Talbot was born into one of the oldest Catholic noble families in England. Something of an enigma, in the course of his varied political career he converted to Protestantism, progressed from association with the trimmer, George Savile, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax, to collaboration with the nascent Junto and, during the 1690s, became the darling of the Whig party.
Throughout his life Shrewsbury was assailed by atrocious health. It cost him one of his eyes and he was frequently left prostrated by fits of spitting blood. He was no less impeded by moments of panic bordering on paranoia. Despite this, he was conscious of his rank and eager to remain at the centre of affairs, a crucial figure at court and in Parliament and one of the few men able to inspire the trust and affection of all sides.
Early career to 1688
Talbot succeeded to the earldom when only eight years old following his father’s death from wounds sustained in a duel with George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. The bout had been provoked by Buckingham’s affair with Lady Shrewsbury and although the surgeons declared the earl’s death to have been from consumption few were in any doubt of the true reason.
At the age of 14 Shrewsbury was granted leave to reside abroad in France for up to seven years for his education. He arrived in Paris in June 1674, but two years later he was ordered back by his uncle, Sir John Talbot, to take part in marriage negotiations with James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, for a match with Northampton’s daughter, Lady Alathea. Efforts to secure a match for the young peer had been made three years previously but come to nothing.
In May 1677 Shrewsbury was noted by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, in his analysis of the peerage as an underage papist. The following spring Shrewsbury joined the army in Flanders as a volunteer, at the particular urging of James, duke of York, but soldiering seems not to have appealed to the young peer.
it was a great satisfaction to me to be anyways instrumental in the gaining of your lordship to our religion… but yet I am… more concerned that your lordship should continue a virtuous and good man than become a Protestant… I believe your lordship to have great command and conduct of yourself but am very sensible of human frailty and of the dangerous temptations to which youth is exposed in this dissolute age.Add. 32084, f. 8; Bodl. Rawl. letters 108, ff. 248-9.
Shrewsbury received his first significant office in December 1679 with his appointment to the lord lieutenancy of Staffordshire. Shortly after, he suffered the first of a string of debilitating illnesses, which resulted in the loss of one of his eyes. Despite this handicap, in June he joined a number of other young nobles in volunteering to join the expedition to Tangier mounted by John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham).
In spite of his very public conversion the previous year, in October 1680 Shrewsbury was indicted by the London sessions as a papist, though he was able to satisfy the court of his change of religion.
In 1684 he was granted leave from his responsibilities at court so that he could resume his abortive military career by joining with his brother, Jack Talbot, and a number of other peers and gentlemen as volunteers in the French army campaigning against the forces of Spain and the prince of Orange in Flanders.
In January 1686 Shrewsbury was summoned as one of the triers of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington).
Noted an opponent of repeal of the Test in January 1687, Shrewsbury resigned his commission as colonel of a cavalry regiment the same month, having refused to be browbeaten into supporting the king’s policies by closeting.
Shrewsbury was listed again as a likely opponent of repeal of the Test in forecasts of November 1687 and January 1688. He was also included in a list of opposition peers compiled by Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later successively marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds). Shrewsbury was one of a number of peers to receive threatening letters in February in connection with their refusal to acquiesce in the king’s policies.
Shrewsbury and the prince had developed a close friendship since Shrewsbury’s visit the previous year. He seems to have been equally a favourite of Princess Mary.
Shrewsbury proved to be a central figure among the expatriates gathered around William of Orange in the autumn of 1688. When the invasion fleet was at last launched at the beginning of November, Shrewsbury was one of those to accompany the force.
Shrewsbury’s central position encouraged his kinsman, Charles Middleton‡, 2nd earl of Middleton [S], to contact him to seek his mediation with the prince. Middleton was at pains to point out how little he had approved of James’s policies and sought to know whether he would be allowed to ‘live safely and quietly’ under the new regime.
Secretary of State 1689-90
Shrewsbury took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689. In all he was present on 72 per cent of sitting days in the session. The following day he was named to the standing committees. He was also one of those appointed to enquire into the circumstances of the death of Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, and to consider the best methods of preventing papists from remaining in London. Over the course of the session Shrewsbury was named to a further 13 committees. His importance as a conduit between William and Parliament became apparent during the negotiations over the Revolution settlement, in which William made it quite apparent that he would not accept a solution in which Mary reigned as queen with him as mere consort. On 31 Jan. Shrewsbury voted in favour of inserting the clause declaring William and Mary king and queen in a division held in a committee of the whole. On 3 Feb. he was one of a number of peers to be informed in no uncertain terms by William that he would accept nothing less than the throne.
Shrewsbury’s role as conduit between king and Parliament was made apparent again on 15 Feb. when he communicated the king’s order for the House to adjourn to the following Monday and once more on 25 Mar. when he delivered a further message from the king relating to the general pardon.
Given Shrewsbury’s friendship with William and the newly created Portland it is perhaps surprising that he was not more particularly noticed by Gilbert Burnet, later bishop of Salisbury, in a list Burnet compiled at some point early in 1689 of people he thought likely to take office in the new regime. Burnet seems to have thought Shrewsbury a viable candidate for a place in the bedchamber and possibly for the lord presidency of Wales, but more significant posts were to be allocated elsewhere.
Besides his duties as secretary, Shrewsbury proved to be an active member of the House in the sessions following on from the Revolution. On 12 May 1689 he received Marlborough’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session, and on 22 May that of Monmouth, which was vacated on 25 June. The same day he was named to the committee for the Droitwich saltworks bill, in which he had a personal interest as a local landholder. On 21 June he was ordered to move the king for letters intercepted from Ireland to be sent to the House and the following month, on 26 July, Shrewsbury and Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham were ordered in similar fashion to seek the king’s permission for the admiralty books to be made available to the committee considering the miscarriage of affairs in Ireland. Three days later they were also asked to address the king for the council minutes relating to Ireland to be sent to the same committee. Shrewsbury subscribed the protest of 30 July at the resolution that the Lords should adhere to their amendments concerning the reversal of Oates’s conviction for perjury. On 20 Sept. he acted once more as liaison between the House and the king, communicating the king’s order for the House to adjourn to the following month.
Shrewsbury’s increased responsibilities weighed heavily on him, not assisted, no doubt, by the king’s criticism of some of the personnel in his department.
my indispositions of late have been so frequent, and I have the comfortless prospect of so very ill health, for the future, that I am very sensible how incapable I am, to supply a place, where diligence and industry are absolutely requisite.Shrewsbury Corresp. 6.
William was unable to hide his irritation at Shrewsbury’s apparent malingering:
I cannot conceal my surprise at the contents of your letter, which I received yesterday: as I did not imagine that you would propose to quit your post, at this particular time, which would prove very prejudicial to my service.Shrewsbury Corresp. 9.
For the time being, Shrewsbury was persuaded to continue in post. He survived the embarrassment of having one of the under-secretaries, Dr Owen Wynne, one of those previously pointed out by the king as unsuitable, removed for engaging in treasonable correspondence with the exiled court. In October he joined the king at Newmarket and the same month he gave one of the odder orders of his career, when he granted permission for a petitioner to have his elk’s head restored to him.
Shrewsbury took his seat in the second session on 23 Oct. 1689, after which he was present on almost 84 per cent of all sitting days and was named to six committees. After his complaints of the summer he provoked comment by dancing at the king’s birthday celebration on 5 November. Cary Gardiner wondered at the propriety of a secretary of state indulging in such things.
By the close of the year, Shrewsbury had lost his faith in the benefits of a mixed administration and he joined Wharton in recommending that the king place his trust in the Whigs. He conceived that William would be better served working with them ‘than with the Tories, who many of them, questionless, would bring in King James, and the very best of them, I doubt, have a regency still in their heads’. Although the king capitulated to Shrewsbury’s plea for a short Christmas adjournment, Shrewsbury and his Whig associates remained unconvinced that they had won William over to their side and continued to warn in stark terms of the dangers of trusting the churchmen. Further disagreements soon followed and when Sir Richard Haddock‡ was appointed to the admiralty in January 1690, Shrewsbury refused to sign the warrant.
Reports of the king’s imminent departure from England led to rumours in February of those likely to be named commissioners in his absence. Unsurprisingly, Shrewsbury was among them.
Out of office, 1690-4
The heated atmosphere in the Lords during the first session caused Shrewsbury considerable unease and may have precipitated the beginnings of another lengthy bout of poor health. At the close of the month, sick and disgruntled at the failure of the abjuration bill, he tried to resign. The names of likely successors were bandied about in the newsletters but in the event the king refused to accept the seals.
Shrewsbury’s resignation was the culmination of almost a year of poor health and nagging worries about his aptitude for office, though perhaps more important was his frustration at the king’s increasing reliance on Carmarthen and Nottingham.
Shrewsbury took his seat in the new session on 2 Oct. 1690. He was thereafter present on 74 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to 18 committees. A day into the session he received the proxy of Philip Sydney, 3rd earl of Leicester, which was vacated by the close. On 6 Oct. he voted against the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower. On 27 Dec. he registered his dissent at the resolution to allow written protections to be granted to menial servants. By the end of the year reports abounded of the formation of a new ministry comprising Monmouth and Shrewsbury, with Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, as lord treasurer. Others thought Nottingham would be put out to make way for Shrewsbury and Montagu.
It seems likely that it was at about this time that Shrewsbury made contact with the exiled court, probably through the medium of Richard Grahme‡, Viscount Preston [S], William Penn and his kinsman, Middleton. This was certainly the purport of the information provided by Preston later in the year.
Shrewsbury attended the prorogation days of 31 Mar. and 28 Apr. 1691 but he was absent from the opening of the ensuing session and on 2 Nov. he was noted as missing at a call of the House. He took his seat just over a fortnight into the session on 6 Nov., after which he was present on three quarters of all sitting days. On 17 Nov. he was nominated one of the reporters of a conference concerning the kingdom’s safety and on 1 Dec. he was appointed a reporter of the conference for the oaths in Ireland bill. That month the House took into consideration the information obtained from Preston and William Fuller, which named Shrewsbury among about 40 senior figures who were said to have signed a paper seeking the French king’s intervention in England.
Although Shrewsbury had emerged relatively unscathed from the investigations of the previous year, in June he was struck off the Privy Council in a sign of his continuing difficult relationship with the court.
Shrewsbury took his seat in the new session on 7 Nov. 1692. Thereafter he was present on 68 per cent of all sitting days and named to 24 committees. The following day he received Leicester’s proxy again, which was vacated by the close of the session. On 7 Dec. he subscribed the protest at the failure to hold a joint conference with the Commons on the state of the nation and on 20 Dec. he was nominated one of the managers of a conference concerning the papers brought in by Nottingham as secretary of state. The following day he was once more named a reporter of the conference concerning naval affairs. Torrington registered his proxy with Shrewsbury on 16 Jan. 1693, which was vacated by the close.
At the heart of Shrewsbury’s political agenda by the opening of 1693 was the establishment of a bill to ensure the regular meeting of Parliament. On 12 Jan. he introduced the triennial bill, which was debated in a committee of the whole chaired by Bishop Burnet on 18 January.
Rumours that Shrewsbury had at last married again circulated in the early months of 1693 but the putative match with ‘the great fortune Mrs Thomas’, granddaughter of Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, failed to transpire.
Shrewsbury attended four prorogation days between 2 May and 26 Oct. 1693. He returned to the House for the new session on 7 Nov. after which he was present on 57 per cent of all sitting days and named to nine committees. On 14 Nov. his name was missing from the attendance list but he was not marked absent at a call of the House, so presumably took his seat later in the day. Having attended just four days, Shrewsbury appears to have retreated to the country for almost three weeks before resuming his place on 18 December.
Discontent with his current ministry caused William to turn once more to Shrewsbury and attempt to persuade him to resume office. Shrewsbury now declined, however, to succeed Nottingham as secretary of state without assurances that the king would reverse his opposition to the triennial bill. Not thinking it ‘fit to purchase any one’s friendship and service so dear as at the expense of passing that bill’, the king refused.
I am sensible it is a great misfortune to receive commands from a prince one would willingly serve, and at the same time find something in one’s self that makes it impossible to obey him… I doubt whether I am skilful enough to agree, even with those of whose party I am reckoned in several notions they now seem to have of things.Shrewsbury Corresp. 25.
Shrewsbury was added to the list of managers of a conference examining the proceedings in council concerning the admirals on 15 Jan. 1694 and the same day he was appointed one of the managers of a conference investigating the previous summer’s campaign at sea. He was also named to the committee established to prepare heads for a conference concerning the sailing of the Brest fleet and was nominated a manager of the subsequent conferences on 8 and 12 February. On 29 Mar. he was named a manager of the conference for the mutiny bill. Rumours that he did so only after having secured the exiled king’s permission and that he intended to use the place to further the Jacobite cause seem highly implausible.
By then, the mistresses’ steady campaign to bring about Shrewsbury’s return to government combined with the king’s eventual capitulation on the question of the triennial bill had already resulted in Shrewsbury once more taking up the seals, the warrant for it dated 8 March.
Secretary of State again, 1694-6
Shrewsbury quickly made use of his renewed place of trust to advise the king against admitting Normanby (as Mulgrave had become) to council meetings. In justifying his opinion he argued that ‘I must own, that if there be any body you suspect would betray you or your counsels, it is much better disobliging that person, than entrusting him with things of a less nice nature, than such as may come before a cabinet council’.
Aside from worrying about unreliable colleagues, Shrewsbury’s attention was taken up by more pressing problems that summer. He had anticipated the failure of the Brest expedition. He was in contact with Portland in July about conditions in Ireland. The same month he was ordered to investigate an outbreak of rioting in Northamptonshire and the suspected involvement in fomenting the disorders of Monmouth, who was said to have ‘made his peace at St Germains’.
In spite of his earlier misgivings about the king’s employment of the Tories, in the autumn of 1694 Shrewsbury was engaged in negotiations with Robert Harley and a Mr Foley (probably Paul Foley‡) as part of his effort to widen the base of the administration. The talks proved unsuccessful. The same period found Shrewsbury needing to rebuild his bridges with Henry Capell, Baron Capell of Tewkesbury, one of the lord justices in Ireland, who believed that Shrewsbury had criticized his handling of his office. Shrewsbury insisted ‘since the time of my coming into the king’s service, in every word I have spoke or writ upon the subject of Ireland, I have not failed to commend your lordship’s carriage in that country’.
Shrewsbury took his seat in the House on 12 Nov. 1694, introduced in his new dignity between Charles Lennox, duke of Richmond, and Meinhard Schomberg, 3rd duke of Schomberg. He was subsequently present on almost 41 per cent of all sitting days in the session and was nominated to eight committees. On 24 Nov. he received Carbery’s proxy, which was vacated by the close, but Shrewsbury was already suffering from a renewed bout of ill health. Two days before receiving the proxy it was noted that he wished to retire into the country and by the middle of December the cause of his sickness was a general topic of speculation. In January 1695 he retreated to Windsor, where he was advised by his physicians to ‘forbear all studious business’. Shrewsbury’s under-secretary, James Vernon‡, reported that his illness had ‘occasioned a weakness in his sight, which must needs be very mortifying considering how he lost his other eye.’
Shrewsbury rallied to resume his place on 11 March. On 13 Apr. he was nominated one of the reporters of a conference concerning papers requested by the Lords referring to Sir Thomas Cooke‡ and on 22 Apr. he was one of the dozen peers and 24 Members of the Commons selected by ballot to examine Cooke. On 3 May, following a joint conference with the Commons over the impeachment of the duke of Leeds (formerly Carmarthen), in which Shrewsbury had acted as one of the managers, Shrewsbury proposed that the trial should be suspended. The House accordingly resolved to suspend proceedings and that Leeds should stand impeached until the next sessions.
Shrewsbury was constituted one of the lords justices during the king’s absence over the summer, though he spent at least some of the time predictably enough sick and out of town.
the interest in the city being much broke by the imprudence of this present mayor, and some of the aldermen, and by the heat of many of the common council, in a dispute they have had depending 2 or 3 years, about permitting sheriffs nominated to fine off; it is extremely for your majesty’s interest, that a person should succeed the present mayor, upon whose loyalty you may depend, & whose prudence and credit would be able to reconcile those animosities.Shrewsbury Corresp. 96-7.
As a member of the admiralty board, it was necessary to secure Houblon leave from its deliberations during his tenure as mayor, leave that the king was willing to grant to secure the peace of London.
Shrewsbury remained concerned by the king’s apparent unwillingness to quit the continent and the impression it gave that he was uncommitted to the new Parliament, writing again to him in mid-August that
It has been very industriously spread about, that a new Parliament is not intended; by which your majesty’s friends are discouraged from making their interest in the several places they have pretensions to be chose in; whilst others, worse affected, as warm as ever solicit their elections. This is an evil difficult for your majesty’s servants to prevent, unless you would be pleased so far to explain your thoughts, that we might be enabled to give assurances to those that doubt.Shrewsbury Corresp. 101.
The pressure on the king succeeded and Parliament was dissolved on 11 October. Shrewsbury was active in employing both his own and the crown interest in the ensuing elections. He was appealed to by Somers, to use his influence at Middlesex.
Prior to the opening of Parliament Shrewsbury was said to have circulated premature reports of James II’s death in exile, though these were hastily contradicted.
By the close of April 1696, Shrewsbury was worn out by his exertions and on 27 Apr. he made his last appearance in the House for almost 10 years. Concerns over his health appear to have led to inaccurate reports of his appointment to the less onerous position of lord president in May. It was thought he would be replaced as secretary by Ford Grey, earl of Tankerville.
a great honour, but what I shall neither ambition nor decline, but am willing to serve your majesty where you think I may be most useful. If I were to follow my own inclination, it would never lead me to business; but whilst I continue in it, I will submit myself to be disposed of as your majesty shall think most for your service.Shrewsbury Corresp. 113-14.
The Fenwick trial 1696
Shrewsbury seems at first not to have been especially concerned by the arrest and examination of Sir John Fenwick‡ in June 1696. He dismissed Fenwick as ‘a fearful man’ and turned his mind to other concerns.
In sending you Sir John Fenwick’s paper, I assured you that I was persuaded his accusation was false, of which I am now fully convinced, by your answer, and perfectly satisfied with the ingenuous confession of what passed between you and Lord Middleton, which can by no means be imputed to you as a crime. And indeed you may be assured, that this business, so far from making on me any unfavourable impression, will, on the contrary, if possible, in future, strengthen my confidence in you, and my friendship can admit of no increase.Shrewsbury Corresp. 151.
Despite being implicated so obviously by Fenwick, armed with the king’s assurances of support, Shrewsbury attended the meeting of the lords justices when Fenwick’s wife petitioned for her husband’s arraignment to be delayed, which was granted accordingly.
Shrewsbury’s friends rallied round, foremost among them Somers and Wharton, who masterminded the campaign to have Fenwick attainted and executed. Wharton in particular maintained a regular correspondence with Shrewsbury throughout the proceedings. On 27 Oct. he wrote outlining the plan of action that had been agreed, with Russell presenting the case before the Commons, ‘opening it as a contrivance (by blasting and taking away the most faithful and useful of the king’s servants) to do King James the most considerable piece of service’.
I always thought if it came before a Parliament it would not go off so smoothly as was imagined, it is of a nature that is impossible to be disproved, and therefore all the innocence in the world, can never clear one to every body; I have from the beginning prepared myself for a good deal of mortification and it is a great addition to it that I am forced to be here.
Bodl. Carte 233, ff. 27, 36.
By 1 Nov., though, Shrewsbury appears to have talked himself around to trusting to Wharton’s handling of the business:
I am much more satisfied with this method that is now proposed than with any has been yet… I was very shy of pressing any thing in this matter, knowing that in the end I am very sure nothing can be proved or probably urged against me, but that however something will remain; which will make it pretty uneasy serving.
Shrewsbury remained unable to travel. After ‘10,000 impertinent questions’ Shrewsbury’s doctor decided he was ‘in no condition to stir’. As such he was absent from London when the bill of attainder was introduced into the Commons on 9 November.
Despite their assurances, the passage of the Fenwick bill was the occasion of impassioned disagreement. Shrewsbury admitted that he was ‘not surprised that some people are scrupulous upon a bill of attainder I confess it is a very nice point, though I am one of the men in England that at this time ought least to say so.’
The Aftermath of Fenwick, 1697-1700
A spate of dry weather occasioned a slight improvement in Shrewsbury’s health towards the close of the year, but he remained immured in the countryside. As he remarked to Hill, ‘how such a weather-glass of a body will hold out the remainder of this winter, God knows’.
Shrewsbury may have survived his latest crisis but he was still out of circulation. His doctors advised him that he was now out of danger but advised him not to stir from his retirement for the while. By the close of February he hoped to be able to return to London in two or three days, his health improved by warmer weather. The following month he established himself at the home of Edward Villiers, Viscount Villiers (later earl of Jersey), in Hyde Park, though without having sought Villiers’ prior permission (he assured himself that Villiers would forgive him his unannounced intrusion).
Shrewsbury’s illness did not prevent him from continuing his policy of improving his estates. Late in April he offered William Savile, 2nd marquess of Halifax, first refusal on some of his Derbyshire lands, which he hoped Halifax would be keen to buy as they adjoined estates already in his possession. He was initially coy about the reason for the sale but insisted, ‘I know not whether you are in a buying condition. If you are not, I wish you were.’ Halifax proved unwilling, apparently believing the lands to be too expensive.
Shrewsbury was expected in town again by the end of June 1697. His eagerness to sell the lands at Wingfield may have been connected to his efforts to purchase a house in Gerard Street in place of his former lodgings in St James’s Square (and in preference to his impromptu use of Villiers’ house).
Prostrated with his ailments and fear of further accusations, Shrewsbury persisted with his efforts to convince the king to let him resign: ‘it cannot be for your interest to continue a man in your service, whom people are resolved shall never be quiet.’
I am sorry that the circumstances of my health are so very bad that I cannot propose to myself being in the least useful in promoting what your lordships shall represent. I am going into the country in two or three days with so melancholy a prospect of my own condition, that the best I can hope is to linger on, a useless, uneasy life, which would not be worth preserving if one knew how to part with it without pain or reproach.HMC Buccleuch, ii. 580.
Shrewsbury returned to Eyford once again on 30 November. Vernon was critical of his decision to remain in London as long as he had.
Shrewsbury was well enough to indulge in some hunting parties that winter but he refused an offer the governorship to William, duke of Gloucester, on the grounds of ill health. He also (after much predictable hesitancy) turned down the offer of the lord chamberlaincy following the resignation of Sunderland. Rumours that he would take up the post persisted into March 1698.
a noise that is now more than ever [spread] that endeavours will very speedily be used by [my] enemies to hurt me and my reputation in Parliament and though I make little question that whenever any such thing is attempted my innocence will clear me, yet I must very freely confess, that if I have more uneasiness of that kind I shall so despair of ever seeing quiet for the future in a public station; that nothing will prevail with me to be exposed to such an eternal strife, and would choose rather a bench in a galley than any public employment under that circumstance.UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1395.
Despite his misgivings, and rumours that he and Sunderland were no longer on friendly terms, Shrewsbury did make an effort to mediate between Sunderland, the Whigs and the king in the early months of 1698. He also attempted in vain to dissuade Charles Montagu, later earl of Halifax, from launching his attack on Charles Duncombe‡. Following yet another attack of bad health at Windsor in March he was forced to retire to Wharton’s house at Wooburn to convalesce.
Shrewsbury was nevertheless actively preparing for the Droitwich election in May 1698. Confident that Cocks would top the poll that summer, Shrewsbury recommended to Somers that they should set up a second candidate to oppose Thomas Foley, the future Baron Foley.
Over the summer efforts continued to find Shrewsbury a satisfactory position. At one point it was mooted that he would be sent on a mission to Spain.
In the midst of these efforts, Shrewsbury continued to lobby the king to allow him to retire. As ever, poor health was at the root of his desire to step down. He had complained since July of a pain in his knee to add to his other ailments and by November this had developed into ‘a running pain, which began in my knee, and has gone from my stomach to my head, and is now returned to my knee.’
Shrewsbury delivered up the seals in January, though the choice of his successor remained a subject of speculation.
Having struggled so long and so hard to be released from responsibility, Shrewsbury’s period of retirement turned out to be notably short. In May it was reported that he had again been offered the lord chamberlaincy or the lieutenancy of Ireland. In September, despite again suffering from lamentable health, he was once more invited to choose either the lord treasurership or the lord chamberlaincy.
Shrewsbury’s poor health prevented him from being present in the House for the session of 1699-1700. In December he was again the subject of ‘a mighty storm raised against’ him, based on the publication of Remarks upon the D— of S—’s Letter to the House of Lords by the spy Matthew Smith. On 15 Dec. 1699, however, the Lords voted that Smith’s scandalous publication should be burnt by the common hangman.
Shrewsbury meanwhile remained thoroughly preoccupied by his health. He became increasingly convinced that the air of the south of France might assist his cure and from the end of 1699 he began to lobby for permission to travel abroad.
Shrewsbury’s retreat from central office did not stop him from overseeing local affairs in Worcestershire, nor from remaining a central figure among the Whig leadership.
Abroad, 1700-1706
The timing of Shrewsbury’s departure from England had serious consequences for his later relations with his former Junto associates. Few men had been able to try the patience of any political coterie quite as frequently as Shrewsbury had and yet remain well liked and central to their designs. By leaving England when the Junto was under acute political pressure, not least with the imminent attempts to impeach Orford and Somers, Shrewsbury squandered what remained of his political capital. His activities over the following years did nothing to repair the damage.
Having intended to remain in the south of France, the vagaries of international relations forced Shrewsbury to rethink his plans. From Geneva he planned trips to Naples and failing that to Pisa and Lucca. By August 1701 he was firmly ensconced in Italy, where he remained for the following three-and-a-half years. Entertained at the court of the grand duke of Florence in January 1702 ‘with all honours imaginable, such as were scarce ever shown to any before him’, Shrewsbury spent the majority of his foreign sojourn in Rome.
After the king’s death in March 1702 it was conjectured that Shrewsbury would return to England.
You have long deserved the best employment in England and now I heartily congratulate with you that you have it… I renew my petition to you, that you represent to her majesty my declining the honour she designed me, as not proceeding from any want of zeal to her service, but from a certain incapacity both of body and mind ever to engage more in a court life.Add. 61131, ff. 1-2.
It was an assessment later echoed by Halifax (as Charles Montagu had since become), who teased Shrewsbury, ‘I always thought there was too much fine silver in your grace’s temperament. Had you been made of a coarse alloy, you had been better for public use.’
While he continued to reject calls for his return, Shrewsbury was gradually forced to confront the possibility that his health might be improving. In May 1703 he noted that his bleeding was now stopping without the need of an astringent and in September he wrote to Godolphin shrugging off his latest indisposition, which he dismissed as ‘so small as gives me little inconvenience.’ Still interested in matters at home, he hoped that ‘the unanimity and zeal of the Parliament in England will set all right.’
Despite his previous plans to be in Venice by Easter, it was not until April 1705 that Shrewsbury at last set out from Rome. In his absence he was assessed as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession, though it was later noted that he missed a useful opportunity of making contact with the elector by failing to visit Hanover during his journey home.
Retirement in England, 1706-1710
In spite of his continuing rejection of places, it was rumoured that he would not have come back without the promise of office. This it was believed would give ‘great umbrage to everybody especially the Whigs’, who still bridled at his desertion of Orford and Somers. Soon afterwards, it was said that he was to join Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as one of the secretaries of state.
Anxious to avoid London’s unhealthy air, Shrewsbury remained in the country, though he was kept abreast of developments by Vernon. He was critical of the proposed religious settlement for Scotland, objecting to the establishment of a Presbyterian kirk without sufficient safeguards for the Episcopalian church. He was, nevertheless, a supporter of the Union and was disappointed by the lack of support for it in Scotland, whose people he considered were the greatest gainers by the treaty.
in so good hands I think it much more sure to vote for the public good than were I present to give it. And if anything could give me a tolerable opinion of my own judgment in those matters, it would be the reflection that [in the] many parliaments [in which] I have had the honour to sit with you, I can’t recollect we ever differed.Add. 61131, f. 41.
For the following two years Shrewsbury’s attention was taken up with the construction of his new house. Disputes between the proprietors of the Droitwich salt works and local landholders over the former’s efforts to pass an act of Parliament enabling them to convey their brine by pipe to the Severn initially failed to rouse Shrewsbury out of his rural solitude. In January 1707, however, he eventually stirred himself on the subject at the request of his kinsman, Sir John Talbot, who asked that he would look into the opposition which Other Windsor, 2nd earl of Plymouth, was ‘stirring up’ against them.
While anxious to point out the limitations of his interest, Shrewsbury undertook to give what support he could for Francis Godolphin, styled Viscount Rialton (later 2nd earl of Godolphin) in the election at Woodstock in March 1707.
Shrewsbury appears to have undergone a change of heart about the Droitwich bill in the autumn of 1707, prompting a surprised missive from Sir John Talbot in November, questioning why the duke had become so ‘altered in your opinion’ when the rest of the proprietors had given their consent. Talbot still urged his presence in the House in January 1708 to assist with the passage of the bill, emphasizing that his interest in its success went beyond personal gain and that he hoped the duke would be ‘the defender and procurer of right to those who have so long suffered wrong’.
Shrewsbury’s return to Parliament coincided with renewed courtship by Marlborough and Godolphin as well as by Robert Harley, who had made a point of retaining contact with Shrewsbury during his self-imposed exile. All now hoped for his support.
Their scheme was still in its infancy when Shrewsbury took his seat in the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708 (of which he attended just under a third of all sitting days). Some features of it were already apparent, though. In January he was noted among the diners at an entertainment hosted by Buckingham (as Normanby had now become): the mix thought to be ‘a true emblem of the present state of affairs.’
The principal reason for Shrewsbury’s political repositioning was his conviction of the need for a rapid end to the war. In April 1709 it was speculated he might be one of three plenipotentiaries to be sent to The Hague to negotiate the terms of the peace, though in the event he declined to act.
I do not doubt but the generality of the nation long for a peace, and the majority of those who represent it, when discoursed singly in the country, agree in that opinion… it is evident so many circumstances from at home as well as from abroad make peace desirable, that if the nation could see how they might have a good one it is my opinion they would be very uneasy till they had it.
He continued to seek Harley’s advice about the next meeting of Parliament and whether ‘there will be anything of moment, so that one need be there early in the sessions’. By November 1709 he appears once more to have been overtaken by uncertainty at his capacity to undertake any considerable role in the planned new administration. He insisted to his new partner, though, that he would ‘always be ready to concur with you in everything may be for the interest of the public, being convinced nobody can wish better to it nor judge better of it than yourself.’
In this state of uncertainty about his own role in a possible new ministry, Shrewsbury took his seat in the second session on 7 Dec. 1709, three weeks after its commencement. He was thereafter present on 38 days (approximately 41 per cent of the whole). In March he spoke on Sacheverell’s behalf, arguing as one who had ‘as great a share as any man in the late Revolution’ and one who would ‘ever go as far as any to vindicate the memory of our late glorious deliverer’. Having made plain his credentials as a ‘Revolution Man’ he stressed his unwillingness to find the doctor’s actions worthy of condemnation and joined with Nottingham and Leeds in arguing in favour of the Lords voting on Sacheverell’s guilt article by article.
Return to office, 1710-14
A month after Sacheverell’s conviction, Shrewsbury was recalled to the administration, replacing Henry Grey, marquess (shortly afterwards promoted duke) of Kent, as lord chamberlain. He seems to have been deeply reluctant to accept the place without the support of other members of his new alliance and to have determined at first not to accept. Having changed his mind once more, Shrewsbury proved uncharacteristically cruel in justifying his acceptance of the post. When he was reminded of a former undertaking he had made never to turn anyone out of their place, Shrewsbury retorted that, ‘he did not think he had broken that resolution, since the Bug [Kent], was nobody.’
what consequence can this possibly have, but to make every man that is now in your cabinet council, except the duke of Somerset and Queensberry run from it, as they would from the plague.Add. 61118, f. 30.
The duchess of Marlborough’s agent and confidant, Arthur Maynwaring‡, was even less restrained. For him, Shrewsbury was nothing more than ‘a papist in masquerade that went to Italy to marry a common strumpet’ who was now working in alliance with ‘the most errant tricky knave in all Britain’.
Shrewsbury appears genuinely to have attempted to forestall Sunderland’s removal, arguing that he was happier working with him than with a number of the other office-holders.
As lord chamberlain Shrewsbury’s attention in advance of the meeting at Parliament was taken up with practicalities. On 30 Sept. he communicated to John Montagu, 2nd duke of Montagu, master of the great wardrobe, the requirements for refitting the House of Lords in time for the new session.
Shrewsbury took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, after which he was present on 45 per cent of all sitting days. During the debate held in the committee of the whole House on 11 Jan. 1711 Shrewsbury responded to the request that Galway and Charles O’Hara, Baron Tyrawley [I], might be heard to answer the criticisms of their actions in managing the war in Spain, ‘that if they were ready to be heard, he consented they should, provided they delivered nothing in writing, which might occasion delays.’ Following the rejection of the two lords’ petitions the same day, Shrewsbury suggested that they should be called in to be told the outcome, but the House then proceeded to consider a motion put forward by John Poulett, Earl Poulett, that their behaviour had merely been intended to delay consideration of the state of the campaign.
Shrewsbury received a proxy from Peterborough (as Monmouth had become) on 13 Jan. 1711, which was vacated by the close and on 26 Jan. that of Charles Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea, which was vacated by Winchilsea’s resumption of his seat the following day. The next month Shrewsbury was involved in a meeting between members of the administration and Nottingham in an effort to forestall Tory obstructionism. Nottingham made plain his dissatisfaction with the new ministry and pressed for the prosecution of prominent Whigs, such as Sunderland. When Nottingham found his audience unreceptive to his views, he flounced out.
In spite of the tense state of affairs that spring, Shrewsbury seems once again to have struggled to maintain his interest. On 6 Mar. he was in London at his offices at the Cockpit, telling Harley that though the queen intended to attend the House of Lords, Shrewsbury’s own attendance was not required. He did indeed fail to take his seat and remained away from the chamber for the following ten days. He was also absent from cabinet, entertaining the foreign ambassadors, at the time of Guiscard’s attack on Harley.
In June 1711, Shrewsbury fell ‘ill of a violent fever’, and over the summer began to voice his discontent over certain aspects of the peace preliminaries.
In November, recognizing the likely difficulties the ministry would experience in persuading Parliament (and the Lords in particular) of the benefits of the peace, Shrewsbury urged Oxford (as Harley had become) to make careful preparations for the coming session. He warned his colleague starkly of the need to ensure that their supporters turned out, apprehending ‘our House to be the place our enemies have most hopes to prevail in, so I recommend to you to take the requisite care that our friends come to town in time’. It was probably also at this time that he expressed the hope that ‘the North Britain lords will come in time and good humour’ though he was aware that ‘some of their own countrymen seem to doubt of both.’ Shrewsbury took personal responsibility for several government supporters in the Lords. He hoped to prevail with his kinsman, Cardigan, to come up sooner than he originally intended, while Oxford also delegated to Shrewsbury the responsibility for rallying the midlands peers.
Shrewsbury took his seat in the new session on 7 Dec. 1711, after which he was present on 49 per cent of all sitting days. Consistent with his advice to Oxford that they should make overtures to the Scots peers, on 19 Dec. Shrewsbury was forecast as being in favour of permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as duke of Brandon. The following day he voted against barring Scots lords holding post-Union British peerages from sitting in the House. Despite this, his disquiet at the nature of the peace and other tensions within the ministry meant that relations between him and Oxford had soured considerably by this point. As a result Oxford began to look for ways of sidelining him. Over the winter of 1711-12 it was rumoured that Shrewsbury might be sent to Ireland as lord lieutenant: a post in which he had always expressed an interest.
Shrewsbury was absent from the House for approximately three weeks in January 1712. On 14 Jan. he registered his proxy with Simon Harcourt, Baron (later Viscount) Harcourt, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 25 January. On 7 Feb. 1712 Shrewsbury received the proxy of his kinsman, Cardigan, which was vacated on 12 May. Absent for a further fortnight in February, on 18 Feb. Shrewsbury again registered his proxy with Harcourt, which was vacated by his return to the House on 29 February. Rumours of his impending appointment to the Irish lieutenancy continued. Oxford seems to have renewed the offer of the post in March, though John Berkeley, 4th Baron Berkeley of Stratton, thought it nothing more than ‘coffee house news’.
By April 1712 Shrewsbury had decided against accepting a posting to Ireland.
If your lordship thinks there will be any difficulty in electing a peer in Scotland in her Majesty’s interest to fill Lord Marshal’s [William Keith, 8th Earl Marischal] place you will think to get as many proxies as can be from the Scots peers in England, and remember earls of Orkney, Dunmore, Dundonald, and perhaps others, are abroad and should be writ to [referring to George Hamilton*, earl of Orkney, John Murray*, 2nd earl of Dunmore, and John Cochrane, 4th earl of Dundonald].HMC Bath, i. 219.
Absent from the session after 7 June 1712, on 13 June Shrewsbury registered his proxy with Cardigan but he continued to take a close interest in the management of affairs in the House. His careful attention to management was revealed in a brief letter he wrote to Gilbert Coventry, 4th earl of Coventry, in July 1712, complimenting him for ‘the zeal your lordship has shown in the country for her majesty’s interest’.
Shrewsbury delayed his departure until January 1713. He soon found himself frustrated at his removal from affairs. By February he was complaining of the lack of contact, venting his spleen to Bolingbroke: ‘I can no longer dissemble my impatience, but confess to you, I make a figure not very creditable to the ministry or myself, to remain in such a conjuncture thus long without knowing any thing from home, but what comes printed in the Post-Boy.’ He was also troubled with the attentions of Jacobites in Paris. One French notable secretly in contact with the Pretender seems to have done what he could to flatter the duke and duchess, while James Fitzjames, duke of Berwick, made a more direct approach and enquired whether he might call on Shrewsbury in his apartments in person. Shrewsbury avoided communicating with Berwick directly and instead employed the marquis de Torcy as an intermediary to explain that while he would have ‘no difficulty to pay the duke of Berwick all respect due to him in a third place’, he hoped that ‘he would not give himself the trouble of visiting me, because I could not return it, and should be very sorry to be forced to do an uncivil thing to a person of his quality.’
Shrewsbury’s embassy meant that he was missing from the House for the final session of the Parliament. In February 1713, he fretted at the uncertainties caused by the delay in arriving at a final peace:
I confess myself at a loss to guess what her majesty will say at the opening of this session, when we have neither peace nor war; when though it were most desirable to sign together with all the allies, yet it is certain that it is impossible to be done of some months, if we stay for the emperor and the empire; and if I do not mistake, the French see well enough our circumstances to be convinced, the longer we remain in these uncertainties, the less able we shall be to stand upon terms either for ourselves or our allies.Bolingbroke Corresp. iii. 414-5.
He also concerned himself closely with the interest of the Catalans. His call, though, for them to be restored to their ‘privileges’ was rejected by the French who insisted this was a question for the Spanish to settle.
In the summer of 1713, almost as soon as he had returned to England, Shrewsbury set about making preparations for his departure to Ireland, having been appointed lieutenant earlier in the summer. There seems little doubt that this was a strategic move on the part of Oxford to interrupt the developing alliance between Shrewsbury and Bolingbroke. Shrewsbury arrived in Dublin at the end of October. After long agitating for the post, Shrewsbury proved temperamentally unsuited to dealing with Ireland. Before leaving he had supposedly declared naively that there was ‘no difference in Ireland but protestant and papist’. Within a few days of his arrival he admitted to Oxford that he found ‘in this place a disposition more obstinate than I expected’. He was also challenged early on by Arthur Annesley, 5th earl of Anglesey, another contender for the lieutenancy who was more established in Irish society.
the truth is my mind is not easy, and things have been driven to such an extremity of heat and disorder that the methods of getting out of them surpass my comprehension. A session of Parliament is begun, both parties promising they will show their zeal in despatching the public business, their duty to her majesty, and their good will to me; but their ill will to one another is so reigning a passion, that I cannot but apprehend some cross thing will be thrown in the way before we come to an end.HMC Portland, v. 372.
By 22 Dec., things had not improved:
The state of our affairs here is so dismal that, having given some account of it in my letters to my Lord Bolingbroke, I have neither inclination nor health to repeat the same to your lordship. I shall only say that the heats on both sides are such that little is to be expected from this session, nor at present from this Parliament; and what is worse, if a new one were chosen I am confident the humour of the House of Commons would not mend.HMC Bath, i. 243-4.
The account provided by Shrewsbury’s secretary, Charles Delafaye, confirmed his master’s interpretation of the tempestuous state of affairs in Ireland. Despite Shrewsbury’s efforts to ‘prevent warmth’, Delafaye thought him hobbled by his naturally conciliatory temperament and his lack of ‘power to offer rewards to take them off.’ Unsurprisingly, the duchess of Marlborough interpreted Shrewsbury’s actions in Ireland differently. She reckoned that he was glad to remain out of the way, intent on holding back until it was clear which faction would prevail in England.
Delayed by poor weather, Shrewsbury finally returned to England in June 1714.
By the time of his return from Ireland Shrewsbury was thought to have aligned himself with Bolingbroke against Oxford.
Final years, 1714-18
The death of Anne almost immediately after his acceptance of the white staff ensured that Shrewsbury’s tenure of office would be brief. This was in no way distasteful to him. Within weeks of the appointment he was struggling to keep on top of the workload amid the familiar complaints of ill health. Nevertheless, the decision to hand the staff to him rather than to Bolingbroke helped to settle a jittery City, which had seen the value of shares fall on reports of Bolingbroke’s expected succession to the place.
Shrewsbury failed to attend the House until 4 August. He was then present for just four further days of the brief 15-day session. On 6 Aug. he received the proxies of Cardigan and Plymouth, both of which were vacated by the close of the session. The queen’s death altered the balance of power in the administration as a number of Whig peers reacquired influence by virtue of their inclusion in the list of lords justices. Thus, although Shrewsbury was said to be in favour of recalling Strafford in August, he was overruled by the rest. The following month it was reported that ‘they [the Whigs] are for driving on so fast that they are angry with the duke of Shrewsbury for being of opinion that the changes should not have been so fast.’ It was telling that he did not possess sufficient interest with the king to persuade him to meet Oxford in private.
By September Shrewsbury, Harcourt and Ormond were all said to be about to be put out of office. Although Shrewsbury hung onto his English offices for the while he resigned the Irish lieutenancy and was replaced by Sunderland. Bothmer thought he was feigning sickness.
In the general election of March 1715 Shrewsbury backed both Whig and Tory candidates. According to some reports he only retained his office thanks to the influence of Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle.
the House of Peers ought, on all occasions, to be most tender of the honour and dignity of the crown, from which they derive their own honour and lustre; that therefore, when the like clause was inserted in an address of the House of Commons to the late queen, upon the death of King William, he had expressed, to several members of that House, his dislike of it, because it reflected on the memory of that prince; and for the same reason he was against the said clause.Timberland, iii. 8-9.
In spite of his efforts and those of his allies, the address was carried by 66 to 33.
In July 1715 Shrewsbury was at last relieved of the lord chamberlaincy.
Given his prominent role in achieving the passage of the Triennial Act it is unsurprising that Shrewsbury spoke ‘vehemently’ against the introduction of the Septennial Act, though by doing so he ranged himself alongside the Tories and against his natural Whig allies.
Shrewsbury may already have indulged in at least informal discussions with Jacobite agents, though a report of August 1715 from the Pretender to Bolingbroke that Shrewsbury was ‘frankly engaged’ on their side was wishful thinking, and during the rebellion that year Shrewsbury was firmly supportive of the government.
Shrewsbury attended the prorogation day of 20 Nov. 1716. He then took his seat in the House for the second session of the 1715 Parliament on 20 Feb. 1717, after which he was present on 35 sitting days. In May he attempted to employ his interest on behalf of Levinge again.
Shrewsbury took his seat in the session of 1717-18 on 25 Nov. 1717. Although he was again entrusted with Cardigan’s proxy on 6 Dec. he attended on just six days before sitting for the final time on 19 December. Later that month he took advantage of the fissure between king and Prince of Wales to make his court to the latter but by January 1718 his health had collapsed once more and he was described as being ‘in the utmost danger’.
Shrewsbury’s life was the subject of two publications in 1718, one by Defoe and another that sought to rescue him from the ‘Memoir-Mongers’ while promising neither to ‘flatter his best actions, nor conceal his worst.’
In his will, Shrewsbury left £5,000 to his duchess as well as his London residence of Warwick House for her life. To his cousins, Talbot and Mary Tuchet, he bequeathed £2,000 each, and £1,000 apiece to his niece Anne Bodenham and his cousin, Edward Talbot, younger son of William Talbot, bishop of Oxford. In all he bequeathed sums amounting to more than £13,000 as well as several annuities amounting to £180 a year out of his estate and the sum of £1,000 to be put to charitable use, though this he insisted was not for ‘the building or repairing of any church or in the endowing of any college or school, it being my opinion there are too many scholars in the nation already’. Shrewsbury named his cousin, Cardigan; Bishop Talbot; Sir John Stanley; and his servant John Arden as executors. In the absence of a direct heir, the dukedom reverted to the crown while the earldom passed to his Catholic cousin, Gilbert Talbot†, a Jesuit priest.