The Full Wiki

Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, ca. 1672-73.

Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury PC (22 July 1621 – 21 January 1683), known as Anthony Ashley Cooper from 1621 to 1631, as Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, 2nd Baronet from 1631 to 1661, and as The Lord Ashley from 1661 to 1672, was a prominent English politician during the Interregnum and during the reign of King Charles II. A founder of the Whig party, he is probably best known as the patron of John Locke.

Anthony Ashley Cooper was born in 1621 and had lost both of his parents by age 8. He was raised by guardians named in his father's will, before attending Exeter College, Oxford and Lincoln's Inn. After he married the daughter of Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry in 1639, Coventry's patronage secured Cooper a seat in the Short Parliament, though Cooper lost a disputed election to a seat in the Long Parliament. During the English Civil War, Cooper initially fought as a Royalist, before departing for the Parliamentary side in 1644. During the English Interregnum, he served on the English Council of State under Oliver Cromwell, although he opposed Cromwell's attempt to rule without parliament during the Rule of the Major-Generals. He also opposed the religious extremism of the Fifth Monarchists during Barebone's Parliament.

As a member of the Council of State, Cooper opposed the New Model Army's attempts to rule the country following the downfall of Richard Cromwell, and he encouraged Sir George Monck's march on London. Cooper served as a member of the Convention Parliament of 1660, which determined to restore the English monarchy, and Cooper was one of 12 MPs who traveled to the Dutch Republic to invite Charles II to return to England. Shortly before his coronation, Charles II created Cooper Lord Ashley, so he moved from the House of Commons to the House of Lords when the Cavalier Parliament assembled in 1661. He served as Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1661-1672. During the ministry of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, Shaftesbury opposed the imposition of the Clarendon Code and supported Charles II's Declaration of Indulgence (1662), which the king was ultimately forced to withdraw. After the fall of Clarendon, Ashley was one of the members of the so-called Cabal Ministry, serving as Lord Chancellor 1672-1673. He was created Earl of Shaftesbury in 1672. During this period, John Locke entered Ashley's household. Ashley took an interest in colonial ventures, and was one of the Lords Proprietor of the Province of Carolina; in 1669, Ashley and Locke collaborated in writing the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. By 1673, Ashley was worried that the heir to the throne, James, Duke of York, was secretly a Roman Catholic.

After the Cabal Ministry ended, Shaftesbury became a leader of opposition to the policies pursued by Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby. Danby favored strict interpretation of the penal laws, enforcing mandatory membership in the Church of England. Shaftesbury, who sympathized with the Protestant Non-Conformists, briefly agreed to work with the Duke of York, who opposed enforcing the penal laws against Catholic recusants. By 1675, however, Shaftesbury was convinced that Danby, assisted by the bishops of the Church of England, was determined to transform England into an absolute monarchy, and he soon came to see the Duke of York's Catholicism as linked to this issue. Opposed to the growth of "popery and arbitrary government", throughout the latter half of the 1670s, Shaftesbury argued in favor of frequent parliaments (spending time in the Tower of London, 1677-1678 for espousing this view) and argued that the nation needed protection from a potential Catholic successor to Charles II. During the Exclusion Crisis, Shaftesbury was an outspoken supporter of the Exclusion Bill, although he also endorsed other proposals that would have prevented the duke of York from becoming king, such as Charles II's remarrying a Protestant princess and producing a Protestant heir to the throne, or legitimizing Charles II's illegitimate Protestant son, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. The Whig party was born during the Exclusion Crisis, and Shaftesbury was one of the party's most prominent leaders.

During the Tory Reaction that followed the failure of the Exclusion Bill, Shaftesbury was arrested for high treason in 1681, although the prosecution was dropped several months later. In 1682, after Tories gained the ability to pack London juries with their supporters, Shaftesbury, fearing a second prosecution, fled the country. Upon arriving in Amsterdam, he fell ill, and soon died, in January 1683.




Early life, 1621-1640

Location of Dorset in England. Anthony Ashley Cooper was born in Dorset in 1621, and he would maintain important links with Dorset throughout his political career.

Cooper was born on July 22, 1621, at the home of his maternal grandfather, Sir Anthony Ashley, 1st Baronet (d. 1628) in Wimborne St Giles, Dorset.[1] He was the eldest son and successor of Sir John Cooper, 1st Baronet, of Rockbourne in Hampshire, and his mother was the former Anne Ashley, daughter and sole heiress of Sir Anthony Ashley.[1] He was named Anthony Ashley Cooper because of a promise the couple had made to Sir Anthony.[1] Although Sir Anthony Ashley was of minor gentry stock, he had served as Secretary at War in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and in 1622, two years after the death of his first wife, Sir Anthony Ashley married the 19-year-old Philippa Sheldon (51 years his junior), a relative of George Villiers, Marquess of Buckingham, thus cementing relations with the most powerful man at court.[1] Cooper's father was created a baronet in 1622, and he represented Poole in the parliaments of 1625 and 1628, supporting the attack on Richard Neile, Bishop of Winchester for his Arminian tendencies.[1] Sir Anthony Ashley insisted that a man with Puritan leanings, Aaron Guerdon, be chosen as Cooper's first tutor.[1]

Cooper's mother died in 1628. In 1629, his father remarried, this time to the widowed Mary Moryson, one of the daughters of wealthy London textile merchant Baptist Hicks and co-heir of his fortune.[1] Through his stepmother, Cooper thus gained an important political connection in the form of her grandson, the future 1st Earl of Essex. Cooper's father died in 1630, leaving Cooper a wealthy orphan.[1] Upon his father's death, he inherited his father's baronetcy and was now Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper.

Sir John Cooper had held his lands in knight-service, so Cooper's inheritance now came under the authority of the Court of Wards.[1] The trustees whom Sir John had appointed to administer his estate, his brother-in-law (Anthony Ashley Cooper's uncle by marriage) Edward Tooker and his colleague from the House of Commons, Sir Daniel Norton, purchased Cooper's wardship from the king, but they remained unable to sell Cooper's land without permission of the Court of Wards because, on his death, Sir John Cooper had left some ₤35,000 in gambling debts.[1] The Court of Wards ordered the sale of the best of Sir John's lands to pay his debts, with several sales commissioners picking up choice properties at £20,000 less than their market value, a circumstance which led Cooper to hate the Court of Wards as a corrupt institution.[1]

Cooper was sent to live with his father's trustee Sir Daniel Norton in Southwick, Hampshire (near Portsmouth). Norton had joined in Sir John Cooper's denunciation of Arminianism in the 1628-29 parliament, and Norton chose a man with Puritan leanings named Fletcher as Cooper's tutor.[1]

The Gate of Lincoln's Inn. Cooper attended Lincoln's Inn, beginning in 1638, to receive an education in the laws of England. Throughout his political career, Cooper would pose as a defender of the rule of law, at various points in his career breaking with both Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) and Charles II (1630-1685) when he perceived they were subverting the rule of law and introducing arbitrary government.

Sir Daniel died in 1636, and Cooper was sent to live with his father's other trustee, Edward Tooker, at Maddington, near Salisbury. Here his tutor was a man with an MA from Oriel College, Oxford.[1]

In March 1637, Cooper entered Exeter College, Oxford, where he studied under its master, the Regius Professor of Divinity, John Prideaux, a Calvinist with vehemently anti-Arminian tendencies.[1] While there he fomented a minor riot and left without taking a degree; nevertheless, he was admitted into Lincoln's Inn.[2] In February 1638, Cooper entered Lincoln's Inn, where he was exposed to the Puritan preaching of chaplains Edward Reynolds and Joseph Caryl.[1]

On February 25, 1639, aged 19, Cooper married Margaret Coventry, daughter of Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry, who was then serving as Lord Keeper of the Great Seal for Charles I.[1] As Cooper was still a minor, the young couple moved into Lord Coventry's residences of Durham House in the Strand, London and at Canonbury in Islington.[1]

Early political career, 1640-1660

Parliament, 1640-1642

Cooper's father-in-law Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry (1578-1640), who served as Lord Keeper of the Great Seal 1625-1640. Cooper first entered politics under Lord Coventry's tutelage.

In March 1640, while still a minor, Sir Anthony was elected to the Short Parliament for the borough of Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire through the influence of Lord Coventry.[1]

In October 1640, with opinion in the country swinging against the king's supporters (including Coventry), Cooper was not asked to stand for election for Tewkesbury in the Long Parliament.[1] He contested, and by some accounts, won a by-election to the seat of Downton in Wiltshire, but Denzil Holles, soon to rise to prominence as a leader of the opposition to the King and a personal rival of Sir Anthony, blocked Cooper's admission to the Parliament.[1] It was probably feared that Sir Anthony, as a result of his recent marriage to the daughter of Charles I's Lord Keeper, Coventry, would be too sympathetic to the king.[1]

Royalist, 1642-1644

When the Civil War began in 1642, Sir Anthony initially supported the King (somewhat echoing Holles's concerns). After a period of vacillating, in summer 1643, at his own expense, Sir Anthony raised a regiment of foot and a troop of horse, serving as their colonel and captain respectively.[1] Following the Royalist victory at the Battle of Roundway Down on July 13, 1643, Cooper was one of three commissioners appointed to negotiate the surrender of Dorchester.[1] Cooper negotiated a deal whereby Dorchester agreed to surrender in exchange for being spared plunder and punishment.[1] However, troops under Prince Maurice von Simmern soon arrived and plundered Dorchester and Weymouth, Dorset anyway, leading to heated words between Cooper and Prince Maurice.[1]

Prince Maurice von Simmern (1620-1652), depicted as Mercury. During his time as a Royalist, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper quarreled with Prince Maurice after Maurice's troops plundered Dorchester even though Cooper had negotiated a peaceful surrender of Dorchester to royalist forces. Prince Maurice then attempted to block Cooper's appointment as governor of Weymouth and Portland.

William Seymour, Marquess of Hertford, the commander of the Royalist forces in the west, had recommended Cooper be appointed governor of Weymouth and Portland, but Prince Maurice intervened to block the appointment, on grounds of Cooper's alleged youth and inexperience.[1] Cooper appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Edward Hyde; Hyde arranged a compromise whereby Cooper would be appointed as governor but resign as soon as it was possible to do so without losing face.[1] Cooper was promised that upon resigning as governor, he would be made High Sheriff of Dorset and president of the council of war for Dorset, both of which were offices more prestigious than the governorship. Cooper spent the remainder of 1643 as governor of Weymouth and Portland.[1]

Parliamentarian, 1644-1652

In early 1644, Cooper resigned all of his posts under the king, and traveled to Hurst Castle, the headquarters of the Parliamentarians.[1] Called before the Committee of Both Kingdoms, on March 6, 1644, he explained that he believed that Charles I was now being influenced by Roman Catholic influences (Catholics were increasingly prominent at Charles' court, and he had recently signed a truce with Irish Catholic rebels) and that he believed Charles had no intention of "promoting or preserving...the Protestant religion and the liberties of the kingdom" and that he therefore believed the parliamentary cause was just, and he offered to take the Solemn League and Covenant.[1]

In July 1644, the House of Commons gave Cooper permission to leave London, and he soon joined parliamentary forces in Dorset.[1] After participating in a campaign, in August, parliament appointed him to the committee governing the army in Dorset.[1] Cooper participated in fighting throughout 1644.[1] However, in 1645, with the passing of the Self-denying Ordinance, Cooper chose to resign his commissions in the parliamentary army (which was, at any rate, being supplanted by the creation of the New Model Army) in order to preserve his claim to be the rightful member for Downton.[1] He nevertheless continued to be active in the Dorset committee as a civil member.[1]

It was during this period that Cooper first expressed an interest in overseas plantations, investing in a plantation in Barbados in 1646.[1]

Little is known of Cooper's activities in the late 1640s. It is often assumed that he supported the Presbyterians against the Independents, and, as such, opposed the regicide of Charles I.[1] Nevertheless, he was willing to work with the new regime, accepting a commission as justice of the peace for Wiltshire and Dorset in February 1649.[1] What's more, in February 1650, he not only took the oath to loyalty to the new regime, he was a member of a commission that tendered the oath.[1]

Cooper's first wife, Margaret, died on July 10, 1649; the couple had had no children.[1] Less than a year later, on April 15, 1650, Cooper re-married, to seventeen-year-old Lady Frances Cecil (1633–1652), daughter of David Cecil, 3rd Earl of Exeter.[1] The couple had two children, one of whom, Anthony, lived to adulthood.[1] Frances died on December 31, 1652, aged only 19.[1]

Statesman under the Commonwealth of England and the Protectorate, 1652-1660

On January 17, 1652, the Rump Parliament appointed Cooper to the committee on law reform chaired by Sir Matthew Hale (the so-called Hale Commission, none of whose moderate proposals were ever enacted).[1]

In March 1653, the Rump issued a full pardon for his time as a Royalist, opening the way for his return to public office. Following the dissolution of the Rump in April 1653, Oliver Cromwell and the Army Council nominated Cooper to serve in Barebone's Parliament as member for Wiltshire.[1] On July 14, Cromwell appointed Cooper to the English Council of State, where he was a member of the Committee for the Business of the Law, which was intended to continue the reform work of the Hale Commission.[1] Cooper aligned himself with the moderates in Barebone's Parliament, voting against the abolition of tithes.[1] He was one of the members who voted to dissolve Barebone's Parliament on December 12, 1653 rather than acquiesce to the abolition of tithes.[1]

Depiction of Stonehenge in the Atlas van Loo (1649). So many voters turned up for the Wiltshire election in 1654, that the poll had to be switched from Wilton to Stonehenge. Cooper won the election.

When the Instrument of Government gave England a new constitution 4 days later, Cooper was again named to the Council of State.[1] During the elections for the First Protectorate Parliament in summer 1654, Cooper headed a slate of ten candidates who squared off in Wiltshire against 10 republican MPs headed by Edmund Ludlow.[1] At the day of the election, so many voters turned up that the poll had to be switched from Wilton to Stonehenge.[1] Cooper's slate of candidates prevailed, although Ludlow alleged his party was in the majority. Although Cooper was generally supportive of Cromwell during the First Protectorate Parliament (he voted in favor of making Cromwell king in December 1654), he grew worried that Cromwell was growing inclined to rule through the Army rather than through Parliament.[1] This led Cooper to break with Cromwell: in early January 1655, he stopped attending Council and introduced a resolution in parliament making it illegal to collect or pay revenue not authorized by parliament. Cromwell dissolved this parliament on January 22, 1655.[1]

The exiled Charles II, hearing of Cooper's break with Cromwell, wrote to Cooper saying that he would pardon Cooper for fighting against the crown if he would now help to effectuate a restoration of the monarchy.[1] Cooper did not respond, nor did he participate in the Penruddock uprising in March 1655.[1]

On August 30, 1655, Cooper married his third wife, Margaret Spencer (1627–1693), daughter of William Spencer, 2nd Baron Spencer of Wormleighton and sister of Henry Spencer, 1st Earl of Sunderland.[1] The marriage appears to have been happy, though the couple had no children.[1]

Cooper was again elected as a member for Wiltshire in the Second Protectorate Parliament, though when the parliament met on September 17, 1656, Cooper was one of 100 members whom the Council of State excluded from the parliament.[1] Cooper was one of 65 excluded members to sign a petition protesting their exclusion that was delivered by Sir George Booth.[1] Cooper did eventually take his seat in the parliament on January 20, 1658, after Cromwell accepted an amended version of the Humble Petition and Advice that stipulated that the excluded members could return to parliament. Upon his return to the house, Cooper spoke out against Cromwell's Other House.[1]

Portrait miniature of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper by Samuel Cooper.

Cooper was elected to the Third Protectorate Parliament in early 1659 as member for Wiltshire. During the debates in this parliament, Cooper sided with the republicans who opposed the Humble Petition and Advice and insisted that the bill recognizing Richard Cromwell as Protector should limit his control over the militia and eliminate the protector's ability to veto legislation.[1] Cooper again spoke out against the Other House (consisting of new lords), and in favor of restoring the old House of Lords.[1]

When Richard Cromwell dissolved parliament on April 22, 1659 and recalled the Rump Parliament (dissolved by Oliver Cromwell in 1653), Cooper attempted to revive his claim to sit as member for Downton. He was also re-appointed to the Council of State at this time.[1] Throughout this time, many accused Cooper of harboring royalist sympathies, but Cooper denied this.[1] In August 1659, Cooper was arrested for complicity in Sir George Booth's Presbyterian royalist uprising in Cheshire, but in September the Council found him not guilty of any involvement.[1]

In October 1659, the New Model Army dissolved the Rump Parliament and replaced the Council of State with its own Committee of Safety.[1] Cooper, republicans Sir Arthur Haselrig and Henry Neville and 6 other members of the Council of State continued to meet in secret, referring to themselves as the rightful Council of State.[1] This secret Council of State came to see Sir George Monck, commander of the forces in Scotland as the best hope to restore the Rump, and Cooper and Haselrig met with Monck's commissioners, urging them to restore the Rump. Cooper was involved in several plots to launch pro-Rump uprisings at this time.[1] This proved unnecessary as, on December 23, 1659, troops resolved to stand by the Rump and the Council of State and disobey the Committee of Safety.[1] The Rump Parliament reassembled on December 26, 1659, and on January 2, 1660, Cooper was elected to the Council of State.[1] On January 7, 1659, a special committee reported back on the disputed 1640 Downton election and Cooper was finally allowed to take his seat as member for Downton.[1]

Sir George Monck (1608-1670). In the complicated politics of 1659, Cooper was in contact with Monck, encouraging him to march on London and then to recall the Long Parliament, and ultimately restore the English monarchy.

Upon General Monck's march into London, Monck was displeased that the Rump Parliament was not prepared to confirm him as commander-in-chief of the army.[1] On Cooper's urging, Monck's troops marched into London and Monck sent parliament a letter insisting that the vacant seats in the Rump Parliament be filled by-elections.[1] When the Rump insisted on placing restrictions on who could stand in these by-elections, Cooper urged Monck to instead insist on the return of the members of the Long Parliament secluded by Pride's Purge, and Monck obliged on February 21, 1660.[1] Two days later, the restored Long Parliament again elected Cooper to the Council of State. On March 16, 1660, the Long Parliament finally voted its own dissolution.[1]

Beginning in spring 1660, Cooper drew closer to the royalist cause. As late as mid-April, Cooper appears to have favored only a conditional restoration. However on April 25, 1660, as MP for Wiltshire in the Convention Parliament, he voted in favor of an unconditional restoration.[1] On May 8, the Convention Parliament appointed Cooper as one of twelve members to travel to The Hague to invite Charles II to return to England.[1]

Restoration politician, 1660-1683

Cooper returned to England with Charles in late May.[1] On the recommendation of General Monck and Cooper's wife's uncle, Thomas Wriothesley, 4th Earl of Southampton, Charles appointed Cooper to his privy council on May 27, 1660.[1] Cooper took advantage of the Declaration of Breda and was formally pardoned for his support of the English Commonwealth on June 27, 1660.[1] During this period, he helped reorganize the privy council's committee on trade and plantations.[1]

Cooper thus became a spokesman for the government in the Convention Parliament.[1] However, during the debates on the Indemnity and Oblivion Bill, Cooper urged lenity for those who had sided with Parliament during the English Civil Wars or collaborated with the Cromwellian regime.[1] He argued that only those individuals who had personal involvement in the decision to execute Charles I by participating in his trial and execution should be exempt from the general pardon.[1] This view prevailed. After the Indemnity and Oblivion Act became law on August 29, 1660, Cooper sat on the special commission that tried the regicides, and in this capacity took part in sentencing to death several colleagues with whom he had collaborated during the years of the English Interregnum, including Hugh Peters, Thomas Harrison, and Thomas Scot.[1] As a long-time foe of the Court of Wards, during the debate on the Tenures Abolition Bill, Cooper supported continuing the excise imposed by the Long Parliament to compensate the crown for the loss of revenues associated with the abolition of the court.[1]

Charles II of England (1630-1685) in his coronation robes, 1661. Cooper was one of twelve members of Parliament who traveled to the Dutch Republic to invite Charles to return to England, and in 1661, Charles created Cooper Lord Ashley.

On April 20, 1661, three days before his coronation at Westminster Abbey, Charles II announced his coronation honours, and in those honours he created Cooper Baron Ashley of Wimborne St Giles.[1]

Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1661-1672

Following the coronation, the Cavalier Parliament met beginning on May 8, 1661. Lord Ashley took his seat in the House of Lords on May 11.[1] On May 11, the king appointed Ashley as his Chancellor of the Exchequer and under-treasurer (Southampton, Ashley's uncle by marriage, was then Lord High Treasurer).[1]

In 1661-1662, Ashley opposed Charles' marriage to Catherine of Braganza because the marriage would involve supporting the Kingdom of Portugal, and Portugal's ally France, in Portugal's struggle against Spain.[1] Ashley was opposed to a policy that moved England into the French orbit.[1] During this debate, Ashley opposed the policy engineered by Charles' Lord Chancellor, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, thus beginning what would prove to be a long-running political rivalry with Clarendon.[1]

When the Cavalier Parliament set about enacting the Clarendon Code, Ashley supported a policy of moderation towards Protestant dissenters.[1] In July 1662, Ashley sponsored an amendment to the Act of Uniformity that would have allowed Protestant Non-Conformists to allow for late subscription, giving moderate dissenters an additional opportunity to conform. In the latter half of 1662, Ashley joined Sir Henry Bennet, the Earl of Bristol, and Lord Robartes in urging Charles to dispense peaceable Protestant Non-Conformists and loyal Catholics from the Act of Uniformity.[1] This led to Charles issuing his first Declaration of Indulgence on December 26, 1662.[1] The Cavalier Parliament forced Charles to withdraw this declaration in February 1663.[1] Ashley then supported Lord Robartes' Dispensing Bill, which would have dispensed Protestant Non-Conformists, but not Catholics, from the Act of Uniformity.[1] During the debate on the Dispensing Bill in the House of Lords, Ashley criticized Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, Charles' Lord Chancellor, for opposing the royal prerogative to dispense with laws. Clarendon remarked that in his opinion, the declaration was "Ship-Money in religion".[1] The king looked favorably on Ashley's remarks and was displeased by Clarendon's.[1]

Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon (1609-1674), Charles II's Lord Chancellor 1658-1667. Ashley clashed with Clarendon throughout the 1660s, but Ashley refused to support the impeachment of Clarendon in 1667.

In May 1663, Ashley was one of eight Lords Proprietors (Lord Clarendon was one of the others) given title to a huge tract of land in North America, which eventually became the Province of Carolina, named in honor of King Charles.[1]

By early 1664, Ashley was a member of the circle of John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale, who ranged themselves in opposition to Lord Clarendon.

During the debate on the Conventicle Bill in May 1664, Ashley proposed mitigating the harshness of the penalties initially suggested by the House of Commons.[1]

Throughout late 1664 and 1665, Ashley was increasingly in the royal favour.[1] For example, in August 1665, the king paid a surprise visit to Ashley at Wimborne St Giles, and, during a later visit, introduced Ashley to his illegitimate son James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth.[1]

The Second Anglo–Dutch War began on March 4, 1665.[1] During the parliamentary session of October 1665, Sir George Downing, 1st Baronet proposed that the use of funds voted to the crown should be restricted to the sole purpose of carrying on the war.[1] Ashley opposed this proposal on the grounds that crown ministers should have flexibility in deciding how to use money received from parliamentary taxation.[1]

In the 1666-1667 parliamentary session, Ashley supported the Irish Cattle Bill, introduced by the Duke of Buckingham, which prevented the importation of Irish cattle into England.[1] During the course of this debate, Ashley attacked Charles' Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde.[1] During this debate, he suggested that Irish peers such as Ormonde should have no precedence over English commoners.[1] The debate over the Irish Cattle Bill marks the first time that Ashley began to break with the court over an issue of policy.[1]

A rough picture of a young Shaftesbury, when he was known as Lord Ashley.

In October 1666, Ashley met John Locke, who would in time become his personal secretary.[1] Ashley had gone to Oxford seeking treatment for a liver infection. There he was impressed with Locke and persuaded the gifted young man to become part of his retinue. Locke had been looking for a career and in spring 1667 moved into Ashley's home at Exeter House in London, ostensibly as the household physician.

When Southampton died in May 1667, Ashley, as under-treasurer, was expected to succeed Southampton as Lord High Treasurer.[1] Charles, however, decided to replace Southampton with a nine-man Commission of the Treasury, headed by the Duke of Albemarle as First Lord of the Treasury.[1] Ashley was named as one of the nine Treasury Commissioners at this time.[1]

The failures of the English during the Second Anglo-Dutch War led Charles II to lose faith in the Earl of Clarendon, who was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on August 31, 1667.[1] The court then moved to impeach Clarendon, supported by many of Ashley's former political allies (including George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol, and Sir Henry Bennett, who by this point had been created Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington).[1] Ashley, however, refused to join in the fight against Clarendon, opposing a motion to have Clarendon committed to the Tower of London on a charge of treason.[1]

After the fall of Lord Clarendon in 1667, Lord Ashley became a prominent member of the Cabal, in which he formed the second "A".[1] Although the term "Cabal Ministry" is used by historians, in reality, the five members of the Cabal (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale) never formed a coherent ministerial team.[1] In the period immediately after the fall of Clarendon, the government was dominated by Arlington and Buckingham, and Ashley was out of royal favor and not admitted to the most powerful group of royal advisors, the privy council's committee on foreign affairs.[1] Nevertheless, Ashley joined Arlington and Buckingham, as well as John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, in introducing government-backed bills in October 1667 and February 1668 to comprehend moderate dissenters within the Church of England.[1] Nothing came of these bills, however.[1] In January 1668, the privy council's committees were reorganized, but Ashley retained a prominent position on the committee for trade and plantations.[1]

In May 1668, Ashley became ill, apparently with a hydatid cyst.[1] His secretary, John Locke, recommended an operation that almost certainly saved Ashley's life.[1] Ashley was grateful to Locke for the rest of his life.[1] As part of the operation, a tube was inserted to drain fluid from the abscess, and after the operation, the physician left the tube in the body, and installed a copper tap to allow for possible future drainage.[1] In later years, this would be the occasion for his Tory enemies to dub him "Tapski", with the Polish ending because Tories accused him of wanting to make England an elective monarchy like the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.[1]

Part of a series on
John Locke
Social contract
Limited government
Tabula rasa
State of nature
Right to property
Labor theory of property
Lockean proviso
Fundamental Constitutions
of Carolina
A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)
Two Treatises of Government (1689)
An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding
Some Thoughts Concerning
Of the Conduct of
the Understanding
Notable People
Robert Filmer
Thomas Hobbes
1st Earl of Shaftesbury
David Hume
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Adam Smith
Immanuel Kant
Thomas Jefferson
Classical liberalism
Polish brethren

In 1669, Ashley supported Arlington and Buckingham's proposal for a political union of England with the Kingdom of Scotland, although this proposal floundered when the Scottish insisted on equal representation with the English in parliament.[1] Ashley likely did not support the Conventicles Act of 1670, but he did not sign the formal protest against the passage of the act either.[1]

Ashley, in his role as one of the eight Lords Proprietor of the Province of Carolina, along with his secretary, John Locke, drafted the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which were adopted by the eight Lords Proprietor in March 1669.[1]

By this point, it had become obvious that the queen, Catherine of Braganza, was barren and would never produce an heir, making the king's brother, James, Duke of York heir to the throne, which worried Ashley because he suspected that James was a Roman Catholic.[1] Ashley, Buckingham, and Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Carlisle urged Charles to declare his illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, legitimate.[1] When it became clear that Charles would not do so, they urged Charles to divorce Catherine and remarry.[1] This was the background to the famous Roos debate case: John Manners, Lord Roos had obtained a separation from bed and board from his wife in 1663, after he discovered she was committing adultery, and he had also been granted a divorce by an ecclesiastical court and had Lady Roos' children declared illegitimate. In March 1670, Lord Roos asked Parliament to allow him to remarry. The debate on the Roos divorce bill became politically charged because it impacted whether Parliament could legally allow Charles to remarry.[1] During the debate, Ashley spoke out strongly in favor of the Ross divorce bill, arguing that marriage was a civil contract, not a sacrament.[1] Parliament ultimately gave Lord Roos permission to remarry, but Charles II never attempted to divorce his wife.

Henrietta Anne Stuart (1644-1670), sister of Charles II, who arranged the Secret Treaty of Dover in May 1670; Ashley was not told about the Catholic clauses contained in the Secret Treaty of Dover, and, in order to fool Ashley, Buckingham, and Lauderdale, a second, public Treaty of Dover was signed in December 1670.

Ashley did not know about the Secret Treaty of Dover, arranged by Charles II's sister Henrietta Anne Stuart and signed May 22, 1670, whereby Charles II concluded an alliance with Louis XIV of France against the Dutch Republic. Under the terms of the Secret Treaty of Dover, Charles would receive an annual subsidy from France (to enable him to govern without calling a parliament) in exchange for a promise that he would convert to Catholicism and re-Catholicize England at an unspecified future date.[1] Of the members of the Cabal, only Arlington and Clifford were aware of the Catholic Clauses contained in the Secret Treaty of Dover.[1] For the benefit of Ashley, Buckingham, and Lauderdale, Charles II arranged a mock treaty (traité simulé) concluding an alliance with France. Although he was suspicious of France, Ashley was also wary of Dutch commercial competition, and he therefore signed the mock Treaty of Dover on December 21, 1670.[1]

Throughout 1671, Ashley argued in favor of reducing the duty on sugar imports, arguing that the duty would have an adverse effect on colonial sugar planters.[1]

In September 1671, Ashley and Clifford oversaw a massive reform of England's customs system, whereby customs farmers were replaced with royal commissioners responsible for collecting customs.[1] This change was ultimately to the benefit of the crown, but it caused a short-term loss of revenues that led to the Great Stop of the Exchequer.[1] Ashley was widely blamed for the Great Stop of the Exchequer, although Clifford was the chief advocate of stopping the exchequer and Ashley in fact opposed the move.[1]

In early 1672, with the Third Anglo–Dutch War looming, many in the government feared that Protestant dissenters in England would form a fifth column and support their Dutch co-religionists against England.[1] In an attempt to conciliate the nonconformists, on March 15, 1672, Charles II issued his Royal Declaration of Indulgence, suspending the penal laws that punished non-attendance at Church of England services. Ashley strongly supported this Declaration.[1]

According to the terms of the Treaty of Dover, England declared war on the Dutch Republic on April 7, 1672, thus launching the Third Anglo-Dutch War.[1] To accompany the commencement of the war, Charles issued a new round of honours, as part of which Ashley was named Earl of Shaftesbury and Baron Cooper of Paulet on April 23, 1672.[1]

In autumn 1672, Shaftesbury played a key role in setting up the Bahamas Adventurers' Company.[1]

Lord Chancellor, 1672-1673

On November 17, 1672, the king named Shaftesbury Lord Chancellor of England[1], with Sir John Duncombe replacing Shaftesbury as Chancellor of the Exchequer. As Lord Chancellor, he addressed the opening of a new session of the Cavalier Parliament on February 4, 1673, calling on parliament to vote funds sufficient to carry out the war, arguing that the Dutch were the enemy of monarchy and England's only major trade rival, and therefore had to be destroyed (at one point he exclaimed "Delenda est Carthago"); defending the Great Stop of the Exchequer; and arguing in support of the Royal Declaration of Indulgence.[1]

Shaftesbury was not, however, well received by the House of Commons. One of Shaftesbury's old Dorset rivals, Colonel Giles Strangways, led an attack on writs of election that Lord Chancellor Shaftesbury had issued to fill 36 vacant seats in the House of Commons; Strangways argued that Shaftesbury was attempting to pack the Commons with his supporters and that only the Speaker of the House could issue writs to fill the vacant seats.[1] The House of Commons agreed with Strangways and declared the elections void and the seats vacant.[1] Furthermore, the Commons attacked the Declaration of Indulgence and demanded its withdrawal.[1] Charles ultimately withdrew the address and canceled the Declaration of Indulgence.[1]

Shaftesbury in the robes of the Lord Chancellor, ca. 1672-1673.

The Commons then proceeded to pass an address condemning the growth of popery in England.[1] To shore up the Protestantism of the nation, Parliament passed the Test Act of 1673, which became law on March 20, 1673.[1] The Test Act required all holders of civil and military office in England to take communion in the Church of England at least once a year and to make a declaration renouncing the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.[1] Shaftesbury supported the Test Act, and, alongside James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, received the sacrament at St Clement Danes, with John Locke serving as the legal witness for each man's conformity with the Test Act.[1] In March 1673, Shaftesbury supported a bill for easing the plight of the Protestant dissenters in England, but nothing came of this bill.[1]

Following the failure of the Declaration of Indulgence and the passage of the Test Act, it was obvious to all that the Cabal Ministry's days were numbered.[1] Shaftesbury moved closer to the parliamentary opposition during this period, and became a supporter of ending the Third Anglo-Dutch War.[1]

The Duke of York failed to take the Anglican sacrament at Easter 1673, further heightening Shaftesbury's concern that he was secretly a Catholic.[1] Shaftesbury was initially mollified by the fact that both of the Duke of York's daughters, Mary and Anne, were committed Protestants.[1] However, in autumn 1673, the Duke of York married the Catholic Mary of Modena by proxy, thus raising the specter that James might have a son who would succeed to the throne ahead of Mary and Anne and thus give rise to a never-ending succession of Catholic monarchs.[1] York urged the king to prorogue parliament before it could vote on a motion condemning his marriage to Mary of Modena, but Shaftesbury used procedural techniques in the House of Lords to ensure that parliament continued sitting long enough to allow the House of Commons to pass a motion condemning the match.[1] Shaftesbury, Arlington, James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde, and Henry Coventry all urged Charles II to divorce Catherine of Braganza and re-marry a Protestant princess.[1] York began denouncing Shaftesbury to Charles II, and Charles II decided to remove Shaftesbury from his post as Lord Chancellor.[1] On November 9, 1673, Henry Coventry traveled to Exeter House to inform Shaftesbury that he was relieved of his post as Lord Chancellor, but also issuing him a royal pardon for all crimes committed before November 5, 1673.[1]

Opposition to Catholicism and break with Charles II, 1673-1674

Denzil Holles, 1st Baron Holles (1599-1680), whose London home was used by opposition peers to strategize against the growth of Catholic influence in England.

Following Shaftesbury's fall from royal favour, Arlington attempted to effect a reconciliation, in November 1673 convincing the French ambassador to offer Shaftesbury a bribe in exchange for supporting the French party at court.[1] Shaftesbury refused this offer, saying he could never support "an interest that was so apparently destructive to [England's] religion and trade."[1] Instead, he allied himself with the Spanish party at court, and urged peace with the Netherlands.[1] He also continued to urge the king to divorce and re-marry.[1]

In the session of the Cavalier Parliament that began on January 7, 1674, Shaftesbury led the charge to keep England free from popery.[1] He coordinated his efforts with a group of other peers who were displeased with the possibility of a Catholic succession; this group met at the home of Denzil Holles, 1st Baron Holles, and included Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Carlisle, Thomas Belasyse, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg, James Cecil, 3rd Earl of Salisbury, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, and George Savile, 1st Viscount Halifax.[1] On January 8, 1674, Shaftesbury gave a speech in the House of Lords warning that the 16,000 Catholics living in London were on the verge of rebellion, which caused the Lords to pass an address expelling all Catholics from within 10 miles of London.[1] On January 12, he introduced a measure that would require every peer, including the Duke of York, to take the Oath of Allegiance renouncing the pope and recognizing the royal supremacy in the church (the oath was first required by the Popish Recusants Act of 1605).[1] On January 24, the Earl of Salisbury introduced a bill requiring that any children of the duke of York should be raised Protestants.[1] His proposed legislation further provided that neither the king nor any prince of the blood could marry a Catholic without parliamentary consent, on pain of being excluded from the royal succession.[1] Shaftesbury spoke forcefully in favour of Salisbury's proposal; he was opposed by the bishops and Lord Finch.[1] By February, the opposition lords were considering accusing the duke of York of high treason, which resulted in the king proroguing parliament on February 24 in order to protect his brother.[1]

Shaftesbury's actions in the 1674 session further angered Charles II, so on May 19, 1674, Shaftesbury was expelled from the privy council, and subsequently sacked as Lord Lieutenant of Dorset and ordered to leave London.[1]

Leader of Opposition to Danby, 1674-1678

Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby (1631-1712), who became Charles II's main adviser following the fall of the Cabal Ministry, and who drew support from former Cavaliers and the supporters of the established Church of England.

Charles II now turned to Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby. Danby proceeded to freeze out peers who had collaborated during the Cromwellian regime and promoted former royalists.[1] Danby was a champion of the Church of England who favored strict interpretation of the penal laws against both Catholics and Protestant Non-Conformists.[1]

On February 3, 1675, Shaftesbury wrote a letter to Carlisle in which he argued that the king needed to dissolve the Cavalier Parliament, which had been elected in early 1661, and call fresh elections.[1] He argued that frequent parliamentary elections were in the best interest of both the crown and the people of England.[1] This letter circulated widely in manuscript form.[1]

The Duke of York was opposed to Danby's strict enforcement of the penal laws against Catholics, and by April 1675, he had reached out to Shaftesbury to effectuate a truce between them whereby they would be united in opposition to Danby's brand of Anglican royalism.[1] In late April 1675, Danby introduced a Test Oath by which all holding office or seats in either House of Parliament were to declare resistance to the royal power a crime, and promise to abstain from all attempts to alter the government of either church or state.[1] Shaftesbury led the parliamentary opposition to Danby's Test Bill, arguing that, under certain circumstances, it was lawful to resist the king's ministers, and that, as in the case of the Protestant Reformation, it was sometimes necessary to alter the church so as to restore it.[1]

In spite of Shaftesbury's eloquence, his view remained the minority view in the parliament, forcing the king to prorogue parliament on June 9, 1675 in order to avoid the passage of the bill.[1] The Duke of York, grateful for Shaftesbury's assistance in the debate against Danby's bill, now attempted to effectuate a reconciliation of Shaftesbury with the king, and Shaftesbury was admitted to kiss the king's hand on June 13, 1675.[1] This, however, angered Danby, who intervened with the king, and on June 24, the king again ordered Shaftesbury to leave court.[1]

In 1675, following the death of Sir Giles Strangways, MP for Dorset, Shaftesbury initially endorsed Lord Digby, son of George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol for the seat, but, upon learning that Digby was a strong supporter of the court, he decided to back Thomas Moore, who was the chief supporter of conventicles in the county.[1] This led to Shaftesbury making an enemy of both Digby and Bristol, who accused him of supporting sedition and faction and wanting a return of the English Commonwealth.[1]

John Locke (1632-1704), who probably participated in writing A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country (1675).

In summer 1675, Shaftesbury wrote a 15,000-word pamphlet entitled A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country denouncing Danby's Test Bill.[1] (Shaftesbury's secretary, John Locke, appears to have played a role in drafting the Letter, although whether solely as amanuensis or in a more active role, perhaps even as ghostwriter, remains unclear.)[1] The Letter argued that since the time of the Restoration, "the High Episcopal Man, and the Old Cavalier" (now led by Danby) had conspired to make "the Government absolute and arbitrary."[1] According to the Letter, this party was attempting to establish divine right monarchy and divine right episcopacy, meaning that neither the king nor the bishops could be constrained by the rule of law.[1] Danby's Test Oath proposal was merely the latest, most nefarious attempt to introduce divine right monarchy and episcopacy on the country. The Letter went on to describe the debates of the House of Lords during the last session, setting forth the arguments that Shaftesbury and other lords used in opposition to Danby and the bishops. This letter was published anonymously in November 1675, and quickly became a bestseller, in no small part because it was one of the first books ever to inform the public about the debates that occurred within the House of Lords.[1]

Shaftesbury repeated the accusations of the Letter from a Person of Quality on the floor of the House of Lords during the parliamentary session of October-November 1675.[1] During the debate on the case of Shirley v. Fagg, a jurisdictional dispute about whether the House of Lords could hear appeals from lower courts when the case involved members of the House of Commons, Shaftesbury gave a celebrated speech on October 20, 1675.[1] He argued that Danby and the bishops were attempting to neuter the power of the House of Lords.[1] Shaftesbury argued that every king could only rule either through the nobility or through a standing army; thus, this attempt to restrict the power of the nobility was part of a plot to rule the country through a standing army.[1] He argued that the bishops believed that the king was king by divine right, not by law and that, if the bishops' propositions were taken to their logical conclusion, "our Magna Charta is of no force, our Laws are but Rules amongst our selves during the Kings pleasure" and "All the Properties and Liberties of the People, are to give away, not onely to the interest, but the will and pleasure of the Crown."[1]

On November 20, 1675, Shaftesbury seconded a motion by Charles Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun of Okehampton calling on the king to end the dispute of Shirley v. Fagg by dissolving parliament.[1] This motion, which was supported by the Duke of York and the Catholic peers, was defeated by a vote of 50-48, prompting Shaftesbury and 21 other peers to enter a protest on the grounds that "according to the ancient Lawes and Statutes of this Realm ... there should be frequent and new Parliaments" and that the House of Commons was being unnecessarily obstructionist.[1] Parliament was prorogued on November 22, 1675, with the prorogation saying that parliament would not sit again until February 15, 1677.[1] Shortly thereafter, there appeared a pamphlet entitled Two Seasonable Discourses Concerning the Present Parliament, that argued that the king should call a new parliament because a new parliament would vote the king money, preserve the Church of England, introduce religious toleration for the Non-Conformists, and deliver Catholics from the penal laws in an exchange for Catholics being deprived of access to court, holding office, and the right to bear arms.[1]

In mid-February 1676, Charles sent his Secretary of State for the Southern Department, Sir Joseph Williamson to tell Shaftesbury to leave town.[1] Shaftesbury refused and continued to receive visits at Exeter House from opposition MPs and other discontented elements.[1] Danby argued that Charles should order Shaftesbury arrested and sent to the Tower of London, but Sir Joseph Williamson refused to sign the warrant.[1] In this period, Shaftesbury relocated from Exeter House to the less expensive Thanet House.[1]

On June 24, 1676, during the election of the Sheriffs of the City of London at the Guildhall, linen draper Francis Jenks gave a sensational speech arguing that two statutes from the reign of Edward III required that parliament sit every year, and that by proroguing the Cavalier Parliament until February 15, 1677 (meaning no session would be held in 1676 at all), the king had inadvertently dissolved parliament and that the Cavalier Parliament was now legally dissolved.[1] Although Buckingham, not Shaftesbury, was behind Jenks' speech, many suspected Shaftesbury's involvement; after Jenks' speech, Shaftesbury decided to take full advantage of the argument, arranging with his allies for a number of pamphlets arguing the case.[1] One of these pamphlets, Some considerations upon the question, whether the parliament is dissolved, by its prorogation for 15 months? argued that parliament had the authority to restrict the royal prerogative and could even "bind, limit, restrain and govern the Descent and Inheritance of the Crown it self."[1] The Duke of York was furious at the inclusion of this argument; Buckingham told York that Shaftesbury had drafted the controversial passage, but Shaftesbury claimed that the passage was inserted in the pamphlet without his knowledge.[1]

The Tower of London, where Shaftesbury was imprisoned from February 1677 to February 1678 after he refused to apologize for arguing that the Cavalier Parliament had been legally dissolved because it had not met in 1676.

When parliament finally met on February 15, 1677, Buckingham, backed by Shaftesbury, Salisbury, and Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, introduced a motion declaring that, because of the 15-month prorogation, on the basis of the statutes from the reign of Edward III, no parliament was legally in existence.[1] Parliament not only rejected this argument, but also resolved that the four peers had committed Contempt of Parliament and should apologize.[1] When the four refused, they were committed to the Tower of London.[1] Shaftesbury petitioned for his release, and in June 1677, brought a writ of habeas corpus before the Court of King's Bench.[1] The court, however, determined that it lacked jurisdiction because Parliament, a superior court, was currently in session.[1] Charles ordered Buckingham, Salisbury, and Wharton released from the Tower shortly thereafter, but Shaftesbury continued to refuse to apologize.[1] Shaftesbury had grown increasingly suspicious of Charles II.[1] Charles had begun raising an army, ostensibly for war with France, but Shaftesbury worried that Charles was really preparing to abolish parliament and rule the country with a standing army on the model of Louis XIV of France.[1] It was not until February 25, 1678 that Shaftesbury finally apologized to the king and to parliament for his support of the motion in the House of Lords and for bringing a writ of habeas corpus against Parliament.[1]

With war with France looming, in March 1678, Shaftesbury, Buckingham, Holles, and Halifax spoke out in favor of immediately declaring war on France.[1] Charles delayed declaring war, however, leading Shaftesbury to support a resolution of the House of Commons providing for immediately disbanding the army that Charles was raising.[1] Charles prorogued parliament on June 25, but the army was not disbanded, which worried Shaftesbury.[1]

Titus Oates (1649-1705), whose accusations in autumn 1678 that there was a Popish Plot to murder the king and massacre English Protestants, set off a wave of anti-Catholic hysteria. Shaftesbury would play a prominent part in prosecuting the individuals whom Oates (falsely) accused of manufacturing this plot. The wave of anti-Catholic sentiment set off by Oates would be at the center of Shaftesbury's political program during the Exclusion Crisis.

In August and September 1678, Titus Oates made accusations that there was a Popish Plot to assassinate the king, overthrow the government, and massacre English Protestants.[1] It was later revealed that Oates had simply made up most of the details of the plot, and that there was no elaborate Popish Plot. However, when Parliament re-convened on October 21, 1678, Oates had not yet been discredited and the Popish Plot was the major topic of concern. Shaftesbury was a member of all the important committees of the House of Lords designed to combat the Popish Plot.[1] On November 2, 1678, he introduced a motion demanding that the Duke of York be removed from the king's presence, although this motion was never voted on.[1] He supported the Test Act of 1678, which required that all peers and members of the House of Commons should make a declaration against transubstantiation, invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass, effectively excluding all Catholics from Parliament.[1] Oates had accused the queen, Mary of Modena, of involvement in the Popish Plot, leading the House of Commons to pass a resolution calling for the queen and her retinue to be removed from court; when the House of Lords rejected this resolution, Shaftesbury entered a formal protest.[1] Shaftesbury was now gaining a great reputation amongst the common people as a Protestant hero.[1] On November 9, 1678, Charles promised that he would sign any bill that would make them safe during the reign of his successor, so long as they did not impeach the right of his successor; this speech was widely misreported as Charles' having agreed to name the Duke of Monmouth as his successor, leading to celebratory bonfires throughout London, with crowds drinking the health of "the King, the Duke of Monmouth, and Earl of Shaftesbury, as the only three pillars of all safety."[1] The citizens of London, fearing a Catholic plot on Shaftesbury's life, paid for a special guard to protect him.[1]

In December 1678, discussion turned to impeaching the Earl of Danby, and, in order to protect his minister, Charles II prorogued parliament on December 30, 1678.[1] On January 24, 1679, Charles II finally dissolved the Cavalier Parliament, which had sat for 18 years.[1]

The Exclusion Crisis and the birth of the Whig Party, 1679-1683

The Habeas Corpus Parliament, 1679

In February 1679, elections were held for a new parliament, known to history as the Habeas Corpus Parliament.[1] In preparation for this parliament, Shaftesbury drew up a list of members of the House of Commons in which he estimated that 32% of the members were friends of the court, 61% favored the opposition, and 7% could go either way.[1] He also drafted a pamphlet that was never published, entitled "The Present State of the Kingdom": in this pamphlet, Shaftesbury expressed concern about the power of France, the Popish Plot, and the bad influence exerted on the king by Danby, the royal mistress Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth (a Catholic), and the Duke of York, who, according to Shaftesbury was now attempting "to introduce a military and arbitrary government in his brother's time."[1]

The new parliament met on March 6, 1679, and on March 25, Shaftesbury delivered a dramatic address in the House of Lords in which he warned of the threat of popery and arbitrary government; denounced the royal administration in Scotland under John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale and Ireland under James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde; and loudly denounced the policies of Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby in England.[1] Shaftesbury supported the House of Commons when they introduced a Bill of Attainder against Danby, and voted in favor of the bill in the House of Lords on April 14, 1679.[1] Shaftesbury attempted to neutralize the influence of the episcopal bench in favor of Danby by introducing a bill moving that the bishops should not be able to sit in the House of Lords during capital trials.[1]

Lord President of the Council, 1679

Charles II thought that Shaftesbury was mainly angry because he had been out of royal favor for long, and hoped that he could rein Shaftesbury in by naming him Lord President of the Council on April 21, 1679, with a salary of ₤4,000 a year.[1] Soon, however, Shaftesbury made it clear that he could not be bought off. During meetings of the now reconstituted privy council, Shaftesbury repeatedly argued that the Duke of York must be excluded from the line of succession.[1] He also continued to argue that Charles should re-marry a Protestant princess, or legitimize James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth.[1] During these meetings, Arthur Capell, 1st Earl of Essex and George Savile, 1st Earl of Halifax argued that the powers of a Catholic successor could be limited, but Shaftesbury argued that that would change "the whole government, and set up a democracy instead of a monarchy."[1]

William Russell, Lord Russell (1639-1683) was one of Shaftesbury's closest political allies during the Exclusion Crisis; a leader in the House of Commons, he introduced the Exclusion Bill on May 11, 1679.

On May 11, 1679, Shaftesbury's close political ally, William Russell, Lord Russell, introduced an Exclusion Bill in the House of Commons, which would have excluded the Duke of York from the succession.[1] This bill passed first and second reading on May 21, 1679.[1] In order to stop the Exclusion Bill and the Bill of Attainder directed at Danby, Charles II prorogued the parliament on May 27, 1679 and dissolved it on July 3, 1679, both of which moves infuriated Shaftesbury.[1] As its name implies, the only achievement of the Habeas Corpus Parliament was the passage of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679.[1]

For the time being, Shaftesbury retained his position on the privy council, and he and the duke of Monmouth formed an alliance on the council designed to be obstructionist.[1] There were some disagreements between Shaftesbury and Monmouth: for example, Shaftesbury was critical of Monmouth's decision to quickly crush a rebellion by Scottish Covenanters at the Battle of Bothwell Brig in June 1679, arguing that the rebellion should have been drawn out to force Charles II to recall parliament.[1]

On August 21, 1679, the king fell ill, leading Essex and Halifax (who feared Monmouth was about to launch a coup) to ask the duke of York, who Charles had sent to Brussels in late 1678, to return to England.[1] Charles soon recovered and then ordered both York and Monmouth into exile.[1] When Charles agreed to allow his brother to move from Flanders to Scotland in October 1679, Shaftesbury summoned an extraordinary meeting of the privy council to discuss the duke's move, acting on his own authority as Lord President of the Council because the king was at Newmarket at the time.[1] Angered by this insubordination, Charles removed Shaftesbury from the privy council on October 14, 1679.[1]

The Exclusion Bill Parliament, 1679-1680
"The Solemn Mock Procession of the Pope, Cardinals, Jesuits, Friars, Etc. Through the City of London, November 17th, 1679." Throughout the Exclusion Crisis, Shaftesbury's Whig allies in the Green Ribbon Club engaged in anti-Catholic propaganda, such as mock processions, the climax of which involved burning the pope in effigy.

Elections for a new parliament, which would ultimately come to be known as the Exclusion Bill Parliament, were held in summer 1679, but they went badly for the court, so, with parliament scheduled to meet in October 1679, Charles prorogued the parliament until January 26, 1680.[1] Shaftesbury worried that the king might be intending to simply not meet this new parliament, so he launched a massive petitioning campaign to pressure the king to meet parliament.[1] He wrote to the duke of Monmouth, telling him that he should return from exile, and on November 27, 1679 Monmouth rode back into London amidst scenes of widespread celebration.[1] On December 7, 1679, a petition signed by Shaftesbury and fifteen other Whig peers calling on Charles to meet parliament, followed up with a 20,000-name petition on January 13, 1680.[1] However, instead of meeting parliament, Charles further prorogued parliament and recalled his brother from Scotland. Shaftesbury now urged his friends on the privy council to resign and four did so.[1]

On March 24, 1680, Shaftesbury told the privy council of information he had received that the Irish Catholics were about to launch a rebellion, backed by the French.[1] Several privy councillors, especially Henry Coventry, thought that Shaftesbury was making the entire story up in order to inflame public opinion, but an investigation was launched.[1] This investigation ultimately resulted in the execution of Oliver Plunkett, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, on trumped-up charges.[1]

On June 26, 1680, Shaftesbury led a group of fifteen peers and commoners who presented an indictment to the Middlesex grand jury in Westminster Hall, charging the Duke of York with being a popish recusant in violation of the penal laws.[1] Before the grand jury could act, they were dismissed for interfering in matters of state.[1] The next week, Shaftesbury again tried to indict the Duke of York, but again the grand jury was dismissed before it could take any action.[1]

The parliament finally met on October 21, 1680, and on October 23, Shaftesbury called for a committee to be set up to investigate the Popish Plot.[1] When the Exclusion Bill again came before the House of Lords, Shaftesbury gave an impassioned pro-Exclusion speech on November 15.[1] The Lords, however, rejected the Exclusion Bill by a vote of 63-30.[1] The Lords now explored alternative ways of limiting the powers of a Catholic successor, but Shaftesbury argued that the only viable alternative to exclusion was calling on the king to remarry.[1] On December 23, 1680, Shaftesbury gave another fiery pro-Exclusion speech in the Lords, in the course of which he attacked the Duke of York, expressed mistrust of Charles II, and urged the parliament to not approve any taxes until "the King shall satisfie the People, that what we give is not to make us Slaves and Papists."[1] With parliament pursuing the Irish investigation vigorously, and threatening to impeach some of Charles II's judges, Charles prorogued parliament on January 10, 1681, and then dissolved it on January 18, calling for fresh elections for a new parliament, to meet at Oxford on March 21, 1681.[1] On January 25, 1681, Shaftesbury, Essex, and Salisbury presented the king a petition signed by sixteen peers asking that parliament should be held at Westminster Hall rather than Oxford, but the king remained committed to Oxford.[1]

The Oxford Parliament, 1681

In February 1681, Shaftesbury and his supporters brought another indictment against York, this time at the Old Bailey, with the grand jury this time finding the bill true, although York's counsel were able to pursue procedural delays until the prosecution lapsed.[1]

At the Oxford Parliament, Charles insisted he would listen to any reasonable expedient short of changing the line of succession that would assuage the nation's concerns about a Catholic successor.[1] On March 24, 1681, Shaftesbury announced in the House of Lords that he had received an anonymous letter suggesting that the king's condition could be met if he were to declare the Duke of Monmouth legitimate.[1] Charles was furious. On March 26, 1681, an Exclusion Bill was introduced in the Oxford Parliament and Charles dissolved parliament.[1] The only issue the Oxford Parliament had resolved had been the case of Edward Fitzharris, who was to be left to the common law, although Shaftesbury and 19 other peers signed a formal protest of this result.[1]

Prosecution for high treason, 1681-1682

The end of the Oxford Parliament marked the beginning of the so-called Tory Reaction.[1] On July 2, 1681, Shaftesbury was arrested on suspicion of high treason and committed to the Tower of London. He immediately petitioned the Old Bailey on a writ of habeas corpus, but the Old Bailey said it did not have jurisdiction over prisoners in the Tower of London, so Shaftesbury had to wait for the next session of the Court of King's Bench.[1] Shaftesbury moved for a writ of habeas corpus on October 24, 1681, and his case finally came before a grand jury on November 24, 1681.[1]

The government's case against Shaftesbury was particularly weak - most of the witnesses brought forth against Shaftesbury were witnesses who the government admitted had already perjured themselves, and the documentary evidence was inconclusive.[1] This, combined with the fact that the jury was handpicked by the Whig Sheriff of London, meant the government had little chance of securing a conviction and on February 13, 1682, the case against Shaftesbury was dropped.[1] The announcement prompted great celebrations in London, with crowds yelling "No Popish Successor, No York, A Monmouth" and "God bless the Earl of Shaftesbury".[1]

Attempts at an uprising, 1682

In May 1682, Charles II fell ill, and Shaftesbury convened a group including the Monmouth, Russell, Ford Grey, 3rd Baron Grey of Werke, and Sir Thomas Armstrong to determine what to do if the king died.[1] They determined they would launch a rebellion demanding a parliament to settle the succession.[1] The king recovered, however, and this was not necessary.[1]

At the election of the Sheriffs of London in July 1682, the Tory candidates prevailed.[1] Shaftesbury was worried that these Sheriffs would be able to fill juries with Tory supporters and he was desperately afraid of another prosecution for high treason.[1] Shaftesbury, therefore began discussions with Monmouth, Russell, and Grey to launch co-ordinated rebellions in different parts of the country.[1] Shaftesbury was much more eager for a rebellion than the other three, and the uprising was postponed several times, to Shaftesbury's chagrin.[1]

Following the installation of the new Tory sheriffs on September 28, 1682, Shaftesbury grew desperate.[1] He continued to urge an immediate uprising, and also opened discussions with John Wildman about the possibility of assassinating the king and the duke of York.[1]

Flight from England and death, 1682-1683

With his plots having proved unsuccessful, Shaftesbury determined to flee the country.[1] He landed at Brielle sometime between November 20 and November 26, 1672, reached Rotterdam on November 28, and finally, arrived in Amsterdam on December 2, 1682.[1]

Shaftesbury's health had deteriorated markedly during this voyage. In Amsterdam, he fell ill, and by the end of December he found it difficult to keep down any food.[1] He drew up a will on January 17, 1683.[1] On January 20, in a conversation with Robert Ferguson, who had accompanied him to Amsterdam, he professed himself an Arian.[1] He died the next day, on January 21, 1683.[1]

According to the provisions of his will, Shaftesbury's body was shipped back to Dorset on February 13, 1683, and he was buried at Wimborne St Giles on February 26, 1683.[1] Shaftesbury's son, Lord Ashley, succeeded him as Earl of Shaftesbury.


Back in North America, both the Ashley River and the Cooper River in South Carolina were eventually named in his honor.



Political offices
Preceded by
Edward Hyde
Chancellor of the Exchequer
1661 – 1672
Succeeded by
Sir John Duncombe
Preceded by
Orlando Bridgeman
as Lord Keeper of the Great Seal
Lord Chancellor
1672 – 1673
Succeeded by
Sir Heneage Finch
as Lord Keeper of the Great Seal
New title
New Board
First Lord of Trade
1672 – 1676
Succeeded by
The Earl of Bridgewater
Preceded by
Lord President of the Council
Succeeded by
The Earl of Radnor
Parliament of England
Preceded by
Member of Parliament for Wiltshire
1660 – 1661
Served alongside: John Ernle
Succeeded by
Lord Charles Seymour
Henry Hyde
Honorary titles
Preceded by
The Duke of Richmond
Lord Lieutenant of Dorset
1672 – 1674
Succeeded by
The Lord Poulett
Preceded by
William Sydenham
Vice-Admiral of Hampshire
Succeeded by
The Earl of Portland
Governor of the Isle of Wight
Peerage of England
New creation Earl of Shaftesbury
1672 – 1683
Succeeded by
Anthony Ashley-Cooper
Baron Ashley
Baronetage of England
Preceded by
John Cooper
(of Rockbourne)
1631 – 1683
Succeeded by
Anthony Ashley-Cooper


Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From Wikiquote

Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury (22 July 162121 January 1683), known as Sir Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 2nd Baronet, from 1631 to 1661 and as The Lord Ashley from 1661 to 1672, was a prominent English politician of the Interregnum and during the reign of King Charles II.


Truth is the most powerful thing in the world...
  • Truly … as accidental as my Life may be, or as that random Humour is, which governs it; I know nothing, after all, so real or substantial as My-Self. Therefore if there be that Thing you call a Substance, I take for granted I am one. But for anything further relating to this Question, you know my Sceptick Principles: I determine neither way.
    • "The Moralists, A Philosophical Rhapsody" in Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times‎, Etc. (1723) Vol. II, p. 353
  • Truth is the most powerful thing in the world, since even fiction itself must be governed by it, and can only please by its resemblance.
    • As quoted in Curiosities of Medical Experience‎ (1839) by John Gideon Millingen, p. 250

About Anthony Ashley-Cooper

Men of sense are really but of one religion. ... men of sense never tell it.
  • I will dwell a little longer on his character; for it was of a very extraordinary composition. He began to make a considerable figure very early. ... He had a wonderful faculty in speaking to a popular assembly, and could mix both the facetious and the serious way of arguing very agreeably. He had a particular talent to make others trust to his judgment, and depend on it: and he brought over so many to a submission to his opinion, that I never knew any man equal to him in the art of governing parties, and of making himself the head of them. He was, as to religion, a deist at best.
    • Gilbert Burnet, in Bishop Burnet's History of His Own Time (1823), Vol. I, p. 164
  • A person came to make him a visit whilst he was sitting one day with a lady of his family, who retired upon that to another part of the room with her work, and seemed not to attend to the conversation between the Earl and the other person, which turned soon into some dispute upon subjects of religion; after a good deal of that sort of talk, the Earl said at last, "People differ in their discourse and profession about these matters, but men of sense are really but of one religion." Upon which says the lady of a sudden, "Pray, my lord, what religion is that which men of sense agree in?" "Madam," says the Earl, "men of sense never tell it."
  • For close designs and crooked counsels fit,
    Sagacious, bold, and turbulent of wit,
    Restless, unfixed in principles and place,
    In power unpleased, impatient of disgrace;
    A fiery soul, which, working out its way,
    Fretted the pigmy-body to decay
    And o'er informed the tenement of clay.
    A daring pilot in extremity,
    Pleased with the danger, when the waves went high,
    He sought the storms; but, for a calm unfit,
    Would steer too nigh the sands to boast his wit.
    Great wits are sure to madness near allied
    And thin partitions do their bounds divide;
    Else, why should he, with wealth and honour blest,
    Refuse his age the needful hours of rest?
    Punish a body which he could not please,
    Bankrupt of life, yet prodigal of ease?
    And all to leave what with his toil he won
    To that unfeathered two-legged thing, a son,
    Got, while his soul did huddled notions try,
    And born a shapeless lump, like anarchy.
    In friendship false, implacable in hate,
    Resolved to ruin or to rule the state.

External links

1911 encyclopedia

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From LoveToKnow 1911

ANTHONY ASHLEY COOPER SHAFTESBURY, 1ST EARL OF (1621-1683), son of Sir John Cooper of Rockbourne in Hampshire, and of Anne, the only child of Sir Anthony Ashley, Bart., and was born at Wimborne St Giles, Dorset, on the 22nd of July 1621. His parents died before he was ten years of age, and he inherited extensive estates in Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorsetshire and Somersetshire, much reduced, however, by litigation in Chancery. He lived for some time with Sir Daniel Norton, one of his trustees, at Southwick, and upon his death in 1635 with Mr Tooker, an uncle by marriage, at Salisbury. In 1637 he went as a gentleman-commoner to Exeter College, Oxford, where he remained about a year. No record of his studies is to be found, but he has left an amusing account of his part in the wilder doings of the university life of that day, in which, in spite of his small stature, he was recognized by his fellows as their leader. At the age of eighteen, on the 25th of February 1639, he married Margaret, daughter of Lord Coventry, with whom he and his wife lived at Durham House in the Strand, and at Canonbury House in Islington. In Marcy 1640, though still a minor, he was elected for Tewkesbury, and sat in the parlia ment which met on the 13th of April, but appears to have taken no active part in its proceedings. In 1640 Lord Coventry died, and Cooper then lived with his brother-in-law at Dorchester House in Covent Garden. For the Long Parliament, which met on the 3rd of November 16 4 0, he was elected for Downton in Wiltshire, but the return was disputed, and he did not take his seat - his election not being declared valid until the last days of the Rump. He was present as a spectator at the setting up of the king's standard at Nottingham on the 25th of August 1642; and in 1643 he appeared openly on Charles's side in Dorsetshire, where he raised at his own expense a regiment of foot and a troop of horse, of both of which he took the command. He was also appointed governor of Weymouth, sheriff of Dorsetshire for the king and president of the king's council of war in the county. In the beginning of January 1644, however, for reasons which are variously reported by himself and Clarendon, he resigned his governorship and commissions and went over to the parliament. He appeared on the 6th of March before the standing committee of the two Houses to explain his conduct, when he stated that he had come over because he saw danger to the Protestant religion in the king's service, and expressed his willingness to take the Covenant. In July 1644 he went to Dorsetshire on military service, and on the 3rd of August received a commission as field-marshal general. He assisted at the taking of Wareham, and shortly afterwards compounded for his estates by a fine of X500 from which, however, he was afterwards relieved by Cromwell. On the 25th of October he was made commander-in-chief in Dorsetshire, and in November he took by storm Abbotsbury, the house of Sir John Strangways - an affair in which he appears to have shown considerable personal gallantry. In December he relieved Taunton. His military service terminated at the time of the Self-denying Ordinance in 1645; he had associated himself with the Presbyterian faction, and naturally enough was not included in the New Model. For the next seven or eight years he lived in comparative privacy. He was high sheriff of Wiltshire during 1647, and displayed much vigour in this office. Upon the execution of Charles, Cooper took the Engagement, and was a commissioner to administer it in Dorsetshire. On the 25th of April 1650, he married Lady Frances Cecil, sister of the earl of Essex, his first wife having died in the previous year leaving no family. In 1651 a son was born to him, who died in childhood, and on the 16th of January 1652, another son, named after himself, who was his heir. On the 17th of January he was named on the commission for law reform, of which Hale was the chief; and on the 17th of March 1653, he was pardoned of all delinquency and thus at last made capable of sitting in parliament. He sat for Wiltshire in the Barebones parliament, of which he was a leading member, and where he supported Cromwell's views against the extreme section. He was at once appointed on the council of thirty. On the resignation of this parliament he became a member of the council of state named in the "Instrument." In the first parliament elected under this "Instrument" he sat for Wiltshire, having been elected also for Poole and Tewkesbury, and was one of the commissioners for the ejection of unworthy ministers. After the 28th of December 1654, he left the privy council, and henceforward is found with the Presbyterians and Republicans in opposition to Cromwell. His second wife had died during this year; in 1656 he married a third, who survived him, Margaret, daughter of Lord Spencer, niece of the earl of Southampton, and sister of the earl of Sunderland, who died at Newbury. By his three marriages he was thus connected with many of the leading politicians of Charles II.'s reign.

Cooper was again elected for Wiltshire for the parliament of 1656, but Cromwell refused to allow him, with many others of his opponents, to sit. He signed a letter of complaint, with sixty-five excluded members, to the speaker, as also a "Remonstrance" addressed to the people. In the parliament which met on the 10th of January 1658, he took his seat, and was active in opposition to the new constitution of the two Houses. He was also a leader of the opposition in Richard Cromwell's parliament, especially on the matter of the limitation of the power of the protector, and against the House of Lords. He was throughout these debates celebrated for the "nervous and subtle oratory" which made him so formidable in after days.

Upon the replacing of the Rump by the army, after the breaking up of Richard's parliament, Cooper endeavoured unsuccessfully to take his seat on the ground of his former disputed election for Downton. He was, however, elected on the council of state, and was the only Presbyterian in it; he was at once accused by Scot, along with Whitelocke, of corresponding with Hyde. This he solemnly denied. After the rising in Cheshire Cooper was arrested in Dorsetshire on a charge of corresponding with its leader Booth, but on the matter being investigated by the council he was unanimously acquitted. In the disputes between Lambert at the head of the military party and the Rump in union with the council of state, he supported the latter, and upon the temporary supremacy of Lambert's party worked indefatigably to restore the Rump. With Monk's commissioners he, with Haselrig, had a fruitless conference, but he assured Monk of his co-operation, and joined with eight others of the overthrown council of state in naming him commander-in-chief of the forces of England and Scotland. He was instrumental in securing the Tower for the parliament, and in obtaining the adhesion of Admiral Lawson and the fleet. Upon the restoration of the parliament on the 26th of December Cooper was one of the commissioners to command the army, and on the 2nd of January was made one of the new council of state. On the 7th of January he took his seat on his election for Downton in 1640, and was made colonel of Fleetwoods regiment of horse. He speedily secured the admission of the secluded members, having meanwhile been in continual communication with Monk, was again one of the fresh council of state, consisting entirely of friends of the Restoration, and accepted from Monk a commission to be governor of the Isle of Wight and captain of a company of foot. He now steadily pursued the design of the Restoration, but without holding any private correspondence with the king, and only on terms similar to those proposed in 1648 to Charles I. at the Isle of Wight. In the Convention parliament he sat for Wiltshire. Monk cut short these deliberations and forced on the Restoration without condition. Cooper was one of the twelve commissioners who went to Charles at Breda to invite him to return. On his journey he was upset from his carriage, and the accident caused an internal abscess which was never cured.

Cooper was at once placed on the privy council, receiving also a formal pardon for former delinquencies. His first duty was to examine the Anabaptist prisoners in the Tower. In the prolonged discussions regarding the Bill of Indemnity he was instrumental in saving the life of Haselrig, and opposed the clause compelling all officers who had served under Cromwell to refund their salaries, he himself never having had any. He showed indeed none of the avaricious temper so common among the politicians of the time. He was one of the commissioners for conducting the trials of the regicides, but was himself vehemently "fallen upon" by Prynne for having acted with Cromwell. He was named on the council of plantations and on that of trade. In the debate abolishing the court of wards he spoke, like most landed proprietors, in favour of laying the burden on the excise instead of on the land, and on the question of the restoration of the bishops carried in the interests of the court an adjournment of the debate for three months. At the coronation in April 1661 Cooper had been made a peer, as Baron Ashley of Wimborne St Giles, in express recognition of his services at the Restoration; and on the meeting of the new parliament in May he was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and under-treasurer, aided no doubt by his connexion with Southampton. He vehemently opposed the persecuting acts now passed - the Corporation Act, the Uniformity Bill, against which he is said to have spoken three hundred times, and the Militia Act. He is stated also to have influenced the king in issuing his dispensing declaration of the 26th of December 1662, and he zealously supported a bill introduced for the purpose of confirming the declaration, rising thereby in favour and influence with Charles. He was himself the author of a treatise on tolerance. He was now recognized as one of the chief opponents of Clarendon and the High Anglican policy. On the breaking out of the Dutch War in 1664 he was made treasurer of the prizes, being accountable to the king alone for all sums received or spent. He was also one of the grantees of the province of Carolina and took a leading part in its management; it was at his request that Locke in 1669 drew up a constitution for the new colony. In September 1665 the king unexpectedly paid him a visit at Wimborne. He opposed unsuccessfully the appropriation proviso introduced into the supply bill as hindering the due administration of finance, and this opposition seems to have brought about a reconciliation with Clarendon. In 1668, however, he supported a bill to appoint commissioners to examine the accounts of the Dutch War, though in the previous year he had opposed it. In accordance with his former action on all questions of religious toleration he opposed the shameful Five Mile Act of 1665. In 1667 he supported the bill for prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle, on the ground that it would lead to a great fall of rents in England. Ashley was himself a large landowner, and, moreover, was opposed to Ormonde, who would have benefited by the importation. In all other questions of this kind he shows himself far in advance of the economic fallacies of the day. His action led to an altercation with Ossory, the son of Ormonde, in which Ossory used language for which he was compelled to apologize. On the death of Southampton, Ashley was placed on the commission of the treasury, Clifford and William Coventry being his principal colleagues. He appears to have taken no part in the attempt to impeach Clarendon on a general charge of treason.

The new administration was headed by Buckingham, in whose toleration and comprehension principles Ashley shared to the full. An able paper written by him to the king in support of these principles, on the ground especially of their advantage to trade, has been preserved. He excepts, however, from toleration Roman Catholics and Fifth Monarchy men. His attention to all trade questions was close and constant; he was a member of the council of trade and plantations appointed in 1670, and was its president from 1672 to 1676. The difficulty of the succession also occupied him, and he co-operated thus early in the design of legitimizing Monmouth as a rival to James. In the intrigues which led to the infamous treaty to Dover he had no part. The treaty contained a clause by which Charles was bound to declare himself a Catholic, and with the knowledge of this Ashley, as a stanch Protestant, could not be trusted: In order to blind him and the other Protestant members of the Cabal a sham treaty was arranged in which this clause did not appear, and it was not until a considerable while afterwards that he found out that he had been duped. Under this misunderstanding he signed the sham Dover treaty on the 31st of December 1670. This treaty, however, was kept from public knowledge, and Ashley helped Charles to hoodwink parliament by signing a similar treaty on the 2nd of February 1672, which was laid before them as the only one in existence. His approval of the attempt of the Lords to alter a money bill led to the loss of the supply to Charles and to the consequent displeasure of the king. His support to the Lord Roos Act, ascribed generally to his desire to ingratiate himself with Charles, was no doubt due in part to the fact that his son had married Lord Roos's sister. So far from advising the "Stop of the Exchequer," he opposed this bad measure; the reasons which he left with the king for his opposition are extant. The responsibility rests with Clifford alone. In the other great measure of the Cabal ministry, Charles's Declaration of Indulgence, he concurred. He was now rewarded by being made earl of Shaftesbury and Baron Cooper of Pawlett by a patent dated the 23rd of April 1672. It is stated too that he was offered, but refused, the lord treasurership. On the 17th of November 1672, however, he became lord chancellor, Bridgman having been compelled to resign the seat. As chancellor he issued writs for the election of thirty-six new members to fill vacancies caused during the long recess; this, though grounded upon precedent, was open to suspicion as an attempt to fortify Charles, and was attacked by an angry House of Commons which met on the 4th of February 1673. The writs were cancelled, and the principle was established that the issuing of writs rested with the House itself. It was at the opening of parliament that Shaftesbury made his celebrated "delenda est Carthago" speech against Holland, in which he urged the Second Dutch War, on the ground of the necessity of destroying so formidable a commercial rival to England, excused the Stop of the Exchequer which he had opposed, and vindicated the Declaration of Indulgence. On the 8th of March he announced to parliament that the declaration had been cancelled, though he did his best to induce Charles to remain firm. For affixing the great seal to this declaration he was threatened with impeachment by the Commons. The Test Act was now brought forward, and Shaftesbury, who appears to have heard how he had been duped in 1670, supported it, with the object probably of thereby getting rid of Clifford. He now began to be regarded as the chief upholder of Protestantism in the ministry; he lost favour with Charles, and on Sunday, the 9th of September 1673, was dismissed from the chancellorship. Among the reasons for this dismissal is probably the fact that he opposed grants to the king's mistresses. He had been accused of vanity and ostentation in his office, but his reputation for ability and integrity as a judge was high even with his enemies.

Charles soon regretted the loss of Shaftesbury, and endeavoured, as did also Louis, to induce him to return, but in vain. He preferred now to become the great popular leader against all the measures of the court, and may be regarded as the intellectual chief of the opposition. At the meeting of parliament on the 8th of January 1674, he carried a motion for a proclamation banishing Catholics to a distance of 10 m. from London. During the whole session he organized and directed the opposition in their attacks on the king's ministers. On the 19th of May he was dismissed the privy council and ordered to leave London. He retired to Wimborne and urged upon his parliamentary followers the necessity of securing a new parliament. He was in the House of Lords, however, in 1675, when Danby brought forward his famous Non-resisting Test Bill, and headed the opposition which was carried on for seventeen days, distinguishing himself, says Burnet, more in this session than ever before. The bill was shelved, a prorogation having taken place in consequence of a quarrel between the two Houses, supposed to have been purposely got up by Shaftesbury, in which he supported the right of the Lords to hear appeal cases, even where the defendant was a member of the Lower House. Parliament was prorogued for fifteen months until the 15th of February 1677, and it was determined by the opposition to attack its existence on the ground that a prorogation for more than a year was illegal. In this matter the opposition were in the wrong, and by attacking the parliament discredited themselves. The result was that Shaftesbury, Buckingham, Wharton and Salisbury were sent to the Tower. In June Shaftesbury applied for a writ of habeas corpus, but could get no release until the 26th of February 1678, after his letter and three petitions to the king. Being brought before the bar of the House of Lords he made submission as to his conduct in declaring parliament dissolved by the prorogation, and in violating the Lords' privileges by bringing a habeas corpus in the King's Bench.

The breaking out of the Popish Terror in 1678 marks the worst part of Shaftesbury's career. That so clear-headed a man could have credited the lies of Oates and the other perjurers is beyond belief; and the manner in which he excited baseless alarms, and encouraged fanatic cruelty, for nothing but party advantage, is without excuse. On the 2nd of November he opened the great attack by proposing an address declaring the necessity for the king's dismissing James from his council. Under his advice the opposition now made an alliance with Louis whereby the French king promised to help them to ruin Danby on condition that they would compel Charles, by stopping the supplies, to make peace with France, doing thus a grave injury to Protestant- ism abroad for the sake of a temporary party advantage at home. Upon the refusal in November of the Lords to concur in the address of the Commons requesting the removal of the queen from court, he joined in a protest against the refusal, and was foremost in all the violent acts of the session. He urged on the bill by which Catholics were prohibited from sitting in either House of Parliament, and was bitter in his expressions of disappointment when the Commons passed a proviso excepting James, against whom the bill was especially aimed, from its operation. A new parliament met on the 6th of March 1679. Shaftesbury had meanwhile ineffectually warned the king that unless he followed his advice there would be no peace with the people. On the 25th of March he made a striking speech upon the state of the nation, especially upon the dangers to Protestantism and the misgovernment of Scotland and Ireland. He was suspected, too, of doing all in his power to bring about a revolt in Scotland. By the advice of Temple, Charles now tried the experiment of forming a new privy council in which the chief members of the opposition were included, and Shaftesbury was made president, with a salary of £4000, being also a member of the committee for foreign affairs. He did not, however, in any way change either his opinions or his action. He opposed the compelling of Protestant Nonconformists to take the oath required of Roman Catholics. That indeed, as Ranke says, which makes him memorable in English history is that he opposed the establishment of an Anglican and Royalist organization with success. The question of the succession was now again prominent, and Shaftesbury, in opposition to Halifax, committed the error, which really brought about his fall, of putting forward Monmouth as his nominee, thus alienating a large number of his supporters; he encouraged, too, the belief that this was agreeable to the king. He pressed on the Exclusion Bill with all his power, and, when that and the inquiry into the payments for secret service and the trial of the five peers, for which too he had been eager, were brought to an end by a sudden prorogation, he is reported to have declared aloud that he would have the heads of those who were the king's advisers to this course. Before the prorogation, however, he saw the invaluable Act of Habeas Corpus, which he had carried through parliament, receive the royal assent. In pursuance of his patronage of Monmouth, Shaftesbury now secured for him the command of the army sent to suppress the insurrection in Scotland, which he is supposed to have fomented. In October 1679, the circumstances which led Charles to desire to conciliate the opposition having ceased, Shaftesbury was dismissed from his presidency and from the privy council; when applied to by Sunderland to return to office he made as conditions the divorce of the queen and the exclusion of James. With nine other peers he presented a petition to the king in November, praying for the meeting of parliament, of which Charles took no notice. In April, upon the king's declaration that he was resolved to send for James from Scotland, Shaftesbury advised the popular leaders at once to leave the council, and they followed his advice. In March we find him unscrupulously eager in the prosecution of the alleged Irish Catholic plot. Upon the king's illness in May he held frequent meetings of Monmouth's friends at his house to consider how best to act for the security of the Protestant religion. On the 26th of June, accompanied by fourteen others, he presented to the grand jury of Westminster an indictment of the duke of York as a Popish recusant. In the middle of September he was seriously ill. On the 15th of November the Exclusion Bill, having passed the Commons, was brought up to the Lords, and an historic debate took place, in which Halifax and Shaftesbury were the leaders on opposite sides. The bill was thrown out, and Shaftesbury signed the protest against its rejection. The next day he urged upon the House the divorce of the queen. On the 7th of December, to his lasting dishonour, he voted for the condemnation of Lord Stafford. On the 2.3rd he again spoke vehemently for exclusion, and his speech was immediately printed. All opposition was, however, checked by the dissolution on the 18th of January. A new parliament was called to meet at Oxford, to avoid the influences of the city of London, where Shaftesbury had taken the greatest pains to make himself popular. Shaftesbury, with fifteen other peers, petitioned the king that it might as usual be held in the capital. He prepared instructions to be handed by constituencies to their members upon election, in which exclusion, disbanding, the limitation of the prerogative in proroguing and dissolving parliament, and security against popery and arbitrary power were insisted on. At this parliament, which lasted but a few days, he again made a personal appeal to Charles, which was curtly rejected, to permit the legitimizing of Monmouth. The king's advisers now urged him to arrest Shaftesbury; he was seized on the 2nd of July 1681, and committed to the Tower, the judges refusing his petition to be tried or admitted to bail. This refusal was twice repeated in September and October, the court hoping to obtain evidence sufficient to ensure his ruin. In October he wrote offering to retire to Carolina if he were released. On the 24th of November he was indicted for high treason at the Old Bailey, the chief ground being a paper of association for the defence of the Protestant religion, which, though among his papers, was not in his handwriting; but the grand jury ignored the bill. He was released on bail on the 1st of December. In 1682, however, Charles secured the appointment of Tory sheriffs for London; and, as the juries were chosen by the sheriffs, Shaftesbury felt that he was no longer safe from the vengeance of the court. Failing health and the disappointment of his political plans led him into violent courses. He appears to have entered into consultation of a treasonable kind with Monmouth and others; he himself had, he declared, ten thousand brisk boys in London ready to rise at his bidding. For some weeks he was concealed in the city and in Wapping; but, finding the schemes for a rising hang fire, he went to Harwich, disguised as a Presbyterian minister, and after a week's delay, during which he was in imminent risk of discovery, if indeed, as is probable, his escape was not winked at by the government, he sailed to Holland on the 28th of November 1682, and reached Amsterdam in the beginning of December. Here he was welcomed with the jest, referring to his famous speech against the Dutch, "nondum deleta Carthago." He was made a citizen of Amsterdam, but died there of gout in the stomach on the 21st of January 1683. His body was sent in February to Poole, in Dorset, and was buried at Wimborne St Giles.

Few politicians have been the mark of such abuse as Shaftesbury. Dryden, while compelled to honour him as an upright judge, overwhelmed his memory with scathing, if venal, satire; and Dryden's satire has been accepted as truth by later historians. Macaulay in especial exerted all his art, though in contradiction of probability and fact, to deepen still further the shade which rests upon his reputation. Christie, on the other hand, in possession of later sources of information, and with more honest purpose, did much to rehabilitate him. Occasionally, however, he appears to hold a brief for the defence, and, though the picture is comparatively true, this Life (1871) should be read with caution. Finally, in his monograph (1886) in the series of "English Worthies," H. D. Traill professes to hold the scales equally. He makes an interesting addition to our conception of Shaftesbury's place in English politics, by insisting on his position as the first great party leader in the modern sense, and as the founder of modern parliamentary oratory. In other respects his book is derived almost entirely from Christie. See also the present writer's article in the Dict. Nat. Biog. Much of Shaftesbury's career, increasingly so as it came near its close, is incapable of defence; but it has escaped most of his critics that his life up to the Restoration, apparently full of inconsistencies, was evidently guided by one leading principle, the determination to uphold the supremacy of parliament, a principle which, however obscured by self-interest, appears also to have underlain his whole political career. He was, too, ever the friend of religious freedom and of an enlightened policy in all trade questions. And, above all, it should not be forgotten, in justice to Shaftesbury's memory, that "during his long political career, in an age of general corruption, he was ever incorrupt, and never grasped either money or land." (0. A.)

<< Shaft

Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury) >>

(1st Earl Of (1st Earl Of (1st Earl Of


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address