VAUGHAN, John (1639-1713)

The Vaughans dof Golden Grove had dominated affairs in south Wales since the middle of the 16th century and although they had taken the side of Charles I in the civil wars still managed to emerge politically almost unscathed following the king’s defeat. Financially they were less fortunate, and although Vaughan’s father, the 2nd earl of Carbery, was released from his fines by Parliament it was left to his successor to restore the family’s fortunes, first through his ruthless exploitation of his office of governor of Jamaica and towards the end of his life by his tendency towards parsimony. Verney ms mic. M636/54, Ralph Palmer to Lord Fermanagh, 27 Jan. 1713.

Returned to the Cavalier Parliament for Carmarthen, Vaughan appears initially to have been an inactive member. He seems to have had some Quaker sympathies: in 1664 he was arrested at a meeting at Mile End Green. NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2404. Both Vaughan’s mother and her brother-in-law, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, may also have had Dissenting sympathies. Unlike his father, who was at first one of the lord chancellor’s allies, Vaughan proved to be one of the foremost critics of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, and in 1667 he was instrumental in securing a Commons’ majority for Clarendon’s impeachment. HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 631; NLS, Yester pprs. ms 7024, ff. 62–63. (In this he should not be confused with another prominent anti-Clarendonian in the House, John Vaughan^‡, Member for Cardiganshire.) The same year, by the death of his older brother, Francis, he became heir to the earldom of Carbery.

The family interest came under assault in the early 1670s over Carbery’s reputed mismanagement of the council of Wales, which resulted in his displacement. In 1674, as part of the compensation for his father’s loss of office, Vaughan was appointed governor of Jamaica and set out for his new posting towards the end of December. Eg. 3340, ff. 124–6. His tenure of the post proved quite as controversial as his father’s had been in Wales. Having from the very beginning of his governorship fallen out with his deputy, the notorious buccaneer Henry Morgan, he was accused of selling members of his household, including his chaplain, into slavery and of overseeing a particularly brutal regime on the island. HMC Dartmouth, i. 25; G.H. Jenkins, Foundations of Modern Wales 1642–1780, 100. After being in post for less than three years he was recalled and replaced by Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle (for whom the post had originally been intended).

Vaughan’s political allegiances altered dramatically between his departure for Jamaica and the close of the reign. During his absence he was noted as thrice vile by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, and elsewhere as a court supporter. On his return to England he appealed to his neighbour Sir Sackville Crow for his interest in Carmarthenshire at the first Exclusion election, for which he was returned without contest. HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 631. The same year, in spite of his already chequered reputation, it was rumoured that he was being considered for the post of ambassador to Constantinople. HMC Finch, ii. 152. Although Shaftesbury again marked Vaughan ‘vile’ and he was absent from the first division on the Exclusion bill, by 1681 he was generally believed to be a supporter of exclusion. HP Commons, 1660–90, iii. 631.

Following the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, in August 1681 Vaughan accompanied Charles Sackville, 6th earl of Dorset, who had been granted leave to travel abroad for his health, and Sir Cyril Wyche^‡ in visiting Henry Savile^‡, the English envoy in France. Savile Corresp. 221. The following year (perhaps as a result of this encounter) he turned heads by marrying Savile’s niece, Anne. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 212. Having only recently been associated with the most vociferous of the exclusionists, it was now reported that Vaughan intended to ‘become Tory’. Although ‘the other party’ was reported to be ‘very angry at this match’, Vaughan remained thereafter on close terms with his father-in-law, Halifax. HMC Rutland, ii. 75.

Re-elected to the Royal Society in 1685, Vaughan was elected its president the following year, a post he held for the next three years. Hunter, Royal Society, 80, 232. On the death of his father in June 1686 he succeeded to the Irish earldom of Carbery as well as to his seat in the House of Lords at Westminster as Baron Vaughan. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 379. He was consistently listed as an opponent of the king’s policies. A report that he was to be one of 15 new members of the Privy Council to be appointed in July proved to be as inaccurate as it had been unlikely. Morrice, Entring Bk, iv. 297. Carbery was unwilling to subscribe the petition for a free Parliament in November 1688. He was then the sole peer to attend all sessions of the provisional government that met in the wake of the king’s flight. Although he does not appear to have taken a particularly prominent role in its discussions, on 11 Dec. he was one of those to sign the declaration to the prince of Orange and to subscribe the letter to George Legge, Baron Dartmouth, ordering him to remove all Catholics from their commands in the fleet and to do his utmost to avoid clashing with the Dutch fleet. Kingdom without a King, 41; Bodl. ms Eng. Hist. d. 307, f. 6; HMC Dartmouth, i. 229.

Carbery took his seat for the first time in the House of Lords at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he attended on three-quarters of all sitting days, during which he was named to 27 committees. On 31 Jan. he voted in favour of inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen, subscribing the protest when this failed to be adopted. On 4 Feb. he supported the use of the term ‘abdicated’ and protested once more at the House’s decision not to agree with the Commons. Two days later he again voted in favour of employing the phrases ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’. He was appointed one of the managers of the conference with the Commons concerning the proclamation on 12 Feb. and on 21 Mar. he protested once more against the inclusion of a clause in the bill for abrogating oaths. On 24 Apr. he was named one of the managers of a conference concerning the same business and on 31 May he voted in favour of reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates, once more subscribing the protest when the proposition failed to be carried. On 3 June Carbery was named to the committee considering the bill for abolishing the court of the marches of Wales, in which he presumably had a particular interest. He subscribed further protests against resolutions relating to the Oates case on 10 and 12 July and on 30 July he subscribed a further protest at the Lords’ resolution to adhere to their amendments.

Carbery’s support for the new regime no doubt encouraged him to submit a petition during the course of the first session for the grant of various Welsh offices that had previously been held by James’s ministers. CTB, ix. 17. He did not go unrewarded and he was one of those to be granted command of a regiment as well as being appointed to the admiralty commission. He resumed his seat in the second session on 23 Oct. 1689, was present on almost 88 per cent of all sitting days, and was named to 17 committees. Among these was the committee enquiring into the death of William Russell^‡, Lord Russell, who had married Francis Vaughan’s widow. In a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690 by Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), he was classified as a supporter of the court. On 23 Jan. 1690 he subscribed the protest at the resolution to remove the clause from the bill restoring the corporations, declaring that the surrender of charters under Charles II and James II was ‘illegal and void’.

Carbery almost certainly supported his kinsman Sir Rice Rudd^‡, for Carmarthenshire in the March election of 1690; the borough seat went to another relation, Richard Vaughan^‡. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 797–8. Absent from the opening of the new Parliament, Carbery was noted as being sick at a call on 31 Mar. but he resumed his seat on 3 Apr., after which he was present for a little over 46 per cent of all sitting days in the first session and was named to four committees. On 13 May, during the deliberations over the restoration of the charter of the corporation of London, he protested at the resolution not to permit the corporation more time to be heard by their counsel.

Carbery was present on five of the prorogation days, during which no business was transacted, between July and September 1690. That summer he also attended meetings of the admiralty commissioners presided over by the queen. At one he was noted to have ‘spoke once and no more’ but on a subsequent occasion he joined with several of his colleagues in speaking out against and then refusing to sign the commission appointing Sir Richard Haddock. At the beginning of August the queen complained that he was one of three members of the board to ‘continue obstinate’ on the matter. Dalrymple, Mems. iii. 103–11, 116–18. Following this unsatisfactory episode Carbery retreated to Kent in company with Edward Russell, later earl of Orford. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 323. He returned to London in time to take his seat in the second session on 2 Oct. 1690, after which he was present on 71 per cent of all sitting days and named to 21 committees. 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, with Carmarthen adding that he hoped that he ‘would at least be absent’ on future occasions. Browning, Danby, iii. 181. On 18 Oct. he acquainted the House of the committal of Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, to the custody of the marshal of the high court of admiralty and it was as a result of the turmoil in the admiralty over Torrington’s arrest that Carbery stood down as one of the admiralty commissioners. HMC Portland, iii. 455; Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 66.

Carbery played host to a drunken gathering including Rice Rudd in mid-February 1691. Carte 79, f. 341. He attended three prorogation days and then returned to the House for the following session on 23 Oct. 1691, after which he was present on just under 68 per cent of all sitting days. Named to 29 committees in the course of the session, on 28 Nov. he received the proxy of Charles Gerard, earl of Macclesfield, who had succeeded Carbery’s father as the royalist commander in south Wales in 1643, which was vacated by Macclesfield’s resumption of his seat on 29 December. Carbery entered his dissent at the resolution to receive the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, on 12 Jan. 1692 and he was also noted by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, among those likely to be opposed to his bill for recovering lands in Wales conveyed away during the Interregnum. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9.

In June 1692 Carbery stood as one of the sureties for John Churchill, earl (later duke) of Marlborough, and in August he was noted as being one of a gathering of peers and Members of Parliament at Pontacks, among them Marlborough, Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, and Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin. Foxcroft, Sir George Savile, ii. 152–3; Carte 79, f. 461. He resumed his seat in the fourth session on 7 Nov. 1692 and continued to attend for almost 86 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to 35 committees, including that on 12 Dec. to consider the bill repealing part of the act for the preservation of fisheries in the Severn, which may have had some local interest. On 31 Dec. he voted in favour of committing the place bill. On 1 Jan. 1693 he was forecast as being in favour of the Norfolk divorce bill but, in keeping with his previous opposition to the measure, the following day he voted against reading the bill. Two days later he again voted in favour of the place bill, signing the protest when it failed. On 19 Jan. he entered two dissents: first at the resolution not to refer the Lords’ amendments to the supply bill to the committee for privileges and second at the decision to recede from those amendments. The following month he found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder and on 1 and 3 Mar. he was named one of the managers of a succession of conferences concerning the bill to prevent malicious prosecutions. On 8 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to reject provisos concerning the searching of peers’ houses from the bill for reviving former laws.

Carbery once more attended on three of the prorogation days before resuming his seat in the fifth session on 7 Nov. 1693. Present for approximately 83 per cent of all sitting days, he was again nominated to a considerable number of committees including, on 5 Jan. 1694, that considering the bill repealing the Henrician Act limiting the number of justices in Wales. On 17 Feb. 1694 he voted in favour of reversing the dismission by the court of chancery in the notorious case of Montagu v Bath.

Carbery narrowly missed out on being appointed to the lieutenancy of north Wales during the summer through Shrewsbury’s interest, though the post was also sought by Charles Gerard, 2nd earl of Macclesfield, who had ‘set his heart’ on acquiring it. Carbery, it would appear, was ignorant of the manoeuvrings being undertaken on his behalf. CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 160. In the event Shrewsbury was himself appointed, only to be succeeded two years later by Macclesfield. Absent for the entirety of the following session, which sat from November 1694 to May 1695, on 24 Nov. Carbery registered his proxy with Shrewsbury and two days later was excused at a call of the House. Carbery’s absence at the opening of the session may have been on account of the December by-election in Cardiganshire, for which he employed his interest on behalf of his kinsman, John Vaughan^‡ (later Viscount Lisburne [I]), though this does not explain his continued absence for the remainder of the session. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 794.

Carbery attended the two prorogation days in September and October 1695. He resumed his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695, after which he was present for three-quarters of all sitting days. Named to 22 committees, 2 of which concerned naval affairs, on 6 Apr. he was nominated as one of the managers of the conference concerning the privateers’ bill. Problems arising from his inheritance continued to plague him: that year he was forced to resort to exhibiting a bill in chancery against his kinsman John Vaughan over the lease of part of the Carmarthenshire estate, which Vaughan was accused of permitting to fall into disrepair and for which he refused to pay rent. TNA, C5/150/21. Carbery returned to the House for the following session of Parliament on 20 Oct. 1696. Again present for slightly more than three-quarters of all sitting days, he was once more named to a substantial number of select committees, including that nominated on 2 Dec. to consider the answers submitted to the House by the admiralty commissioners. On 23 Dec. he voted in favour of the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡.

Having attended the House on four of the prorogation days following the close of the session in April 1697, Carbery resumed his seat at the opening of the ensuing session on 3 December. Present for almost 64 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to 23 committees. On 7 Feb. 1698 he petitioned the House, complaining of a breach of privilege committed by Henry Herbert, Baron Herbert of Chirbury, who had brought a case in exchequer for the recovery of certain fee-farm rents. Following examination of the case in the committee for privileges, Carbery’s complaint was upheld and a stop ordered to all proceedings for the duration of the time of privilege. LJ, xvi. 213. On 15 Mar. he voted against committing the bill to punish Charles Duncombe^‡ and the following day he registered his dissent at the resolution to grant relief to the appellants in the case between James Bertie^‡ and Lucius Henry Carey, 6th Viscount Falkland [S]. On 25 May he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the bill for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and on 28 June to that concerning the impeachments of Goudet and others.

Absent at the opening of the new Parliament, Carbery resumed his seat in the House on 12 Jan. 1699, after which he continued to attend for approximately 60 per cent of all sitting days, being named to seven committees. On 29 Mar. he was one of five peers to be excused attendance at Mohun’s trial, possibly on account of ill health. On 3 May he was named one of the managers of an abortive conference with the Commons concerning the bill on paper and the following day, although omitted from the attendance list, he was one of those nominated to determine what should be done about the missed conference.

Rumours of alterations in the administration that circulated early that summer made mention of Carbery as a ‘close courtier’ but attached no particular role to him. Add. 75369, R. Crawford to Halifax, 13 May 1699. Such reports were no doubt encouraged by the news that began to circulate at the close of the previous year that Shrewsbury was to marry Carbery’s daughter, Anne (who was Carbery’s sole heir following the death of his second wife in childbirth). Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 435. In August 1699 further rumours circulated of Shrewsbury’s likely match with Anne Vaughan, ‘the greatest fortune of England’, but no progress was made, perhaps on account of Shrewsbury’s notoriously uncertain health. Ibid. iv. 553; Carte 228, f. 318; Verney ms mic. M636/51, A. Nicholas to Sir J. Verney, 31 Aug. 1699. Relations between Shrewsbury and his prospective father-in-law appear to have remained cordial and in September they travelled together to wait on the lord chancellor, John Somers, Baron Somers, at Tunbridge Wells. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 555.

Carbery returned to the House for the second session on 23 Nov. 1699, after which he was present on approximately 65 per cent of all sitting days, but he was named to just four committees. On 23 Feb. 1700 he voted against the House adjourning into a committee of the whole to discuss the proposed amendments to the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation. On 8 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to read the Norfolk divorce bill a second time and four days later dissented at the resolution that the bill should pass. The previous month he had sarcastically proposed, in response to reports that numerous divorce bills were expected to be presented to the House in the event of Norfolk’s divorce being granted, that the House should save time by passing one general measure with the names of the parties written on the back of the bill in the same way that they dealt with naturalizations. Add. 29576, f. 21. On 18 Mar. he entered a further dissent at the resolution to pass the bill for preventing the growth of popery.

Rumours of the Shrewsbury–Vaughan match continued to circulate. Shrewsbury spent part of the summer in Wales becoming acquainted with his prospective bride and in August details of a settlement were drawn up. Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 77, ff. 33–35. By September 1700 it was reported confidently that all was now settled for the marriage and that ‘the articles are at last adjusted with old Carbery’. HMC Portland, iii. 627; CSP Dom. 1700–2, p. 119. The following month, it was still believed that Shrewsbury was to marry Lady Anne, ‘a great fortune’, but it came to nothing. Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 10 Oct. 1700. Some concluded that Carbery’s parsimony had got the better of him and that he had failed to offer a sufficient dowry, though it is more probable that the duke’s notoriously fragile health intervened to postpone the match indefinitely. Dorothy Somerville, The King of Hearts: Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, 181.

Carbery took his seat in the first Parliament of 1701 on 10 Feb. and attended just over 70 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to seven committees, including that named on 13 May for William and Frances Vaughan, possibly members of his family. Following the dissolution, he employed the Vaughan interest in Carmarthenshire on behalf of Griffith Rice^‡. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 797. He also presented the Carmarthenshire county address to the king on 6 December. London Gazette, 4–8 Dec. 1701. He then returned to the House for the second Parliament of the year on 30 Dec., after which he attended on 80 per cent of all sitting days.

Carbery resumed his seat in the new Parliament of Queen Anne on 6 Nov. 1702, and was present for just under half of all sitting days. On 1 Jan. 1703 he was estimated by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, to be opposed to the occasional conformity bill and on 16 Jan. he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. He resumed his seat in the second session on 9 Nov. 1703 and was present on 74 per cent of all sitting days in the session. In or about late November Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, predicted that he would oppose the occasional conformity bill and on 14 Dec. he voted against the measure as expected. On 20 Jan. 1704 he was present at a dinner attended by a number of Whig peers, including Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, and Torrington. TNA, C104/116, pt. 1.

Carbery took his seat in the third session on 24 Oct. 1704, after which he attended on 67 per cent of all sitting days. He may have been listed among those peers believed to be in favour of the tack, though the mark on the list sits in between his name and that of William Byron, 4th Baron Byron (who was probably the more likely supporter of the measure). Eg. 3359, ff. 45–46. On 27 Feb. 1705 he was named to the committee considering heads of the conference with the Commons concerning the Ailesbury men.

Carbery took his seat at the opening of the 1705 Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705, after which he was present on three-quarters of all sitting days in the session. He then resumed his seat in the following session on 3 Dec. 1706, and attended on 52 per cent of all sitting days. Having attended seven of the ten days of the brief session of April 1707, he was absent for the entirety of the ensuing Parliaments of 1707 and 1708. He was marked as a Whig in a list of party classifications of May 1708. Noted as being sick during the trial of Dr Sacheverell, Carbery returned to the House on 25 Nov. 1710 at the opening of the new Parliament. Add. 15574, ff. 65–68. In advance of the session he was noted as an opponent by Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford. His opposition may have been in part the result of a challenge to his authority in Cardiganshire by the Jacobite sympathizer Lewis Pryse^‡, who had appealed to Harley for support over the management of various lordships in the area. Add. 70205, L. Pryse to Harley, 21 Nov. 1710. In the event, his opposition to Harley was of little account in the House as he attended on just over 17 per cent of all sitting days.

Listed among the members of the Kit Cat Club in 1711, Carbery took his seat in the House towards the close of that year on 7 Dec., after which he attended on just nine further occasions. J. Oldmixon, History of England, 479. Following his first sitting he dined at the Queen’s Arms in company with a number of prominent Whig politicians, including Thomas Wharton, earl (later marquess) of Wharton, William Cavendish, 2nd duke of Devonshire, and Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville). C104/113, pt. 2. The following day (8 Dec.) he was marked as an opponent of the court over the address containing the ‘no peace without Spain’ motion. On 19 Dec. he was forecast as being opposed to permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to sit in the House by virtue of his British dukedom of Brandon and the following day he voted in favour of barring Scots peers at the time of union from sitting by virtue of post-union British peerages.

Carbery registered his proxy with Devonshire on 4 Feb. 1712, which was vacated by his return to the House on 14 February. Having sat on just that day he quit the chamber for the last time and on 6 Mar. he registered his proxy with Wharton, which was vacated by the close of the session. In September he faced a further challenge to his management of his Welsh interests when Thomas Mansell, Baron Mansell, petitioned Oxford (as Harley had since become) to convey a post at Milford held by Carbery’s steward, who it was noted had lived in London ever since being appointed, to one of Mansell’s followers. Add. 70248, Mansell to Oxford, 11 Sept. 1712.

Carbery died of apoplexy at his house in Chelsea in January 1713, shortly after returning from a meeting with his banker. It was a fitting end to one who had pursued gain throughout his career and who towards the end of his life had acquired an unflattering reputation as a miser. Evening Post, 17–20 Jan. 1713; Verney ms mic. M636/54, R. Palmer to Fermanagh, 27 Jan. 1713. Following his death there ensued a rather indecorous pursuit of his daughter and heir, Lady Anne Vaughan, by a number of hopeful candidates, among them Algernon Seymour* [470], styled earl of Hertford (later 7th duke of Somerset), Richard Lumley^{† styled Viscount Lumley (later 2nd earl of Scarbrough), and Charles Powlett†, styled marquess of Winchester (later 3rd duke of Bolton). The last of these proved to be successful, though the marriage ended in separation not long after. Add. 22220, ff. 54–55; Add. 61463, ff. 95–97; Add. 70070, newsletter to Mrs Auditor Harley, 28 July 1713; Evening Post, 25–28 July 1713; Verney ms mic. M636/55, Lady Fermanagh to Lord Fermanagh, 4 Mar. 1714.}

In his will, Carbery made provision for the payment of annuities of £150 to his sisters, Frances and Althamia Vaughan, and a bequest of £100 to Charles Phillips, purser of the ship Canterbury, whose connection with Carbery is unclear. The remainder of his estates and possessions was left to Anne Vaughan, who, with her cousins, Richard Vaughan and John Vaughan, was constituted executor of her father’s will. PROB 11/531, ff. 231–2. In the absence of a male heir the barony of Vaughan and earldom of Carbery [I] became extinct.