FEILDING, William (by 1587-1643)

Although they claimed at the Restoration to be descended from a cadet branch of the Habsburgs, the Feildings actually came from gentry stock. Indeed, by the middle of the fifteenth century they were among the leading gentry of Warwickshire and Rutland, with an annual landed income approaching £2,000.20 J.H. Round, Studs. in Peerage and Fam. Hist. ii. 221-2; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 241; A. Hughes, Pols., Society and Civil War in Warws. 1620-60, p. 23. However, their fortunes were radically transformed following the marriage, in 1606, of the family’s heir apparent William Feilding, the subject of this biography, to Susan Villiers, eldest daughter of the late Sir George Villiers^‡, a prosperous but otherwise undistinguished Leicestershire gentleman. (Feilding probably encountered Su Villiers through her elder half-brother Sir Edward Villiers^‡, who attended Queens’ College Cambridge shortly before Feilding himself). Over the course of the next decade, Feilding, though knighted in 1607, languished in obscurity. However, in the wake of the meteoric rise to power of his brother-in-law George Villiers^*, marquess (and later 1st duke) of Buckingham, he moved to Westminster, where he came to the attention of James I, who, in 1617, stood as godfather to one of his sons.21 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 445; Old Cheque-Bk., or Bk. of Remembrance, of the Chapel Royal ed. E.F. Rimbault (Cam. Soc. n.s. iii), 175); St Martin-in-the-Fields (Harl. Soc. Reg. lxvi), 158.

Buckingham in power, 1619-25

Feilding has been described, with good reason, as ‘entirely unexceptional’, and by the standards of his age he was not well educated: his inability to speak French meant that in 1634 the king was unable to send him to greet a newly arrived French ambassador.22 Jacobean Pageant or the Court of Jas. I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 219; Ceremonies of Chas. I: The Notebooks of John Finet 1628-41 ed. A.J. Loomie, 160. Nevertheless, unlike his father Basil, who was content to remain a country squire, Feilding was eager to exploit his kinship with Buckingham, who held his sister, Feilding’s wife, in great affection.23 Lockyer describes Feilding’s wife as Buckingham’s ‘much-loved’ sister: R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 63, 116. In January 1619, five days before Buckingham’s patent as lord high admiral passed the great seal, it was reported that Feilding would succeed Sir Lionel Cranfield^* (subsequently 1st earl of Middlesex) as master of the great wardrobe, an office Cranfield claimed was worth £4,000 a year to its holder.24 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 8; M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 262. However, not until December 1620, when he became a viscount, did Feilding receive any tangible benefit from his connection with Buckingham. Presumably the favourite did not wish his elder brother John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck, and his stepfather’s brother, William Compton^*, 1st earl of Northampton, to be his only kinsmen in the forthcoming Parliament.

The newly created Viscount Feilding attended the opening of the 1621 Parliament on 30 January. Over the course of the next four months he regularly attended the Lords, missing only about a dozen days, but made no recorded impact on its proceedings. During this time Feilding continued to seek major office. On 26 May the keeper of the Council chest, Thomas Locke, a reliable source, reported that Feilding would succeed Viscount Falkland [S] (Henry Carey^‡) as comptroller of the household. However, Feilding was to be disappointed, as Falkland proved unable to secure his own appointment as lord deputy of Ireland until the summer of 1622. A fresh opportunity for advancement nevertheless presented itself over the autumn of 1621 with the appointment of Lionel Cranfield, now Lord Cranfield, as lord treasurer. On 13 Oct., the same day on which Cranfield’s patent was sealed, it was reported that Feilding would, after all, take up the mastership of the great wardrobe, as Cranfield would soon be obliged to relinquish it. However, Cranfield dragged his heels, to the frustration of Feilding and his wife, and terms were not agreed until December 1621. Feilding, as well as promising to pay £6,000 from the department’s annual assignment in satisfaction of money Cranfield claimed to have laid out, agreed to accept a significant reduction in the sum he was to receive from the king each year from the autumn of 1622, in line with the crown’s recent attempts to drive down costs. Instead of £20,000 a year, the great wardrobe would henceforward be entitled to receive just £15,000. However, to encourage frugality, Feilding would be allowed to keep any part of his annual assignment that remained unexpended at the end of each year.25 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 216; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/Ow107. These negotiations took place while Parliament was again in session. As in the previous meeting, Feilding regularly attended, missing just two days of the winter sitting, but made no recorded mark on the business of the upper House.

Feilding was appointed master of the great wardrobe on 11 Jan. 1622, though his grant was not formally enrolled for another four days.26 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 335; E351/3092. It was not long before he emerged as an important instrument in the court politics of the favourite. One of Buckingham’s chief ambitions was to integrate his family into the peerage of each of the three kingdoms ruled by James. However, before March 1622 Buckingham had no children of his own, with the result that his dynastic ambitions initially focussed on the offspring of his elder sister and her husband. As early as July 1619 Buckingham sought an Irish earldom for Feilding’s second son George by means of an alliance with the daughter and heir of the earl of Desmond. Though the intended marriage never took place, the king subsequently granted George the reversion to the Desmond earldom regardless.27 V. Treadwell, Buckingham and Ire. 126-7; CP, iv. 257. In June 1622 Buckingham brought about a union between Feilding’s nine-year old daughter Mary and the 16-year-old earl of Arran (James Hamilton^*, later 2nd earl of Cambridge), son and heir of Scotland’s premier nobleman, the 2nd marquess of Hamilton (James Hamilton^*, 1st earl of Cambridge). This marriage, celebrated in the king’s presence, ensured that Feilding himself would not long remain a mere viscount, and in September 1622 (the decision having been taken two months earlier) he was created earl of Denbigh.28 Add. 72299, f. 84; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 446. This was despite the fact that Feilding possessed no landed estate of any value, his father being still alive, nor any obvious connection with north Wales.

Denbigh’s marriage alliance with Hamilton served not only to further Buckingham’s dynastic ambitions but also the favourite’s political interests at court. Buckingham was acutely aware that his position in the king’s bedchamber was not as strong as he might wish, and the alliance with Hamilton, who had been admitted as a gentleman of the bedchamber two years earlier without Buckingham’s consent, served to neutralize a potential threat. Buckingham also strengthened his position at court by having Denbigh appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber, alongside his younger brother Christopher Villiers^* (later 1st earl of Anglesey). Furthermore, he arranged for Denbigh’s youngest daughter Elizabeth to be betrothed to the only son of John Murray^‡, a leading figure in the bedchamber, who did not consider himself one of the favourite’s clients. Although the intended wedding never took place, Murray was given a Scottish peerage, and a marked improvement in relations between Murray and Buckingham was soon observed.29 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 121-4; Oxford DNB, xxiv. 839-40; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 441; Cuddy, 220-1.

Following the secret departure of Buckingham and Prince Charles for Spain in February 1623, Denbigh and his new son-in-law, Arran, journeyed to Madrid themselves, travelling via France.30 Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. A.P.V. Akrigg, 389; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 157; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 524; Harl. 7000, f. 149. Charles was eager to bring about the long-planned marriage between himself and the sister of the Spanish king, Philip IV, and his hopes were initially high that his efforts would be crowned with success. Consequently he assigned Denbigh the task of carrying to England the news that he had bedded his new wife. In the event, however, Denbigh’s services were not needed, as in September Charles left Spain empty-handed.31 CSD Dom. 1619-23, p. 596. Before departing Spain, however, Denbigh nearly caused a fire in the king of Spain’s palace. Smoking his pipe on a balcony late one evening, he blew hot ashes into the garden below, thereby igniting some combustible material. Only the quick reactions of Mr Davis, barber to the 1st earl of Carlisle (James Hay^*), prevented a conflagration.32 J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae ed. J. Jacobs, 175.

Shortly after Charles and Buckingham returned to England it was decided to convene another Parliament. Many members of the Privy Council, among them the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield, now earl of Middlesex, continued to hope for a successful outcome to the Spanish negotiations. However, when the Parliament met in February 1624 it became clear that Charles and Buckingham, now a duke, were not only anxious to terminate the marriage treaty but also to embark on a war with Spain. On 5 Apr., after trying to topple the favourite, Middlesex was accused of corruption by the duke’s clients in the Commons, whereupon the lord treasurer complained that there was a ‘dangerous conspiracy’ against him. Denbigh, who attended the upper House with great regularity from the beginning of the session, when he was formally introduced in his new capacity by the 3rd earl of Essex (Robert Devereux^*) and the 4th earl of Lincoln (Theophilus Clinton^*),33 Add. 40087, f. 21. was largely a bystander in these events. On 9 Apr. he notified the duke (then absent) that Essex had challenged Middlesex in the chamber to name the culprits, adding that Middlesex, after desiring more time to assemble his witnesses, had pleaded his honesty and faithfulness to the king and kingdom.34 Harl. 1581, f. 378r-v.

The attack on Middlesex was soon transformed into a full-blown impeachment, and on 7 May the Lords heard charges concerning Middlesex’s conduct while master of the great wardrobe. During the ensuing debate Buckingham’s ally Lord Keeper Williams (John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln) claimed that Middlesex, on being informed that he would be required to surrender the mastership, had deliberately exaggerated the profits of the office for his own financial gain, and that as a result of this deception Denbigh had lost £4,000. Four days later, Denbigh and his kinsman by marriage, the marquess of Hamilton (sitting in his capacity as earl of Cambridge) launched their own attack on the beleaguered lord treasurer. Hamilton began, accusing Middlesex of refusing to allow Denbigh to classify as extraordinary expenditure money spent on items that he himself admitted were properly to be regarded as extraordinary. Denbigh thereupon spelled out what this meant in practice, namely that he was forced to pay for these items on his ordinary account, thereby wiping out his profits and putting his ordinary account into deficit. Middlesex, then at the bar of the House, responded by denying that he had failed to pay Denbigh’s extraordinary expenditure, and suggested that Denbigh was being needlessly extravagant.35 Add. 40088, f. 83; LJ, iii. 377a. The charge that Denbigh was extravagant has been endorsed uncritically by Middlesex’s biographer: Prestwich, 262-3. On the penultimate day of the session (28 May), with Middlesex now condemned, Denbigh was absent from the chamber. However, his interests were not forgotten. Buckingham’s client, the 4th Lord Wentworth (Thomas Wentworth^*, later 1st earl of Cleveland) persuaded the House to order Middlesex to hand over to Denbigh the books of accounts he had kept while master of the great wardrobe, which motion was seconded by Lord Keeper Williams, who added that Denbigh ‘knows not how to account’ without them.36 Add. 40088, f. 142; LJ, iii. 419a.

Except on 20 May, when he was appointed to the committee to consider the bill for the true making of cloth, Denbigh left no further mark on the proceedings of the session.37 LJ, iii. 393a. Following the dissolution Denbigh (described incorrectly by the newsletter-writer John Castle as ‘Lord Feilding’) was granted permission to have £10,000 of the £50,000 fine imposed on Middlesex paid to the great wardrobe. Over the autumn one of Middlesex’s supporters attempted to persuade Denbigh to set aside this demand in return for a present of £3,000 or £4,000, apparently without success.38 Add. 72276, f. 112v; Prestwich, 473-4. Denbigh’s personal finances nevertheless improved at around this same time, for in September 1624 Sir Robert Lane, a relation on his mother’s side, died leaving him two manors each in Northamptonshire and Rutland.39 PROB 11/144, f. 213.

At court Denbigh remained high in the favour of Buckingham who, in August 1624, attempted to obtain for him the office of groom of the stole.40 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 327. This position, which equated to that of chief gentleman of the king’s bedchamber, was of crucial importance in controlling access to the king, and its continued occupancy by the Scottish earl of Kellie meant that Buckingham’s earlier attempt to gain complete control of the bedchamber had only been partially successful. Earlier that year, the pro-Spanish Kellie had secretly set up a meeting between James and the Spanish ambassador’s secretary, at which the king was led to believe that Buckingham was planning to depose him.41 J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), 196. For a detailed discussion of this episode, see CHARLES STUART. In the short term this accusation had greatly harmed the duke, and though Buckingham and James were now reconciled, removing Kellie from the office of groom of the stole remained a matter of the first importance. However, despite Buckingham’s best efforts, Kellie could not be persuaded to part with his place.42 Cuddy, 220-1.

During the winter of 1624 a marriage treaty with France was concluded, whereupon Buckingham made plans to travel to Paris in the New Year to fetch Charles’s new bride. He initially intended to take Denbigh with him, but his departure was delayed by the final illness of the king. When he eventually left for France, in May 1625, it was without his brother-in-law.43 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 589; H. Ellis, Original Letters of State, iii. 189; Lockyer, 233, 236. Soon after returning England, Buckingham attempted to introduce Denbigh’s wife and three other female members of his family to the queen’s bedchamber. However, Henrietta Maria initially refused to take all but Buckingham’s mother, as only the latter was Catholic.44 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 129.

Denbigh attended both sittings of the 1625 Parliament, but probably fled the capital during the final week of the Westminster sitting to avoid the plague, as he was absent from the House between 4 and 11 July. He played no recorded part in this short-lived assembly. In September 1625 Buckingham, being lord high admiral, appointed Denbigh to command a warship in the forthcoming expedition against Spain, even though the earl had no previous naval experience. Shortly before the fleet set sail, the fleet’s rear admiral, Sir Francis Stewart^‡ was forced to withdraw, whereupon Denbigh was unexpectedly promoted.45 J. Glanville, Voyage to Cadiz ed. A.B. Grosart (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxxii), 13, 83. It was perhaps fortunate that, during the ensuing expedition, Denbigh was called upon to exercise his initiative only once, though the episode concerned hardly did him credit. Following the arrival of the fleet off Cadiz, most other commanders went ashore with the troops, leaving Denbigh in charge of the ships. During their absence Denbigh held a council of war, at which he and his officers discussed attacking the dozen or so Spanish galleys that had fled upriver.46 Glanville, 52; SP16/11/22. In the event, Denbigh decided to do nothing, a failure which some contemporary commentators alleged contributed to the expedition’s disastrous failure.47 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 365.

Denbigh participated in the coronation on 2 Feb. 1626,48 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l. and attended the opening of the second Caroline Parliament four days later. He subsequently missed only three days of the session, which was dominated by the attempted impeachment of Buckingham. He played almost no recorded part in the impeachment proceedings, but article 11 of the Commons’ charges accused Buckingham of having procured titles for his relatives, among them Denbigh. Buckingham did not seek to deny this allegation, but pointed out, perfectly correctly, that Denbigh had not received ‘a foot of land’ from the crown. Denbigh made his only recorded contribution to debate on 15 May, after Buckingham complained that, in presenting the Commons’ impeachment charges to the Lords, Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had impugned the honour of the king to the point of treason. Denbigh was among those peers who voluntarily protested that Digges had said nothing that could be thus construed. The only committee to which Denbigh was named during the Parliament was established to consider the bill to establish the tenants of Bromfield and Yale, in Denbighshire. In the wake of the Lords’ decision to restrict the number of proxies held by peers, Denbigh was granted the proxy of the 4th earl of Cumberland (Francis Clifford^*), who had previously bestowed it on Buckingham.49 Procs. 1626, i. 327, 470, 477, 483, 577; iv. 11.

Shortly after the Parliament was dissolved Buckingham, undeterred by the lacklustre performance of his brother-in-law the previous year, appointed Denbigh vice admiral of a second fleet. A short while later the designated commander of the new expedition, Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby, fell sick, giving rise to the rumour that Denbigh would be offered the admiral’s flag himself.50 Birch, i. 131; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 527. On arriving at Portsmouth in late August, Denbigh found that his ships wanted provisions, but he put to sea anyway, with orders to ply up and down the western reaches of the Channel until Willoughby was ready to join him.51 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 412, 421, 422, 429; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 539. He subsequently seized three French merchantmen he correctly suspected of carrying contraband.52 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 434; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 575; HMC Skrine, 86. Not until early October did Denbigh sail under Willoughby’s command for the coast of Spain. However the fleet got no further than the Bay of Biscay, for on the night of 12/13 Oct. it was struck by such a fierce storm that Willoughby ordered a return to port. Denbigh was evidently unhappy with abandoning the expedition at such an early stage, for on arriving at court to report to Buckingham it was observed that he and Willoughby had quarrelled.53 CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 6.

On his return, Denbigh discovered that his son-in-law, who had inherited the marquessate of Hamilton in March 1625, had left for Scotland, leaving behind him his 12-year-old wife. Hamilton, heavily in debt, was angry that his pension had been stopped because he declined to consummate his marriage. In the short term, Denbigh did nothing, spending the winter months in England, and attending several meetings of the commission established on 12 Dec. 1626 to investigate the Navy’s recent poor performance.54 Ibid. 24; Birch, i. 159-61, 166; SP16/45, ff. 10, 17, 23, 25, 28. However, in early March 1627, against the advice of William Murray^‡, one of his fellow gentlemen of the bedchamber, he journeyed to Scotland in the hope of inducing Hamilton to return to court, the king having first ordered the Exchequer to resume payment of Hamilton’s pension. The warmth of his reception is unknown, but the assurances he carried were apparently ‘but verbal’, and by 21 Apr. he had returned home empty-handed.55 NRS, GD406/1/91; G. Burnet, Memoirs of the Lives and Actions and James and William, Dukes of Hamilton and Castle-Herald, 3; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 161; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 76, 145.

Expeditions to the Île de Ré and La Rochelle, 1627-8

Denbigh arrived in England to discover that preparations for a further expedition, this time in support of the Huguenots of La Rochelle, were well under way. Once again he was given command of a squadron of ships. However, contemporary reports that he was appointed rear admiral, or even admiral of the fourth squadron, were misplaced, for although the expedition was to be led by Buckingham in person, Denbigh was assigned to the last of the fleet’s five squadrons, much to the annoyance of one of his captains, who remarked that the earl now occupied a junior position to Capt. John Pennington, formerly rear admiral in Willoughby’s expedition.56 Add. 26051, f. 1v; HMC Skrine, 121; HMC Cowper, i. 335. Denbigh may have had to borrow to furnish himself for the forthcoming campaign, for in May 1627 he and his father mortgaged a Leicestershire manor to a London moneylender for £864.57 Warws. RO, CR2017/D147. However, he played no notable part in the expedition to the Île de Ré, during the course of which he was charged with preventing French forces from landing on the western side of the island and, when this failed, with helping to evacuate the wounded.58 Gonville and Caius ms 143/193, pp. 119, 139.

Following the expedition’s failure, Denbigh returned to England. However, instead of being permitted to return to court, he was kept on over the winter, being instructed by Buckingham to prepare a squadron for sea under Sir Henry Mervyn^‡ to guard the Channel and forestall a threatened invasion of the Scilly Isles.59 Add. 37817, ff. 143v-4, 146v-7, 152v. He evidently impressed Buckingham with his care in fitting out this squadron, for early in the New Year Denbigh was sent to Plymouth with the rank of admiral with instructions to equip and lead a second expedition for the relief of La Rochelle.60 Ibid. f. 159; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 509; HMC Skrine, 135. He faced a task of Herculean proportions, however, for provisions, men and money were in short supply, and many of the sailors either mutinied or deserted for want of pay. As a result, in late March he was obliged to reduce the size of his fleet.61 HMC Skrine, 140; SP16/98/27; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 46, 67, 77. By then a fresh Parliament had assembled, but Denbigh took no part in the ensuing session, nor did he appoint a proxy.62 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87. However, his wife contrived to obtain the return for the Suffolk borough of Dunwich of her servant, Francis Winterton^‡, on the interest of her brother, Buckingham.

On 25 Apr. Denbigh finally put to sea, after spending several days awaiting a favourable wind. Six days later he weighed anchor off La Rochelle.63 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 80, 141; Procs. 1628, p. 208; William Whiteway of Dorchester: His Diary 1618-35 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 96. The situation that greeted him was very far from the one that either he or his captains had expected. Since the previous autumn the French king’s forces had built a mole or palisade across the entrance to the harbour, topped with ordnance and protected by a combination of moored and sunken ships and onshore batteries and forts. Consequently it was now difficult, if not impossible, to break through to the city. To make matters worse, the Rochellais, who had been expected to provide a ‘powerful assistance’, were prevented from seconding the English fleet by the harbour defences,64 SP16/104/57. which the English believed had been swept away by winter storms.65 Add. 11033, f. 111v.

Denbigh was initially prevented from attempting an assault by a bout of stormy weather and offshore winds. On the first fair evening he gave two captains permission to try to breach the palisade with floating mines, but the operation ended in tragedy when one of them blew himself up with seven of his men.66 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 141. Not until 8 May did the wind change direction, favouring an attack. However, that morning, at a council of war, it was concluded that an assault would accomplish nothing.67 SP16/103/50. After making an unsuccessful attempt to breach the palisade with a fireship, the fleet stood out to sea, returning to Plymouth eight days later.68 The date of return is supplied from William Whiteway’s diary, but it should be noted that Whiteway incorrectly states that the fleet returned to Portsmouth. William Whiteway: His Diary, 97. For the fireship attack, see CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 116.

On receiving news of Denbigh’s retreat the king, Charles I, was angrier than anyone had ever known. Indeed, he declared that ‘he was never so dishonoured’. On 17 May he ordered Denbigh to return, and not to consider himself overmuch with the risk to his ships, for they ‘were made and prepared for such hazards’ and he would ‘rather all the ships were sunk than that Rochelle should not be relieved’. Six days later, after ordering him to keep his crews aboard ship, he demanded to know of Denbigh ‘why you have done nothing in all this time for succour of that town’. He attributed the earl’s inaction to the cowardice of his captains and was heard to say that unless he received a satisfactory explanation of their conduct he would ‘hang up four or five of the best commanders’.69 Diary of Sir Henry Slingsby ed. D. Parsons, 319; SP16/104/47; Eg. 2552, ff. 20v-1, 29. However Denbigh defended his officers, saying that they had been ‘much wronged by ill informations’.70 SP16/105/75. Blame was also assigned to Edward Clarke^‡, one of the duke’s followers who, interpreting the admiral’s instructions to mean that he should not risk even a single ship, had strongly advised Denbigh against attacking the palisade. In early June Clarke was arrested and confined to his rooms.71 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 132; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 535.

Although a scapegoat had now been found, it was clear that Charles considered Denbigh himself much to blame for the débâcle. Indeed, as late as 5 June it was reported that the admiral dared not come to court for fear of the king. At around the same time, Secretary of State Sir John Coke^‡, who had been sent down to Portsmouth to oversee the refitting of the fleet, informed Denbigh that the only way ‘to redeem or make good your honour with his Majesty’ was to cry down the rumour that the fleet was to be sent back to perform an impossible task.72 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 121; M. Young, Servility and Service: the Life and Work of Sir John Coke, 197. Denbigh was acutely aware that he needed to recover the good opinion of the king, and over the next few months he strained every nerve to win Charles’s approval. For instance, on his own initiative in mid June he dispatched a small squadron to intercept a French warship lying off Newhaven with six vessels laded with salt. Later that month he also pacified the unpaid seamen under his command without resorting to violence, for which he was warmly praised by the Privy Council.73 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 167, 173, 177-8; APC, 1628-9, p. 16. By mid July Denbigh had so exerted himself that he was reconciled with Buckingham, and perhaps also with Charles, whom he visited.74 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 218.

Although Denbigh had now done much to remove the stain of dishonour from his reputation, neither Charles nor Buckingham were prepared to entrust him with command of the fleet again, and on 4 Aug. the duke was appointed to lead the forthcoming expedition in person.75 C193/8, no. 91. Moreover, following Buckingham’s assassination less than three weeks later, Denbigh, far from receiving an invitation to fill the vacancy, was informed by the king that he would understand if Denbigh, in his grief, felt unable to take part in the forthcoming expedition. Denbigh was further assured that he would be ‘most welcome’ if he chose to resume the duties of master of the great wardrobe in person.76 Warws. RO, CR2017/C2/2/196. A short while later Charles offered command of the fleet to Lord Willoughby, now 1st earl of Lindsey, under whom Denbigh had previously served and with whom he had quarrelled. Denbigh was so wounded by this rebuff that he resigned his commission.77 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 270; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 245.

Final years, 1628-43

Over the autumn of 1628, while Lindsey vainly attempted to succeed where his predecessor had failed, Denbigh journeyed to Scotland in the hope of luring his son-in-law, the marquess of Hamilton, back to England. He carried with him an offer from the king concerning one of the offices previously held by Buckingham, which Hamilton was to have on condition that he agreed to consummate his marriage. He returned the following month accompanied with Hamilton, to the delight of Charles, who reportedly gave him the sum of £10,000 for the settlement of his debts.78 Burnet, 4; Beaumont Pprs. ed. W.D. Macray, 62; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 518. Shortly thereafter Hamilton bedded his young wife, now aged 14 or 15, and was sworn in as master of the horse.79 Birch, i. 419; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 395. Denbigh may have used the sum given to him by the king to gain possession of the bulk of his father’s property, for in December 1628 he became the lessee of his family seats of Newnham Paddox, in Warwickshire and Martinsthorpe, in Rutland, in return for a promise to discharge his father’s debts, which amounted to a staggering £14,510. Basil was left only the manor house at Newnham and a few nearby closes.80 Warws. RO, CR2017/D3.

Denbigh attended Parliament when it reconvened on 20 Jan.1629, having first been ordered (as master of the great wardrobe) to provide ‘wool, red say and other necessaries’ for the upper House.81 E403/2565, f. 41v. Thereafter he sat on all but four days of the short meeting, though he made little recorded impact on its proceedings. However on 14 Feb., his second son having by now inherited the earldom of Desmond, he refused to give his assent to the Lords’ petition to the king protesting at the precedence on English commissions granted to Englishmen with Irish and Scottish titles, the only peer to do so.82 LJ, iv. 73a. Following the dissolution the countess of Denbigh, by now first lady of the queen’s bedchamber, used her influence with the king to support her son Desmond and other English holders of Irish titles in opposing the wishes expressed by the Lords’ petition.83 C115/99/7241, 7242, 7250. On the prime position occupied by the countess, see HMC Skrine, 136.

Over the winter of 1629-30 a commission was established to investigate the great wardrobe. One observer remarked that the outlook was bleak for Denbigh, ‘who hath received very much and paid little’, but in the spring of 1630 the king, perhaps realizing that the earlier reduction in the wardrobe’s assignment had been a mistake, agreed to write off a debt of more than £16,800 which Denbigh owed on his accounts. However, to ensure greater control of departmental spending, it was decided to join the clerk of the great wardrobe with the master as co-accountant.84 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 346; G.E. Aylmer, ‘Attempts at Administrative Reform’, EHR, lxxii. 252.

Denbigh may have been angry at this decision to curb his authority over the wardrobe, for in the summer of 1630 he announced that he wished to visit India and Persia to ‘better my understanding’. There was certainly bitterness in the letter written to his eldest son Basil Feilding^*, Viscount Feilding (later 2nd earl of Denbigh) that September, in which he explained that he had no intention of living at home to ‘get nothing and spend all’.85 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 329; Warws. RO, CR2017/C1/2. His interest in the countries of the East may have been aroused by Capt. John Weddell, who had served as rear admiral of the fleet he had led to La Rochelle. Weddell knew them well, having distinguished himself in the service of the East India Company in its recent war against the Portuguese.86 Oxford DNB, lvii. 905-6. After obtaining letters of introduction from the king, and after selling a couple of manors to finance the voyage – he promised the governors of the East India Company that he would pay for his own passage, which eventually cost him £80 - he left England early in 1631 with six servants. He arrived in the following November at Swally (modern-day Suvali), on the north-west coast of India, the first member of the English nobility ever to venture to the Indian subcontinent.87 CSP Col. E.I. 1630-4, pp. 46-7, 55, 66; CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 487, 490; Cal. of the Ct. Mins. of the E.I. Co. 1635-9, p. 23; Eng. Factories in India 1630-3 ed. W. Foster, 150; Coventry Docquets, 280. From there, despite being ‘ill accommodated for such a journey’, he travelled overland to the court of the great mogul, Shah Jahan, who made him a gift of 6,000 rupees. The following spring he may have visited Masulipatam, a city on India’s east coast, where the East India Company had one of its factories, before journeying to Persia.88 Eng. Factories, pp. xviii-xix, 218.

Denbigh returned to England in August 1633, reportedly laden with jewels, and bringing with him various pieces of Indian furniture and ‘several Indian toys’.89 HMC 10th Rep. IV, 282; CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 195; HMC Denbigh, 98. He arrived not a moment too soon, for during his absence the great wardrobe had gone from bad to worse, vastly overspending its assignment and severely reducing its financial value to the master. Denbigh had hoped that his interests would have been protected by his son-in-law the marquess of Hamilton, but in 1631 the latter had departed on a military venture for north Germany. As early as January and February 1632 Denbigh’s kinsmen, aware that the clerk of the wardrobe was destroying the master’s profits, begged Denbigh to return. Supported by the lord steward, the 4th earl of Pembroke (Philip Herbert^*), Denbigh persuaded the king in March 1634 to let him resume his former role as the wardrobe’s sole accounting officer.90 Aylmer, 252-3; Warws. RO, CR2017/C2/2/176, 186. Aylmer mistakenly conveyed the impression that Denbigh rather than the clerk was responsible for the overspending.

Although he had now regained full control of the wardrobe, and was also the undisputed master of his patrimony – his father had died at around the time of his return from his foreign travels – Denbigh, who had himself painted wearing Indian garb, was eager to return to the Orient. On learning that Sir Sackville Crowe^‡, 1st bt., the man appointed to serve as resident ambassador to Constantinople, was in dispute with the Levant Company over the level of his remuneration, he offered to buy him out. However, the two men proved unable to agree terms, though they must have known each other well, Crowe having been a senior member of the household of the late duke of Buckingham.91 Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 360. The Levant Company wanted neither man, since it wished for its interests to be represented by merchant rather than a courtier: CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 329. For the dispute between Crowe and the Company, see M.C. Fissel, ‘Strangers’ Consulage’, Law and Authority in Early Modern Eng. ed. B. Sharp and M.C. Fissel, 193-7. The reason is unclear, but for Denbigh money was now in short supply: in December 1634 he and his wife were accused by their second son the earl of Desmond of withholding the major part of his annual allowance of £1,200. Although they subsequently persuaded the king that the allegation was false, the Denbighs were so short of cash that in 1638 they mortgaged Lutterworth manor, in Warwickshire, for £540.92 C115/106/8444; Warws. RO, CR2017/D150-1.

Denbigh was summoned to York in early 1639 to attend the king ahead of the First Bishops’ War.93 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 466. Having done no soldiering, it is perhaps unsurprising that he was not offered a command against the Scots. However, he was not invited to join the council of war established in July 1638 either. This omission, coupled with the fact that, unlike Lindsey, Denbigh was never elected to the order of the Garter, suggests that Charles had neither forgotten nor forgiven his dismal performance as admiral in 1628. (His participation in Garter ceremonies appears to have been limited to carrying the ewer at the St George’s Day feast in 1640).94 LC5/134, p. 439. This document is incorrectly dated 1641.

Denbigh sided with the king on the outbreak of civil war in 1642, but his military ineptness continued to be held against him: he was not appointed to the commission of array for Warwickshire in July, nor was he included on the royalist council of war established on 4 Aug. 1642.95 Northants. RO, FH133; M. Griffin, ‘Regulating Religion and Morality in the King’s Armies 1639-46’ (Univ. of Toronto Ph.D. thesis, 1997), 363. He was also offered no field commission, but instead served as a volunteer in the king’s lifeguard of horse, seeing action at Edgehill, in his native Warwickshire, in October. Severely injured during the storming of Birmingham on 3 Apr. 1643, he received medical attention and began to recover, only to have his coach overturn, whereupon ‘his wounds broke out again so sorely that he died shortly after’.96 E. Warburton, Mems. of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, ii. 152-3; A True Relation of Prince Rupert’s Barbarous Cruelty against the Towne of Brumingham (1643), unpag.; Clarendon, iii. 20; English Revolution III: Newsbooks 1: Oxford Royalist ed. R. Jeffs, i. 192. He was subsequently buried at Monks Kirby, near Newnham Paddox, his principal seat.97 J. Nichols, County of Leicester, iv. 290. Before he died, Denbigh reportedly asked God to forgive his eldest son, Viscount Feilding, who succeeded him as earl, for taking up arms against the king. Denbigh left no will, and his finances were in such a parlous state that the queen sent his grieving widow money. The king, too, decided not to appoint a replacement master of the great wardrobe in the hope that the profits of the office would eventually clear the debt.98 Warburton, ii. 158; Feilding, 191.