CECIL, William (1590-1618)

The only known portrait of Ros, painted by Domenico Tintoretto, seems to be lost, but in 1617 he was described as being ‘of a middle stature, grey eyes, pale, thin face, red short hair and beard of the same colour, slender’, and ‘speaking somewhat thick’.11 Add. 18639, f. 96; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. NR/CPw215. In 1616 the Venetian ambassador stated that he was ‘very light brained’, and it is noticeable that Ros was never sent to university, unlike his father and paternal grandfather before him. Nevertheless, Godfrey Goodman^*, bishop of Gloucester, thought him ‘a man of great intellectuals’, while his letters indicate that he was not lacking in academic ability. He was certainly capable of making a good first impression, possessing charm and the ability to assume a certain gravity of manner. However, according to Goodman, he possessed ‘a dangerous wit’. Moreover, Ros evidently thought that he was not constrained by such considerations as honesty or morality. Consequently, as people got to know him their favourable view of him often soured.12 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 328; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, i. 182; J. Stoye English Travellers Abroad (1989), 263-6; J.P. Feil, ‘Sir Tobie Matthew and his Collection of Letters’ (Chicago Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1962), 58-9. Very little of what Ros wrote or is reported to have said can be taken at face value. In matters of religion, it is probably ultimately pointless to ask what Ros really believed, as it is unlikely that he believed in anything very much.

Early life and first journey abroad, 1591-1607

Ros was named after his great-grandfather, the Elizabethan lord treasurer, William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley who, though unable to attend his baptism at Newark Castle, was one of his godparents.13 HMC Hatfield, v. 71; HMC Rutland, i. 282. Burghley had a ‘passion for nobility and lineage’, as one modern writer has observed, and attached considerable importance to his new grandson.14 S. Alford, Burghley, 6. The Burghley barony was of recent creation, whereas Ros’s mother was descended from William de Ros^† (d.1316), a powerful Yorkshire landowner summoned to Parliament in 1299. Burghley foresaw that the head of his family, which he had raised to prominence, would one day hold this ancient barony. Although the de Ros family had died out in the male line in 1508 on the death of Edmund de Ros^†, 10th Lord Ros, the barony had continued in the female, as George Manners^†, the son of Edmund’s sister, had been summoned to Parliament as Lord Ros four years later. Consequently, when George’s direct descendant, Edward Manners^†, 3rd earl of Rutland, died in 1587, leaving a daughter as his sole surviving offspring, it was generally accepted that, although the earldom of Rutland would pass to Edward’s brother, John Manners^†, the Ros barony would descend to his daughter or her male descendants. Burghley therefore ensured that the daughter (the mother of the subject of this biography), married his grandson, William Cecil^* (later 2nd earl of Exeter).15 CP, xi. 96-7, 107, 254, 258-9; Abstracts of Inquisitiones Post Mortem for the City of London, 120-1, 127; L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 177.

It was not until shortly after the accession of James I that Ros’s cousin, Roger Manners^*, 5th earl of Rutland, formally claimed the Ros barony. However, Ros had been universally accepted as Lord Ros since his mother’s death in 1591.16 HMC Hatfield, v. 71. Even Rutland’s man of business, Thomas Screven, used the title when writing to his master about Ros (although he diplomatically added ‘as he is called’).17 A. Collins, Proceedings, Precedents and Arguments on Claims and Controversies, Concerning Baronies by Writ, 166; HMC Rutland, i. 418. In April 1604 Rutland’s petition was referred to the commissioners for the office of the earl marshal, but they evidently never reported to the king, suggesting that they considered Rutland’s claim to be frivolous.18 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 93; Bodl., ms Fairfax 30, f. 124; Coll. of Arms, Heralds VII, p. 777.

At the start of James I’s reign Ros, who was then in his early teens, spent a period in the household of Prince Henry. However, in September 1604 he was removed, like his cousin and namesake William Cecil^* (subsequently 2nd earl of Salisbury), because of the risk of plague.19 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 134. He seems never to have returned, which perhaps suggests that he was considered a bad influence. He evidently regretted his removal, as he later wrote to the prince wishing that he was one of Henry’s attendants.20 T. Birch, Life of Henry Prince of Wales (1760), 212-13. This letter has no year date but probably should be assigned to 1611. In April 1605 it was reported that his grandfather, Thomas Cecil^*, 2nd Lord Burghley (shortly to become 1st earl of Exeter), intended the 15 year-old Ros to marry Frances Howard, daughter of the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk.21 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, 152-3. The ensuing marriage negotiations may help to explain why the licence to travel granted to Ros the following month was not used immediately. However, these negotiations failed to bear fruit, for by the time Ros had crossed to France in November, Suffolk had agreed a match between Frances and Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex.22 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 220; Birch, Historical View of the Negotiations, 241.

As great-nephew (usually described by his contemporaries simply as nephew) of the dominant early Jacobean minister, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, Ros was assured of special treatment abroad. Consequently, on 28 Dec. he was presented to Henri IV by the English ambassador in Paris, Sir George Carew^‡.23 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 17. However, relations between Ros and his great-uncle may have been poor. It has been suggested that James I was referring to Ros when he wrote to Salisbury that ‘I wonder what truce you have lately taken with your nephew that I have heard no new accusations of his knavery from you these five or six days’.24 Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 279.

In June 1606 Ros asked Salisbury to help arrange his marriage to a Huguenot widow, but the intended match evidently fell through.25 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 157. Ros probably returned to England in late 1606 or early 1607, but his grandfather, now earl of Exeter, quickly decided to send him back to France ‘to the end he may spend his time better than at home’. This was unusual – he might, in the normal course of things, have been sent to study in one of the inns of court following his foreign travels – and suggests that Ros had got himself into trouble in the brief period since his return.26 Hatfield House, CP194/58.

Second journey and Tobie Matthew, 1608-11

Exeter appointed John Molle, a veteran of the Elizabethan campaigns in France whom he had employed as an examiner while president of the council in the North, to supervise Ros.27 T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain ed. J.S. Brewer, v. 380-1; R.W. Lightbown, ‘Protestant Confessor, or the Tragic Hist. of Mr Molle’, Eng. and the Continental Renaissance ed. E. Chaney and P. Mack, 240-2. By May 1608 Ros and Molle were in Florence, when news reached England’s ambassador to Venice, Sir Henry Wotton^‡, that Ros had applied to the pope for safe conduct in order to visit Rome. Wotton was naturally alarmed, as Rome was normally off-limits to Englishmen. (Ros’s own father had made an unauthorized visit to Rome in the 1580s, when it is likely that an attempt was made – widely suspected to have been successful - to convert him to Catholicism.) He therefore wrote to Molle, urging him to dissuade his charge from visiting the city. In response, Ros wrote to Wotton vehemently denying that he had applied to the pope, declaring he would ‘never be so base minded as to seek to him which is the head of that profession, which myself, and my family do detest’. He demanded to know the source of Wotton’s report. However, he admitted that he did intend to visit Rome ‘as an indifferent stranger’, claiming his friends had advised him it would be safe to do so.28 SP99/5, f. 118r-v. Wotton, who declined to reveal his source, had learned that not only had an application for safe conduct been made by a cardinal in Ros’s name, but that this request had been denied. This meant that it was not safe for Ros to go to Rome under any circumstances.29 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, i. 428-9.

Wotton’s intervention appears to have caused Ros to abandon temporarily his plans to go to Rome. In June Stephen Lesieur, the English ambassador in Florence, reported to Salisbury, now lord treasurer, that Ros ‘maketh good use of his being out [of] his country’. Although he also mentioned that Tobie Matthew^‡, the Catholic son of Tobie Matthew^*, archbishop of York, had visited Ros, he reassured Salisbury that Matthew was more interested in Ros’s travelling companion, William Paulet, Lord St John.30 SP98/2, f. 157v. In fact, Ros’s conversion to Catholicism became one of Matthew’s main pursuits over the next two years.31 Feil, 59. Matthew seems to have enjoyed a measure of success, as he certainly acquired a strong hold over Ros, who gave the impression of being a Catholic while in Matthew’s company. However, at other times Ros had no compunction about appearing to be a good Protestant, or abusing Catholicism. Under these circumstances, those who accused Ros of being Catholic were apt to wonder whether he had much religion at all. It is possible that Ros was simply happy to adapt his faith according to his company.

By July 1608 Lesieur had reversed his previously favourable view of Ros. The following month he reported to Salisbury that Ros had left for Rome.32 SP98/2, ff. 190r-v, 207. Ros was accompanied by Molle, who felt duty-bound to accompany his charge and was arrested by the inquisition shortly after their arrival.33 CSP Ven. 1607-11, p. 167. He remained imprisoned until his death more than 30 years later, resisting all Catholic efforts to convert him and so acquiring the reputation of a martyr.34 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, ii. 473; Lightbown, 248-54. Ros was widely believed at the time to have prompted Matthew to betray Molle.35 F. Osborne, Works (1682), 50. Wotton certainly thought that Ros was ‘not without blame’, while Thomas Fuller claimed that, following the arrest, ‘Ros was daily feasted, favoured, entertained: so that some will not stick to say, that here he changed no religion for a bad one’.36 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, ii. 256-7; Fuller, v. 381. However, according to Lesieur, Ros was not present when Molle was arrested and was required to remain in Rome for several days by the papal authorities. Moreover, Wotton reported to Salisbury that Ros visited Molle in his confinement, suggesting that he was not indifferent to his tutor’s plight, and that, on his arrival in Venice in late November, Ros expressed ‘a most vehement detestation’ of Catholicism.37 SP98/2, ff. 226v, 229, 232; SP99/5, f. 196; Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, i. 441. Perhaps Molle’s arrest was contrived by Matthew without Ros’s knowledge in order to remove a competing source of influence. Nevertheless, Ros was undoubtedly responsible for his tutor’s incarceration, albeit inadvertently.

Ros continued his travels without Molle and, by November 1609, had arrived in Madrid.38 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, i. 445; CSP Ven. 1607-10, p. 253; SP78/55, f. 140. He made a good first impression on the English agent in Spain, Francis Cottington^† (subsequently Lord Cottington). ‘I do much admire (in so young years) his discretion and judgment, he wrote, adding that ‘I do observe him to be of a good and sound diligence and in all things very nobly disposed’.39 SP94/16, f. 230. Cottington reported that Ros intended to stay in Spain for several months to learn the language, but that he refused to have anything to do with its priests or English Catholic exiles. He also claimed that Ros was ‘far from being tainted in his religion’, and was ‘well able to give reason for his religion and opinion as any layman that I know’. However, by January 1610 Cottington started to have doubts about Ros after Tobie Matthew began visiting him. Although he had been informed ‘that Mr Matthew hath made a vow never to speak with him in matter of religion’, Cottington advised Ros to ‘hold himself more retired from him’.40 SP94/16, ff. 254r-v, 267; 94/17, ff. 21-2; Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 98, 104.

Salisbury was alarmed at the prospect of his great-nephew spending a prolonged period in Spain and, on 26 Dec. 1609 had written to Ros instructing him to leave. Ros replied in March 1610 that he would obey once he had made a rapid tour of the country and that he expected to be in France by June. He also assured Salisbury that he ‘detest[ed] all Romish idolatrous superstition’, whatever the earl may have heard to the contrary.41 SP14/62/25. On 25 May Ros wrote to Salisbury again from Madrid promising to leave Spain immediately but, by 27 July, he had only got as far as Bayonne in France, where he penned a lengthy description of Spain, which he sent to the lord treasurer.42 Stoye, 263; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 612; SP94/17, ff. 119-54. Ros had acquired a deep love of Spain, possibly one of the few things which remained with him for the rest of his life.43 HMC Downshire, ii. 399-400; SP93/1, f. 32; CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 328.

By November 1610 Ros had arrived in Paris, where he remained until he left for the Netherlands the following March.44 HMC Downshire, ii. 399-400; iii. 33-4. He was accompanied by Sir Thomas Puckering, 1st bt.^‡, whose tutor, Thomas Lorkin, wrote a vivid account of their journey to the Low Countries. In this document Lorkin accused Ros of gambling, and of ‘unsavoury and obscene discourse’. He also alleged that Ros expressed vehemently pro-Spanish views and described the Dutch republic as the ‘rebellious states’. When his party passed over into the territory of the republic, Ros allegedly exposed his penis in derision of the local inhabitants. Tobie Matthew travelled with him and, according to Lorkin, held such influence over Ros that he selected all his servants. Possibly as a result, Ros openly expressed sympathy for Catholicism, although Lorkin wondered how someone so immoral could have any religion. However, Ros was unable to remain in the Netherlands for long as he was running out of money. Forced to return to England, he arrived in London sometime before 9 June 1611.45 Harl. 7002, ff. 199-200v; HMC Downshire, iii. 87.

Coming of age and the third journey abroad, 1611-15

By the time Ros reached England he had reached his majority. He had inherited a large estate from his mother, mostly located in Yorkshire but also including the manor of Walthamstow in Essex. In April 1612 it was reported that Ros, now with funds of his own, was again preparing to travel, this time to Germany to witness the election and coronation of the Emperor Matthias; a new passport was issued for him on 22 Apr., and he had left England by 4 May, having entrusted his estate to the lord privy seal, the crypto-Catholic, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton. He may have chosen Northampton because his great-uncle, Salisbury, was now dying and he anticipated that Northampton would be a useful ally in the future.46 HMC Rutland, i. 438; Stone, 175; VCH Essex vi. 255; T. Burton, Hist. and Antiquities of the Par. of Hemingbrough in the Co. of York ed. J. Raine, 279. At the beginning of June, thanks to the prominent official Sir Thomas Lake^‡, Ros was appointed as James I’s extraordinary ambassador, his first public office, to congratulate the new emperor on his accession. Ros wrote to the king on 25 June reporting on the fulfilment of his entirely ceremonial embassy, and subsequently travelled to Italy.47 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 360; SP80/2, ff. 201-4; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 137; Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 384.

By November Ros was in Florence, from where he wrote to Sir David Murray, Prince Henry’s groom of the stole, whom he described as his ‘truest friend, that I have in the world’, enclosing an account of the grand duchy of Tuscany for the prince. Alluding to the proposed marriage between Henry and a member of the Medici family, Ros expressed surprising opposition to a Catholic bride for the prince: ‘I pray God, that the prince’s highness would match with one of his own religion, which would be best for him and our country’. This was perhaps an example of Ros’s usual tactic of tailoring his views to suit his audience. However, it should be noted that he later also expressed opposition to a Catholic match for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) to the crypto Catholic, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel. By the time Ros wrote to Murray, though, Prince Henry was already dead.48 Birch, Life of Henry Prince of Wales, 320-2. By March 1613 Ros had moved to Naples, where he lived in a ‘brave palace’. It was reported that he ‘sets all places on work where he comes, to pass all men in rich and curious furniture when he comes home’.49 SP93/1, f. 32.

By November Ros was in Siena, from where he wrote to an unnamed lord, possibly Northampton, reporting on the attempts of the earl of Tyrone [I] to secure papal support. After expressing hostility to the Irish, all of whom ‘radically hate an Englishman’, he warned of the assistance that Spain was giving Tyrone ‘out of gratitude unto him for the mischief that … he hath done unto our State’, and to ‘maintain the faction which they [the Spanish] have in Ireland … as well as [out of] the hatred the Spaniards have in these times to our crown’. Given Ros’s hispanophilia, these remarks were rather surprising. However, they should perhaps be read as no more than simple statements of fact. Ros was also critical of the pontiff, Paul V, whom he described as an ‘ungrateful, miserable pope, who neglecteth public thoughts and gives himself wholly to enrich and augment in greatness his own private family’.50 Cott., Titus BVII, ff. 447-50. Ros spent Christmas in Venice, where he received communion at the English embassy.51 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 153-4.

Ros was apparently offended when Arundel, the premier earl of England and Northampton’s great-nephew, visited Naples in early 1614, and was treated with more respect by the local Spanish authorities than he himself had received. As a result he relayed incriminating information about Arundel’s conduct at Rome, which was passed on to James I.52 Feil, 86; Chamberlain Letters, i. 568-9. Ros himself returned to England in May 1615.53 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 293. There is no evidence that Ros was summoned to attend the 1614 Parliament, either because it was known that he was abroad or because the competing claims to the Ros barony had never been formally resolved. In July 1615 the claim of the earl of Rutland (by this date Francis Manners^*, the 6th earl) was reopened after Ros was appointed to carry the sword before the king. Rutland’s supporters alleged that this was tantamount to deciding the question in Ros’s favour. However, James was unsympathetic to this complaint, having already, in effect, acknowledged Ros’s title by appointing him to the 1612 embassy. Besides, carrying the sword was a task that had been performed by ‘knights, and lords that were not of the Parliament’. Consequently, the appointment of Ros had no implications for his title.54 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 13; Chamberlain Letters, i. 607.

The Spanish embassy, 1616-17

The dispute over the Ros barony was scheduled to be heard by the commissioners for the office of the earl marshal in January 1616, but in the event the hearing was postponed.55 ‘Camden Diary’, 16. By the end of that month Ros was contracted to marry the daughter of Sir Thomas Lake, recently appointed secretary of state.56 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 108. The marriage took place the following month, and in April it was reported that Ros would be sent on embassy to Spain.57 SP14/86/153. As in his previous employment, this mission was ceremonial, its purpose being to congratulate Philip III on the marriages of his son, the future Philip IV, to the sister of Louis XIII of France, and his daughter to Louis XIII. (James Hay^*, Lord Hay (later 1st earl of Carlisle) would meanwhile perform a similar function in France.) Ros probably hoped that the embassy would become a stepping stone to more responsible employment and so let it be known that he and his father-in-law would spare no expense.58 Chamberlain Letters, i. 626; CSP Ven. 1615-17, pp. 197, 208. It was presumably because he wished to clarify his title before his departure that, on 22 July, after a hearing before the commissioners for the office of the earl marshal, letters patent were issued declaring him to be the rightful holder of the ancient barony and entitled to sit in Parliament.59 Collins, 170-2.

Shortly before the patent was issued, Ros suddenly gave all the antiquities gathered in his travels to Arundel, which ‘hath exceedingly beautified his lordship’s gallery’. Ros probably hoped thereby to be reconciled to Arundel, who was now head of the Howard family, Northampton having died while Ros was in Italy.60 M.F.S. Hervey, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, 102. Ros’s departure for Spain was repeatedly delayed; he twice took his leave of the king and did not finally set sail until 3 November.61 HMC Downshire, v. 585; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 394; Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton ed. P. Yorke, 69; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 35. He subsequently claimed that the delay was caused by difficulties in raising money, in which he had been deliberately obstructed by his father-in-law as part of a plot to defraud him of his estate.62 SP14/97/89. In a later Star Chamber suit, it was argued that Lake had pressured Ros into mortgaging the manor of Walthamstow and other properties to him in order to raise the £6,000 needed to finance the embassy, but then omitted to include a clause of redemption, so that Ros could not claim back his property on repayment of the money.63 STAC 8/111/27. It is certainly clear that Ros fell out with Lake in the autumn of 1616; in October it was reported that Ros ‘is grown very great’ with Lake’s colleague and rival Secretary of State Sir Ralph Winwood^‡, ‘insomuch that the world says he relies more upon him that his father Lake’.64 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 27. Writing from Spain, Ros described Winwood as ‘the best friend I have in the world’. SP94/22, f. 3v. It was also rumoured that Ros had fallen out with his new wife and taken away her jewels.65 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 411.

It was widely assumed that Ros would be instructed to open negotiations for a match between Prince Charles and a daughter of the king of Spain, particularly as it had been reported in June that Ros was on good terms with Count Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador in England.66 CSP Ven. 1615-17, pp. 234, 322, 378. In fact, Ros was instructed not to mention the match and to make no response if the matter was raised by the Spanish.67 Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton, 106. This was perhaps just as well, as Ros was as sceptical about a Catholic marriage for Charles as he had been for Henry. Writing to Arundel from Spain, he observed that ‘for my own part I do still hold my old opinion; yet there is nothing impossible’.68 Hervey, 108. On only one matter was Ros given firm instructions: to mediate between Spain and Savoy, conflict having recently arisen between the two states. James presumably entrusted this role to Ros because the latter was a known admirer of Spain and by now an adherent of Winwood, who was sympathetic to the Savoyard cause. However, all he obtained from the Spanish was verbal assurances, which were contingent on the kings of England and France putting pressure on the duke of Savoy. This was not necessarily due to Ros’s inexperience as a diplomat, as Cottington, still the English agent in Spain, had been pessimistic about the prospects of success before Ros arrived in Madrid in early January 1617.69 HMC Downshire, vi. 40, 65, 97.

Ros left Madrid in early February and returned to England through France. According to the Venetian ambassador in London, Ros, on his arrival in Paris, wrote to James asking whether, there then being no English ambassador in France, the king had any diplomatic tasks which he could perform. However, James was allegedly dissatisfied with Ros’s performance in Spain, and instructed him to return immediately.70 CSP Ven. 1615-17, pp. 444, 446, 459-60. Ros arrived back in London on 21 Mar. and, aside from Lake, who informed Winwood that Ros had given the king a satisfactory account of his embassy, most commentators thought his reputation had suffered from the unsuccessful outcome of his diplomatic mission.71 Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 97; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 66; HMC Buccleuch, i. 191; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 458.

Flight abroad and final months, 1617-18

After his return, Ros conveyed the reversion of Walthamstow to his wife and her heirs. According to the later testimony of his grandfather, Exeter, he did so to disguise the fact that he had already unknowingly signed over the property to his father-in-law. Lake’s wife induced him to sign the conveyance by allegedly threatening to accuse him of impotence caused by his ‘former debauchments’. Such a charge would almost certainly cause his family to disown him and result in nullification of his marriage. When, in late May, Ros went to Lake’s house near London to fetch his wife, who had been staying there while he was in Spain, he was met by her brother, Arthur Lake^‡, and 20 armed men. Arthur drove Ros and his servants away at sword point, leaving the lord bitterly humiliated.72 STAC 8/111/27; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 162; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 80; SP14/92/62.

In early August, Ros suddenly left England, accompanied only by Diego De Silva, a Spanish servant who had long been in his employ. It was widely assumed that he had gone abroad to fight Arthur Lake, but though there seems little doubt that he issued a challenge, his actions were so blatant that, as Sir Thomas Lake observed, the Privy Council was given every opportunity to prevent the duel.73 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. NR/CPw215; Carew Letters, 117; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 481-2, 543; Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton, 170; HMC Downshire, vi. 268-9, 292; SP14/93/25. In fact, it would seem that Ros’s decision to flee was more complex than at first appears. His servants subsequently testified that it resulted from a combination of the Lakes’ actions, his own fear of having incurred the displeasure of his father and grandfather, and his debts.74 SP14/105/82. Exeter had certainly been angry that Ros had signed over the Walthamstow property and had threatened to disinherit Ros unless he provided an explanation. Ros himself admitted that his grandfather would have been justified in disinheriting him for bringing ‘so base a creature’ as Lady Ros into the family. He had initially considered bringing a suit in Star Chamber against Arthur Lake, but he had abandoned the idea because Lady Lake had ‘threaten[ed] lawyers with the fear of her husband’s greatness’ and had procured false witnesses against him. Fighting a duel with Arthur must have seemed to be the only way to vindicate himself in the eyes of his family. Having failed in his intention, Ros was too humiliated to return home, and also too fearful to face his family and creditors.75 STAC 8/24/19; SP14/92/62; 14/97/89.

In late August reports that Ros was in France prompted the Privy Council to order him to return, but he travelled to Rome instead.76 Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton, 169; APC, 1616-17, p. 327; SP77/12, f. 425. From there he moved to Naples. He apparently hoped to obtain retrospective permission to travel abroad, but on 4 Dec. the Council repeated its earlier demand. Ros responded by returning to Rome by the following March.77 SP94/22, f. 240; APC, 1616-17, p. 400; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 526.

By May 1618 Ros had voluntarily submitted himself to the inquisition. He expected to be received into the Catholic Church without question, but was instead presented with ‘an oath or form of confession’ confirming his faith, which he took. Shortly thereafter, he visited in prison his former tutor, Molle, but failed to convert him.78 Letters and Dispatches from Sir Henry Wotton to Jas. the First and his Ministers ed. G. Tomline (Roxburghe Club, lxviii), 15-16. How sincere Ros’s own final conversion was remains unclear; George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, remarked tellingly that in Italy Ros became ‘very popish for that little religion he had’.79 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 449. The one thing to which Ros remained true was his hispanophilia. Writing to Gondomar from Rome, he stated that ‘the Church of God is in Spain and if it was not for Spain heresy would spread everywhere’. He also complained that few cardinals in Rome were interested in the faith.80 J. N. Hillgarth, Mirror of Spain, 282.

In his absence a bitter conflict erupted in England for control of Ros’s property, between Exeter on one side and Ros’s wife and her parents on the other, in the course of which Lady Lake accused Exeter’s young second wife of committing incest with Lord Ros and of trying to poison Lady Ros.81 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 512. It was even suggested that Ros was the father of the countess’ daughter.82 SP14/96/48. In June 1618 Ros wrote to the king defending the honour of the countess of Exeter, ‘whose virtues I have come to reverence’; his wife, he added, was ‘not worthy to wipe her shoes’, being ‘the brat [and ‘imp’] of hell’. He also described Lady Lake as ‘satanical’ and ‘diabolical’; castigated Sir Thomas Lake as ‘the father of all the devilish plots and scandals against me and my family’; and defended the challenge he had issued to Arthur Lake by pointing out that in Italy, ‘if an honourable family had been wronged’ as he had been by the Lakes, they would ‘not have had patience to have expected legal justice but would have cut the adversaries’ generation in pieces’. Indeed, such a response would have been held ‘memorable and noble’. Having failed to secure vindication at home, he explained that he had no choice but to remain abroad. Anyone who ‘will live in his country without holding up his reputation’ would be ‘held a base and unworthy man’.83 SP14/97/89.

In February 1619 the dispute between the countess of Exeter and Lady Lake was heard in Star Chamber. Evidence was produced that Ros had repeatedly denied incest. Moreover, the claim made by Lady Ros, Lady Lake and Arthur Lake, that Ros was impotent (which contradicted the charge of incest), was denied by ‘diverse witnesses’.84 SP14/105/82. However, James I refused to allow letters from Ros to be read as evidence, ‘protesting not to believe a word of his writing, or anything he had theretofore spoken’.85 Add. 72421, f. 121

By the time the case came to court, Ros had been dead eight months. Early in the summer of 1618 he had travelled from Rome to Naples in a litter, despite having again been called home and offered a pardon for failing to obey previous letters of summons. There he had died after nine days with ‘a burning fever’.86 Letters and Dispatches from Sir Henry Wotton, 17, 40; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 81. According to William Camden he expired on 27 June, but Wotton claimed he died on 8 July, by which he presumably meant 28 June in the Julian calendar.87 ‘Camden Diary’, 33; Letters and Dispatches from Sir Henry Wotton, 40. The circumstances of Ros’s death led to suspicions of poison. Ros’s uncle, Sir Edward Cecil^* (subsequently Viscount Wimbledon), claimed that Sir Thomas Lake and Lady Ros had employed certain Irishmen for the purpose, while Archbishop Abbot blamed Andrew Wise, the head of the English knights of St John, whom Ros had apparently betrayed to the viceroy of Naples for having illicit contacts with Protestants.88 ‘Camden Diary’, 34; C. Dalton, Life and Times of Gen. Sir Edward Cecil, i. 273; HMC Downshire, vi. 559-60.

Although it was widely suspected that he had taken large sums of money with him on leaving England, Ros’s debts were such that his servants were apparently obliged to borrow money from an English merchant in Naples to pay for his burial.89 E126/5, ff. 17v-18v. Both Sir Thomas Lake and Exeter sent agents to Italy to discover if Ros had left a will, but none was proved in England, and on 27 July administration of his goods was granted to his widow, which decision was upheld despite a challenge from Exeter.90 HMC Downshire, vi. 497; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 582; Add. 72355, f. 63; PROB 6/9, f. 182v. Following Exeter’s death in 1623, there were false rumours that Ros was still alive.91 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 483; HMC Buccleuch, i. 258. Ros having produced no children, his barony was inherited by the earl of Rutland.