.

177 Malitious Calumniator, a close concealed and disguised Enemy to your Majesty, a designer of Mischief to the Duke and the Government . . . .” Those words had provoked him as a person of honor and were not easily born. He implied that he would have come to Charles before the duke, but he did not want to trouble him with a private dispute. Anglesey concluded his letter by praying that the king force Ormond to publish his charges as legal articles so that the earl could answer by advice of council. He hoped that Charles would not let Ormond’s “unjust and causeless animosity, make use of his Power to alienate from the Earl” the king’s “favor, good opinion and confidence, [especially] after above three and twenty years faithful and diligent Service, wherein the said Earl hath almost worn out his Strength and Life. . . .” This pitiful plea by Anglesey demonstrates his tendency to portray himself as a martyr, while at the same time justify his actions without any real remorse.24 Thus, on 23 June he was “carried to the council chamber” to defend himself against Ormond “god assisting to his shame.” He appeared before the king and made the following statements. First, he begged for forgiveness for appearing the way he did, but he was suffering from a nasty bout of illness. He then feigned surprise at the duke’s objections to his observations, expecting instead complaints against Castlehaven’s memoirs. It was Castlehaven who he said, “Aspersed and Scandalized Your Royal Father’s Government, and represented the Protestants of Ireland as Rebells, and the Confederate Irish Papists as Loyal Subjects . . . .” He professed that he merely defended the king’s government and Protestant subjects. Anglesey also claimed that this was the first quarrel he ever had, which seems preposterous in light of our review of his issues with viscount Ranelagh and other ministers. He argued that it was completely unexpected, especially since it arose from a “one who hath so many Years professed Friendship to me.” The earl was further hurt that “it is pretended to be upon account of my failing in Duty to His Late Majesty and Your Self,” stating that he had always served with complete faithfulness and service to both Charles and his father. After Anglesey had finished speaking, all of the papers, written and printed, which had passed between him and Ormond were read in order. The lords discussed the matter as the king observed

24Ibid., 12-14.

178 their debates with Ormond admitting to Anglesey that “none had been more Active and Instrumental in his Majesties Happy Restauration, or carried it on with more Success in great Dangers and Difficulties, than his Lordship.” Thus, Ormond showed again his gracious nature even when facing an adversary. Charles decided that the duke had to charge Anglesey in writing so that the earl would have something to answer to, that generalities were not sufficient. And Anglesey had to prepare a lengthy detailed response to Ormond’s charges in council, which he did while continuing to struggle with his gout.25 On 13 July the privy council read Ormond’s response and the king ordered it to be sent to Anglesey so he could reply to it in council on 20 July. His diary indicates that Anglesey prepared his answer on the 14th, while the actual meeting occurred on the 27th, the delay presumably due to Anglesey’s gout. In the councils, with the king observing, Anglesey read his responses. He began by stating that all of the passages that Ormond found so offensive were contained in a private letter to a friend and not meant for the public. Anglesey chastised the duke for revealing a letter not written to him, especially since it contained an explanation of his intention to offer “exact Truth,” and said that if he inadvertently made a mistake he would be more than willing to retract it. He asserted that he never meant to injure anyone and then started a defense of the four particular charges.26 First, that the cessation and the two peace treaties were of “advantage only to the Irish, and highly dishonorable to the Crown of England and destructive to the English and Protestants.” Anglesey answered: “That the said Earl passing by the Irish and Papists, being the Chief promoters of them, the English and Protestants sent Agents to Oxford, purposely to oppose and divert the Influence thereof, and to hinder agreements with the Irish, which they fore-saw would be destructive to the English and Protestants . . . .” Passages of those proceedings had been published in 1644 in a work entitled “The False and Scandalous Remonstrance of the Inhumane and Bloody Rebells of Ireland.” Anglesey insisted that this document would justify his contentions. He also

25Ibid., 1-4; MS Carte 39, f.263; HMC 1: reports 1-2, 213; HMC 6: report 7, 743; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 23 June 1682; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:399.

26A True Account, 15-16; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 14 July 1682; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:397.

179 cited Charles II’s Restoration declaration and the Act for the Settlement of Ireland, both of which declared that Charles I had been forced to agree to the cessation and peace with the Irish just as Charles II had been compelled to agree to the second peace. The second charge related to Anglesey’s claim that the “Lords Justices and Council were from the beginning averse to them [the cessation and peace treaties].” The earl argued that their many letters, which he possessed, showed this statement to be true. Charge number three stated that the “Protestants of all degrees sooner or later opposing both the Cessations and Peaces, and the Nobility named that did so.” Anglesey insisted that this was unquestionable, stressing that the cessation and peace treaties had protected the Catholic Irish and that without Protestant opposition they could not have justified seizing the Irish estates. The fourth charge asserted that the two peace treaties were against the law and various acts of parliament in both kingdoms. Anglesey held firm with this statement, averring that they went against all laws for “Establishing the Protestant Religion and Suppression of Popery” and also against particular acts of parliament. One statute he listed said “all pardons granted to any of the Rebells of Ireland, without assent of Parliament shall be void, and yet by the Cessations they were reprieved, and by both the Peaces fully pardoned.” That same statute also stated that “whosoever that make any promise or agreement, to Introduce or bring unto the Realm of Ireland the Authority of the See of Rome in any [way] whatsoever, or to defend or maintain the same, shall forfeit all Lands, Tenements and Hereditamnets, Goods and Chattells.” This is intriguing, for it appears that Anglesey was hinting that such a fate should have been dealt to Ormond.27 After debating these charges and answers, the privy council passed a resolution regarding Anglesey’s letter to Castlehaven saying, “that it was a scandalous Libell against his late Majesty, against His now Majesty, and against the Government; but no particular Clauses were mentioned to ground the Censure upon . . . .” After Anglesey and Ormond were called back into the chambers, the lord chancellor only said to Anglesey “that the King conceived him faulty in . . . [the letter] wherein the Committees of the Parliament of Ireland were mentioned, as having been [involved with] the Intrigues of the Popish Faction at Court, but that the Council had appointed his Lordship to be

27A True Account, 16-19.

180 heard next Council day Aug 3d. when he was to produce the vouchers Mentioned in his Answer . . . .” Thus, while the council had issued a harsh sentence it appears that the king did not immediately deliver their response, but instead tried to cushion the blow. Anglesey, however, learned of the lords’ decision later that day, for his diary entry for the 27th stated that he was “unjustly used by the Council.”28 He clearly was quite distressed over their ruling, but true to his persistent nature resolved to fight back once more. Anglesey wrote a response to the lords on the 29th and sent it to the lord president of the council on 3 August. It was read in council that same day. He argued that he found no basis for the council’s judgement that his letter was a libel against Ormond, Charles I, and Charles II. He offered the heartfelt statement, “Imagine with what Amazement, as well as trouble this came to my knowledge, I should with less Concern, have seen anger at my old fatihfull heart, then to have Received the wound I have from your Royal hand, after Three and Twenty years faithfull and diligent service under great Trusts.” Anglesey’s anger burst forth when he argued that he did not understand by what right or authority the council, who were limited by jurisdiction laws, could hear and rule on a peer for “pretended Libelling.” He prayed they would take their zeal to prosecute real libelling, which was a quite dangerous, though “Countenanced sin of the Age.” He even hinted at the need for a legal trial. If Ormond proved before the judges “who have power to hear and determine” the charges against Anglesey the earl would “not only deserve your Majesties Censure; but the utmost severity of the Law in my punishment, which may Gratifie the Ambition of some who promote, and wait for my supplanting.”29 Anglesey then addressed the clause that had offended the king, that of the Irish committees being involved with the Popish faction at court. He contended that since it was “suddenly and unexpectedly” brought against him in council, and was not one of the particular charges he had been ordered to answer that day, he could only answer with

28Ibid., 19-20; HMC 1: reports 1-2, 213; HMC 6: report 7, 743; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 27 July 1682. Ormond’s son, Arran, was thrilled at the news and was glad that the “thing is done.” Ormond responded that he thought the council was “very little satisfied” with Anglesey’s account. Though Anglesey had been given a respite until 3 August the duke believed that the true reason for it was not so the earl could gather the vouchers, but because Charles had not yet decided how Anglesey’s office would be disposed of. See HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:403, 407-409, 411.

29MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 29 July 1682, 3 August 1682; A True Account, 21-22; CSPD, 1682, 331- 332.

181 surprise. Anglesey insisted that he had not meant Charles I or his council, but the Popish faction at court, those who were “like Locusts against the Laws . . . .” It was them who he suspected planned the Irish rebellion. He likened those mischief makers to present day trouble makers who spread libels at court and encouraged the “seeds of sedition” to grow throughout all the kingdom. Anglesey’s concluding remarks deserve to be printed in full, for they illustrate his sense of injustice and bitterness: By this time your Majesty and the Council will I hope, see cause to think, that a Summons for me to produce Vouchers after they have given so terrible a Judgment against me comes too late, and that if I were in a Condition to attend at the day appointed, it would be no Contempt to decline making of further defence before the Lords, who have prejudged me, and Condemned me as Guilty, before the hearing of the Cause be Concluded, which I hope no other Court will do, and was never that I know done by them till now in my Case, nor do I hear, that the Duke of Ormond is censured for the scandalous Pamphlet, which he owned at Council, to have published against me, whereof I Complained: I must therefore hope, that what I have delivered in Council already, will be better and more impartially considered, without my giving your Majesty further trouble therein. And as I have spent the best of my days in your Service without Reproach, so I hope still to stand Justified to all the world what I Resolve . . . .30

One source stated that though Anglesey’s letter was read in council nothing was done about it, though Castlehaven was called in and questioned about his memoirs. Castlehaven had included an appendix to his work when it was printed a second time which referred to Anglesey’s observations, insisting that the earl’s letter was full of mistakes. This work was judged by the king and council to be a scandalous libel against the government, but no further proceedings were taken against Castlehaven. However, though it may have appeared that the council had settled the issue the king had not finished with Anglesey. One individual, Gilbert Talbot, offered an interesting assessment after congratulating Ormond on his victory over such a “subtle and venemous adversary.” Talbot stated that he hoped the king would discover “upon what a false prop he hath trusted the weight of many of his affairs of State especially in Parliamentary debates.” This is important as it shows how others perceived Anglesey’s status at court and with

30A True Account, 22-23.

182 the king. Clearly, he was seen as a crucial minister at court and not an inconsequential figure as many scholars have viewed him.31 On 9 August the king issued a warrant that was delivered to Anglesey by Sir Lionel Jenkins, secretary of state. The document commanded Anglesey to “deliver up” the privy seal to Jenkins. Anglesey did so the following day, writing in his diary, “the Lord be praised I am now delivered from Court snares.” Another source stated the earl told Jenkins to let Charles know that he “delivered the Seal more joyfully than ever he Received it.” Anglesey’s enemies were encouraged and happy to hear this, for as Talbot asserted, “let Machiavill teach what he will, it is impossible for a man that is not honest at the bottom ever to be a good servant to his Prince.” Arran was elated, as he had earlier prayed to hear that the privy seal would be given to another. Anglesey sadly noted that the following day, 21 August, he had several friends who came to dinner to comfort him. Though Anglesey had put on a brave face, commenting that he was happy to be relieved of his post and all the political factionalism and betrayals that went along with it, his diary and letters hint that he was devastated by Charles’ decision.32 Clearly those years were among the most trying for the earl of Anglesey. He was upset when he read Castlehaven’s memoirs, angry over what he perceived as injustice toward the Protestants and English in Ireland. Whether he intended to have his observations published or not, when they became public it kicked off a storm of controversy, feeding off of the tense, hateful atmosphere of the Popish Plot. The court had already turned into a place where courtiers often acted like vicious animals, turning on each other at a moment’s notice. Political fights and debates turned ugly; any scandal served as entertainment and was often used by individuals for their own personal agendas. This particular dispute offers scholars an excellent opportunity to study the personal nature of court politics. Also, it provides insight into the antagonistic nature of these years, which seem to have intensified due to the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis. As factions evolved into parties, politics became increasingly polarized and we can see this with Anglesey and Ormond’s struggle. Their dispute was a rallying point for many,

31Ibid., 24; Castlehaven, The Earl of Castlehaven’s Review, PostScript, 5; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:414; MS Carte 47, f.86.

183 with former parliamentarians, the earl of Lanesborough, and royalists, the earl of Longford, choosing sides, though that was not the only dividing point. Based on private letters to the duke and earl, those who had opposed exclusion seemed to have sided with Ormond rather than Anglesey who had voted for exclusion. However, the majority of the privy council, did not appear to support him, at least not openly, and one wonders if this was an attempt to stand solidly behind the king or were they just swayed more by Ormond’s case? Most appeared horrified by Anglesey’s derogatory comments about Ormond’s behavior during the Civil War. Everyone knew Ormond as a loyal supporter of Charles I and recognized that the duke’s actions in Ireland were carried out with the king’s approval. Thus, by attacking Ormond’s peace treaties with the Confederate Catholics Anglesey was insulting Charles I. It is no wonder that Charles II sided with Ormond. It must have been an easy decision for the privy councillors who realized this was a simple way to support the king and gain his favor. Anglesey felt deeply betrayed by them as a body and must have been disappointed that his friends did not come forward on his behalf. More devastating was the king’s decision to remove him from the office of privy seal. That position had been Anglesey’s great political achievement, so to have it taken, especially after such a crushing defeat to Ormond, was a harsh blow to his pride. The remaining years of his life, which were only four in number would be spent bemoaning his loss of power and bitterly commenting on the king and Ormond’s betrayal. He attempted to regain influence with the king, though this did not really bring about any more patronage or favors, while at the same time growing closer to Monmouth. As he and the duke spent more time together, Anglesey also met often with Protestant dissenters. It appears that after this point in his life and career the earl focused on his personal salvation. This corresponded with his plans to devote more time to scholarship and write religious defenses against Catholicism. Thus, as Anglesey entered his final years he faced old financial problems, and increasing debt, and struggled to find resolution in the personal and private sectors of his life.

32A True Account, 24-26; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 9 August 1682, 21 August 1682; HMC Ormonde, n.s., 6:414, 416; HMC 1: reports 1-2, 213.

184

CHAPTER EIGHT: RETIREMENT AND PERSONAL SCHOLARSHIP, 1682-1686

The final years of Anglesey’s life were unhappy and unsettled. His anger and bitterness over the defeat to Ormond pervaded his life until the very end. Losing his position as lord privy seal meant the loss of power, privilege, and to some extent patronage. Anglesey became much more of a nonentity and for the first time in a long time did not serve at the center of court or Irish politics. Instead, he spent much of this time wrestling with past financial troubles and current debt. It was rumored that Charles would have his estate seized because of that debt and it became increasingly clear that Anglesey would not regain the king’s favor. The earl began spending a great deal of time with Monmouth and supporters of dissent. This is not surprising as those connections had been growing stronger since the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis. However, this angered Charles and Anglesey’s home was searched because of those ties. While wrestling with political and spiritual concerns, Anglesey decided to devote these years to scholarship, writing works on religion, government, and a history of the late Irish wars. His decision to focus on scholarship probably evolved from a desire to leave behind the truth, enrich his family name for posterity, and to occupy his time. Indeed, after retiring to his estate, Blechingdon in Oxfordshire, he played no other role in public affairs except in 1685 when he voted against the reversal of lord Stafford’s attainder and led the opposition against James in the lords. This latter involved a money supply bill, which would raise an army that included Catholics. Thus, these last four years must have been trying for a man who enjoyed being at the center of power and who had always thought very highly of his contribution to politics and loyalty to the king. So, our last look into the world of Restoration life, as seen through Anglesey’s eyes, will end with the

185 rather depressing attempts of a fallen politician to revive his career. In failing to do so he would turn to isolation and his writings before succumbing to quinsy1 on 26 April 1686. The deep hurt Anglesey felt over the surrendering of his office and replacement by George Savile, marquis of Halifax, is evident in a November 1682 letter to Charles. In it he justified his absence from court, complaining of the ill treatment he received. He sadly wrote, “I am not conscious that by any act of mine in 23 years’ faithful service I have given you any just cause of displeasure . . . .” He also began pushing for compensation regarding his still ongoing affair with the lords of the Treasury. He argued that he deserved his “full discharges” and that the “reward of [his] wages due for, my long, diligent and successful service is yet in your hands . . . .” Anglesey stressed that he desperately needed those funds to help support himself in his “declining age,” as the rest of his estate had been bestowed on his many children. All he wanted, he stated, was what was due to him. The matter was not resolved by June 1682 when rumors arose that Anglesey’s estate was seized for his debt. Though this was not true, it indicates the views of courtiers who believed the earl was in dire straits. It was true, however, that Anglesey was facing serious hardship if his accounts with the treasury office were not resolved. Since the 1670s, Anglesey had spent many hours at the treasury office trying to settle his accounts. He believed he had cleared the remainder of it, but “could get no justice nor so much as respite of the unjust proceedings in Ireland.” It is perhaps a sign of Charles’ continued displeasure with Anglesey that he did not trouble himself to assist the earl in this matter.2 Anglesey, true to his tenacious nature, did not give up and in November 1683 wrote to the king about being heard in front of the treasury committee. He received word that the king would appoint a time for the meeting and would attend, which sounded promising. By February 1684, Anglesey still had not had his case heard and wrote angrily to Sunderland that he had patiently waited for Charles to appoint a time, but as

1Quinsy, also referred to as a peritonsillar abscess, is an abscess (pus filled swelling) between the back of the tonsil and the throat wall. It occurs after a severe attack of tonsillitis when infection spreads from the tonsillar bed to the surrounding tissues, usually the neck, roof of the mouth and lungs. The swelling can make breathing difficult or close a person’s airway. Without the benefit of antibiotics it is fatal due to septicemia, poisoning of the blood.

2CSPD, 1682, 531-532; CSPD, 1683, vol. 24, 315-316; CSPD, 1683, vol. 25, 386-387; MS 18730, Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, 5 June 1683, 9 August 1683.

186 this had yet to occur the earl was greatly troubled. His pleas continued in April; however, it does not appear that a meeting was ever set and the earl did not indicate in his diary that the issue was ever completely resolved. Another financial issue had arisen between Anglesey and his son, lord Altham, and Sir Valentine Browne over markets and fairs in New Town. Apparently, Browne wanted a grant for markets and fairs in that town, but Anglesey and Altham argued it would be detrimental to the ones they possessed in Bantry, a town close to New Town. Back in February 1680, the king had approved Anglesey’s petition to erect two manors on his lands in the barony of Beare and Bantry. On 16 January 1684, the king instructed Anglesey to see secretary Jenkins over this matter. Charles handed the problem over to the attorney general who stated that the king could issue a new grant to Browne as it would greatly advantage the inhabitants of New Town. However, new evidence given argued that because Bantry was only half a mile away it would bring damage to the old markets held by Anglesey. Anglesey wanted Charles to secure Altham’s interest and the king consented. Thus, here at least is one instance of the king showing favor to Anglesey, though legally he appeared obligated to do so. Anglesey did not actually obtain resolution of his finances until James took the throne. He granted the earl an audience in March 1685 and though the issue with the Irish revenue was not raised, Anglesey’s personal finances were in dire straits. He owed his banker, Sir Robert Viner, £8,000 plus £2,000 in penalties. The Royal Society revoked his membership due to failure to pay dues and he owed hearth money in Oxfordshire. One of his coach horses was seized to pay for the hearth money.3 It appears that when he died he remained deeply in debt. Anglesey’s disappointment with Charles, combined with personal religious beliefs, which had been sharpened since the Popish Plot, had led him closer to Monmouth, beginning in late 1679. Monmouth’s connection to Protestant dissenters was well known and through the years Anglesey came to be seen as someone sympathetic to their plight. Anglesey’s dinners and meetings with Monmouth became quite regular

3CSPD, 1683, vol. 26, 96, 158-159, 217, 276-277, 291; CSPD, 1679-1680, 386-387; MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 3 April 1684, 11 April 1684; Douglas Greene, “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey: 1614- 1686” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972), 257, 267-268.

187 occurrences throughout 1682 and 1683. The frequency of these visits increased markedly after Anglesey’s dismissal in June 1682. Also, as mentioned previously, Anglesey often kept nonconformist ministers as his personal chaplains. Before his dismissal, in March 1682, Anglesey had incurred the king’s anger over an incident with dissenters in Bristol. Apparently, while the king was absent from the privy council Anglesey convinced them to order the mayor of Bristol to cease persecution of nonconformists. Charles later reversed this and one scholar, Tim Harris, believes this contributed heavily in Anglesey’s dismissal, though he places too much importance on this issue. Thus, Anglesey’s behavior and background made him suspicious to many who suspected he was growing more involved with nonconformists.4 Anglesey was also implicated in the Rye House Plot of 1680-1683. This was a plot composed of several groups, one led by Shaftesbury, while another was led by Monmouth and contained lord Russell, Essex, Algernon Sidney, and John Hampden. Exclusion was once more the main goal, for these men believed that James’ Catholicism was a threat to Britain. They were discussing a general uprising to drive off Charles’ “evil counselors.” It was a third group of lawyers and businessmen who were planning to assassinate Charles and James. There were men who had connections with all three groups, and Monmouth learned of it, but he chose to say nothing. Word of this plot leaked out in spring 1683. Shaftesbury fled to the Netherlands, while Essex, Hampden, Sidney, Russell, and Monmouth were arrested. The results were that Charles had Monmouth released, while Russell and Sidney were tried and executed. Essex was murdered in the Tower of London and Hampden remained imprisoned.5 For Anglesey, it was his recent meetings with Monmouth, Essex, and other nonconformist sympathizers that rendered him suspicious. Also, the fact that he had recently been dismissed gave him motive. In July 1683 the king approved two warrants

4MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 21 January 1682, 23 March 1682, 8 August 1682, 4 October 1682, 10 October 1682, 23 October 1682, 22 November 1682, 27 November 1682, 1 December 1682, 9 December 1682, 14 December 1682, 10 January 1683, 20 January 1683, 24 May 1683; CSPD, 1682, 129; Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 417-418.

5Greene wrongly describes this plot as a fantasy, which is not surprising because his dissertation was written without the aid of recent scholarship. See Greene, 253. Current studies have proven the plot’s reality. See Richard L. Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688-89 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992).

188 to search Anglesey’s London residence, suspecting he was concealing dissenters. Anglesey was understandably upset, writing that his home had been “rudely searched at midnight and most of my doors broken upon and papers writings and books disordered and pendulum broken . . . .” At first Anglesey did not want to believe the king had ordered this, writing that the men had warrants “pretended from the king . . . .” He was also skeptical because they refused to provide him with a copy of the warrant. Reports filtered into court that known dissenters, such as colonel Owen, met with Monmouth at Anglesey’s home. Owen was brought before the lords justices and committed to the county gaol until he was cleared by the king and council. Russell called for Anglesey to swear that one of the informants, lord Howard, was lying. Anglesey testified before the lords that when he recently visited Russell’s father, the earl of Bedford, Howard was also present. According to Anglesey, Howard stated he knew nothing of such a plot. Howard admitted saying it, but claimed he was lying to Anglesey and Bedford. This damaged Howard’s credibility, but the lords found enough evidence to condemn Russell. For Anglesey the accusations progressed no further. Modern scholars do not believe he was involved with this plot, but all of these things demonstrate how Anglesey’s name was increasingly linked to nonconformists.6 However, though he seemed close to Monmouth he was not involved in the duke’s rebellion in 1685. That incident, following Charles’ death and James’ succession, had numerous supporters among nonconformists and their sympathizers. Anglesey does not appear to have had any connection with this, though unfortunately his diary ends in September 1684. We should not be too surprised at this lack of involvement, for Anglesey was always cautious and self-preserving and he presumably believed this rebellion would not succeed and that at age seventy he was past such adventures. Apparently his wife, Elizabeth, was not, for in early 1684 she was arrested for attending a conventicle led by the Independent Dr. Owen. After paying a fine she was released.7

6MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 1 July 1683; CSPD, 1683, vol. 25, 6-7; Gilbert Burnet, Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Time (London: William Smith, 1838), 371, 376; Douglas R. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England: 1661-1689 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 158; Richard L. Greaves, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 474.

7CSPD, 1683, vol. 25, 17-18; Tim Harris, Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society, 1660-1715 (London: Longman Group, 1993), 86-88, 93-94, 108-109, 120, 180.

189 This must have reflected poorly on Anglesey, although he had already lost power so presumably it would not damage him too much. Without a doubt, one of the most important issues in Anglesey’s life was scholarship and a desire to write various works on history, government, and religion. Not all of these goals were realized, but several were published. As mentioned earlier, Anglesey’s history of the Irish wars was never published, but the notes for it did survive. These at least provide us with the earl’s views on the late wars and his warnings of how to prevent it from happening again. Anglesey strongly believed that Ireland was not “yet so settled but that we must expect more rebellion . . . .” He especially feared the “irreligious spirit of the popish clergy and lawyers” who had always been the “bane of Ireland like poison tainting the whole nation by a general infection of all the hearts . . . .” During his debates with Ormond, he had cited the Catholic lawyers as being responsible for the Irish rebellion and the evils of the Popish Plot. So, it is not surprising that he again focused on them as a cause for Ireland’s troubles. However, Anglesey did shift some of the blame to the English government for failing to reduce the Irish to obedience sooner. He noted that Oliver Cromwell’s success in subduing the Irish proved it could have been accomplished earlier.8 In order to prevent a possible relapse into another rebellion, Anglesey suggested making Ireland “more English” by discouraging Irish customs and language. They also needed to convert more Irish to Protestantism in order to cure them of their “barbarisms.” He wanted to ban all Catholic priests and forbid Catholic lawyers from practicing law and forbid Catholics from sitting on juries, holding office, or bearing arms. These were quite harsh demands, as he basically wanted Catholics stripped of their civil rights. That demonstrates the level of his fear and bitterness toward Irish Catholics and contrasts with his earlier actions in the 1670s when he opposed a harsh anti-Catholic bill. After detailing those methods of treatment, he then focused on events between 1170, when King Henry II first traveled to Ireland, and 1228 to show the first conquests of that island. He then concentrated on the years of the 1641 Irish rebellion and civil wars. The earl

8MS 4816, General History of Ireland, 1-2.

190 wrote out a detailed abstract of these wars and decided it was important to explain his reasons for writing the history.9 Anglesey felt that after being a primary witness to the rebellion and the inordinate amount of cruelty that occurred and having been part in the government and settlement of Ireland, he was obliged to write the truth of those events. He had yet to publish his work because the dispute with Ormond delayed his research. Anglesey was referring to the duke when he wrote of the “ill usage and discouragement of some who for the general good and by the advantages they have reaped by that rebellion . . . .” Again, he asserted that Ormond had benefited from the rebellion, as he had suggested in his response to Castlehaven, stating that the duke’s lands and financial gains were ill gotten. The earl offered excuses in case he fell short with his research, blaming the “hindrances” he received and the “denyall of those assistances I have sought and been promised by some who have made great use and many brags of their pretended . . . services and yet are more afraid of having the world know the truth of things than I dare be.” Those assertions appear as a rather weak excuse for mistakes.10 Anglesey continued to slander Ormond, blaming the peace that the duke signed with the Confederates as being ruinous to the Protestants and breaking laws in both kingdoms. The earl believed the peace was made for Ormond’s “own ambition.” He also accused the duke of offering up “treasonable proposalls” to parliament, regarding the surrendering of the kingdom. Anglesey stated that it should be considered treason based on the duke’s “villanous peace” with the Confederates. However, the earl believed that it was the parliamentary treaty that was the true treasonous act, as it went against Charles I’s “positive prohibition.” Anglesey discussed this further, stating that when Ormond sent propositions to parliament for the surrender of Dublin he either had authority from the king to do so or he did not. If he did have it, “it was falseness and too much leaning to the Irish in him . . . .” Anglesey appears to contradict himself here. How could it be falseness if Ormond had the king’s approval? The earl may have been disparaging Charles with this remark. If Ormond did not have the king’s permission he was

9Ibid., 26.

10Ibid., 50

191 “treacherous in his trust to the king in offering to betray it as he did by his large propositions to the parliament.” Of course Anglesey downplayed his own role as a parliamentary commissioner. Anglesey then turned to the Restoration and acts of settlement for Ireland, describing how they were disappointing in scope. Anglesey also questioned why Ormond granted “liberty of conscience . . . to popish rebells . . . [but] not . . . to dissenting protestants,” once more demonstrating his sympathy for nonconformists and his disgust for Catholics.11 Overall, the tone of these notes and abstracts was quite hostile toward Catholics and the duke of Ormond. If this work had ever been published it would definitely have caused an uproar in England and Ireland. There were three other works that Anglesey contemplated but never really started. In his diary, he discussed his desire to write on these subjects. One was a chronicle of nonconformity, starting from the beginning of the Reformation. The second would contain a summary of England’s laws and liberties with a discussion of the people’s fight against the oppression of those liberties. It would also include the rights of parliament, the freedom of its members, and the king’s legal title and prerogative rights. The last work was to be a complete history of England using “all records memorials Journals of parliament histories and writings . . . .” Anglesey wanted to show the “bravery of the English” monarchs and the people’s tenacity in preserving their liberties “even in popish times opposing the Romish Tyranny and refusing to submit to that yoke . . . .” He intended to praise their zeal for “true christian Religion and freedom against popery . . . .” Anglesey believed that it was important to demonstrate how those who had opposed or betrayed England had met a miserable end. However, he stressed that this work would contain only “unbiased impartiality and truth . . . .”12 No papers for any of these projects have been discovered, but it is evident that in his later years Anglesey

11Ibid., 52. Anglesey pushed for liberty of conscience for Protestant nonconformists. Richard L. Greaves, John Bunyan And English Nonconformity (London: Hambledon Press, 1992), 31-32.

12MS 18730, Diary of Anglesey, 31 August 1682, 25 November 1683, 14 June 1684. Anglesey wrote an earlier work, though it was not published until 1702. It was entitled, The Privileges Of The House of Lords and Commons Argued and Stated, In Two Conferences Between Both Houses. April 19, and 22, 1671. To which is added a Discourse, wherein the Rights of the House of Lords are truly Asserted. With Lettered Remarks on the seeming Arguments and pretended Precedents, offered at that time against their Lordships (London: 1702). It was primarily a defense of the lords against the commons, emphasizing Anglesey’s beliefs on the importance of tradition and the “ancient constitution.”

192 had grown increasingly embittered against Catholicism and driven to give people his version of the truth. One religious work that was published during Anglesey’s life was his response to a book written by George Hickes entitled, Jovian, or, An answer to Julian the Apostate. Anglesey’s A Letter of Remarkes Upon Jovian was published anonymously with the author simply listed as a “Person of Quality.” Hickes’ work was in turn a response to Samuel Johnson’s Julian the Apostate, which had attacked James and landed Johnson in prison. Hickes argued that the Roman Empire was not hereditary and that Christians under Julian had recognized the duty of passive obedience. Anglesey attacked Hickes, believing him to be entirely too sympathetic to Catholics. He accused Hickes of stating that the Church of England was not a true church “unless we own the Church of Rome to be so too.” Anglesey wrote this response to show that Hickes was not a “Logitian,” good historian, or a fair and impartial writer. He asserted that Hickes constantly contradicted himself, undermining his arguments. Anglesey was especially angered at Hickes’ statement regarding Charles and the English government. The earl felt that Hickes was arguing that Charles was an absolute monarch, something Anglesey denied vehemently and used examples from parliamentary statutes and acts to contest. He concluded that he was harsh because he needed to be in order to present the real truth. Anglesey believed this work, which was bound to produce fears and jealousies, was the result of a clergyman involving himself in “Civil Rights.”13 Anglesey made this argument in other works, asserting that servants of the church had no right to involve themselves in political matters, especially when they published their beliefs. In 1693, a work appeared, claiming to be the memoirs of Anglesey entitled Memoirs of the Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesey, Late Lord Privy Seal. It was published by Sir Peter Pett, who described himself as advocate general for Ireland. Pett’s preface stated that Anglesey had written this in 1686 to serve as an introduction for Pett’s

13George Hickes, Jovian, or, An answer to Julian the Apostate (London: 1683); Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, A Letter of Remarkes Upon Jovian (London: 1683), 4, 8, 11-12, 15; Samuel Thompson, Julian the Apostate being a short account of his life, the sense of the primitive Christians about his succession and their behaviour towards him: together with a comparison of popery and paganism (London: 1682). Hickes became chaplain to the king in 1681 and in 1683 received the deanery of Worcester. He opposed James’ declaration of indulgence, but also Monmouth’s 1685 uprising. Hickes would later be a non-juror. His brother, John, was a nonconformist.

193 work, The Happy Future State of England. In Pett’s book, he not only defended Anglesey from Dangerfield’s accusations, but also argued that a Catholic king would not be a danger to England. Pett then pushed hard for toleration of Catholics and when he published Anglesey’s supposed memoirs they supported Pett’s beliefs. Knowing what we do of Anglesey’s real feelings toward Catholics, much of this work is suspicious, for it is far too lenient toward Catholics. In his notes for his history, Anglesey wanted very harsh laws passed against Catholics, depriving them of their right to bear arms, hold political or military office, banning all priests, and forbidding lawyers from practicing. Such a man would not have stated, “I know of none of the church of England, who hath avowed the practice of more Indulgence to Papists in the Confession of the Religionary Principles, than I have done.” Anglesey reputedly stressed acts of kindness toward Catholics, stating that Pett could tell of the “Signal good Offices I did to many Papists . . . .” According to this work, Anglesey also wrote that the “Real Peace of Kingdoms ought not to be troubled by projects of a Chimerical one between Churches. The best Men are Reconciled to one another . . . .” Thus, he was urging reconciliation, toleration where they would meet each other “half way.” Also, the work insisted that several of Anglesey’s Catholic acquaintances were full of loyalty and moderation and he prayed that others would not automatically view Catholics as disloyal without evidence. More tolerant sentiment followed, as the earl supposedly urged all men to give James the honor due to him as their king. By contrast, the author dealt with Presbyterianism by stating that he opposed it and comprehension. That directly contradicts what we know of Anglesey’s personal religious feelings. The work concluded with the wish that “all exasperations against each others Persons, and misrepresentations of each others Doctrines, may for ever cease.”14 These notions render the supposed authorship of this work suspect. Also, if one reads Pett’s Happy Future State of England it appears quite likely that he was the actual author of the Memoirs as the sentiments expressed in one echo the other quite precisely. Pett was probably still disgruntled from the king’s treatment of him during the Dutch war in 1666. Pett had been the scapegoat, the

14Memoirs of the Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesey, Late Lord Privy Seal. Intermixt, With Moral, Political and Historical Observations, by way of Discourse in a Letter. To which is prefixt a Letter Written by his Lordship during his Retirement from court in the Year 1683 (London: 1693), 165-169, 304-305, 308, 312; Sir Peter Pett, The Happy Future State of England (London: 1688), 211-215, 272-274, 280-285.

194 commissioner at the Chatham dockyard, who was blamed for the disastrous loss to the Dutch. He was also a Catholic sympathizer and both of these explain the arguments within the Memoirs. Another reason we have to doubt Anglesey as the author comes from his son-in- law, Sir John Thompson. He wrote in the preface to Anglesey’s State of the Government and Kingdom that the Memoirs seemed very “unlike” Anglesey. The State of the Government and one of Anglesey’s actual works were published posthumously. This work focused on Anglesey’s view of the government and was written in 1682 though it was not published until 1694. Thompson believed that Pett was the Memoirs’ true author and was quite angry over its publication and claim that they were Anglesey’s words. Thompson argued that Anglesey deserved better treatment after toiling and working so diligently his entire career. He lamented the fact that the earl’s study was “plundered, his Papers rifled, his Thoughts debased by a dull and course ally, and his Reputation set to sale for a little private Advantage.” Thompson thought that Pett made Anglesey appear as a “Knave and Fool” so that Pett could ingratiate himself with the new king in hopes of preferment. Thompson averred that the entire Memoirs were written to claim that accusations concerning the burning of London and the Popish Plot were “only Fears, Jealousies and Surmises. That the Evidence did not rise high and clear enough to charge any Papist with it, however the Parliament, and a great Minister, threw the Guilt on them.” Ironically, Pett was not altogether wrong in that there really was no grand Catholic conspiracy to assassinate the king and massacre the Protestants. However, Thompson did make a good point when he asked, “how probable it is that my Lord Anglesey should be of this Opinion, That he should believe nothing of the Popish Plot, that without Malice, Motive or Evidence, he should give his Voice for the Condemnation of my Lord Stafford . . . that he should be, first, so much a Monster . . . ?” Thompson felt that the reader could judge this for himself, but he was convinced that the Memoirs were nothing more than the “Fiction and Forgery of the Publisher . . . .”15 Thus, it is

15Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, The Earl of Anglesey’s State of the Government and Kingdom: Prepared and intended for His Majesty, King Charles II. In the Year 1682, but the Storm Impending growing so high prevented it then. With a short VINDICATION of His Lordship from several Aspersions cast upon Him, in a pretended LETTER that carries the Title of His MEMOIRS (London: 1694), preface.

195 fairly easy to conclude, with all of the evidence presented that the Memoirs were not Anglesey’s work, but was the writings of Sir Peter Pett. Turning to the text of Anglesey’s State of the Government and Kingdom, we find a work that provided advice to the king regarding the “true state” of Charles’ kingdoms and government. It was written before the earl’s downfall, in April 1682. His supposed intention, though this seems doubtful, was not to gain any advancement for himself, relations, or friends and was “without Intreigue for any Parties Animosity, or Envy against any Persons . . . .” The earl claimed he wanted Charles to rule happily and peacefully. Anglesey cited the late wars between parliament and Charles I as being due to “Fears and Jealousies,” which could reoccur if the country was not cautious. He acknowledged that unlike before there were no armed forces or sitting parliament to cause troubles, but “the same English People which they were wont to represent, live in their own Houses, claim their good old Laws and Liberties, and are watchful over them; who knows what the present Licentious paper War may produce, Its come to quarrelling already, and quarrels bring Blood-shed.” Here Anglesey referred to his ongoing letter war with Ormond. It was not only his personal feud, but also other ministerial battles that could tear the country apart. The earl thought the only difference was the scene, for instead of skirmishes and sieges battles were being carried out among officials at the king’s court and in the law courts. He felt that the divisions currently plaguing England involved almost everyone. Anglesey argued that with the recent litigious nature of society justice was declining, reduced to emotional, personal battles. The situation was so dire, according to Anglesey, that “all Reverence to Ministerial Officers, Juries, Judges, is lost; and there is now no case of moment almost wherein there is not mustering of Parties . . . .” He insisted that this sickness had pervaded the country so deeply that instead of going to parliament appeals were made to the people who could not truly judge, and thus controversies were now settled by “quarrelling Parties” though their judgements were not legal. Overall, these were the symptoms of a “divided and distempered Kingdom” and Anglesey prayed for a cure to be found soon. He recognized, as he hoped most did, that a “Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand.” Those divisions seemed to be increasingly worse with fights breaking out in the streets and coffeehouses. Anglesey sadly noted that the dissenters were blamed and suffered for

196 these acts, though he asserted there was a general “ferment of Ranchor and Malice throughout the Kingdom” that should not be placed on the shoulders of nonconformists alone.16 Anglesey did blame the French king’s growing power over other countries as contributing to the “disjoynted and dangerous” condition of Christendom. He believed Louis XIV used secret intrigues and councils to corrupt Charles’ kingdoms and he begged the king not to believe that Louis offered any real friendship or that his purse or power was really needed. In fact, the earl felt that Louis had made jealousies and dissatisfaction worse in all three kingdoms, which greatly endangered the peace. Even more than Louis, Anglesey looked to the religion of James as being the “Fatal Cause of all our Mischiefs present or apprehended . . . which if not by Wisdom Antidoted, may raise a Fire which will Burn and Consume [us] to the very Foundations.” Far from accepting and tolerating James’ religion, as the Memoirs did, Anglesey called it an “unhappy Perversion . . . which naturally raises Jealousy of the Power, Designs, and Practices, of the old Enemies of our Religion and Liberties, and Undermines and Emasculates the Courage and Constancy even of those and their Posterity, who have been as Faithful to, and Suffered as much for the Crown . . . .” Now, this beyond a doubt confirms that Anglesey could not have written the Memoirs. His disgust for Catholicism and his fears of it further dividing the country with James as king is evident. To achieve a wise government, Anglesey presumed to offer Charles advice on how to manage parliament, punish offenders, and deal with religious affairs. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of the law and argued that even though Charles was in his own person above the law it was still the king’s “Master and Instructer [on] how to Govern . . . .” Anglesey felt assured that Charles would never violate his people’s trust and would reject the advice of those who sought to pervert the law. 17 We must wonder how well Anglesey’s advice and criticisms would have gone over with the king and James had it been published in 1682. The earl’s critiques would most likely have angered

16Ibid., 1, 2, 13-15.

17Ibid., 15-17, 22-23, 32.

197 Charles and combined with Anglesey and Ormond’s dispute, the earl might have lost more than the privy seal. Perhaps it was best that it was not made public until 1694. The other work of Anglesey’s that was published after his death was entitled, The King’s Right of Indulgence In Spiritual Matters, with The Equity thereof, Asserted. It was published in 1688. It focused on when the king could grant indulgence in spiritual matters based on grounds of law and policy; these fell in eight categories. Anglesey approved of all these instances. First, indulgence could be given to preserve the public peace and second to follow the examples of neighbors. A third reason was from examples of history and fourth, due to the present state of affairs. The fifth argument was to advance trade, while the sixth involved an increase in population. The seventh reason was the prince’s desire for liberty of conscience and the final argument was to satisfy men’s minds. It should be stressed that Anglesey wanted such indulgence for Protestant dissenters, not Catholics who could not be trusted with religious toleration. The earl also contended based on grounds of piety that the king could grant indulgence on spiritual as well as political grounds, to be kind, to spare bloodshed, to introduce Christianity to others, to allow God to do his own work, and to allow men to err and discover the truth on their own. It was legally permissible because the king possessed supreme spiritual jurisdiction in England. He cited various historical examples, going back to the Hebrews and through England’s early and medieval times. Anglesey used as evidence Charles’ title as head of the Church of England, common law precedents, and acts of parliament. The earl answered possible objections against this right and offered biblical examples of spiritual indulgence. He concluded that if the king were denied this right he could not prevent “Mischiefs and great Inconveniences to the Publick, in reserving the Trade, Wealth, Strength, and Peace of his Kingdoms, in providing for his Own, and his Subjects Security.”18 Again, this was not only a defense of Charles’ religious power of indulgence, but an encouragement to provide this to Protestant nonconformists. It demonstrates Anglesey’s sympathy to dissenters as well as his opposition for toleration of Catholicism. This work would most likely have pleased Charles as it stressed his power

18Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, The King’s Right of Indulgence In Spiritual Matters, with The Equity thereof, Asserted (London: 1688), 4-55, 65-75.

198 over religious affairs, though it would not have received a warm welcome from Anglican hard liners. Anglesey died at the age of seventy-one on 26 April 1686. His remaining years had been primarily quiet ones, particularly the last one, for he spent most of his time at his country estate in Blechingdon. Though he dined quite often with Monmouth and other supporters of nonconformity throughout 1682 and 1683, those visits became less frequent between 1684 and 1686. We have no records of his opinion on James’ accession in 1685 and though he attended the coronation, we can imagine he was disheartened as he had supported the Exclusion Bill. Anglesey decided to focus on scholarship and spirituality rather than politics, which is understandable after his recent experiences. Anglesey’s disappointment and bitterness over his loss to Ormond and dismissal from office filled him with the urge to write the truth, not just about the late wars but about religion and government generally. He believed that his political career had given him a wealth of knowledge that could assist others, though his confidence in his right to do so often reads like arrogance in those writings. True to form, the earl refused to fade away completely, believing that his contributions could live on through scholarship. However, even that began to lessen after 1684 when his last diary entry was made. A general impression of Anglesey is that he had grown quite weary of political intrigue and that, combined with bouts of illness, had contributed to his desire to live peacefully in the country away from the turmoil and tension of London and the court.

199

CONCLUSION

A conclusion to this study of the life and career of Anglesey might well take the form of a summary of that career, which is impressive in its scope for one who has been neglected by historians. The early life and political career of Anglesey demonstrates how a political moderate survived during the heyday of the Civil War. Although only small amounts are known about his education and formative years, one can see his religious and political views emerge. His father’s influential positions within Ireland and his ill treatment by the lord deputy, viscount Thomas Wentworth, clearly influenced Anglesey’s desire to become involved in politics. The family’s Presbyterian sympathies and their growing concern over King Charles I’s affiliation with archbishop William Laud may have convinced them to side with parliament during the Civil War. However, as would characterize his entire career, Anglesey did not immediately choose sides. Instead, he waited to make up his mind. For him, survival was achieved through patience and observation. As one of the governors of Ulster, Anglesey handled negotiations with the king’s representatives, most notably James Butler, earl of Ormond. The rocky relationship they shared would come full circle as they worked to bring about Charles II’s return, allied against common enemies during the Restoration, and then had a huge falling out in the later years of Charles’ reign. As their friendship crumbled, accusations about the other’s actions during and after the Civil War flew and Anglesey’s star fell as Ormond’s power was restored. However, that was in the latter part of the seventeenth century. In the 1640s Anglesey built the foundations of a successful career, serving as a lord privy councilor for Ireland and a member of the English house of commons. These connections would serve him well during the English Republic.

200 The late 1640s were not fortuitous for Anglesey as he was among those expelled during Pride’s Purge of parliament in 1648. As a “political Presbyterian” his moderate views were not welcomed by Cromwell’s associates but he clung to his connections at court, making sure to proclaim his allegiance to the lord deputy of Ireland, at first Charles Fleetwood and later Henry Cromwell. Understandably concerned over retaining his family’s lands Anglesey’s actions during this time reflect his drive to regain political power. He was elected as the Dublin representative to the 1659 parliament and from that moment on would not be supplanted from Anglo-Irish politics. His statements at this time show his intention to help restore the traditional house of lords. Anglesey’s moderate tendencies are never clearer than in his parliament speeches. After becoming president of the council of state in February 1660, Anglesey continued to correspond with royalists abroad and at home. He had already been contacted by royalist agents and appeared willing to provide them with information. Anglesey must have been reconciled to the return of Charles II, probably influenced in part by his belief in the traditional English “constitution” with a house of lords as part of the government. These things had been denied to him and other moderates during the Protectorate and Commonwealth. Anglesey must have assumed, as others did, that only a monarchy would bring back the old ways. Anglesey’s new devotion to the Stuarts would prove lasting. He began the Restoration with an appointment to the English privy council. He also became vice- treasurer of Ireland and sat on the council for Irish affairs and the appeals committee. Being granted the title of earl of Anglesey showed his value to the Restoration regime. His friendship with Ormond became strengthened by both men’s tireless efforts to persuade Parliament to pass the Acts of Settlement and Explanation for Ireland. Though these acts were passed, due to their joint efforts, it took years and constant amendments before they achieved their goal of resolving Ireland’s land issues. However, a major disappointment for Anglesey was the passage of the Irish Cattle Bill, an act that proved harmful to Ireland’s economy. The attempt to prevent its passage was another project where Anglesey worked closely with Ormond. While Ormond was in Ireland serving as lord-lieutenant, Anglesey acted as the duke’s eyes and ears at court. Anglesey’s connections at court appear to have served him best when reporting factionalism and

201 potential enemies to Ormond. The earl proved his loyalty by protecting Irish interests as best he could. A major battle was fought at court over the case of Randal MacDonnell, marquis of Antrim, illustrating how factions initially formed and later split during Charles’ reign. The complex nature of Restoration politics is especially seen when analyzing such situations; thus Anglesey’s role in that affair serves as an important example of what life was like as a seventeenth century politician. All of these events were played out against the backdrop of the Restoration settlement, the Second Dutch War, the return of the plague, and the great fire of London. The next phase of Anglesey’s career saw him rise even higher, becoming treasurer of the royal navy, though charges of mismanagement of finances, relating to current charges and to his former position as vice-treasurer of Ireland, caused his suspension and fall from grace. In 1667 he exchanged his position of vice-treasurer of Ireland for the naval office; however, problems within that department as well as his inability to handle those duties resulted in his 1669 suspension and an ongoing investigation through 1673. Anglesey’s despair at being out of power was evident in his diary, which records his continual attempts to get back into the king’s favor. He documented every meeting with the king as well as his endless petitions to the naval commissioners, attempting to get his accounts settled and the matter closed. It was a mark of his personal endurance and a testimony to his ability to make court alliances which saw him reappointed to the privy council in 1670. More appointments followed, primarily to commissions dealing with Ireland. His importance as an Anglo-Irish politician was evident, for his voice was quite strong in promoting Irish interests. His relationship with Ormond was firm at first, as witnessed by their defense of each other regarding the Irish government and charges against their administrations. However, cracks in their once solid friendship began to appear, revealing growing tensions over Irish business as well as the constantly changing political scene at court. Anglesey found himself scrambling to find powerful allies who might influence the king on his behalf. Thus, we see him forming friendships with men such as the duke of Buckingham, whom he once considered an enemy to both him and Ormond. Buckingham and the earl of Shaftesbury both supported nonconformists and were on the rise politically, two facts which must have influenced Anglesey’s decision to

202 move closer to them. He also courted the Catholic lord Clifford, another rising star at court. These efforts illustrate the various facets of court politics and emphasize how difficult it was to stay afloat. Charles’ vacillating nature also made it challenging and is evident in Anglesey’s diary entries, which portray a monarch who constantly made promises, but did not always follow through. For comfort during this trying time, Anglesey turned to religion, contemplating his personal salvation and questioning his devotion, deciding to become more steadfast in his beliefs. On Sundays he usually attended the king’s chapel at Whitehall and then returned home to hear his own minister in the afternoon. Mr. Benjamin Agas, a nonconformist, served in this capacity between 1665 and 1673. As a moderate and someone always cautious about his religion, Anglesey demonstrates how to walk the tightrope of the religious divide that was prevalent in late seventeenth century Britain. Though these struggles were hard on him ultimately he triumphed, receiving news in 1673 that he had received the office of privy seal, one of the most honored positions at court. As privy seal he was responsible for signing warrants, affixing them with the king’s personal seal. That specific duty was usually handled by a secretary who received these documents from the signet office and sent them to the lord chancellor. Anglesey did spend time “sealing” particular warrants, usually important ones or those that aided his allies. Unless it was a matter that Charles took personal interest in, the earl decided which issues should be put through immediately and which should ones should be temporarily halted. This gave Anglesey power, for sometimes he could delay the passage of his enemies’ grants. Because his official duties were not overly taxing regarding time spent in the office Anglesey concentrated on managing policy in the house of lords. This appointment opened a new chapter of his political career, paving the way for another attempt to survive and thrive amidst the tumultuous court waters. It is interesting to see how he handled these new responsibilities and how the various components within his life, his religious beliefs, friendships and familial connections, shifted and often merged during his attempt to stay in power. Serving as the lord privy seal of England was both an honor and a burden. Though Anglesey had obtained a powerful, high position, he also had to deal with even more political intrigue and revolving factions. The years 1673 to 1678 witnessed

203 growing animosities within parliament with regards to the duke of York’s open Catholicism, the Declaration of Indulgence, Test Acts, and another Dutch war, which saw England allied with the great Catholic power of France. Religion and politics clashed as men fought to define and carve out new leadership roles at court and British policy. Anglesey was torn between his sympathy for dissenters and his hatred of Catholicism, for York and others were trying to weld those two groups together. Thus, opposing or supporting test acts and oaths often meant tolerating or persecuting both groups. This proved a hard choice for Anglesey who found himself repeatedly allied with York over matters such as the Test Act, mainly due to his political ambitions but also due to his sympathy for dissent. However, it also meant he was aiding Catholics, something which must have torn at his conscience, a struggle that is evident in his diary where he declared his intention to expose the lies of the Jesuits, and thus the Catholic faith. His goals with regards to publishing also included a memoir about the past Civil War and the troubles in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants. He detested the Irish Catholic rebels whom he blamed for beginning the revolt and igniting years of violence and discord. Anglesey’s desire to describe those events would later lead him to a clash with his great friend, Ormond. For the time being though, they remained allies, as they dealt with more charges of financial mismanagement raised by their mutual enemy, viscount Ranelagh. That battle was concluded in the allies’ favor, though Anglesey faced an ongoing ordeal regarding allegations from his tenure as vice-treasurer of Ireland. His bitterness over his personal finances, which he felt were harmed by the charges against him, would grow stronger for the remainder of his career and up until his death. At this juncture though, he retained the king’s favor, who made sure Anglesey’s requests regarding his Irish lands were answered. Anglesey used his position with the king and other court ministers to obtain appointment/military posts for his family members and friends. The earl’s use of patronage was not surprising, for political favors and exchanges were a normal fact of daily politics in London. Anglesey made sure to aid religious scholars as well and his diary notes the many meetings and dinners with these learned men as well as Anglesey’s continued employment of Mr. Agas. That ended in 1677 with the arrival of a new chaplain, Mr. Delamote who also shared Anglesey’s religious views, which were not

204 technically in accord with the Anglican church. Anglesey was careful to walk the religious tightrope that was necessary for survival at Charles’ court. He did so skillfully, maintaining his balance at a time where growing concern over Catholicism and Protestant dissent was about to culminate in a major way, for the next few years were tumultuous and bloody indeed. I am alluding of course to the forthcoming Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis, events which shook the foundations of Charles’ government and threatened the lives and futures of many. Anglesey would be called upon to choose sides, between the rising and setting suns within the house of Stuart. Those choices would help decide his own future and fortune. Between 1679 and 1681 the dominant issues for Britain revolved around the always complex poles of religion and politics, more specifically the possibility of a Catholic successor. Accusations and rumors reached a fever pitch and as lord privy seal of England Anglesey found himself dragged once more through the political muck. Besides being slandered for involvement in a separate Irish Catholic plot, Anglesey had a direct role in the investigative proceedings for the larger Popish Plot. He served on various intelligence and examination committees and as a member of the lords sat in judgment on the nobles brought to trial. He seemed to rise above the hysteria that often gripped others, for he made no personal accusations nor did he try to remove old enemies by embroiling their names in this crisis. Instead, Anglesey focused on important matters, such as keeping parliament in session long enough to conduct business. He and other councilors continuously pushed Charles to allow parliament to sit, something that did not happen often once the issue of exclusion was raised. During these tumultuous years, Anglesey faced accusations that he was involved in various Catholic plots. Greene and the DNB mistakenly place too much importance on those allegations as a motivating factor in Anglesey’s vote in favor of exclusion. Both argue that Anglesey voted for exclusion to deny his accusers and protect himself. This is too weak an assumption and ignores Anglesey’s personal religious convictions, his growing frustration with Charles who refused to help him gain financial reprisals, and perhaps a belief that the future lay with the duke of Monmouth. All of these things played a role in his decision to openly oppose the king and York. The accusations against him never resulted in his being called before the examining committee, of which

205 he was a member, and no one really seemed to take them seriously. Thus, intimidation could not be the only reason for his vote.1 Anglesey also sought reprieve from his financial woes, but this was not forthcoming. As his frustration with the king and James grew, and they did nothing to intervene, he began turning more to the opposition faction at court, one often labeled the Country or Whig party, having meetings and dinners with those members. Not that this leaning was only related to financial disappointment; it must be viewed in a larger political setting, for this was a time when the earl found himself wanting to focus more on his religion. It was a time where he wanted to finish writing a history on the late wars in Ireland, a document to illustrate the cruelty of the Catholics involved as well as the government’s mistakes. In dealing with the Popish Plot and a growing hostility toward James, both in parliament and the privy council, Anglesey entertained the idea that perhaps Monmouth, the king’s illegitimate son, should be legitimized so he could inherit. Anglesey appears to have been at a political turning point during these years and as he found himself learning more toward Monmouth he took a more critical stance toward the late king and Ormond, particularly their involvement in the Irish rebellion. The resulting propaganda battle, conducted primarily through letters and pamphlets, was a huge ordeal for Anglesey who fought with his close friend, his king, and former allies, trying to present the truth as he had experienced it. As early as 1679, Anglesey had been planning to write a history of the late wars in Ireland. Before he could finish his work though, the earl of Castlehaven published his memoirs in 1680. As a Catholic royalist who first joined with the Confederate Catholics and who later fought for Ormond’s forces, Castlehaven gave an even-handed account of both sides’ actions. He found much fault with the parliamentarians who had engaged in their own rebellion against the king, but who condemned the Confederates for their behavior. Anglesey obtained the work and was infuriated over several of Castlehaven’s passages. He responded with a critique that defended the English and Protestants, specifically the parliamentarians, but also questioned the actions of Ormond who signed a

1Douglas Greene, “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey: 1614-1686” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972), 183, 187; DNB, “Annesley,” 475. The house of lords’ journal and private letters state that Anglesey voted for exclusion.

206 cessation and two peace treaties with the Confederate rebels. Anglesey implied that those documents harmed the Protestants far more than any other event during the wars and believed the duke signed them because of his Catholic relations who served with the Confederates. He also questioned the duke’s financial gains after the Restoration, implying that Ormond later turned away from the Irish Catholics during the land settlement. Obviously, these remarks would deeply anger Ormond and they also upset the king who felt Anglesey’s arguments cast slurs not just on the duke, but on him and his father, Charles I. Anglesey’s letter was published, and though he denied responsibility most believed he had arranged for it, and the affair became public. Due to the already tense, hostile atmosphere of the Popish Plot, this matter became extremely explosive. Old issues and divisions between parliamentarians and royalists, which had never died down completely, were once again raised in a very public fashion. One of Ormond’s responses to the earl was also published, which incensed Anglesey. Eventually, in June 1682 the duke would bring the argument to the king and privy council. The end result was that by August Anglesey’s work was declared a scandalous libel and he was removed from his office as lord privy seal. The earl was heartbroken over what he felt was betrayal on the part of Ormond, the lords, and the king. He contended the entire time that he was merely defending the Protestant, English interest in Ireland and that he had papers to prove Ormond’s actions. Apparently no one on the privy council agreed with him, as they ruled for Ormond. As 1682 passed by, Anglesey grew more and more bitter, lamenting his tragedy as well as his growing debt. The final years of his career and life would see him growing closer to Monmouth and the dissenters and more estranged from the king. After Anglesey’s open opposition to Charles and James, especially combined with his protestations against the dissolution of the various parliaments, he began walking down a dangerous path. Charles never forgave a slight, though he might have been willing to let Anglesey keep his position if the earl proved submissive; however, Anglesey brought about his own downfall when he chose to respond to the earl of Castlehaven’s work. It is wrong to blame Charles or portray him as some sort of mastermind behind Anglesey’s dismissal; it was the earl’s actions that led to the king’s decision. In Anglesey’s response to Castlehaven he cast slurs on Ormond as well as

207 Charles I. The ensuing paper war with Ormond was completely Anglesey’s doing. He alone made the decision to write his “truth,” knowing that it would upset many. Though the earl feigned surprise at Ormond and others’ anger, he could hardly have been that naïve. Nor was the dismissal due to Anglesey’s State of the Government and Kingdom, which the DNB mistakenly lists as the main motive. That work did not appear in print until 1694. Thus, for all his posturing and bemoaning how he had been betrayed by his king, Anglesey really had no one but himself to blame.2 Anglesey spent his last four years attempting to gain financial compensation for his great amount of debt. He contended that the treasury office had not settled his accounts and he was owed moneys. Anglesey pushed hard throughout 1682 and 1684, but to no avail. He begged the king to assist, but Charles only made the same false promises he always did when he abandoned a minister. This disappointment, along with Anglesey’s lingering bitterness over his dismissal, probably contributed to his decision to retire from court. He also immersed himself in scholarship, particularly works on religion. Anglesey had decided to retire to his country estate of Blechingdon in Oxfordshire so that he could at last find peace. Though at first he spent a great amount of time with Monmouth and other nonconformist sympathizers, this too declined. His research and writings became all consuming, especially during 1682 and 1683. Though not all of his works were published and others did not appear until after his death, they provide details regarding Anglesey’s beliefs on government and religion. We find that his extreme dislike of Catholicism had not lessened, while at the same time he urged limited toleration of nonconformity. With no diary entries after September 1684 and little other written evidence, there is little to report regarding Anglesey’s activities throughout 1685 and early 1686. One can assume that he concentrated on his spirituality, as this had always been an important part of his life and he always kept a nonconformist minister as his personal chaplain. At the age of seventy-one, Anglesey died on 26 April 1686. His passing did not cause a disruption to British politics, for by this time he had been out of power for several years. One can be sure that James did not lament his dying, as the king had already

2DNB, “Annesley,” 475; Greene, 196; Ronald Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 418. Greene and Hutton both imply that Charles planned Anglesey’s downfall after the exclusion vote occurred.

208 closed Anglesey out of his affections. Regardless, there is something rather sad about the last years of this once proud, energetic man who had loved not just the power of his offices, but the responsibility that came along with them for the people of Britain. He never believed he had betrayed the king or his fellow ministers, but thought he had always served with loyalty and honor. Whether or not his contemporaries all concurred with this assessment is doubtful, though the earl did have his supporters. His death marked another loss from that generation which had fought the civil wars, often on opposing sides, and survived them to achieve success and power during the Restoration. Throughout his career, Anglesey was truly a political realist very cautious about making hard decisions, preferring to tread a moderate path, one which Ormond and other officials followed during these tumultuous times. The one tendency that endangered that path was his sympathy for dissent, though he never went to any real extremes even with this personal belief. Indeed, Anglesey was one to push for “comprehension” rather than toleration. He allowed his daughter to marry into the MacDonnell family, a powerful Irish Catholic clan who possessed great influence with the dowager queen. Thus, Anglesey could accommodate his religious beliefs if the price was right. This is not meant as a condemnation, nor should we judge him too harshly. Survival meant compromise whether over political, religious, or personal issues and above all else the earl of Anglesey was a survivor. He emerged through the Irish rebellion and wars with his lands intact. He rose to such eminence during the Commonwealth and Protectorate that by the late 1650s he was in the position, as president of the council of state, to play a major role in government. Anglesey compromised when he had to, for example when he realized that the army’s power was going to supercede parliament, and when the latter lacked a house of lords, something that bothered a man who believed in England’s ancient constitution. He made contact with royalists after deciding that only through the Stuarts could the constitution be restored, along with the house of lords. Charles saw something in the man besides this temporizing and gave him large responsibilities at the Restoration. To call him a realist in that age meant that he was ambitious for his family. What greater motivation could there be? When you combine a desire to serve one’s state and further one’s family, you normally see hard working individuals who have a personal

209 stake in government. Of course, the downside can be if someone placed personal goals before the good of the country. With Anglesey this was never the case, with perhaps the one exception being his pamphlet war with Ormond. In the earl’s mind he was merely offering the truth to the people and defending the Protestants. Thus, for most of his life Anglesey sought those two goals, advancement for himself and for the Anglo-Irish interest. Survival and compromise, those words best describe the earl of Anglesey’s life and career; however, we must make sure to add important and significant. He helped steer Anglo-Irish politics through turbulent times like the Restoration, two Dutch wars, various plots and threats of rebellion, the Exclusion Crisis, and growing tensions between Court/Country factions and the king. Anglesey may not be considered a “great man,” but he deserves our recognition as an exemplary man who strove to do his best for England and Ireland. It is through studies of these second-tier politicians that we can gain further in-depth knowledge about Restoration Britain and Anglo-Irish relations. We have left these men in the shadows for far too long, now it is their time to emerge onto history’s center stage.

210

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscripts

Bodleian Library

Carte MS 16, 17, 39, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 217.

Clarendon MS 70, 72, 79, 80, 81, 84.

Tanner MS 58, 60.

British Library

Add MSS 25,277 (Glamorgan Treaty, 1645).

Sloane MS 1008 (Correspondence of Edmund Borlase).

Stowe MS 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 (Correspondence of Sir Arthur Capel, earl of Essex).

Stowe MS 744, 745 (Correspondence of Sir Edward Dering).

Landsdowne MS 821, 823.

MS 4769 (Letterbook of the Irish committee of parliament).

MS 4816 (Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey’s notes for a general history of Ireland).

MS 18730 (Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey).

MS 480860 (Diary of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey).

National Library of Ireland, Dublin

Carte MS 38, 40, 50.

MS 11968 (Essays in Defense of Ormond).

211 Public Record Office, Kew Gardens

C/108/188, 189; 108/226.

SP 29 (State Papers, Charles II), 88/84; 174/81; 207/113; 211/123, 125; 216/19, 66, 128; 220/17, 81; 221/76, 101; 490/32; 510/13, 48, 74, 155; 513/6, 23.

SP 44 (Entry Books), 18; 26; 34.

Printed Primary Sources

Ambitious Tyranny Clearly Demonstrated in Englands Unhappy and Confused Government. [London?]: n.p., 1659.

Annesley, Arthur, earl of Anglesey. The Earl of Anglesey’s State of the Government and Kingdom: Prepared and intended for His Majesty, King Charles II. In the Year 1682, but the Storm Impending With a short VINDICATION of His Lordship from several Aspersions cast upon Him, in a pretended LETTER that carries the Title of His MEMOIRS. London: Samuel Crouch, 1694.

______. England’s Confusion. London: n.p., 1659.

______. The King’s Right of Indulgence In Spiritual Matters, with The Equity thereof, Asserted. London: Randall Taylor, 1688.

______. A Letter from a Person of Honour in the Countrey. London: Nathaniel Ponder, 1681.

______. A Letter of Remarkes Upon Jovian. London: H. Jones, 1683.

______. The Privileges Of The House of Lords and Commons Argued and Stated, In Two Conferences Between Both Houses. April 19, and 22, 1671. To which is added a Discourse, wherein the Rights of the House of Lords are truly Asserted. With Lettered Remarks on the seeming Arguments and pretended Precedents, offered at that time against their Lordships. London: J. Nutt, 1702.

Baxter, Richard. Reliquiae Baxterianae. Vol. 2. London: T. Parkhurst, J. Robinson, F. Lawrence, and F. Dunton, 1696.

Birch, Thomas, ed. A collection of the state papers of John Thurloe. Containing authentic memorials of the English affairs from the year 1638, to the restoration of King Charles II. Vol. 6. London: Fletcher Gyles, Thomas Woodward, and Charles Davis, 1742.

212 Borlase, Edmund. Brief Reflections On The Earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs Of his Engagement and Carriage In the Wars of Ireland: By which, the Government at that time, and the Justice of the Crown since, are Vindicated from Aspersions cast on Both. London: George West, 1682.

Burnet, Gilbert. Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Time. London: William Smith, 1838.

Burton, Thomas. Diary of Thomas Burton, esq., Member in the Parliaments of Oliver and Richard Cromwell from 1656 to 1659. Vol. 4. Edited by John Rutt. London: 1828.

By His Majesties Commissioners Appointed for Putting in Execution an Act of Parliament, Intitled An Act for the Better Execution of His Majesties Gracious Declaration for the Settlement of His Kingdome of Ireland, and Satisfaction of the Several Interests of Adventurers, Souldiers, and Other His Subjects There. Dublin: John Crook, 1662.

Capel, Sir Arthur, earl of Essex. Essex Papers. Vol. 1. Edited by Osmund Airy. New York: Camden Society, 1965.

Carte, Thomas. Calendar of the Carte Papers. London: M.Cooper, 1744.

______. The Life of James Duke of Ormond; Containing an Account of the Most Remarkable Affairs of His Time, and Particularly of Ireland Under His Government. 2nd ed. 6 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1851.

A Declaration of Several Officers of the Army in Ireland, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Under Their Commands, Holding Forth Their Stedfast Resolutions to Adhere to the Parliament in Defence of Its Privilges; and the Just Rights and Libertyes of the People of These Nations as Men and Christians. Dublin: n.p., 1659-1660.

Firth, C.H, ed. Clarke Papers. Oxford: Camden Society, 1894

______, ed. The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow. Vol. 2. Oxford: 1894.

______, and R.S. Rait, eds. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum. London: HMSO, 1911.

Hickes, George. Jovian, or, An answer to Julian the Apostate. London: Samuel Roycroft, 1683.

Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1. Reports 1-2. London: HMSO, 1905.

______, 6. Appendix, House of Lords MSS. London: HMSO, 1900.

213 ______, 6. Report 7. London: HMSO, 1905.

______, 12. Appendix. Vol. 2. London: HMSO, 1904.

______, 78. Hastings. Vol. 2. London: HMSO, 1902.

______, n.s., 36. Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde, K.P. Vol. 3- 6. London: HMSO, 1904.

______. Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. 1. London: HMSO, 1905.

______. Series 5. Report 6. London: HMSO, 1905.

Hyde, Edward, earl of Clarendon. Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers Preserved in the Bodleian Library. Vol. 2-3: 1649-1657. Edited by Reverand W. Dun Macray. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869-1970.

______. Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers Preserved in the Bodleian Library. Vol. 5: 1660-1726. Edited by F.J. Routledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869-1970.

______. The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England. Vol. 1. Oxford: n.p., 1829.

______. Selections from the Correspondence of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, 1675- 1677. Edited by Clement Edwards Pike. London: Camden Society, 1913.

Ireland’s Fidelity to the Parliament of England, in Answer to a Paper, Entitled The Petition of the Officers and Soldiers of Duncannon. London: n.p., 1660.

The Irish Cabinet: or His Majesties Secret Papers for Establishing the Papall Clergy in Ireland. London: Edward Husband, 1645.

Journals of the House of Commons. 55 vols. London: HMSO, 1803.

Journals of the House of Lords. 183 vols. London: HMSO, 1800-1891.

Memoirs of the Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesey, Late Lord Privy Seal. Intermixt, With Moral, Political and Historical Observations, by way of Discourse in a Letter. To which is prefixt a Letter Written by his Lordship during his Retirement from court in the Year 1683. London: John Dunton, 1693.

Meyer, Joseph, ed. “Inedited Letters of Cromwell, Col. Jones, Bradshaw and Other Regicides.” Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, n.s., 1. London: Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1860.

214 Nicholas, Sir Edward. The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State. Vol. 4. Edited by Sir George F. Warner. London: Camden Society, 1920.

Pett, Sir Peter. The Happy Future State of England. London: n.p., 1688.

A Proclamation for Due Execution of the Late Act of Parliament Against Importing Cattle from Ireland, and Other Parts Beyond the Seas. London: John Bill and Christopher Barker, 1667.

Public Record Office. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1625-1649. 23 vols. London: HMSO, 1858-1897.

______. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649-1660. 13 vols. London: HMSO, 1875-1886.

______. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1660–1685. 28 vols. London: HMSO, 1860-1947.

______. Calendar of State Papers Relating to Ireland, 1625–1660. 3 vols. London: HMSO, 1900-1903.

______. Calendar of State Papers Relating to Ireland, 1660–1669. 3 vols. London: HMSO, 1905-1908.

Reid, J.S. History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Belfast: William Mullan, 1867.

Thompson, Samuel. Julian the Apostate being a short account of his life, the sense of the primitive Christians about his succession and their behaviour towards him: together with a comparison of popery and paganism. London: Langley Curtis, 1682.

Touchet, James, earl of Castlehaven. The Earl of Castlehaven’s Review: Or His Memoirs Of His Engagement and Carriage In The Irish Wars. London: Charles Brown, 1684.

A True Account of the whole Proceedings Betwixt his Grace James Duke of Ormond, And the Right Honor. Arthur Earl of Anglesey Late Lord Privy-Seal, Before the King and Council, and the said Earls Letter of the second of August to His Majesty on that Occasion. London: Thomas Fox, 1682.

Williams, Oliver, ed. Mercurius Politicus. London: n.p., 22-29 December 1659.

215 Secondary Sources

Adamson, John. “Strafford’s Ghost: The British Context of Viscount Lisle’s Lieutenancy of Ireland.” In Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, edited by Jane Ohlmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Ashton, Robert. Counter Revolution: The Second Civil War and its Origins, 1646-8. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994.

______. The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution, 1603-1649. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1978.

Bagwell, Richard. Ireland Under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum. Vol. 2, 1642- 1660. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909.

______. Ireland Under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum. Vol. 3, 1660-1690. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1916.

Barnard, T.C. “The Protestant Interest, 1641-1660.” In Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, edited by Jane Ohlmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Beckett, J.C. The Cavalier Duke: A Life of James Butler-1st Duke of Ormond, 1610-1688. Belfast: Pretani Press, 1990.

______. “The Irish Viceroyalty in the Restoration Period.” In Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 20. 1970.

Bradshaw, Brendan. British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533- 1707. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Canny, Nicholas. “What Really Happened in 1641.” In Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, edited by Jane Ohlmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Clarke, Aidan. Prelude to Restoration in Ireland: The End of the Commonwealth, 1659- 1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Cokayne, George E. “Clancarty, Donough.” Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, edited by H.A. Doubleday. London: St. Catherine’s Press, 1910-1959.

Corish, Patrick J. “Ormond, Rinuccini, and the Confederates, 1645-9.” In A New History of Ireland, Vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), edited by Moody, Martin, and Byrne. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.

216 ______. “The Rising of 1641 and the Catholic Confederacy, 1641-5.” In A New History of Ireland, Vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), edited by T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin, and F.J. Byrne. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.

Foster, R.F. Modern Ireland: 1600-1672. London: Penguin Press, 1988.

Gardner, Winifred, lady Burghclere. The Life of James First Duke of Ormonde. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1912.

Goldie, Mark. “Danby, the Bishops and the Whigs,” In The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, edited by Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Greaves, Richard L. Deliver Us From Evil: The Radical Underground in Britain, 1660- 1663. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

______. Enemies Under His Feet: Radicals and Nonconformists in Britain, 1664-1677. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.

______. Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

______. God’s Other Children: Protestant Nonconformists and the Emergence of Denominational Churches in Ireland, 1660-1700. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.

______. John Bunyan And English Nonconformity. London: Hambledon Press, 1992.

______. Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688-89. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992.

______. “‘That’s no good religion that disturbs government:’ The Church of Ireland and the Nonconformist Challenge, 1660-88.” In As by Law Established: The Church of Ireland Since the Reformation, edited by Alan Ford, James McGuire, And Kenneth Milne. Dublin: Lilliput Press, 1995.

Greene, Douglas. “Arthur Annesley, First Earl of Anglesey.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972.

Harris, Tim. “Introduction: Revising the Restoration.” In The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, edited by Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

______. Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society, 1660- 1715. London: Longman Group, 1993.

217 Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1631-1714. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1961.

Hirst, Derek. Authority and Conflict: England 1603-1658. London: Edward Arnold, 1986.

Hughes, Ann. The Causes of the English Civil War. London: Macmillan Press, 1991.

Hutton, Ronald. Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

______. The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658-1667. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Kenyon, J.P. The Popish Plot. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972.

______. Stuart England. New York: Penguin Books, 1978.

Knights, Mark. Politics and Opinion in Crisis: 1678-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Lacey, Douglas R. Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England: 1661-1689. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969.

Lee Jr., Maurice. The Cabal. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1965.

Loeber, Rolf, and Geoffrey Parker. “The Military Revolution In Seventeenth-Century Ireland,” In Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, edited by Jane Ohlmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Lynch, Kathleen M. Roger Boyle, First Earl of Orrery. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1965.

MacCurtain, Margaret. Tudor and Stuart Ireland. Dublin: Gill and MacMillan, 1972.

Marshall, Alan. The Age of Faction: Court Politics, 1660-1702. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999.

McGuire, James. “Policy and Patronage: The Appointment of Bishops, 1660-61.” In As by Law Established: The Church of Ireland Since the Reformation, edited by Alan Ford, James McGuire, and Kenneth Milne. Dublin: Lilliput Press, 1995.

Ohlmeyer, Jane. Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: The Career of Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim, 1609-1683. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

218 ______. “Introduction: A Failed Revolution.” In Ireland From Independence to Occupation: 1641-1660, edited by Jane Ohlmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Peck, Linda Levy. Court Patronage And Corruption In Early Stuart England. Boston: Unwin Hyman Inc., 1990.

Russell, Conrad. The Causes of the English Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

______. The Fall of the British Monarchies, 1637-1642. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Scott, Jonathan. “England’s Troubles: Exhuming the Popish Plot,” In The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, edited by Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

______. England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-century English Political Instability in European Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Seaward, Paul. The Cavalier Parliament and the Reconstruction of the Old Regime, 1661-1667. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Simms, J.G. “The Restoration, 1660-1685.” In A New History of Ireland, Vol. 3, Early Modern Ireland (1534-1691), edited by Moody, Martin, and Byrne. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.

Smith, George. “Annesley, Arthur.” Dictionary of National Biography, edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London: Geoffrey Cumberlege; reprint, London: Oxford University Press, 1917.

______. “Butler, James.” Dictionary of National Biography, edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London: Geoffrey Cumberlege; reprint, London: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Stone, Lawrence. The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529-1642. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

Swatland, Andrew. The House of Lords in the Reign of Charles II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Underdown, David. Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Worden, Blair. The Rump Parliament: 1648-1653. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

219

Zagorin, Perez. The Court and the Country: The Beginning of the English Revolution. New York: Atheneum, 1971.

220

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Rebecca Kathern Hayes-Steuck was born in Jacksonville, Florida on 29 September 1976. She graduated with high honors from the University of Florida in May 1998. While at the University of Florida, Rebecca was president of Phi Alpha Theta, the History Honor Society, and a member of other honorary societies, including Phi Kappa Phi and Golden Key. In August 1998, she entered the graduate program at Florida State University to pursue a Master’s degree in History under the direction of Dr. Richard L. Greaves, Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of History. At Florida State, she received several graduate and teaching assistantships, winning the Thomas Campbell teaching award in 1999. Rebecca was president of Phi Alpha Theta between 1999-2001. She has presented papers at the Southern Conference on British Studies as well as several Phi Alpha Theta Regional and National Conferences. After completing the Master’s degree in summer 2000 Rebecca began her Ph.D. studies under Dr. Greaves, passing her doctoral exams in fall 2002. She taught in London for the Florida State International Program in spring 2002. Rebecca accepted a tenure track position at Mississippi College, located in Clinton, Mississippi, in fall 2003. There she serves as adviser for Phi Alpha Theta and as a faculty leader for Freshmen Experience. She currently teaches a variety of graduate, upper and lower level courses, including ones on Britain, the Middle East, the Renaissance/Reformation, and the Ancient World. Future plans include publishing her dissertation and presenting at the Southern Conference on British Studies in fall 2006.

221