WINDSOR, Thomas Windsor (1626-87)

The Windsor family traced their descent to before the Conquest. The earliest recorded member of the family was Othere (or Otho), who was variously described as a descendant of the dukes of Tuscany or of a Viking adventurer. Williams, Windsor Family, 10-11. The family prospered throughout the middle ages, and in 1529 Henry VIII created Sir Andrews Windsor^†, Baron Windsor of Bradenham. By the beginning of the 17th century, the family held property in Worcestershire, Surrey, Hampshire and Buckinghamshire. Despite continuing preferment from the time of the Reformation, the Windsors remained loyal to the Catholic Church.

In 1619 Elizabeth Windsor, sister to the 6th Baron Windsor, married Dixie Hickman of Kew, a cousin of Sir William Hickman^‡ of Gainsborough. Dixie Hickman was almost certainly a Protestant, but the 6th Baron adopted their son, who had been pointedly baptized Thomas Windsor, as his heir, and there is some suggestion that the boy was brought up a Catholic. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 358. On the 6th Baron’s death at the end of 1641, Thomas Windsor inherited his uncle’s estate and assumed his surname and arms, thereby saddling himself with the ungainly name Thomas Windsor Windsor. Windsor’s inheritance included lands in Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Suffolk, but was hardly an enviable one, his predecessor’s debts amounting to almost £45,000. A minor at the time of his succession to his uncle’s property, following the death of his parents shortly after, Windsor was made a ward of William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele. It may have been under Saye and Sele’s influence that Windsor converted to Protestantism, but unlike his guardian, Windsor remained solidly royalist in his sympathies. On the outbreak of the Civil War he succeeded in slipping away to raise a troop for the king. Windsor’s force operated throughout the conflict, by the close of which he was a full colonel. Newman, Royalist Officers, 418. Windsor demonstrated conspicuous gallantry at the battle of Naseby. In return for his service, Charles I proposed that the barony of Windsor should be brought out of abeyance in Windsor’s favour, but although from 1646 he was styled Lord Windsor, the peerage was not formally revived.

In 1646 Windsor surrendered to parliamentary forces at Hartlebury Castle, and the following year he compounded for his estates, paying £1,100. M. Mabey, Windsors of Hewell (1981), 3. He appears to have spent most of the Interregnum peacefully, concentrating on developing navigation schemes, and clearing his debts by undertaking extensive land sales, but doubts remained about his loyalty to the new regime. In 1651 he was summoned before the council of state and compelled to enter into a bond for his good behaviour over allegations that he had intended to fight a duel in Flanders, and in 1655 he was implicated in Penruddock’s rising. D. Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy in England , 47. The following year, on arrival in London he was one of a number of suspected royalists to be obliged to report his presence in the capital, though he seems to have escaped being required to declare where he was lodging. Cornw. RO, ME 3026. The winter of 1656 found him engaged in the final stages of negotiations with Sir George Savile, later marquess of Halifax, prior to his marriage to Savile’s sister, Anne. Windsor protested that the question of a portion was of little concern to him and that he was ‘not inclined to make unreasonable proposals’, but it seems clear that he was eager to have the terms of the marriage settlement secured. As well as bringing him into the circle of Sir George Savile and Sir William^‡ and Henry Coventry^‡, the alliance also cemented Windsor’s already close relations with Christopher Hatton, later Viscount Hatton. Notts. Archives, DD/SR/221/97/2-5; Add. 29550, ff. 257, 300, 304.

Windsor was apparently disgruntled not to have been appointed one of the commissioners of the Great Trust, but in 1660 he was one of those to present General George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, with a declaration from the royalists of Worcestershire. Add. 29550, ff. 345-9; Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy, 298; Diary of Henry Townshend, (Worcs. Hist. Soc. xxiii), i. 37. In March he was closely involved with the elections to the Convention, predicting ‘a great contest between the Presbyterian parsons and the Gentry’. Add. 29550, f. 351. In the event, despite the efforts of Richard Baxter, both those returned for the county could boast firm Royalist credentials. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 460.

At the Restoration the abeyance of the barony of Windsor was finally terminated in his favour by a patent of restitution. Eg. 2551, f. 27. The manner of the award was controversial, the wording of the grant attempting to forestall any potential objections by explaining that, ‘if this declaration be ineffectual in law, his Majesty hereby erects, confirms and establishes to him and his heirs male the said dignity with all privileges and immunities thereunto belonging.’ R.P. Gadd, Peerage Law (1985), 61. Effectively, while the king had terminated the abeyance in Windsor’s favour, and limited the succession to his male heirs, in the event of any challenge the understanding was that Windsor would still enjoy his title as if a new creation.

Windsor took his seat in the House on 18 June 1660, two days after his title’s restitution, and was inaccurately listed by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, as ‘one of the lords whose fathers sat.’ The following month, Windsor was appointed lord lieutenant of Worcestershire. Windsor attended the first part of the Convention through much of July and August 1660. He was missing without explanation at a call of the House on 31 July but on 20 Aug. he was granted leave of absence and he last sat in the House during that part of the Convention on 28 August. In all he attended 45 per cent of the Convention’s sitting days up to the adjournment of 13 Sept., during which he was named to three committees.

In September, Windsor played a prominent role in overseeing the purging of the Worcester corporation. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 467. He returned to the House, after the autumn adjournment, on 12 Nov. 1660 for the second part of the Convention (of which he attended 64 per cent of all sitting days), and on the following day submitted an account of the state of the militia in Worcestershire. Windsor’s authority was evidently not accepted without challenge, and one militia captain was imprisoned for questioning Windsor’s position. CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 355-6. On 17 Nov. and again on 3 Dec. he was added to the membership of a committee but the extent of his ambition was revealed on 27 Dec. when he delivered a petition asserting his claim to the hereditary office of lord high chamberlain. The office was in dispute between several competitors and Windsor submitted his claim as a direct descendant of John de Vere^†, 6th earl of Oxford. The petition was referred to the House, but when the question of the disputed chamberlaincy was raised again, Windsor’s claim had been quietly laid aside.

Windsor returned to the House on 8 May 1661 for the opening of the Cavalier Parliament. On 11 May he and Hatton, introduced Anthony Ashley Cooper as Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury). Quite why Windsor should have sponsored Ashley is unclear, though he was a distant relation by marriage. Windsor sat for much of the first session, approximately three quarters of all sitting days, during which he was named to 16 committees, and in June he was closely involved with the passing of the Rivers Salwerpe and Stour navigation bill. The measure was one with which he had a keen interest as the corporation of Droitwich had undertaken to pay him £550 for overseeing the work and at a session of the committee on 11 June both his role in the development and that of George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, was noted in amendments to the bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 22; HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 464. Throughout his career, Windsor remained interested in similar projects. His close connection with Droitwich and also with Worcester was further evident by his addition to committees on 5 July, one for the bill uniting two parishes within Droitwich and the other for confirming the privileges of the Worcester weavers’ company. On 6 July he reported the continuing progress of his ‘bill about the rivers’, which had since been referred to a committee of the Commons, and on 9 July he was nominated to a sub-committee of three enjoined to hear parties involved in the bill of Sir Edward Mosely&^‡. Notts. Archives, DD/SR/221/97/9; Hatton Corresp. i. 23-4. Unsurprisingly, given his own interest in the office, he was noted as being opposed to the attempt of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to secure the lord great chamberlaincy. At the end of the month of July Windsor was appointed governor of Jamaica with a pension of £2,000; his commission was dated 2 August. CSP Col. 1661-8, p. 47. Negotiations about the post had been current for some time but failed to meet with his wife’s approval. In mid-May she had admonished her brother and her uncle, Sir William Coventry, for Windsor’s unwelcome advancement. Concerned at the ‘diseases’ her husband would contract she begged her brother to dissuade Windsor from accepting the position. Add. 75359, Anne, Lady Windsor to Sir G. Savile, 13 May 1661. Windsor evidently was similarly disinclined to risk the perils of the Indies. He made no immediate plans to take up his employment, concentrating instead on securing his pension and continuing with his attendance of the House until the adjournment of 30 July.

In September 1661, Windsor took a prominent part at the introduction of George Morley, bishop of Worcester, into the city for his enthronement, the whole cavalcade supported by the ‘blare of trumpets, the volunteer militia, and the trained bands of the city and of the clergy.’ VCH Worcs. ii. 76. He returned to his place in the House on 21 Nov. and on 24 Jan. 1662 his name appeared in a manuscript list of members of the committee for drawing up an act for repealing acts of the Long Parliament. Along with the majority on the list his name was annotated with a cross, whose precise meaning is not clear. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss, fb 159, no. 16. On 3 Feb. 1662 Windsor complained to the Lords of an invasion of his privilege perpetrated by Thomas Mariott, who had attempted to evict his tenants from the manor of Church Honyborne in Worcestershire. The House ordered that Windsor’s tenants should be left in possession during the period of privilege. Three days later, Windsor entered his protest against the passing of the bill to restore to Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, estates sold under the Commonwealth. Three weeks later, on 27 Feb., he was added to the committee for a navigation bill.

Windsor finally prepared to leave for Jamaica that April 1662. Sometime between 24 and 29 Apr. his proxy with Thomas Wriothesley 4th earl of Southampton, was registered and he last sat in the House on 28 Apr., leaving England in early May. PH, xxxii. 241, 249-50; PH, xxviii. 436. Southampton also took over Windsor’s duties as lord-lieutenant of Worcestershire during his absence. Windsor arrived in Barbados in July where he paused to recruit settlers. Windsor’s activity in Barbados aroused the resentment of the council there, which complained that Windsor had failed to vet his new colonists properly, enabling a number of debtors and servants to abscond. CSP Col. 1661-8, p. 103. On arrival in Jamaica in August, Windsor found the island in some disarray. His predecessor, Colonel Edward D’Oyley, had exploited his position for his own benefit and that of the military. In accordance with his instructions, Windsor set about disbanding the old army, establishing a new militia, and a civilian constitution. In some respects he was successful in his tasks, but in at least one created an intractable problem for his successors by proclaiming all those born to English settlers on the island free denizens of England and as having ‘the same privileges, to all intents and purposes, as our free born subjects of England.’ Jamaican Hist. Rev. i. 53. Unsurprisingly, Windsor’s controversial proclamation was met with dismay by the government, which was eager to have the declaration overturned.

Faced with bands of potentially mutinous soldiers, Windsor initiated a raid on the Spanish fortress of St Iago. CSP Ven. 1661-4, p. 232. The assault resulted in substantial plunder which helped satisfy at least some of his troublesome charges’ complaints, and enabled him to quit his post at the end of October 1662 on a positive note. HMC Heathcote, 34-5; CSP Col. 1661-8, p. 112. He left his brother-in-law, Colonel William Mitchell, in charge of the colony’s navy, and Sir Charles Lyttelton^‡ as lieutenant governor. Windsor’s relations with Lyttelton were far from harmonious. Lyttelton claimed that Windsor had cheated him of money owing to him. He also blamed Windsor for his wife’s death in the unhealthy climate of Jamaica. F. Cundall, The Governors of Jamaica in the 17th century (1936), 14-15; Hatton Corresp. i. 45-6.. After his return Windsor faced other criticisms arising from his governorship. CCSP, v. 380.

Windsor landed in Ireland in mid-February 1663 and later the same month arrived back in England. He made his return complaining of ill health, but boasting considerable achievements in regulating Jamaica’s government. PRO 31/3/110, p. 570; CSP Col. 1661-8, p. 112. His swift return earned him a scathing comment from Samuel Pepys^‡ who refused to believe Windsor’s expansive claims for his three-month tour of duty. The assault upon St Iago earned Windsor some plaudits at court, though the king was reported by some to be dissatisfied with Windsor’s actions, which had the unwelcome consequence of causing a diplomatic furore with the court of Spain, and an embargo on all English ships in Spanish waters. Pepys Diary, iv. 41, 93; CSP Ven. 1661-4, p. 243; HMC Heathcote, 71. Windsor was content shortly after to resign the office. CSP Col. 1661-8, pp. 184-5.

Windsor was missing but excused at a call of the House on 23 Feb. 1663, and finally took his seat on 30 April. Having returned to his place he proceeded to attend on just over a quarter of all sitting days in the 1663 session, and on 8 May he was named to the committee considering a bill to enable Sir John Pakington^‡, 2nd bt, to sell lands in order to pay debts and raise portions. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 196. Pakington was a relative by marriage, which may well explain Windsor’s inclusion on the committee. The following day Windsor was named to the committee considering John Robinson’s bill, and on 1 June that considering the free school at Witney, and the bill concerning the composition of differences between John Paulet, 5th marquess of Winchester, and his heir Charles Powlett, styled Lord St John (later duke of Bolton). Windsor was then absent from the House from 12 June until the end of the session.

Windsor was away from the House for the first two months of the following session in 1664, but returned on 2 May and sat for the remaining fifteen days of the session (attending in all 39 per cent of all sitting days) during which he was named to three committees. He was then absent from the House for the following four sessions. Windsor’s absence may have been in part because of his duties in Worcestershire, but he also continued to be closely involved in the promotion of navigation schemes. In November 1664 he commissioned Andrew Yarranton to oversee a project to make the Avon navigable from Evesham to Stratford. Windsor eventually settled his rights in the Avon on his second wife Ursula, at which time he estimated they were worth some £400 p.a. The expected war with the French in 1665 found Windsor keen to find a role for himself in any resulting hostilities. Although he opposed conflict with what he deemed ‘the powerfullest nation we can engage against,’ he professed that, ‘in state affairs the King shall be my Pope, for I am resolved to believe as he does and obey what he commands.’ Add. 29551, f. 126.

In the meantime, Windsor’s search for office continued and in June 1666 his wife approached her brother George Savile in the hopes of procuring for Windsor the governorship of Portsmouth, understanding it to be a ‘good place’ and declaring that Windsor would be as capable of overseeing ‘the place as well as another.’ Add. 28569, f. 28. In July Windsor approached Hatton with the offer of a place in one of the new independent troops then being commissioned, of which Windsor was to have the command. Add. 29551, f. 186. The following year, Windsor was devastated by his wife’s death, his grief making him contemplate leaving the country. Continuing hostilities made travel abroad impractical, though, and Windsor resolved to remain in England until the end of the war. Longleat, Bath mss, Coventry pprs. 104, f. 208.

On 21 Oct. 1667 Windsor took his seat once more in the House after a three-year absence. Three days later he was one of five peers to be added to the committee for the bill for enforcing the laws concerning pricing of wines. During the course of the session, of which he attended just under three quarters of all sitting days, Windsor was named to some dozen committees. On 20 Nov. he backed the moves against Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, and on 20 Nov. entered his protest at the resolution not to agree with the Commons’ request to commit Clarendon without a specific charge. Bodl. Clarendon 85, f. 434. On 9 Dec. he was added to the committee for the bill for Clarendon’s banishment. Windsor continued to sit regularly for the remaining weeks of 1667, but on 17 Feb. 1668 he was missing without explanation at a call of the House. He returned on 22 Feb. and two days later was added to the committee concerning trade. On 9 Mar. Windsor entered his protest at the resolution to grant relief to Cuthbert Morley and Bernard Grenville^‡, plaintiffs in a case versus Jeremy and Henry Elwes. A week later, Windsor entered a further protest in the same cause and on 31 Mar. a third against the resolution to remit their cause to the court of chancery. On 24 Apr. Windsor was named to the committee considering the bill against duels.

In May 1669 Windsor decamped to the north for a month, taking care to advise his late wife’s brother, Halifax (as George Savile had since become), of his movements and requesting his ‘commands’ should he have any. By August he was settled at Hewell. Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 20 Apr., 2 Aug. 1669. In October Windsor appears to have promoted the candidacy of Sir John Hanmer^‡ in the by-election for Evesham occasioned by the death of Abraham Cullen^‡. Windsor returned to the House on 8 Nov. 1669. He was present on 69 per cent of all sitting days, attending until 9 Dec., two days before the end of the session, but was named to only two committees. He was granted leave of absence on 7 December. The Evesham election had bitterly divided the town, and on 22 Nov. Hanmer’s election was declared invalid. Windsor threw himself into campaigning on Hanmer’s behalf during the re-election, which resulted in Hanmer being elected once again. A further petition against his return was prevented by the death of the remaining Member allowing Hanmer’s principal rival to acquire the second seat without contest. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 466.

Windsor took his seat for the following session on 26 Feb. 1670, after which he was present on just 27 per cent of all sitting days but was named to 15 committees, many of them considering private bills. Evidence of his continuing interest in navigation schemes was apparent later in the session when on 6 Dec. he was added to the bill for improving navigation in Boston river. Absent from 15 Mar., Windsor entrusted his proxy to James Stuart, duke of York until his return on 9 Nov., after the House had reconvened following the adjournment. During the long mid-year recess, Windsor travelled to Ireland, where he had been offered a command, which he again appears to have been reluctant to accept. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 335; CSP Ire. 1669-70, p. 204. He sought Halifax’s advice about the matter as it had been intimated to him that he could be serviceable there on York’s behalf. On arrival, he was informed that his new post had already been given to Roger Boyle^‡, earl of Orrery [I], instead. The slight offered Windsor a convenient excuse for quitting Ireland. Windsor professed himself relieved, commenting that the lord lieutenant, John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton, had done him ‘a kindness, for the commands here are not worth my attendance.’ Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 11 June, 9 Aug. 1670. On 22 Nov. Windsor, now back in the House, was named to the committee considering the Worcester gaol bill, which presumably had some local interest for him. On 16 Dec. he was granted leave of absence and he remained away for the remainder of the session, again entrusting his proxy to York. Towards the end of the session, on 15 Apr. 1671, the House heard the complaint of John Rawlins, one of Windsor’s servants, who had been arrested at the suit of John Watson and been subjected to abusive language by the arresting bailiffs. The House ordered the attachment of the offending parties, who were to be brought before the bar to answer the charges against them.

Windsor’s absence from the final months of the session may have been in part relating to his attempts to resolve an ongoing dispute involving his niece, Mary Ware, and Berkeley of Stratton. Mary Ware claimed to have been forcibly married to one James Shirley in Ireland in 1668, and accused Shirley of rape. Shirley was shortly after freed by Berkeley’s interposition, and the case led to Berkeley issuing Windsor with a challenge during Windsor’s visit to Ireland. CSP Ire. 1669-70, p. 609; Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 9 Aug. 1670. Windsor claimed to have refused the challenge at the time, not wishing to fight with the king’s deputy, but on Berkeley’s return to England in June 1671, Windsor reminded him of the as yet unfought duel and now offered him satisfaction. Berkeley denied ever having challenged him. He declined to fight and hurried to report the matter to the king. The business was taken up by the Council and as a result, Windsor was imprisoned in the Tower. There, he was feted by much of society and following a petition claiming that he had ‘offended by mistake’ he was quickly released and restored to favour at court, though the Council reputedly ‘would hear nothing in favour of him.’ Rawdon Pprs., 250-1; Add. 29553, f. 289; HMC Rutland, ii. 19 (where misdated); Add. 29576, f. 85; CSP Dom. 1671, p. 341, 346, 387, 411. It was widely believed that the conflict was at least in part caused by the attempts of Barbara Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine, to maintain her supremacy over the king’s other mistresses. Longleat, Bath mss, Coventry pprs. 104, f. 235.

Windsor continued to be troubled by personal difficulties. He had remarried in April 1668 (his new wife Ursula, daughter of Sir Thomas Widdrington^‡, had been referred to by Margaret Elmes rather dismissively as ‘one of Sir Something Wetherington’s daughters’), but in 1672 he was dismayed to learn that his late wife Anne had deliberately hidden from him certain articles concerning provision to be made for their daughter, Mary. Verney ms mic. M636/22, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 9 Apr. 1668. News of the deception only reached Windsor when his daughter married Sir Thomas Cooke in August 1672. Attempting to justify himself to his kinsman Henry Coventry, Windsor protested that:

to be distrusted by her, that I would have deceived her will and my own child was an unkind thought… I think myself only happy that whilst I am living and when I am dead, it will be found I never spent or gave away a farthing belonging… to her children and that yourself and the rest of her relatives have seen me change my daughter’s estate… from being only for life to inheritance. Longleat, Bath mss, Coventry pprs. 105, f. 23.

Anne, Lady Windsor may simply have been attempting to protect her daughter’s interests against her husband’s natural inclination to concentrate all his resources in the interest of their son, the singularly named Other Windsor. Following his daughter’s marriage petulance at being duped perhaps decided him against adding to her allocation of jewellery. In explaining his decision Windsor slighted his new son-in-law’s family, pointing out that, ‘that family not being used to such things, may turn both into money, and the less I give away, it will be better for Other.’ Longleat, Bath mss, Coventry pprs. 105, f. 30.

Windsor returned to the House on 15 Feb. 1673, shortly after the opening of the new session, after which he was present on 61 per cent of all sitting days. He was added to the committee for the bill concerning attorneys. Named to a further eight committees during the session, he was nominated to that considering the bill concerning the dean and chapter of Bristol on 27 February. The previous day, Windsor was forced to raise once more the question of his servant, Rawlins, and his arrest in April 1671, as neither Watson nor the bailiffs had answered the summons to appear at the bar. The House once again issued an order for their apprehension.

In the autumn of 1673, Windsor faced a dilemma. The death of the member for Tewkesbury, Richard Dowdeswell^‡, necessitated a by-election which was contested by Dowdeswell’s son, Charles, and Sir Francis Russell^‡. York opposed Russell’s candidature, and Windsor was approached by Henry Coventry to use his influence in the town on Dowdeswell’s behalf. Windsor excused himself explaining that the inhabitants of Tewkesbury being ‘most sectaries’ his acquaintance there was very small, in addition to which he was engaged in a dispute with the corporation over his ownership of a lock on the town’s waterways. A further difficulty was that Russell, one of Windsor’s deputy lieutenants, had acted on Windsor’s behalf in negotiating a marriage for Windsor’s heir. With so many factors limiting his influence, Windsor begged Coventry to ‘prevent any farther commands to me in this business.’ Longleat, Bath mss Coventry pprs. 4, f. 131. The election for Bewdley, also in November 1673, found Windsor more eager to assist on behalf of Thomas Thynne^‡, though he was forced to concede that Thomas Foley^‡ had at least three quarters of the vote. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 18, f. 214. Faced with such opposition, Thynne appears not to have stood.

Windsor failed to attend during the brief 4-day session of late October 1673, but took his seat once more on 24 Jan. 1674, three weeks into the following session, after which he was present on 58 per cent of all sitting days. From 26 Jan. he held the proxy of James Fiennes, 2nd Viscount Say and Sele, for the entire session. Shortly after the conclusion of this session Windsor, in early March, became master of horse for York. FSL, Newdigate mss, LC.27, newsletter of 10 Mar. 1674. Windsor attended the prorogation day on 10 Nov. and then returned to the House at the opening of the ensuing session on 13 Apr. 1675. The following day he was named to the committee considering the bill to prevent frauds and perjuries. On 29 Apr. he was nominated to the committee considering the bill for Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, and on 28 May to that considering the bill for the better government of the Thames watermen. Windsor was passionately interested in matters concerning navigation, which may explain his inclusion on this committee. He was named to a further five committees, and continued to sit until the close of the session on 9 June, having attended 95 per cent of all sitting days. Interestingly, his name does not appear in any of the accounts of the debates or protests on the non-resisting test bill.

Windsor was absent from the opening of the following session of autumn 1675, but ensured that his proxy was once again entrusted to York. In the first of two letters of 15 Oct. he enquired of George Legge, later Baron Dartmouth, whether York required the proxy, given that Windsor planned to be in London early the next month and in the second letter he conveyed the completed proxy form to Legge, seeking that he assure York that ‘not only my vote, but my life shall always be at his disposal’. HMC Dartmouth, i. 26; Staffs. RO, DW1778/l/i/407a, b. The proxy was vacated by Windsor’s eventual return to the House on 20 Nov. when he was among the court majority voting against the motion for an address requesting a dissolution, a division in which he surprisingly took a stance opposite his master York. That was the only time he attended that session, which was prorogued two days later.

In the interval between the close of the session and the opening of the new one, Windsor in March 1676 sold his place as master of the duke’s horse to Legge. In its place he appears to have angled after a military position, though a posting to Ireland also seems to have remained on the horizon. In May it was said that he was retreating to the country and that his new house in St James’s had been taken for the duchess of Mazarin, a development that ‘infinitely displeased’ her rival, the duchess of Portsmouth. Verney ms mic. M636/29, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 23 Mar. 1676, E. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 4 May 1676, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 17 May 1676; Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 27 Apr. 1676. The second half of that year appears to have found Windsor concentrating on settling his financial affairs. Disagreements with his son-in-law, Sir Thomas Cooke, also continued to exercise him and by the end of the year relations had reached such a low ebb that Lady Cooke was forbidden to visit her father. Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 14 Oct., 4 Dec., 18 Dec. 1676.

Concerns about his children continued to disturb Windsor in the first months of 1677. His daughter-in-law had been in London for a month, causing him concern on her behalf but also on account of the likely reaction of her husband, his son Other, to any gossip about her behaviour. Windsor worried that his heir had developed ‘something of an Italian humour’. He entrusted Lady Cooke to Halifax, worrying ‘how many young ladies (in our time) have brought virtue and modesty to town with them, and there lost it’. Concerns about their behaviour continued to perplex Windsor well into the following year. Ibid. Windsor to Halifax, 11 Feb. 1677, 6 June 1678.

Windsor was back in town in time to take his seat at the opening of the new session on 15 Feb. 1677, after which he was present on approximately 59 per cent of all sitting days of this frequently interrupted session. On 1 Mar. he was added to the committee for the bill for Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, on 6 Feb. 1678 to the bill for Cartwright’s estate and on 23 Mar. 1678 to the bill for charitable uses concerning Henry Smith. In all he was named to some 27 committees in the course of the session. Alongside of his activities in the House, Windsor also appears to have found time to continue his business dealings and on 5 Apr. 1677 he wrote to Hatton, having failed to find him at one of the committees, conveying information about a financial transaction. Northants. RO, FH 4335. As a staunch supporter of the court, Windsor was initially noted by Shaftesbury (as Ashley had since become) as ‘doubly vile’, though it appears that Shaftesbury reduced this opinion to just ‘singly vile’ at some point. Windsor quit the session after 26 May 1677, two days before it was adjourned, and by early July he was in Yorkshire from where he intended to visit Halifax at Rufford. His hopes of the birth of a grandson were blasted when his daughter-in-law miscarried in October. Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 8 July, 22 Oct. 1677. He returned to the House on 29 Jan. 1678 and sat until the prorogation. On 4 Apr. he voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of murder.

Windsor sat for just under 35 per cent of all days in the following session of summer 1678. Although missing from the attendance list on the opening day of 23 May, he was nominated to the committee for petitions, so presumably took his place once the day’s business was underway. The following day he was named to the committee for the Protestant strangers relief bill and he was named to a further three committees in the course of the session. On 5 July he signed the dissent from the resolution to ascertain the relief of the petitioner in the cause of Darrell v Whichcot. Once again he kept Hatton informed of events, reporting to him the proceedings between Louis de Duras, 2nd earl of Feversham, and ‘your countryman’, Lewis Watson, later earl of Rockingham, about Watson’s marriage settlement. Add. 29557, f. 1. His hopes of ‘public employment’ were said to have disappeared with the conclusion of peace. Windsor himself commented gloomily before the following session’s opening that, ‘unless there be a war I think not to be there at their first meeting, for if our House continue in the late ways of proceeding, there is little use of many.’ He was also dismayed by the ongoing tensions within his family. Relations with the Cookes remained poor. His son’s apparent refusal to dismiss one of their servants, possibly a mistress, was another cause of ill will; relations with his daughter-in-law were no better but he had to admit that she was ‘too fast linked to my family to be removed, but must be endured’. By September he appears to have resolved to forgive his son, but only on condition that he ‘put away Lucy’: the servant in question. Add. 75362, [Sir W. Coventry] to Halifax, 11 Aug. 1678; Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 25 Aug., 10 Sept. 1678.

Having attended the prorogation day of 1 Aug. Windsor took his place in the House on 14 Nov. 1678, three weeks into the new session. Even though his name appears on the attendance register for the following day, 15 Nov., it does not appear in the list drawn up by Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), of those present to vote on a motion regarding the test bill. However at least one contemporary included Windsor among the chief opposers of the test bill. Bodl. ms Eng. Lett. c. 210, f. 243. He was present for about half of the sittings of this final session of the Cavalier Parliament. On 22 Nov. he was named to the committee for inspecting the terms for calling out the militia. He was named to two more committees during the session and on 7 Dec. was added to the committee for examinations. On 30 Nov. a letter was read in the House addressed to Windsor from Sir John Pakington detailing the action taken in Worcestershire against the local Catholic population and on 3 Dec., following information provided by Windsor, the House considered a dispatch from the mayor of Worcester, relating the scandalous behaviour of two local men who had impugned the Protestantism of the majority of the bishops. One of them, Whitaker, was required to provide bail against his appearance at the bar. Yet on 20 Dec. he joined a large number of ‘country’ peers in registering his dissent from the resolution to agree with the amendments proposed by the committee considering the disbandment bill.

Windsor was missing from the first six weeks of the new Parliament, in advance of which he had been estimated by Danby as one of his potential supporters (though noted likely to be absent). In this final decade of his life, Windsor began to suffer from violent fits and on 31 Mar. 1679 he wrote to Halifax, ‘This being some hours before the time of expecting my ninth fit, I am just able, and that not without difficulty, in my own hand, to give you thanks for moving the House to dispense with my absence’. Promising to attend as soon as his strength allowed, Windsor undertook to entrust Halifax with his proxy should he be unable to sit throughout the session. Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 31 Mar., 12 Apr. 1679. On 3 Apr. he was excused his attendance following the deposition of two witnesses that he was ‘so sick of an ague’ that the journey might endanger his life. Windsor recovered sufficiently to return to the House for the session on 28 Apr. after which he sat regularly until the prorogation of 27 May (attending in all 43 per cent of all sitting days). On 10 May he again joined the ‘country’ peers in voting in favour of appointing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached peers, and he even signed the dissent when that proposal was rejected. He further entered his dissent on 27 May from the resolution to insist on the vote confirming the bishops’ right to remain in court in capital cases.

Poor health did not prevent Windsor from being mentioned as a possible commander for the forces being sent north to counter the Scots rebellion in June of 1679; neither did it prevent him from continuing to exercise his duties in Worcestershire with his usual application. Add. 75362, Sir W. Coventry to Halifax, 16 June 1679. Among those proposed as deputy lieutenants in 1679 were Thomas Foley^‡ and Edward Lechmere. Windsor felt obliged to draw attention to Lechmere, his father having been in arms for Parliament in the Civil War, but he asserted that he had otherwise ‘never heard ill of this gentleman.’ Foley, on the other hand, Windsor had only added to the list unwillingly, and he was at pains to explain that his inclusion in the commission might not be thought fit, particularly as he was ‘no way well affected’ and ‘against the crown’s continuing in the right line.’ Longleat, Bath mss, Coventry pprs. 6, f. 76; Glassey, JPs, 44. Windsor was similarly rigorous over enforcement of the oaths to be tendered to the county’s Catholic population, which in April 1680 resulted in over 400 Catholics being bound over to appear before the next sessions. Windsor may have been eager to stress his commitment to the established church and sensitive of the rumours of his earliest Catholic upbringing. At the quarter sessions he had a letter read out which he had received from a local Catholic ‘in vindication of myself’ and proceeded to emphasize that he was ‘very far from being of that religion, and did both hope and believe I never should be of that opinion, and therefore would not be thought to be their friend otherwise than to be civil to any gentleman and especially to any that served the king in the war’. Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 7 Apr., 26 May 1680. In June 1680 Windsor approached Halifax in the hopes of obtaining a settlement for one of his sons whom he intended to send into the Church of England ‘finding he will make a scholar and is of a modest and even temper.’ Windsor hoped that Halifax would undertake to present the young man (probably Dixie Windsor^‡) to his ‘best parsonage’. Ibid. Windsor to Halifax, 30 June 1680.

Windsor was present for almost all the sittings of the following two Parliaments. Having attended the prorogation day on 22 July, he took his seat in the second exclusion Parliament on 22 Oct.1680, a day into its proceedings, after which he was present on 67 per cent of all sitting days and named to three committees. On 15 Nov. he (perhaps following the lead of Halifax) voted in favour of rejecting the bill for exclusion on its first reading and on 23 Nov. he voted against appointing a joint committee to consider the state of the kingdom. The following month, on 7 Dec., he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason.

Windsor was active in the elections to the 1681 Parliament, campaigning in Worcestershire with his relative John Coventry, 4th Baron Coventry, on behalf of Samuel Sandys^‡ who was standing against Foley. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 462. Windsor featured prominently at a meeting of the local gentry held on 10 Feb. and pledged £200 in the event of the election ending in a poll. But despite expending over £500 during the contest, he was unable to impose his will on the county and Foley was duly returned. Jones, First Whigs, 162-3; Add. 29910, f. 172. Windsor’s efforts were clearly called into question as he later insisted that he had ‘not in the least let the inclinations of the honest party cool,’ while his opponents celebrated his discomfiture with a ballad mocking his decision to find Viscount Stafford not guilty. Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 20 Sept. 1681; HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 462. In a pre-sessional forecast of 17 Mar. 1681, Danby estimated that Windsor would support moves to bail him from the Tower and three days later, Danby’s son, Edward Osborne^‡, styled Viscount Latimer, informed his father of Windsor’s promise to assist him despite his former ‘coolness’ towards the imprisoned earl. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 423. Windsor took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament in Oxford the following day, 21 Mar., and proceeded to attend each day of the week-long session.

Windsor persisted with his efforts to seek his own advancement. He was able to rely on York’s interest to help further his ‘concerns’ with the king towards the end of 1680. In April the following year, hearing that Prince Rupert was thought likely to die, which would result in a vacancy in the office of constable of Windsor Castle, he approached Legge, Halifax and Laurence Hyde, Viscount Hyde (later earl of Rochester), in the hopes of acquiring it, even though he now professed himself ‘afraid of losing the substance in catching at a shadow’. He cited his family’s previous tenure of the post ‘from before the conquest’ and justified the wisdom of his selection ‘because it is possible if the office once come again into the family it may some time remain there.’ HMC Dartmouth, i. 54-5, 59; Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 16 Apr. 1681. In this Windsor was unsuccessful, but in May he approached Legge once more hoping that he would intercede with York in procuring him an office, complaining that, ‘it will much discourage me to see lawyers and men of private families advanced before me, who will not stand by him [York] when I will.’ HMC Dartmouth, i. 61. Over the next two months reports circulated that he was to be appointed to the governorship of Portsmouth, but in this too Windsor was disappointed and the position eventually fell to Edward Noel, Baron Noel (later earl of Gainsborough). Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 106; Castle Ashby, MS 1092, newsletter 22 June 1681; HMC Rutland, ii. 62.

In the absence of a new office, Windsor returned to Worcestershire in the summer of 1681 to preside over the county assizes and to agree on candidates for the anticipated elections. Staffs. RO, DW1778/l/i/658; Add. 75360, Sir W. Hickman to Halifax, 13 July 1681; Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 20 Sept., 10 Oct. 1681. He continued his correspondence with Legge (whom he later approached to stand godparent to his latest son along with Lady Halifax and Lawrence Womock, bishop of St Davids), thanking him for passing on information to the king and also continued to press for favours. He alerted Halifax to an expected vacancy among the Worcester prebends, which he hoped to secure for his chaplain, and approached Legge to use his interest on behalf of one of his sons, whom he hoped might be made a page to the duchess of York. In reporting to Halifax his efforts to keep order in Worcester, he also made sure to remind his kinsman of his own qualifications and that if ‘there fall any employment where I may be capable to serve’ that he would not be overlooked. HMC Dartmouth, i. 64, 74; Add. 75359, Windsor to Halifax, 19 Oct. 1681, 13 July 1682; Staffs. RO, DW1778/l/i/705. His continuing interest in matters relating to navigation was reflected in his entering into a business partnership with George Pitt and Cresheld Draper^‡ involving a new wet dock invention. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 237.

Constant loyalty to the regime, and Halifax’s patronage, resulted eventually in further honours for Windsor. The Works of George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, ed. M. Brown, i. 38. On 9 Nov. 1682 it was reported (inaccurately) that he was to be made master of the Cinque Ports; the same day a report circulated of his appointment to the governorship of Kingston-on-Hull, newly vacated following the disgrace of John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham). Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 9 Nov. 1682, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 9 Nov. 1682; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 535. Shortly after, on 6 Dec., he was advanced in the peerage to the earldom of Plymouth. Verney ms mic. M636/37, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 4 Dec. 1682. The following year, he was closely involved with the drawing up of new charters for Evesham and Worcester. Halliday, Dismembering the Body Politic, 202. His responsibilities at Hull commanded much of his attention and in July 1683, having failed to persuade Halifax to accept the honour, he was appointed high steward of Hull, replacing James Scott, duke of Monmouth. Notts. Archives, DD/SR/212/36/6; CSP Dom. July-Sept. 1683, p. 192. The same month, it was rumoured that Plymouth was to succeed Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, as master of the wardrobe but nothing came of this. Add. 29558, f. 64.

Poor health once again intervened to curb Plymouth’s advance. Evesham’s new charter, it was feared, would be delayed by Plymouth falling seriously ill during the winter of 1683, and in December it was reported that he was ‘so grievously afflicted with the palsy in both arms that he cannot hold a pen.’ CSP Dom. 1683-4, pp. 148-9. Plymouth was further afflicted in November 1684 with the death of his heir, Other Windsor. HMC Hodgkin, 17. Sickness hardly explains Plymouth’s poor decision to invest £70 in two horses, formerly owned by James Hamilton, styled earl of Arran [S] (later 4th duke of Hamilton [S]), ‘both faulty. The one with sore heels… the other bad feet’. Arran’s agent reckoned them ‘useless and expensive’ but was still able to fleece Plymouth for £10 more than they had cost to buy in the first place. NAS, GD 406/1/3269.

In September 1684 the corporation of Hull surrendered its charter. Plymouth was closely involved with drawing up its replacement but the new charter had still not been finalized by the time of the election to the 1685 Parliament (managed in that borough for the administration by Plymouth). The eventual document agreed upon in July 1685 confirmed Plymouth’s influence in the town by naming him as recorder. His influence was similarly indicated by the corporation’s agreement that Plymouth should name one of the candidates to the governing body, prompting an offer to Halifax’s heir, Henry Savile, styled Lord Eland. Eland clearly proved unwilling and the seats went instead to Plymouth’s kinsman, Sir Willoughby Hickman^‡, and to the corporation’s own candidate, John Ramsden^‡. Plymouth’s influence in Droitwich was also underlined by the return of his son, Thomas Windsor, later Viscount Windsor [I] and Baron Mountjoy, despite his being only 16 years old. The death of Plymouth’s heir the previous year was presumably the reason for hastening the career of his now eldest surviving son. Plymouth was less successful in Evesham where he failed to persuade the corporation to accept one of his nominees, Sir Thomas Haslewood, though his other candidate, Henry Parker^‡, was returned apparently unopposed. Tickell, Kingston-upon-Hull, 573; Add. 75359, Plymouth to Halifax, 15 Feb. 1685; HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 466, 477, iii. 744.

Plymouth took his seat at the opening of James II’s Parliament, when he was introduced in his new dignity between Ailesbury and Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon. Thereafter he was present on just under three quarters of all sitting days and was named to 10 committees between 23 May and 27 June, in the first part of the session before the adjournment called to deal with Monmouth’s rebellion. On 26 May the House was informed that Plymouth had been subject to a breach of his privilege concerning a suit in chancery, when one of the masters, Sir William Beversham, had refused to allow Plymouth to give his evidence by his ‘honour’ rather than on an oath sworn on the Bible. Beversham was brought before the bar of the House the following day to make submission for the offence. On 20 June he was ordered, along with a number of other lords lieutenants, to raise the militia in response to the Monmouth rebellion and to imprison all known disaffected people, and he last sat in the House before the adjournment on 27 June. CSP Dom. 1685, pp. 199, 212-13. On 15 July he was commissioned to raise a regiment of horse to suppress the rebellion, which later became known as the 3rd Dragoon Guards. Ibid. 277. Having fulfilled his duties in suppressing rebellion, by September he was still at his seat in Worcestershire from where he reported the disbelief of the locals to news of Monmouth’s death. They were, he noted, ‘generally uneasy, I wish it have no ill consequence.’ Notts. Archives, DD/SR/219/13.

On 30 Oct. 1685 Plymouth was appointed to the Privy Council and in January 1686 he was one of those named as triers of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), in the court of the lord high steward. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 362; JRL, Legh of Lyme mss, newsletter of 9 Jan. 1686; State Trials, xi. 513-15. He suffered from further ill health in April, being incapacitated with gout, but in May he was actively involved with suppressing disorders in Worcester, and by June was well enough to join his regiment stationed at Hounslow Heath. Add. 75360, Sir J. Reresby to Halifax, 6 Apr. 1686; Add. 75359, Plymouth to Halifax, 13 Apr., 24 June, 26 July 1686. Shortly after, it was rumoured that in spite of his unflagging support for James while duke of York, and for the new king’s policy of repealing the Test Act, he was to be displaced as lord lieutenant of Worcester in favour of the Catholic, Francis Smith, 2nd Viscount Carrington. It was also speculated that he was to lose his governorship of Hull. The rumour continued to circulate into the following year but in the event Plymouth held onto his offices until his demise in the autumn of 1687. Add. 41804, f. 170; Reresby Mems. 430; Add. 70236, E. Harley to R. Harley, 22 Jan. 1687.

At the beginning of 1687 Plymouth was still thought likely to support repeal of the Test Acts but by the early summer some appear to have thought that he had altered his position and was now sympathetic to those opposed to the king’s catholicizing policies. If so, he seems to have been reluctant to act explicitly. Roger Morrice recorded a conversation Plymouth had with ‘an English gentleman’ in which Plymouth, having lamented the ‘danger of Popery’, was accused of having used his influence to promote ‘such persons in elections as have brought these dangers upon us.’ On being asked whether he would call a meeting in his county to select ‘fit persons’ to serve in Parliament who would act against popery, Plymouth reportedly ‘shrugged his shoulders and would not come up to that point’; nevertheless, Morrice thought there was reason to believe the earl would not stand in the way of such ‘fit persons’ being chosen. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 52.In spite of such ambiguous reports, Plymouth remained doggedly loyal and in July 1687 it was even speculated that he was to be entrusted with an additional responsibility as lord lieutenant of the East Riding. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs, 42, f. 238. On the production of Hull’s address to the king in response to the Declaration of Indulgence, Plymouth, finding the wording insufficiently abject, rewrote the document himself. HR, lxxi. 172-95.. In October 1687 he was active in selecting candidates in Worcestershire for the anticipated new elections. Add. 70226, T. Foley to Sir E. Harley, 7 Oct. 1687.

Plymouth did not live to see the result of his labours, dying on 3 Nov. 1687 (though a newsletter to the diplomat Edmund Poley dated 4 Nov. recorded the death as having happened two days before). Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 160; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 71, O. Wynne to E. Poley, 4 Nov. 1687. In his will of 11 June 1685 Plymouth nominated Halifax, Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, Sir William Coventry and Sir Willoughby Hickman to be guardians to his grandchildren, Other Windsor, styled Lord Windsor (later 2nd earl of Plymouth), and Henry Windsor. Clearly mindful that he had been unable to provide satisfactory sums for his five daughters by his second wife, Plymouth required that a further £1,000 should be added to each daughter’s portion of £1,300 on their marriage days. Gifts of the same amount were also to be made to his sons Dixie and Andrews Windsor^‡ on attaining their 21st birthdays. As a final act of loyalty and as a symbol of past comradeship as his former master of the horse, Plymouth also made a bequest of £200 to the king for the purchase of a pair of hunting horses. Ursula, countess of Plymouth, Sir Willoughby Hickman, Sir Robert Markham, Sir Robert Shafto, Dr Ralph Widdrington and Theophilus Leigh were nominated to act as executors. PROB 11/390. Plymouth was buried at Hewell and succeeded in the peerage by his eight-year-old grandson, Other Windsor. Add. 70226, T. Foley to R. Harley, 10 Nov. 1687.