Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:17:48.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Mysterious Dispute Demystified: Sir George Fletcher vs. the Howards*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Howard S. Reinmuth Jr
Howard S. Reinmuth Jr
Affiliation:
University of Akron, Ohio
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘A mysterious dispute arose in Cumberland between the Earl of Carlisle, lord lieutenant, and Sir George Fletcher.’ So wrote Professor J. R. Western in 1965 as he speculated that the matter stemmed from party conflicts in parliament at the time of the Exclusion Crisis. While that had some bearing on the matter, the dispute can be understood more fully only by a study of county politics in Restoration Cumberland and Westmorland. The controversy originated around 1679 between the earl's son, generally known by his courtesy title of Lord Morpeth (c. 1646–92) and Sir George (1633–1700). At the time the earl, Charles Howard (1628–85), was in Jamaica as governor. When he returned to England in September 1680 he sided with his son and became Sir George's principal antagonist.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 289 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Western, J. R., The English militia in the eighteenth century (London, 1965), p. 61Google Scholar. See also Lionel Glassey, K. J., Politics and the appointment of justices of the peace 1675–1720 (Oxford, 1979), p. 51Google Scholar, who relates this quarrel to an earlier one in Westmorland in 1676. Ibid. pp. 35–6.

2 Jones, J. R., The first whigs, the politics of the exclusion crisis, 1678–1683 (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Haley, K. H. D., The first earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar; Witcombe, D. T., Charles II and the cavalier house of commons, 1663–1674 (Manchester, 1966)Google Scholar; Miller, John, Popery and politics in England, 1660–1688 (Cambridge, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, among others.

3 Some scholars have written about individual counties in the early Stuart period, but few have written about the same (or other) counties after 1660. Everitt, A. M., The community of Kent and the great rebellion, 1640–1660 (Leicester, 1966)Google Scholar; Barnes, Thomas G., Somerset 1625–1640; a county government during the ‘personal rule’ (Cambridge, Mass., 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Underdown, David, Somerset in the civil war and interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973)Google Scholar; Blackwood, B. G., The Lancashire gentry and the great rebellion, 1640–1660 (Manchester, 1978)Google Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, A county community in peace and war: Sussex, 1600–1660 (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Morrill, J. S., Cheshire, 1630–1660: county government and society during the English revolution (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar. An exception is Holmes, Clive, Seventeenth-century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980)Google Scholar. There is no book for Cumberland and Westmorland, but consult Phillips', C. B. Ph.D. thesis, ‘The gentry in Cumberland and Westmorland, 1600–1665’ (Lancaster University, 1973)Google Scholar and ‘County committees and local government in Cumberland and Westmorland, 1642–1660’, Northern History, v (1970), 34–66Google Scholar. Also J. S. Morrill, ‘The northern gentry and the great rebellion’, ibid, xv (1979), 66—87. Everitt's model of the county community has been criticized by Holmes, Clive in ‘The county community in Stuart historiography’, Journal of British Studies, XIX (1980), 54–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Barnes, Somerset, contains a lengthy discussion of a quarrel between two county magnates in Somerset, Sir Robert Phelips and John, Lord Poulett, which affords many remarkable parallels to, as well as some contrasts with the Fletcher-Howard dispute.

5 Phillips, ‘County committees’, pp. 65–6. There are two Lowthers in our narrative; Sir John Lowther of Whitehaven (1642–1706) and his cousin, Sir John Lowther of Lowther (1655–1700).

6 Bouch, C. M. L. and Jones, G. P., The lake counties 1500–1830, a social and economic history (Manchester, 1961), p. 86Google Scholar.

7 The Fletcher estates were sequestered by the county committees of Cumberland, Westmorland, Durham and York with a fine, originally at one-half, later reduced to one-tenth (£714 17s.) – Calendar of the Committee for Compounding with Delinquents (5 vols., London, 1889 1892) p. 1662Google Scholar. Public Record Office (hereafter P.R.O.) SP 23/202/7806 contains a particular of estate amounting to £393-odd, of manors, tithes, and an impropriate rectory in Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire and Durham, but it omits, among other things, the Fletchers' principal seat of Hutton-in-the-Forest, and is obviously incomplete. The estates of Fletcher's son, Sir Henry, amounted in 1714 to about £1,500 in round figures, but again an incomplete rental. Fletcher-Vane papers, Cumbria Record Office (Carlisle) (hereafter C.R.O. (C)), D/Van, accounts and rentals, rental of the Fletcher estates 1714.

8 For example, Charles Howard joined the Cumberland county committee in April 1649, Fletcher in 1657. Phillips, ‘County committee’, pp. 57–8. Phillips makes the point that Fletcher ‘was claiming his family's normal place in county government’ (ibid. p. 58). Underdown ties in changes in the composition of the Somerset county committee in that same year with a purge of independents and rumpers and the inclusion of, among others, several sons of prominent cavaliers. Underdown, Somerset, p. 185.

9 State Papers, P.R.O., SP 18/220/83. The county members for Cumberland, as well as the burgesses from Carlisle and Cockermouth, were all members of the ‘good old cause’. In 1661Charles Howard was elevated to the house of lords. In the election to the cavalier parliament later that year, only one of the previous M.P.s, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, was returned.

10 Dartmouth MSS Staffordshire Record Office (hereafter S.R.O.) D(W), 1778/I/i/715, ‘…I was once as much in favour of these Lords [the earl of Carlisle and Lord Morpeth] as any in the i Country’. I am grateful to the earl of Dartmouth for permission to consult these manuscripts in a xerox copy.

11 Rydal Hall MSS Cumbria Record Office, Kendal (hereafter C.R.O. (K)) WD/Ry 2647.

12 Ibid. 2553.

13 This problem of the Irish cattle is a very vexed one because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence and the difficulty of establishing the identity of men obscurely alluded to in the extant manuscripts. The general context of the Irish cattle bills, which had particular reference to northern English cattle breeders, is provided by Edie, Carolyn A., The Irish cattle bills: a study in restoration politics (Philadelphia, 1970)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professor Edie for her assistance and helpful advice concerning this intractable problem. See also Woodward, Donald, ‘The anglo-Irish livestock trade of the seventeenth century’, Irish Historical Studies, XVIII (1973), 489–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fletcher wrote Lord Dartmouth concerning this matter in D(W) 1778/I/i/715.

14 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2647.

15 Ibid. 2130.

16 Ibid. 2632.

17 Dartmouth MSS, D(W) 1778/I/i/715. In the Phelips-Poulett quarrel, Charles I pricked Phelips as sheriff (to Poulett's delight) as part of a broader effort to exclude from the forthcoming 1626 parliament those men who had been leaders in opposing Charles's projects in the 1625 parliament. Barnes, Somerset, p. 134.

18 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2428, 2306. Morpeth's letter to Sir George officially informing him of these actions is enclosed with Dartmouth MSS, D(W) 1778/I/i/715 (I).

19 Sir Robert Phelips had some years of negligible influence in Somerset, 1626–8, when he was not only deprived of office but imprisoned as well. Barnes, Somerset, p. 289.

20 Carlisle was sent to Jamaica with military force to persuade the Jamaican assembly to accept Poyning's Law, that is, the Irish constitution. This would in practice have constricted substantially the political independence of the islanders and their assembly. The assembly refused to accept the king's proposals and Carlisle returned home in 1680. For a recent summary of Carlisle's Jamaican governorship see Webb, Stephen Saunders, The governors-general, the English army and the definition of empire, 1569–1681 (Chapel Hill, 1979), pp. 320–5Google Scholar.

21 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2309.

22 Barnes emphasizes these twin forces in Somerset, pp. 21–4.

23 Dartmouth MSS, D(W) 1779/I/i/715, in which Fletcher tells Lord Dartmouth he thought his loss of office must have been effected ‘by some ill representation had beene made of me to his Majesty…’ and thanks him for his help in clearing himself with the king ‘from those ill things had beene suggested against me’.

24 See note 7 above. I discern three stages in the Fletchers' rise. The first was completed in the lifetime of Fletcher's grandfather, Sir Richard, who accumulated wealth as a successful merchant. The second was completed in Sir Henry's lifetime. The Fletchers then began to be accepted as social equals in the county by the gentry. The third, in which Sir George was engaged, involved acquiring offices at the county level – as J.P., deputy lieutenant, and colonel in the militia – in addition to his inherited wealth and social position.

25 Barnes, Somerset, pp. 286–7, stresses how assiduous Phelips was in furthering the interests not only of his fellow magnates, but also those of the minor gentry and even of yeomen.

26 Like the earl of Carlisle vis-à-vis Fletcher, John, Lord Poulett had the advantage of higher social rank and, again like Howard, his title was of recent origin.

27 Cumberland rents in 1678 were £1,404 19 s. 11d. Howard–Naworth MSS, Durham University, Department of Palaeography and Diplomatic, C 708.

28 Ferguson has made the interesting point that Howard may have moved to Yorkshire after the Restoration because of his unpopularity with the royalist gentry in Cumberland. Ferguson, Richard S., Cumberland and Westmorland M.P.s from the restoration to the reform bill of 1867 (London, 1871), p. 23Google Scholar.

29 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2370.

30 There are several references to delays in county meetings occasioned by waiting for Howard to arrive from London as well as complaints from the earl that matters were concluded without his presence. One such instance which relates directly to the Fletcher–Howard quarrel concerned the filling of vacancies in the Carlisle common council. Dartmouth MSS, D(W) 1778/1/i/715.

31 The dukes of Norfolk, who owned Greystoke and Burgh-by-Sands baronies and other extensive and valuable lands in Cumberland and Westmorland, did involve themselves on occasion in local politics despite their residence in the south. Lord Arundel came to aid his cousin, Howard, in Lord Morpeth's 1681 election bid. Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2370. Sir John Lowther of Whitehaven feared the power with the freeholders of men like Lord Arundel. Lonsdale MSS, C.R.O. (C), D/Lons/W/Sir John Lowther/Letter book (1675–86), 79.

32 Particularly in Westmorland, Richard Tufton, earl of Thanet (1640–84), made himself Howard's rival. Daniel Fleming reported in June 1682 that Thanet had asked the king to make him custos rotulorum and lord lieutenant of Westmorland, where he was already hereditary sheriff. Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2543. Later that year Thanet wrote Sir Daniel and referred to Howard's opposition to his plans. ‘…as to some not beinge pleased (which I doe not wonder at) for unlesse he carreyes all before him, as he hath bine used to doe, he will never be satisfied…’ Thanet also believed that Howard derided him in Westmorland behind his back but would not do so to his face ‘which woulde be more generous…’. Ibid. 2598. In 1679 the Lowthers of Lowther and the earls of Thanet each supplied one burgess from Appleby. Jones, J. R., ‘Shaftesbury's “worthy men”: a whig view of the parliament of 1679’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (hereafter B.I.H.R.) xxx (1957), 240Google Scholar.

33 Sloane MSS, British Library (hereafter B.L.) 2724, fo. 121 v, Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2290.

34 Or, to phrase it another way, all were classified ‘ov’ (old, víle) by Shaftesbury. Jones, ‘Shaftesbury’ “worthy men'”, pp. 237, 238.

35 For Downing's inactivity in parliament see Witcombe, Cavalier house of commons, p. 200. After a brief stay in the Tower in 1672, for having disobeyed Charles II's commands while an envoy to the United Provinces, Downing retained his commissionership of the customs, but had negligible political influence according to Beresford, John, The godfather of Downing Street, Sir George Downing, 1623–1684 (Boston, Mass., 1925), p. 268Google Scholar.

36 Sir Philip held court positions and was an officer in the Queen's Troop. He received a court pension and other emoluments. I am grateful to Mr John Ferris of the History of Parliament Trust for allowing me to consult and to use much helpful information concerning Sir Philip.

37 Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop Burnet's history of his own time (6 vols., Oxford, 1833 edn), II, 271–2Google Scholar.

38 Browning, Andrew and Milne, Doreen J., ‘An exclusion bill division list’, B.I.H.R. XXIII (1950), 210–16Google Scholar.

39 Dartmouth owed his appointment in the ordnance office to the influence of the duke of York. Tomlinson, H. C., Guns and government: the ordnance office under the later Stuarts (London, 1979), p. 72Google Scholar.

40 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2647.

41 Tomlinson, Guns and government, p. 75.

42 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2309b.

43 Ibid. 2314.

44 Ibid. 2370.

45 Ibid. 2365.

46 Ibid. 2370.

47 Ibid. 2389.

48 Lonsdale MSS, D/Lon/W/Sir John Lowther/Letter book (1675–86), p. 83.

49 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2401.

50 Ibid. 2405.

51 Jones, ‘Shaftesbury's; “Worthy men”’, pp. 236, 241.

52 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2647.

53 Ibid. 2311, for Musgrave. Fleming's remarks in ibid. 2332b.

54 Ibid. 2647.

55 Ibid. 2433 for the loyal address. Sloane MSS, 2724, fo. 158, for the continuing problems. This refers to December 1683, months after the king's mediation.

56 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2378, for moving the site of the election; ibid. 2651, holding a meeting at odd hours; Dartmouth MSS, D(W) 1778/1/i/715, the issue of Carlisle's presence.

57 ‘The King's service depended upon the effectiveness with which the King's government in the counties administered it. The struggle for county power, by disrupting that administration, struck at the very vitals of the service.’ Barnes, Somerset, p. 295.

58 Sloane MSS, 2724, fo. 121 v. Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2306.

59 Ibid. 2448.

60 Ibid. 2583, 2584.

61 Poulett tried and failed in the same way in Somerset. Barnes, Somerset, p. 286.

62 Lonsdale MSS, D/Lon/W/Sir John Lowther/Letter book (1675–86), p. 79.

63 Dartmouth MSS, D(W) 1778/I/i/715.

64 Or Charles II may simply have been lazy! For this issue see Ashley, Maurice, Charles II, the man and the statesman (London, 1971), pp. 107, 144Google Scholar. Fraser, Antonia, Royal Charles, Charles II and the restoration (New York, 1979)Google Scholar, is somewhat kinder. She apparently thinks his laziness may have been more apparent than real. See references cited in the index, p. 506, under ‘character: laziness, apparent’.

65 Haley, Shqftesbury, p. 358.

66 Those present at the hearing were Sir Francis North, the lord keeper; George, marquis of Halifax, lord privy seal; the duke of Ormonde; Lord Rochester; and the two secretaries, Jenkins and Sunderland.

67 Lord Carlisle was excused because of his ill-health. C.S.P.D. Charles II, 1683 (London, 1933–1938), 77, 114–15. Fletcher apparently decided to leave everything to his ‘managers’. Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2651.

68 The order to restore Fletcher is in ibid. 2478; the earl's refusal to do so in ibid. 2444.

69 The most complete account of the hearing is in Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2647, Sir Christopher Musgrave's account directed to Sir Daniel Fleming. All quotations concerning the hearing are derived from this account unless otherwise noted. There is no version by the Howards or any of their adherents.

70 But the reverse may equally well have been true. Phillips demonstrates that Sir Philip Musgrave persecuted a Howard dependant, Captain Robert Atkinson, former soldier for parliament and an associate of Charles Howard by 1655 at the latest. Musgrave was ultimately responsible for Atkinson's execution. Phillips, ‘County committee’, 61–2. Howard was unable to protect Atkinson because he was abroad in 1663–4 on an embassy to Tsar Alexei of Russia.

71 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2651: Sir George's pointed comments concerning Morpeth are worth quoting. ‘What my Ld M[orpeth] sd was of so little weight that I wonder he did not refuse to aseigne any cause, and have left all to my Ld C[arlisle]…Indeed no notice is taken of my Ld M[orpeth] in ye hearing or order.’

72 Ibid. 2650.

73 Ibid. 2652.

74 C.S.P.D. Charles II, 1683, pp. 202–3. The earl offered to come up to London and divulge his reasons to the king in person.

75 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2665, C.S.P.D. Charles II, 1683, p. 230.

76 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2647, C.R.O.(K). The quote is from Secretary Jenkins.

77 C.S.P.D. Charles II, 1683, p. 177.

78 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2795.

79 The young man was observing military operations at the time. He was shot accidentally and killed. He was the ‘love child’ of the earl and countess's reconciliation after a lengthy estrangement, conceived while they were in Russia on the earl's embassy, and born in Copenhagen on the return journey with the king and crown prince of Denmark as godparents – hence the names Frederick Christian.

80 Sloane MSS, 2724, fo. 121 v. For parallels see Barnes, Somerset, pp. 295, 297.

81 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2332 b.

82 The tide of chapter v of Plumb's, J. H.The growth of political stability in England, 1675–1725 (London, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Rydal Hall MSS, WD/Ry 2370.

84 Plumb, Growth of political stability, p. 72 n. 2, points out that there was only one contested election in Cumberland between 1689 and I714, thatin 1702. There were two contested elections in Westmorland in the same period.

85 Holmes, ‘The county community’, p. 68.