VAUGHAN, Richard (c. 1600-86)

The Vaughans of Golden Grove claimed their descent from a bastard line of the mediaeval princes of Powys. The first member of the family to become established in the south of the principality was Hugh Fychan (Vaughan) (fl. 1490), whose son, John Vaughan^‡ (1525–74), was the first member of the family to sit in Parliament. Thereafter, members of the Vaughan family or their kin sat consistently for one or both of the seats in Carmarthen from 1558 until 1722. Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 98, 101. John Vaughan’s grandson, also John Vaughan, was fortunate not to suffer the fate of his father-in-law, Sir Gelly Meyrick, who was executed for his part in the rebellion staged by his patron, Robert Devereux^†, earl of Essex, in 1600. HP Commons, 1558–1603, iii. 44–45. Vaughan survived temporary disgrace to flourish under the new monarch, James I, and in 1621 he was created Baron Vaughan in the Irish peerage, ‘the first Carmarthenshire Welshman to be made a peer’. Vaughan accompanied Prince Charles to Spain in 1623, where it seems likely that he was accompanied by his heir, Richard Vaughan, who may have already been at Madrid as part of his foreign tour. Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963),111, 113. Although Vaughan failed to achieve high office when Prince Charles succeeded to the throne, he was promoted in the peerage as earl of Carbery [I], and Richard Vaughan (styled Lord Vaughan [I] from 1628) was knighted at the coronation.

The first earl died in May 1634, leaving a substantial estate to his heir, who proceeded to enlarge his territory in Wales over the ensuing 50 years, as well as developing interests in England by a series of astute marriages. On the outbreak of civil war Carbery was nominated both by Parliament and the king to oversee affairs in Wales but in the event sided with the royalist cause. Although he was an unsuccessful general, in 1643 he was rewarded with an English peerage as Baron Vaughan. Thus requited, after 1644 he retired within his ‘private walls to enjoy the happiness of a holy, quiet and innocent repose’ and took no further part in the conflict. HLQ, xi. 60.

Despite his retirement, Carbery’s prominent role as a royalist commander initially attracted severe treatment from Parliament. In 1645 he was fined £160 and assessed by the committee for compounding as a delinquent at £4,500, but two years later he was pardoned, thanks in part to the intervention of his former enemy, the parliamentarian commander in Wales, Rowland Laugharne^‡. LJ, viii. 704–7; Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 119. Carbery’s good fortune led to some accusing him of having turned coat, accusations that were strengthened by his opposition to a royalist uprising in south Wales in 1648 and by the manner in which he continued to dominate affairs in his native Carmarthenshire throughout the 1650s, having won the trust of Oliver Cromwell^‡. HLQ, xi. 60. Nevertheless, in 1655 he was believed to be heavily involved in the risings that year. Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 120; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 220. During the Interregnum, Golden Grove served as a haven for former royalists, the most prominent of whom was Jeremy Taylor, who was employed as Carbery’s chaplain. Taylor dedicated a series of works to his patron and entitled his 1655 volume of prayers, The Golden Grove, after the place where he found sanctuary. In 1651 Carbery penned an essay of his own in the form of letters of advice to his son, styled Lord Vaughan, in which he enjoined him to fear God and honour the king and his family. More cynically he advised his son to learn how to tack and respond to the prevailing wind, ‘because commonwealths have their shelves and rocks, therefore get the skill of coasting and shifting your sails’. HLQ, xi. 61–62, 65.

Despite his successful navigation of the stormy seas of the Commonwealth, Carbery undoubtedly welcomed the Restoration. As most of his kinsmen were disabled from standing for Parliament on account of their royalism, in the elections to the Convention he lent his interest at Carmarthen to Arthur Annesley (later earl of Anglesey), who was married to Lady Carbery’s sister, Elizabeth. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 510, 537. In May 1660 he voiced his resentment at the way in which Edward Hyde (later earl of Clarendon), had been sidelined during the king’s reception and he continued to be closely associated with Hyde over the next few years. Bodl. Clarendon 72, f. 240. The following month he was one of those to set their signatures to the Welsh loyal address to the new king. Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 120. Rewards were quick to follow with Carbery appointed to the constableship of the castles of Radnor and Ludlow (to which Carbery named his secretary, the satirical author Samuel Butler, as steward), as well as a number of other local offices in Wales. CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 210; HLQ, xi. 61.

Carbery took his seat in the House (sitting as Baron Vaughan), along with a number of other peers holding titles created in the civil wars, on 1 June 1660, after which he sat was present for approximately 43 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 4 June he was added to the committee for privileges and he was named to three further select committees in the course of the session. On 31 July, although present on the attendance list that day, he was noted as being absent at a call of the House and fined 5s. Carbery was appointed lord lieutenant of both north and south Wales in September. He resumed his seat in the House at the opening of the second session of the Convention on 6 Nov. 1660, after which he was present for just over 82 per cent of all sitting days, though he was named to just one committee.

Carbery’s dominance in Wales was underlined by his appointment to the presidency of the reconstituted council in Wales and the Marches in January 1661 but his selection met with a distinctly lukewarm response in some quarters. Edward Herbert 3rd Baron Herbert of Chirbury, complained of Carbery’s ‘long neglect of the king’s service’, though he conceded that should Carbery deal ‘cordially in the king’s affairs’ he would revise his opinion. NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2311. Herbert was quick to demonstrate his own zealousness, sending Carbery a lengthy screed on 24 Jan. detailing the decisions taken in Merioneth, Caernarvon, and Anglesey, as well as ‘the rest of our proceedings and intentions’, while urging Carbery to ‘let me know what numbers of trained bands or volunteers, horse and foot are raised or to be raised in South Wales that I may argue the case with my countrymen who seem very backward in my opinion’. TNA, PRO 30/53/11/24. Although Carbery’s status in Wales was unrivalled, the manner of his appointment later created difficulties for his successors in the office. On his dismissal from the post the following decade, it was discovered that the marcher counties of Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, and Monmouthshire had been omitted from his patent ‘to please the earl of Clarendon’. CSP Dom. 1671–2, p. 218.

Carbery employed his extensive interest in the elections for the Cavalier Parliament, but failed to secure the return of his chosen candidate for Breconshire. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 506; iii. 724. The election for New Radnor proved to be similarly contentious and resulted in a dispute between Carbery and the high sheriff for Carmarthenshire, Evan Davies, when Carbery attempted to put up ‘a stranger’, Sir Allen Brodrick^‡ (former secretary to the Sealed Knot and a creature of Clarendon’s), in opposition to the former steward, Edward Harley^‡. Ibid. i. 521; Add. 70119, T. to E. Harley, 30 Apr. 1661. In the event Carbery’s interest at New Radnor proved unequal to the task of overturning that of Davies and the Harleys. He was, however, successful in persuading the sitting member for the county, George Gwynne^‡, to stand down in favour of Sir Richard Lloyd^‡. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 520; ii. 458. In Carmarthenshire, the Golden Grove interest also prevailed, seeing both seats taken by Carbery’s sons, Francis Vaughan^‡, styled Lord Vaughan, for the county and John Vaughan (later 3rd earl of Carbery), for the borough. The latter should not be confused with the Member of the Commons and prominent lawyer of the same name.

Carbery took his seat at the opening of Parliament on 8 May 1661, after which he continued to attend for approximately 46 per cent of all sitting days in the session and was named to 11 committees. The decision of Sir Heneage Finch (later earl of Nottingham), to sit for Oxford University rather than Beaumaris triggered a by-election there in July, at which Carbery was successful in securing the return of John Robinson^‡, assisted by the failure of Thomas Butler earl of Ossory [I] (later Baron Butler of Moore Park), to notify Robert Bulkeley^‡, Viscount Bulkeley [I], in time of his own intention to stand on the Bulkeley interest. Ibid. i. 505; Bodl. Carte 214, f. 294.

Carbery registered his proxy with the lord treasurer, Thomas Wriothesley 4th earl of Southampton (his eldest son’s father-in-law), on 10 Dec. 1661, to enable him to concentrate on affairs in Wales. The first few weeks of 1662 found him at Ludlow overseeing his new responsibilities, in preparation for which he had written to the local officers at the close of December to ‘keep strict watch and ward in all passages and highways by day and night to prevent the dangerous designs of malicious disturbers of the peace’. NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2332. On 16 Jan. 1662 (in his absence) the House was informed of a breach of privilege committed against Carbery by the arrest of one of his servants, Clement Oxonbridge. Two months later, on 22 Mar., Anglesey informed the House that the offender, Samuel Wightwick, had given way, acknowledging Carbery’s protection of his servant. Carbery resumed his seat in April. In July he was noted as being opposed to the claim put forward by Aubrey de Vere 20th earl of Oxford, for the lord great chamberlaincy. His opposition may well have been motivated by a personal dispute with Oxford over the settlement of the estate of Paul Bayning^†, 2nd Viscount Bayning. TNA, C10/474/200; C10/206/39. Litigation concerning a debt owed by Carbery to the Bayning estate, which was claimed by Oxford in right of his wife, continued until 1674 and there is some suggestion that Carbery’s role in the affair was far from straight. TNA, C33/241, f. 592. Carbery also continued to court controversy over his management in Wales and in May 1662 George Goring earl of Norwich, complained that Carbery was obstructing the passing of his patent to be secretary to the council of Wales. CCSP, v. 214.

Carbery took his seat in the second session of the Cavalier Parliament on 18 Feb. 1663, when he was named to the committee for privileges. He was named to the committee for petitions on 25 Feb. and to a further six committees in the course of the session, of which he attended approximately 45 per cent of all sitting days. The reason for his absence for over half of the session was probably his responsibilities in the principality and on 29 Apr. he was granted leave of absence so that he could attend to the council in Wales. Having sat for one more day he was then absent until 23 June 1663 and it was probably during this absence that he registered his proxy once more with Southampton, though the date of the proxy is uncertain. On 13 July, Philip Wharton 4th Baron Wharton, forecast Carbery, unsurprisingly, as being opposed to the attempt made by George Digby 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Clarendon. Carbery’s close association with both Clarendon and Southampton had been apparent since at least the spring of 1660. Herbert Corresp. ed. W.J. Smith, 190; CCSP, v. 20.

Carbery returned to the House for the following session on 16 Mar. 1664, after which he attended on each day of the 36-day session. Despite this assiduousness he was named to just two committees. In July his younger son, John Vaughan, was arrested at a Quaker meeting at Mile End Green and gaoled in Newgate. NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2404. There is no indication that any other member of the family shared his religious sympathies, though Lady Carbery was noted for her piety. Indeed, Carbery himself had stressed in his letter to his eldest son, ‘For thy religion, distinguish not thy self by, be not factious for, nor serve under any sect whatsoever.’ HLQ, xi. 64. Responsibilities in Wales again account for Carbery’s late return to the House for the ensuing (1664–5) session. The session opened on 24 Nov. 1664 but on 28 Nov. he was at Ludlow Castle, whence he wrote to the deputy lieutenants for Caernarvonshire requesting that they send up the names of the militia offices to him at London. NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2408. Missing at a call on 7 Dec. he was noted as being en route to London and he took his seat five days later. He thereafter attended on approximately 58 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to eight committees. On 11 Feb. 1665 the House was informed that Carbery’s privilege had again been infringed by several of his neighbours carrying away corn from his barns, and ordered that full restitution should be made.

Carbery was absent for the entirety of the session of October 1665 and he was also missing from the opening weeks of the following session that opened on 18 Sept. 1666. On 1 Nov. he again registered his proxy with Southampton, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 12 December. He was thereafter present on just under 10 per cent of all sitting days and was named to a single committee before once more absenting himself. In February 1667, Carbery and Southampton employed their collective interest with Clarendon to secure payment of fees owing to Sir Job Charlton^‡ but the death of Carbery’s heir, Lord Vaughan, the following month and his continuing responsibilities in Wales perhaps explain his reduced attendance of the House at this time. CCSP, v. 582.

Present on two of the prorogation days in July 1667, Carbery took his seat in the seventh session on 10 Oct., after which he was present on approximately 72 per cent of all sitting days and was named to seven committees. By this time he appears to have departed from his former loyalty to Clarendon and on 20 Nov. he joined with a number of opposition peers in subscribing the protest at the resolution not to agree with the Commons’ request to commit Clarendon without a specific charge. On 6 Dec. Carbery had another complaint referred to the privileges committee over the arrest of one of his servants (George Welden) by the high bailiff of Westminster. The committee ordered Welden’s release and restitution of his goods on 10 Dec. but there was further consideration of the question of Carbery’s privilege on 6 Apr. 1668. Welden’s cause resurfaced on 13 Apr. when continued efforts to secure the payment of his debts were considered in Worth v Welden.

Carbery was in London during the summer of 1668. He attended a meeting of the Privy Council, of which he had been a member since 1661 on 15 June and on 18 Sept. he was present at a meeting of the commissioners appointed to settle trade between England and Scotland, though this appears to have been the only occasion on which he participated in this business. Clarendon 87, f. 7; NLS, Yester pprs. ms 14492, f. 44. He was then absent from the House for the whole of the session of October to December 1669 and on 13 Oct. he registered his proxy with George Monck, duke of Albemarle. Still absent at the opening of the ensuing Parliament, he was excused at a call on 21 Feb. 1670 and, after taking his seat on 26 Feb., he attended for just 15 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to seven committees. In March the arrest of another of Carbery’s servants (William Davyes) by one David Morgan precipitated a further hearing in the committee for privileges but on this occasion the committee ordered that Morgan should be granted leave to proceed to trial against Davyes. LJ, xii. 301, 304.

Carbery’s poor attendance at this time may have been connected with complaints beginning to circulate about his administration in Wales. In June 1670 he was instructed to put out the deputy clerk of the council of Wales for having ‘abused his office by illegal proceedings’ and in July Thomas Hunton, yeoman of the wardrobe at Ludlow, made a direct complaint against Carbery himself, accusing him of misappropriating funds. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 297. According to Hunton, of the £9,000 allocated to Carbery for repairs and purchase of new furniture for Ludlow Castle he had spent only £3,000 and had skimped on the new furniture by buying second-hand items. Officials were despatched to Ludlow to investigate the complaint. Although they were said to have been roughly treated by Carbery’s servants and even by his countess, of whom one of the officers is said to have complained that it was ‘well she cannot take away the castle with her’, in August the Privy Council cleared him of any wrongdoing. Ibid. pp. 355–6; CSP Dom. 1661–2, pp. 163, 402; Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 125. Even so, Carbery appears to have resolved to protect his interests in Wales in person over the next two years. On 15 Oct. 1670 he registered his proxy with John Granville earl of Bath. He was excused at a call of the House on 14 Nov. and was then excused again on 10 Feb. 1671. The following month, on 30 Mar., he approached his brother-in-law, John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater to ask if he would take over the proxy as Bath had quit the session and registered his own with John Belayse, Baron Belasyse, on 14 March. Bridgwater was unable to comply, being already in possession of two proxies. Carbery was also concerned to enlist Bridgwater’s aid in having David Morgan and Morgan Lloyd arrested for their continuing efforts to prosecute William Davies. HEHL, EL 8123.

Carbery was present in the House on just two occasions between April 1670 and February 1673. Despite being exonerated by the Privy Council, complaints about his management in Wales continued to escalate, such that in January 1672 it was predicted that he would be replaced as president of the council of Wales by Henry Somerset marquess of Worcester (later duke of Beaufort). Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. to E. Verney, 25 Jan. 1672. Following the accusation of embezzlement, the latest reports charged Carbery with maltreating his tenants. The allegations appear to have arisen from a suit in chancery initiated by William Russell^‡, Lord Russell, to regain possession of estates in right of his wife, Lady Rachel, widow of Carbery’s eldest son, Francis, Lord Vaughan. Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 125. Carbery’s agents subjected the inhabitants of the estates awarded to Russell to a vicious assault: ‘some their ears cut off and one his tongue cut out, and all dispossessed’. Hatton Corresp. i. 76. In the face of such constant criticism of his mismanagement, Carbery was put out as predicted, leaving it to his successor, Beaufort, to attend to the dilapidated condition of Ludlow. M. McClain, Beaufort: The Duke and His Duchess, 1657-1715, p. 106. For all this Carbery was unrepentant following his dismissal and was swift to petition the king for compensation, arguing that he had:

endeavoured to serve well rather than to profit himself, and being burdened with debt from his sufferings for loyalty, he is compelled lest his family want bread to remind His Majesty of his promises of relief, it being a sacred observation that in the word of a king there is power and safety. Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 125.

Carbery returned to the House on 4 Feb. 1673, after which he attended on almost 88 per cent of all sitting days, but he was named to just one committee. He attended three of the four days of the brief session of October 1673, once more resuming his seat in the ensuing session on 7 Jan. 1674. That month, in response to his appeals for financial assistance, he was awarded a royal bounty of £200 and the same year his heir, John, styled Lord Vaughan, was appointed governor of Jamaica. Ibid. 126. Carbery’s attendance remained high during the session, at 87 per cent of all sitting days, but he was again named to only one committee besides the sessional committees. He attended the prorogation day on 10 Nov. 1674 and then resumed his seat for the first session of 1675 on 13 Apr., when he again displayed a high rate of attendance (95 per cent) and was named to seven committees. Believed to be likely to support the non-resisting test, on 10 May he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to affirm the decree in the cause of Barret v Viscount Loftus.

Carbery was again assiduous in his attendance in the short second session of 1675. Present on over 85 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to six committees, on 20 Nov. he voted against addressing the crown for a dissolution. He resumed his seat at the opening of the following session on 15 Feb. 1677, after which he was present for 97 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the committees for privileges and petitions on the first day, over the course of the session he was also named to a further 36 select committees. Anthony Ashley Cooper earl of Shaftesbury, assessed Carbery as ‘thrice vile’ in May 1677. After the brief recess, Carbery returned to the House for the following session on 23 May 1678, when he was again named to the sessional committees for petitions, privileges, and the Journal. Once more assiduous in his attendance, he was present for almost 84 per cent of all sitting days in the session and was named to a further six committees. Having attended on three of the prorogation days in August and October, he resumed his seat in the new session of October 1678, after which he was present for almost 92 per cent of the remaining days. On 15 Nov. he voted against disabling Catholics from sitting in Parliament and on 26 Dec. he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the disbanding bill. The following day he voted against committing Thomas Osborne earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds).

Carbery was listed by Danby as a likely supporter in a series of forecasts drawn up in advance of the new Parliament. He attended on six days of the abortive first session of March 1679, then took his seat at the opening of the first Exclusion Parliament on 15 Mar., after which he was present on every sitting day. Named to the sessional committees for privileges, petitions, and the Journal on 17 Mar., he was thereafter named to a further four committees in the course of the session. Carbery voted against Danby’s attainder on 1 and 14 Apr. and on 10 May he voted against appointing a committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords.

Omitted from the reconstituted Privy Council in April 1679, Carbery sat for the final time on 27 May, when he probably voted for the right of the bishops to remain in the House during consideration of capital cases. By March 1680 he described himself as being in ‘retirement’ at Golden Grove. Bodl. Tanner 46, f. 109. On 30 Oct. 1680 he was excused at a call of the House and on 15 Nov. he was included in a list of those missing from the divisions on the exclusion bill. Danby again recorded Carbery as a supporter in a pre-sessional forecast of March 1681, but Carbery did not attend the brief Parliament of 1681.

Carbery ‘nobly entertained’ the duke of Beaufort (as Worcester had become), his successor in the presidency of the council of Wales, during the latter’s progress through Wales in 1684. The Official Progress of His Grace Henry First Duke of Beaufort … through Wales in 1684, clxxxi. In spite of this demonstration of lavish hospitality, financial concerns appear to have plagued Carbery’s declining years. C10/206/39. Cases continued to be brought against his heirs after his demise over the non-payment of debts in which, as in his dispute with Oxford, he seems to have been guilty of sharp practice. HMC Lords, ii. 419–20; iii. 344–5. He failed to take his seat in the first Parliament of the new reign in 1685 and died the following year on 3 June 1686. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 37; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 160. Contrary to his desire that he be buried in the family vault at Llandeilo Fawr, he was instead interred at Llanfihangel Aberbythych. Limited administration of his will, which he had composed in 1639 and which he had left unchanged despite the subsequent deaths of his then wife, Frances, and heir, Francis, Lord Vaughan, was granted to his sister-in-law (by his long-deceased second wife), Elizabeth, countess of Anglesey, in 1687. The whole was finally proved in May 1688. PROB 11/391, ff. 93–4. Carbery’s enduring legacy was probably to the Welsh language, which he had championed, petitioning successfully for royal support for an edition of the Bible and other texts in ‘the British language’. Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1963), 126. In other regards he was best remembered as a rapacious landlord and corrupt official. He was succeeded as 3rd earl of Carbery by his eldest surviving son, John, Lord Vaughan. His other surviving son, Altham Vaughan^‡, like his brothers, served as Member for Carmarthen.