WRIOTHESLEY, Thomas (1608-67)

Southampton was described by Edward Hyde, future earl of Clarendon, as ‘one of the most excellent persons living. Of great affection to the king; of great honour; and of an understanding superior to most men.’ HMC 10th Rep. VI, 204. Clarendon and Southampton formed a close political alliance both during the Civil War and after the Restoration. A peer who had suffered some of the excesses of Charles I’s regime and been an early opponent of the court, Southampton was nevertheless a loyalist, appalled at the decline in reverence to the crown, who became an unwavering supporter of Charles I in the 1640s, while remaining closely concerned in efforts to achieve an accommodation. Following the Restoration, Gilbert Burnet, later bishop of Salisbury, and subsequent commentators saw him as a moderate who counterbalanced the high Anglicanism of the Cavalier Commons: someone who sought accommodation with moderate Dissent and opposed the extravagance of the court. As lord treasurer he was frequently looked on as incorruptible and well-meaning but lacking the energy to restrain those elements of which he disapproved. C.D. Chandaman, English Public Revenue, 213. Subsequent assessments have varied. Some have seen him as weak, lethargic and verging on incompetent. Yet Southampton appears to have been more rigorous in his efforts to grapple with the intricacies of Stuart finance – and open-minded in seizing hold of the innovations of the Interregnum – than such negative analyses suggest. E. Parkinson, Establishment of the Hearth Tax 1662-66, 6; Royalists and Royalism during the Interregnum ed. J. McElligott and D.L. Smith, 235-7.

Southampton succeeded to the peerage while still a minor. Having taken his seat in the Lords in 1629 he spent much of the ensuing period abroad in France and the Low Countries. The king’s assault upon holders of forest lands in the mid-1630s threatened drastically to reduce Southampton’s income, perhaps by as much as £2,000 a year. Firth, House of Lords during the Civil War, 57. In spite of this, by the time of the attack on Thomas Wentworth^†, earl of Strafford, Southampton had rallied to the court’s side. Even though he was one of Strafford’s personal opponents, Southampton opposed the attainder and soon came to be regarded as a central figure in the mobilization of court support in the Lords. He joined the king at York in March 1642 and the following month was nominated for the office of groom of the stole. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 21; HMC Buccleuch, i. 297. Over the next few years he was involved in unsuccessful negotiations with Parliament. Following the surrender of the royalist forces, Southampton petitioned to compound and was fined £6,466. Firth, 121, 236; Juxon Diary, 69-70, 118. Although he appears to have avoided direct involvement in plotting during the Commonwealth and Protectorate, Southampton’s royalist sympathies remained undiluted. On hearing news of Charles II’s plight following the defeat at Worcester, Southampton had a ship made ready for the king’s escape. Shaw, Knights of Eng. i. 34. Although Charles found other ways to cross the channel, he acknowledged Southampton’s gesture and assured him of his eternal gratitude. Briefly imprisoned in November 1655 for failing to provide information for the decimation, Southampton formed an important alliance the following year with the marriage of Antony Ashley Cooper (later earl of Shaftesbury), to his niece, Lady Margaret Spencer. In 1658 he suffered the first of a series of bouts of crippling illness in which ‘his pains were very intolerable and his disease in the opinion of most physicians desperate.’ HMC Astley, 23. He recovered from the attack and the following year married for the third time.

The Restoration

The collapse of the Protectorate brought Southampton out of the shadows. In advance of the summoning of the Convention he was noted by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, as ‘one of the lords with the king’. He arrived in London in April 1660, ostensibly to oversee final negotiations with Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, for the marriage of Northumberland’s heir, Josceline Percy, styled Lord Percy (later 5th earl of Northumberland), to Southampton’s daughter, Lady Audrey Wriothesley, but he was also probably engaged in negotiations to secure the support of Northumberland, William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele and Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, at the king’s behest. Letters and Mems of State ed. Collins, ii. 685. Northumberland noted that negotiations with Southampton proceeded ‘as hopefully as the public concernment of the nation does’, but the projected marriage fell through with the unexpected death of Lady Audrey in October. Alnwick mss, vol. xviii. ff. 87-89. Despite this, the families persevered with the connection and three years later Percy married Southampton’s youngest daughter, Lady Elizabeth Wriothesley, instead.

Southampton had less success securing seats for his nominees in the Convention. It was reported that he ‘would fain have had Husse to have stood in opposition to Sir Walter St John’ at Great Bedwyn, but there is no evidence that anyone named Husse contested the seat. Verney ms mic. M636/17, Dr.W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 19 Apr. 1660. In the event Southampton’s kinsman, Robert Spencer^‡ (‘Godly Robin’) and Thomas Gape^‡, steward to William Seymour, marquess of Hertford, were returned, both standing on Hertford’s recommendation. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 446.

Southampton was slow to take his seat in the Lords but by 27 Apr. 1660 it was reported that the ‘cabal’ of old parliamentarians such as Northumberland and Saye and Sele were eager for Southampton and Hertford (Southampton’s father-in-law) to take their places so that they might act as a moderating influence on the young royalists who were taking charge of events. Bodl. Carte 30, f. 582. His absence did not mean that he was inactive. On 3 May Sir Allen Brodrick^‡ explained to Hyde that he was acting in Parliament ‘in concert with Palmer [Sir Geoffrey Palmer^‡], Southampton and the ablest lawyers’; and on 5 May the extent of Southampton’s influence was revealed when it was reported that he had obtained leave from George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, to have an invitation to the king moved in both houses of Parliament the following Monday. Two days later Brodrick wrote to Hyde informing him that he was meeting with Southampton every evening at his chambers to obtain ‘instructions for his friends in the House.’ CCSP, v. 7, 17, 20. John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt, was similarly engaged in meetings hosted by Southampton which served to bring together the king’s agents with Ashley Cooper and other parliamentarians. Bodl. Clarendon 72, f. 321.

Southampton returned to the House finally after an interval of 18 years on 21 May 1660. The same day he was named to the committee considering the ordinance for a monthly assessment of £70,000. Present for almost 57 per cent of all days in the session, on 22 May he was named to the committee appointed to draw up an answer to the Commons following a conference about the late king’s judges and on 24 May he was nominated to the committee charged with drafting a letter to the king on his arrival. Southampton joined a number of peers waiting on the king at Canterbury, where he was decorated with the order of the Garter alongside Monck (though it was noted that Monck’s blue ribbon was given to him by the king’s brothers while Southampton received his from a herald). TNA, PRO 31/3/107, p. 66. Added to the committee for petitions on 6 June, during the remainder of the session Southampton was nominated to a further 14 committees. On 6 Aug. he was entrusted with the proxy of Thomas Leigh, Baron Leigh. More significantly, he was appointed lord treasurer in preference to Manchester. Excused attendance on account of poor health on 16 Aug., in his absence John Robartes, Baron Robartes (later earl of Radnor), was appointed to act as referee over a dispute concerning the city of Winchester (in which Southampton may have had an interest as high steward). Southampton had resumed his place by 18 Aug. when he was named to the committees considering the bill for his kinsman, Heneage Finch, 3rd earl of Winchilsea, and that examining the claim made by Edward Somerset, marquess of Worcester, to the dukedom of Somerset, which was also claimed by Hertford. Hertford’s claim to the dukedom was recognized the following month. Southampton was also appointed as lord lieutenant of Norfolk. Bodl. Tanner 177, f. 29.

Southampton was a central figure in government in the first few years after the Restoration, particularly during the ascendancy of Clarendon, who regarded him with reverence and affection. Clarendon wrote that ‘the friendship was so great between the treasurer and him, and so notorious from an ancient date, and from a joint confidence in each other in the service of the last king, that neither of them concluded any matter of importance without consulting with the other’. Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 315. But despite his credentials, Southampton appeared to have less influence at court than appeared due to him. Often seen as unwilling to exert himself, he suffered from chronic illnesses. PRO 31/3/1 07, p. 199. He failed, for example, to appear at the swainmot (forest court) of the New Forest in his capacity as keeper and warden in September and by the end of October 1660 he was said to have been ‘long sick’. The same month his father-in-law, the newly restored 2nd duke of Somerset, died having enjoyed his title for less than a month. Cal. of New Forest Documents, 121; Verney ms mic. M636/17, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 31 Oct. 1660; HMC Finch, i. 92.

Following the adjournment Southampton did not resume his seat until 15 Dec. 1660 and he attended on just seven of the 45 days of the latter part of the Convention, during which he was named to two committees (both concerning financial bills). On 20 Dec. he was appointed one of the commissioners for assessing the lords for poll money. Elections to the new Parliament again found Southampton unsuccessful in his efforts to employ his interest. His cousin, Sir Henry Vernon^‡, was defeated at Lichfield despite Southampton’s recommendation and he was also unable initially to secure a seat for Richard Gorges^‡, 2nd Baron Gorges [I]. He was more successful in protecting his nephew, Henry Wallop^‡. Wallop’s father, Robert^‡, had been excepted from the Act of Indemnity as a regicide, but his life had been spared and his estates granted to Southampton in trust. HP Commons 1660-90, ii. 416, iii. 638, 661. Under Southampton’s sympathetic regime in Hampshire, Henry Wallop was kept in office as a justice of the peace as well as maintaining his command in the militia. Coleby, Hampshire, 97-98.

Lord Treasurer

Though his appointment had been planned before the Restoration, Southampton’s appointment as lord treasurer was not formally completed until early September 1660 (Clarendon wrote that he had been reluctant to take on the position until the crown’s revenue was at least formally settled). Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 314. He soon found the task one of exceptional difficulty. In a report he wrote for the king in 1663 he complained of the state of public finances:

I have taken several occasions to present you the true state of it, particularly at Hampton Court I gave your majesty a view of your royal father (of blessed memory) his revenue, as likewise of the several heads of the revenue in the late times of usurpation, in both which it was visible that the worm that ate into both those governments was the excess of payments beyond that of the receipts, for even those rebels that began and concluded that tyranny and rapine over the estates of your loyal subjects, had the fate of King Henry VIII that found great treasure and hastily got great revenues and concluded their reign in poverty. Harl. 1223, f. 202.

Dismayed by the way in which the Commons restricted the crown’s resources, Southampton excused his pessimistic appraisal, explaining that it was essential:

to show the ill consequences of the necessities of the crown, of the danger it will be in thereby in this conjuncture of time, when even the genius of the nation tends too much to democracy and that the balance of all wealth and election of burgesses… belongs most to merchants, traders and yeomanry, and that revenue or supply is seldom given, but that some regalia or prerogatives are the price of it. Ibid. ff. 205-6.

Among the problems he faced was the alienation of crown lands. Southampton was compelled to give way over a number of grants that he would otherwise have preferred not to approve. One such was the king’s award to Mordaunt of a fourth part of certain lands that had been reserved for the crown to which Southampton responded reluctantly, ‘the motives that lead your majesty to refer this petition induces me to give way … that which gave me most resistance was that by reason of this grant there will be nothing reserved to the crown during this lease.’ CTB 1660-7, p. 121.

Southampton’s acknowledged probity, and his closeness to Clarendon, resulted in him being drawn into questions closely concerning the royal family, including acting as a go-between to Clarendon in late 1660 over the question of the latter’s daughter’s marriage to James, duke of York; in February 1661 he was deputed to preside at an embarrassing meeting of the Council where he quizzed York about the details, which was designed to bring the affair to a close. Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 53; Clarendon 74, ff. 138-40. About the same time he was appointed to the committee managing the affairs of the prince of Orange during his minority. Business associated with his office included membership of a committee of the Council detailed to consider ways of compelling peers and members of the royal household to pay their poll bills. Clarendon 74, ff. 91, 109.

Having been nominated over a decade previously, Southampton was at last installed as a knight of the Garter on 15 Apr. 1661. He took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 8 May 1661 but was absent on 11 May when his friend, Edward Hyde, was introduced as earl of Clarendon and his kinsman, Ashley Cooper, was introduced as Baron Ashley. Back in the House on 14 May, Southampton was named to the committees for the bill for reversing Strafford’s attainder and the bill for preventing tumults. He was thereafter present on 55 per cent of all sitting days, and was named to a further 21 committees as well as being nominated manager of a number of conferences. On 16 May he was entrusted with the proxy of Henry Grey, earl of Stamford, and on 28 May with that of Marmaduke Langdale, Baron Langdale. On 11 July he was noted as being likely to oppose Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in his efforts to be appointed lord great chamberlain. At the same time he resisted calls for the navigation acts to be extended to the Scots, fearing that they would thereby be able to undercut English, Welsh and Irish trade. CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 149. Southampton was named one of the reporters of a conference concerning the corporations bill on 26 July, where he attempted to defuse a confrontation between the two Houses, and the following day to another conference concerning the bill for pains and penalties. On 29 July he was named one of the reporters of the conference for the bill to restrain disorderly printing and the following day of that concerning the bill for repairing Westminster’s streets. The same day (30 July) he was requested to recommend Dr. Hodges to the king ‘for some good ecclesiastical preferment’ in acknowledgment of his services to the House as chaplain.

During the recess, in September, Southampton communicated an optimistic appraisal of the state of affairs to Winchilsea, newly appointed ambassador to Turkey. He noted:

the evidence of the good affections and wisdom of the late Parliament… in asserting the great rights and prerogatives of the crown in the militia, and for securing his majesty’s person, making even words treasonable, if proceeding from an ill design, and asserting these and other things, even against the authority of the two Houses, which you know was the ground of our late unhappy wars, and I hope what in this kind is now past has plucked up such doctrines by the root.

Southampton’s only reservation was that the state of the finances was not better. He concluded wistfully, ‘had we had time, or rather had we not in this conjuncture supposed it fitter to decline pressing for taxes, I believe we had had a fuller coffer than now we enjoy, which you know is very natural for a treasurer to complain of.’ HMC Finch, i. 154.

After the House returned, Southampton was entrusted with two more proxies: that of Lord Leigh again on 10 Nov. 1661 and a month later with that of Richard Vaughan, Baron Vaughan (2nd earl of Carbery [I]). He continued to play an active role in managing conferences, being named a manager of that concerning the swearing of witnesses at the bar on 7 Dec. and a further conference concerning the corporations bill on 17 December. On 23 Jan. 1662 he moved that all acts of the Long Parliament should be rescinded. Chatsworth, Cork mss misc. box 1, Burlington diary. The following day he was named to the committee considering the act for putting his motion into effect. Although committed to the re-establishment of a strong episcopal establishment, Southampton took a relatively moderate stance concerning uniformity: he was said by Burnet to have supported the proposals of John Gauden, bishop of Exeter, in Council in February to make some of the provisions of the Book of Common Prayer more acceptable for Presbyterians. Burnet (1897), i. 324. A suit involving Southampton’s daughter, Lady Elizabeth Wriothesley, was referred to the committee for privileges on 31 Jan. querying how far she, as the daughter of a peer, should be permitted privilege in the case Vanlore v. Bushell. A list compiled by James Butler, duke of Ormond [I] (sitting as earl of Brecknock), suggested that although Southampton did not subscribe the protest (being absent from the House at the time), he was one of a number of peers who opposed restoring lands to Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, which had been sold during the 1650s. Add. 33589, ff. 220-1. Southampton was present at the meeting of the subcommittee for the militia bill on 14 Apr., at which he seems to have proposed an amendment allowing for those charged with providing horses and equipment under the bill’s provisions to be exempted on payment of a fee. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 245. The proposal implied that part of the resources dedicated to the militia might be used to create a centrally directed force, and it was rejected in the Commons, where it was identified as a way of introducing a standing army by the back door; Southampton’s apparent sponsorship of the measure is a puzzle, given that Burnet recorded his opposition to a standing army – though the reason he backed this measure was perhaps because it offered the means to pay for one. Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. 141. On 14 Apr. he was also ordered to acquaint the king of the House’s desire that the serjeants at arms and knight marshal’s men should be granted £200 in recognition of their service to the House.

At the close of April 1662 Southampton was entrusted with the proxy of Thomas Windsor, 7th Baron Windsor (later earl of Plymouth). On 12 May he reported the conference concerning the bill to prevent the exportation of sheep. Three days later Southampton conveyed a message to the House from the king recommending the dispatch of certain public bills and the same day he was named a manager of the conference concerning payment for officers who had served the king during the Civil War. Over the following two days Southampton was nominated one of the managers of conferences for the militia bill, although the diary of Richard Boyle, 2nd earl of Cork [I] (sitting as Baron Clifford of Lanesborough and later earl of Burlington), suggests that Southampton was not one of the three peers who presided during the proceedings. Chatsworth House, Cork mss misc. box 1, Burlington diary, 17 May 1662. On 19 May Southampton was ordered to attend the king to recommend the preservation of works made for the great level of the Fens.

Southampton added the lieutenancy of Kent to his portfolio in the second half of 1662. He took on the additional post at the prompting of the previous holder, Winchilsea, who was concerned that during his absence overseas others were attempting to ‘crowd me out.’ HMC Finch, i. 206-7. In spite of this, it was rumoured shortly after that Southampton was soon to retire or to be granted a ‘writ of ease’. It was thought that he would be replaced as treasurer either by Henry Jermyn, earl of St Albans, or Gilbert Sheldon, bishop of London. HMC Dartmouth, i. 10-11; Verney ms mic. M636/18, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 16 Oct. 1662; Carte 143, p. 23. The reports coincided with the replacement of the aged Sir Edward Nicholas^‡ with Henry Bennet, later earl of Arlington, as secretary of state. Nicholas’s replacement was noted by Samuel Pepys^‡ as ‘a victory for the young royalists’ over Clarendon and Southampton. It no doubt helped to inspire similar rumours of Southampton’s impending retirement, which were afforded greater credibility by his steadily declining health. Pepys Diary, iii. 226. Southampton’s reputation for thriftiness was another reason some were eager to see him removed from office. Carte 218, f. 5.

Concerns about the revenue were also the cause of Clarendon’s approach to the French in the late summer of 1662 proposing the sale of Dunkirk. In his memoir Clarendon attributed the first proposal for sale of the territory to the treasurer. Clarendon, Life, ii.10-16. In his communications with the French (as passed on to Louis XIV by their envoy), however, Clarendon was said to have acknowledged that Southampton was yet to be won over to the policy and that it would not be realizable without ‘large sums of money.’ In this case it seems most likely that Clarendon would have meant substantial sums for the nation’s coffers rather than a bribe to the notoriously upright Southampton. PRO 31/3/110, pp. 216, 220. Haggling was going on in August, but negotiations were far enough advanced for the king on 1 Sept. to issue a formal commission to Clarendon, Southampton, Albemarle and Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich to conduct negotiations on the sale. CCSP, v. 251, 254, 258, 259, 262, 266, 269, 275. In September Southampton was one of the commissioners appointed by Charles to treat with the French about the sale of Dunkirk. The French envoy subsequently complained to his master about the objections raised by Southampton at the lack of suitable sureties. Clarendon, Albemarle and Charles, it was noted, were far less concerned with such matters and the matter was settled towards the end of October. Clarendon 77, f. 327; PRO 31/3/110, pp. 311, 316-17.

Southampton took his seat at the opening of the new session of February 1663, after which he was present on 67 per cent of all sitting days. Named to a dozen committees, for all his reputation as a moderate he responded with unveiled hostility to the king’s Declaration of Indulgence ‘as unfit to be received … being a design against the protestant religion, and in favour of the papists.’ Swatland, 174-5; Clarendon, Life, ii. 345. In April 1663 Southampton was sick with gout, which Clarendon (who was suffering from the same malady) blamed for their inability to make further progress with the ‘pious work’ proposed by Winchilsea for redeeming Christian slaves. HMC Finch, i. 256. The same month a rumour reached Ormond in Ireland that Clarendon and Southampton had fallen out. In May amidst continuing reports of both Southampton and Clarendon’s reduced influence at court it was rumoured that Ashley was to succeed ‘the good old man’ as lord treasurer. CCSP, v. 307; Pepys Diary, iv. 137-8.

Southampton continued to play a prominent part in the negotiations with the French for a treaty in the summer of 1663. PRO 31/3/112, p. 12; Carte 221, f. 54. He was also reckoned to be opposed to the attempt by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to have the lord chancellor impeached in July. On 10 July, when Bristol attempted to move an impeachment in the House, Southampton was among the first to speak in defence of Clarendon, proposing successfully that the articles should be referred to the judges for their opinion. Carte 81, f. 224; Carte 77, f. 524. Southampton was reported to have been frustrated with Clarendon’s response to Bristol’s bungled efforts, in particular by his desire to postpone further consideration of the affair to the following session. Pepys Diary, iv. 367. On 18 July he was nominated one of the peers’ assessors in the subsidies bill and on 25 July, following the reading in committee of a proviso to be added to the measure, he was ordered to collaborate with John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, in making some amendments to the hearth tax bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 432, 437. At the beginning of September he reported the latest progress concerning the peers’ assessment to Clarendon, noting how ‘every one is kinder to himself and friend than large-hearted to the public.’ The result would be, he warned, a sum not much different to that of 20 years previously. Clarendon 80, f. 173.

Southampton was laid up with gout in November. Pepys Diary, iv. 389. The following month he assured Winchilsea that he would employ his interest on his behalf, while warning him of the uncertain nature of events at home:

our stars here move seditious minds to follow their late practices and to permit no quiet to others whilst they are disturbed in their own thoughts. But the care of his majesty’s officers and the good affection of the loyal party in all places make so soon discoveries, that we will promise ourselves at last, as they heretofore triumphed in their success and prosperity, their often failing and being frustrated will cure them of this megrum [migraine]. HMC Finch, i. 294-5.

In advance of the new session, Southampton attempted to alert the king to the developing fiscal crisis, but without success. Pepys Diary, v. 69-70. He returned to the House at the opening of the session on 16 Mar. 1664, after which he was present on 92 per cent of all sitting days and he was named to three committees. Following his abortive attempt against Clarendon, Bristol had continued to plot against the lord chancellor, hinting in a series of letters that he had information of consequence to convey to the House. Southampton responded to the request that the Lords consider one such letter by asking how the peer who had pressed the case came to know of the letter’s contents. Carte 76, f. 7; Add. 38015, ff. 77-78.

In April 1664 Southampton was prominent in urging the passing of a bill to have those convicted of petty larceny transported. When his subordinate, the chancellor of the exchequer, Lord Ashley, queried whether it would not be better for those of good family who were convicted to pay a fine to the king instead, Southampton moved to have the bill recommitted on that point alone, though in the event the entire bill was recommitted for further discussion. Verney ms mic. M636/19, Sir N. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 3 Apr. 1664. On 22 Apr. he was named one of the managers of a conference concerning foreign trade, at which the Commons delivered their findings concerning the threat to English trade posed by the Dutch and their resolution proposing ‘speedy and effectual course for the redress thereof’. On 13 May he was added as a manager of the conference concerning seditious conventicles.

Clarendon described how in advance of the 1664-5 session he and Southampton insisted that a large grant be requested from the Commons in order to make preparations for war against the Dutch. Clarendon, Life, ii.60-5. The strategy was highly successful, although Southampton himself spent little time in Parliament during the session. He took his seat on 24 Nov. at its opening, but was present on just 12 days (23 per cent of the total) and was named to just one select committee: that considering the duchy of Cornwall bill. On 10 Dec. he was entrusted with the proxy of Charles Seymour, 2nd Baron Seymour of Trowbridge, which was vacated by the prorogation of 2 Mar. 1665. Southampton’s own continuing poor health and the steadily growing financial crisis were presumably behind the calls at this time for his removal from the treasurership by Arlington, Ashley and Sir William Coventry^‡.

Clarendon complained in February 1665 that he and Southampton had ‘not seen each other these two months, having so long been kept asunder by the gout’. HMC Finch, i. 359. Southampton was sufficiently recovered by 9 Feb. to entertain John Evelyn and discuss his building developments in Bloomsbury and, although he was not noted as present on the attendance list of the House that day, he was presumably in attendance in the Lords on 28 Feb. when he was ordered to acquaint the king with the service provided by the marshal’s men. Evelyn Diary, iii. 398. Clarendon, Ormond and Southampton had warned against war with the Dutch; Southampton was clearly daunted by the problems of paying for one – Pepys records him asking at a meeting with the officers of the navy in April why it was proving so difficult to raise loans. By the summer of 1665, however, the conflict had begun. PRO 31/3/115, pp. 81-82; Pepys Diary, vi. 78.

Last years 1665-7

During the summer, a dispute over the succession to the post of master of the horse to the queen appeared to Clarendon to have been engineered in order to divide him and Southampton (Southampton sought the post for his nephew, Robert Spencer), and to others indicative of a poor relationship between the duke of York and the treasurer. Clarendon, Life (1857), ii. 176-85. Southampton returned to the House one day into the new session of October 1665 held at Oxford, after which he was present on 13 of its 19 sitting days, during which he was named to four committees. During the debates on the Five Mile Act, he was noted to have expressed his opposition to the measure ‘with much reason, but more heat.’ Verney ms mic. M636/20, Sir N. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 1 Nov. 1665. Making plain that he was ‘against the drift of the bill’ which he thought would give those targeted ‘further countenance and get a further provocation’, Southampton complained that he ‘did not know that our laws are like the Medes and Persians’ which were not to be altered’. Having ‘purposely avoided being at the committee because he was against this bill’ he now took the opportunity of speaking against it and moved that the phrase ‘I will not endeavour tumultuarily and seditiously the alteration of government’ should be added to the oath instead. In response to Southampton’s appeal that ministers unable to conform should ‘not be made desperate’, Gilbert Sheldon (now archbishop of Canterbury) replied that ‘they need not be desperate for they may conform and have livings if they will’ only for Southampton to riposte ‘by the act set forth they cannot.’ Carte 80, f. 757; BIHR xxi, 221, 224. Southampton and the other opponents of the bill were then disappointed in their efforts to have the draft recommitted. Bodl. Rawl. A 130. Some observers attributed Southampton’s unwillingness to limit further the religious freedoms of non-Anglican Protestants to his relationship with Ashley (in spite of their divergence over the war). Haley, Shaftesbury, 161. His stance made him unpopular with the episcopal bench, which reckoned him insufficiently supportive of the Church and far too ‘desirous, that somewhat more might have been done to gratify the Presbyterians than they thought just.’ Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. 62; Clarendon, Life, ii. 408-9. Another instance of Southampton’s unfashionable moderation was his willingness to continue the services of a number of Hampshire justices of the peace who had been in post during the Interregnum. Coleby, 90. Southampton’s connection with Ashley may also have influenced his support for the Irish cattle bill during the same session. He was named to the committee considering the bill on 26 Oct. and one opponent of the measure, Robert Boyle, accounted Southampton ‘our great adversary’. Carte 34, f. 456; Add. 75354, ff. 139-40. Support for the Irish cattle bill set Southampton at variance with Clarendon, who had promised to oppose the measure. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. n.s. lx. 18.

Despite their differences of opinion and continuing rumours of a rift between Southampton and Clarendon, the two men were united in their opposition to Sir George Downing’s^‡ proposals incorporated into the supply bill that would have stripped the treasury of much of its independence. Seaward, Cavalier Parlt., 126-7. In January 1666, as a further indication that their relations had not been unduly harmed by their disagreements of the previous year, Clarendon appointed Southampton one of the overseers of his will. CCSP, v. 526-7.

Over the summer of 1666, the problems of financing the war grew considerably worse, compounded by the impact of the plague and the Fire of London on the economy. A new parliamentary session in the autumn was required to raise urgent funding to continue the war in the following season. Southampton took his seat in the new session on 18 Sept. 1666 but proceeded to attend just 29 of its 91 sitting days, during which he was named to a mere three committees. Captain Cock, for one, attributed such poor attendance to laziness. He complained to Pepys of Southampton’s lethargy, suggesting that, ‘if he can have his £8,000 per annum and a game at l’ombre, he is well’. Pepys Diary, vi. 218. After Southampton’s death, his nephew, Robert Spencer, was forced to defend his uncle from charges that he had allowed Clarendon to run the treasury at his pleasure’. HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 466. Despite his relatively low attendance in the session, Southampton received the proxy of another kinsman, Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, on 4 Oct., which was vacated on 26 Nov., and on 1 Nov. he was entrusted with Carbery’s proxy, which was vacated on 12 December. On 15 Oct. Southampton was involved with the committee considering the jointure of his daughter, Elizabeth Noel, but he was also able to find time to travel to Lyndhurst to appear at the New Forest swainmot on 20 November. Cal. of New Forest Documents, 177. Although absent from the House that day (presumably travelling up from Hampshire), on 21 Nov. he and Ashley were ordered to acquaint the king with the coinage bill to ensure that it had the king’s approbation. Having resumed his seat on 23 Nov. Southampton was absent again on 26 Nov. when Ashley reported back with the king’s agreement for the bill to continue.

Southampton sat for the final time on 29 Nov. 1666. Soon after, he fell seriously sick. Poor health did not prevent him continuing to be the butt of criticism and in February 1667 he was upbraided for having failed to seek legal counsel concerning the poll bill. In March it was again rumoured that he would resign or be put out and be replaced by Arlington. The following month, John Duncombe^‡ complained that ‘much of our misfortune has been for want of an active lord treasurer’. Pepys Diary, viii. 66, 96, 179. Duncombe’s sentiments were echoed by Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, in May, when he lamented to Ormond how Southampton’s ‘languishing sickness … has retarded the complete fixing our assignations for the Irish money.’ Carte 47, f. 152.

By the beginning of May 1667 Southampton was reported to be extremely ill. It was said that ‘his spirits decay from the violence of his pains’. Add. 75354, ff. 66-67; CSP Dom. 1667, p. 72. Expectation of his imminent demise led to predictable jostling between the various pretenders for his office, chief among them Arlington and Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich. Pepys Diary, viii. 195. Although he was said to be ‘dangerously ill’ on 15 May and in considerable agony, Southampton still had the presence of mind in his last few hours to enquire after the duke of York’s sons, whose conditions were also terminal. Clarendon, Life, ii. 354. Southampton died the following day of complications following a pioneering (but misguided) attempt to cure him of the stone. Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 11 July 1699. An autopsy found no evidence of kidney stones but detected a large hard stone in the bladder and the organ itself to be of ‘a livid colour especially towards the neck.’ Sloane 1116, f. 46. Following his death Arlington and Sandwich were disappointed in their ambitions and the treasury was put into commission. HMC Kenyon, 79; CSP Dom. 1667, p. 115; Carte 46, ff. 476-7.

Southampton lay in state for six weeks prior to his interment in the family vault at St Peter’s Titchfield in Hampshire. In his will, he made provision for an annuity of £500 to his countess as well as £2,000 in money and a life interest in Southampton House. The remainder of his estate, saddled with debts of £20,000, passed to his surviving daughters to be overseen by his trustees, Sir Orlando Bridgeman^‡, Robert Leigh, Sir Henry Vernon and Sir Philip Warwick^‡ (who had served Southampton loyally as secretary to the treasury), who each received £50 to buy mourning rings. To a servant, John Neale, Southampton also bequeathed a £50 annuity.

Southampton’s passing was mourned by many. One noted that ‘every sober person laments his death as truly honest and a patron to such.’ Bodl. ms North c.4, ff. 164-5. During his life, aside from complaints about his laziness, Pepys had recorded how, ‘nothing displeased me in him but his long nails, which he lets grow upon a pretty thick white short hand, that it troubled me to see them.’ Pepys Diary, iv. 389. More seriously, under increasing pressure from his enemies, Clarendon felt the loss of his ally acutely. To Burlington (as Clifford of Lanesborough had since become) he bemoaned the ‘irreparable loss’ and to Ormond he commented how he had ‘lost a friend – a firm and unshaken friend and whether my only friend, or no, you only know.’ Add. 75355, Clarendon to Burlington, 1 June 1667; Carte 35, ff. 461-2. It was said that few lord treasurers had left office having gained so little materially from the position as Southampton. Pepys Diary, viii. 222. Clarendon’s earlier assessment of his friend as being ‘of honour superior to any temptation’ appears to have been a fair one. Clarendon 72, ff. 172-3. Yet while most were willing to acknowledge his incorruptibility, he left an uncertain legacy, with many blaming him for failing to address the fundamental problems facing the revenue. Fearful of the future, Pepys summed up the situation that Southampton bequeathed the nation:

I pray God that the Treasury may not be worse managed by the hand or hands it shall now be put into; though, for certain, the slowness (though he was of great integrity) of this man, and remissness, have gone as far to undo the nation as anything else that has happened. Pepys Diary, viii. 219.