Thomas Osborne, 1st Duke of Leeds

Osborne was introduced to public life and court by his neighbour in Yorkshire, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. In 1661 he was appointed High Sheriff of Yorkshire and was then elected MP for York in 1665. He made the "first step in his future rise" by joining Buckingham in his attack on the Earl of Clarendon in 1667.[4] In 1668 he was appointed joint Treasurer of the Navy with Sir Thomas Lyttelton, and subsequently sole treasurer. He succeeded Sir William Coventry as commissioner for the state treasury in 1669, and in 1673 was appointed a commissioner for the admiralty. He was created Viscount Osborne in the Scottish peerage on 2 February 1673, and a privy councillor on 3 May. On 19 June, on the resignation of Lord Clifford, he was appointed lord treasurer and made Baron Osborne of Kiveton and Viscount Latimer in the peerage of England, while on 27 June 1674 he was created Earl of Danby, by Charles II when he surrendered his Scottish peerage of Osborne to his third son Peregrine Osborne; (he was on his mother's side a great-nephew of the previous Earl of Danby). He was appointed the same year lord-lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and in 1677 received the Garter.[4]

In 1673 Osborne opposed Charles II's Royal Declaration of Indulgence, supported the Test Act, and spoke against the proposal for giving relief to the dissenters. In June 1675 he signed the paper of advice drawn up by the bishops for the king, urging the rigid enforcement of the laws against the Roman Catholics, their complete banishment from the court, and the suppression of conventicles.[5] A bill introduced by him imposing special taxes on recusants and subjecting Roman Catholic priests to imprisonment for life was only thrown out as too lenient because it secured offenders from the charge of treason. The same year he 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; but this extreme measure of retrograde toryism was rejected. The king opposed and also doubted the wisdom and practicability of this "thorough" policy of repression.[4] Danby, therefore, ordered a return from every diocese of the numbers of dissenters, both Catholic and Protestant, in order to prove their insignificance, in order to remove the royal scruples (this became known as the Compton Census).[6] In December 1676 he issued a proclamation for the suppression of coffee-houses because of the "defamation of His Majesty's Government" which took place in them,[4] but this was soon withdrawn. In 1677, to secure Protestantism in case of a Roman Catholic succession, he introduced a bill by which ecclesiastical patronage and the care of the royal children were entrusted to the bishops; but this measure, like the other, was thrown out.[4]

In foreign affairs, Danby showed a stronger grasp of essentials. He desired to increase English trade, credit and power abroad. He was a determined enemy both to Roman influence and to French ascendancy. As he wrote in a memorandum in the summer of 1677, an English Minister must consider only how England's interests stand, and all considerations including trade, religion, and public opinion pointed to the Dutch Republic, not France, as the desired ally. He terminated the war with the Dutch Republic in 1674, and from that time maintained a friendly correspondence with William of Orange. In 1677, after two years of tedious negotiations, he overcame all obstacles, and in spite of James's opposition, and without the knowledge of Louis XIV, effected the marriage between William and Mary that was the germ of the Revolution and the Act of Settlement.[4]

This national policy, however, could only be pursued, and the minister could only maintain himself in power, by acquiescence in the king's personal relations with the king of France settled by the Treaty of Dover in 1670,[7] which included Charles's acceptance of a pension, and bound him to a policy exactly opposite to Danby's, one furthering French and Roman ascendancy.[4] Though not a member of the Cabal ministry, and in spite of his own denial, Danby must, it would seem, have known of the relations between King Charles and King Louis after becoming Lord Treasurer. In any case, in 1676, together with Lauderdale alone, he consented to a treaty between Charles and Louis according to which the foreign policy of both kings was to be conducted in union, and Charles received an annual subsidy of £100,000. In 1678 Charles, taking advantage of the growing hostility to France in the nation and parliament, raised his price, and Danby by his directions demanded through Ralph Montagu (afterwards Duke of Montagu) six million livres a year (£300,000) for three years.[8]

Simultaneously with negotiating the royal policy of an Anglo-French alliance, Danby guided through parliament a bill for raising money for a war against France; a league was concluded with the Dutch Republic, and troops were actually sent there. That Danby, in spite of his compromising transactions on the King's behalf, remained in intention faithful to the national interests, appears clear from the hostility with which he was still regarded by France. In 1676, Ruvigny described Danby to Louis XIV as intensely antagonistic to France and French interests, and as doing his utmost to prevent the treaty of that year.[9] In 1678, on the rupture of relations between Charles and Louis, a splendid opportunity of paying off old scores was afforded Louis by disclosing Danby's participation in Charles's demands for French gold.[8]

In appointing a new secretary of state, Danby had preferred Sir William Temple, a strong adherent of the anti-French policy, to Ralph Montagu (later the Duke of Montagu). Montagu, after a quarrel with the Duchess of Cleveland, was dismissed from the king's employment. He immediately went over to the opposition, and in concert with Louis XIV and Paul Barillon, the French ambassador, who supplied him with a large sum of money, arranged a plan for effecting Danby's ruin. He obtained a seat in parliament; and in spite of Danby's endeavour to seize his papers by an order in council, on 20 December 1678 caused two incriminating letters written by Danby to him to be read aloud to the House of Commons by the Speaker. The House immediately resolved on Danby's impeachment. At the foot of each of the letters appeared the king's postscripts, "I approve of this letter. C.R.",[11] in his own handwriting; but they were not read by the Speaker, and were entirely ignored in the proceedings against the minister, thus emphasising the constitutional principle that obedience to the king's orders is not a bar to impeachment.[11]

Danby was charged with having assumed royal powers by treating matters of peace and war without the knowledge of the council, with having raised a standing army on the pretence of war with France, with having obstructed the assembling of Parliament, and with corruption and embezzlement in the treasury. Danby, when communicating the "Popish Plot" to Parliament, had from the first expressed his disbelief in Titus Oates's revelations, he now stood accused of having "traitorously concealed the plot".[11] He was voted guilty by the Commons; but while the Lords were disputing whether the accused peer should have bail, and whether the charges amounted to more than a misdemeanour, Parliament was prorogued on 30 December and dissolved three weeks later. While Danby had few friends, the debate in the Lords showed a notable reluctance to impeach a Crown servant for simply carrying out Crown policy: Charles Dormer, 2nd Earl of Carnarvon, in a remarkably witty speech, reminded his peers of how many of their predecessors had taken part in impeachments, only to end up being impeached themselves. In March 1679, a new Parliament hostile to Danby was returned, and he was forced to resign the treasurership; but he received a pardon from the king under the Great Seal, and a warrant for a marquessate.[16] His proposed advancement in rank was severely reflected upon in the Lords, Halifax declaring it in the king's presence the recompense of treason, "not to be borne".[11] In the Commons, his retirement from office did not appease his antagonists. The proceedings against him were revived, a committee of privileges deciding on 23 March 1679 that the dissolution of Parliament did not abate the impeachment. The Lords passed a motion for his committal, and, as in Clarendon's case, his banishment. This was rejected by the Commons, who passed a bill of attainder. Danby had gone to the country, but returned to London on 21 April to protest the threatened attainder, and was sent to the Tower of London. In his written defence, he pleaded the King's pardon, but on 5 May 1679, this plea was pronounced illegal by the Commons. The declaration that a Royal Pardon was no defence to impeachment by the House of Commons was repeated by the Commons in 1689, and was finally embodied in the Act of Settlement 1701.[11]

The Commons now demanded judgment against the prisoner from the Lords. Further proceedings, however, were stopped by the dissolution of Parliament in July; but for nearly five years Danby remained in the Tower. A number of pamphlets asserting his complicity in the Popish Plot, and even accusing him of the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, were published in 1679 and 1680; they were answered by Danby's secretary, Edward Christian in Reflections. In May 1681 Danby was indicted by the Grand Jury of Middlesex for Godfrey's murder on the accusation of Edward Fitzharris. His petition to the king for a trial by his peers was refused, and an attempt to prosecute the publishers of the false evidence on the king's bench was unsuccessful. For some time all appeals to the king, to Parliament, and to the courts were unavailing; but on 12 February 1684 his application to Chief Justice Jeffreys was successful, and he was set at liberty on bail of £40,000, to appear in the House of Lords in the following session. He visited the king the same day, but took no part in public affairs for the rest of the reign.[11]

Danby had rendered extremely important services to William's cause. On 20 April 1689, he was created Marquess of Carmarthen and made lord-lieutenant of the three ridings of Yorkshire. He was, however, still greatly disliked by the Whigs, and William, instead of reinstating him as Lord Treasurer, appointed him to the lesser post of Lord President of the Council in February 1689. His overt vexation and disappointment at this turn of events were increased by the appointment of Halifax as Lord Privy Seal. The antagonism between the "black" and the "white" marquess (the latter being the nickname given to Carmarthen in allusion to his sickly appearance),[19] which had been forgotten in their common hatred to the French and to Rome, revived in all its bitterness. He retired to the country and was seldom present at the council. In June and July, motions were made in Parliament for his removal; but notwithstanding his great unpopularity, on Halifax's retirement in 1690 he again acquired the chief power in the state, which he retained until 1695 by bribes in Parliament and the support of the king and queen.[19]

In 1690, during William's absence in Ireland, Carmarthen was appointed Mary's chief advisor. In 1691, attempting to compromise Halifax, he discredited himself by the patronage of an informer named Fuller, who was soon shown to be an impostor. He was absent in 1692 when the Place Bill was thrown out. In 1693, Carmarthen presided in great state as Lord High Steward at the trial of Lord Mohun; and on 4 May 1694 he was created Duke of Leeds.[20] The same year he supported the Triennial Bill, but opposed the new treason bill as weakening the hands of the executive. Meanwhile, fresh attacks were made upon him. He was accused unjustly of Jacobitism. In April 1695, he was impeached once more by the Commons on suspicion of having received a bribe of 5000 guineas to procure a new charter for the East India Company. Although he had not actually accepted the gold, he had allowed it to remain in his house for over a year, only returning it when the inquiry began. In his defence, while denying that he had intended to take the money ("it had been left with him only to be counted by his secretary") and appealing to his past services, Leeds did not attempt to conceal the fact that according to his experience bribery was an acknowledged and universal custom in public business, and that he himself had been instrumental in obtaining money for others. Meanwhile, his servant, who was said to have been the intermediary between the duke and the company, fled the country; and with no evidence to convict, the proceedings fell apart.[19]

In May 1695, Leeds was ordered to cease his attendance at the council. He returned in October but was not included among the Lords Justices appointed regents during William's absence in this year. In November he was granted a DCL by the University of Oxford. In December, he became a commissioner of trade, and in December 1696, governor of the Royal Fishery Company. He opposed the prosecution of Sir John Fenwick, but supported the action taken by members of both Houses in defence of William's rights in the same year. In 1698, he entertained Tsar Peter the Great at Wimbledon. He had for some time lost the real direction of affairs, and in 1699 he was compelled to retire from office and from the lord-lieutenancy of Yorkshire.[19]

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Yorke, Philip Chesney (1911). "Leeds, Thomas Osborne, 1st Duke of". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 16 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 366–368.