DEVEREUX, Robert (1591-1646)

A Norman family from the cathedral city of Évereux, the Devereuxs settled in the marches of Wales after the Conquest, and by the early fifteenth century were one of the most important families in Herefordshire. Walter Devereux^† (c.1432-1485) of Weobley and Bodenham married Ann, daughter and heir of Sir William de Ferrers of Chartley in Staffordshire, descendant of John de Ferrers^† (1271-1312), who had been summoned to Parliament as Lord Ferrers in 1299. A prominent Yorkist, Walter was himself summoned to Edward IV’s first Parliament as Lord Ferrers in 1461. Walter’s son, John^†, married the sister and eventual heir of Henry Bourchier^† (d.1540), 2nd earl of Essex, count of Eu, 2nd Viscount and 6th Lord Bourchier. Their son, Walter^†, was created Viscount Hereford in 1550, and their great grandson, also called Walter^†, was advanced to an earldom in 1572 by Elizabeth, who granted him the title of Essex because he was descended from the Bourchiers. Essex and his descendants also regarded themselves as counts (or earls) of Eu, and viscounts and barons Bourchier, presumably to identify themselves as members of the ancient nobility. However, they were actually entitled only to the last, a barony by writ dating from 1348.61 V.F. Snow, Essex the Rebel, 1; CP, ii. 246-50; v. 140, 307, 321-5, 327; R. Codrington, ‘Life and Death of the Illustrious Robert Earle of Essex’ (1646), reprinted in Harl. Misc. i. 218.

The 1st earl of Essex died in 1576 leaving a son and heir, Robert^†, who was under age, and a widow, Lettice (sister of William Knollys^*, later earl of Banbury), who subsequently married Elizabeth’s favourite, Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester. The 2nd earl of Essex succeeded his stepfather in the queen’s favour and as the champion of an aggressive anti-Spanish foreign policy, but was disgraced following his precipitate return from Ireland, where he was lord lieutenant, in 1599. In February 1601 he led an unsuccessful rising, as a result of which he was attainted and beheaded.62 CP, v. 141-2; Oxford DNB, xv. 945-60. The family estates, centred around their principal seat at Chartley in Staffordshire, were confiscated by the crown. However, considerable property remained in the hands of the 2nd earl’s mother, including Essex House in the Strand. In addition, lands sold in Herefordshire in the 1590s by the 2nd earl were bought back by his widow, who settled them on her son.63 Tenison, xii. 152, 383-4.

Early life, 1601-10

At the time of his father’s execution, Devereux, the subject of this biography, was studying at Eton. Briefly removed, he was returned to his school by order of the Privy Council on 20 Mar. 1601.64 Codrington, 218; APC, 1600-1, pp. 229-30. In January 1603 he was admitted to Merton College, Oxford, but may not have been there long, for on the death of Elizabeth two months later, Devereux accompanied his uncle, Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland, when the latter helped proclaim James king at Cheapside, in London. Devereux’s father had been a longstanding champion of James’ right to the succession, and when Devereux himself was introduced to the new king on the latter’s journey south to claim his new kingdom, James took the boy in his arms, ‘kissed him’, and ‘openly and loudly’ declared him to be ‘the son of the most noble knight that English land had ever begotten’. He thereupon designated Essex a companion to Prince Henry. It is possible that Devereux returned to Oxford to study for a period but, by the autumn of 1604, if not earlier, he was a member of the prince’s household.65 Stowe 150, f. 180; Oxford DNB, xv. 952; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 26; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 138-9.

The 1604 session of the first Jacobean Parliament restored Devereux in blood, enabling him to inherit his father’s titles (both real and imagined) and lands. The necessary legislation was enacted on the last day of the session (7 July), whereupon Devereux became the earl of Essex.66 C89/9/11; HMC 3rd Rep. 11. In January 1605 Essex, together with another of Prince Henry’s companions, Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, acted as esquire to Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) when the latter was made duke of York.67 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 472. Essex’s relations with Prince Henry may not have been good; according to his first biographer, the prince called the earl ‘the son of a traitor’ during a quarrel that erupted while they were playing tennis, which resulted in Essex hitting Henry with his racket. However, this did not lead to loss of favour with the king, who apparently rebuked his son, telling him that ‘he who did strike him then, would be sure, with more violent blows, to strike his enemy in times to come’.68 Coddrington, 218-19. Nevertheless, Essex evidently remained anxious about his relations with the prince. When he was travelling in France he wrote to Henry’s tutor, Adam Newton, that he hoped ‘that you will be daily a means for me to the prince, my most noble master, that his highness will please to remit all past errors, and remember me, though in a remote place’.69 W.B. Devereux, Lives and Letters of the Devereux, Earls of Essex, ii. 234-5.

In other respects Essex seems to have been well integrated into the Jacobean court. He struck up friendships with Oxford and William Cecil^*, Viscount Cranborne (subsequently 2nd earl of Salisbury), the son and heir of James I’s first minister, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury. Like Essex and Oxford, Cranborne was one of Prince Henry’s attendants. The two young men were particularly close: in September 1605 Essex asked Salisbury to excuse their failure to attend the prince, and promised that they would ‘be ready to do our service to his highness’ if given ‘leave to keep company together until the next week’.70 Ibid. 224.

Salisbury had been the principal rival of Essex’s father during the late Elizabethan period, and was widely blamed for the latter’s fall and execution. Despite the friendship that had arisen between Cranborne and Essex, Salisbury still feared a hereditary feud between the two families. According to the Venetian ambassador, ‘nothing is more earnestly desired by Salisbury than’ to avoid a ‘legacy of hatred’. Although Essex lacked Salisbury’s power and wealth, he had ‘an infinite number of friends all devoted to the memory of his father’ who, when Essex was older, could be persuaded to seek revenge for his father’s execution.71 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 308; Wilson, 55. To avoid this, Salisbury sought a marriage alliance with Essex, but lacking a suitable daughter of his own he turned to his friend, the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, who had several. The scheme devised involved Essex marrying one of Suffolk’s daughters and Cranborne another, so making them brothers-in-law. In April 1605 it was reported that Essex would marry Suffolk’s daughter, Katharine, and that the match had the support of Essex’s grandmother, the dowager countess of Leicester.72 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 149. However, by the following June it had been agreed that Essex would actually marry Katharine’s sister, Frances. Suffolk agreed to pay a dowry of over £6,000 as well as an allowance of £500 a year to the couple until Essex came of age.73 PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1605/3J1n29.

Salisbury’s scheme for reconciliation evidently appealed to James and, consequently, the couple were married, in January 1606, in the Chapel Royal, with the king giving away the bride. The couple received £3,000 in plate and a further £1,000 in other gifts, and it was reported that ‘the bridegroom carried himself as gravely and gracefully as if he were his father’s age’.74 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 42. As he was still a minor, Essex could not convey any of his property to provide a jointure for his wife. Consequently, a private bill was needed to confirm the marriage settlement, which received its first reading in the Lords on 19 Feb. and was subsequently enacted.75 LJ, ii. 377b; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1605/3J1n29.

The youth of the couple - both were under 16 at the time of their marriage - meant there was no question of them living together for several years. On the contrary, in 1607 Essex went abroad to finish his education. He was well received at Fontainebleau by Henri IV, who had fought alongside his father during the French wars of religion. While travelling in France, Essex wrote dutiful letters to Salisbury and Prince Henry.76 HMC Hatfield, xix. 33, 150, 358; Devereux, ii. 233-4; Somerset, 24; Ambassades de M. de La Boderie en Angleterre (1750), iii. 249; Oxford DNB, xv. 949. The following year he visited the Netherlands, where he arranged for wild boar to be sent to his father-in-law.77 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 72, 105.

Returning to England in late 1608, Essex was soon very seriously ill with smallpox, which left his face permanently scarred, although he was still described as very good looking by the Spanish ambassador in 1614.78 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 250; Wilson, 56; Add. 12514, f. 140; Tenison, xii. 529-30. On his recovery he resumed his role as a prominent young Jacobean courtier, apparently with little difficulty. In November 1609 a quarrel at a card party in Essex’s quarters in Whitehall between Sir George Wharton^‡ (eldest son of Philip Wharton^*, 3rd Lord Wharton), a gentleman of the privy chamber, and Sir James Stewart, master of Blantyre [S], resulted in a duel which proved fatal to both participants.79 HMC Downshire, ii. 182, 185; HMC Rutland, i. 419; HP Commons, 1558-1603, iii. 607-8. The following summer Essex himself quarrelled with Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (subsequently 4th earl of Pembroke), while out hunting with the king during the latter’s progress. Wild rumours abounded that Essex thereupon killed Montgomery. The dispute itself was later blamed on words spoken by Sir John Grey^‡, the son of Henry Grey^*, 1st Lord Grey of Groby, which may be accurate, as there is no evidence that Essex was disgraced.80 HMC Downshire, ii. 353, 370; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 226, 243. Such was Essex’s prominence that, in May 1610, the corporation of Exeter wrote to him to seek his support for a bill they were promoting in Parliament. This was despite the fact that Essex had no known connection with that city and was still too young to be summoned to the Lords.81 HMC Exeter, 321; HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 97. In late 1610 the crown promised to pay him £3,000 owed to his father.82 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 656.

The annulment, 1610-13

From a purely political standpoint, Essex’s marriage was highly successful; the connection enabled him to lobby Salisbury and Suffolk on behalf of his father’s former clients, and this in turn probably enhanced his reputation as a patron.83 HMC Buccleuch, i. 63, 79; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 592 However, the personal relationship between Essex and Frances was less successful. Essex later wrote that he had demonstrated love for his wife when he returned from his travels, but there is no evidence that this affection was reciprocated, and by July 1610 there were rumours that Frances was trying to poison him.84 State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, ii. 807; HMC Downshire, ii. 328. Essex had no surviving brothers (except for the illegitimate Walter Devereux^‡) or even paternal uncles, and without a son the earldom of Essex would die with him. He therefore put pressure on his wife to consummate their marriage, even complaining to Suffolk, who became angry with his daughter on hearing that she refused to sleep with her husband. However, by now Frances had fallen in love with the king’s favourite, Robert Carr^*, Viscount Rochester (later earl of Somerset). Worried that she would lose Rochester’s love if she had sexual relations with Essex, she persisted in refusing to consummate the marriage, even though ‘the world is against me’.85 State Trials, ii. 931-2.

In the early seventeenth century, marriages could not be dissolved simply because they had not been consummated. It was necessary to prove that a permanent disability existed that made sex impossible. As a result, annulments on the grounds of non-consummation were rare.86 M. Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in Eng. 172-3. One of the few precedents then known to lawyers showed how dangerous such proceedings could be. In 1561 the marriage of one John Bury had been annulled because a riding accident had left him with testes ‘no bigger than a bean’. Bury had subsequently remarried and produced a son, but after his death the second marriage had been declared void because he had evidently not been impotent, thereby rendering his son illegitimate.87 State Trials, ii. 849-50.

It is possible that Frances would have remained unhappily married to Essex for the rest of her life had it not been for her great-uncle, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, who was well versed in canon and civil law and may, consequently, have known that it was technically possible for the marriage to be dissolved. Northampton was trying to win the affection of Rochester and therefore welcomed a match between the favourite and his great-niece. The union would also enable Northampton to reconcile Rochester with Suffolk who, until then, had despised the viscount. In addition, Northampton may have felt that such a marriage would help him to neutralize the influence of Rochester’s close friend and political mentor, Sir Thomas Overbury. The latter was opposed to a divorce, because he was trying to cultivate a political alliance between Rochester and the former adherents of the 2nd earl of Essex, such as Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, and Sir Henry Neville^‡. Overbury feared that the former Essexians would feel obliged take the side of the son of their former patron if the annulment proceedings turned sour, driving a wedge between them and Rochester. Consequently, by promoting the dissolution of Essex’s marriage, Northampton could hope to break the relationship between Overbury and Rochester, so enabling him to take Overbury’s place as the favourite’s guide.88 L. L. Peck, Northampton, 30-3, 38-40; Somerset, 97, 99; A. Bellany, Pols. of Ct. Scandal in Early Modern Eng. 43, 47-8.

Shortly before Christmas 1612 Frances, under considerable parental pressure, agreed to sleep with her husband. However, the results were disastrous. Frances placed the blame squarely on her husband, and convinced her father that Essex was impotent, whereas Essex claimed that his wife had ‘reviled him’, which had ‘cooled his courage’.89 Somerset, 117; State Trials, ii. 819. Suffolk, now convinced that an annulment of the marriage was necessary, petitioned the king to issue a commission to hear evidence for nullification. By then Essex himself was willing to consent to an annulment, so long as it left him free to remarry. He therefore agreed to admit that the marriage had not been consummated, but only on condition he did not have to declare that he was impotent. Overbury was furious and, as Northampton had probably hoped, his relationship with Rochester quickly broke down. On 21 Apr. 1613 he was committed to the Tower after refusing a diplomatic posting abroad.90 Somerset, 104-10; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 181.

Following a meeting between Suffolk, Northampton, Southampton, and Essex’s great-uncle, Lord Knollys, at which a series of articles concerning the annulment were agreed, the way was cleared for formal proceedings to begin.91 SP46/11, f. 64; State Trials, ii. 805; Somerset, 114; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, i. 221; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 463. In May 1613 a commission to judge the case was established, headed by the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*.92 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 183. Frances thereupon petitioned for an annulment, claiming that Essex ‘could never carnally know her’, although he was perfectly healthy and ‘hath power and ability of body to deal with other women and to know them carnally’.93 State Trials, ii. 785-7.

Essex’s highly selective impotence was attributed to maleficium, or black magic. Annulments granted on the basis of maleficium were relatively common in France but practically unheard of in England, and Abbot, in particular, was strongly opposed to following precedents set in a Catholic country.94 Ibid. 810, 851; D. Lindley, Trials of Frances Howard, 94, 98. He also feared that, were he to agree to the annulment, the way would be clear for obtaining a divorce via a legal fiction of selective impotence.95 HMC Downshire, iv. 117, 137, 182; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 456, 461, 463; State Trials, ii. 811-12. Perhaps for these reasons Essex shifted the blame from himself to Frances, asserting that he ‘was not able to penetrate into her womb’, and that ‘he believeth not that the said lady Frances is a woman able and fit for carnal copulation’.96 State Trials, ii. 787. However, this change in tactics merely led Frances’ counsel to move for their client to be examined by a panel of midwives and married women. The latter testified that Frances was a virgin and, contrary to Essex’s assertion, perfectly capable of having sex and producing children.97 SP46/11, f. 69; State Trials, ii. 803.

By late June, James and Suffolk were becoming increasingly impatient to have the case resolved. The following month the king summoned Abbot and three of his fellow commissioners, all of whom declared they could not agree to an annulment. Abbot was willing to sanction a dissolution if Essex really was impotent, but thought that this had not been sufficiently demonstrated. He attributed the couple’s failure to consummate their marriage to a breakdown in their relations, and this fell short of the permanent physical impairment the law required. James, who supported the annulment for the sake of his favourite, Rochester, also attributed the failure to consummate to the breakdown in relations between the couple, but, as the author of a tract against witchcraft, he was willing to attribute the cause to maleficium, arguing that ‘the devil … may so estrange the husband’s affection towards the wife, as he cannot be able to perform that duty to her’, so providing the permanent impediment the law required. His attitude may also have been influenced by his Scottish background, for after the Reformation divorce was permitted in Scotland for adultery and desertion. He certainly told Abbot that the early Church had not meddled with matrimonial causes ‘till the popedom began to wax great’. As a result, he was less inclined to see marriage as an indissoluble sacred union than Abbot.98 State Trials, ii. 800, 801, 808, 810, 846, 854; HMC Buccleuch, i. 140; C.J. Guthrie, ‘History of Divorce in Scotland’, SHR, viii. 39-52.

James adjourned the commission until 18 Sept. and added two commissioners who were expected to be more amenable.99 Chamberlain Letters, i. 469. In the interim, Frances’ relations spread rumours that Essex was completely impotent. On 20 Aug. Essex quarrelled violently with his brother-in-law, Henry Howard^‡, challenging him to a duel ‘for certain disgraceful speeches of him’. At the end of that month both men made preparations to go to the Netherlands to fight. To prevent this, descriptions of the would-be combatants were circulated. Essex was described as ‘of middle statue and slender, black haired, but no beard, his face somewhat disfigured with the smallpox’. Essex was finally intercepted on 7 Sept. at Courtrai by the king’s messenger and agreed to return home; Howard was apprehended two days later.100 HMC Downshire, iv. 205-6; Somerset, 136; Add. 12514, f. 140; Chamberlain Letters, i. 474-5; FSL, L.a.444; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 120-1.

Essex and Howard appeared before the Council on 17 Sept., two days after Overbury died in the Tower. Both were put under house arrest and Essex was forbidden permission to write a tract justifying his behaviour.101 HMC Downshire, iv. 203. The following day the annulment commission reconvened and agreed that Essex should be re-examined. Essex was eager to testify again, but James forbade this, pressing instead for a resolution of the matter. Ostensibly this was because Essex ‘might speak somewhat which might mar the business’, but it is unlikely that at this late stage the earl wanted to hinder the annulment, as this would leave him married to an estranged wife with whom he could not hope to produce an heir. It is more likely that James feared that Essex wanted to use the occasion of a re-examination to launch a further attack on his wife and question the verdict of the midwives. This fear was probably justified, for by now Essex hated both his wife and Suffolk. However, the king and the Council were keen to effect a reconciliation between Essex and the Howards because, as the Spanish ambassador remarked, ‘the factions and relatives ranged on both sides’ consisted of ‘the most important men of this kingdom’.102 State Trials, ii. 819-23; Somerset, 137, 148; Tenison, xii. 528.

On 25 Sept. the commissioners decreed, by a majority of seven to five, that the marriage was annulled, and that both parties were free to marry again. By the beginning of November there was speculation that Essex would marry a daughter of the earl of Southampton or of his uncle Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich (later 1st earl of Warwick). However, Essex himself was hesitant about entering into a fresh marriage, as he doubted the legality of the annulment decree. If this were overturned, any subsequent marriage would become void. No such doubts assailed Frances and Rochester (created earl of Somerset on 3 Nov.) and they were married on 26 December.103 HMC Downshire, iv. 214, 242.

The Addled Parliament and the fall of the Somersets, 1614-19

Essex retreated to his country estates in early December, but had returned to Westminster by the following February, when he attended the marriage of one of Anne of Denmark’s attendants to Robert Ker, 1st Lord Roxburghe [S]. He accompanied the wife of John Ramsay^*, Viscount Haddington [S] (subsequently earl of Holdernesse) who, during the proceedings, was insulted by Sir John Heydon. This resulted in a quarrel between Essex and Heydon and a challenge to a duel, but, while the latter was fetching his sword, Abbot managed to persuade the earl not to fight. It was Heydon, rather than Essex, who was blamed for the dispute and when Anne of Denmark, who had long been a supporter of the earl, gave a feast in celebration of the marriage on the 16th, Essex was conspicuously in attendance beside her.104 HMC Downshire, iv. 266; Tenison, xii. 529-30; Chamberlain Letters, i. 507; Letters of Philip Gawdy ed. I.H. Jeayes, 176; HMC Portland, ix. 31. The annulment of his marriage required Essex to repay his marriage portion, but he seems to have had little difficulty in doing so, thanks to the assistance of his grandmother, the countess of Leicester. However, he did have to sell the reversion to a manor in Hertfordshire, which he stood to inherit from his mother.105 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, ii. 382; Devereux, ii. 272; Add. 46188, f. 136r-v.

By the time the Addled Parliament was summoned, in February 1614, Essex was old enough to sit in the Lords. In addition, he was now also in a position to exercise electoral patronage in Staffordshire, where he owned extensive estates and where, since 1612, he was lord lieutenant. He secured the election at Lichfield of his steward, William Wingfield^‡, and helped return his cousin, Sir Walter Devereux^† (later 5th Viscount Hereford) at Stafford. He probably also supported Thomas Crompton^‡, who was returned for the county, and was related through his mother to the Astons, a family long connected with the Devereuxs. Crompton certainly later became one of Essex’s deputy lieutenants. In addition, Essex’s illegitimate half-brother, Walter Devereux, was returned for Pembroke Boroughs, although possibly on his own interest.106 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 362-3, 366, 371 582.

Essex assiduously attended the upper House, being recorded as present at 24 of the 29 sittings. However, as a newcomer to Parliament he was named to only two of the nine committees appointed by the Lords, one for a bill to prevent lawsuits over bequests of land and the other for a measure to preserve timber.107 LJ, ii. 694a, 697b. He made no recorded speeches. Essex’s silence may not have been entirely due to inexperience. His secretary, Arthur Wilson, later wrote that ‘nature had not given him eloquence’, and although Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, claimed that Essex ‘had much authority in the debates’ of the upper House, he was writing of the 1640s. Indeed, he attributed Essex’s power in the Lords to his ‘having sat long in Parliament, and so acquainted with it in very active times’.108 Wilson, 162; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 243-4. Essex was probably never a very frequent speaker in the upper House, but it is likely that over time what interventions he did make became increasingly influential.

After the session was dissolved, on 7 June, it was reported that Essex was one of the peers with whom the king was angry. This suggests that Essex had supported the Commons after the lower House requested a conference with the Lords over impositions, a request which had been successfully headed off by (among others) his former father-in-law Suffolk and the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley).109 HMC Downshire, iv. 426. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Parliament, Essex paid £100 towards the benevolence levied by the king to compensate him for Parliament’s failure to vote supply, for which on 27 Nov. he received a fulsome letter of thanks from Suffolk, now lord treasurer. ‘I know you have given more out of your proportion of estate than most of the lords of England’, he declared, adding that ‘howsoever the fortunes of the world have in some sort separated our persons, yet shall not my good affections depart from wishing you all honour and happy life’.110 E351/1950; Add. 46188, f. 5.

In the summer of 1615 the circumstances of Overbury’s death were investigated. What was discovered incriminated both Somerset and Frances; the following October they were both placed under arrest, and in May 1616 they were convicted of his poisoning.111 Bellany, 72-3, 77-9. Essex attended his wife’s trial, but kept himself inconspicuous. However, when Somerset was arraigned ‘he stood full in his face’.112 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 5. During the investigation it was discovered that, while married to Essex, Frances had been in contact with Simon Forman, an astrological physician widely regarded as a sorcerer, to whom she had complained of Essex’s sexual attentions. As a result, it became universally believed that Essex had been rendered impotent as a result of Frances’ witchcraft. This must have gone some way towards restoring his reputation.113 State Trials, ii. 931-2; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 21; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 316, 324; Somerset, 294.

The fall of the Somersets led to speculation that Essex would rise in favour. Indeed, on 7 Nov. 1615 it was reported that Essex would soon be made master of the horse.114 Clenennau Letters and Pprs. in the Brogyntyn Coll. ed. T. Jones Pierce, 90. The earl may have had ambitions in that direction, for in late December the secretary to the Tuscan embassy reported that Essex was now in constant attendance at court.115 Lindley, 163, quoting, in translation, from A. M. Crinò, ‘Il processo a lord e lady Somerset per l’assassinio di sir Thomas Overbury nelle relazioni di Francesco Quaratesi e di Pompilio Gaetani’, English Miscellany (1957), viii. 265. However, in January 1616, the mastership of the horse was bestowed upon the king’s new favourite, Sir George Villiers^* (subsequently 1st duke of Buckingham). The following May the Venetian ambassador wrote that Essex would be glad to enter the service of the republic, which suggests that the earl now saw little prospect of advancement at home.116 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 210. It was also reported that Essex, who still believed that the annulment of his marriage had been unlawful, hoped that Frances would be executed, thereby paving the way for him to remarry. However, James pardoned Frances, leaving Essex in marital limbo.117 Somerset, 420-1, citing Crinò, 284-5; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 381.

On 2 Feb. 1618 Essex performed in a masque at Coleorton Hall in Leicestershire to celebrate the marriage of his sister to Sir William Seymour^* (subsequently 2nd duke of Somerset). Written by Essex’s chaplain, Thomas Pestell, the masque was a pointedly ‘country’ production, lamenting the decline of traditional hospitality, which was blamed partly on the austerity of the puritans but mainly on the effects of upward social mobility. The new ‘gentlemen, knights, barons [and] baronets’ did not know their social duties, unlike the traditional aristocracy. The masque was almost certainly intended as criticism of the sale of honours by the Jacobean regime, and possibly also as an attack on Villiers, the younger son of a Leicestershire knight who had recently been made marquess of Buckingham, his third title in as many years.118 P.J. Finkelpearl, ‘Fairies’ Farewell: the Masque at Coleorton (1618)’, Rev. of Eng. Studs. n.s. xliv. 333-4, 339. Interestingly, Essex’s support for country hospitality seems to have derived more from ideology than personal preference. There is little evidence he liked Chartley, believing that the winter climate there was potentially fatal to his health, although he still thought it his duty to keep house in his ancestral seat at least some of the time.119 Add. 46188, f. 172. Moreover, he was not completely cut off from the court. In May 1619 he was employed to greet an extraordinary ambassador from France, and later that month he attended the funeral of Anne of Denmark.120 Birch, Jas. I, ii. 157; Nichols, iii. 539.

The Palatinate and the third Jacobean Parliament, 1620-3

Essex’s father had been the leading proponent of an aggressive anti-Habsburg foreign policy in late Elizabethan England. This probably caused Essex to take a keen interest in the early stages of the Thirty Years’ War, particularly as it offered him the opportunity to obtain military glory. Essex described himself as ‘an ill scribe’, who was ‘trained to action [rather] than to a pen’, and so probably regarded war as his best route to advancement.121 Devereux, ii. 311. In March 1620 it was reported that Essex and other peers were preparing to raise soldiers to fight in Bohemia, whose Protestant inhabitants had rebelled against the Austrian Habsburgs and elected James I’s son-in-law, the Elector Palatine Frederick V, as king.122 Add. 72253, f. 104v.

Although unwilling to support the Bohemian rebellion, James allowed Frederick to recruit soldiers to defend his hereditary lands. Frederick appointed Sir Horace Vere^* (subsequently Lord Vere of Tilbury) to command the English volunteers. Essex, who had obtained a passport in early May and was preparing to lead 20 young gentlemen to fight in Bohemia, was appointed captain of a company of 250 infantrymen under Vere.123 Add. Ch. 71775-6; CSP Ven. 1619-21, p. 263. According to Wilson, so many recruits ‘flocked to Essex out of love’ that he increased his company to 300 men, of whom 100 were ‘gentlemen of quality’, paying the extra 50 out of his own pocket. Contemporaries were surprised that Essex and his old friend, Oxford, who had also been appointed to command one of Vere’s companies, were willing to accept such lowly positions. However, according to Wilson, they were encouraged by a promise from James that they would be followed by a much larger force, in which the earls would each command a regiment.124 Wilson, 135-6; Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 11; Add. 72253, f. 126.

Vere’s troops crossed to the Netherlands in August 1620 and marched to the lower (or Rhenish) Palatinate, which had been invaded by a Spanish army, where they joined German Protestant forces. As neither side was willing to risk battle, the two armies manoeuvred round each other until they went into winter quarters, the English having ‘not so much as discharged a shot’, although Essex was nearly hit by a bullet outside Coblenz. Many of the English soldiers deserted for lack of pay, thereby reducing a force which originally numbered around 2,400 men to about 1,900. Not surprisingly, Essex returned to England, arriving in London on 11 November. He hoped that the recent defeat of Frederick V’s forces in Bohemia would persuade James to send out the promised regiments, but instead, in the following January, he was merely appointed to a council of war entrusted with preparing plans for the defence of the Palatinate.125 CSP Ven. 1619-21, pp. 368, 486, 499; Wilson, 136-9; Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 12; HMC Montagu, 102; Add. 72253, f. 159; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 156.

It is possible that Essex’s experience in the Palatinate gave him some sympathy for puritanism. Sir Horace Vere had puritan sympathies, as did the expedition’s chaplain, Dr John Burgess, whom Wilson described as ‘an instrument of much good’ among the soldiers.126 Oxford DNB, lvi. 302; Wilson, 138 However, there is no evidence that Essex ever became dissatisfied with the established Church. Indeed, Clarendon thought that Essex was ‘as much devoted as any man to the Book of Common Prayer’, and that his chaplains were always conformable. (One of them, William Sherborne, became a cathedral canon and was later ejected by the parliamentarians for royalism.)127 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 535; Al. Ox. Although Essex disliked some of the more anti-Calvinist bishops, he had ‘great reverence and kindness’ to the ‘less formal and more popular prelates’ such as Joseph Hall^*, bishop of Exeter, and Thomas Morton^*, bishop of Durham.128 Clarendon, i. 310; T. Birch, Life of Henry, Prince of Wales, 84; Add. 46188, f. 112. An inventory of his possession made after his death shows that Essex owned numerous religious books, ranging in content from Calvinist conformity to the radicalism of John Lilburne and the Dissenting Brethren. He also owned a picture of ‘the wise men of the east their visitation of Christ’, which was kept in ‘the great chamber’ rather than in his chapel. The latter seems to have been very sparsely furnished, with no images or ornaments recorded. It contained a bible and eight psalm books, but no copy of the Book of Common Prayer or Parliament’s new directory of worship, although Essex owned copies of both. From this it would seem that Essex preferred a plain form of Protestant worship, with readings from the scriptures and psalm singing, and that he had little time for denominational differences.129 V.F. Snow, ‘An Inventory of the Lord General’s Library, 1646’, The Library, 5th ser. xxi. 117-18; Add. 46189, ff. 159, 161v.

Surprisingly, perhaps, Essex was not vehemently anti-Catholic. His mother married the Catholic Irish peer, Richard Bourke^*, 4th earl of Clanricarde (subsequently 1st earl of St Albans in the English peerage) and converted to Catholicism, as did his sister, Dorothy. As a result, when Oxford offered a toast ‘to the confusion [or possibly ‘conversion’] of the papists’ at a dinner in 1624, Essex refused to join in.130 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621–5 ed. M. Questier (Cam. Soc. ser. 5. xxxiv), 261. Nevertheless, on being granted the wardship of Dorothy’s son, Sir Charles Shirley, in 1633, he was determined to bring up the child as a Protestant.131 Coventry Docquets, 475; Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 209.

Essex’s return to England occurred shortly before the elections to the third Jacobean Parliament. Wingfield was re-elected for Lichfield and Crompton for Staffordshire, but in Stafford Essex exercised no discernible influence. However, he was almost certainly responsible for the return of Edward Kirton^‡ for Newcastle-under-Lyme, where he owned property. Kirton was the client of Essex’s brother-in-law, Sir William Seymour. The latter was returned for Marlborough but did not take his seat because he was summoned to the Lords in right of his grandfather’s barony of Beauchamp. He was replaced by Essex’s cousin, Sir Walter Devereux, possibly as a quid pro quo for the election of Kirton.132 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 361, 364, 368, 447; Snow, Essex the Rebel, 199.

As in 1614, Essex, who received Beauchamp’s proxy, regularly attended the upper House. He was recorded as present at 40 of the 44 sittings before Easter, 91 per cent of the total, and between Easter and the summer recess he missed only one of 43 sittings, on 9 May. His record declined after the session reconvened in November, when he was listed as attending 17 of the 24 sittings, although this still meant an attendance rate of 71 per cent.133 LJ, iii. 4b.

In keeping with his opposition to the inflation of honours, Essex signed the petition drawn up outside the House early in the Parliament by the peers who were opposed to allowing the purchasers of Irish and Scottish titles to enjoy precedence over English noblemen. Indeed, on 20 Feb. he and Oxford accompanied Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, when it was delivered to the Council. According to Wilson, Essex was one of the lords questioned by James about the petition. The king, incensed that his right to bestow Scottish and Irish titles on Englishmen had been called into question, apparently told the earl, ‘I fear thee not Essex, [even] if thou were as well beloved as thy father, and hadst forty thousand men at thy heels’.134 APC. 1619-21, p. 353; Wilson, 186-8.

Essex was appointed to 17 of the 74 or 75 committees named by the upper House before the summer recess, during which period he gave four recorded speeches. In addition, at the start of the session the king appointed him a trier of petitions from Gascony and England’s overseas territories, a largely honorary appointment. This suggests that he was regarded as a senior member of the upper House, even though he was ranked only 14th or 15th among the earls without formal office.135 LJ, iii. 7a. His first committee appointment, on 8 Feb., was to consider bills to prevent the export of artillery and improve the weapons of the militia. The latter measure interested him as a lord lieutenant, and four days later he acted as teller opposing a motion to have the bill recommitted, but was defeated.136 Ibid. 13a; ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 12. The only other legislation Essex is known to have taken an interest in sought to confirm the settlement of a dispute about property in Hertfordshire which had been purchased by the London financier, Sir Peter Vanlore, with whom both he and his mother had had dealings. Essex was appointed to the committee on 25 May, and reported the bill three days later, when it was ordered to be engrossed.137 LJ, iii. 132b, 138b; Tenison, xii. 383-4; Add. 46188, f. 136r-v.

On 18 Apr. John Chamberlain reported that a quarrel had been brewing between Essex and Gilbert Gerard^*, 2nd Lord Gerard, who was identified with the pro-Spanish faction at court, ‘but it was taken up in time’.138 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 364; GILBERT GERARD. When the king visited the upper House on 24 Apr. Essex carried the sword of state.139 LJ, iii. 81a. Two days later Essex moved that, in view of the death on 6 Apr. of Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford, a new writ of summons should be issued to the latter’s grandson, Lord Beauchamp, as earl of Hertford. However, the king refused to allow the new earl of Hertford, Essex’s brother-in-law, to sit with the same precedence as the 1st earl, and on 30 Apr. the House was informed that James had ordered the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, not to issue a writ to Hertford until further notice. On 12 May Essex apparently alluded to this case when he observed that the House had agreed to take into consideration ‘the cause of two peers’. The other peer he was referring to was probably his uncle, the 3rd earl of Northumberland, who was then in the Tower. Six days later Northumberland himself petitioned the Lords for a writ of summons, whereupon Essex’s friend, Oxford, also moved a writ for Hertford.140 Ibid. 90a, 98a, 129a; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 113; Add. 40085, f. 159v.

On 17 May Essex called for Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, and Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer, to be reconciled, the two peers having quarrelled on 8 May after Arundel disparaged Spencer’s ancestors.141 LD 1621, pp. vii, 91. After the session was adjourned on 4 June, Oxford was examined by the Privy Council about a dinner party he had attended. During a discussion ‘about the Palatinate and Bohemia business’, he had recounted ‘some passages in the Parliament House’ between Essex and the vice chamberlain, John Digby^*, Lord Digby (later 1st earl of Bristol) on the subject of ‘breaking the orders of the House, which was expressed amongst them with some heat’. Oxford stated that he was glad Prince Charles had been present, ‘for he did think that if it had not been out of respect to his highness, that there would have been further disorder, which would not have ended in words’. Essex’s quarrel with Digby, a privy councillor closely involved in English diplomacy, may have had its origins in the failure of the Jacobean regime to send further forces to defend the Palatinate.142 SP14/122/21.

During the summer recess, Essex, ‘finding no hope of recruits for the Palatinate’, decided to return to the Netherlands to serve as a volunteer in the Dutch army. In early July he left England in the company of Robert Sidney^*, Viscount Lisle (subsequently 2nd earl of Leicester), a colonel of one of the English regiments in Dutch service and the husband of Essex’s cousin.143 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 13; Add. 72332, f. 52. Evidence contained in a letter written by Lisle’s father, Robert Sidney^*, 1st earl of Leicester, suggests that Essex entered into negotiations with Lisle to purchase his command at around this date, but if so no agreement was concluded.144 Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 351. The letter is dated 14 Sept. 1620 but was clearly written the following year.

Essex had returned to England by the time the session was resumed on 20 November. He received one committee appointment, on 6 Dec., for a bill to enable the merchants of the Staple to export woollen cloth. Five days later he dissented from the vote to exonerate the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), from charges brought against him by Sir John Bourchier^‡ concerning a Chancery decree. Essex was probably not motivated by disapproval of Williams as a churchman; he subsequently consulted the bishop ‘in point of conscience’ when he contemplated matrimony again in the early 1630s. However, he may have disapproved of clergymen holding significant secular offices. During the course of this dispute one of Essex’s servants - Sir James Hales of Dane John, Kent - petitioned the upper House complaining that he had been arrested, contrary to the privileges of Parliament. The offenders appeared before the Lords seven days on 17 Dec., when Essex was ‘an earnest suitor … that they may be no further troubled’; they were dismissed, having already ‘submitted themselves unto the said earl’.145 LJ, iii. 184a, 188a, 198a; LD 1621, p. 117n; Add 46188, f. 131; Clarendon, i. 309-10; Vis. Kent (Harl. Soc. xlii), 59.

Essex returned to the United Provinces as a volunteer in the summers of 1622 and 1623. On the latter occasion he may have intended to stay for a longer period, as on 21 June he obtained from the king a licence to travel for three years, suggesting that he was seeking a commission in the Dutch army. However, aside from helping to feast the queen of Bohemia at Delft in August, he found himself under-employed. In September, while lamenting the recent defeats suffered by the German Protestants, he complained to Sir Edward Conway^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Conway) that he was ‘ashamed we have so little likelihood of action’. He returned to England on 9 Nov. 1623, accompanied by ‘many of our cavaliers’. By then Buckingham and Prince Charles, who had gone to Madrid to conclude a match between the prince and the Spanish Infanta, had returned home empty handed, leading to the hope that the current of English foreign policy would soon turn against the Habsburgs.146 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, 13; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 616; Birch, Jas. I, ii. 417; SP81/29, f. 133; SP14/154/19.

The fourth Jacobean Parliament and the Netherlands, 1624-5

In the elections to the 1624 Parliament, Essex probably supported his kinsman, Sir Edward Littleton^‡, who was returned as a knight of the shire for Staffordshire. He certainly secured Wingfield’s re-election at Lichfield, where he may also have nominated the comptroller of the household, Sir John Suckling^‡. Suckling was a client of Buckingham’s, and if Essex did support his election then it indicates that Essex was willing to co-operate with the duke in a broad anti-Spanish political alliance. Suckling chose to sit for Middlesex, where he had also been returned, and was replaced by Sir Simon Weston^‡, one of Essex’s adherents. At Tamworth the earl probably secured the election of John Woodford^‡, the secretary of James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, who was married to Essex’s cousin. He was less successful elsewhere; he probably supported Oxford’s half-brother, Sir Edward Vere^‡, at Newcastle-under-Lyme, but Vere’s return was overturned on appeal. He seems also to have failed again at Stafford, where he probably supported Wingfield’s friend, Sir William Walter^‡.147 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 363, 366, 368, 372, 374.

Essex was recorded as present at 87 of the 93 sittings during the 1624 Parliament, 94 per cent of the total, and attended the two prorogation meetings before the session started (12 and 16 February). Excused on 13 Mar., he returned for the next sitting two days later. He himself excused the absence of his cousin, Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick, on 9 April.148 LJ, iii. 260b, 316a; Add. 40088, f. 25v. As in 1621, he received the proxy of his brother-in-law, Hertford, and was appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony.149 LJ, iii. 205b, 208a. On 25 Feb. he assisted in the introduction of seven new peers to the House, including his ex-wife’s brother, Thomas Howard^*, Viscount Andover (subsequently 1st earl of Berkshire). Two months later he and his great-uncle, William Knollys, by now Viscount Wallingford, introduced Essex’s step-father, the earl of Clanricarde, who had recently been created Viscount Tunbridge.150 Ibid. 217b, 313a.

Essex made ten recorded speeches and received 22 committee appointments, out of a possible 105, during the fourth Jacobean Parliament. On 1 Mar. he was named to the committee created on Buckingham’s motion to examine England’s military preparedness.151 Ibid. 237b. Eight days later he was appointed to the committee for petitions. He subsequently reported two petitions, one in the morning of 27 May, concerning prisoners of the Algerian corsairs, and the other in the afternoon, from one Edward Leigh concerning a disputed legacy.152 Add. 40088, f. 135v; LJ, iii. 413b. On 12 Mar. Essex was initially nominated to attend the conference with the Commons that afternoon at which the lower House presented their promise to vote supply if the king broke off the marriage negotiations with Spain, but his name was subsequently deleted from the committee list.153 Add. 40087, f. 78; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 34v. Essex was clearly keen to further the Commons’ proposal, for after the Lords decided to sit that afternoon to consider it he suggested that the Commons be informed, so that the lower House might do the same if they wished.154 Add. 40087, f. 78v; LJ, iii. 258b.

Essex’s support for war brought him into conflict with the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, one of the leading advocates of peace. On 5 Apr. Middlesex claimed that there was ‘a dangerous conspiracy against him’, words which, four days later, Essex asserted ‘concerned the honour of both Houses’. He challenged the lord treasurer to name names, whereupon Middlesex was put on the defensive, asking for more time while protesting his innocence and honesty.155 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 57, 60; Harl. 1581, f. 378. On 11 May Essex was one of the peers named to go to Middlesex, by now facing impeachment proceedings for corruption, to determine whether the lord treasurer’s claim to be too ill to attend was true. According to the Journal, Essex reported back that Middlesex complained that the method used to prosecute him was ‘unchristian-like’. However, in the clerk’s scribbled book this same speech is attributed to William Fiennes^*, 8th or 2nd Lord (subsequently 1st Viscount) Saye and Sele.156 LJ, iii. 371b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 72.

On 22 Apr. Essex is recorded in the Journal as reporting the bill against abuses in procuring writs of certiorari and other legal processes, which he had been named to consider on the 9th of that month. However, he was not recorded as being present on that day, and it is possible that the bill was, in fact, reported by the lord privy seal, Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester, the senior peer on the committee, who was present.157 LJ, iii. 296a, 316a. Two days later, Essex was named to consider a bill concerning his friend, Sir Thomas Beaumont^‡, 1st Viscount Beaumont [I], at whose house at Coleorton in 1618 he had performed in a masque. He reported the bill on 3 May, when it received a third reading.158 Ibid. 317b, 337b; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 176. He was also named to the committee on the bill for repairing Colchester harbour on 15 May, reporting the measure a week later, with provisos, which were approved. Essex’s only known connection with the borough was the fact that its recorder was the earl of Suffolk.159 LJ, iii. 386a, 400b. On 5 May one of Essex’s chaplains, William Hubbock, petitioned the Lords complaining he had been arrested contrary to the privileges of Parliament. The offenders were summoned to answer for their contempt, but were released on Essex’s motion.160 Ibid. 342a; Add. 40088, f. 123; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 90v.

On 18 Apr. the English ambassador to the United Provinces was informed that a force of 6,000 soldiers would be sent to assist the Dutch army in the war against Spain and that it was likely that Essex would be appointed colonel of one of the new English regiments, alongside Southampton and Oxford.161 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 217. By the end of May the Spanish were apparently consoling themselves that the despatch of those earls would rid England of Spain’s three greatest enemies.162 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 333. Essex left for Holland on 28 July and quarrelled over precedence with another of his fellow colonels, Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (subsequently 1st earl of Lindsey). The issue was referred to Sir Horace Vere and Sir Edward Cecil^* (subsequently Viscount Wimbledon), the two most senior officers of the old English contingent in the Dutch army, who decided in favour of Willoughby as the latter had more military experience. For the same reason, precedence had already been granted to Southampton over Oxford. John Holles^*, Lord Houghton (later 1st earl of Clare) reported that Essex was ‘little pleased’ at the decision.163 Add. 72276, f. 112v; SP84/121, f. 259; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 286.

The Dutch were reluctant to use the new English forces for significant operations because they were inexperienced and soon depleted by sickness, which Essex found frustrating.164 Add. 46188, ff. 48v, 71. Disease took the earl of Southampton in November, prompting Essex to lobby on behalf of his friend’s widow and under-age heir.165 HMC Bath, ii. 73. The following May Oxford, on his way back to England, also died. By then Charles I had succeeded to the throne, and Essex petitioned the new monarch that ‘since business waxeth cold in these parts [the Netherlands]’, he might be appointed to the proposed naval expedition against Spain.166 Add. 46188, f. 79.

The first two Caroline parliaments and the Cadiz expedition, 1625-6

In June 1625 Essex was offered command of a regiment in the new enterprise, and by 29 July he was back in England, having been granted leave to return at Charles’s request.167 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 49, 54; C. Dalton, Life and Times of Gen. Sir Edward Cecil, ii. 122; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 232. However, he returned too late to influence the outcome of elections to the first Caroline Parliament, although Sir Simon Weston was elected for Staffordshire and Wingfield for Lichfield. He was again appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony, but missed the early part of the session, which began on 18 June, only to be adjourned to Oxford because of the plague on 11 July. The session resumed on 1 Aug., but Essex did not attend until the morning of the 4th. In total, he was recorded as present seven times. He was appointed to only two of the 25 committees appointed by the upper House, both on 10 Aug., when he was named to consider a bill against recusancy and added to the subcommittee for privileges.168 Procs. 1625, pp. 31, 48, 174; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 363, 366. At Oxford Essex stayed at his old college, Merton.169 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 15.

As well as attending the Lords, Essex was involved in military preparations.170 HMC Rutland, i. 474. However, he quickly became disillusioned and retired to his brother-in-law Hertford’s house in Wiltshire after learning that Buckingham had decided not to lead the expedition in person as originally planned, but had instead handed command to Sir Edward Cecil. Although offered the post of colonel-general, which would make him second in command, Essex turned it down, probably because he was dissatisfied at Cecil’s appointment. His cousin Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland, thereupon reassured him that Buckingham ‘pays you all respect and affection that is possible’, but explained that the duke would not now consider replacing Cecil, ‘since all things are already resolved’. On 12 Sept. Buckingham formally offered Essex the post of colonel-general again, on the grounds that Essex’s presence would ‘give much lustre to the action’. This time the offer seems was promptly accepted, as two days later the earl – who was also made vice admiral of the fleet - made his way to Plymouth.171 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 15; Dalton, ii. 119-20, 126, 134; FSL, X.c.132, f. 174; Add. 46188, f. 73; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 86.

The expedition sailed for Cadiz, which Essex’s father had sacked in 1596. Essex led the fleet when they approached the port on 22 Oct. and, having the advantage of surprise, he tried to seize a number of Spanish ships. However, he was not seconded, and consequently the prizes eluded him. The English forces subsequently landed near the town, but by now the Spanish were forewarned and Cecil’s soldiers became inebriated with captured wine. Concluding that they were not strong enough to besiege Cadiz, the English withdrew to the sea to conduct a fruitless search for the Spanish plate fleet. On 17 Nov. they decided to return home.172 Snow, Essex the Rebel, 134-43.

Essex was obliged to delay his return voyage to mend his ship’s sails. He was therefore surprised to find when he reached Falmouth on 5 Dec. that he was among the first to come home. He hastened to Hampton Court, arriving on 7 Dec., where he informed the king of the expedition’s failure.173 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 171; SP16/11/32, 59. Holland assured him that ‘the king is so satisfied with you and your proceedings as you need not fear any man hath power to traduce you, for I hear him wish you had had the chief command’.174 FSL, X.c.132, f. 170. However, accusations soon began to fly concerning the conduct of the expedition; on 24 Dec. it was reported that Cecil, by now Viscount Wimbledon, ‘lays a blame upon my lord of Essex for being too forward, and he [Essex] returns the fault of too much backwardness upon the general [Wimbledon]’.175 C115/108/8628.

On 2 Feb. Essex attended Charles I’s coronation, at which he bore one of the ceremonial swords and helped the king robe and disrobe.176 HMC Rutland, i. 476; Birch, Chas. I, ii. 163. The second Caroline Parliament commenced four days later. Essex’s chaplain, Pestell, wrote a short poem to commemorate his patron’s journey to Parliament, in which Essex is depicted as being accompanied by Warwick, Hertford and the now Viscount Saye and Sele. These verses probably give a good idea of Essex’s core alliances in the upper House at this time.177 Poems of Thomas Pestell ed. H. Buchan, 29. In the Commons, his allies included Sir Simon Weston and Wingfield, who were re-elected for Staffordshire and Lichfield respectively, and Essex’s illegitimate half-brother, Sir Walter Devereux, who was returned for Tamworth.178 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 363, 366, 374.

Essex was again appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony and attended 77 of the 81 sittings, 95 per cent of the total. Excused on 27 Feb., he returned the following day.179 Procs. 1626, i. 22, 75. When William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (later archbishop of Canterbury) annotated his list of the 1626 upper House in early May, he marked Essex with a dot, probably to indicate that the earl was now considered one of Buckingham’s opponents.180 SP16/20/36; E. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 165, 167. Indeed, at some point during the Parliament it was reported that ‘Essex stood so much against the duke’ that ‘there was like to be [a] duel’ between him and one of Buckingham’s strongest supporters, Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset.181 Procs. 1626, iv. 342.

Essex’s anger with Buckingham probably stemmed from the aftermath of the Cadiz expedition. On 6 Mar., while Parliament was still in session, Wimbledon and the expedition’s other senior officers, including Essex, appeared before the Privy Council, whereupon Wimbledon ‘fell into a passion’ and launched a vehement attack on his subordinates. Before they had set out, he declared, ‘some had wished … that the voyage might rather not prosper than he should have the honour of it’. Essex and his colleagues responded in turn by demanding that Wimbledon specify which of them he was accusing of wanting the expedition to fail.182 Birch, Chas. I, i. 87. Wimbledon drew up a journal of the campaign to justify his conduct, and at a subsequent hearing Essex and the other officers complained that their commander proceeded ‘unjustly to lay fault and shame to us all in general, and to divers in particulars’. They requested permission to draw up their own account of what had gone wrong, which was granted on 23 March. This resulted in a set of charges against Wimbledon, to which he responded, but by 24 Mar. it was reported that Buckingham had already come down in support of Wimbledon.183 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 283; Add. 46188, ff. 91-2; Devereux, ii. 300-1; Fairfax Corresp. ed. G.W. Johnson, i. 26.

However, Essex’s opposition to Buckingham in the surviving parliamentary records largely manifested itself as concern for two of the duke’s enemies, whom the crown attempted to exclude from Parliament. The two peers involved were Essex’s own former enemy, the earl of Bristol, who was under house arrest and denied a writ of summons, and the earl of Arundel, who was arrested on 5 Mar. ostensibly because his eldest son, Henry Fredrick Howard^†, Lord Maltravers (subsequently 15th or 22nd earl of Arundel) had married into the royal family without the king’s consent. On 5 Apr. Essex defended the committee for privileges, which reported that those peers who had granted their proxies to Arundel had lost their votes, against the claim of Buckingham’s supporters, that the House had ordered a halt into investigation of the case on 15 March.184 Procs. 1626, i. 260. On 9 May he moved for a committee to be sent to the king to press for Arundel’s release and, eight days later, on his motion, a new committee was appointed to draft a petition on the same subject.185 Ibid. 393, 498.

When Bristol presented a petition to the lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry^* (subsequently 1st Lord Coventry), on 17 Apr., Essex appears to have been forewarned of the fact, as he moved for the petition to be read before Coventry himself had informed the House of its receipt. It was then referred to the committee of privileges.186 Ibid. 270-1. The petition infuriated the king, who accused Bristol of scandalizing Buckingham and himself. The Lords therefore ordered that Bristol be placed in the custody of the gentleman usher and brought before them. On 29 Apr. Essex defended Bristol’s right to take his seat, arguing that the order requiring him to appear in custody could be ‘altered upon reason’.187 JOHN DIGBY; Procs. 1626, i. 322. The king subsequently pressed charges of treason against Bristol, who responded with similar accusations against Buckingham. On 1 May Essex moved for both sets of charges to be read.188 Procs. 1626, i. 338. When, on the following day, Bristol was accused of breaching the privileges of the Lords by presenting his charges to the Commons, Essex moved that Bristol should not be told of this fresh accusation until after he had answered the king’s charges, ‘lest it disturb him’. He also persuaded the House to keep its options open, for although the attorney general was to be allowed to prepare the king’s charges, the subcommittee for privileges was also permitted to search in the meantime for precedents concerning the proper procedure for Bristol’s trial.189 Ibid. 347, 348.

On 6 May, after the attorney general read the king’s charges against Bristol, Essex played for time by moving the clerk to read his notes to the House, but was evidently ignored.190 Ibid. 372. Three days later Bristol questioned whether the king could appear as a witness in his case, a matter which Essex moved should be referred to the judges. At his suggestion, a committee was appointed to draw up the question that was to be put to the judges.191 Ibid. 392, 393. On 13 May he moved for the judges to deliver their resolutions.192 Ibid. 439.

On 8 May the Commons requested a conference to present their own charges against Buckingham. This prompted Dorset to move for the appointment of reporters, but Essex, possibly fearing a lengthy debate, reminded the House that they needed to respond to the Commons first.193 Ibid. 383. After the Commons presented their case, the king ordered the arrest of Sir Dudley Digges^‡, one of the spokesmen of the lower House. Unsurprisingly, Essex was one of the peers who protested, on 15 May, that Digges had not said anything to impugn the king’s honour.194 Ibid. 477.

The following day the Commons sent another message, this time calling for Buckingham to be placed in custody. Dorset and Saye were instructed to draw up a reply, but as they came up with two different texts Essex proposed to send no answer until they were pressed to do so by the lower House. He subsequently acted as a teller in a vote on whether to delay putting the question ‘till further consideration’, which motion was approved. It is likely that Essex wanted to keep the matter unresolved, for if it was put to the vote the duke’s supporters would in all likelihood prevail.195 Ibid. 490. On 9 June, following the House’s decision to refer the request of the Commons for a copy of Buckingham’s answer to their charges to the committee for privileges, Essex was added to that body.196 Ibid. 593.

Although conflict with Buckingham informed much of his contribution to the 1626 Parliament, Essex also found time for other matters. On 6 Mar. he was appointed to the committee for defence. The following day, after a report from that body by Abbot, Essex defended the new English forces in the Netherlands. He argued that these reinforcements had enabled the Dutch to go into the field, which they had previously been unable to do because of the strength of the Spanish ‘and the strong factions of the Arminians’, by which he presumably meant the pro-peace party in the Netherlands.197 Ibid. 110, 123. On 12 June Abbot again reported from the committee for defence, complaining that there had been ‘some sharpness of speech’ between two unnamed lords, and moving for an order to prevent a recurrence. Essex, however, was not satisfied to brush the dispute under the carpet, and moved for the words to be set down by a committee, but his proposal was rejected.198 Ibid. 498.

Essex was named to consider the bill for the better maintenance of hospitals and almshouses on 16 Feb., but reported two days later that although ‘the scope is good’ it was ‘imperfect’, and the attorney general was ordered to draw up a new bill.199 Ibid. 53, 58. On 8 Mar. he was instructed to consider the bill to confirm the foundation of Sutton’s hospital in the Charterhouse. This measure was reported by Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester, on 20 Mar., but was recommitted two days later after a proviso was moved for the benefit of the inhabitants of Charterhouse Yard. Possibly acting on behalf of Dudley North^*, 3rd Lord North, another anti-Buckingham peer whose London residence was in Charterhouse Yard, Essex reported from the committee in favour of the proviso the same day, and it was ordered to be engrossed.200 Ibid. 128, 191, 193. During the second reading of the debate on the bill against Edmund Nicholson, the projector responsible for the unparliamentary pretermitted customs, Essex queried whether anyone who was against the commitment of a bill could be a member of the committee, suggesting that he supported the measure and did not want its opponents to wreck it in committee.201 Ibid. 241. In total, he made 22 speeches and was appointed to 14 of the 49 committees established by the Lords in the 1626 Parliament.

Following the dissolution, Essex decided to return to his regiment in the Netherlands. Buckingham reportedly offered him the post of vice admiral in the new naval expedition which was being prepared against Spain, but he turned him down. When Charles asked him for an explanation, Essex replied that ‘he would have accepted, and far meaner office … if his Majesty had offered it; but to receive it from another he thought not so fit’. This was extraordinary, as there was certainly nothing inappropriate in Buckingham, as lord admiral, offering Essex a naval command, as he had done the previous year. Essex was effectively telling the king that he thought the duke was unfit for office and that he himself would not accept a naval command while Buckingham remained at the admiralty. The king was understandably angered and, according to another account, when Essex took his leave, Charles ‘turned his hand behind him’, to prevent the earl from performing the customary ceremony of kissing hands.202 Birch, Chas. I, i. 126; Procs. 1626, iv. 348.

Essex arrived back in the Netherlands on 11 July. In November he and the other colonels of the English regiments were ordered to prepare themselves for transfer to the service of the king of Denmark, who had suffered major losses fighting for the Protestant cause in Germany. Command of this force was originally offered to Lord Willoughby, but following his refusal the Venetian ambassador reported that it would be given to Essex as the senior colonel. In fact, the command went to Sir Charles Morgan. Essex refused to accept a subordinate position and resigned, returning to England by 26 November.203 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 383; Coventry Docquets, 27; CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 22-3; SP84/132, f. 165; Birch, Chas. I, i. 174. Essex had clearly had enough of sacrificing his honour in a war he felt was being misdirected.

The Forced Loan and the third Caroline Parliament, 1626-9

Essex’s reluctance to serve the Caroline regime any longer was probably increased by his opposition to the Forced Loan, which was initiated in the autumn of 1626. At the beginning of December, Essex was listed as one of those peers who had refused to pay.204 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 485. A few weeks later, Buckingham, ‘trying to conciliate some of the grandees … with whom he had quarrelled’, was seen with Essex, but he failed to win him over, though a subsequent report that Essex would be arrested was inaccurate. Essex continued to contribute to the war effort in his capacity as lord lieutenant of Staffordshire, vigorously levying recruits for the forces in Germany.205 CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 77; Rous Diary ed. M.A. Everett Green (Cam. Soc. lxvi), 9; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 153; Add. 46188, f. 100. However, by June the king had decided that his opposition to the Loan could not go unpunished, and therefore removed him from his local offices. In so doing, he told Robert Carey^*, 1st earl of Monmouth, who replaced Essex as Staffordshire’s lord lieutenant, that Essex was ‘wilful’, preferring his ‘own glory than to do him [Charles] any acceptable service’. Essex himself was ‘infinitely sorry for that opinion his Majesty expressed to have of me’, and denied having sought ‘glory, or opinion’, except to enable him to ‘do his Majesty the best service’ he could. This, he declared, he had amply demonstrated, both by ‘the hazard of myself, and the impairment of my estate’.206 Add. 46188, ff. 102, 107.

Although now largely cut off from the Caroline court, Essex continued to receive letters from his cousin Holland, who remained in favour with Buckingham and Charles and who, in the autumn of 1627, negotiated a grant of a wardship for one of Essex’s servants.207 FSL, X.c.132, ff. 176-7. In January 1628 a privy seal loan was proposed to raise further funds for the crown, towards which Essex was assessed to pay £500. However, this project was abandoned and the third Caroline Parliament summoned instead.208 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 727. His reputation as a Loan refuser enabled Essex to extend his electoral patronage, as he secured the election of both knights of the shire for Staffordshire, Crompton and Sir Hervey Bagot^‡. Moreover, Wingfield was returned at Stafford and Sir Walter Devereux was re-elected at Tamworth. Essex was probably also responsible for the elections of Sir George Gresley^‡, at Newcastle-under-Lyme and Sir William Walter, at Lichfield.209 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii.363-4, 366, 369, 372, 374; FSL, X.c.132, f. 176.

Essex was again appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony and held the proxy of Thomas Cromwell^*, 4th Lord Cromwell, who had served as one of his deputy lieutenants in Staffordshire and, like him, had been purged from the bench for failing to pay the Forced Loan.210 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 62. He attended 90 of the 94 sittings in the 1628 session, 96 per cent of the total, was named to 15 out of 52 committees and made 21 recorded speeches. In his first speech, on 24 Mar., he nominated the popular London minister, Josiah Shute, to preach at the Lords’ collective communion, but without success.211 Ibid. 97; Oxford DNB, l. 466. He assisted in the introduction of Bristol to the upper House on 22 March.212 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 86. That evening he dined as a guest of Robert Sidney, by now 2nd earl of Leicester, who shared Essex’s London residence. The other guests included Essex’s cousin Warwick, Spencer Compton^*, Lord Compton (subsequently 2nd earl of Northampton) and Sir Walter Devereux.213 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U1475/A28/1, unfol.

Essex was appointed to the committee for privileges on 20 Mar., and demonstrated some interest in the committee’s business. On 8 Apr., for instance, he informed the Lords that the committee was to meet that afternoon to consider ‘a business of importance’, the petition for privilege submitted by Viscountess Purbeck, the estranged wife of Buckingham’s elder brother, John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck, who had been excommunicated for adultery with Sir Robert Howard^‡, brother to Essex’s first wife.214 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 167. Remarkably, given his own marital history, Essex was one of only two members of the committee who voted on 28 Apr. in favour of granting privilege to the viscountess, although he may, of course, have been motivated by hostility to the Villiers clan.215 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33 (31 Mar. 1628), no. 12. On 3 May he successfully moved that the question of whether peers could testify upon their honour in law courts be referred to the committee. Finally, on 22 May, he called for a bill to enforce parliamentary privilege when the Lords were not sitting.216 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 378, 502.

On 21 Mar. Essex was named to the committee for petitions. As such he was personally petitioned by suitors seeking to have their petitions read.217 Ibid. 79; HMC 4th Rep. 17, 19. He himself reported from the committee on a case concerning his cousin, Warwick. A privateer owned by Warwick had taken a ship belonging to Jacques Rodier, but the Council had ordered the vessel and goods to be released. Warwick had claimed parliamentary privilege to stop the Council order from taking effect, prompting Rodier to petition the Lords. Essex reported on 30 Apr. that Warwick was willing to waive his privilege if the Council order was also rescinded and left the question of whether Rodier’s ship was to be regarded as prize to the ordinary process of the law. Essex also intervened in his cousin’s affairs the following day, when Sir Andrew Gray was brought before the bar for causing the arrest of one of Warwick’s ships, prompting Essex to move that Gray should be ‘reprehended for his contempt’.218 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 364, 368. On 29 May Essex informed the House that he had received a letter from a poor woman whose husband had been captured by the Sallee (Salé) pirates of Morocco. He moved that she should be given some of the money collected for relief of the captives. On the same day he was appointed to a committee to consider the money collected.219 Ibid. 555, 558. On 21 June he reported the bill against unlicensed alehouses, which he had been appointed to consider the day before, after which it was given a third reading and approved.220 Ibid. 678, 685.

It soon became clear that that chief business of the Parliament, so far as a large element in the Commons was concerned, was the liberty of the subject. On 28 Apr. Essex was listed by one newsletter-writer among those peers who supported the Commons’ efforts, in the aftermath of the Forced Loan, to secure the rights of the subject.221 Birch, Chas. I, i. 347. On 12 Apr. he won an important procedural victory for the supporters of the Commons. Saye had called for a committee of the whole House to debate the attorney general’s reply to the case that the lower House had put forward, but was opposed by Buckingham. However, Essex persuaded the Lords that an order made in 1626 - that ‘if the cause require much debate, then the House to be put into committee’ - meant that they should always go into committee if any member desired it.222 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 198, 204, 207; Procs. 1626, i. 388. Supporters of the Commons were generally in a minority in the upper House, and they needed committees of the whole House, which enabled them to speak more than once in a debate, to avoid a precipitate rejection of the case for the subject’s liberties.223 E.R. Foster, House of Lords 1603-49, p. 116.

Following a conference with the Commons on 17 Apr., Essex was highly critical of Sir Francis Ashley^‡, then one of the Lords’ legal assistants, who attacked the case which the lower House had put forward and upheld the prerogative. Essex thought Ashley’s speech was ‘prejudicial to the king, and to his House, [and] to the House of Commons’. Speaking two days later, Essex asked whether Ashley had spoken with the attorney general’s consent and, after repeating some of the offending remarks, he asked him to justify himself.224 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 300, 303. On 21 Apr. it was Essex who ‘put the Lords in mind of the business of the day’, the liberty of the subject.225 Ibid. 311.

The Commons eventually decided to proceed by Petition of Right, but on 12 May the king sent a letter to the Lords insisting that he would not surrender his power to arrest without showing cause, a power which the Petition declared illegal. Buckingham wished to have the letter debated immediately, whereas Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland, moved for the reading of a private bill and proposed that the House ‘do no other business this night’. Thinking that Westmorland’s motion had been approved, Essex left the chamber, but was furious to learn that Buckingham had subsequently had the letter debated. The following day he insisted that the motion to adjourn had been agreed and had not heard ‘any man deny it’.226 Ibid. 412, 415, 417, 418;

Essex was still smarting on 14 May, when he walked out as the Lords turned to debate a proposed conference about the king’s letter, excusing himself on the grounds that he had not been present when the matter had been discussed two days earlier. Nevertheless, he resumed his seat the following afternoon, when Buckingham asserted that, as the Commons had already voted in favour of the Petition, there was no point in conferring with them further. Essex retorted that he had been informed by Members of the lower House that, in fact, the Commons had not formally approved the Petition.227 Ibid. 425, 426. He again clashed with Buckingham on 21 May, when the duke wanted the Lords to vote to insert a saving clause for the prerogative in the Petition before they approved the Petition itself. Essex, citing a message received from the king pressing the Lords to decide whether they supported the Petition or not, argued that the House should first vote on the Petition.228 Ibid. 491, 493, 495.

On 19 May Essex sought to modify the motion of his kinsman, Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, who, following the earl of Bristol’s request for a general amnesty, called for those men who had lost office for refusing the Forced Loan, like Essex himself, to be restored. Essex moved the House instead to be ‘suitors’ to Charles to ‘restore to grace’ the refusers, but wanted to ‘leave the rest up to the king’.229 Ibid. 464, 466. He demonstrated a similar desire to wipe the slate clean after Saye and Buckingham clashed over the Petition of Right on 24 May, when he moved for the two men to be reconciled. He was clearly concerned that Buckingham and Charles might subsequently seek to exact revenge on the advocates of the Petition, for after the Lords approved the Petition he moved that ‘if anything has been spoken of whereto there is any just exception’ during the debating ‘of this great business’, only the House should ‘take notice of it’.230 Ibid. 535. He was subsequently one of the ‘lords that had been in disfavour’ who were allowed to kiss the king’s hands that day.231 Birch, Chas. I, i. 358-9.

On 6 June, in the crisis following the king’s first unsatisfactory answer to the Petition, Essex moved for a committee to ‘represent unto his Majesty humbly the true state of the kingdom’. Arguing that the Lords were ‘the great council of the kingdom’, he asserted that ‘his Majesty cannot but take it well if we humbly present the state of the kingdom unto his Majesty in discharge of our consciences and duties’.232 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 591. Following the king’s second, satisfactory, answer to the petition, Essex wished to avoid giving credit to Buckingham for resolving the crisis. He declared on 14 June that he ‘acknowledged it to none but the king’ although ‘he was glad … that there were men about the king to do good offices’.233 Ibid. 643.

Towards the end of the session Essex expressed concern at the case of Henry Reynd, a soldier stationed at Banbury accused of having spoken insultingly about Saye. He raised the issue on 30 May, and again on 9 June, when he successfully moved the Lords to proceed against Reynd despite the fact that the miscreant could not be found. The Lords proceeded to sentence Reynd on Essex’s motion three days later.234 Ibid. 567, 606, 629. Essex was also active in the proceedings against Roger Manwaring^† (subsequently bishop of St Davids), whose sermon in support of the Forced Loan had been published. Essex, according to Wilson, ‘could not relish the growing way the clergy had gotten, to make themselves great by advancing the king’. The Commons presented charges against Manwaring, which were read by the lord keeper on 9 June, whereupon Essex moved for the accused and the witnesses to be summoned. On 12 June Essex and Bishop Williams were instructed to inquire of George Montaigne^*, bishop of London (subsequently archbishop of York), ‘what authority he had for signifying his Majesty’s special command for the printing of Doctor Manwaring’s book’.235 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 18; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 606, 607, 621, 628.

Following the prorogation, on 26 June, Essex’s name was ‘mentioned … in a whisper’ to the Venetian ambassador as a potential recruit to the republic’s forces. Writing at the end of July, the ambassador described the earl as ‘a great nobleman and a person of quality’, who was ‘naturally rather harsh, though not without adherents’, and someone who would not be satisfied with a regiment, but would want a much larger command.236 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 216. However, before any arrangements could be made, Buckingham was assassinated (23 Aug.), prompting Essex, then at Chartley, to send Wilson to court post haste, presumably in the hope that the murder would presage significant political changes from which he could benefit.237 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 16. On 6 Oct. it was reported that Warwick and Essex would be made ‘admiral and general’ respectively. Essex returned to London and, on 20 Oct., was one of the commissioners who prorogued Parliament until the following January. However, all that he received was restoration to his local offices at the end of the year.238 Beaumont Pprs. ed. W.D. Macray, 61; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 229.

Essex missed only three of the 23 sittings of the 1629 session, an attendance rate of 87 per cent, and was appointed to five of the 19 committees established by the upper House. On 20 Jan. he was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. The following day he was instructed to consider the bill to improve the maintenance of the clergy, and, on 10 Feb., to draft a fresh petition about the precedence enjoyed by Englishmen who had purchased Irish and Scottish peers. His last committee appointment was on 21 Feb., when he was ordered to help survey the defences of the kingdom. He made only one recorded speech during the poorly documented session, on 10 Feb. when he excused the earl of Huntingdon, who was laid up with gout.239 LJ, iv. 6a, 6b, 7b, 27a, 27b, 37b.

Later life, 1630-46

Essex remained a prominent opponent of prerogative taxation in the early 1630s. In December 1631 he refused to pay after being summoned to the Privy Council to compound for failing to receive a knighthood at the coronation. He pointed out that he had not only been in close attendance on the king at the time but had also been carrying a sword. Consequently, he could have ‘received [a] knighthood, or any other honour his Majesty should have been pleased to vouchsafe him’.240 PC2/41, p. 282; Birch, Chas. I, ii. 163.

This period marked a major change in Essex’s private life. Staying with his brother-in-law in late 1630, he met Hertford’s cousin, Elizabeth Paulet, the daughter of Sir William Paulet, illegitimate son of William Paulet^†, 3rd marquess of Winchester. According to Wilson, she was ‘a beauty full of harmless sweetness, and her conversation was affable and gentle’. Essex was still unsure whether he could remarry, as his first wife, Frances, was still alive. He therefore consulted Bishop Williams, who told him in February 1631 that he could ‘marry when you please, and whom you please’. With this assurance, Essex married Elizabeth the following month.241 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 16; Higgons, 5-6; Add 46188, f. 131. In addition, the death of his mother in 1632 and his grandmother two years later greatly increased Essex’s wealth. Indeed, his income nearly doubled, rising to about £8,000 a year in 1637.242 Snow, Essex the Rebel, 196.

The new countess of Essex fell out with many of her husband’s household, including Wilson, who left Essex’s service soon after the marriage.243 Desiderata Curiosa, ii. bk. 12, p. 17; Higgons, 9. She also managed to alienate Essex’s half-brother, Sir Walter Devereux who, in early 1636,was staying at Essex House while the earl was away visiting the earl of Hertford. In the early hours of the morning he was informed by some of the servants that William Uvedale, son of the courtier, Sir William Uvedale^‡, was with the countess in her bedchamber. The countess’s second husband, Sir Thomas Higgons^‡, later claimed that Uvedale had been innocently visiting the countess’s sister, and that Devereux had ‘conceived a mortal animosity against her [the countess], for what particular reason I never knew’. Devereux confronted the countess and subsequently wrote to Essex, who immediately ordered his wife to leave his house, subsequently agreeing to pay her £1,300 a year in maintenance.244 Letters and Pprs. of the Verney Fam. ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lvi), 168-9; Higgons, 10-13; Birch, Chas. I, ii. 239-40.

Soon after the separation, the countess announced that she was pregnant. Essex was initially sceptical, but on being assured that it was true, announced that he would accept paternity if the child were born on or before 5 November. The baby was born on exactly 5 Nov., but the earl was in no mood to quibble, as his wife had given birth to a son and he had an heir at last. He took the child into his custody and immediately sought a reconciliation with the countess who, it was reported, ‘rails extremely against’ Uvedale, presumably for having compromised her reputation. However, the child died before the end of the year, whereupon all thoughts of a reconciliation vanished.245 Higgons, 13-15; Bodl., ms North c4, ff. 15-16; Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 454. Once again Essex’s married life had exposed him to public ridicule and suspicion: it was rumoured that he had plotted with Devereux to entrap his wife, ‘for which he is much condemned’, while Uvedale was initially ‘blamed for nothing but not having care enough to advise her [the countess] to be more circumspect’. However, opinion began to shift after Uvedale insulted Hertford. They fought a duel, in which Essex acted as one of his brother-in-law’s seconds, but the fight was interrupted and Uvedale was committed to the Tower.246 Letters and Pprs. of the Verney Fam. 168-70; HMC Var. vii. 414-15; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 531-2; CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 524; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, ii. 180.

In early 1637 Charles I, angered by the failure of his latest efforts to secure the restoration of the Palatinate by diplomatic means, considered lending ships of the Royal Navy to the Elector, Charles Lewis, to attack the Spanish. Essex had lavishly entertained the Elector when the latter visited England little more than a year previously, and in mid March the countess of Leicester reported that Charles Lewis ‘presses much to have my Lord Essex with him’. However, the earl was unacceptable to the king.247 Bodl., ms North c.4, f. 7; HMC Var. vii. 415; Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 472; Strafforde Letters, ii. 56. In late 1638 it was reported that Essex would at long last receive a senior military post, the generalship of the horse in the army to be raised against the Scottish Covenanters.248 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 131. According to Clarendon, Essex had ‘a hatred and contempt of the Scots’, possibly arising from his earlier enmity towards Somerset, and was ‘so well pleased with his promotion that he began to love the king the better for conferring it upon him, and entered upon the province with great fidelity and alacrity’.249 Clarendon, i. 150.

More practically, Essex may have hoped to aid his half-brother, Ulick Bourke^†, 2nd earl of St. Albans and 5th earl of Clanricarde [I]. In 1635 the lord deputy of Ireland, Thomas Wentworth^*, Viscount Wentworth (subsequently earl of Strafford) had dispossessed St Albans’ father (Essex’s stepfather) of his estates in Connaught. By early 1639 St. Albans’ campaign to reverse the dispossession was on the verge of victory; indeed, in February he secured an order from the king restoring the lands to him. However, fierce opposition from Wentworth hindered the implementation of the restoration until the summer. Essex, who was close to his half-brother, was probably particularly keen to demonstrate his loyalty to the king during the First Bishops’ War to help persuade Charles to override Wentworth’s opposition.250 H. Kearney, Strafford in Ire. 102; Strafforde Letters, ii. 366; P. Little, ‘“Blood and Friendship”: the Earl of Essex’s Protection of the Earl of Clanricarde’s Interests, 1641-6’, EHR, cxii. 928.

In early 1639 Essex was discontented to find that Holland was to command the horse instead of him, and that he would have the more senior, but less specific, rank of lieutenant general.251 Strafforde Letters, ii. 276. Nevertheless, he moved rapidly to secure Berwick in early April, where he was subsequently joined by St. Albans, who had gone to York to complain to the king about Wentworth’s ‘dilatory answer’.252 Clarendon, i. 152; CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 11; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, ii. 125, 127. On the 19th of that month the Covenanter leaders wrote to Essex justifying their actions and asking him to mediate for them with the king; however, Essex punctiliously refused to accept the letter and immediately forwarded it to Charles.253 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 60-1; HMC 9th Rep. pt. 2, p. 439; Clarendon, i. 158.

After the Pacification of Berwick, Essex was ‘discharged in the crowd, without ordinary ceremony’. However, following a fresh order from the king on 20 June, Wentworth issued the warrant restoring St Albans to his father’s lands. Essex may subsequently have thought that he no longer needed to be so careful not to antagonize the king. In August 1640 he was a signatory to the Petition of the Twelve Peers, which called upon Charles to summon Parliament,254 Clarendon, i. 164, 184-5; Strafforde Letters, ii. 365; CSP Dom. 1640, p. 640. and in the Long Parliament he was a staunch opponent of Wentworth, by now earl of Strafford, against whom he had ‘openly professed revenge’ because of the way Strafford had treated his stepfather.255 Clarendon, ii. 197-8. Although appointed lord chamberlain in 1641, he resigned the post rather than obey Charles’s summons to York in April 1642.256 CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 307. During the First Civil War, he led one of the armies raised by Parliament, but was defeated at Lostwithiel in August 1644, and lost his command in the reorganization of the parliamentarian forces at the beginning of 1645.257 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of the Great Civil War, ii. 16-18.

Essex died on 14 Sept. 1646 at Essex House of ‘apoplexy’, a result of ‘having over-heated himself in the chase of a stag in Windsor forest’.258 Mems. of Edmund Ludlow ed. C.H. Firth, i. 144; Moderate Intelligencer, no. 80, 10-17 Sept. 1646, [p. 647]. He was buried, with considerable ceremony, in Westminster Abbey on 29 October.259 Regs. Westminster Abbey ed. J.L. Chester, 141; CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 468-9. His will, drawn up on 4 July 1642 and sealed on 1 Aug. following, was proved on 14 Dec. 1646.260 PROB 11/198, ff. 281v-3. Having no surviving children the earldom of Essex became extinct. However, his cousin, Walter Devereux, succeeded him as Viscount Hereford.