others began to concert measures against the king's absolutism, Cavendish, alarmed at their expressions, early withdrew himself from their meetings; nor was he at a later date in any way implicated in Monmouth's rising. In May there was some talk of his quitting the popular for the court party along with Lord Howard of Escrick, and in October he kissed the king's hand at Newmarket, and was received into favour (Luttrell, i. 89, 133). Still he appeared as a witness for the prisoner on Russell's trial, and even, according to Burnet, offered, through Sir John Forbes, to change clothes with him in prison, they both being of much the same tall figure, though otherwise unlike enough. Russell, however, refused, and when Cavendish attended him on the day of execution, Russell earnestly exhorted him to a more christian way of life, and produced a deep impression by his farewell. Cavendish was also a very intimate friend of Mr. Thomas Thynne, and when the latter was assassinated in Pall Mall by three Germans, in Count Coningsmarck's pay, he not only brought the assassins to justice, but when Coningsmarck was corruptly acquitted, challenged him to a duel at Calais. The challenge only reached the count at Newport in Flanders, and he replied that he would wait there three weeks. The reply was sent in a packet to the Swedish president, who, mistrusting its contents, opened it and communicated them to the secretary of state. Thereon a writ of ne exeat regno was issued and was served on Cavendish and Lord Mordant, who also had sent a challenge, and they were compelled to give security. Later on Colonel Maccarty, meeting the count in Paris, told him of Cavendish's desire to meet him, to which the count replied that he was in the employment of Louis XIV, and that the French law rigorously forbade duels (ib. 174, 210). Cavendish had been out before. In 1676 he fought and dangerously wounded Lord Mohun, and in 1680 was Lord Plymouth's second in his duel with Sir G. Huet (Hutton Correspondence, Camd. Soc., i. 142, 222).
In 1684 he succeeded his father in the earldom, and on the accession of James he was one of the peers who proposed to discuss the speech from the throne. After Monmouth's rebellion he withdrew from court. Having been insulted by Colonel Thomas Colepeper [q. v.] he had forgiven him upon the terms of his appearing at Whitehall no more. But on Monmouth's defeat Colepeper reappeared. Evelyn, who was present, says (9 July 1685): ‘Just as I was coming into the lodgings at Whitehall, my lord of Devonshire standing very neare his majesty's bed-chamber doore in the lobby, came Colonel Colepeper and in a rude manner looking my lord in the face asked whether this was a time and place for excluders to appear. My lord told him he was no excluder; the other affirming it again, my lord told him he lied, on which Colepeper struck him a box on the ear, which my lord returned, and felled him’ (cf. Ellis Correspondence, ii. 289). On this an information was issued against Devonshire out of the king's bench, and in spite of his plea of peer's privilege the court, whether with or without consultation with the king or chancellor, sentenced him to a fine of 30,000l., and committed him to the king's bench prison till payment. The countess, his mother, brought to James bonds of Charles I for 60,000l., lent to him in the civil war by the Cavendishes, and offered them all for the release of ‘her son Billy;’ but James was obdurate. Devonshire, however, found means to escape, and fled to Chatsworth, where, when the sheriff of Derby and his posse came to arrest him, he imprisoned the whole force till he arranged for his liberty by giving his bond for payment of the fine. But the duke had his revenge. On 30 June 1697, ‘meeting Colonel Colepeper at the Auction House in St. Alban's Street, he caned him for being troublesome to him in the late reign’ (Luttrell, iv. 246). After the revolution the bond was found among James's papers and cancelled, and the record of the conviction was removed from the file of the exchequer. A committee of the lords reported, 22 April 1689, that the ‘court of king's bench, in overruling the Earl of Devonshire's plea of privilege of parliament and forcing him to plead over in chief, it being the usual time of privilege, did thereby commit a manifest breach of the privileges of parliament;’ the records were brought up, the judges, Sir Robert Wright, Sir Richard Holloway, and Mr. Justice Powell, brought to the bar (6 May), and after they had humbly apologised for their error, the legality of the committal of a peer was argued, and the opinions of the judges taken on 7 and 15 May, and it was decided to be illegal.
For some years Devonshire remained in strict retirement, and occupied himself with the erection of Chatsworth. The work began 12 April 1687, and lasted till 1706; the architect was William Talman; Verrio and Thornhill were employed on the painting; and it is said that the wood carving, though this is doubtful, was the work of Grinling Gibbons. It is a remarkable instance of the purity of the earl's taste that at this period and afterwards, in the time of the Dutch fashion, he should, in his building and collections, have adhered to the best Italian
