KNOLLYS, William (c.1544-1632)

Knollys was descended from a distinguished fourteenth-century soldier who became a companion of the Black Prince. However, it was his own father, Sir Francis Knollys^‡, who laid the foundations of the family’s political success by marrying Catherine Carey, a first cousin of the future Elizabeth I. A prominent Marian exile, Sir Francis returned to England following his kinswoman’s accession, and rose rapidly at court, becoming a privy councillor, treasurer of the household, and a knight of the Garter, as well as lord lieutenant of Berkshire and Oxfordshire, the counties where the bulk of his property lay.69 W. Dugdale, Baronage of Eng. ii. (1676), 412-13; Sainty, 12, 30; Nicolas, 291. Knollys himself thus grew up close to the centres of power. Having impressed James VI of Scotland during a brief diplomatic mission in 1585, he served in the Netherlands in the following year under his brother-in-law, Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester, besides accumulating numerous minor offices, and sitting in six Elizabethan parliaments, usually representing Oxfordshire.70 Letters of King James VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 67; CSP For. 1586-7, p. 85. Following his father’s death in 1596, Knollys took on his mantle as a privy councillor and lord lieutenant, but had to settle initially for the comptrollership of the household. Although generally seen as an adherent of his nephew, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, in the factional struggles at court during this decade, Knollys nevertheless distanced himself from the fallen favourite prior to the ill-fated 1601 rebellion, during which he was briefly imprisoned at Essex House. In December 1602, in the dying months of Elizabeth’s reign, he was unexpectedly promoted to the treasurership of the household.71 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 397; HMC Bath, v. 269; HMC Rutland, i. 371; Chamberlain Letters, i. 179.

Peer and courtier, 1603-6

By dint of his offices one of the most senior government figures who oversaw the transition to the Stuart regime, Knollys was an early beneficiary of James I’s favour, probably in part because the king was keen to include former members of the Essex faction in his government. Quickly reappointed to all his major offices, he was raised to the peerage in May 1603 as Lord Knollys of Greys, his principal Oxfordshire seat. Unusually, the creation ceremony was performed at the Tower of London, which James was visiting for the first time.72 HMC Hatfield, xv. 49; SO3/2, p. 4; Dugdale, ii. 413.

Knollys was issued with his first writ of summons to the Lords on 18 Feb. 1604. Five days later, he signed a Privy Council letter reminding the sheriff of Essex that the soliciting of votes in the forthcoming parliamentary elections was forbidden. The Council’s intervention was in fact a partisan move designed to shore up support for Sir Edward Denny^* (later earl of Norwich), the candidate for Essex knight of the shire favoured by two of the most powerful figures at court, Robert Cecil^*, Lord Cecil (later 1st earl of Salisbury) and Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk. As Denny’s principal rival, Sir Francis Barrington^‡, was being backed by Knollys’s nephew by marriage, Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich (later 1st earl of Warwick), Knollys himself presumably had mixed feelings about getting involved in this local contest.73 CSP Dom. 1603 -10, p. 78; HMC 7th Rep. 542-3; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 121-2; CP, xii. pt. 2, p. 405. However, he had no such qualms where his own electoral patronage was concerned. As high steward of Reading, he apparently secured the return there of one of his London neighbours, Sir Jerome Bowes^‡, while his influence as lord lieutenant of Berkshire doubtless assisted the election of his brother, Sir Francis Knollys^‡, as senior knight of the shire.74 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 8, 13-14; iii. 266. The Reading article mistakenly describes Sir Francis Knollys as high steward.

Knollys attended all but one sitting of the 1604 session, going absent only on 28 March. He held the proxies of Lord Rich, Henry Grey^*, 1st Lord Grey of Groby (a former colleague in the band of gentlemen pensioners) and William Russell^*, 1st Lord Russell.75 LJ, ii. 263a-b. Knollys received 39 nominations during this session. As a privy councillor and senior court official, he was naturally drawn into discussions of government-related business. Twice named to confer with the Commons about buying out wardship, he was also appointed to two conferences on the tunnage and poundage bill, and a measure to create a royal entail. Popular opposition to purveyance will have been of particular concern to Knollys, given that he was treasurer of the household, and he was therefore not surprisingly nominated both to a conference on this subject, and a joint subcommittee to consider reform proposals. In addition, he was named to the committee for the bill to defray the costs of the king’s household.76 LJ, ii. 266b, 290b, 292a, 298a, 303a, 323a, 341b. Selected for two conferences on the proposed Anglo-Scottish Union, he was also twice nominated to confer with the lower House about the controversial book on the Union by John Thornborough^*, bishop of Bristol.77 Ibid. 278a, 284a, 309a, 332b.

Known as one of the more devout Protestants at court, Knollys was drawn heavily into matters pertaining to religion during the 1604 session. Appointed to scrutinize both versions of the bills to suppress popish books, and enforce anti-recusancy laws, he was also nominated to a conference on ecclesiastical affairs, and to a bill committee concerned with church courts.78 SP14/83/21; A.J. Loomie, ‘Toleration and Diplomacy’, Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. n.s. liii. no. 6, p. 16; LJ, ii. 282b, 290a, 301b, 314a, 323a, 324b. In addition, he was named to both legislative committees on witchcraft, and to the committee for the bill to prevent the diminution of episcopal property. He certainly attended the legislative committee concerning a lease made by Westminster Abbey’s chapter to the crown, as he signed the subsequent report.79 LJ, ii. 269a, 275a, 279a, 311a; Hatfield House, CP 111/73.

Among the rest of Knollys’s legislative appointments were committees relating to the restitution in blood of William Paget^* (later 5th Lord Paget), his niece’s husband, and Paget’s uncle, Charles Paget. He was also required to consider measures concerning the estates of his wife’s kinsman Gray Brydges^*, 5th Lord Chandos, and the late Berkshire gentleman, Sir Henry Unton^‡. Although details are now lacking, Knollys apparently took part in the debates about the rival claims to the barony of Abergavenny, since he was named to help review the clerk’s draft of these proceedings. He was also nominated to the committee for the estate bill brought in by Edward Neville^*, the newly recognized 8th (or 1st) Lord Abergavenny.80 LJ, ii. 267b, 274a, 307a, 336b-7a; CP, x. 284. While Knollys evidently took little time to establish himself in the upper House, it was perhaps his long experience of the Commons which determined his appointment to the committees for the highly sensitive bills designed to resolve the case of Sir Thomas Shirley^‡. His remaining legislative committee appointments covered such issues as the residence requirements of Oxford and Cambridge academics, and enforcement of the long neglected sumptuary laws.81 LJ, ii. 284b, 295b, 299b, 332a.

During the next year, Knollys continued to perform the numerous tasks expected of him at court, arbitrating in disputes, serving on commissions concerning both the king’s household and the wider business of government, and attending state occasions such as the creation of Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) as duke of York.82 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 532; Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 447; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 138; Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 128. The king apparently regarded him as conscientious but perhaps overly cautious, comparing him in October 1605 to St Thomas, ‘the apostle [who] would not believe till he touched’. Nevertheless, Knollys was not unpopular at court. During the summer of 1605 he was visited at Greys by James, Anne of Denmark and Prince Henry, and he was now also on friendly terms with the lord chamberlain, the earl of Suffolk.83 Letters of King James VI and I, 266; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 316; xvii. 607; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 518.

No doubt caught up in the Privy Council’s urgent efforts to respond to the Gunpowder Plot, Knollys missed the first two sittings of the 1605-6 parliamentary session, not appearing in the Lords until the afternoon of 9 November. However, following the long recess over Christmas, he attended all but eight of the remaining sittings, an overall performance of nearly 90 per cent, and attracted 46 nominations. Parliament’s immediate priority was to address the Plot, and Knollys was appointed in January 1606 to select committees to review existing legislation for protecting Church and state, and consider an appropriate punishment for the surviving plotters. He was also named to confer with the Commons on the measures required to preserve the established order, and nominated to the committee for the bill to attaint the plotters. When a revised bill proved necessary, Knollys was further appointed to scrutinize that measure, along with other bills for the suppression of sedition and recusancy.84 LJ, ii. 360b, 363a, 367a-b, 380b, 401a, 419b. The counterpart to anti-Catholic legislation was a drive to strengthen the Church of England. Knollys was named to bill committees about blasphemous swearing, Sabbath observance, and attacks by church courts on Protestants with leanings towards nonconformity. Chosen to help draft a reply to the Commons’ request for a conference on ecclesiastical matters, he was then appointed to attend this gathering.85 Ibid. 365a, 381a, 384a, 409a, 411a, 437a.

As in 1604, Knollys was involved in discussions about purveyance. Named to the committee for the bill to reform this levy, he was subsequently nominated to a conference on the same topic. Fresh efforts were made during this session to entail specific properties on the crown, and again Knollys was appointed to the relevant legislative committees.86 Ibid. 364a, 407b, 413a-b, 431b; Bowyer Diary, 116-17. As a sometime keeper of the Marshalsea, Knollys was well placed to comment on proposals for reforming this prison, and he was named to a committee which considered two such bills. He was also nominated to help scrutinize two measures to confirm letters patent, one of which related to James I’s foundation of a divinity chair at Oxford University. In addition, Knollys was appointed to legislative committees concerning administrative structures in the Welsh marches, and the procedures for parliamentary elections.87 LJ, ii. 386b, 393b, 406b, 432b, 437a.

Having been named in early March to the committee for the bill to ban brewers from running alehouses, Knollys was instructed ten days later to take charge of this measure. He finally reported the bill on 26 Apr., after which it was approved by the Lords, but rejected by the Commons.88 Ibid. 390b, 396b, 400a, 417b; CJ, i. 304a. Other economic legislation which Knollys may have scrutinized included bills on free trade with Spain, Portugal and France, cloth and beer exports, navigation on the Thames between London and Oxford, and the relief of decayed provincial towns.89 LJ, ii. 380a, 388a, 399b, 410a, 422a. Knollys was appointed to several estate bill committees which concerned his family circle, namely the 3rd Lord Rich, the 5th Lord Chandos, and the late Charles Blount^*, 1st earl of Devonshire, who had controversially married Knollys’s niece, Penelope Devereux, following her divorce from Lord Rich. As the owner of a house near Whitehall Palace, Knollys was also well-placed to comment on the bills to assure certain properties in the Strand, Westminster to Robert Cecil (now 1st earl of Salisbury), and to restrict construction of new buildings in the London suburbs.90 Ibid. 376a, 386a, 389a, 420b, 433b.

Allied to the Howards, 1606-12

In the course of the second Jacobean parliamentary session, Knollys’s personal circumstances changed dramatically. His wife Dorothy, to whom he had been married for more than 20 years, died in October 1605. Knollys had joked with the earl of Salisbury only a few months earlier that a man ‘worn with years’ like himself should never contemplate taking a young bride.91 Chamberlain Letters, i. 214; Hatfield House, CP 108/134. Nevertheless, finding himself a childless widower, he did precisely that, and in January 1606 married the earl of Suffolk’s daughter, Elizabeth Howard. He was now aged around 61, while she was just 19, and had hitherto been viewed as a potential match for Edward Vaux^*, 4th Lord Vaux, who was two years her junior. Although Elizabeth bore Knollys at least one child, a daughter who died young, this was very obviously a political union, binding him firmly to the Howard faction at court, and thus to Salisbury, in a further healing of the old rivalries between the Cecil and Devereux factions. Elizabeth doubtless had little say in the matter.92 Nicolas, 293-4; G. Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, 340; T. Milles, Catalogue of Honour (1610), 546.

When Parliament reconvened in November 1606, Knollys again attended assiduously. Rarely absent from the Lords until late May 1607, he was present for just over four-fifths of this session, and received 28 nominations. With the king once more hoping for progress on the Union, Knollys was appointed in November 1606 to a conference on this issue, and in June 1607 to the committee for the bill to repeal laws hostile to Scotland. He was also named to three legislative committees concerning property transfers to or from the crown, including the exchange between James and Salisbury of two Hertfordshire mansions, Theobalds and Hatfield House, besides being nominated to scrutinize both versions of the bill to confirm grants by the commissioners for amending defective titles.93 LJ, ii. 453a, 471b, 494a, 504a, 511a, 520b, 521b. Knollys presumably took an interest in the bill to confirm a Privy Council decision in a dispute involving All Souls College, Oxford. Furthermore, he was appointed to the committee for the controversial bill to restrain the execution of ecclesiastical canons issued by Convocation without parliamentary approval.94 Ibid. 468a, 503a. Knollys was named to a number of bill committees relating to London, their subjects including reform of the Marshalsea, the property of the City’s livery companies, and once again the problem of unregulated suburban growth.95 Ibid. 460b, 479a, 516b Nominated to the committees for both versions of the bill for conserving timber supplies, he was also appointed to scrutinize legislation on tanners, shoemakers, cloth manufacture, alehouses, drunkenness and usury.96 Ibid. 472a, 473b, 487a, 489b, 511a, 514b, 528b.

While Knollys’s marriage alliance did not immediately transform his situation at court, it evidently did him no harm. In July 1607 he obtained a 15-year grant of the lucrative fines pro licentia concordandi levied in the court of Common Pleas, the so-called post fines.97 SO3/3, unfol. (July 1607); CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 438, 531. Around this time he acquired two more borough stewardships, at Banbury and Wallingford, and in the counties where he served as lord lieutenant he brooked no opposition. In March 1609, at Knollys’s request, the earl of Salisbury, now lord treasurer, slapped down the commissioner for the sale of crown woodlands in Oxfordshire, Sir Francis Stonor, after the latter failed to consult the baron about his task.98 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 36, 39. Nevertheless, Knollys found it advisable to consolidate his ties with his wife’s family, and in January 1610 his brothers-in-law Sir Thomas Howard^* (later 1st earl of Berkshire) and Charles Howard were granted the reversion of two of his local offices, the keepership of Ewelme park, and the constableship of Wallingford Castle.99 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 584.

The first parliamentary session of 1610 saw another solid performance by Knollys. He attended 85 per cent of the sittings, attracting 36 nominations, and making 12 speeches. Knollys served as a supporter to his brother-in-law, Theophilus Howard^*, Lord Howard de Walden (later 2nd earl of Suffolk), when the latter was introduced to the Lords. He was evidently also on good terms with the master of the Ordnance, George Carew^*, 1st Lord Carew (later earl of Totness), excusing his absence on 1 May.100 LJ, ii. 549a, 585a; Procs. 1610 ed. E. R. Foster, i. 3. In general, Knollys supported the pronouncements of Lord Treasurer Salisbury. For example, he backed the earl’s handling of the dispute with the Commons over Dr Cowell’s controversial Interpreter, agreeing on 27 Feb. that at a forthcoming conference the peers should merely hear the Commons’ complaints, reserving their response for the time being. Appointed to this conference, Knollys also sided with Salisbury on 8 Mar. against the archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bancroft^*, affirming that the lord treasurer’s call for the book to be suppressed was in line with the king’s own wishes.101 Procs. 1610, i. 19, 180, 188-9; LJ, ii. 557b.

Nevertheless, like most members of the Council, Knollys was evidently not privy to Salisbury’s thinking on the key issue of the Great Contract, and intermittently challenged his tactics. Nominated to the preliminary conference at which the lord treasurer outlined the state of the crown’s finances, Knollys held his peace on the Contract until 1 Mar., when he moved the Lords to inform the Commons of the king’s reluctance to bargain away the royal prerogative of wardship, the key prize which Members sought in return for an annual subsidy. Salisbury, who needed more evidence to convince James that this sacrifice was warranted, promptly blocked Knollys’s proposal, arguing that the peers should first hear what level of supply the lower House was prepared to offer the king.102 LJ, ii. 550b; Procs. 1610, i. 21. On 18 Apr. Knollys was appointed to attend James to establish whether the Commons’ position on wardship was acceptable to him. Eight days later, with Salisbury preparing to brief the lower House on the king’s own latest proposals, Knollys urged the lord treasurer to reveal the scale of the profits which the crown received from the Court of Wards, so that the Lords could assess the viability of the Commons’ current stance. Predictably, Salisbury, who as master of the Wards benefited personally from these revenues, declined to oblige. Nominated once again on 19 June to attend the king, as the Lords sought James’s directions over the interminable negotiations, a cautious Knollys warned his fellow peers a week later not to discuss how the new tax system might be implemented before the Contract itself was agreed.103 LJ, ii. 578b, 618a; Procs. 1610, i. 68, 116, 217.

Having been added to the legislative committee concerned with justice in the north of England, Knollys was also appointed three days later to a conference on this measure. As a prominent officer at court, he was an obvious nominee for bill committees on such topics as maintenance of the navy, the practice of assigning debts to the crown, and, following the assassination of Henri IV, additional measures required to protect James.104 LJ, ii. 631b, 633a, 634b, 643b, 651a. Nevertheless, as a staunch Protestant he was not guaranteed to align himself with the Anglican hierarchy. On 30 Apr. he defended the bill against pluralism and non-residence, a measure popular with the Commons, but detested by many of the bishops, arguing that the two Houses should work together on this issue, to avoid giving encouragement to their Catholic enemies. He was duly named to a committee to devise alternative reform proposals. Similarly, on 11 June Knollys was appointed to the committee for the bill to restrain the execution of canons issued without parliamentary approval, having just blunted episcopal attacks by recommending that the measure have no retrospective force. He again opposed the bishops on 29 June, helping to secure a third reading for the bill about leases involving the clergy.105 Procs. 1610, i. 73, 102, 226, 243; LJ, ii. 587, 611a. This independent attitude towards ecclesiastical affairs also suggests the influence of his Oxford tutor, Lawrence Humphrey, who held that it was a duty of the nobility to uphold the Church and defend true religion.106 J. Simon, Education and Society in Tudor England, 338-9. Unsurprisingly, Knollys was nominated to legislative committees concerning the establishment of sermons at Dorchester, Dorset and Thetford, Norfolk, and the punishment of scandalous ministers.107 LJ, ii. 563b, 569b, 596b, 600a, 641b. The private bills which Knollys was named to scrutinize covered a range of topics, from the estates of Lord Abergavenny, Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, and a Berkshire gentleman named William Essex, to the repair of Minehead harbour in Somerset.108 Ibid. 570b, 577b, 595b, 611a, 631b. On 4 June he attended the creation of Prince Henry as prince of Wales, which took place at Westminster.109 Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 169.

Knollys spent the next few months on progress with the court, reporting to Salisbury on stabling arrangements at Holdenby House, Northamptonshire, and attending the queen at Woodstock, Oxfordshire.110 SP14/57/6; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 324. He attended all but six days of the short second parliamentary session of 1610, receiving seven nominations, and making two speeches. Appointed in October to confer with the Commons about the Great Contract, as negotiations hovered on the brink of collapse, he was also named to the subsequent conference at which the Lords merely requested the lower House to supply the king’s financial needs. On 14 Nov. he conceded that it was now too late for any kind of deal to be struck, though he considered that the king’s final offer should still be communicated to the Commons.111 LJ, ii. 671a, 678a; Procs. 1610, i. 171. Knollys served on the committee for the bill to permit Prince Henry to make leases while still a minor. On 20 Nov. he defended the committee’s decision to report to the House both the original bill, now heavily amended, along with a new draft, a procedural irregularity which was swiftly rejected.112 LJ, ii. 677a; HMC Hastings, iv. 227. Knollys’s remaining appointments, all to legislative committees, concerned the preservation of timber supplies, exports of iron ordnance, brewhouses, and lawsuits over bequests of land.113 LJ, ii. 669a, 670a, 675a.

In March 1611 Knollys participated in the ceremony for the creation of the royal favourite, Robert Carr^* (later earl of Somerset) as Viscount Rochester, carrying the latter’s mantle. Later that year, he succeeded the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley) as high steward of Oxford, and obtained a revised lease of the post fines, presumably on more favourable terms.114 Harl. 5176, f. 204v; Patterson, 250; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 60, 88, 101. Knollys was by now evidently on friendly terms with Lord Treasurer Salisbury, for in April 1612 the dying earl visited Knollys’s other Oxfordshire seat, Caversham, on his way to Bath in search of a cure.115 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 69, 87; Chamberlain Letters, i. 346.

The Howard ascendancy, 1612-18

In the aftermath of Salisbury’s death, the king took advice that the House of Commons had become unmanageable partly because so many great officers of state now sat in the Lords. Accordingly, in June 1612 Knollys was offered a £2,000 pension in return for resigning as treasurer of the household. However, given that this office was probably worth more than £3,000 a year to him, that was too small an incentive, and he reportedly held out for an earldom. When this was not forthcoming he was able, with the backing of his Howard relatives, to retain his post. The ties between Knollys and his wife’s family remained strong. In the following year, when her sister Frances Howard sought the annulment of her marriage in order to wed the royal favourite Rochester, Knollys was a witness to the vital admission of impotence by her current husband, Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, his own great-nephew. In March 1614, the reversion of his lease of the post fines was granted to Knollys’s brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Howard.116 Chamberlain Letters, i. 359; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 51; G.E. Aylmer, King’s Servants, 205. With Suffolk and his allies now the dominant force at court, Knollys’s own position was secure. In April 1613 he entertained Anne of Denmark at Caversham with a masque in which all his brothers-in-law performed, and ingratiated himself further by presenting the queen with gifts valued at £1,500 upon her departure. At the start of the next year, with speculation growing that Suffolk would become lord treasurer, it was rumoured that Knollys, who was now aged around 70, would succeed him as lord chamberlain, though in the event that role passed in July 1614 to Rochester, now earl of Somerset.117 Chamberlain Letters, i. 446, 450, 502; Nichols, ii. 630-9.

In the elections to the 1614 Parliament, Knollys enjoyed greater success as an electoral patron. At Reading he provided a seat for his nephew, Robert Knollys^‡. Now also high steward of Abingdon, Oxford and Wallingford, he was able to nominate one burgess in each borough, his choice falling respectively on another nephew, Sir Robert Knollys^‡, the courtier Sir John Astley^‡, and another of his London neighbours, Sir Carew Reynell^‡.118 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 11, 14, 15-16, 322. Knollys missed just one sitting during this brief session. Appointed at the outset as a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, he received eight other nominations. Having urged the House, on 26 May, to commit the bill against Sabbath abuses, he was duly chosen to help scrutinize it, and also appointed to confer with the Commons about this measure.119 LJ, ii. 686b, 708b, 713b; HMC Hastings, iv. 265. He similarly secured nominations to the legislative committees on lawsuits over bequests of land, and the estates of the Somerscalls family by recommending their commitment.120 HMC Hastings, iv. 244, 247; LJ, ii. 694a, 699b. Knollys was also named to scrutinize bills on the preservation of timber supplies, wasteful consumption of gold and silver, and Monmouth grammar school, besides being appointed to a conference on the bill to include Princess Elizabeth’s offspring in the royal line of succession.121 LJ, ii. 691a, 692b, 697b, 711b.

On the vexed issue of impositions, Knollys, on 24 May, firmly rejected any notion of the Lords conferring with the Commons about their complaints. While recognizing that it was dangerous for the two Houses to be so clearly divided, he insisted that the king stood to lose vital revenues without ordinary subjects benefiting, and that this was a prerogative right, beyond Parliament’s remit: ‘in this we cast our eyes like eagles, and look too high, desirous to see a mote in the sun’. He initially adopted a more moderate stance over the offensive remarks directed at the Commons by Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), observing on 28 May that the reports which had reached the lower House could scarcely be dismissed as common fame, when the Lords were well aware of what had been said. This stance placed him at odds with fellow councillors such as Ellesmere and his father-in-law Suffolk. However, as the Commons’ protests mounted, Knollys’s attitude hardened. On 31 May he recommended that Neile’s apology be accepted by the upper House, and the matter treated as closed. On 6 June he was named to the committee set up to discuss the timing of the session’s premature demise, and on the following day he served as a commissioner for the dissolution.122 HMC Hastings, iv. 258, 268, 270; LJ, ii. 716a, 717a.

In July 1614 the earl of Suffolk became lord treasurer, and advancement followed for his family and friends. By September rumours were circulating that Knollys would become master of the Court of Wards, and he duly received a life grant of this lucrative office in October. In the spring of 1615 he was also created a knight of the Garter, along with the Scottish courtier, Thomas Erskine, Viscount Fentoun [S]. Their ceremonial procession from London to Windsor was notably extravagant. With the two men representing rival factions at court, every detail was scrutinized to assess their relative standing. Knollys’s followers, drawn from the Howard circle, were deemed to be ‘better marshalled and ordered’. However, Fentoun enjoyed the backing of the bedchamber and the emerging royal favourite, George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham), and his party boasted more expensive costumes, and horses supplied from the royal stables.123 HMC Downshire, v. 22, 202, 235; Chamberlain Letters, i. 556, 597, 599.

The earl of Somerset spent much of the summer of 1615 at Greys, an indication of his declining influence at court. The following autumn brought his fall, when he and his wife were implicated in the murder of the earl’s sometime confidante, Sir Thomas Overbury. Somerset sought Knollys’s help, summoning the latter to the Tower so that he could communicate his version of events. However, Knollys in general kept his distance from the disgraced favourite, and in May 1616 he withdrew to Suffolk’s country seat, Audley End, in Essex, while Somerset and his countess stood trial.124 Chamberlain Letters, i. 613; ii. 1; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 316, 331, 333; HMC 7th Rep. 673 (Dec. 1615, miscalendared as 1616). His close kinship with the guilty pair rendered him vulnerable, and just two months later it was reported that the king intended to remove him from the treasurership of the household. In the event, Knollys clung on to the post until November that year, and was generously compensated for his loss of office. Initially offered a £2,000 pension out of the Court of Wards, he instead accepted the option of one wardship a year, of his own choosing, which he presumably expected to bring him more money. He was also created Viscount Wallingford a fortnight before he relinquished the treasurership.125 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 133; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 25, 35; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 407, 416. Even so, he felt keenly the loss of this prestigious office, which had been vested in his family for so long. Moreover, Wallingford’s management of the Court of Wards was now coming under closer scrutiny by the king, who began interfering in its day-to-day running, and in February 1618 imposed new instructions to govern its affairs. Evidently concerned at the direction of events, the viscount attempted to recover the comptrollership of the household in January 1618, but to no avail.126 HMC Downshire, vi. 80-1; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 466, 512, 519-20; Rymer, vii. pt. 3, pp. 47-50.

A reluctant retirement, 1618-25

In July 1618, a Wards officer, Michael Humfrey^‡, whom Wallingford had appointed as a favour to Suffolk, was caught stealing from the court’s coffers. To save himself, he accused the lord treasurer of corruption, thereby helping to precipitate the latter’s dismissal.127 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 34; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 826-7. This was a disaster for Wallingford as well. Within weeks, as an inquiry into the management of the Exchequer gathered pace, word spread that an investigation into the Court of Wards would follow. The viscount’s own resignation was widely predicted, with rumours that he was ‘like to taste of the same sauce’ as Suffolk, should he be found guilty of any impropriety.128 HMC Downshire, vi. 460, 467, 503, 515. In fact, Wallingford seems to have been confident that his record was clean, and stoutly resisted efforts to remove him. In October he even warned the royal favourite Villiers, now marquess of Buckingham, that his treatment was creating ‘precedents [that] may one day prove leading cases to himself’. A month later Wallingford was personally examined by the king, but nothing of substance was proved against him. When he was finally dismissed in January 1619, James told him that, the viscount ‘having been a long servant to Queen Elizabeth and him, he was loath to remove him, neither would he accuse him of negligence, insufficiency or corruption’; however, like several other members of the Howard interest, he possessed one fault ‘which could not stand with his service nor of the state, that he was altogether guided and overruled by an arch-wife’. This allusion to the countesses of Suffolk and Somerset confirmed that it was primarily Wallingford’s family ties which had rendered his position untenable.129 Birch, ii. 93; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 183, 203, 206-7; SP14/103/94.

This time there was no compensation for loss of office, and in the following year Wallingford also had to surrender his grant of a wardship a year, though he was handed a smaller pension of 2,000 marks in its stead.130 Birch, ii. 122; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 154, 159. Now in his mid-seventies, the viscount henceforth adopted a lower profile at court, while not withdrawing completely. He attended Anne of Denmark’s funeral in May 1619, but was excused five months later from the Star Chamber hearings into Suffolk’s corruption.131 Harl. 5176, f. 235v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 269. In reality, Wallingford was fortunate to emerge from the collapse of the Howard interest still in possession of his local offices and his place on the Privy Council. Nevertheless, it would be surprising if he did not resent his treatment, and in December 1620 he had to be reminded that, as a councillor, he was expected to contribute generously to the Palatine benevolence.132 Add. 34324, f. 120; APC, 1619-21, p. 331.

In the elections for the 1621 Parliament, Wallingford once again proved an active patron. His nephew Sir Robert Knollys was returned as a Berkshire knight, his client Sir Anthony Barker^‡ took a seat at Reading, and the borough of Wallingford accepted his nominee Samuel Dunch^‡. At Oxford, the viscount initially secured both seats, placing the courtier Sir John Brooke^‡ and administrator Sir Francis Blundell^‡, but the latter’s election was challenged and overturned.133 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 8, 14, 16, 322-3. Wallingford himself missed the bulk of this session, presumably through illness. He obtained leave of absence in late December 1620, and presented his proxy to his father-in-law Suffolk, these arrangements being noted by the Lords on 10 Feb. and again on 22 Nov., when the House was called. He actually turned up for the second sitting, on 3 Feb., but did not appear again until mid April, managing another nine sittings prior to the end of that month. Thereafter, he was absent until 19 Dec., when he witnessed the session’s premature ending.134 SO3/7, unfol. (28 Dec. 1620); LJ, iii. 4a, 14b, 165b; Add. 40086, f. 13. Unsurprisingly, Wallingford received no appointments during this Parliament, though he did make three speeches. On 24 Apr., as the inquiry into the corrupt practices of the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, 1st Viscount St Alban, reached its climax, Wallingford dismissed the latter’s initial admission of guilt as inadequate, and called for him to appear at the bar of the House. Two days later, the viscount provided evidence that Matthias Fowles, one of the patentees for the manufacture of gold and silver thread, was well aware of abuses committed by his workers. Finally, on 27 Apr. he argued in favour of Sir Francis Michell, who was awaiting sentence for assorted monopolistic offences, first being examined as a witness in the gold and silver thread investigation.135 LD 1621, pp. 17, 28, 38.

As Wallingford’s health declined, he spent more time on his country estates. In January 1622, he sold his newly rebuilt London residence to Buckingham, the deal reportedly including the creation of his brother-in-law Sir Thomas Howard as Viscount Andover, and the release from the Tower of the earl and countess of Somerset, who were promptly confined to Greys and Caversham for the next few months.136 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 421-2; APC, 1621-3, pp. 116, 279; Harl. 6850, f. 31. Still viewed with a measure of respect at court, Wallingford could rely on his government colleagues for support when necessary. Sir Thomas Farnefold^‡ was imprisoned by the Privy Council in June 1622 over a dispute with the viscount, probably relating to the management of Farnefold’s estates while a royal ward. In the following April, Wallingford persuaded the Council to summon the leading members of Reading’s corporation for sacking his under-steward.137 APC, 1621-3, pp. 254, 271, 467-8, 516-17; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 240; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 544. However, it was probably around this time that the viscount’s marriage broke down. In the summer of 1623 his wife, who was now openly Catholic, visited Spa, in the bishopric of Liège. She also planned to call on the exiled queen of Bohemia at The Hague, and the English ambassador there, Sir Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester), was warned by his nephew not to offer the viscountess accommodation, ‘in regard of her disaffection in religion, and likewise for other very considerable circumstances’. Almost certainly, this was an allusion to the affair that she conducted over the next few years with the 4th Lord Vaux, the same man she had once been expected to marry.138 SP14/146/6; Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxxiv), 230.

Wallingford as usual made a number of nominations during the elections for the 1624 Parliament, though with slightly less success. Abingdon returned Sir Robert Knollys, while the borough of Wallingford accepted the viscount’s brother-in-law, Sir Edward Howard^* (later 1st Lord Howard of Escrick). When the latter opted to represent Calne instead, the vacant seat went to Sir Anthony Forest^‡, a client of Wallingford’s kinsman William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury. However, the viscount overreached himself at Reading. In the wake of his victory over the corporation, he attempted to secure both burgess-ships for his nephews Sir Francis and Robert Knollys, but only the former was returned.139 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 11, 14, 16.

As in 1621, Wallingford obtained leave of absence prior to the state opening, though in the event he attended fairly regularly up to 11 May, at which point he withdrew from the Lords for the remainder of the session. In total, he was present for just over half of the sittings, receiving 12 nominations, and delivering five speeches.140 SO3/7, unfol. (11 Feb.). He also helped to introduce two new peers, his brother-in-law Viscount Andover, and Richard Bourke^*, 1st Viscount Tunbridge.141 LJ, iii. 217b, 313a. Wallingford’s nine bill committee appointments covered a wide range of subjects, including the confirmation of hospitals and free schools, relief of crown tenants in cases of forfeiture for non-payment of rent, magistrates’ powers to restore possession of property, Sabbath abuses, and the navigability of the Thames upstream from Oxford.142 Ibid. 235a, 249b, 257b, 284b, 296a.

Wallingford, true to his staunch Protestant convictions, was broadly supportive of the drive by Prince Charles and Buckingham for war with Spain. On 27 Feb., following the duke’s narrative to both Houses of the Spanish Match negotiations, he rejected the complaint by the Spanish ambassadors that Buckingham had insulted Philip IV, and demanded to know how the envoy had been made aware of these confidential parliamentary proceedings. Later that day, Wallingford recommended that the Lords be briefed further on previous, failed attempts to resolve the Palatinate crisis. As the prospect of a breach with Spain increased, he called on 1 Mar. for a review of the country’s stocks of munitions, and referred back to the Spanish Armada campaign of 1588. Ten days later, with the heavy financial implications of war becoming clearer, he recommended allowing the Commons more time to grasp the situation, before discussions on funding continued. However, his advice was ignored, and thereafter he remained silent on these issues.143 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 3, 7, 26; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 19; Add. 40087, f. 43.

During the parliamentary inquiry into munition supplies, accusations of corruption emerged against the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex. Wallingford was appointed to help consider petitions of complaint from the officers of the Ordnance, and also from Sir Philip Carey^‡, who had purchased the office of surveyor general of the customs from Middlesex. The viscount was also named to the committee to consider the lord treasurer’s preliminary response to the corruption charges. However, these investigations must have stirred up unpleasant memories for Wallingford, as by 11 May the Lords were discussing the terms under which Middlesex succeeded him as master of the Court of Wards. It was at this precise juncture, when he might potentially have been called upon as a witness, that his attendance of this session came to an abrupt end, apparently without any formal excuse being supplied.144 LJ, iii. 316a, 327b, 329a, 375b.

By now Wallingford was evidently on good terms with Buckingham, and in the autumn of 1624 reports surfaced that the viscount was to become earl of Berkshire. There was some substance to these stories, for in October the lord keeper, John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, wrote to the favourite, discussing what precedence Wallingford should have when he received his earldom. In the short term, however, nothing came of these proposals.145 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 587; Harl. 7000, f. 161.

Indian summer, 1625-9

In April 1625 it was widely expected that Wallingford would shortly follow James I to the grave, as he was very seriously ill. A false rumour circulated in the same month that the new king, Charles I, had discharged him from the Privy Council. In fact, the viscount retained all his remaining offices, and by May he was well enough to execute his duties as a lord lieutenant, making arrangements for the levying of soldiers in Berkshire and Oxfordshire.146 HMC Hastings, ii. 67; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 609; APC, 1625-6, pp. 1, 38, 44; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 24.

The 1625 parliamentary elections saw Wallingford successfully replicate his patronage successes of the previous year. His nephews Sir Robert and Sir Francis Knollys were returned at Abingdon and Reading, and Sir Anthony Forest at Wallingford. In addition, the viscount’s brother, Sir Francis Knollys, once again represented Berkshire.147 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 8, 11, 14, 16. However, Wallingford himself attended neither the Westminster nor the Oxford sittings of this Parliament. Still recuperating from his illness, he again procured a licence of absence, and handed his proxy to his brother-in-law, Viscount Andover.148 SO3/8, unfol. (May 1625); Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 591.

During the latter months of 1625 Wallingford remained busy at local level. As a lord lieutenant he was ordered to disarm the recusants in his two jurisdictions, and levy further soldiers for the Cadiz expedition.149 APC, 1625-6, pp. 136, 188-9 He was also active in implementing the Privy Seal loan, though the initial assessments were flawed, and he had to request at least two amendments to the list of lenders.150 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 136, 165; APC, 1625-6, p. 315. Curiously, he and his deputies failed to resolve a ten-month armed stand-off between two Berkshire gentlemen, Sir Richard Lydall and Sir Peter Vanlore, over possession of Sonning manor. Wallingford, who was steward of this estate, evidently favoured Lydall, and consistently obstructed the Privy Council’s instructions to settle the dispute in Vanlore’s favour.151 APC, 1625-6, pp. 49-50, 162-3, 245; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 133, 148, 241.

At the elections for the 1626 Parliament, Wallingford once again secured seats at Abingdon and the borough of Wallingford for Sir Robert Knollys and Sir Anthony Forest. However, at Reading his attempted double nomination of his other nephews Sir Francis and Sir Robert Knollys backfired, just as it had in 1624, and only the former was returned.152 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 11, 14, 16. Wallingford’s health remained poor at the start of this year, and in January he was granted a licence to miss both Parliament and the forthcoming coronation.153 SO3/8, unfol. (28 Jan.). In the event, although he was formally noted as absent at the call of the Lords on 15 Feb., he took his seat five days later. Nevertheless, he attended only intermittently for the remainder of this session, being formally excused three times, and in total he was present for barely two-fifths of the sittings. He received just eight appointments, and made four speeches.154 Procs. 1626, i. 49, 92, 143, 231.

Predictably, Wallingford was named to the committee for a bill to resolve the Berkshire property dispute between Lydall and Vanlore, though he can scarcely have approached this task impartially. He was also appointed to scrutinize the bill to reverse a 1619 Court of Wards decree concerning the estates of Charles Howard^*, 2nd earl of Nottingham. Other legislative committee nominations addressed such subjects as the increase of trade, the confirmation of hospitals and free-schools generally, and the foundation of Sutton’s Hospital at the Charterhouse, formerly a London seat of his father-in-law Suffolk.155 Ibid. 104, 119-20, 128. As a long-serving lord lieutenant, Wallingford took a keen interest in the bill to make the nation’s arms more serviceable. After twice objecting to the omission of bastard muskets from its provisions, he was added to the committee in late February, and was also appointed to the select committee to consider the safety and defence of the kingdom. On 7 Mar., commenting on the report from this latter committee, he successfully argued that the military strategy being outlined should contain a stronger defensive element, in order to make it more attractive to the Commons.156 Ibid. 75, 79-80, 110, 123.

Wallingford contributed little to the political dramas of this session. In April, following the exclusion from the Lords of his distant kinsman Thomas Howard, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, he was added to the privileges subcommittee tasked with searching for precedents about the confinement of peers during Parliament. His only intervention during the attack on Buckingham was on 17 May, when he recommended that the ‘aggravations’ added verbally by Members of the lower House to the main impeachment articles should be formally recorded if they concerned matters of fact.157 Ibid. 257, 497. Wallingford himself narrowly avoided inclusion in the Commons’ presentment of recusant officeholders, on the strength of his wife’s Catholicism. His name appeared in the preliminary draft, but was omitted from the final text.158 Ibid. ii. 321. He was similarly protected in the Lords when a petition was submitted in March by one John Pecke, asserting that the viscount was in contempt of a 1623 Chancery decree ordering him to pay the petitioner £400. Pecke had been planning to prosecute Wallingford over this contempt, but, as the petition explained, ‘the lord viscount by reason of his privilege in Parliament hath of late by his solicitor threatened your petitioner’s counsel, attorney and solicitor to have them all committed if they … proceed against his lordship’. Despite this explicit charge of intimidation, the petition was never brought before the House.159 HMC 4th Rep. 6; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1 (9 Mar. 1626).

In August 1626, Wallingford was created earl of Banbury. His patent stated that the king had originally intended to elevate him to this rank at the coronation, but had delayed on account of the viscount’s serious illness. Accordingly, he was granted precedence over all other earls created at that juncture or since.160 Nicolas, 291-2. Banbury had of course been in line for an earldom since late 1624, so this explanation was probably accurate. However, his patent, with its highly unusual precedence clause, was apparently also secured through some intensive lobbying at court, perhaps by his nephew Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland, or his brother-in-law Theophilus Howard, now 2nd earl of Suffolk, both of whom were prominent Buckingham clients.161 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 213. Such an intervention by Suffolk would have been somewhat ironic, given that his sister, the new countess of Banbury, was now being completely open about her affair with Lord Vaux, and indeed bore him a son, Edward (subsequently titular 2nd earl of Banbury), in April 1627. Banbury’s new rank might almost be seen as compensation for this public disgrace.162 Ibid. xxii. 216; Nicolas, 305.

While rarely attending the Privy Council now, the earl remained an effective local governor, seeking to ameliorate the impact of billeting in Berkshire and Oxfordshire, and actively promoting the 1626-7 Forced Loan in these counties. Indeed, having secured the concession that loan money would be used to meet billeting expenses, he refused in January 1627 to implement contrary instructions from the Council, on the grounds that this would undermine the collection process.163 SP16/39/55; 16/49/34; APC, 1626, pp. 357, 428; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 482. Banbury himself contributed £200 towards the Loan, but remained sensitive to popular resentment of this arbitrary taxation. When the Council issued demands at the start of 1628 for two more emergency subsidies, prior to Parliament meeting, the earl sent back the letter directed to him; having promised his two counties that, in return for their cooperation with the Loan, ‘he would never move them to anything unparliamentary again’, he was not prepared to breach that undertaking. The government’s decision shortly afterwards to appoint his kinsmen the earls of Berkshire (formerly Viscount Andover) and Holland as his joint lieutenants, in Oxfordshire and Berkshire respectively, may have been intended not simply to ease Banbury’s administrative burden, but to rein in his independence.164 E401/1914; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 325; Sainty, 12, 30.

Notwithstanding such sensitivities to local opinion, Banbury met with some resistance to his electoral nominations when the 1628 parliamentary elections were held. Sir Robert Knollys was once again returned at Wallingford, but when the earl requested seats at Reading for both Sir Francis Knollys and Sir John Brooke, the borough declined to accept the latter. Banbury possibly also backed an unsuccessful candidate at Oxford, Sir Henry Croke^‡.165 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 13-16, 322.

At the start of March, still in poor health, the earl was once again granted a dispensation from attending the Lords, though it is unclear whether he appointed a proxy. While he does genuinely seem to have been ill, his temporary absence proved convenient. On 22 Mar. William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, drew the peers’ attention to the fact that Banbury’s patent of creation awarded him precedence over eight other earls created before him. Arguing that this clause ran contrary to the Henrician statute governing the seating arrangements in the Lords, he also warned that a dangerous precedent had been set; by this rule, ‘he that is made an earl today may be the first earl of England’. The issue was duly referred to the committee for privileges.166 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 2; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 88-9, 92; 247. Six days later, the earl of Arundel reported that, in the committee’s opinion, the statute had indeed been breached, since it laid down specifically that ‘all lords are to be placed and ranked according to the antiquities of their creations’. He also informed the House of a message from the king, stating that Banbury had been granted his unusual precedence because Charles had intended to give him an earldom at the start of his reign, but had ‘casually forgotten’ to do so until the following year. The king was certainly not seeking to extend his prerogative in this area, and he undertook to respect the old customs in future. However, he hoped that Banbury, being old and childless, might be allowed to retain this precedence during his lifetime. Charles’s explanation had some basis in truth, but sounded like a convenient excuse. The Lords, having digested this information, promptly affirmed that henceforth all new peers would be seated according to their date of creation. A decision on Banbury’s own position was postponed, while the views of the eight peers disadvantaged by his patent were canvassed. On 10 Apr., all eight men having agreed to comply with the king’s wishes, the Lords drew a line under this episode, formally recording Charles’s excuses and assurances, and reiterating that no further departures from established custom would be permitted. Five days later, Banbury himself was introduced in the upper House as an earl, taking the seat intended for him by the king. However, on 29 Apr. these arguments were rehearsed again, when Banbury’s case was cited as a precedent for Mountjoy Blount, Lord Mountjoy (later 1st earl of Newport), being seated according to the date of his creation, rather than the superior precedence laid down in his patent.167 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 113-15, 117, 127, 137, 158, 180, 190, 228, 358. The eight disadvantaged peers were George Carew, earl of Totness, Robert Carey^*, earl of Monmouth, Henry Danvers^*, earl of Danby, Thomas Howard, earl of Berkshire, James Ley^*, earl of Marlborough, Henry Montagu^*, earl of Manchester, Edmund Sheffield^*, earl of Mulgrave, and Thomas Wentworth^*, earl of Cleveland.

At this juncture Banbury was absent again, one of many lengthy withdrawals from the Lords prompted by poor health, which culminated in him missing almost the whole of the session’s final month. In total, he was present for just 13 sittings. Unsurprisingly, he attracted no appointments, and made only three speeches. Impatient of the Commons’ demands over the liberties of the subject, on 16 Apr. he argued against further discussions with the lower House until the Lords had agreed their own position on these issues. Six days later, insisting that the Commons’ opposition to arbitrary imprisonment constituted an attack on the royal prerogative, he called for an end to these debates, so that Parliament could focus on more urgent matters such as supply. Similarly, on 19 May he denied that the oath used to enforce payment of the Forced Loan was unlawful. If the Lords accepted this interpretation, it would merely encourage the Commons to seek further concessions. An expansion of the prerogative was necessary in wartime, and in his opinion all this talk of liberties was designed to sabotage the military effort.168 Ibid. 247, 325, 328, 330, 463, 465-6. Banbury reiterated these views in a letter to Buckingham towards the end of the session:

There can be no liberty where there is no safety, and yet they [the Commons] have fed this child of theirs so fat, as they have done what they can to starve prerogative, which must prevail more than Westminster Hall, for that cannot preserve us from a foreign enemy; neither can so many words of liberty profit, when the enemy whetteth his will and his sword to cut our throats.169 SP16/107/89.

It is unclear whether the earl’s views filtered down to the Commons, but it seems likely, as he was once again included in the presentment of recusant officeholders, and described as ‘ill affected’. Despite the protests of Sir Francis Knollys, Banbury’s name was not this time removed before the document was transmitted to the Lords.170 CD 1628, iii. 64; iv. 324.

Banbury attended only eight sittings of the 1629 parliamentary session, weakened by persistent ill-health. He made no speeches, but received three appointments, to the bill committees concerning the maintenance of hospitals and almshouses, and strengthening of the crown’s revenues, and to the select committee for surveying the kingdom’s munitions and defences. Perhaps appropriately, given his views on the Commons’ behaviour, his final appearance in the Lords came on 10 Mar., when the impasse between the king and the lower House ended in the Parliament’s premature dissolution.171 LJ, iv. 8a, 19b, 25b, 37b.

Final years, and a contested legacy, 1629-32

During the early months of 1629, Banbury attended the Privy Council frequently enough to be included on its militia committee. However, he was rapidly becoming an invalid, and by the autumn he had again retired to the country. Writing in October to Secretary Dorchester, he lamented his physical frailty and the breakdown of relations between crown and Parliament, though his sympathies lay firmly with the former: ‘because things between the king and his people be gotten to extremities, I wish sovereignty be maintained above all. Let all men, whosoever they be, smart rather than the least point thereof should be any way lessened’.172 Add. 21039, f. 1; APC, 1628-9, p. 276; SP16/150/114.

By now Banbury had evidently come to terms with his wife’s adultery, and in November 1629 he settled the inheritance of Caversham manor specifically on her and her heirs. However, this did not mean that he was prepared to recognize her son Edward as his own, let alone the latter’s brother Nicholas (Knollys^†, later titular 3rd earl of Banbury), born at one of Lord Vaux’s Northamptonshire houses in January 1631.173 Nicolas, 301, 305, 331; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 219. Two months after this event, he conveyed Greys, his family’s ancestral seat, to his nephew Sir Robert Knollys, described as his next male heir, with immediate effect. To ensure that Banbury’s wishes were not challenged, Knollys then confirmed this deal with the crown, which held the ultimate reversion to the estate.174 Nicolas, 302-3; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 53-4.

Banbury died in London in May 1632, aged 88, apparently while under the care of a certain Dr Grant in Paternoster Row. At his own request he was buried in the family vault at Greys. In his very brief will, dated 19 May 1630, the earl appointed his wife as executrix, but made no mention of her offspring. Both his funeral certificate and his inquisition post mortem described him as childless.175 C115/106/8405-6; Coll. of Arms, ms I.8, f. 30; Nicolas, 304-5, 314; PROB 11/162, f. 144. The original i.p.m., C142/501/52, is now largely illegible, but the text is known from transcripts. On that basis, all Banbury’s honours became extinct at his death. Indeed, this fact was not disputed for nearly a decade. Edward and Nicholas, who were generally referred to simply as the countess’s sons, adopted the surname Vaux. When their natural father settled property on them in 1635, the indenture delicately explained that the boys had been born to the countess while she was still married to Banbury.176 CSP Dom. 1637, p. 383; 1638-9, p. 20; Minutes of Evidence given before the Cttee. for Privileges, Vaux of Harrowden Peerage Case (1836), 208-9. Then, in February 1641, the 2nd earl of Salisbury brought a Chancery suit on Edward’s behalf, in which the latter was described as Banbury’s own son and heir, and as such the current earl. The defendant in this case promptly challenged Edward’s legitimacy, whereupon the Court of Wards commissioned a second inquisition post mortem. For reasons which remain unclear, the findings of the previous inquisition were overturned, and Edward was declared to be Banbury’s rightful heir.177 Nicolas, 311-12, 318; C142/607/92. The so-called 2nd earl died in 1645, still a minor, but his brother Nicholas then assumed the title himself, and even briefly took his seat in the Lords after the Restoration. However, his claim to the earldom of Banbury was never fully endorsed by the upper House, which finally dismissed his descendants’ appeals once and for all in 1813.178 Nicolas, 321-2, 324-5, 340-1, 388, 390-3, 397, 433, 530.