FEILDING, Basil (c.1608-75)

The eldest of the three sons of a wealthy Warwickshire gentleman, Feilding was nephew to the royal favourite George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. Quiet and modest by nature, he was also proud, self-serving and, according to one of his former friends and leading detractors, Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, highly unprincipled.32 CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 288; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, iii. 496.

Early life 1621-8

Feilding was admitted to Queens’ College Cambridge, his father’s alma mater, in 1621. He proved to be a capable student, being awarded an MA the following year, but struggled to live within his means, asking his father sometime before the autumn of 1622 to let him have the sum of £315 in order to redeem from pawn some of his jewels.33 CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, p. 90. This letter is miscalendared. Internal evidence shows that it was written sometime between his father’s appointment as master of the gt. wardrobe (15 Jan. 1622) and creation as earl of Denbigh (14 Sept. 1622). In September 1622 his father was created earl of Denbigh, whereupon Feilding himself became known by courtesy as Viscount Feilding. The following spring, his mother planned to send him to France as part of his education with his brother-in-law the earl of Arran (James Hamilton^*, later 3rd marquess of Hamilton and 2nd earl of Cambridge), who was two years his senior.34 C. Feilding, Royalist Father and Roundhead Son, 36. The author has misdated this letter to 1625. However, Arran subsequently went to Madrid with Feilding’s father to wait upon Buckingham and Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales), who were trying to complete the negotiations for a Spanish bride for the prince.

Feilding eventually travelled to France in the spring of 1624 as part of the entourage of James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, ambassador extraordinary to Paris and one of Buckingham’s closest allies at court. Eager to learn French, which language his father conspicuously lacked, he became frustrated at the demands placed upon him by Carlisle, who, endeavouring to ‘fashion his comportment’ in accordance with the wishes of his father, accused him of a lack of diligence. He also found the French habit of dining late disagreeable.35 Ibid. 29, 31; SP16/159/41; J.H. Bryant, ‘John Reynolds of Exeter and his Canon: a Footnote’, The Library (5th ser. xviii), bet. pp. 302 & 303 (plate v). Feilding might nevertheless have remained in Paris – Carlisle did not return to England until the following year – had it not been for his tutor, John Reynolds.36 Reynolds has sometimes been mistakenly described as Feilding’s chaplain: T. Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 290; D. Trim, ‘English Military Emigres and the Prot. Cause’, British and Irish Emigrants and Exiles in Europe 1603-88 ed. D. Worthington, 243; Oxford DNB, xix. 238. Like many Protestant Englishmen, Reynolds opposed the Spanish Match and favoured war with Spain. As such, he must have seemed an ideal tutor for Feilding, as Charles and Buckingham had returned from Madrid convinced that Spain had been negotiating in bad faith. However, before leaving England, Reynolds had published two pamphlets which urged James I to alter course, the second of which was addressed to the 1624 Parliament. James was enraged, and though he did indeed break off the Spanish Match, he ordered the printers of the offending works to be punished. Moreover, in late July, Feilding was obliged to return to London with Reynolds, who was swiftly imprisoned.37 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 316, 327.

It may have been because his trip to France had ended so abruptly that in May 1625 Feilding accompanied Buckingham to Paris to fetch home the French princess Henrietta Maria, who had recently been married by proxy to the new king, Charles I. Buckingham spared no expense where his young nephew was concerned, laying out £500 to cover the cost of Feilding’s journey. Six months later, the duke took Feilding on another diplomatic mission, this time to The Hague, on which occasion he spent a further £350 on his kinsman.38 Add. 12528, ff. 23, 28v. He also tried to arrange a marriage between Feilding and Elizabeth Stuart, one of the daughters of the late Esmé Stuart^*, 3rd duke of Lennox [S] and 1st earl of March. Elizabeth was a distant cousin of the king, and therefore such a marriage would unite the Villiers clan with the royal family, albeit rather indirectly. However, despite the support of Elizabeth’s mother, the desired union never took place.39 Arundel Castle, autograph letters, no. 284.

Feilding was created a knight of the Bath at the coronation in February 1626, at which time he was aged about 18. That summer, following the dissolution of the 1626 Parliament, it was rumoured that plans were again afoot to marry off Feilding, this time to the daughter of Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset, the former royal favourite. However, this scheme, if it ever existed, also came to naught. In early 1627 Feilding was back in France, though relations with that country were now poor. He returned in February with news that the French were preparing for war with England.40 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 135, 196; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 51. Four months later, Buckingham led an expedition to the Île de Ré to aid the Huguenots of La Rochelle. Feilding accompanied his uncle, but played no recorded part in the ensuing campaign beyond assisting at the funeral of the lieutenant of the Ordnance, Sir William Heydon, which was held at La Flotte on 16 July.41 HMC Var. ii. 250. That autumn the expedition ended in defeat, arousing resentment in England against Buckingham. On arriving at Plymouth in November 1627, the duke was warned that there were those who wished to kill him before he reached London. Feilding, aware that his family’s standing and fortune entirely depended on Buckingham, thereupon offered to disguise himself as his uncle. Buckingham was so moved by this unselfish offer that he embraced his young nephew, and kissed him. However, he declined to trade places, on the grounds that he valued Feilding’s life quite as much as his own.42 H. Wotton, Reliquiae Wottonianae (1685), 228-9.

In February 1628 Feilding’s father, the earl of Denbigh, was given command of the fleet and ordered to relieve the besieged Huguenots of La Rochelle. This commission necessarily meant that Denbigh was not at Westminster when Parliament assembled on 17 March. In view of this, and perhaps also in recognition of his loyalty to Buckingham, an order was given two days after Parliament opened to summon Feilding to Parliament as Viscount Feilding, ‘notwithstanding the said viscount hath not yet accomplished his full age of 21 years’.43 Eg. 2552, f. 19. Four days later, a writ of acceleration was issued. However, in this Feilding was called to Parliament not in right of his father’s viscountcy but in right of his father’s barony, as precedent required. Consequently, when Feilding took his seat on 24 Mar. it was not as Viscount Feilding, the title by which he continued to be widely known, but as Baron of Newnham Paddockes, his family’s Warwickshire seat. In the parliamentary records, this cumbersome title was generally abbreviated to ‘Lord Newnham’.44 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 96, 99. The writ employs the spelling ‘Paddockes’ rather than the modern form ‘Paddox’.

It was rare for young peers to be granted writs of acceleration, and it was a signal honour to be summoned to Parliament while still under-age. Nevertheless, Feilding attended the Lords only sporadically. His only recorded contribution to proceedings, beyond taking the oath of allegiance, was to help introduce to the House two other newly created peers, Lord Goring (George Goring^*, later 1st earl of Norwich) on 14 Apr. and the 1st Viscount Conway (Edward Conway^*) nine days later.45 Ibid. 222, 333.

On 17 May news reached the capital that Denbigh and his fleet had returned to Plymouth without having seriously attempted to break through the palisade erected across the mouth of the harbour to La Rochelle by the French king’s forces. Charles I was furious at this abject failure, and ordered Denbigh to return to La Rochelle. He also dispatched Feilding to Portsmouth with orders to gather a small fleet with which to reinforce his father. After receiving a formal licence to be absent from Parliament, Feilding left his proxy with Lord Mountjoy (Mountjoy Blount^*, later 1st earl of Newport), who had recently acted as one of his supporters at his formal introduction to the upper House.46 SO3/9, unfol. (18 May 1628); Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 96. Feilding arrived at Portsmouth on 20 May, and within the space of a week he was ready to sail, having readied a dozen or so ships.47 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 118, 129; Add. 64895, f. 124v.

Feilding greeted his father when the latter arrived off Portmouth on 29 May. Eleven days later, it was reported that his ships, which now had a favourable wind, had set sail.48 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 134, 154. Although he had no previous experience of naval command, Feilding probably remained at sea for the rest of the summer, despite being recorded as having been present in the Lords on 9 and 10 June, and again on the 12th and 13th. Certainly, the master of the Ordnance, the earl of Totness (George Carew^*), was ordered on 24 July to deliver 40 barrels to the gunner of the ‘French ship’ commanded by Feilding. Moreover, on 22 Aug. Buckingham, having now assumed command of the operation to relieve La Rochelle, described his nephew as vice admiral of the squadron that he himself intended to command.49 APC, 1628-9, p. 52; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 263.

Foreign adventures and marriage, 1628-32

The murder of Buckingham on 23 Aug. 1628 must have been a shattering blow to Feilding, who had been promised by the duke both the office of master of the robes and a place in the king’s bedchamber.50 HMC 7th Rep. 233. When Parliament reassembled in January1629, Feilding took little recorded interest in its proceedings. He missed the opening day of the short meeting, missed a further nine sittings, made no recorded speeches and was not appointed to a single committee. Perhaps he eschewed Westminster for the court: in February he and his father were employed to accompany the Dutch ambassadors to an audience with the king.51 Ceremonies of Chas. I ed. J. Loomie, 55. However, the death of Buckingham meant that his path to advancement was now blocked, at least for the time being. Advised by the king to ‘try his fortune in the wars of Holland’, in April he accompanied Viscount Wimbledon (Edward Cecil^*) to the Netherlands, where, as an ordinary infantryman, he participated in the Dutch siege of the important Flemish city of ’s-Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-Duc). He and his fellow volunteer Viscount Doncaster (James Hay^†, later 2nd earl of Carlisle) reportedly did great service, going ‘down to the approaches upon any service that was to be done’, and exposing themselves ‘both to danger and sickness’.52 HMC 7th Rep. 233; C. Dalton, Life and Times of Sir Edward Cecil, ii. 292-3; H. Hexham, A Historicall Relation of the Famous Siege of the Busse ... (1630), 26, The city capitulated in September 1629, but Feilding evidently remained abroad for at least a month longer, for as late as 24 Oct. he had still not returned home.53 Corresp. of Eliz. Q. of Bohemia ed. N. Akkerman, i. 790.

In May 1630 Feilding was given 1,000 marks by the king as a free gift in acknowledgement of his service to the Dutch.54 E403/2565, ff. 140v-1; HMC 7th Rep. 233. However, as there remained no openings at court, he was licensed the following month to travel abroad for three years to improve his knowledge of the world.55 SO3/9, unfol. (15 June 1630). He set out immediately, accompanied by Robert Mason^‡, a former secretary to the late duke of Buckingham, travelling via Calais, Paris, the Low Countries and the imperial free city of Ratisbon (Regensburg).56 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 289; SP16/159/41 (miscalendared ‘1630’ in CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 176); HMC Denbigh, v. 7. At the latter, which he had reached by mid October, he met the Holy Roman emperor, Ferdinand II, who, through his confessor, invited him to Vienna. He also offered him an annual income, the command of a regiment of horse and the position of gentleman of the imperial bedchamber.57 SP84/142, f. 143; HMC 4th Rep. 262. These advances were clearly calculated to cause embarrassment to the king, since Feilding’s brother-in-law Arran, now marquess of Hamilton, had recently been enlisted by the Swedes to fight the emperor in northern Germany with Charles’s approval. Not surprisingly, therefore, Feilding decided to travel instead to Strasbourg from where, in January 1631, he crossed into Switzerland,58 CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 487. enrolling at the university of Basel. From there he journeyed to northern Italy, where, in April, he and Mason were admitted to the university of Padua - standard practice for English travellers who wished to avoid being arrested by the inquisition. However, his arrival in Italy coincided with a severe outbreak of plague, and it was only due to a chance meeting with Marshal Toiras, the commander of the French forces on the Île de Ré four years earlier, that he was able to make a hasty escape. He returned to England via Turin, where he was entertained by the duchess of Savoy, sister to Henrietta Maria, and Paris.59 Eg. 2533, f. 74; HMC 4th Rep. 259.

By 1632 Feilding was aged 24 and still unmarried, previous attempts to find him a suitable bride having ended in failure. He was nevertheless far from inexperienced in matters of the heart, for at around this time he entered into a sexual relationship with one of the queen’s maids of honour, Eleanor Villiers, who fell in love with him. However, this liaison could never end in marriage, as Eleanor was the daughter of his mother’s late half-brother, Sir Edward Villiers^‡.60 CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 50; HMC Cowper, ii. 40-1. In June 1632 it was announced that Feilding would marry someone rather more suitable: Anne Weston, daughter of the lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, 1st earl of Portland.61 C115/104/8097.

The proposed union was almost certainly arranged by Feilding’s mother, the countess of Denbigh, as Feilding’s father was then in India. As the first lady of the bedchamber to the queen, the countess wielded considerable influence at court. Feilding, who fell in love with his prospective bride,62 SP99/35, f. 74. had no qualms about the proposed marriage, despite the fact that Anne was Catholic. Unlike his late uncle Buckingham, he did not make conversion to the Protestant faith a condition of his acceptance. Shortly before Christmas 1632, the couple were wed, with the blessing of the king, who contributed £3,000 towards the dowry.63 M. van Cleave Alexander, 167, 171, 248n.4. In the New Year, Portland agreed to pay a further £4,480, at which time Charles laid on festivities at court in honour of the match.64 CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 63; Warws. RO, CR2017/F30/1.

Feilding’s marriage to Anne Weston naturally obliged him to defend the honour of both his wife and her family. In April 1633 he was present at dinner when George Goring, son of Lord Goring, accused Anne’s brother Jerome (Weston^*, later 2nd earl of Portland) of cowardice. Jerome had recently been challenged to a duel by Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland, but had been spared the need to fight after Holland was arrested on the king’s orders. Unable to tolerate this slight to his brother-in-law’s reputation, Feilding responded by challenging Goring himself to a duel, which was fought the next day in a lane near Knightsbridge. Both combatants drew blood, but the illegal duel was stopped after a local ostler and his servants intervened.65 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 340. For a slightly different account, see R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 98. In the immediate aftermath of this highly public affair, both Feilding and Goring were brought before Star Chamber. However, they escaped condemnation because, on the king’s instructions, they apologized to the Privy Council.66 Newsletters from the Caroline Ct 1631-8 ed. M. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 169; CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 14, 15.

Feilding suffered no diminution in his standing at court as a result of this episode. On the contrary, in November 1633 he was permitted to bear the canopy at the christening of the king’s youngest son, Prince James (Stuart^*, duke of York, later James II).67 Ceremonies of Chas. I, 144. Two months later, the king announced his appointment as resident ambassador to Venice, which position had lain vacant for the last three years. This news was greeted with widespread astonishment at court, for while it was commonplace for noblemen to serve a brief term as ambassadors extraordinary, it was far less usual for them to serve as ordinary resident diplomats.68 CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 243-4. However, Charles was determined to raise the standing of the nobility and to find useful employment for its most capable members like Feilding who, though still young, inexperienced and of modest means, was also highly educated, clever and well-travelled.

Feilding received his formal accreditation in mid September 1634, by which time the king had experienced a change of heart. Other princes, he now realized, might take it amiss if those chosen to serve at their courts as resident ambassadors were socially inferior to Feilding. To avoid creating a rod for his own back, Charles therefore appointed Feilding ambassador extraordinary. However, he continued to regard Feilding’s posting as permanent.69 Ibid. 262, 269. For Feilding, this arrangement was the best of both worlds, as it gave him increased status and an additional £500 or so each year.70 HMC Finch, i. 111.

Embassies to Venice and Savoy, 1634-9

Feilding left England to take up his new duties at the end of September.71 CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 220; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 285. He took with him as his chaplain the former schoolmaster and preacher of the Charterhouse hospital in London, William Middleton. The latter was an anti-Calvinist, having attended Pembroke College, Cambridge as an undergraduate during the presidency of Matthew Wren^† (later bishop of Ely).72 G.S. Davies, Charterhouse in London, 350; Al. Cant. We are grateful to Ken Fincham for a valuable correspondence on this subject. It seems likely that Middleton owed his appointment as Feilding’s chaplain to the countess of Denbigh, who has been described as ‘a minor patron of the Laudian interest’.73 K. Fincham and N. Tyacke, Altars Restored, 187. One well-informed observer termed the countess ‘his great friend’, and Middleton himself certainly acknowledged the assistance of the countess after he applied to become master of the Charterhouse in 1637.74 Strafforde Letters, ii. 150. How far Feilding shared the doctrinal views of Middleton is unclear, but in 1637 Middleton told Feilding that William Laud^*, the anti-Calvinist archbishop of Canterbury, ‘has endeavoured to serve your honour’. He also described Matthew Wren, by now bishop of Norwich, as ‘a true honourer of your family, more especially of yourself’.75 HMC Denbigh, v. 49-50. The view held by one historian, that Feilding was ‘a committed non-Laudian Protestant’,76 Hughes, 222. is clearly difficult to sustain, at least for the period before the Civil War.

Feilding travelled to Venice via Paris, where he was granted a brief audience at the French court by way of courtesy in October. He was subsequently also received in December at Geneva and Turin, for which visits he had letters of accreditation.77 CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 292, 297, 306, 324. On 30 Jan. 1635 he arrived in Venice, where he discovered that the English chargé d’affaires, Thomas Rowlandson, had made preparations costing £1,000. Feilding, who had no prior knowledge of these arrangements, was forced to reimburse Rowlandson, though he could ill afford to do so, as he was already heavily in debt, and had spent £1,025 in transporting himself, his wife and their attendants from London. He was further irritated when Rowlandson declined to assist him without formal authority from the king. The desired arrangement would create the impression that he was dependent for advice upon Rowlandson, who might then take the credit for his successes.78 SP99/35, ff. 21, 34, 69; HMC Denbigh, v. 14. However, in mid March, before the two men could fall to quarrelling, Feilding’s wife died suddenly of a burning fever, despite having arrived in Venice in perfect health. Feilding was so grief-stricken that for some days he was completely unable to put pen to paper.79 Strafforde Letters, i. 413; CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 347, 348; HMC Denbigh, v. 10, 15; SP99/35, f. 63. It seems likely that Anne died from malaria, a constant hazard in the Venetian republic. We are grateful for his advice to Frederick Holmes, emeritus professor of medicine at the university of Kansas. For some time thereafter his dispatches were so sporadic that in July the king complained that he had not heard from Feilding, who was meant to write weekly, for two months.80 CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 418; SP99/35, f. 270.

Shortly after his wife expired, Feilding learned that his father-in-law the earl of Portland had also died, thereby depriving him of his chief patron at court. Feilding had relied upon Portland to ensure that his bills for expenses and other allowances were paid regularly, but now that the lord treasurer was dead he was forced to solicit for funds, which were provided only irregularly.81 CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 459. In the absence of Portland, Feilding was obliged to look instead to his brother-in-law, the marquess of Hamilton, who served at court as master of the horse. Feilding, eager for news of his standing at court, corresponded with Hamilton on a weekly basis.82 Hughes, 23. In return for information and advice, he bought up old masters in northern Italy to add to Hamilton’s collection.83 L. Levy Peck, Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth Century Eng. 170-1.

In December 1636 Hamilton urged Feilding to return to England. Having served as ambassador for nearly two years, there could be little more for Feilding to learn in Venice, he observed. There was every prospect that he would be offered a plum position at court, as the king was impressed with his energy. Besides, it was essential for the survival of his house that he come to England to find a new wife, his first marriage having been childless. Feilding, who seems to have received assurances that he would be appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber in succession to the 1st earl of Carlisle, who had recently died, required little persuading, and wrote back approvingly. However, in February 1637, following the return to England of the 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel (Thomas Howard^*) from a diplomatic mission to Vienna, Hamilton changed his tune. War with Spain was once more on the cards, and so Feilding would be needed in Venice for some time to ensure the support of the serene republic.84 HMC 4th Rep. 257; CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 207. Under these circumstances, Feilding had little choice but to set aside all thoughts of returning to England, at least for the present.

Hamilton’s advice to remain in Venice could not have come at a worse time for Feilding. Two hours before dawn on the morning of 1 Feb. 1637, an officer of the Venetian republic and 60 armed men arrived outside Feilding’s official residence. After posting guards, these men broke into an adjacent building hired by Feilding for the use of his friends and servants, beat up a gondolier wearing Feilding’s livery and dragged out of bed two men, wounding one of them, a Venetian citizen named Andrea della Nave, whom Feilding had taken into his protection. Not surprisingly, Feilding protested to the Venetian authorities,85 CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 137; SP99/39, ff. 60, 68-70. who responded, falsely, that those arrested were guilty of treason. (Della Nave was actually wanted in connection with a dispute over the ownership of a house). The Venetians also claimed that the building raided formed no part of Feilding’s embassy. This was technically correct, but the fact that guards had been posted outside prior to the raid in order to prevent a rescue indicated that the Venetians were well aware that Feilding’s friends and servants were inside.86 CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 138, 140. To his credit, Feilding refused to be mollified. On 3 Feb. he complained to the doge that an affront had been given to the king.87 Ibid. 139, 143-4. Feilding has been accused of being ‘over-protective of his ambassadorial duties’, on the mistaken grounds that he had sheltered a murderer: Oxford DNB, xix. 238. When satisfaction was not forthcoming, he withdrew in protest.

Back in London, Feilding was accused by the Venetian ambassador of giving shelter to criminals. Charles initially sympathized with the Venetian complaint, but on reading Feilding’s version of events he and the Privy Council not only defended Feilding but also insisted that he demand reparation and the release of both men seized.88 CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 170-1, 195n. However, privately Charles told Feilding to find some way to defuse the crisis without loss of honour to either of them. With war with Spain looming, he could ill afford to have the Venetian republic as his enemy.89 HMC 4th Rep. 258 (Hamilton to Feilding, 10/20 Mar. 1637, miscalendared 1636); HMC 6th Rep. 281-2. Somehow Feilding succeeded in reconciling these two apparently contradictory sets of instructions. On 26 Apr. he informed the Venetian authorities that he had been instructed to demand reparation. Nine days later a motion to punish those who had supposedly exceeded their instructions in arresting the two men protected by Feilding was put to the vote by the Venetian senate. The motion was defeated, but was carried the following day.90 CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 195-7, 296.

Although Feilding had prevailed in his dispute with the Venetian authorities, his popularity in Venice plummeted. Over the autumn, his position became particularly uncomfortable after one of his footmen accidentally discharged a loaded pistol, wounding a gondolier in the thigh. A rumour quickly spread that the gondolier had been killed, and before long several gondolas full of armed men, supported by an armed barque, took up position against Feilding’s house in threatening manner. The ensuing ‘siege’ was quickly raised,91 SP99/39, ff. 62-4. but the incident was so alarming that Hamilton, who now realized that war with Spain was unlikely, concluded that the time was ripe for his brother-in-law to leave. Fortunately for Feilding, the perfect opportunity to quit the republic had recently arisen. In late September the duke of Savoy had died, and diplomatic protocol required that condolences be conveyed to his grieving widow by means of an ambassador extraordinary. The Privy Council favoured appointing the 2nd Viscount Conway (Edward Conway^*) to perform this task, but they were overruled by the king, who, despite his concerns over the accidental shooting of the gondolier, was reminded by Hamilton that Feilding’s letters of credence extended to all the princes of Italy.92 HMC 4th Rep. 256-7 (Hamilton to Feilding, 3 Nov. 1637, miscalendared 1636); HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 132. Consequently, in early November 1637, Feilding was appointed ambassador extraordinary to Turin.

Feilding was only too delighted to leave Venice. In February 1638, shortly before his departure, he complained to Viscount Scudamore [I] (Sir John Scudamore^‡), Britain’s resident ambassador in Paris, that the Venetians now regularly insulted him.93 C115/104/8038. Of course, Feilding realized that the Savoy mission was likely to be of only short duration, but he hoped that it would lead to promotion to the Paris embassy, which Scudamore was soon expected to vacate. Indeed, in March he was assured by Secretary of State Sir Francis Windebank^‡ that the position was his if he wished.94 HMC 6th Rep. 283.

Feilding’s pleasure at his removal to Savoy proved to be short-lived. Although his instructions restricted him to offering sympathy to the dowager duchess of Savoy, he advised the latter, then acting as regent on behalf of her son, to remain neutral in the war then being waged between France and Spain. Like his late father-in-law the 1st earl of Portland, Feilding was an hispanophile. As he explained to Windebank in September 1638, if the king was ever to recover the Palatinate (which had been lost to Spanish forces in the early 1620s) for his sister Elizabeth, he ‘must still have recourse to the easiest and surest way of recovery’, by which ‘I mean the king of Spain’. However, by advising Savoy to remain neutral, Feilding not only exceeded his instructions but also laid himself open to the charge that he had performed a disservice to the king, whose interests would arguably be better met if Savoy fought Spain. When news of what had happened reached England, Charles was furious. Although the king was quickly mollified by the queen, no doubt at the behest of the countess of Denbigh, he abandoned any thought of appointing Feilding as Scudamore’s replacement and ordered him to return to Venice. This latter instruction was quickly rescinded after the dowager duchess of Savoy (sister to the queen) also intervened on Feilding’s behalf. Nevertheless letters were dispatched to Turin disavowing Feilding’s behaviour.95 Ibid. 284; CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 412, 421; HMC Denbigh, v. 57, 58, 61.

It now seemed to many at court that Feilding was not merely accident prone but incompetent.96 CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 420, 421, 469. This impression was not entirely justified, for although Feilding had certainly gone too far in Turin, the unfortunate events in Venice the previous year were not of his making. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of Turin fiasco, the countess of Denbigh exerted all her influence to persuade the king to confer the Paris embassy on her son or, failing that, let him to return to Venice. Her lobbying acquired some urgency over the summer, as Feilding gravely offended the dowager duchess. Like other recent rulers of Savoy, the dowager duchess affected royal status, but Feilding refused to address her as ‘altezza reale’ (her royal highness), presumably because his instructions did not permit him to do so. The regent was so angry that in August Savoy’s representatives at the English court were instructed to persuade the king to recall Feilding, who was subjected to a campaign of ill treatment. Matters became so uncomfortable for Feilding that he actually asked to be allowed to return to Venice.97 HMC Denbigh, v. 60-1, 63; CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 447, 468. In November his wish was granted.98 CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 471; HMC Cowper, ii. 203.

Feilding set out for Venice in January 1639. Although the Venetians declared that they were pleased that he was returning to them, Feilding threatened to head for home on discovering that they were intending to treat him merely as an ordinary ambassador. The fault, however, lay not with the Venetians themselves but with Secretary of State Sir John Coke^‡, who had informed the Privy Council that Feilding was to be accorded this diminished status. Only after Hamilton intervened was Feilding once again accredited with the rank of ambassador extraordinary.99 HMC Denbigh, v. 65, 66; CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 505-6.

Feilding arrived in Venice in early February 1639. However, he proved unable to find a suitable residence, and without such premises he could not formally announce his arrival.100 CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 499n. This was not an auspicious beginning, but shortly thereafter the problem became immaterial, as Feilding was recalled to England, his mother having arranged for him to wed the 18 year-old widow of the recently deceased 2nd Viscount Bayning (Paul Bayning^*). In the short term his return was but a fool’s errand, for by the time he reached London the young woman concerned had already married Lord Herbert (Philip Herbert^†, later 5th earl of Pembroke). Coupled with the fact that his mother’s efforts to obtain for him a profitable office at court came to nothing, this disappointment meant that by early June Feilding had concluded that he would soon have to return to Venice.101 Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 598; CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 501, 516, 551. In the event, he delayed his departure in order to woo the daughter and sole heir of the dean of the court of arches, Sir John Lambe, whose fortune in land and money was estimated to be worth around £50,000. This time Feilding had better luck, for in August 1639 the couple were married, whereupon he renewed his efforts to secure a senior position in the king’s household.102 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 320, 426, 452; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 172. However, his quest for preferment ultimately proved largely fruitless. All that Feilding obtained, through the queen’s intercession, was the bare promise of appointment as first gentleman of the bedchamber to Prince Charles (Stuart^‡, later Charles II).103 HMC 7th Rep. 233; CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 572. To make matters worse, he was also owed more than £13,157 in unpaid pension and salary.104 Warws. RO, CR2017/C6/100. Such funds as he had managed to extract from the Exchequer since the death of Lord Treasurer Portland had largely been intended to cover the cost of transporting himself from one location to another.105 E.g. CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 132; T56/4, p. 166.

Later career and final years, 1640-75

The outbreak of the Bishops’ Wars meant that Feilding never returned to Venice. In February 1640, it was rumoured that he would soon depart, but instead he attended both the Short Parliament and the subsequent Great Council of Peers.106 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 637; LJ, iv. 45b; Devon RO, 1700M/C/P/17. Following the death of his second wife in April 1641, Feilding married for a third time, this time taking to wife Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Edward Bourchier^*, 4th earl of Bath. Elizabeth was sister to Oliver St. John^*, 1st earl of Bolingbroke, one of the signatories of the Petition of the Twelve Peers (August 1640), which complained of misgovernment and called on the king to summon another Parliament. The extent to which Feilding was influenced by his new brother-in-law and his circle remains a matter of conjecture. However, he certainly felt aggrieved at the king, as royal service had left him seriously out of pocket, and he had failed to obtain either the Paris embassy or a position in the royal household. By the time civil war broke out in 1642 he had thrown in his lot with Charles’s enemies and abandoned his anti-Calvinist views, to the horror of his parents.

Following the death of his father from wounds received when the royalists stormed Birmingham in April 1643, Feilding became 2nd earl of Denbigh. Although his loyalty to the parliamentarian cause was widely suspected – he was, after all, an unlikely parliamentarian - he went on to command the parliamentary forces in the West Midlands until obliged to surrender his commission, in April 1645, in accordance with the requirements of the Self-Denying Ordinance. In January 1649, he made a last-minute but unsuccessful attempt as Speaker of the House of Lords to save the life of the king. He subsequently sat on the first two republican councils of state, but for most of the 1650s he retired from public life. At the Restoration, he submitted to the king, Charles II, and thereafter enjoyed royal favour, being granted a supplementary title, that of Baron St. Liz, in 1665. He died intestate in 1675, and was buried at his family’s Warwickshire seat of Monks Kirby. His titles and estates descended to his nephew William Feilding^†, 3rd earl of Denbigh.