SOMERSET, Henry (c. 1629-1700)

The only son of the eccentric 2nd marquess of Worcester, Lord Herbert, as he was styled from his father’s succession to the marquessate, was fortunate to be absent on an extended foreign tour for the duration of most of the Civil War and was therefore not tarnished by royalism in the way that both his father and grandfather had been. A charge that he had borne arms while resident in Oxford was countered with the explanation that he had done so only once as a 13-year old during a ceremonial inspection. On his return to England in 1650 Herbert set about attempting to recover the family’s confiscated estates, many of which had been granted to Oliver Cromwell^‡ by Parliament. In April 1651 Cromwell warned his wife about Herbert’s activities, cautioning her to ‘beware of my Lord Herbert his resort to your house. If he do so, [it] may occasion scandal, as if I were bargaining with him’. Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, ed. W. C. Abbott, ii. 405; P. Little, ‘Marriage, Money and the Dynastic Ambitions of Oliver Cromwell’ (unpublished paper). Herbert soon after petitioned Parliament for settlement of his father’s lands. His case was referred to the committee for compounding, which reported in favour of restoring Herbert to those parts of his patrimony that had not been granted to Cromwell. At the same time, Herbert and Cromwell were actively engaged in settling with each other. The resulting act of Parliament of 16 July and indenture between the two men, which was confirmed two months later, enabled Herbert to take possession of some of his Monmouthshire estates. A. and O. ii. 542-5; TNA, C 54/3636/39. Four years later he benefited further from the death of his cousin, Elizabeth Somerset, who left to him the manor of Badminton, which he developed as his principal residence over the coming years. Draft biography of Henry Somerset, Lord Herbert of Raglan, by Roland Thorne for HP Commons 1640-1660.

Although Herbert was able to develop an amicable relationship with the Cromwellian regime and embraced the Commonwealth sufficiently to be returned for Breconshire in 1654, he reinforced his royalist connections with his 1657 marriage to Mary, Lady Beauchamp, daughter of one of the foremost royalist martyrs, Arthur Capell^‡, Baron Capell, and widow of another royalist adherent, Henry Seymour^‡, styled Lord Beauchamp, heir, until his death in 1654, of William Seymour, marquess of Hertford (later 2nd duke of Somerset). Not only did the alliance tie him closely to two prominent royalist families, it also gave him a directing influence over Lady Beauchamp’s children by her first marriage and consequently over the Seymour estates, an interest that brought the two families frequently into conflict. CSP Dom. 1660-61, p. 380.

At some point between his return to England and the Restoration, Herbert renounced his Catholicism and embraced the Church of England. He was reluctant to throw his weight behind the planned western rising of August 1659, though this did not prevent him being incarcerated in the Tower from August until November of that year on suspicion of complicity in royalist plotting. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 49; CSP Ven. 1659-61, p. 90. As a result, at the Restoration, Herbert was able to capitalize on both royalist credentials as well as his relative lack of activity on either side to secure his return for Monmouthshire in the elections to the Convention, though he was unsuccessful at Gloucestershire in spite of laying out ‘near a thousand pounds to procure voices’. He irritated his kinswoman, Lady Englefield, by declining to sit for Wootton Bassett, where he had been returned on her interest, and by nominating his own successor without consulting her. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 460, iii. 454.

Herbert was nominated one of the party to wait on the king at Breda. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 50. His attention during the early days of the Convention was taken up with his father’s effort to secure the dukedom of Beaufort and Somerset, which he claimed to have been promised by the former king, in the teeth of spirited opposition from the Seymour family. Herbert found himself in the unattractive position of supporting his father’s claims against those of his own stepson but in August the problem was effectively resolved when Worcester withdrew his claim amidst accusations that he had forged documents. M. McClain, Beaufort: the Duke and his Duchess, 38.

Recommended by the gentry of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire as a person of ‘integrity and honour, and a resident’ to be made their lord lieutenant in the summer of 1660, Herbert was soon after appointed to the lieutenancy of Monmouthshire and also to those of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. CSP Dom. 1660-61, pp. 52, 149. He quickly acquired a reputation for being unfashionably inclined to oversee his duties as a lord lieutenant in person: in January 1661 he was advised by his kinsman, William Russell, 5th earl (later duke) of Bedford, to leave the bulk of his work to his deputies (which Bedford considered the usual manner of proceeding). HMC 12th Rep. IX, 63. Herbert’s early promotion at court was no doubt assisted by a relationship with the family of the lord chancellor, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. Clarendon’s heir, Henry Hyde, styled Lord Cornbury (later 2nd earl of Clarendon), was married to Herbert’s wife’s sister, and Herbert’s close association with Cornbury and his younger brother Laurence Hyde, later earl of Rochester, endured for the remainder of his life. National Art Library, Forster MS 426, 47.A.40, no. 65. In the autumn of 1663 Badminton was taken in as part of the king’s western progress, though Herbert was embarrassed to discover his modest manor house too small to accommodate the royal party and he spent the next few years enlarging the seat so that he should not be caught out a second time. McClain, Beaufort, 67-8. For all his ambition, awareness of his comparative poverty made Herbert reluctant to take a prominent part in court extravaganzas and in November 1666 he complained to his wife that he had not been at court for the past four or five days not considering himself fine enough to be seen in company. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 55.

Marquess of Worcester 1667-1682

Herbert succeeded to the marquessate on 3 Apr. 1667, though he had in effect been in control of the family estates since entering into a settlement with his father to allow him to take command of his escalating debts. The death of the old marquess failed to settle the problem as it proved increasingly apparent that his debts were far greater than he had admitted. Worcester’s succession to the peerage triggered a by-election in Monmouthshire, offering him an early opportunity to try his interest in the county. The event proved a stark disappointment and his candidate, James Herbert, was defeated by Sir Trevor Williams^‡ standing on the rival Morgan of Tredegar interest. On the other hand, Worcester’s increasing prominence at court was reflected in his invitation to stand godfather to Prince Edgar, son of James Stuart, duke of York, in September. Eg. 2539, f. 112; HMC 12th Rep. IX, 64.

Worcester sat for the first time on 10 Oct. 1667 and the following day he was appointed one of the lords to wait on the king with the House’s thanks for his speech, reporting the king’s answer on 14 October. He was present on 69 per cent of all sitting days in the session, and was named to 17 committees. On 18 Dec. he reported from the committee of privileges concerning the case Lord Gerard v. Carr, recommending that Carr, who had been accused of printing a scandalous paper, should be brought before the House. Worcester’s influence was underscored by rumours that he was to be promoted to a dukedom early in 1668, though these proved unfounded. Add. 36916, f. 58. Excused at a call of the House on 17 Feb. 1668, he resumed his a week later. On 24 Apr. he reported Sir Kingsmill Lucy’s bill as fit to pass without amendment.

Worcester was commanded by the council to display particular vigilance over the municipal elections in Herefordshire that autumn, demanding that he report how the various corporations ‘behave themselves in this particular’. Bodl. Carte 130, f. 215. He took his seat for the new session on 19 Oct. 1669, thereafter attending all but three of its sitting days during which he was named to only two committees. He then took his seat in the ensuing session on 17 Feb. 1670, of which he attended just under three-quarters of all sitting days and was named to 16 committees. He was omitted from the standing committees, having failed to attend on the opening day of the session when they were established. On 9 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the bill for Frances, dowager countess of Southampton, aunt to his stepson, William Seymour, 3rd duke of Somerset. Longleat, Seymour pprs. 6, ff. 175, 177. On 1 Mar. 1671 he was placed on the committee to draw up heads for a conference on the petition to the king against the growth of popery and he was nominated one of the managers for the ensuing conferences on 3 and 10 March.

Rumours that Worcester was to be awarded a Garter circulated in May 1671; in December it was also reported that he was to be appointed to the lieutenancy of Ireland; both suggestions proved to be unfounded. Belvoir, Rutland mss, Add. 7, letter 26; HMC Rutland, ii. 23; Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. to E. Verney, 21 Dec. 1671. In December the duke of Somerset died, a minor without heirs. The dukedom descended to his uncle, John Seymour, 4th duke of Somerset, but in his will the young man had conveyed his personal estate to his mother, the marchioness of Worcester, thus ensuring the continuation of the rivalry between the families. TNA, PROB 11/337. In February 1672, the Somersets’ alliance with York was further emphasized when Lady Worcester stood godmother to the duke’s daughter, Princess Katharine. The following month it was reported that Worcester was to be added to the Privy Council, and he was sworn in April, while in May rumours circulated once more that he was to have the Garter. Add. 28052, f. 77; Verney ms mic. M636/25, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 18 Apr. 1672, Sir R. to E. Verney, 2 May 1672. Since early in 1672 it had been reported that Worcester would be made lord lieutenant of Wales and lord president of the council of the Welsh marches, replacing Richard Vaughan, 2nd earl of Carbery [I], who attended the House as Baron Vaughan. Among Worcester’s qualifications for the post were the fact that ‘much of his estate and many of his dependants’ were in Wales and the four counties next to it. Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. to E. Verney, 25 Jan. 1672. These appointments were made formal in July. He proved far from popular among the Welsh, acquiring an unsavoury reputation as a harsh master. He caused particular resentment by attempting to administer the principality from Badminton or his house in Monmouth rather than from the traditional centre of government at Ludlow. McClain, Beaufort, 107-8.

Worcester attended the two prorogation days of 16 Apr. and 30 Oct. 1672 before taking his seat in the new session on 4 Feb. 1673, after which he was present on 78 per cent of all sitting days and was named to seven committees. Later that year, he attended three of the four days of the brief October session before taking his seat once more on 7 Jan. 1674, after which he was present on just under 90 per cent of all sitting days. A petition from his step-mother, his father’s second wife, Margaret O’Brien, daughter of Henry O’Brien, 5th earl of Thomond [I], for her privilege to be upheld in a case against William Hall was referred to the committee for privileges but apart from this, Worcester appears to have made little impact on the session.

Worcester was present on 10 Nov. 1674, when he acted as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament. Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds) in early April 1675 believed that Worcester was likely to support the non-resisting test. Despite this, he was absent for the entirety of the debates on this bill and was excused at a call of the House on 29 April. He first sat in the chamber on 2 June, and was in all present on just seven of the sitting days in the session. On his first day in the House he was nominated a manager for conferences examining the case of Stoughton v. Onslow (Sir Nicholas Oughton’s prosecution of a Member of the Commons, Onslow, before the Lords). In a letter of 5 June he made clear his disgruntlement at the actions of the Commons in this affair, noting how he had arrived in London ‘in time to see the House receive greater affronts than ever were offered to it except in the time of the late rebellion’. Two days later, in a show of sympathy, he visited those imprisoned in the Tower for breach of privilege by the orders of the House of Commons. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 65.

The death of the 4th duke of Somerset at the end of April 1675 restored the majority of the Seymour estates to Worcester’s effective control as his step-daughter, Lady Elizabeth Seymour, the 3rd duke’s sister, was the principal beneficiary as heir at law to the Seymour estate. According to the marchioness, Worcester had exploited his interest with the judge, George Johnson^‡, a member of the council of the Welsh marches, who had been appointed to draw up the 4th duke’s last testament, to ensure that Lady Elizabeth would receive the lion’s share in spite of Somerset’s having had no intention of leaving his niece a bequest of any kind. WSHC, 1300/717. Johnson was briefly distracted from his attendance on Worcester by the Commons’ efforts to impeach Danby and also by a report that Somerset had made a new will shortly before his death conveying his estates to his brother-in-law Charles Boyle, styled Lord Clifford of Lanesborough (later accelerated to the House as Baron Clifford of Lanesborough). Johnson reassured Worcester that he did not believe the rumour and Clifford also seemed unaware of his supposed good fortune. HMC 15th Rep. VII, 176. The Seymour estates did indeed devolve on Lady Elizabeth, who was then prevailed upon to nominate her half-brother, Worcester’s son Charles Somerset^‡, styled Lord Herbert of Raglan, as her heir should she die without issue. WSHC, 1300/716. Sharp practice or not, the settlement ensured the Worcesters a continuing interest in the Seymour inheritance. M. McClain, ‘False and Unjust Slanders’, Wilts. Arch. and Natural Hist. Magazine, xcvi. 98-110.

Worcester was absent for the entirety of the following session, which sat for two months in the autumn of 1675, and was again excused at a call of the House on 10 Nov. 1675. Concentration on affairs in Wales and the marches was presumably the reason for his failure to attend at this time. The following year, news of his controversial deal with Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, over the marriage of Ailesbury’s son, Thomas Bruce, styled Lord Bruce, later 2nd earl of Ailesbury, to Lady Elizabeth Seymour, provoked a concerned response from her paternal aunts, Frances, dowager countess of Southampton and Jane, Lady Clifford of Lanesborough. They were keen to know the truth about rumours that Lady Elizabeth had been prevailed upon to sign an agreement settling her estates on Worcester’s heirs in return for an augmented portion. WSHC, 1300/777. The details of this settlement were the foundation of conflict between the many branches of the Seymour family.

Duties in Wales may have been the cause of Beaufort’s failure to attend the autumn session of 1675 but poor health might also have played a part as he was absent at the opening of the ensuing session on 15 Feb. 1677 as well, apparently suffering the effects of ‘a lame leg and a loose belly’. Eg. 3330, f. 91. On 9 Feb. Sir Joseph Williamson^‡ wrote to Worcester and two other absent peers, requesting that they send up blank proxies ‘to be filled up in London with the name of such of his friends as the king shall please’. CSP Dom. 1676-77, 544. Three days later, Worcester’s proxy was registered with Ailesbury and on 9 Mar. he was again excused at a call. That day he set out from Badminton, arriving in London in time to take his seat on 12 Mar., thereby vacating the proxy. Eg. 3330, f. 91. Added to the standing committees that day, as well as to that considering Sir Edward Hungerford’s bill, he was thereafter present on just over half of all sitting days in the session, and was named to a further dozen committees.

In spite of his close relationship with his brother-in-law, the country peer Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, Worcester was assessed as doubly vile by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, in the late spring of 1677. Essex Pprs. i (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 45, 47. He was similarly cold-shouldered at court. His proposal for his heir Herbert to obtain some diplomatic experience by attending the peace negotiations at Nijmegen as an observer that summer was given short shrift by Danby, not least because there was barely space enough in the town for those actively engaged to be lodged. Worcester remained in town reluctantly that autumn. In November he informed his wife of his intention to quit London as soon as he could: his dislike of being removed from Badminton was not assisted by being confined to his London lodgings as he was then in mourning, ‘and this is not a time to appear in town without very glorious apparel’. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 66-7.

Worcester attended when Parliament reconvened on 28 Jan. 1678, but he was absent for over a month from 11 Feb. to 15 March. His absence was almost certainly the result of concentration on local matters. Sir Joseph Williamson had written to Worcester at the beginning of March to enquire into reports that he had turned out a number of justices of the peace in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. CSP Dom. 1678, pp.25-6. Worcester was also engaged in a simmering feud with William Lloyd, bishop of Llandaff, who had allied with Worcester’s heir, Herbert. The following month Worcester found himself under fire from another quarter when he was challenged by John Arnold^‡ over his right to enclose land around Chepstow, of which Worcester was governor.

Worcester took his seat in the following session on 24 May 1678, and attended almost 84 per cent of all sitting days, being named to thirteen committees. On 10 June 1678 he claimed privilege against several of his tenants, who had responded to Arnold’s provocations by mounting a raid in Wentworth Chase. Worcester reported from the committee for the bill against the illegal killing of deer on 1 July. Two days later Howell Meredith and the other men singled out by Worcester for their actions in Wentworth Chase were condemned by the Lords, though they were freed from restraint on 10 July, following Worcester’s intercession on their behalf. In the meantime, on 5 July, Worcester subscribed to the dissent from the resolution to ascertain the relief due to the petitioner Marmaduke Darrell in his case against Sir Paul Whichcot. Worcester’s involvement in these cases may have necessitated long hours in the chamber, for on 6 July 1678 he wrote home complaining of the weight of business. He also remained supremely tetchy about the promotion of local rivals and on 18 July he reported bitterly how one such, George Berkeley, 9th Baron (later earl of) Berkeley, had been sworn a member of the Privy Council, ‘to his no little satisfaction, as you may imagine’. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 69, 70. The session having been prorogued on 15 July, at the end of the month Worcester retreated to Badminton.

Worcester took his place in the House for the following session on 8 Nov. 1678, and was at once plunged into the hysterical debates surrounding the revelations of the Popish Plot. Present on 56 per cent of all sitting days, just four days after taking his seat he faced the considerable embarrassment of hearing William Bedloe’s testimony in which his own estate steward, Charles Price, as well as a number of his allies in the marches, were named as prime movers in the Plot; Price was even credited with being the Plot’s effective leader. Although Bedloe was at pains to vindicate Worcester himself, the evidence of an apparently flourishing and militant Catholic community in the heart of Worcester’s sphere of influence could not but be damaging to his reputation. Although he was convinced of his steward’s innocence, Worcester resolved to part with Price irrespective of the outcome of the enquiry into his activities, clearly unwilling to allow further criticism to be directed his way. Kenyon, Popish Plot, 30, 108-9. Worcester complained in his letters home that ‘it is a very wearisome life here with little satisfaction. We either sit morning and afternoon, or the whole day without adjourning for a dining time’. Resistant to attempts to disable the Catholic peers from sitting, on 14 Nov. he noted how in a debate in committee of the whole House on the test bill, ‘we have this day as good as voted the Popish lords out of the House’. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 71. The following day he was among the minority voting in a committee of the whole against the proposal that the declaration against transubstantiation be under the same penalties as the oaths in the test bill. Unhappily tied to the House and at council over the following few days, he noted 26 Nov. as ‘a day of great duty’ involving attendance at two meetings of the council as well as two sessions of the House, and two days later he noted a further lengthy day’s business lasting until nine in the evening. The long hours and likely duration of the session persuaded Worcester that he needed to find more convenient lodgings and in between attendance in the House and at council he was involved in negotiation for a suitable house to rent. His quest was complicated by the marchioness, who vetoed Sir Nicholas Crisp’s residence, which she declared to be the worst house she ever saw, and by some of the demands of the property owners. Although Worcester believed he had made William Paget, 7th Baron Paget, a reasonable offer at £100 a year plus the cost of employing a housekeeper and gardener for his London residence, it was only half of what Paget demanded. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 72, 73, 74, 79, 81-2.

While Worcester was spared from being directly implicated in the plot by Bedloe, he faced probing from Shaftesbury over the composition of the garrison at Chepstow. Worcester complained on 7 Dec. 1678 that he had ‘had little peace this morning from Lord Shaftesbury’. Throughout December, Shaftesbury continued to needle Worcester over accusations that the garrison was predominantly composed of Catholics, that its captain was a recusant and that Worcester had failed to ensure the proper reading of Anglican prayers in the castle. On 10 Dec. Worcester agreed to waive his privilege in his case with one Rogers, one of those accused of invading his rights at Wentworth Chase. At the end of the month the marchioness warned him that more damaging revelations were emanating from within his own household. Writing on 30 Dec. she related that his servants in town were sending newsletters back to their counterparts at Badminton, ‘all about the Lords’ House, but not in agreement with his letters’. Worrying that the provenance of such reports gave ‘authority to them’ she begged him to prevent any further leaks of information. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 76, 81.

Exclusion and Tory Reaction, 1679-85

The dissolution of 24 Jan. 1679 offered Worcester a temporary reprieve but in February his step-mother, the dowager marchioness, became an additional problem when two priests were arrested at her London residence in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to Sir R. Verney, 10 Feb. 1679. At the beginning of March, Danby reckoned Worcester as a likely supporter for the upcoming Parliament, but later he altered his assessment to unreliable and even later to doubtful. Worcester took his seat in the abortive first session of the new Parliament on 6 Mar., attending its six days before resuming his seat at the opening of the longer-lasting second session on 15 Mar. 1679, after which he was present on 67 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the committee for receiving information about the plot on 17 Mar., Worcester was named to only two further committees during the session. He was absent from the House between 9 and 22 Apr. and thus missed the proceedings on the bill threatening Danby with attainder. Although marked as present on the attendance list on 9 May, Worcester was again noted absent at a call held that day. The following day he was present and voted in favour of appointing a committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords, and signed the dissent when that motion was rejected.

Worcester’s position on the Privy Council was confirmed when it was remodelled in April 1679. On 24 July he was present at a dinner with a number of other leading councillors. Add. 18730, f. 58. By the late summer Worcester was engaged in correspondence with Bedloe, who wrote to inform the marquess of the efforts he was making to counter any hostile reports implicating Worcester in the plot. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 82. Information that Arnold and Edward Morgan had been ‘guilty of several disrespects’ to the marquess were also investigated, but the two men denied that their behaviour had been in any way opprobrious and asserted their willingness to ‘demean themselves with all due respects and obedience’ for the future. Badminton muniments, FmE 3/16. Despite this, Worcester’s interest continued to come under pressure. Although his heir, Lord Herbert, was successfully returned for Monmouth in the election of autumn 1679, he was subsequently unseated on petition by Arnold, who later claimed to be in fear of his life from Worcester’s henchmen. The close of the year witnessed worsening relations between Worcester and his Capell brothers-in-law as he became increasingly identified with the court and with York: he was referred to as one of the latter’s 12 disciples. Eg. 3331, ff. 120-1.

After having acted as a commissioner for proroguing Parliament on 15 Apr. and 22 July 1680, Worcester took his seat in the second Exclusion Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680, of which he attended over three quarters of all sitting days. He was added to the committee for the Journal on 4 Nov. and was named to the committee for the Irish cattle bill on 12 Nov., from which he reported the following day. On 15 Nov. he voted in favour of throwing out the exclusion bill on its first reading and on 23 Nov. he voted against appointing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the state of the nation. The same day he was added to the committee for the bill for drawing up an association and reported from the privileges committee following a hearing concerning one Knollys, a servant of William Wentworth, 2nd earl of Strafford, who had sought exemption from parish office. The committee resolved that there were no grounds for the servants of peers to be relieved of parish duties.

Worcester faced a further threat to his authority from the Commons at the beginning of November 1680 when Sir Trevor Williams introduced a bill for the abolition of the court of the marches of Wales. Colonel Edward Cooke reported on 30 Nov. how the Commons were employing ‘their idle hours’ between their debates over exclusion to consider the measure but Cooke doubted the bill would pass the Commons and was convinced that if it did, it would be rejected by both king and Lords. HMC Ormond, v. 511. These moves against Worcester were overshadowed by the attainder of William Howard, Viscount Stafford, whom Worcester found not guilty of treason on 7 December. On 14 Dec. he was one of the five peers, members of the sub-committee for the Journal, who corrected the Journal’s account of the verdict against Stafford, changing the numbers recorded for the vote. The attack on Stafford clearly unnerved Worcester. Evidently concerned by the continuing threats from the Commons, the same month he commissioned an anonymous ally (possibly his son, Lord Herbert) to keep a record of events in the Commons for his information. The resulting diary was maintained from 18 Dec. 1680 until 8 Jan. 1681. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 98-115. It detailed the attacks made upon Worcester from his Welsh enemies and the debates on including him among the ‘evil counsellors’ that the Commons demanded should be removed from the king’s presence. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 263. Worcester was described by Sir Rowland Gwynne^‡ as a papist who ‘fawns on the duke’, and a number of other Members added to the accusations against him, but Worcester was spared further embarrassment by the dissolution on 18 Jan. 1681. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 114. Damaged by the allegations that had emerged, he was once more unable to employ his interest successfully during the elections. Both county seats in Monmouthshire went to candidates standing on rival interests and the borough seat again went to Arnold. In Breconshire Worcester failed to secure the return of a court candidate standing against the sitting member, Richard Williams^‡, and it seems only to have been at Gloucester that he achieved any degree of success with the return of his son, Lord Herbert. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 241, 506.

Although Edward Osborne^‡, styled Viscount Latimer, assured his father, Danby, on 20 Mar. 1681 that he had waited upon Worcester among his other friends in advance of the Oxford Parliament in order to solicit their support for his father’s petition for bail, Danby remained less than confident of the marquess’s friendship. In a pre-sessional forecast he listed Worcester as one of those ‘as I conceive if they vote not for me will be neuters’. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 423. Worcester first sat in the Oxford Parliament on 21 Mar. and was present on each of the seven days of the brief Parliament. Worcester, however, reflected the continuing uncertainty in a letter to the marchioness, writing that ‘no one knows how long we shall remain here’. He was unimpressed with Oxford’s amenities, lacking as it did a cross-post to Bristol, although he noted with pleasure that his lodgings at Jesus College (no doubt selected because of its Welsh associations) were superior to those offered the king at Christ Church. He appears to have been the victim of a practical joke when Shaftesbury fooled him into presenting the king with a paper recommending the nomination of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, as his successor. Worcester opposed the proposal of trying Edward Fitzharris before the House, on the grounds that it was contrary to Magna Carta as the Lords were not Fitzharris’s peers. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 83-4, 85.

Worcester had his revenge on Shaftesbury in July 1681 when he was one of the privy councillors to sign the order for his commitment, an action that no doubt added him to the list of those that the country party were said to be eager to see impeached. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 283; HMC 12th Rep. IX, 86; CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 615. His interest was sought that year by the mayor of the city of Bristol who wanted him to present a petition to the king for certain amendments to the city’s charter. Bodl. Tanner 129, f. 67. That autumn, Worcester acquired Lady Bristol’s house at Chelsea for £5,000; he was dissuaded, on the other hand, from renovating Chepstow as a seat for his heir by the marchioness. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 87. He was also engaged in the business of finding husbands for his daughters, finding himself in the politically fortunate (if financially onerous) position of having three all arriving at marriageable age. In September 1681, Sir Robert Southwell^‡ suggested to James Butler, duke of Ormond [I], that the eldest, Lady Mary Somerset, might be a suitable match for Ormond’s grandson, James Butler, styled earl of Ossory [I] (and later 2nd duke of Ormond), though Ormond understood that negotiations were already in train with ‘another person of quality’. National Art Library, Forster MS 426, 47.A.40, no. 44.

Duke of Beaufort 1682-1700

Worcester’s faithful support for the court and for York during the Exclusion Parliaments earned him advancement in the peerage in December 1682, one of more than a dozen courtiers to be either created peers or promoted within the peerage within the space of two months. Rumours of the impending award had circulated since October, and by November speculation centred on the style he was to adopt, amidst a broader discussion of the propriety of using foreign designations such as Ormond or Albemarle for English titles. At one stage it was thought that he would take the title duke of Worcester. On his creation, however, he settled for the style duke of Beaufort. Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. to Sir R. Verney, 30 Oct., 6 Nov. 1682, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 30 Oct., 27 Nov. 1682. He was upbraided by the new duchess, who appears to have been unhappy with his selection of a title which already had a French equivalent—the French naval commander, François de Vendosme, duc de Beaufort. McClain, Beaufort, 172. Beaufort explained that he had merely followed the advice of the heralds, ‘who advised much a new one rather than the continuance of an old one, which, though practised in several cases of late, is not according to rule. Therefore I have chosen Beaufort, and that my son be called Worcester, the heralds saying that the title is most eligible which brings in remembrance the family one comes of.’ HMC 12th Rep. IX, 88.

Despite his rising star, Beaufort was in March 1683 overlooked in favour of George Savile, marquess of Halifax, as governor of the Charterhouse. The following month he initiated an abortive action against Arnold for scandalum magnatum, ‘but… brought it not in’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 357, 363. Efforts to arrest Arnold at Gloucester in December 1682 had also run into difficulties. Badminton muniments, FmE 3/16. In May 1683 following the revelations of the Rye House plot, which embraced his brother-in-law Essex, Beaufort made a precautionary progress through North Wales to secure the militia. M. McClain, ‘The Duke of Beaufort’s Tory Progress through Wales’, Welsh Hist. Rev. xviii. 606. Following the translation that summer of William Thomas, bishop of St Davids, to Worcester, the new duke found himself unable to secure the nomination of a Dr Ellis to the vacant see. His recommendation of Ellis’s ‘zeal for his majesty’s service’ and of ‘his ability to promote that within that diocese, wherein he understands all interests very well’ proved insufficient to secure Ellis the promotion. Bodl. Tanner 34, f. 108. Beaufort enjoyed greater success later that year when he was at last able to bring his action for scandalum magnatum against Arnold and Sir Trevor Williams. In October 1683, Beaufort’s heir, now styled marquess of Worcester, communicated to his father the willingness of one witness, formerly ‘a great creature of Arnold’s’, to produce letters in Arnold’s hand. He enclosed one example and promised that the remainder ‘are all of the same strain as the enclosed which is as bad as malice can invent.’ Badminton muniments, FmE 3/17, Worcester to Beaufort, 15 Oct. 1683. Information which had been given to Robert Gunter, one of the local justices, in July 1682 by another informant, James Hughes, related how Arnold had professed in advance of the Oxford Parliament that:

he was going for Oxford to represent his country and if any harm did happen to any of the members of the House of Commons, it must needs be a papist that does it and he that says that the duke of York, lord marquess of Worcester, Lord Halifax, Sir Leoline Jenkins and two or three more noblemen were good men he was a papist and no good subject… Badminton muniments, FmE 3/16.

Armed with proof of such slanders, Beaufort was successful in securing substantial damages against both Williams, in the court of common pleas on 21 Nov. 1683, and Arnold, the following day in king’s bench. Badminton muniments, FmE 3/15. Both men were fined £10,000 for their abuse of the duke, though Beaufort was said to have sought twice as much from Arnold. Verney ms mic. M636/38, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 22 Nov. 1683; JRL, Legh of Lyme mss, newsletter to R. Legh, 24 Nov. 1683; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii., 407-8.

Although successful in his prosecution of two local rivals, Beaufort faced a separate challenge to his authority in the winter of 1683 when he was presented with a petition from the deputy lieutenants of Denbighshire, complaining of the multiplicity of deputies within the county and most particularly of one recent addition, who carried himself ‘with such factious violence and arrogance as if he would gratify those gentlemen that advanced him to your grace’s favour by perplexing and crossing us in the discharge of our duty.’ Offended that one of such mean extraction, ‘the grandson of a common and despicable tradesman’, had been added to their ranks, the remaining deputies tendered their collective resignations in the event that Beaufort refused to dismiss him, though they assured him that they did so ‘without the least murmur at your grace’s administration’. TNA, E 192/17/7, deputy lieutenants of Denbighshire to Beaufort, 29 Dec. 1683..

Beaufort undertook to stand surety for his sister’s husband, William Herbert, earl (later marquess) of Powis on his bail from the Tower in February 1684. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 301. In the summer of that year, Beaufort made an impressive progress throughout Wales, setting out from London on 14 July. Bodl. Ms Eng. lett. c. 53, f. 37. He arrived at Worcester on 16 July, and the following day was granted the freedom of the city. From there he progressed through the marcher counties and through north and south Wales. T. Dineley, An Account of the Progress of ... Henry the First Duke of Beaufort through Wales (1864), 1-2. Although the progress was generally well attended, there were exceptions, most notably in Herefordshire, where the behaviour of some of the local gentry so infuriated Beaufort’s followers that they threatened to torch the area. Welsh Hist. Rev. xviii, 618. Beaufort’s influence in the principality and marcher counties brought him into conflict with John Lake, bishop of Bristol, over the nomination to a living in Lake’s diocese, though by November Lake was confident that they had resolved their differences and Beaufort agreed to assist the bishop in presenting an address to the king. Bodl. Tanner 32, ff. 142, 173, 179.

The death of Charles II should, on the face of it, have offered Beaufort expectations for further rewards from the new monarch. Beaufort had long been associated with the new king while duke of York and was closely identified with the Hyde brothers, the king’s confidants. In spite of all this, the accession of James II proved more troublesome than expected. Although he received an early mark of favour by being appointed to the new king’s bedchamber, Beaufort did not share his sovereign’s religious convictions and was uneasy at the king’s pro-Catholic policies. Even so, he was assiduous at the opening of the reign in ensuring the loyalty of the areas where he had influence and in April 1685 he presented the king with a loyal address from Flintshire. London Gazette, 25 Apr. 1685. Taking his seat on the first day of the new Parliament, Beaufort was introduced in his new dignity by Charles Somerset, 6th duke of Somerset, and Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, after which he was present on half of all sitting days in the session. The outbreak of Monmouth’s rebellion in the west cut short Beaufort’s attendance, and on 13 June he wrote from his London residence to one of his deputies, certain of his ‘zeal and sense of duty in having his militia ready.’ NLW, Clenennau 843, Beaufort to Sir R. Owen, 13 June 1685. Within days he had left the capital and was encamped with an estimated 12,000 men blocking Monmouth’s path. Add. 70127, R. Harley to Lady Harley, 25 June 1685. His immediate assessment of the situation appears to have been pessimistic as he wrote to Clarendon from Bristol on 18 June, apologizing for the tenor of an earlier communication: ‘no fresh alarm coming this day out of Somersetshire, I begin to repent the post script I writ to you by last post’. Add. 15892, f. 212. The following day he wrote again to thank his friend ‘for the account you are pleased to give me of things above’, but was clearly not confident of the capacity of the neighbouring Somerset militia to hold firm in the face of Monmouth’s advance and hinted at a dramatic solution to a general failure of the county militia:

[I] am mightily glad (though I expected no less), that the Parliament continues so dutifully zealous for whatever concerns the King; though I, in this new tax, as this city in general in that of tobacco, shall be great losers. Methinks they being in this temper, if, upon the occasion of the Somersetshire militia running away, and the consequence of such a thing, the power of martial law, over both army and militia, were moved for, it might be obtained. Clarendon Corresp. i. 131.

The rapid suppression of the rebellion removed the necessity for such drastic measures and in August 1685, Beaufort pleaded for leave to remain at Badminton a while longer for his health, which had suffered by his sudden removal from town in mid-June. Clarendon Corresp. i. 155. He was also, no doubt, eager to oversee the marriage between his daughter, Mary, on whom he had settled a portion of £12,500, and the newly widowed earl of Ossory. National Art Library, Forster MS 426, 47.A.44, no. 19, 47.A.40, no. 65. Beaufort was said to have been one of several peers vying for the lord lieutenancy of Ireland in the summer of 1685. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 33. Instead of being promoted, though, he was dismayed to be removed from his command at Chepstow in September, a decision that, he thought, would do much to encourage his enemies. ‘I confess that [which] most troubles me, as to my own particular (and it troubles me much the more because it does something affect the public) is the great rejoicing it will cause among the factions that have so often bragged they have got me out from my command there.’ Clarendon Corresp. i. 160. Further mortifications were to follow and the next month he was obliged to quit his rural retreat, having received a ‘warm letter’ from Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, complaining that the king considered himself very poorly attended at court and required his immediate presence. National Art Library, Forster MS 426, 47.A.44, no. 23.

Beaufort resumed his seat in the House on 9 Nov. 1685, when he introduced the king’s nephew, Henry Fitzroy, as duke of Grafton, and he was present at all but two of the remaining sitting days before the prorogation. He was chosen to act as a juror at the trial of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), on 14 Jan. 1686. State Trials, xi. 513-15. Sir Robert Southwell reported later in the year how Ireland had secured ‘a double share of the Badminton ladies’ following the marriage of Beaufort’s second daughter, Lady Henrietta, to another Irish peer, Henry Horatio O’Brien, styled Lord O’Brien. National Art Library, Forster MS 426, 47.A.41, no. 6. Tensions between Beaufort and other members of his family began to emerge when he was noted as a likely opponent of the reinstatement of John Scudamore^‡, 2nd Viscount Scudamore [I], as justice of the peace in Herefordshire, while Scudamore was warmly promoted by Beaufort’s brother-in-law Powis. In October 1686 Roger Morrice reported that Beaufort was placing his weight behind the corporation of Gloucester against its new mayor, reportedly a papist forcibly installed on the town. Morrice thought that Beaufort’s siding with the corporation against the mayor ‘may be interpreted a crime in him’. TNA, C 115/109/8899; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 271.

Although he was assessed in January 1687 as being in favour of repeal of the Test Act, by March rumours were circulating of his intention of retiring from court and that he was to be replaced by Powis as president of the Welsh marches. Longleat, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 139-40. The same month Beaufort remitted the damages awarded him against John Dutton Colt^‡ from an action of scandalum magnatum: Dutton Colt had been convicted for describing Beaufort as one of the ‘Popish dogs’. In April, on Powis’s intercession, Beaufort also remitted the money still owing to him from Arnold and Williams in return for payment of £1,000 each. Longleat, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 143-4, 145-6, 156; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 475. An earlier mediation by Arnold’s uncle, Colonel Cooke, on his nephew’s behalf, although treated sympathetically by Beaufort, appears to have run into difficulties when Arnold proved recalcitrant. Badminton muniments, FmE 3/16. Beaufort’s motivation at this point may have been a pragmatic acknowledgement that he was unlikely ever to receive the full sum from the financially crippled Arnold, but he may also have been keen to appear magnanimous with defeated adversaries. It did not stop him, though, from pursuing another malefactor at the summer assizes held at Wells, who was ordered to pay the duke 100 marks. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 64, newsletter to E. Poley, 19 Aug. 1687.

There was still an assumption in May 1687 that Beaufort was in agreement with the king’s policies. The following month he was again noted in attendance at Windsor, and he entertained the king at Badminton during the autumnal royal tour of the west country. HMC 12th Rep. IX, 90; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 66, newsletter to E. Poley, 16 Sept. 1687. That winter he was recorded as being undeclared on the question of repeal, though the assessment had altered again by the beginning of 1688 when he was reckoned once again to be in favour. He toured Wales and the marches in an effort to secure support for the king’s programme, but it was widely understood that he intended to exert little pressure on his neighbours should they prove resistant. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 150, 156. Following the birth of the prince of Wales, Beaufort was thought likely to resign the presidency of the council of Wales to the new heir to the throne, though no doubt he would have expected to retain command of the office while the prince remained a minor. Longleat, Thynne pprs. 43, f. 168. In late July he was mentioned as one of those thought likely to succeed the recently deceased Ormond as lord steward, but the honour eluded him. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 86, O. Wynne to E. Poley, 27 July 1688. Shortly afterwards, while preparing for the anticipated elections, Beaufort resolved not to set up his son Worcester in Monmouthshire, as he regretted that Worcester’s inclinations were not in tune with the king’s. McClain, Beaufort, 185.

As rumours of invasion grew in late 1688, Beaufort, along with a number of other lords lieutenant, was despatched to his lieutenancy to prepare for the Dutch assault. On 22 Oct. he marched into Bristol at the head of a large train of followers, where he was greeted by the citizens with the customary ringing of bells. Badminton muniments, FmE 2/4/26. Despite this reception, as in 1685, Beaufort was gloomy about the prospects of holding the west in the event of an invasion. He alerted the king to rumours of a possible attempt on the castle at Ludlow, and warned both the king and his ministers of the poor state of the local militias and that Bristol was indefensible against assault by the prince of Orange’s forces. ‘This place’ he advised, ‘is extremely considerable, and yet, as the king knows, very incapable of defence, without more in it than come to attack it, if all were friends within, which I do really believe in my conscience not one of twenty is.’ CBS, D135/B2/1/3/2; Add. 41805, ff. 156-7. When news reached him on 7 Nov. of Prince William’s landing, Beaufort hurried a letter to Charles Middleton^‡, 2nd earl of Middleton [S], by express, relaying his fears for the city and warning him of the ‘universal disaffection of the next county and the lukewarmness of the best people here.’ The militia he considered ‘small, slighted, disaffected, and (at best) inexperienced’ and he advised that the king should dispatch regular troops to the area if he wished to hold the city. Clearly desperate to impress on Whitehall how grave the situation was, Beaufort assured Middleton that ‘I shall always be ready to do my duty and what becomes a loyal subject, but I cannot create men, neither am I master of their minds, nor have I a force to compel them.’ Three days later, Beaufort wrote again, apologizing for his previous missive, which he now realized could undermine what confidence remained among the king’s supporters. Even so, he remained desperate to supplement his forces and on 13 and 14 Nov. he wrote to request the use of a troop of horse commanded by Sir John Fenwick^‡, that was operating in the area. His requests for relief were ignored. Towards the end of the month Beaufort communicated to the king the impossibility of fulfilling his commission to hold the west, and on 28 Nov. he declared his intention of quitting the city and falling back on Badminton. Add. 41805, ff. 156-7, 178, 196, 205, 293; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 362.

Although unable to hold Bristol, Beaufort was successful in keeping Gloucestershire and the marches secure for the king and it was the Gloucestershire militia that succeeded in stopping a force under John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, from breaking through to the prince’s camp. On hearing of Lovelace’s capture, it was rumoured that William dispatched a message to Beaufort threatening to burn Badminton if his supporter was not released. Bodl. Carte 130, f. 307. Abandoned by the king, Beaufort had little option left but to sit on his hands while the people of Gloucester liberated Lovelace from gaol, as he had warned would happen if Lovelace were incarcerated there. Add. 41805, f. 196.

Clearly infuriated by his abandonment by the government, Beaufort in late November 1688 subscribed a petition from Bristol for a Parliament to be summoned. Add. 72516, ff. 75-6. On 16 Dec. he waited on William at Windsor, where he was received very coldly. According to Sir John Reresby^‡ he was forced to wait four hours for an audience. Reresby Mems. 541; Clarendon Corresp. ii. 227. Despite this poor opening, Beaufort persisted and two days later he was again among those in attendance on the prince at St James’s. On being presented with the Association to sign, he appears at first to have attempted to avoid putting his signature to it but was at last prevailed on to do so. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 400, 410. On 21 Dec. he took his place among the peers assembled in the queen’s presence chamber, although he had not been included in the prince’s summons. The following day he resumed his place in the House of Lords. Kingdom without a king, 122, 124, 153.

Beaufort took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on just under 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 28 Jan. he introduced Charles Fitzroy, duke of Southampton, and the following day he voted in favour of establishing a regency. He absented himself from that day until 6 Feb., when he voted against concurring with the Commons’ use of the term ‘abdicated’ and entered his dissent when that wording was accepted. Having attended both morning and afternoon sessions of the following day, he was then absent from the House for the remainder of February. Beaufort’s absence appears to have been on account of poor health, though he may well also have been keen to avoid the session in the aftermath of the abdication vote. He was better towards the end of February, when he was visited at Chelsea by Clarendon, and he resumed his place in the House on 9 March. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 264. On 9 Apr. he introduced Charles Powlett, as duke of Bolton, and on 24 Apr. he introduced Danby in his new dignity as marquess of Carmarthen. Absent at a call on 22 May, on 31 May he voted, predictably enough, against reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates and on 30 July voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill for reversing the Oates judgments. On 2 July he also subscribed to the dissent from the resolution to proceed with the impeachments of Sir Adam Blair and other suspected Jacobites.

Beaufort sat for the final time on the adjournment of 20 Aug. 1689. On 28 Oct. he was noted as absent at a call of the House but on 5 Nov. he registered his proxy with his fellow Tory, Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth. Put out of all his offices that year, Beaufort nevertheless retained for the remaining decade of his life a powerful interest in the politics of Wales and the marches and of a number of counties and corporations. In February 1690 he conveyed a petition from the town of Malmesbury to Carmarthen in an effort to forestall the burgeoning interest there of Thomas Wharton, later marquess of Wharton. Appealing to Carmarthen for his interest on the town’s behalf, Beaufort insisted that ‘upon this depends the choice of good or ill members for that town, for if the legal magistrates continue, I do promise you men there, both for the church and monarchy, which if otherwise, will be creature[s], of Mr Wharton (who, I will not swear is a friend to either).’ Eg. 3337, ff. 164-5. The same month Beaufort also undertook to use his interest, at the urging of his son, on behalf of James Thynne^‡ in the forthcoming elections. Longleat, Thynne pprs.13, f. 244.

Beaufort was among those peers who refused to take the oaths in March 1690. John Romsey, however, commented in a letter to Sir Charles Kemys^‡ amidst the mass arrests of that summer that although he had heard that Beaufort and another non-juror, Sir Dudley North^‡, were among those under investigation, ‘these men’s known care of themselves and their estates was almost a security that they would not adventure them for anybody’s sake.’ CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 528; NLW, Kemeys-Tynte mss, C182. Beaufort’s continuing importance in Gloucestershire and the marches, in spite of his retirement from Parliament, was no doubt the catalyst for the new king making a point of taking in Badminton on his journey home from Ireland in September 1690, but although his entertainment there was reported to have been ‘noble’ it was not deemed ‘satisfactory’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 513; Ailesbury Mems. i. 268.

Beaufort’s absence from the House was noticed in a series of calls in 1691, 1692 and 1693, but his effective retirement from the chamber did not mean that he was no longer involved in the House’s business. In the autumn of 1690 he, and more particularly his duchess, were drawn into a very public and ill-tempered dispute with their son-in-law Ailesbury over the terms of Lady Ailesbury’s marriage settlement as a result of a bill introduced by Ailesbury to settle his arrears. Writing to her step-father, Lady Ailesbury railed against his ill treatment of her, whilst lauding the restraint her husband and his late father had demonstrated in the face of his presumptuous behaviour. Referring to the articles conveying her estates to her step-brother and his heirs she exclaimed, ‘I am sure any body but they would have burnt those writings that settled above half my estate upon your heirs; I do assure you if it were to do again I would burn them all before I would sign one of them.’ Beaufort left it to his duchess to reply to her daughter’s ‘false and unjust slanders’. ‘Hell itself’ she concluded, ‘is hardly capable of more malice or unnaturalness than you in this have showed to me.’ The Beauforts mobilized their friends in the House to prevent the bill from being presented, but although Rochester attempted to prevail on Ailesbury to desist, Ailesbury’s bill received its first reading on 8 Dec. 1690. Five days later, Beaufort’s steward, Godfrey Harcourt, reported that Sir Francis Pemberton had studied the bill and ‘fears it will pass, only care must be taken (if it be committed) to see to restrain his power as much as may be.’ After counsel for both sides was heard at the bar on 16 Dec. (a favour for the Beauforts ‘got by Lord Weymouth’s motion’), the House read the bill a second time and committed it. On 20 Dec. Halifax reported the committee’s findings. It was ordered that the bill should be engrossed, but two days later the bill was ordered to be re-committed. On 23 Dec. Halifax reported from the committee once more and the bill was again ordered to be engrossed, minus the clause against which exceptions had been raised, following which the House ordered that the bill should pass. On New Year’s Day 1691, Godfrey Harcourt reported to the duchess how he had ‘done all I could to prevent the passing of Lord Ailesbury’s bill, but his coming to court at this time gained him a great many friends in both houses.’ Although Rochester and John Sheffield, earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham), were ‘heartily’ for the duke and duchess, Ailesbury’s party prevailed and Harcourt himself was subjected to ‘a great many hard words’ from the earl for his pains as well as being threatened with the pillory. WSHC, 1300/716, 717, 785, 786, 787.

Beaufort’s reduced standing and his absence from the House no doubt gave encouragement to the attempts to bring in a bill reversing the judgment for scandalum magnatum against Arnold. Bills to this purpose were introduced in the Commons on 29 Nov. 1689 and again on 7 Apr. 1690, but both were lost by prorogation or withdrawal. Another version of the bill was eventually sent up to the Lords on 1 Dec. 1690, where it was rejected at its first reading on 6 December. Despite this reprieve, in March 1691 Beaufort’s case against Arnold was further undermined when one of his witnesses admitted to having fabricated his testimony. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 140, 190.

In April 1691, Beaufort kissed the king’s hand; he then retreated once again, however, to Badminton to celebrate the marriage of his daughter Anne to Thomas Coventry, later 2nd earl of Coventry. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 216. He was not permitted a long respite from family problems: on 2 Nov. 1691 a second bill was presented to the House by Ailesbury for the further settlement of his debts, which the duchess was again active in opposing. On 19 Nov. her counsel attended the House to contest the new measure, but as Ailesbury’s own legal team failed to appear the duchess was awarded £5 costs and Ailesbury’s counsel were ordered to appear the following day, when the bill was committed. On 21 Nov. it was ordered to be engrossed and received the royal assent the following month on 24 December.

Beaufort stirred from his country retreat in October 1694, exchanging his rural fastness for the suburban pleasures of Chelsea, but he resisted appearing at court. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 378. In November 1695 his London residence was damaged in a fire. Verney ms mic. M636/48, E. Adams to Sir R. Verney, 12 Nov. 1695. Four years later he was successful in suing one Knight for damages of £500, on the grounds that the fire that damaged Beaufort House had started in Knight’s property. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 519. On 27 Feb. 1696 he was one of a number of absent lords summoned to appear in the House by 17 Mar. in order to sign the Association. The day after that deadline the House resolved to ignore the appeal made on Beaufort’s behalf by his son-in-law Ormond that he was too unwell to attend, having suffered a serious injury in a fall from his horse, and ordered that Beaufort should appear at the end of the month. On receipt of a letter from Beaufort that he had broken his shoulder in his fall and was unable to comply with their order, the House resolved to send the Association down to him and the similarly truant Weymouth. HEHL, HM 30659 (60), newsletter, 19 Mar. 1696. In March Beaufort’s steward, Godfrey Harcourt, was arrested and the duke’s houses searched. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 24. In spite of this heavy-handed treatment, Beaufort declined to sign the Association. He explained to the lord keeper, John Somers, later Baron Somers, that:

I cannot as yet so far overcome some scruples that have occurred to me, in reading and considering [the Association] as to be satisfied to sign it. Not but that I do much abhor the horrid and detestable conspiracy therein mentioned, and all designs of that nature. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 213.

Beaufort failed to answer two further summonses of 30 Nov. and 10 Dec. 1696 to appear in the House to take part in the Fenwick proceedings. As a result, the House ordered his arrest, but on 22 Dec. the serjeant-at-arms detailed to seize the recalcitrant duke presented the Lords with a letter from Dr Baskerville certifying Beaufort’s inability to attend. On 17 Jan. 1697 the House made a final attempt to compel Beaufort to appear. Seven days later the Lords conceded defeat and excused him.

There were renewed rumours in November 1697 that Beaufort was to present himself at court, but it did not happen. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 309. They may have been connected to his efforts as one of the trustees of his nephew, the Jacobite William Herbert, styled Viscount Montgomery (and claiming to be 2nd marquess of Powis), to recover lands from William Henry van Nassau van Zuylestein, earl of Rochford. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 26 Mar. 1698. Proceedings in this case were before the Lords in March 1698. By the autumn of that year, Beaufort was said to be at the point of death, but he survived for more than a year before finally succumbing on 21 Jan. 1700 at his seat at Badminton. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 426; HMC Portland, iii. 614. Shortly after his demise the dowager duchess compiled an account of the couple’s expenditure since their marriage, comprising the purchase, construction and alteration of a number of houses including Badminton, Troy House and Chelsea House. In all she estimated that he had expended £146,641 on improving his estate. Add. 28050, ff. 104-5. In his will, drawn up the day before he died, Beaufort named his widow as sole executrix and bequeathed nominal sums of £100 apiece to his four surviving children. TNA, PROB 11/454. He was buried in the family vault at Windsor and, as his eldest son Charles, marquess of Worcester, had predeceased him almost two years earlier, he was succeeded by his underage grandson, Henry Somerset, as 2nd duke of Beaufort. Post Boy, 29 Feb. 1700.