FITZROY, Henry (1663-90)

The second son of Charles II and his principal mistress, Barbara Palmer, countess of Castlemaine (later duchess of Cleveland), there is some doubt as to the precise date of Henry Fitzroy’s birth, which occurred between 2 and 28 Sept. 1663. He was initially not acknowledged by his royal father, who doubted his resemblance to other members of his brood. It was thus not until 1672 that he was formally recognized, and in August of that year he was created earl of Euston when he was contracted to marry Lady Isabella Bennet, daughter of the earl of Arlington (both parties being underage). Evelyn Diary, iii. 622. Three years later he was advanced duke of Grafton. He was also granted a pension of £3,000 out of the excise. TNA, PROB 11/402, f. 74. It was speculated that he would have been elevated before then but for the opposition of his mother who was determined that his older less talented brother, Southampton, should be given precedence. A.W. Fitzroy, Henry Duke of Grafton, 4.

Grafton spent much of the remainder of his youth in France, and in 1676 he was entrusted to the ambassador to Paris, Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, to be schooled in French language and etiquette. Ibid. 5. By February 1677 Montagu was able to report approvingly to Arlington of Grafton’s progress and how he ‘does mend every day in everything as much as you can wish’. HMC Buccleuch, i. 523. Despite this, Grafton retained a carefully cultivated blunt demeanour suitable to his chosen military profession. By the close of 1677 Grafton’s mother had fallen out with Arlington, and it was reported that the duchess, who ‘hates Arlington heartily and is the most implacable creature in the world’ was determined to break off the arranged marriage between her son and Lady Isabella. Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R. to E. Verney, 3 Jan. 1678; HMC Rutland, ii. 43. In June 1678 it was reported misleadingly that Grafton and his child bride had been ‘divorced’, but having failed to find a suitable alternative candidate, in 1679 Cleveland determined at last to see the Arlington match through. Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. i. 67; Verney ms mic. M636/31, J. to E. Verney, 6 June 1678; M636/33, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 6 Nov. 1679; Add. 28053, f. 120. A second marriage service was conducted by John Dolben, bishop of Rochester, in November though it seems not to have been until April 1681 that the marriage was finally consummated. Chatsworth, Devonshire collection Group 1/F, newsletter to Devonshire, 12 Aug. 1679; Devonshire collection Group 1/B, newsletter, 8 Nov. 1679; Verney ms mic. M636/35, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 28 Apr. 1681. John Evelyn was surprised that the match came to fruition, noting it as being ‘a sudden and unexpected thing (when everybody believed the first marriage would have come to nothing).’ Although he acknowledged Grafton to be a ‘tolerable person’, he lamented that the new duchess was sacrificed ‘to a boy that had been rudely bred.’ Evelyn Diary, iv. 184-5.

Although Grafton was the recipient of a number of grants from the king and expected to inherit his father-in-law’s estates in Suffolk, it was designed early on that he should make his way in the world as a sailor, and following his marriage he was entrusted to the tutelage of the veteran mariner, Sir John Berry. Fitzroy, 9; CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 397. In the summer of 1680 Grafton arrived with a flotilla off Smyrna. His presence there precipitated a diplomatic hiatus at the Turkish court as the Ottomans recognized all monarchs’ sons irrespective of their legitimacy. HMC Finch, ii. 74, 79. Grafton was created a garter knight during his absence, and in December the king’s continuing favour was demonstrated when he was promised all that had formerly been granted to his half-brother, the recently deceased Charles Fitzcharles, earl of Plymouth, including an annuity of £3,000 out of the proceeds of the tin trade. Add. 28051, f. 94. In February 1681 Grafton was appointed lord lieutenant of Suffolk (the duties being undertaken by his father-in-law during his minority), and in April it was rumoured that he would be appointed governor of Jamaica, though this last distinction failed to materialize. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 77; Bodl. Carte 222, f. 264; CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 173. Grafton had returned to England from his naval apprenticeship by the spring of 1681, and in June he was one of a number of peers to attend Fitzharris’ trial. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 95-96. In December he was appointed colonel of the guards. Ibid. i. 149; HMC Ormond, vi. 252, 275. His appointment prompted speculation that there would follow ‘a purgation’ in the regiment, ‘none being suffered to hold a commission but such as are true sons of the Church of England,’ an early indication of his association with the Tory revival, which was further highlighted by his presence at the Tory feast in August of the following year. CSP Dom. 1682, p. 7; Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 10 Aug. 1682.

The final years of Charles II saw Grafton appointed to a number of military posts. In the winter of 1682 he was made vice-admiral of England in succession to Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, and he appears to have used his new position to frustrate the ambitions of Admiral Arthur Herbert, later earl of Torrington, to be appointed to the admiralty commission. CSP Dom. 1682, p. 556; Verney ms mic. M636/37, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 4 Dec. 1682; Rev. Pols, 35. In March 1683 it was rumoured that Grafton was to be given the command of a fleet during the summer, and in April his squadron was said to be ‘fitting out very diligently’ in anticipation of sailing the following month. Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. to Sir R. Verney, 31 Mar. 1683; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 29, [Yard], to Poley, 6 Apr. 1683. Grafton’s preparations were brought to a halt when he was recalled by George Legge, Baron Dartmouth, who took over command of the flotilla himself, prompting bitter complaints from members of Grafton’s family. Bodl. Carte 40, f. 108. Thwarted at sea, Grafton travelled to France in the spring of 1684 as a volunteer in the French army at Luxembourg along with his brother, Northumberland, and a number of other young noblemen. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 465-6; HMC Portland, ii. 156; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 43, Yard to Poley, 21 Mar. 1684; NAS GD 406/1/3245, GD 406/1/3245, GD 406/1/11095; Bodl. Carte 232, f. 141; Verney ms mic. M636/38, J. to Sir R. Verney, 27 Mar. 1684. On his return from campaign in late July, he fell prey to a smallpox epidemic. Although he was at one stage thought unlikely to survive, he had rallied by the beginning of August. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 53, Yard to Poley, 21 July 1684; Verney ms mic. M636/39, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 31 July 1684; NAS, GD 406/1/3282, 3265; Verney ms mic. M636/39, J. to Sir R. Verney, 11 Aug. 1684; NAS GD 406/1/3282. That autumn Grafton and his brother, Northumberland, used their interest to secure the conviction of the actor, Cardell Goodman, for conspiring to poison them. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 494; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 319; NAS, GD 406/1/3258. The dukes’ motivation may have been simply the desire to discredit their mother’s latest unsuitable lover. Goodman was fined £1,000 for his offence but the dukes’ efforts failed to prevent his continued association with the duchess of Cleveland, who gave birth to a son in April 1686 popularly dubbed ‘Goodman Cleveland’ in the news-sheets. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 322; CSP Dom. 1684-5, p. 289; HMC Rutland, ii. 107. Cardell Goodman later achieved further notoriety as a Jacobite plotter involved in the Assassination Plot of 1696.

The death of Charles II threatened to curtail Grafton’s continuing preferment, but he retained his places under his uncle and served as lord high constable at the coronation. Although he was noted as being abroad at a call of the House on 26 May 1685, the following day he was marked present on the attendance list, though he was not formally introduced. He was then absent for the remainder of the session. The outbreak of the rebellion against King James led by Grafton’s half-brother, James Scott, duke of Monmouth, offered Grafton the opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty to the new regime, and he was at the forefront of those involved in suppressing the rebellion, during which he was noted for his bravery both at Sedgemoor and in an earlier action where he had found his advance troop ambushed by some of Monmouth’s musketeers. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 24; HMC Rutland, ii. 92.

While his military career went from strength to strength, Grafton’s marriage appeared on the brink of collapse by the autumn of 1685. The breakdown in relations between Grafton and his duchess probably owed something to Arlington’s death that summer. Grafton may also have been disappointed at his failure to be appointed lord chamberlain in succession to his father-in-law. Bodl. ms Eng. lett. c. 144, ff. 227-8; Ailesbury Mems. i. 110. It was reported that following a particularly heated row about the late earl, he had kicked his duchess out of bed. Verney ms mic. M636/40, [?Stewkeley], to [Sir R. Verney], 13 Oct. 1685. In spite of her brutal treatment at the hands of her husband, the duchess of Grafton was noted as ‘the finest woman in town’ that winter. HMC Rutland, ii. 99. On 9 Nov. 1685 Grafton was at last formally introduced in the House between Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort, and George Savile, marquess of Halifax. He proceeded to attend for 11 days of the brief session, but there is no evidence of involvement with any particular business.

Grafton was one of the peers to try Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), in January 1686. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 773. The following month he narrowly avoided being tried himself when he was provoked into fighting a duel with Colonel John Talbot, brother of Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 370-1. Talbot was reported to have accused Grafton of buggering Kildare (probably John Fitzgerald^‡, 18th earl of Kildare [I]). Add. 72481, f. 117. Following a short but vicious encounter, Talbot was killed outright. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 99; Ellis Corresp. i. 36-37, 39-40; HMC Rutland, ii. 103; HMC Portland, iii. 393; HMC Downshire, i. 115. Although Shrewsbury pleaded with the king not to pardon Grafton too readily (and the king was said to have been ‘incensed’ at the proliferation of duelling), it was believed that Grafton had been severely provoked. The coroner’s inquest found accordingly in favour of manslaughter, following which Grafton was pardoned on 19 Feb. 1686. Add. 72481, f. 119; Add. 72522, ff. 163-6; HMC Downshire, i. 116; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 371; Ellis Corresp. i. 43; CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 40. The same day Evelyn reported that Grafton had killed a brother of William Richard George Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, but he may have been confusing events for no action seems to have been taken against him for what would have been his second killing in as many weeks. Grafton was again the subject of scandal the following month when he prevailed upon his brother, Northumberland, to kidnap his (Northumberland’s) duchess and convey her to a nunnery in Flanders. Northumberland had attracted the king’s disapproval over his marriage to the lowly born widow of Captain Lucy, and Grafton seems to have been eager to disentangle his brother from his parvenu bride. Verney ms mic. M636/40, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 24 Mar. 1686; Add. 72517, ff. 5-8, Add. 72523, ff. 58-59, 64-65; HMC Downshire, i. 138, 140-1, 167-8. Although the king made little effort to intervene, following a brief outcry the brothers were prevailed upon to release the unfortunate duchess and bring her home. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 88; Verney ms mic. M636/40, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 1 Apr. 1686; HMC Downshire, i. 164.

The following year found Grafton involved in another dispute, this time with George Berkeley, earl of Berkeley, probably over rights in Nonsuch Park, where Berkeley was the keeper. Having been denied entry to the park by some of Berkeley’s servants, Grafton was successful in prosecuting them for assault, but he was then indicted in the court of king’s bench for forcible entry. Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 42, f. 216. The case against Grafton was later dropped and possession of the place awarded to him. HMC Lords, ii. 91.

In 1687 Grafton was listed among those believed to favour the king’s intention to repeal the Test Act; he was also included in another list of about May noting those sympathetic to the king’s policies. Grafton’s apparent willingness to acquiesce in the new regime’s religious policy was further demonstrated in July when he agreed to introduce the papal nuncio at Windsor following the refusal to do so by Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset. Verney ms mic. M636/42, Dr H. Paman to Sir R. Verney, 5 July 1687; Add. 72517, ff. 15-18. Grafton returned to command of the fleet in the summer of 1687 and remained at sea until the spring of 1688. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 220. In his absence he was again included among those thought favourable to repealing the test, but in March 1688 his order that all the officers in the fleet should take the Test suggests that he had already begun to waver in his support. The command attracted the king’s displeasure and speculation about his future. HMC Portland, iii. 406. About this time Grafton supposedly further angered the king by beating a Catholic priest sent to attempt his conversion. POAS, iv. 180n. Despite this, Grafton retained his places and in August was ordered to his lieutenancy to prepare for the expected Parliament. Longleat, Bath mss Thynne pprs. 43, f. 186; Verney ms mic. M636/43, newsletter, 30 Aug. 1688. Grafton was infuriated to be displaced once again by Dartmouth at the head of the fleet in the autumn, and the king’s decision to abolish the offices of vice- and rear-admiral of England was also generally supposed to be ‘a wile to be rid of the duke’. Eg. 3335, ff. 19-20; By Force or by Default ed. Cruickshanks, 88. Grafton’s disappointment at his treatment no doubt encouraged him to become involved with other members of the armed forces plotting against the king. Life of James II, ii. 208. He travelled to Holland in late September where he held a brief meeting with William of Orange, although he denied that he had made any such visit when he was questioned on his return to court shortly afterwards. J. Childs, Army, James II and the Glorious Revolution, 161-2; Bodl. Rawl. D. 148. He continued to irritate James by lecturing him on the inadvisability of staffing the navy with Catholics and warned that the officers of the fleet would refuse to serve alongside the French in the event of a joint effort to repel the Dutch. By Force or by Default ed. Cruickshanks, 90-91.

Although the king now entertained serious doubts about his nephew’s dependability, Grafton was granted leave to serve as a volunteer in the fleet preparing for the Dutch invasion. HMC Dartmouth, i. 176-7. He made use of his access to recruit a number of officers to the Orangist conspiracy and may even have been involved in a plan to kidnap Dartmouth. Life of James II, ii. 208. Having failed to stop the Dutch at sea, Grafton abandoned the fleet and returned to London where he subscribed the petition calling for a free Parliament. He then left to rendezvous with the army at Salisbury where, having failed to persuade James to come to terms with the invaders while he was still in a position of comparative strength, he joined John Churchill, Lord Churchill (later duke of Marlborough) and a number of others in deserting the king on the night of 23 Nov. and making their way over to the enemy camp. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 351; Kingdom without a King, 23; HMC Hastings, ii. 197; Add. 18447, ff. 72-73; Bodl. Carte 130, f. 309; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 91, [ ], to Poley, 27 Nov. 1688.

Although Grafton and Churchill had been deep in the army plot, they were as little trusted in William of Orange’s camp as in that of the king and were rewarded with the thankless task of attempting to restore order to King James’s disbanded forces. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 382. Grafton returned to London in time to join the deliberations of the provisional government meeting at Whitehall on the afternoon of 13 Dec. 1688 and was again present the following morning when he reported to the assembly the prince’s desire that he should take two battalions to secure Tilbury. He also informed them of the ill condition of the disarmed Irish troops who were at the point of starvation. In response to this, the Lords ordered that Grafton should be provided with transport to take his troops to Tilbury and also be given £80 to provide for the disbanded men. Kingdom without a King, 98. Grafton narrowly avoided being shot while marching at the head of his troops along the Strand that afternoon. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 487; Eg. 3336, ff. 63-64. The incident was initially mistaken for an assassination attempt. Resuming his place the following afternoon, Grafton was able to reassure the assembly that the would-be assassin had been no more than an inebriated soldier, and he regretted that he had been unable to prevent his own men from gunning the drunkard down. Kingdom without a King, 116.

Grafton was present at a meeting convened at Windsor to determine what should be done with the king. Add. 75366, ‘Concerning the Message to the King’. Following the king’s flight, he attended three of the meetings of the provisional government in the House of Lords on 22, 24 and 25 December. Kingdom without a King, 153, 158, 165. He then took his seat in the Convention on 23 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on 69 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to 20 committees. Grafton was one of a number of Tory peers to warn Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, of the intentions of some of his enemies to ‘ensnare’ him ‘by cross questions’ at the opening of the session. Ailesbury Mems. i. 231. On 28 Jan. he introduced his older brother, Southampton, and the following day voted in favour of establishing a regency. Two days later he voted against declaring the Prince and Princess of Orange king and queen in a committee of the whole, and on 4 Feb. he voted against concurring with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’. On 6 Feb. he also rejected the employment of the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’, entering his protest when the motion was carried. The following month, he was removed from all his offices, but his abiding popularity among his own men was reflected in a report that his troops threatened to lay down their arms at the news of his displacement. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 512; HMC Portland, iii. 431; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 57.

Grafton’s decision to divide against those wishing to award the crown to William and Mary was undoubtedly the principal cause of his removal from office, but he also seems to have been a victim of the new king’s reluctance to trust those at the head of the English armed forces. Halifax Letters, ii. 207-11; Add. 75367, ff. 22-25. Grafton was one of those to appear in Westminster Hall to offer bail for James Hamilton, styled earl of Arran [S] (later 4th duke of Hamilton [S] and duke of Brandon), in April. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 97. Despite his unhappiness at the manner in which the crisis had been settled, he was sufficiently reconciled to the new regime to play a ceremonial role at the coronation, and by the summer of 1689 it was noted that he had held several private discussions with the king. Ibid. 110. On 22 Apr. along with the Seven Bishops and John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, he was ordered to provide the committee for privileges with documents relating to the case formerly brought against him in the court of king’s bench (presumably a reference to his earlier dispute with Berkeley) as part of the committee’s ongoing examination of privilege of peerage. On 30 Apr. the committee noted that none of the lords had done as requested and moved that the House would order them to comply. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1//3, 13-14. Grafton voted against reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates on 31 May. On 7 June he presented a petition to the House appealing for his privilege to be respected in a dispute with lord chief justice Pollexfen, who he claimed had invaded his rights over the office of clerk of the treasury in the court of common pleas. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 545. The petition proved the beginning of a protracted case, which the privileges committee oversaw for the following month. On 12 June the committee convened to consider the parties’ evidence and resolved by 13 votes to five to uphold Grafton’s complaint, reporting to the House the following day that Grafton should enjoy the same condition he had held before Pollexfen’s appointment as lord chief justice. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1//3, 18-27. Despite this, on 29 June Grafton was driven to submit a further petition against Pollexfen, and on 1 July the House ordered that one Richard Carter should be attached for refusing to appear at the bar to give evidence on Grafton’s behalf. The privileges committee considered the matter again on 3 July, and between 4 and 5 July the House debated whether or not Pollexfen had complied with their former order, eventually concluding in Grafton’s favour that the lord chief justice had failed to do so. Ibid. 32-40. Disputes over the office continued to trouble Grafton and his successor until at least 1693. On 2 July 1689 Grafton registered his protest against proceeding with the impeachments of Blair, Vaughan and others, and on 30 July he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments relating to the reversal of Oates’ conviction for perjury.

Absent at the opening of the second session, Grafton registered his proxy with Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, on 23 Oct. which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 23 November. He was thereafter present on 29 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to two committees. On 29 Nov. Grafton again appealed to have his privilege upheld over the arrest of his servant Robert Terkill by the Suffolk attorney, Thomas Sawyer of Langham. On 5 Dec. Grafton entrusted his proxy to Godolphin once more, which was vacated by his return to the House on 13 January. It is possible that his absence was occasioned by attendance on his regiment in Ireland and rumours circulated at this time that he was shortly to have ‘some considerable command given to him.’ Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 348, 381.

Grafton found his interest in Suffolk squeezed in the elections for the new Parliament, and he was unsuccessful in securing the return of his nominees, Sir Robert Davers^‡ and Sir John Playters for the county seats. Bodl. Tanner 27, f. 110; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 543. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690, after which he was present on approximately 61 per cent of all sitting days and was named to four committees. As a sign of his gradual rehabilitation with the new regime, the same month he was granted command of a frigate, The Grafton, and given letters of marque allowing him to recruit crews for five ships, which it was supposed he would fund out of his own pocket. Verney ms mic. M636/44, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 27 Mar. 1690. His financial position was also further secured by the grant or confirmation of several pensions and gifts including a £3,000 annuity out of the excise. Bodl. Carte 240, ff. 74-75. Grafton sat for the final time on 10 May, but he ensured that his proxy was again registered with Godolphin that day. In June, acting as a private captain with the fleet, Grafton served with distinction at the otherwise wholly inglorious action off Beachy Head. As a result of Grafton’s success it was rumoured that he was to be nominated one of the admiralty commissioners. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 473; Fitzroy, 77. Although Thomas Osborne, the former earl of Danby, now marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), included Grafton’s name among those who might be appointed in a report to the king and noted ‘everybody agrees [he] has behaved himself very honourably in your service’, restoration to office continued to elude him. CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 53. Edward Russell, later earl of Orford, seems to have been one of those to counsel the king against appointing Grafton as commander of a fleet seeing as he was ‘of so rough a temper it would never suit with the seamen at all.’ Dalrymple, Mems. iii. 103-6. Unemployment did not prevent Grafton from attempting to exert his interest. Appointed a trustee for his non-juror brother-in-law, Edward Henry Lee, earl of Lichfield, Grafton undertook to protect the earl from Lovelace’s efforts to invade his rights at Woodstock. CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 73; Verney ms mic. M636/44, J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 31 July 1690. He also attempted to make use of his influence with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, on behalf of Admiral Rooke. HMC Finch, ii. 386. Shortly afterwards he departed for Ireland where he offered to serve as a volunteer with the army besieging Cork. As usual Grafton was at the forefront of the action. He was shot and mortally wounded advancing at the head of his troops on 28 September. HMC Popham, 277. Hopes of his recovery rested on his being ‘young and of a vigorous constitution,’ but his wounds were too severe and he died 11 days later. Glasgow UL, ms Hunter 73, lix; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 121; Verney ms mic. M636/44, J. to Sir R. Verney, 22 Oct. 1690.

Grafton may have been an unruly man prone to acts of violence but his death was widely lamented. CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 160. His loss was marked in a number of ballads and panegyrics, and he was accorded a ceremonial funeral at Westminster Abbey attended by the queen. England’s Tribute of Tears (1690). In his will he bequeathed his widow an annuity of £1,000 (Lady Pen Osborne mistakenly reported the sum to be £800) and by the terms of a codicil provided for the sale of Cleveland House for the satisfaction of his debts including £1,480 owed to Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham, and £2,000 to Lichfield. Verney ms mic. M636/44, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 28 Oct. 1690. Grafton appointed his duchess sole executrix and his brother-in-law, Lichfield and friend Godolphin as guardians to his heir, Charles Fitzroy, styled earl of Euston, who succeeded him as 2nd duke of Grafton.