FINCH, Heneage (1621-82)

The Finch family originated in Kent and had been for several generations notable in the law. Family tradition suggested that they were descended from the Fitzherberts. Finch was probably born at Eastwell, although one account indicates his place of birth may have been Heneage House in London. By the early 17th century the family’s senior branch had acquired an earldom (Winchilsea). Finch’s cousin, John Finch Baron Finch, was both a controversial speaker of the Commons and lord chancellor under Charles I. He was forced to flee to the continent at the time of the impeachments of Archbishop William Laud^† and Thomas Wentworth^†, earl of Strafford. Judicious marriages brought the family estates beyond their native Kent and connection with a number of noble families: the Hattons were connected; and Finch’s half-sister, Anne, later married Edward Conway, Viscount (later earl of) Conway, a close associate of the court with interests in Ireland. Conway Letters ed. M. Hope Nicolson, rev. S. Hutton (1992), 15.

A man of sober outlook, Finch’s driving passion was to regulate the system of judicature. D.R. Klinck, ‘Lord Nottingham and the Conscience of Equity’, Jnl of the Hist. of Ideas lxvii. 124-5. He developed a reputation as a forceful and yet respectful prosecutor who was reluctant to indulge in the more confrontational style associated with some of his contemporaries. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. p. xvii. While this left him with a glowing reputation as a founding father of equity and a practitioner of rare moderation and sincerity, he fared less well as a politician. His pomposity attracted disparaging remarks while his disinclination to involve himself too closely with court factionalism left him open to a charge of pusillanimity. Assaults upon his honesty were rare but as an earnest and successful legal practitioner later in his career he was an obvious target for John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester:

Our good lord chancellor
With his pale meagre face
Do’s with his ballocks like his purse
And his p-ck like to his mace
Even in the House of Peers if he a wench shou’d lack
He’d take and f-ck a judges arse
Upon a woolly pack. Bodl. ms Eng. poet c. 18, ff. 18-19.

Dryden was more kindly and depicted Finch as the honest ‘Amri’ in the second part of Absalom and Achitophel.

Aside from an austere practitioner of law, Finch was also a staunch Anglican. The Cambridge Platonist, Henry More, reported to Finch’s half-sister Anne, Lady Conway, Finch’s response to news of her conversion to Quakerism: ‘What a peal my lord chancellor rang in my ears about you being turned Quaker, and what a storm I bore with be too long to rehearse in this letter’. Despite this, and in keeping with his eagerness to demonstrate moderation, he appears to have allowed his sister to influence his response to Quakerism in the country and seems to have been willing to exercise mercy towards the imprisoned Fox, incarcerated in Worcester gaol in 1674. Conway Letters, 430, 434.

Career before 1673

Finch confined himself to the quiet development up his practice during the years of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. By the time of the Restoration he enjoyed a substantial income from the law, earning in excess of £1,000 a year over and above any income he gained from his own estates. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. p. xiv. In 1661 he purchased a house in Kensington from his younger brother, which he expanded substantially. This residence (later Kensington Palace) was listed in the 1664 hearth tax assessment at 26 hearths. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in London, ii. 67-78; London Hearth Tax: Westminster 1664 (British History Online). That he was not unwilling to make a principled stand on behalf of a fellow royalist, however, is suggested by his defence of Thomas Street^‡ in 1659 (a fellow member of the Inner Temple), whose election for Worcester had been challenged on the grounds that he had been in arms for Charles II in 1651. Even Finch’s opposing counsel were said to have complimented his performance on Street’s behalf. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. p. xiv. Finch’s moderate royalism recommended him to the king following the Restoration when he was chosen to undertake the role of solicitor general. As such he was summoned to attend the special council meeting to determine the details of the marriage of James, duke of York, to Anne Hyde. He was responsible for the conduct of the trials of the regicides and latterly was prominent as counsel for the defence during the proceedings over Skinner’s case. Bodl. Clarendon 74, ff. 138-40, Clarendon 90, ff. 54-5; Leics. RO, DG 7, box 4956 P.P. 18 (i) pp. 3-20.

Having been elected to the Cavalier Parliament for Oxford University, Finch was a frequent participant in debates though he failed to meet the exacting demands of some of his constituents, particularly over his perceived failure to secure concessions relating to the hearth tax. Alongside of his official duties as solicitor general and as a speaker of no little skill, Finch was also an active manager of conferences with the Lords. Samuel Pepys^‡ was impressed by what he witnessed and thought him a man ‘of as great eloquence as ever I heard’. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. p. xxii. Several years later Sir Charles Littleton^‡ was to comment facetiously how he wished Finch would ‘lend me his tongue’ as he was in need of his oratorical powers in an upcoming audience at court. Hatton Corresp. i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii) 153. Some found Finch’s style overly florid, though at least one of the correspondents of James Butler, duke of Ormond [I] (who attended the House as earl of Brecknock), noted that many were appreciative that Finch ‘has so much good and honest oratory in him as to call a spade a spade.’ Bodl. Carte 215, f. 122.

Finch’s close association with Ormond was the result both of his identification with Clarendon and his efforts to throw out the Irish cattle bill in 1666-7. Finch later thanked the duke for ‘the honour I have received in being so publicly owned by your grace’ for his attempt to have the measure rejected. He spoke out particularly against the ‘nuisance’ clause, arguing that its insertion into the measure had been motivated by an interest in restricting the prerogative. Although he was able to secure an amendment allowing for appeals against the seizure of suspected illegal imports he proved unable to derail the bill. Ibid.; Bodl. Carte 35, f. 86; Seaward, Cavalier Parliament, 253-4.

Lord Keeper 1673-5

Finch’s activities in the Commons were brought to a conclusion by his appointment as lord keeper on the dismissal of the lord chancellor, Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, on 9 Nov. 1673. By the time of Finch’s appointment rumours of Shaftesbury’s likely removal had been current for almost a month and other alterations were expected to follow. CSP Dom. 1673-5, pp. 12-13. Finch noted the time that he was granted his new position precisely to have been at 6 pm. The newsletter writers, not privy to such exact information, were still unsure the following day who had been given the post. Some speculated that it had instead gone to the lord privy seal (Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey). Add. 40860, f. 59; Bodl. Tanner 42, f. 54; TNA, PRO 30/53/7/113; Verney ms mic. M636/26, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 9 Oct. 1673. Finch’s promotion was almost certainly owing to the ‘unremitting’ efforts of Thomas Osborne, Viscount Latimer (later early of Danby) and Sir Edward Seymour^‡ on his behalf. It was certainly the opinion of the French envoy Ruvigny, that Finch owed Latimer for ‘everything he has’. TNA, PRO 31/3/130, ff. 31-3. The three men continued to work closely together in opposition to both Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington (with whom Finch had initially associated himself on the fall of Clarendon), and George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. Horwitz, Rev. Pols, 10. Finch’s appointment elicited numerous letters of congratulation including one from his Irish counterpart Michael Boyle, archbishop of Armagh. George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, bemoaned his ill health that prevented him from congratulating Finch in person. HMC Finch, ii. 13-15. Finch’s promotion quickly attracted attention from those eager for his patronage, including those involved with the commission for rebuilding the devastated St Paul’s Cathedral. Bodl. Tanner 42, ff. 58, 64. The following month he was engaged with the final details of the marriage of his heir, Daniel Finch, later 2nd earl of Nottingham, to Lady Essex Rich, daughter of Robert Rich^†, 3rd earl of Warwick. He had earlier been able to secure an advantageous match for his daughter, Elizabeth, with the daughter of Sir Harbottle Grimston^‡, 2nd bt. the master of the rolls. HMC Finch, ii. 18; Add. 70127, A. Stephens to Lady Harley, 2 Feb. 1670.

Finch made his first appearance in the Lords on 7 Jan. 1674. He presided over the House for the next three days in his capacity as lord keeper, though as yet not a member of the House. His oratorical skills continued to impress: the French envoy recorded that he spoke ‘with such eloquence that it was admired by the whole assembly.’ Evidence from Finch’s own papers demonstrates the care with which he drafted and re-drafted the text of the speeches he delivered. Leics. RO, DG 7 (Finch uncalendared), box 4958 P.P.70 (H, J, K). Nevertheless, his removal to the Lords coincided with a gradual falling off in his activities in Parliament. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. p. xxvi. This may have been in part the result of ill-health but also perhaps of the difficult alteration of his circumstances having formerly been a regular representative of the Commons at conferences with the Lords. Soon after taking up his new position, reports circulated of Finch’s imminent ennoblement as Baron Daventry. Finch expressed himself unwilling to give up his surname, though, so on 10 Jan. he was raised to the peerage as Baron Finch of Daventry. Two days later he took his seat for the first time. He recorded in minute detail the ceremonial at his introduction, noting his introduction between Francis Newport Baron Newport (later earl of Bradford) and Thomas Butler, Baron Butler of Moore Park (styled earl of Ossory [I]), and his progression from the extremity of the barons’ bench, to the top of that of the earls and thence back to his place on the woolsack. In the absence of a presiding officer to receive his patent and writ, he was compelled to place them on the throne before retrieving them to give to the clerk. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. 18-19.

In contrast to his earlier role in the Commons, Finch’s activities in the Lords were largely determined by his duties as speaker. It may be that the conflicting demands of presiding in the Lords and as the head of chancery meant that it was not feasible for Finch to be active in much of the Lords’ committee-work. Thus, he appears not to have been named to any committees and his involvement with detailed procedural issues was largely confined to management of conferences (in which he was highly experienced). On 15 Jan. 1674 he informed the Lords that representatives of both Houses had waited on the king about a fast and on 3 Feb. he reported from a conference concerning the peace treaty with the States General. Just under a week later he was one of five members of the administration to sign the peace articles with the Dutch. Add. 28040, f. 9. The following day (10 Feb.) Finch spoke in the debate in the Lords on the bill for securing protestantism. When it was proposed that a clause might be included barring a prince of the blood from marrying a Catholic, Finch interjected that Elizabeth I had once been rendered ineligible to succeed and yet (happily) had done so. Haley, Shaftesbury, 360. With the peace treaty established Finch seems to have joined with Latimer and York in pressing the king to prorogue Parliament, against the advice of Ormond and Arlington who were eager to see the session continue. TNA, PRO 31/3/130, ff. 88-91.

In the spring of 1674 there were rumours that Finch was on the verge of being replaced. According to one source, he had been reprieved by the interposition of Henry Coventry^‡, though the reporter (Denton) was unable to discover why he had been thought vulnerable in the first place. Verney ms mic. M636/28, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 29 Apr. 1674; Add. 70124, [R. Strettell] to Sir E. Harley, 5 May 1674. In May he was deeply involved with assisting in the arrangements for the match between the king’s daughter, Charlotte Fitzroy, and Sir Edward Henry Lee, later earl of Lichfield. Verney ms mic. M636/27, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 7 May 1674. Later that summer he was instrumental in securing a pardon for Richard Hals (or Halse), who had been convicted for committing a robbery in Chelmsford, after several people, among them his daughter in law, Lady Essex Finch, had spoken up on Hals’s behalf. CSP Dom. 1673-5, pp. 329, 333; Verney ms mic. Lady Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 14 Aug. 1674.

Finch was present at the prorogation day of 10 November. The early weeks of 1675 found him engaged with business connected with his role as an admiralty commissioner. Add. 40860, f. 81; Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 8 Jan. 1675. He was also actively involved with Danby (as Latimer had since become) and John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale [S] (who sat in the Lords as earl of Guilford), in meeting with the bishops to discuss the proposed enforcement of the penal laws. Bodl. Carte 72, ff. 257-8, Carte 38, f. 241; Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 25 Jan. 1675; NAS, GD 406/1/2864; CSP Ven. 1673-5, pp. 353, 357. The three men had observed with unease Arlington’s efforts to promote a marriage between William of Orange and Princess Mary. By the end of January their concerns had reached such a pitch that they informed the king that they would not be willing to reveal their opinions in council if Arlington was present. TNA, PRO 31/3/132, ff. 11-12. In March Finch and Danby were both involved in efforts to overcome divisions in the corporation of London, following a stormy meeting between the common councilmen and lord mayor and aldermen triggered by a recent appointment to the shrieval courts. In common with the lord mayor, Sir Robert Vyner^‡, Finch and Danby feared that the councilmen’s actions had been orchestrated by the opposition with the intention of disturbing the next parliamentary session. Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 22 Mar. 1675; G. de Krey, London and the Restoration, 140-1. The following month (April 1675) Finch was involved in a case before council involving Anglesey (with whom he was on rather difficult terms). Anglesey’s ward Catherine Fitzgerald had fled her guardian’s protection having been married under age and (as she insisted) against her will to her cousin John Power, styled Viscount Decies, later 2nd earl of Tyrone [I]. Finch argued that her action made clear her objection to the marriage and was irrevocable. Anglesey recorded in his diary Finch’s ‘partial and mistaken notion’ over the affair. Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 8 Apr. 1675; Add. 40860, f. 86.

Finch took his seat at the opening of the new session on 13 Apr. 1675 after which he was present on all but one of the session’s 42 sitting days. In his speech to the House, in which he made reference to the ‘three estates’ and the importance of gathering together ‘a full concourse’ of all who made up ‘this august and venerable senate’, he underscored the turbulent relations between the Houses that had characterized the previous session and called to mind the memory of Civil War. He insisted that the king had called Parliament ‘at this time to examine and concur with him in the best expedients for recovery of our ancient good temper’. Leics. RO, DG7 (Finch uncalendared) box 4958 P.P. 70 (C), (D). Both Finch’s and the king’s speeches proved controversial. Ten peers registered their protest at the resolution to offer thanks for the king’s speech and the Commons took exception to both addresses. Verney ms mic. M636/28, J. Verney to E. Verney, 15 Apr. 1675.

The focus of the session was Danby’s non-resisting test bill, for which Finch had been noted a supporter in advance of the session. Given this and his close co-operation with Danby in preparing the document it is unsurprising that he was among the foremost advocates of the measure. He commended it to the House as ‘a moderate security to the church and crown’ and doubted how any honest man could refuse it. Reliquiae Baxterianae, iii. 167; Timberland, i. 137. On 29 Apr., presumably in preparation for an expected division on the measure, Finch was entrusted with the proxy of Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, and in a letter of 8 May he thanked Huntingdon for the proxy ‘especially as it is to be used to promote the king’s service’. HMC Hastings, ii. 169. Finch proved a prominent contributor to the debates held in a committee of the whole for the Test bill. He answered Shaftesbury’s speech of 12 May, in which the earl, arguing against the attempt to insist that there should be no endeavour to alter the doctrine of the Church, had questioned exactly what was meant by the Protestant religion. Finch observed mockingly: ‘let it not be told in Gath nor published in the streets of Askalon that a lord of so great parts and eminence… should not know what is meant by the Protestant religion’. Finch was supported by Seth Ward bishop of Winchester, but both were then systematically taken apart by Shaftesbury’s analysis of the state of the Church and the inconsistencies inherent in its canons and practice. Timberland, i. 148; Haley, Shaftesbury, 378-9.

By the time the session closed on 9 June the Lords and Commons were quite as divided as they had been the previous year with Shaftesbury’s promotion of the cause Sherley v. Fagg reopening divisions over questions of privilege between the two Houses. Finch was again closely involved. When Charles Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun, intercepted the Commons’ warrant for Sherley’s arrest, he related that it was passed to Finch who received it (rather uncharacteristically) ‘fleering and laughing.’ Haley, Shaftesbury, 383. On 17 May he was one of the reporters of a conference with the Commons about the issue and on 19 May he reported from a second conference for the same business. He was a manager of a third conference about Sherley v. Fagg on 21 May, but on that occasion the report was delivered to the House by the lord privy seal.

Finch’s health, which already appears to have been failing with his heavy workload in the Commons since the king’s return, collapsed that summer. It was reported that he was suffering from swellings in the face that forced him to postpone a visit to his Grimston in-laws. He had been troubled with a similar condition earlier in the year. Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 11 Aug. 1675; Conway Letters, 401. Despite this, he remained involved in business at court, notably over the drawing up of patents creating several of the king’s natural children dukes and over the appointment to the vacant see of Bristol. For the latter, Finch seems to have favoured John Tillotson, later archbishop of Canterbury, believing him to be well qualified to cope with the town’s dissenting population.

Finch took his place at the opening of the new session on 13 Oct. 1675. Once again, his address on the opening day emphasized the king’s desire to see harmonious relations restored between him and the other estates. Leics. RO, DG 7 (Finch uncalendared) box 4958 P.P. 70 (E). Later that month Finch was entrusted with the proxies of both Huntingdon and of his kinsman, Heneage Finch, 3rd earl of Winchilsea. Within a week of the opening of Parliament, the Sherley v. Fagg case was again brought before the House when Sherley submitted a new petition seeking redress. On 20 Oct. Shaftesbury tore into Finch’s argument that Sherley’s case was ‘uncertain’ and that it was better to postpone further consideration rather than risk a breach with the Commons. NLS, ms 7007, f. 160. On 19 Nov. Finch was one of those nominated reporters of a conference with the Commons, ‘for the preservation of a good understanding between the two Houses’. He reported the effect of the meeting the same day, communicating the Commons’ desire that the Lords would delay further proceeding over Sherley v. Fagg for a while so that other business could be despatched. The following day (20 Nov.), Finch voted (predictably enough) against addressing the crown to request a dissolution. His possession of Huntingdon and Winchilsea’s proxies proved of crucial importance as the court was able to defeat the opposition motion only because of its greater weight in proxies (16 to seven). Huntington Lib. EL 8418; Bodl. Carte 72, ff. 292-3; Timberland, i. 183. At the beginning of December Finch again thanked Huntingdon for the use of the proxy and in return offered him ‘a present’ of the office of custos rotulorum of Leicestershire, vacant by the death of Basil Feilding, 2nd earl of Denbigh. HMC Hastings, ii. 169.

Lord Chancellor 1675-80

The close of the session was followed once more by rumours of Finch’s possible removal. Edmund Verney reckoned that the lord keeper now sat ‘somewhat totteringly’. Such reports proved to be far off the mark, though, and on 19 Dec. rather than being put out Finch was promoted to the office of lord chancellor. Verney had not been the only person to think Finch’s position appeared vulnerable. In a letter to Lady Conway, Henry More confirmed that Finch’s appointment had come hard on the heels of reports that the seal was to be taken from him. No doubt in reaction to such rumours Sir Ralph Verney believed that along with the office, Finch was also to be promoted to an earldom. This, he conceived, ‘will convince the town that all those reports of the seal being to be suddenly taken from him were nothing but mere fictions.’ Verney ms mic. M636/29, E. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 20 Dec. 1675, M636/29, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 20 Dec. 1675; Conway Letters, 419. In the event, the earldom was not forthcoming. This may have been a deliberate omission on the part of the king, who may have been eager to keep the court guessing about his intentions.

Prior to his promotion to the chancellorship, Finch had offered the Conways’ close associate, Henry More, a prebendal stall at Gloucester. After some reflection, More resolved not to accept the place and instead recommended it should go to Edward Fowler, later bishop of Gloucester, ‘a good scholar and a good Christian’. Conway Letters, 414, 423. The spring of 1676 found Finch involved with the early stages of the Hyde-Emerton affair when he was petitioned by Bridget Hyde for a stay in proceedings until her forced marriage to John Emerton had been settled by the ecclesiastical courts. The case continued until after Finch’s death. Add. 28072, ff. 1-2; Eg. 3384, ff. 96-8. In March, after the death of his wife, there were rumours that he would marry Anne, dowager countess of Warwick (widow of Robert Rich, 5th earl of Warwick). Verney ms mic. M636/29, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 16 Mar. 1676, M636/29, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 22 Mar. 1676.

In the absence of a sitting Parliament, in the summer of 1676 Finch was appointed lord high steward to preside over the trial of Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis. Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 12 June 1676; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 155, pp. 460-1. In advance of the proceedings he was also called upon to adjudicate between the lord chamberlain (Arlington) and lord great chamberlain (Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey) as both claimed certain privileges about the preparations for the trial. PA, LGC/5/1, f. 69. Finch had to deal with a variety of delicate issues in relation to the trial. He noted, for example, that he made a point of summoning no Catholic peers to the commission of 35 who were to try Cornwallis, conceiving that to do so ‘might prove a snare to them and oblige them to renounce transubstantiation.’ He was also careful to omit Shaftesbury, Mohun and Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, on the grounds that Shaftesbury was supposed to have quit the capital on the king’s orders. Even so, he made no efforts to prevent the three peers attending the trial where they made a great show of their presence. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. 408-9.

Finch’s conduct of the trial reflected his habitual stern fairness. His opening address to the young Cornwallis was suitably severe, emphasizing the enormity of the offence with which he was charged and the potential harm caused to the dignity of the peerage. Cornwallis seems not to have been overawed by the occasion, though, and once the peers had retired to consider the evidence presented in the trial, he plied Finch (and the other tryers) with wine and Naples biscuits. Hatton Corresp. i. 134-6. The Lords resolved not to send for the judges to advise them on points of law but to raise their concerns in open court with Finch. Finch considered their decision to do so was a result of an erroneous following of Sir Edward Coke^‡ and that by doing so they had effectively deprived themselves of their privilege of taking judicial advice in private. The result, though, he concluded was ‘a better privilege is gained to the peer who is tried.’ In the event Cornwallis was found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter by all but three of his tryers (one of the last being Danby). Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, i. 410-16.

Towards the end of November, Finch rebuked the lord mayor and aldermen of London over the citizens’ petition to the crown complaining about French naval power and the excessive importation of goods to the detriment of English trade. He was careful, though, to lay the blame at the door of the document’s contrivers, the prominent opposition figures Francis Jenks and Sir Thomas Player^‡, both associates of the duke of Buckingham. Verney ms mic. M636/30, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 30 Nov. 1676; De Krey, London and the Restoration, 150. Shortly before the opening of the new session in February 1677 Finch’s house was burgled and several items associated with his office stolen: these included the mace and two purses, though the thieves were sensible enough not to take the great seal. By 12 Feb. (four days after the robbery was reported) those responsible had been caught and committed to Newgate, though not before they had succeeded in melting down the mace. Finch was subsequently able to recover only part of the damaged regalia. The two hapless thieves (Sanders and Johnson) were executed the following month. Verney ms mic. M636/30, J. Verney to E. Verney, 8 Feb. 1677, M636/30 Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 8 Feb. 1677, M636/30, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 12 Feb. 1677, M636/30, John V. to Sir R. Verney, 19 Mar. 1677.

Finch took his place in the new session on 15 February. The opening of the session was quickly thrown into confusion when Shaftesbury, Buckingham, Wharton and James Cecil, 3rd earl of Salisbury, insisted that Parliament was dissolved by virtue of the long prorogation. Finch, in his address, responded in no uncertain terms:

Your lordships are not at all obliged to those noble lords who have thrown you upon this debate, since it is impossible to come well out of it. For if you be no Parliament, you cannot vote yourselves one; and if you be a Parliament, you cannot vote yourselves none, but the very endeavour to do it were a contempt of the highest degree. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases ed. D.E.C. Yale, ii (Selden Soc. lxxix), ii. 982-9.

Finch then argued forcefully for the offending peers to be prosecuted. Shaftesbury, Salisbury and Wharton were all committed to the Tower. The following day (16 Feb.) Buckingham was also ordered to the Tower. Prior to this, Buckingham had been compelled to kneel at the bar, prevailed upon to do so only by the advice of his friends and by Finch’s assurance that the other peers had done likewise. When the duke requested to be permitted to take his cook with him to the Tower Finch made some opprobrious remarks but was warned by Buckingham not to persist in his criticisms. Finch appears to have taken the warning and said no more. Add. 27872, ff. 30-2. With the opening drama out of the way, Finch continued to attend for much of the remainder of the session, failing to sit on only two occasions. He was closely involved with drafting revisions to the bill for prevention of frauds and perjuries. Leics. RO, DG 7 (Finch uncalendared) box 4957 P.P. 47. On 9 May he was again the recipient of Huntingdon’s proxy and on 21 July he also received that of Henry Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester. He was, predictably enough, listed by Shaftesbury as triply vile.

During the summer of 1677 there were renewed rumours of Finch’s likely promotion to an earldom. Verney ms mic. M636/30, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 26 Aug. 1677. Once again, the honour eluded him. Finch was present in the House on 16 July and 3 Dec. when the adjournment was extended into the following year. He took his seat once more on 15 Jan. 1678 when Parliament was adjourned once more to the end of the month. In advance of the resumption he was entrusted with the proxy of John Digby 3rd earl of Bristol, which was vacated on 29 April. Soon after the session reconvened, Finch began a complaint in the House that some of the opposition lords in the Tower had been set at liberty without making due satisfaction to the Lords. He was interrupted by Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Berkshire, who insisted that Buckingham was ready to make what satisfaction the Lords demanded. Bodl. Carte 228, f. 90. Finch later attempted to remonstrate with the king about Buckingham’s presence at court but Charles was unwilling to deny himself the companionship of the duke. Buckingham’s return to the centre of affairs was no doubt behind talk that Danby (and his following) were now in decline. It may also have been in response to this that one Culpeper attempted to take advantage of the lord chancellor’s apparently weakened state by making a complaint against him for injustice and for defrauding him. Culpeper earned for himself incarceration in the Gatehouse having failed to establish a ‘single tittle of his impudent complaint’, which it appears related chiefly to the activities of Finch’s predecessors. HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 106, 404.

On 30 Mar. 1678 Finch reported from the conference with the Commons concerning the growth of Popery. The following month his attention was again taken up with trial preparations as a result of the indictment of Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, for murder. The occasion provoked renewed debate in the House about the presence of bishops at the trial; it was resolved to permit them to attend the proceedings but to exercise their discretion whether to remain in court when sentence was passed. Finch noted that York and Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, agreed to give way to him as the ‘king’s lieutenant’ in the procession to Westminster Hall. Finch’s address at the opening of the proceedings made much of the unusual circumstances in which the murdered man, Cony, had died: according to the indictment, Cony had been trampled to death. While being careful to note that Pembroke was at that point still merely accused of the crime, Finch insisted ‘it is an accusation of a crime with such circumstances as are very rare and unusual. To tread upon a gentleman in any kind becomes no person of honour, but to tread him to death is that which is new and never heard before.’ Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, ii. 623, 625. As with the Cornwallis trial, the Lords were divided, with some thinking him guilty of murder, others of manslaughter and some not guilty of either. The lack of clear resolution may have been why it was asked whether Finch would also vote. Finch at first insisted not, ‘for I being the king’s lieutenant pro hac vice and made the judge in this case I was to give sentence.’ Although Finch argued for this strenuously, he was overruled by the rest of the peers who insisted that as Pembroke was being tried in full Parliament all the peers were sitting as judges rather than tryers. Finch concluded that the unwelcome decision was an argument in favour of such trials being conducted only in times of prorogation. In the event only five lords found Pembroke guilty and 18 not guilty. The remaining 42 found him guilty of manslaughter. Finch was among them.

Finch recorded his reasoning for concluding as he did with some care, setting out the burden of the law and the particulars of the case:

1) I agree that to kill a man without provocation is murder
2) That a slight provocation is all one with none
3) But I take it to be a great difference when the party slain gave no provocation at all and where he comes in as it were in partem litis and will needs be seconding a great provocation given by another just and immediately before by pretending to expostulate about it or to demand an account of it.

This, Finch reasoned—indulging in a high degree of sophistry—was the case with the death of Cony, who had questioned Pembroke’s quarrel with a third man. Considered in this light, the killing had occurred at a time when Pembroke’s blood was up on account of the previous quarrel which Cony had extended by his interposition; it was accounted accidental as Pembroke’s action had been first to push and then to kick Cony. He had then left the scene with Cony not obviously seriously hurt. Further doubt had been cast on Pembroke’s culpability by at least one surgeon who had concluded that Cony’s internal injuries could have been the result of his wayward lifestyle (though Finch seems not to have been convinced by this man’s testimony). The trial concluded with Pembroke claiming his clergy and Finch warning him that he would be unable to rely on it a second time. Ibid. 622-30; Bodl. Carte 118, ff. 311-12; Verney ms mic. M636/31, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 10 Apr. 1678.

The pressures of the Pembroke trial may have contributed to another decline in Finch’s health a few days after the proceedings had been concluded. In the first half of April 1678 it was noted that the Speakers of both Houses were unwell, with Finch now suffering from gout in the heel. His condition was so painful as to make attendance of the House difficult. During his indisposition, the lord chief justice, Francis North, later Baron Guilford, acted as his deputy. Verney ms mic. M636/31, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 11 Apr. 1678. Before he was noticed as becoming ill, however, he succeeded in combination with Danby, Arlington and the lord privy seal in raising £100,000 from the corporation of London. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 55; HMC Rutland, ii. 49. The continuance of his illness in the latter part of April encouraged ‘coffee house discourse’ that he was to be replaced, though some thought it was less because of his health and more because of his refusal to accede to the king’s commands. Some reports suggested that North had been offered the place but refused it; others thought the lord chief justice, Sir William Scroggs, was to be the man. Verney ms mic. M636/31, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 25 Apr. 1678. By the close of April, however, Finch seems to have recovered sufficiently to attend the chamber to present a speech to both Houses concerning the Dutch alliance. Leics. RO, DG 7 (Finch uncalendared) box 4957 P.P. 50; NLW, Trevor Owen, 103. The following month he presided in the court of chancery for a case involving Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham.

The king prorogued parliament on 13 May for just ten days while he concluded a treaty with the French, offering Finch little time to recover his strength before on 23 May he was back in the House to preside over the new one and make a speech attempting to lay out the complicated international situation and providing a tendentious interpretation of the failure of English efforts to broker a general peace. Two days later he was entrusted with the proxy of Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, and on 24 June he again received that of the earl of Bristol. When the Commons took his speech into consideration on 1 June, it came in for considerable criticism, many arguing that it laid the blame on the Commons for failing to support his preparations to intervene on the continent. Sir Ralph Verney thought it worthy of comment, though, that they made no personal reflections on his management of chancery, emphasizing ‘indeed there can be no just exception against him in that court’. Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir Ralph Verney to Edmund Verney, 3 June 1678; Grey, Debates, vi. 48-62. The remark serves to emphasize that however much Finch may have attracted the ire of the Commons for his enforcement of ministerial policy, his conduct as a lawyer was rarely the subject of anything but warm approbation. Finch registered a rare dissent on 5 July when he objected to the resolution to ascertain the relief of the petitioner in the cause Darrell v. Whichcot. Three days later the case Feversham v. Watson with which he had been engaged in May came before the Lords: the chancery dismission was overturned following a lengthy debate. Finch noted that he was supported in his view by George Savile, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax, but that the case still went against him by a large majority. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, ii. 637-47. On 11 and 12 July he was named a manager of two conferences with the Commons for the bill for burying in woollen and on 13 July he was also one of the managers of the conference considering the method of returning bills from the Commons.

Parliament was prorogued once more at the end of July 1678. Verney ms mic. M636/31, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 1 Aug. 1678. The latter stages of the summer and into the autumn of that year came to be dominated for Finch as for many other members of the council with the revelations surrounding the Popish Plot. Towards the end of September he was present at a meeting of the council presided over by Prince Rupert when Oates was heard, in spite of an attempt by Israel Tongue to have both Finch and Sir Joseph Williamson^‡ excluded on the grounds that they were hostile to him (Tongue) and possibly partial towards the Catholics. If Finch was sceptical about Oates’s claims at this point, he raised no objections and at the beginning of October he was appointed to the private committee of the Privy Council directed to examine papers relating to the Plot. HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 457. Finch was a friend of the justice Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, before whom Oates had first testified and who was last seen alive on 12 October. A few days later, on the king’s return from Newmarket, Finch presented to Charles his assessment of the presence of treasonable material in Coleman’s papers. Kenyon, Popish Plot, 86-88. Godfrey’s body was discovered on 17 October.

Finch had been present at the prorogation sittings of 1 and 29 Aug. and of 1 October. He took his seat once more at the opening of the new session on 21 Oct., following which he proceeded to attend on 85 per cent of all sitting days. He was again the recipient of Bristol’s proxy on 22 Oct. and on 2 Nov. he was entrusted with that of Stamford (a list dated 21 Oct. noted Finch holding both of these proxies). Bodl. Carte 81, f. 364. He was also nominated a manager of the conference with the Commons on 2 Nov. concerning the dilapidated state of both chambers. A man more suited to debating questions of equity rather than the kind of uncompromising politics thrown up by the Plot, Finch seems quickly to have found himself out of his depth. On 1 Nov. he reported from a conference with the Commons concerning the preservation of the king and safety of the Protestant religion and on 11 Nov. from a subsequent conference over the issuing of commissions to JPs to tender oaths to Catholics. That day John Verney^‡ (later Viscount Fermanagh [I]) remarked to his father Sir Ralph Verney^‡ that the lord chancellor ‘loses in the people’s affections by his mealy carriage in these troublesome days.’ Sir Ralph was quick to answer his son’s criticisms and insisted that Finch ‘may possibly be willing enough to keep his place if wariness will keep it, but I think verily he will not act anything against his conscience.’ Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1678, M636/32, Sir R. Verney to J. Verney, 14 Nov. 1678. On 15 Nov. Finch voted in favour of disabling Catholics from sitting in Parliament and on 23 Nov. he was one of the managers of two conferences with the Commons: one concerning the disabling of Catholics from sitting in Parliament and the second relating to the address concerning the militia. He was then one of the managers of a series of conferences held between 26 and 27 Nov. concerning the preservation of the king’s person. LJ xiii. 378, 380, 384. At the end of the month he advised the king to accept the militia bill, which had been promoted in the Commons by his son, Daniel. In this he was unsuccessful and the king followed Danby’s advice instead and rejected the measure. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 380; Horwitz, Rev. Pols, 12. On 26 Dec. he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill. The following day he voted against committing his colleague, Danby. The closing days of December 1678 point clearly to Finch’s struggle to remain on top of the ongoing crisis. When the king suggested postponing the execution of three of the convicted Jesuits both Finch and Danby protested. Suffering from gout and apparently dismayed by the result of a meeting with the king, Danby and Lauderdale, Finch seems to have considered seriously resigning his position in protest. Further evidence of tension can be seen in his unusually testy examination of the witness, Miles Prance, who had attempted to withdraw his (almost certainly perjured) evidence. Finch was even said to have contemplated showing Prance the rack. It was to this severe interrogation that Prance’s decision to reject his recantation was attributed. HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 492, 494.

By the close of January 1679 Finch’s position appeared once more assured, with the appointment of his younger son Heneage, later earl of Aylesford, as solicitor general. The younger Finch was also successful in contesting his father’s old seat of Oxford University in the election in March, for which Finch sought Ormond’s interest. HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 310. Although the elder son, Daniel Finch, was defeated at Great Bedwyn he too was the recipient of ministerial patronage when he was named an admiralty commissioner in April. This may have been in part owing to his father’s interest, though by then Finch was once more thought to be vulnerable and he insisted that he was not responsible for the appointment. By early May Finch was said to be preparing himself to be put out of office. Horwitz, Rev. Pols, 15; HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 505, 509. Finch was noted a likely supporter by Danby in a series of forecasts drawn up in advance of the new Parliament. At the beginning of the month he was one of those to witness the king’s declaration that he had never been married to Lucy Walters (mother of James Scott duke of Monmouth). Bodl. Carte 130, f. 291.

For all this, Finch found himself once more at sea in the tense early days of the first exclusion Parliament. He attended each of the six days of the short session at the beginning of March 1679, prorogued after the row over the Speaker. In spite of cautious drafting, his response to Sir Edward Seymour on 7 March conveying the king’s command not to accept his election as speaker of the Commons caused uproar, though most of the blame fell on Danby. Finch presided over the opening of the new Parliament on 15 Mar., when his address to Sir William Gregory^‡, when Gregory presented himself as the Commons’ new Speaker, in which he pointed out ‘that what His Majesty had created by his power, he would protect by his kindness’ caused further resentment. Shaftesbury in particular took the lord chancellor to task for his ill-judged rhetoric. In response, Finch protested that he had been unprepared and forced to speak extempore. Finch’s papers bear evidence to the constant drafting and redrafting of his speeches, so it seems more than credible that he was uncomfortable with being expected to speak without enough preparation. As neither his remarks nor those of Gregory were deemed particularly admirable, it was agreed not to publish them. Leics. RO, DG 7 (Finch uncalendared) P.P. 59 (i), (iii); Hatton Corresp. i. 178-84; Haley, Shaftesbury, 505. Edward Cooke^‡ reported to Ormond the essentials of Finch’s address and how he had ‘in a few words also reminded them of the great opportunities they had to do national good.’ HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 357.

Finch was present on every sitting day of the second session of the 1679 Parliament. On 19 Mar. he responded to Shaftesbury’s arguments in the debate concerning the continuation of Danby’s impeachment from one session to the next. Although he conceded the general point that past practice indicated that impeachments could be continued from one Parliament to another, he raised a number of objections to specifics in the case. He was joined in his defence of Danby’s position by Lauderdale and the majority of the episcopal bench. The case ultimately, however, went Shaftesbury’s way and the House gave Danby a week to put in his answer. Bodl. Carte 228, ff. 229-30; Haley, Shaftesbury, 506. On 22 Mar., following the king’s appearance in the Lords to reveal that Danby had been dismissed, but he had given him his pardon, during the subsequent debate in the Commons, Finch’s son the solicitor general had revealed that his father had made a point of refusing to seal it himself and left it to the king to instruct another officer to do so instead. On 22 Mar. the House of Commons ordered a deputation to wait on the chancellor to discover the circumstances of the drawing up of the pardon: on 24 Mar. they reported back to the Commons with an account of the correspondence between Finch and Danby on the subject and confirmation of his son’s story. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 114-15; Grey, Debates, vii. 38; CJ, ix. 574-5; Haley, Shaftesbury, 507.

Towards the end of March 1679 Finch was the recipient of a letter from Danby, in which the former lord treasurer asked his colleague ‘as what one peer might hope for from another’ for his assistance in the proceedings against him. Add. 28049, ff. 18-19. The following month, Finch proved loyal to Danby, voting against the passage of the attainder in a series of votes between 1 and 14 April. Over the summer he was noted to be one of those giving advice to the imprisoned lord treasurer. Add. 28049, ff. 62-3. Later that month he supported Sir William Temple’s^‡ proposal for the Privy Council to be limited to 30 but then backed the king against Temple in supporting Shaftesbury’s inclusion within the new body. He was also one of those to speak in favour of Shaftesbury’s appointment as lord president. In spite of this, Conway reckoned that Finch was one of those anticipating being laid aside as part of the general alteration. Haley, Shaftesbury, 512-13; HMC Hastings, ii. 387-8.

In April Finch drew up a series of detailed objections to a draft of the habeas corpus bill and on 30 Apr. he relayed to both Houses the king’s offer to agree to legislation to secure religion and liberty provided it did not interfere with the descent of the crown, including limitations on the power of a Catholic successor to interfere in the Church, the continuance of Parliament in the case of a Catholic successor, and extensive powers for Parliament over civil and military appointments. Leics. RO, DG 7 (Finch uncalendared) box 4957 P.P. 60 (i); Haley, Shaftesbury, 517. On 6 May the House took into consideration a question Finch had already tackled in his earlier management of the Cornwallis and Pembroke murder trials, namely the right of bishops to sit in the House during cases of blood, as a result of Shaftesbury’s attempt to exclude them from the trial of Danby. In answer to the objections put forward by Shaftesbury and others Finch argued that the question was not whether the bishops attended as barons or members of a third estate and pointed out that some bishops had attended the House by virtue of their temporalities before being invested. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 564. Two days later, however, along with Shaftesbury (though also with Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, Halifax and others) he registered his dissent at the rejection of the Commons’ request for a committee to be appointed to consider the proceedings against the impeached peers. He voted in favour of appointing the joint committee again on 10 May – something for which he had lobbied hard – and entered a further dissent (with a much longer list of peers) when the motion was again rejected. When the Lords climbed down on 11 May, day he was appointed a manager of two conferences with the Commons on the subject and on 12 May he queried whether it would be necessary to have a lord steward attending and suggested that without one the trial could go ahead. Swatland, House of Lords, 101; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, notes relating to the trials of impeached peers, 12 May 1679. On 19 May the House returned to the question of the bishops’ participation with Finch again arguing in favour. HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 108; Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 22 May 1679. Finch again sparred with Shaftesbury on 22 May over the Commons request for several condemned Catholics to be sent for their executions. Finch told the House that Shaftesbury, who was promoting the request, had been the one to move for the delay in the first place. In response Shaftesbury excused himself for being too tender-hearted. By the beginning of July the king had resolved to bring the Parliament to a close. Finch, along with several other members of council, was opposed to the decision. On 6 July he joined with Anglesey and Arlington in making known his opposition to the king’s decision at a council meeting at Windsor. His advice was ignored and on 12 July Parliament was dissolved. Haley, Shaftesbury, 540; Add. 18730, f. 57. The following day he was expected at Windsor to help adjudicate a dispute between Lauderdale and William Hamilton, 3rd duke of Hamilton [S], but failed to appear. Verney ms mic. M636/33, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 14 July 1679.

During the elections for the succeeding Parliament, in mid-August, Finch seems to have had some qualms about the tactics of Robert Paston, earl of Yarmouth, to whom he wrote complaining of the action of Yarmouth’s son in withholding from the sheriff the writ for the Norfolk elections. Add. 27447, ff. 421-2. By the autumn rumours were once more current of Finch’s likely displacement. Within the Verney circle both Cary Gardiner and John Verney circulated the story though William Denton was as vigorous in denying it. Finch was also said to have waived his right to a £4,000 pension should he be put out of office. Bodl. Carte 228, f. 157; Verney ms mic. M636/33, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 22 Oct. 1679, M636/33, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 23, 30 Oct. 1679, M636/33, Dr William Denton to Sir Ralph Verney, 23 Oct. 1679; Add. 70081, newsletter, 23 Oct. 1679; HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 551; Hatton Corresp. i. 199. In November Finch was said to have refused the bogus witness Dangerfield an interview concerning the sham plot. The same month he was present at a turbulent meeting of the council from which the king stormed out after being harried by several councillors about allowing Parliament to sit imminently. Finch chid his colleagues for being ‘too quick with the king’. Finch’s identification with Danby made him a target for abuse: towards the end of November he was featured in a libel which characterized him as no more than a ‘fop at the council table’. Around this time his coach was stopped by revellers in the streets and he was compelled to give them money to drink Monmouth’s health. He capitulated and offered a shilling and a cry of god bless the duke of Monmouth; he was later said to have regretted that the sum had marked him out and that he would have been better off giving a halfpenny or more. Verney ms mic. M636/33, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 3 Nov. 1679, M636/33, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 13 Nov. 1679, M636/33, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 27 Nov. 1679, M636/33, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 1 Dec. 1679. Finch came in for criticism when it was reported (inaccurately) that he had overturned a decree made by one of the masters in chancery in a case between Charles West, 5th Baron De la Warr, and Mr Huddleston over settlement of the marriage articles between De la Warr’s son and Huddleston’s daughter, Mary. According to Cary Gardiner, Finch’s supposed insistence on £10,000 being awarded to De la Warr was reckoned ‘a hard measure’ and inspired talk of corruption. Gardiner conceded ‘it is hard for great men to be innocent and as hard to please all, but this makes a great noise.’ In fact, as she later reported, she had been mistaken. Finch’s award aimed at securing an agreed settlement of £6,000 for De la Warr rather than burdening Huddleston with the full £10,000 plus interest as Gardiner had at first thought. Verney ms mic. M636/33, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 4, 7 Dec. 1679; Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, ii. 746, 751.

Finch had been present in the House for the prorogation day of 17 October. He continued to attend on a further half dozen such occasions prior to the belated opening of the new Parliament in October 1680. In December 1679, he provoked an angry retort from the king after he spoke out in council earnestly against the further prorogation of Parliament. The king commanded Finch to desist, after which Finch supported North’s suggestion that if Parliament was to be prorogued it should not be for too long. His public dressing down no doubt prompted more reports of his imminent dismissal, which persisted well into the following year. HMC Ormond, n.s. iv. 569; Hatton Corresp. i. 212-13, 224; Add. 70081, newsletter, 23 Dec. 1679; Bodl. Carte 39, f. 113; Verney ms mic. M636/34, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 5 July 1680.

In spite of rumours of his poor standing with the king, Finch kept his place. In the summer of 1680 he spoke on behalf of Sir Job Charlton^‡, whose son, William, had been chosen town clerk of Ludlow but then been disqualified for not taking the oaths correctly. Clarendon, Henry Somerset, 2nd marquess of Worcester (later duke of Beaufort) and John Granville, earl of Bath, all joined with Finch in undertaking to promote Charlton’s case. CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 514. Ill in August, he was nevertheless expected back in town for the opening of the new Parliament in October.Ibid. 609; Bodl. Tanner 37, f. 146. On 12 Oct. he joined Halifax and Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, in advising York to leave before Parliament met, though he later joined Sir Edward Seymour and Lawrence Hyde, earl of Rochester, in advising the king to postpone a decision on York’s fate until the mood of Parliament had been gauged. In the event, Sunderland was able to convince the king of the wisdom of sending York away before Parliament was convened. Hatton Corresp. i. 238; Verney ms mic. M636/34, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 13 Oct. 1680; Kenyon, Sunderland, 58.

Finch took his place at the opening of the new Parliament on 21 October. He was thereafter present on 65 per cent of all sitting days. He was absent for around two weeks in the middle of November: his son wrote that he had almost collapsed in the Lords as a result of pain from the gout. It meant that he missed the vote on exclusion, and the public demonstration of his ill health helped allay any suspicions that he was avoiding the chamber out of expediency. HMC Finch, ii. 95-103. Between 12 and 27 Nov. he covered his absence by registering his proxy with John Robartes, earl of Radnor, with whom he appears to have been closely associated, and who also replaced him over the period as Speaker of the House. The proxy was vacated on 19 Nov. but on 15 Nov. Finch was noted to have voted in favour of rejecting the exclusion bill at first reading. This suggests either that the vote was made by proxy or that the source merely indicated the likely sympathies of members of the House on the issue. At the close of November Finch was once more nominated lord high steward for the trial of William Howard, Viscount Stafford. In spite of Finch’s earlier experience in presiding over such occasions and the prince’s willingness to give way when the point had arisen in the Pembroke trial in 1678, on 30 Nov. Prince Rupert raised an objection to the commission constituting Finch high steward being read out in the House rather than in Westminster Hall, concerned that it would grant Finch precedence over him. A compromise was arrived at whereby the commission was read in the Lords’ chamber, but Finch only formally assumed the dignity of lord high steward once he had been handed his wand in the court room. HMC Ormond, n.s. v. 511-16.

Finch’s conduct of Stafford’s trial was generally applauded. William Denton noted the commendations made by foreign ministers who were impressed by the ‘respect and civilities used towards the prisoner’. Verney ms mic. M636/35, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 9 Dec. 1680. Finch appears to have made a genuine effort to be fair to the arraigned peer, though he was unsuccessful in his efforts to allow Stafford time to answer part of the charge against him when Sir William Jones objected that no further time was to be given for a matter of fact. Ibid. J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 3 Dec. 1680. When the Lords tied on the question of whether to proceed to judgment at once or to postpone to the following day, Finch used his casting vote in favour of postponement. The delay made no difference to the outcome and however sensitive his handling of the case may have been, Finch joined with the majority in finding Stafford guilty. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 253; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, series ii. box 4, folder 173. In his closing address he insisted that his role was ‘a very sad one. For I never yet gave sentence of death upon any man and am extremely sorry that I must begin with your lordship’. He then proceeded to an exposition of his confidence of Stafford’s guilt and of the reality of the plot: ‘That there has been a general and desperate conspiracy of the papists, and that the death of the king has been all along one chief part of the conspirators’ design, is now apparent beyond all possibility of doubting.’

He seems, however, to have been at pains to insist that it was Stafford’s religion rather than Stafford himself that was the more to blame. His subsequent assertion that this proved in turn that the Catholics had been responsible for the Great Fire, seems to have caused more perplexity among his hearers. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, ii. 848. (It was certainly at variance with his original response to the Fire. In a letter to his brother-in-law Conway in September 1666 Finch had stated unequivocally ‘without all doubt there was nothing of plot or design in all this though the people would fain think otherwise’. HMC Hastings, ii. 371.) Having made his point, Finch proceeded to the sentence, though even here he displayed some delicacy in the way he addressed the condemned man: ‘And now, my lord, this is the last time that I can call you my lord, for the next words that I am to speak will attaint you.’ Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, ii. 848-9. Finch missed a few days after the trial, but thereafter attended for the remainder of the session until the prorogation on 10 Jan. 1681.

Oxford Parliament and final years

Parliament was dissolved shortly afterwards, and a new one summoned to Oxford for March. In advance of the new Parliament at Oxford Finch was thought likely to support the attempt to have Danby bailed. He left London on 18 Mar. and two days later was lodging at Merton (his former college, Christ Church, where the king was staying, being presumably unable to accommodate him). Recovering from illness again, he reported to his daughter-in-law on the 20th that he was now ‘in more health and ease than I thought had been possible to recover in two days’. That afternoon he was to wait on the king, ‘which will be the first trial of my strength’. Verney ms mic. M636/35, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 17 Mar. 1681; HMC Finch, ii. 104. Finch took his seat in the new Parliament the following day, and attended each of the session’s seven days. On 26 Mar. he delivered a long address on the impeachment of Fitzharris, arguing strongly against the Lords receiving the impeachment and in favour of the case being dealt with by the courts. Having forwarded the view that the king, quite as much as the Lords, had a just quarrel with Fitzharris and thus reason to wish to see him proceeded against in court, Finch took up a further argument as to why the Lords should not hear the case:

Instead of saying that you cannot refuse this impeachment, give me leave to advance a contrary proposition and to affirm that you cannot receive it if you would, because this is an impeachment of a commoner in a cause that is capital. And in this point I pray to be heard with patience, for if I be in the right, then it will be murder in us to proceed upon such an impeachment… I pray your lordships to consider whether it can be advisable to take a case out of an inferior court where the method is clear and plain, to bring it hither where it is possible all that we do may be erroneous. Nottingham’s Chancery Cases, ii. 995-8; Leics. RO, DG 7 (Finch uncalendared) box 4958 P.P. 67.

The dissolution effectively settled the matter leaving Fitzharris to be tried in the courts later that summer.

In spite of his expected support for Danby in March, Finch joined with Lord Chief Justice North and Radnor in advising the king against releasing the earl the following month. Add. 28040, f. 10. The changing balance at court away from the opposition identified with Shaftesbury and Monmouth was apparent in Finch’s resurgent interest. By the early summer he was accounted a member of a junto of half a dozen prominent officials. Castle Ashby ms, 1092, newsletter to earl of Northampton, 1 June 1681. In May he was promoted in the peerage as earl of Nottingham, a title only recently available by the death of Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Nottingham. As one correspondent noted ‘our golden-mouthed chancellor has already got his title.’ His choice infuriated Dorchester, who was said to have wanted the title for himself and was determined to put a stop to the warrant. Bodl. Carte 222, f. 300; Verney ms mic. M636/35, Lady A. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 12 May 1681; Castle Ashby ms, 1092, newsletter to earl of Northampton, 12 May 1681. The following month Nottingham was also successful in securing the deanery of Norwich for his chaplain, John Sharp, (later archbishop of York) in the teeth of opposition from the countess of Yarmouth and John Sparrow, bishop of Norfolk. Bodl. Tanner 134, f. 16. In explaining the decision to Sparrow, William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, stressed ‘my lord chancellor is very powerful and prevailed against us both’: clearly unhappy with the appointment, he complained that ‘I am sure the chancellor would have taken it very ill if we should have opposed him in making a judge, or a serjeant, and if we had succeeded, would have borne the affront with less patience than thank God I do.’ Bodl. Tanner 36, f. 52.

Both Nottingham and his heir were among those who signed the warrant for committing Shaftesbury in July. Nottingham delivered a long speech on this occasion. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 281, 283. He continued to exert his interest at Norwich later that summer by presenting one of his sons’ tutors to a prebend there. His efforts appear to have riled Sancroft further, who not only opposed a later effort to secure a fellowship at All Souls, Oxford, for Leopold Finch but also subjected Nottingham to a harangue in which he accused him of lacking ‘either affection or esteem’ for the archbishop. Nottingham’s response seems to have been bemusement at the archbishop’s loss of temper. Bodl. Tanner 36, ff. 182, 184.

Freed from presiding in Parliament, Finch was able to concentrate on legal affairs. In early 1682 he rejected arguments made by lord chief justice Pemberton relating to the Norfolk perpetuities case between Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, and his uncle Charles Howard as ‘a deal of artifice’ and ‘plain piece of chicanery’, paving the way for his landmark ruling for trust settlements. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 303-4. In February he rebuked the London sheriffs for failing to deliver up several condemned priests, telling them that they might accompany the condemned men to the king if they ‘doubted his care in their transportation’. CSP Dom. 1682, p. 61. Nottingham remained reluctant to involve himself too openly in Danby’s ongoing case. As a result Danby requested that the king would speak to Nottingham in private as ‘I fear he may not otherwise be so free in speaking his mind’. Eg. 3332, ff. 18-19. Nottingham’s disinclination to draw attention to himself did not protect him from being targeted by the opposition. That spring, he was one of a number of courtiers teased with invitations to banned Whig banquets held at the Haberdashers’ and Goldsmiths’ halls. Verney ms mic. M636/36, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 20 Apr. 1682; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 179.

Nottingham’s health, which had already been poor in March, took a turn for the worse in the summer of 1682 when he was said to be suffering from both gout and scurvy. It was in this condition that he entered the fray over the disputed London shrieval election. The king had sought to secure the return of one sheriff on his own nomination leaving the other office free to be elected by the common councilmen, but this led to widespread protests in the city in June. When the lord mayor complained to the king and council of the affront offered him on the occasion, Nottingham declared that ‘the insolency’ of those involved was ‘little less than treason’. CSP Dom. 1682, pp. 148, 273; HMC Finch, ii. 176. On 12 July, in advance of a second round of elections, Nottingham argued in council in favour of the king’s right to nominate one of the sheriffs but was answered back by Sheriff Pilkington. The result was another disputed poll, which was not settled until later in the summer. De Krey, London and the Restoration, 255-7, 260.

Nottingham set out for Bath in August, accompanied by 100 horse, in search of a cure for his ailments. Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 3 Aug. 1682. The large retinue may have been occasioned by reports of threats that Nottingham and a number of privy counsellors would be attacked for their role in advising the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament. On 15 Aug. he reported that the place was suiting him well and hoped to be able to return to the capital ‘with better legs shortly’. He also took advantage of his proximity to Bristol to ‘improve all opportunities of securing a good election’ there. Nottingham’s expectations of swift recovery proved optimistic. He had returned to London by October but on 17 Dec. he was said to be lying speechless, and he died the following day, almost exactly a month after his brother, Sir John Finch. The cause of death was given variously as gout in the throat, or gout and quincey. CSP Dom. 1682, pp. 291, 337, 425, 496, 512, 581; Add. 18730, f. 102; Bodl. Tanner 35, f. 147; Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Verney to E. Verney, 18 Dec. 1682; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 26, W. Blathwayt to Poley, 19 Dec. 1682. On his death the great seal was passed to North as lord keeper. The earldom of Nottingham descended to his eldest son, Daniel Finch.

In his will, Nottingham requested to be interred next to his wife in the family vault at Ravenstone. He made a series of bequests to his younger children as well as leaving sums of £10 apiece to the poor of Kensington and Ravenstone and £20 to Dean Sharp. The residue of his personal estate was left to his heir, who was named sole executor. TNA, PROB 11/374. Shortly before his death Nottingham composed a tract on the king’s power of pardoning, a copy of which was conveyed to Charles by Conway. Add. 28047, ff. 315-51. The detail is illustrative of Nottingham’s character and importance. If he had been reluctant to stand out against the rest of the council to intervene on Danby’s behalf in the final months of his life, Nottingham retained throughout an interest in the rule of law and the principles of equitable justice. His manner at times riled some; his oratory was occasionally pompous. Gilbert Burnet, later bishop of Salisbury, thought him ‘a man of probity and well-versed in the law; but very ill-bred, and both vain and haughty’. Burnet, ii. 37. In spite of such criticisms he died with a reputation of having been ‘very just’ and, perhaps as importantly, more knowledgeable about his office than of any of his contemporaries. Verney ms mic. M636/37, Sir R. Verney to J. Verney, 18 Dec. 1682.