HAY, James (c.1580-1636)

Distantly related to the earls of Errol, Hay was educated at the French court, returning to Scotland in the summer of 1602 in the train of a French ambassador, the baron du Tour. It was perhaps at the latter’s request that he was appointed a gentleman of the English privy chamber in May 1603, and three months later he became a gentleman of the newly established bedchamber.46 Schreiber, 6-7; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 52. One of the inner circle of courtiers who earned James’s complete trust, Hay was a devoted follower of fashion,47 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 13-14. and a regular participant in masques and tilts,48 Carleton to Chamberlain, 54; Chamberlain Letters, i. 340, 487, 496, 498, 590, 617; ii. 152. but was chiefly renowned for his banquets, which were lavish beyond the point of excess.49 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 55-8, 94, 531; Schreiber, 11. A prime beneficiary of Jacobean largesse, Hay was the archetype of the ‘hungry Scot’ – Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, later reckoned that, ‘in a very jovial life’, he had spent £400,000 (sterling) in 33 years at court, which represented almost an entire year’s revenue from ordinary sources for the Jacobean Exchequer. Within a year of his accession, James began to discourage Scots from coming to London, but those already installed at court, including, Hay were allowed to remain: his French education and English wives may have helped to mitigate criticism, and while he always enjoyed royal favour, he never sought the role of favourite.50 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 78; C. Russell, King Jas. VI and I and his English Parls. 169; Schreiber, 6-8.

Jacobean courtier and diplomat, 1603-18

Hay’s first diplomatic role, in the spring of 1604, was as ambassador extraordinary to France – the most obvious candidate, Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (later duke of Richmond in the English peerage), having recently been sent to Scotland. After offering Henri IV condolences on the death of his sister, the two men may have discussed the forthcoming Anglo-Spanish peace conference. However, the only substantive issue Hay is known to have raised was the treatment of the Huguenots, which apparently caused offence, as his leaving gift was a modest jewel worth 600 crowns (about £190 sterling). The cost of this embassy underlined Hay’s taste for conspicuous consumption: he was advanced £300, but spent £6,000.51 Schreiber, 8-9; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 143. During his absence Hay was naturalized as an Englishman by private act, and, after his return to England, he began courting Honora, daughter and heiress to Sir Edward Denny^* (later earl of Norwich) of Waltham Abbey, Essex. The king warmly approved of Anglo-Scottish marriages, and rendered Hay a more attractive prospect by settling lands in Northamptonshire and Yorkshire (worth £1,030 a year) on him and his prospective bride, in September 1604. The match conveniently allied Hay with the bride’s great-uncle, James’s chief minister Robert Cecil^*, 1st Lord Cecil (later 1st earl of Salisbury). In return for a peerage and the payment of his own debts, her father agreed to settle lands worth £3,000 a year on the couple, but he had no intention of rushing his daughter, then only 13 years old, into marriage: the ceremony took place in January 1607.52 PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1603/1J1n53; C142/550/93; Carleton to Chamberlain, 62; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 149, 364; HP Commons 1604-29, iv. 46-7. In addition to his earlier grant of lands, the king cleared Hay’s debts, which probably amounted to more than £10,000, and awarded him a further £10,000 of unpaid Exchequer debts and a farm of the imposition on Irish wine imports.53 Schreiber, 10, 156-7; Chamberlain Letters, i. 238, 241.

By the time of his wedding, Hay had received an English barony, reportedly on the recommendation of Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton.54 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie (1750), iii. 344; HENRY HOWARD. He was the first Scot to be honoured in this fashion, for while George Home was created Lord Home of Berwick in July 1604, his patent repeatedly stated that his title was Scottish. However, Hay’s grant, which excluded the customary territorial suffix, did not allow him to sit in Parliament, presumably to avoid inflaming the Commons’ fears of an influx of predatory Scots prior to the debates on the Instrument of Union during the 1606-7 parliamentary session. A flamboyant dresser, Hay was also appointed master of the Robes, handling the king’s personal attire. Controlling an annual budget of £2,500, he spent over twice as much in his first two years in office; even after his annual imprest was increased to £4,000, he still managed to overspend in almost every year of his tenure.55 E351/2807-8.

Daily access to the king enabled Hay to promote the interests of his relatives: in 1608 his father was appointed comptroller of Scotland, a senior Exchequer post, and in 1611 his brother Robert became a groom of the (English) bedchamber; while his cousin George Hay (later 1st earl of Kinnoull [S]) became clerk register of Scotland in 1612, and lord chancellor of Scotland a decade later.56 Schreiber, 12. Hay obtained for himself a reversionary grant as master of the (English) great wardrobe in 1607, taking office in May 1612 on the death of Sir Roger Aston^‡. This department, handling ceremonial robes for household officials, was a much larger concern than the Robes, as were the perquisites of office, which Aston’s executors valued at £4,000 p.a_., including an apartment in the Wardrobe. Hay massively exceeded his annual budget of £30,000: his first year in office included Princess Elizabeth’s marriage, which increased expenditure to £66,000; but the following year’s outlay still came to £45,000.57 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 355; C78/272/10; HP Commons 1604-29, iii. 69; AO1/2347/42-3.

Hay’s position at court waned somewhat after 1607, when the new Scottish favourite, Robert Carr^* (later earl of Somerset) – who may have come to the king’s attention while serving Hay at the accession day tilt of 1607 – rose to prominence in the king’s affections, with support from the earl of Northampton. In the spring of 1610 Carr quarrelled with Lord Treasurer Salisbury (great-uncle to Hay’s wife) over compensation for the cancellation of his grant of the manor of Sherborne, Dorset. In the following December Northampton learned that Salisbury and Hay had been plotting to sow discord between himself and the favourite; he relayed this information to Carr, who retaliated by spreading a rumour that the Commons was about to demand that James send his Scottish courtiers home. This failed to provoke an angry dissolution, but as there was by this stage of the session hope of an agreement over royal finances, there was little Salisbury or Hay could do to respond to Carr’s provocation.58 CUL, Dd.iii.63, f. 22; ROBERT CARR; HENRY HOWARD.

In June 1615 Hay received a patent as Baron Hay of Sawley, one of the Yorkshire properties he had been granted in 1604, and with it the right to sit in Parliament. Since 1606, two other Scots had secured English peerages: the favourite, Robert Carr, Viscount Rochester (1611) and earl of Somerset (1613); and the king’s cousin Lennox, created earl of Richmond in 1613. Neither of these grants had been brought into question in the Addled Parliament, and any legal objection had been removed in 1604, when Hay had been naturalized. In 1616, following Somerset’s conviction as an accessory to the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, the king used Hay as an intermediary to negotiate the terms of Somerset’s enforced retirement.59 Chamberlain Letters, i. 604; CSP Dom, 1635-6, pp. 78-9; Schreiber, 12-13.

Hay was sent to France once again in the summer of 1616 as ambassador extraordinary. He allegedly delayed his departure in the vain hope of being installed as a Garter knight in place of the disgraced Somerset, although the real cause was probably lack of money – which he spent freely, recruiting a large entourage and preparing 20 extravagant suits, one for each day he was to attend the French court. The funds for his departure were furnished from the £10,000 Sir John Roper^* paid for his patent as Lord Teynham.60 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 13-18; Schreiber, 14-15. Hay’s mission was to congratulate Louis XIII on his marriage to the Spanish princess Anne of Austria, and to investigate the prospects for an Anglo-French match for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales), which had been extensively explored during 1612-14. These negotiations stalled in early 1614, following an aristocratic revolt led by the prince de Condé, but they were resumed at a more desultory pace thereafter. To a degree, this suited James: negotiations for an Anglo-Spanish Match were also taking place, and the French talks could either be used to win concessions from Madrid or to provide an alternative if the Spanish proved intransigent. Yet if the 1616 embassy had been required to negotiate in earnest, it is likely that Lennox – closely involved with previous talks – would have been sent. For this reason Lady Haddington’s dismissal of Hay and his companions Sir Henry Rich^* (later 1st earl of Holland) and Sir George Goring^* (later earl of Norwich) as ‘mignards’ [children] was appropriate. (Although all three men were to participate in the arrangements for Charles’s marriage to Henrietta Maria nine years later, their role was purely ceremonial.) Furthermore, in July 1616, only weeks after their arrival in Paris, Marie de Medici, the French queen mother, imprisoned Condé, thus threatening to revive the civil war which had stalled the negotiations in 1614. Hay, clearly dismayed, kept the talks going in the hope that peace might be restored, but he was recalled in October. The French were more appreciative of his services than in 1604, as his parting gift was a diamond worth 10,000 crowns.61 Schreiber, 16-19; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 13-14; A. Thrush, ‘Origins of the 1614 Parl.’, Crisis of 1614 and the Addled Parl. ed. S. Clucas and R. Davies, 26-32; A. Thrush, ‘Personal Rule of Jas. I, 1611-20’, Pols., Religion and Popularity ed. T. Cogswell, R. Cust and P. Lake, 86-92.

Tensions at court had risen by the time Hay returned to England, when he was rumoured to have joined his erstwhile bedchamber companion Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (later 4th earl of Pembroke) in promoting a rival to the new favourite George Villiers^*, Viscount Villiers (later marquess and 1st duke of Buckingham). The king also suspected Hay had undertaken to promote the French Match in England. His suspicions must have increased in February 1617, when the baron du Tour arrived in London as ambassador extraordinary. Hay threw a banquet at the Wardrobe, and entertained the baron with a masque by Ben Jonson, whereupon James confronted him about his secret marriage negotiations. However, Hay clearly managed to allay his master’s fears and resolve any differences with Villiers, as he was appointed to the English Privy Council shortly thereafter.62 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 41, 51-2, 55-6; Schreiber, 19.

Hay’s other main concern at this time was his second marriage – his first wife had died in premature labour in August 1614 – to the youthful and vivacious Lucy Percy, daughter of the 3rd earl of Northumberland (Henry Percy^*). The match was apparently brokered by Lucy Russell, countess of Bedford, but Northumberland, dismayed at his daughter’s intentions, insisted she come to lodge with him in the Tower, where he had been incarcerated since the Gunpowder Plot. The couple nevertheless contrived to meet in the apartments of the countess of Somerset, who was also a prisoner in the Tower. Northumberland disowned his daughter when he discovered this ruse, but she was unrepentant and stayed at the Wardrobe while Hay journeyed north to join the king at Edinburgh. James apparently blessed the match, as rumours soon reached London that Hay was to be created earl of Orkney, a promotion which would presumably have made him an appropriate suitor for an earl’s daughter. On his return to London, Hay rented Sir Francis Darcy’s^‡ house at Isleworth, Middlesex, conveniently situated near the countess of Northumberland’s residence at Syon House, and strove to win the countess over to his cause. The earl reluctantly gave his consent to the marriage in October 1617, and a dowry of £20,000, in return for which Hay settled his Yorkshire and Lincolnshire estates on his bride. The couple married on 6 Nov., and their wedding feast at the Wardrobe was attended by both king and prince.63 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 55-8, 77, 85, 94, 99-100, 114; C142/550/93; Schreiber, 21. A grant of concealed crown lands worth £200 a year (27 Nov. 1617), which was later sold to Sir John Townshend^‡ for £5,000, may have been James’s wedding present to the couple.64 CD 1621, vii. 343-4; C2/Jas.I/T8/75.

Following James’s return from Scotland, there was a concerted drive for economy in the crown’s finances. Hay’s management of the wardrobe came under the scrutiny of Lionel Cranfield^* (later 1st earl of Middlesex), who calculated that while the budget had averaged £9,500 a year at the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, Hay had disbursed over four times as much. When challenged, Hay offered to run his department for £28,000 a year, ‘except for extraordinaries’ – which offered plenty of scope for peculation. Cranfield responded with a counter-bid of £20,000 a year, and it was only after he took over at Michaelmas 1618 that the full extent of Hay’s mismanagement came to light: he had sold offices; his officials charged excessive fees; he made over-generous allowances of cloth for tailoring; and because bills were always paid in arrears, his suppliers charged grossly inflated prices. Hay was said to have been owed £42,000 by the crown at his resignation, although his accounts had not been audited since 1614, and much of this sum must have been due to merchants who supplied the wardrobe.65 M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 227-33. Yet while Hay lost his most lucrative office, he was not disgraced: rumours that he was to become master of the Wards or lord chamberlain proved unfounded, but his creation as Viscount Doncaster (25 July 1618) was one form of compensation.66 C231/4, f. 70. Furthermore, Cranfield paid him £7,000 towards the shortfall on his accounts; and in 1620 he received a further £20,000 from the Exchequer for surrendering the wardrobe. In addition, Hay retained his position as master of the Robes until the end of James’s reign.67 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 83; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 163, 168; Schreiber, 146-50.

The Palatine cause, the Spanish Match and its alternatives, 1619-23

In February 1619 Doncaster was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the princes of the Union, an alliance of German Protestants led by King James’s son-in-law, Frederick, Elector Palatine, which had designs on the kingdom of Bohemia, where the Protestant nobility had revolted against their new ruler, the Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand. Preparations for Doncaster’s departure were disrupted in March 1619, when James fell gravely ill; the viscount and many other courtiers posted to Royston, where James, believing himself to be dying, commended many of his advisers to Prince Charles, but (it was noted) omitted any mention of Doncaster. The viscount finally sailed in May, with an entourage of 150, including his brother-in-law, Lord Percy (Algernon Percy^*, later 4th earl of Northumberland) and John Donne^‡ as his chaplain.68 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 225-7; Add. 72287, f. 75; Schreiber, 22-6. The delay cost him dearly, as it allowed Ferdinand to conclude a military alliance with Maximilian, duke of Bavaria, while the death of the Emperor Matthias in March 1619 made Ferdinand the favourite for the forthcoming imperial election. Doncaster visited Brussels in the vain hope of persuading Archduke Albert to help him mediate a ceasefire; Maximilian of Bavaria declined his entreaties to stand against Ferdinand at the imperial election; while Ferdinand refused to countenance King James’s intervention in a dispute already being handled within the empire.69 Letters Illustrating the Relations between Eng. and Germany ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. xc), 102-3, 144-5, 160-5; Schreiber, 26-8. Doncaster was only useful to the Catholic powers if he could act as a brake on Frederick’s ambitions, but his correspondence shows little evidence of any serious attempt to restrain the Elector, whose talk was all of war. The die was cast in September 1619, when Ferdinand was elected emperor, and Frederick accepted the offer of the Bohemian crown.70 Letters Illustrating the Relations between Eng. and Germany, 118-21, 132-4, 189-91; P.H. Wilson, Europe’s Tragedy, 284-7; Schreiber, 29-30.

James ordered Doncaster to congratulate Ferdinand on his election and return to England via the United Provinces in order to encourage the Dutch to protect the Palatinate against an incursion by the army of Flanders. However, after meeting Ferdinand at Graz, Doncaster ignored his instructions and resolved instead to proceed to Venice, a journey which was frustrated by an outbreak of plague. On learning of this, Spanish diplomats in England complained to James that his ambassador was promoting underhand an anti-Habsburg alliance, an accusation which may well have been true, as Doncaster is known to have had talks with the Dutch war party on his way home. Once back in England he managed to allay fears that he had been trying to sabotage James’s plans for a negotiated settlement, but his services were not employed again as the Bohemian crisis developed into war.71 Eg. 2593, ff. 8-9, 56; PRO30/53/10, ff. 56-7; Add. 72287, ff.101-2; Schreiber, 31-4.

Doncaster’s exploits placed him firmly within the anti-Spanish faction at the Jacobean court, and on his return in January 1620 he was tipped to become earl of Carlisle and to succeed a leading hispanophobe, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, as lord chamberlain if the latter became lord treasurer. He also feasted the comte de Tillières, the new French ambassador, whose support would be invaluable in assembling an anti-Habsburg coalition.72 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 278, 281-2, 285-6; CSP Ven. 1619-21, p. 155. In the autumn of 1620 Doncaster was one of several courtiers who urged Tillières to persuade Louis XIII to send a special ambassador with fresh proposals for a French Match. This plan went disastrously wrong: Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, accused James of reneging on negotiations for a Spanish Match, and the pro-French Secretary of State, Sir Robert Naunton^‡, was suspended from office; Doncaster stood by him in his disgrace. Frederick’s rout at the battle of the White Mountain in late October 1620 left the Bohemian cause in an even worse state, obliging James to summon a Parliament.73 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 334, 339; Schreiber, 35-6; Wilson. 303-8.

Doncaster was present in the Lords for more than half the time during the spring sitting of 1621, the first opportunity he had had to sit in Parliament. In a session which focussed on the corruption of the previous decade, his tenure at the wardrobe did not bear scrutiny: some of his creditors reportedly petitioned the Commons for settlement of their debts in May 1621.74 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 378-9; Schreiber, 37-8. He kept a low profile in the Lords, attending a conference with the Commons on 3 Mar. to discuss the best means to apprehend the fugitive patentee, Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, while on 30 Apr. he was one of a delegation which urged James to take the great seal from Lord Chancellor St Alban (Francis Bacon^*) following the latter’s impeachment. Otherwise, he was named to committees for bills to modernize the arms of the militia and ban the export of ordnance; to ban exports of bullion; to allow fellow Scot Esmé Stuart^*, earl of March to sell the manor of Temple Newsam to Sir Arthur Ingram^‡; and to scrutinize Buckingham’s proposal to establish an academy for the sons of gentlemen.75 LJ, iii. 13a, 26b, 31a, 34a, 37a; Add. 40085, f. 82v; Schreiber, 37-8. Doncaster held Northumberland’s proxy during the session, but in July 1621 the earl was finally released from the Tower, being met by his son-in-law and carried to Syon House.76 LJ, iii. 4b; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 390-1.

With money voted by Parliament, James was able to send another embassy to Germany, which was headed not by Doncaster but by the supposedly pro-Spanish Lord Digby (John Digby^*, later 1st earl of Bristol). Doncaster, however, kept a close eye on his rival’s progress. In July 1621 Doncaster himself was sent to France, where relations between Louis and the Huguenots were rapidly deteriorating. Rumour had it that he departed with his customary ‘liberal allowance’ of followers, but in fact he travelled with a small entourage for the sake of speed in his journey to Montauban, where Louis was blockading a Huguenot garrison.77 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 387-8; Eg. 2594, ff. 63-4; Schreiber, 39-41. There he was laid low by a fever which nearly killed him. However, this same sickness also decimated the French army, making Louis more willing to use his services as a mediator before winter forced the royal army into a humiliating retreat. On the other side, the Huguenots became more tractable following King James’s refusal of their pleas for money, men and munitions. Negotiations with the Huguenots were conducted by Doncaster’s secretary, John Woodford, who visited the duc de Rohan in the Cevennes, and the Huguenot national assembly at La Rochelle; but chances of an early peace were dashed in February 1622, when Doncaster left for England.78 Eg. 2594, ff. 105, 117-18; Schreiber, 41-5. His departure may have been prompted by news of his wife’s illness, but he took advantage of his stay in London to approach Tillières about a marriage for Prince Charles, which he had presumably discussed with Louis in the Midi. Coming shortly after the 1621 Parliament had been dissolved for criticizing the Spanish Match, a negotiation conducted in earnest would have led to a remarkable reversal of alliances. It is possible that Doncaster was acting unilaterally, but Naunton’s disgrace in similar circumstances a year earlier makes it highly improbable that Doncaster would have been prepared to risk a similar disaster. The likelihood is that, as in 1614-18, James hoped to establish the possibility of a credible alternative to the Spanish Match to use as leverage in negotiations with Madrid. The modest prospects for a French Match had collapsed by the time Doncaster returned to France in May, where he found the tide of military affairs had turned against the Huguenots, and Louis had no need to offer his sister as an inducement to persuade the English to restrain the ambitions of their French co-religionists. Doncaster tarried long enough to overturn a French embargo on wine exports from Bordeaux, which was affecting his own income from the Irish wine farm, before returning to England in July.79 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 424; NLW, 9058E/1015, 1027, 1029; Eg. 2595, ff. 96, 147-8; Schreiber, 45-7, 156-7. Shortly after his return Doncaster quarrelled violently with his brother-in-law Robert Sidney^*, Viscount Lisle (and later 2nd earl of Leicester) at Northumberland’s house at Petworth, Sussex: he called Lisle a liar and struck him in the face. The dispute was provoked by Lisle’s daughter Mary Wroth, who had circulated verses which claimed that Lord Denny, father of Doncaster’s deceased first wife, was a drunkard; despite the mediation of Buckingham, Lennox and family members, it took some time for good relations to be restored.80 HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 331; ROBERT SIDNEY, 2ND EARL OF LEICESTER; EDWARD DENNY. This fracas notwithstanding, James rewarded Doncaster with a patent as earl of Carlisle and a pension of £2,000 p.a. Moreover, in July 1623 he reissued the earl’s concealed lands patent, which had been rescinded in 1621 following complaints in Parliament.81 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 442, 446, 452, 468; Stuart Royal Proclamations I: Jas. I ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, 514-15; C66/2302 (dorse); Eg. 5295, f. 183; Kent Hist, and Lib. Cent, U269/1/OE135.

Carlisle was hastily sent back to France in February 1623 to elicit guarantees of safe passage for Prince Charles and Buckingham en route to Madrid. His mission prompted Tillières to observe tartly that Carlisle was given embassies for show, while Bristol received those of substance. Louis cooperated, and the earl shrewdly observed that Marie de Medici regretted the fact that her daughter was not the object of Charles’s affections. Carlisle went on to Madrid, but his presence was entirely superfluous. Olivares gave him a particularly frosty reception, and in April he was sent home with a copy of the (first) papal dispensation for the infanta’s marriage. On his journey, he encouraged the French to send forces to the Valtelline in the Swiss Alps, the supply line for the Spanish army of Flanders, which he hoped might serve to make the Spanish less intransigent in their negotiations with Prince Charles.82 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 481-2; T. Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 79; Harl. 1580, f. 191; Schreiber, 50-2; Wilson, 382.

At the English court Carlisle voiced his approval of the Spanish Match, but, presumably on James’s orders, he said very little about the progress of negotiations. He briefly quarrelled with Pembroke, possibly about the desirability of the Spanish Match, but at the Privy Council the pair agreed that the religious concessions demanded by the Spanish were unacceptable. Carlisle spent much of the summer waiting on Inijosa and Coloma, the Spanish envoys in England, who commended his efforts during negotiations over the precise terms of the toleration required for Catholics. Even if his sympathies remained francophile, he showed himself willing to smooth the passage of a Spanish Match many courtiers now regarded as inevitable.83 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 499, 501, 510; HMC Cowper, i. 142; Add. 11043, f. 67; Harl. 1580, ff. 85, 179, 318, 320, 324; Schreiber, 52-4.

The French Match and Anglo-French alliance, 1624-6

The return of an unmarried Prince Charles to England in October 1623 took many by surprise, but offered Carlisle the chance to work with Charles and Buckingham in reviving the French Match, and through this, an anti-Habsburg alliance. To his chagrin, it was his former protégé Sir Henry Rich, now Viscount Kensington, who was sent to Paris in December to make the initial overture to Louis. However, he used his time in England to render himself indispensable to Buckingham, who needed his support in the Privy Council subcommittee for foreign affairs. Carlisle also lobbied the ‘patriots’ likely to sway the debates in the forthcoming Parliament, and urged their agenda upon the king in a memorandum of 14 Feb. 1624:

… let your Majesty’s enemies [i.e. Spain] see that the lion hath teeth and claws, embrace and invite a strict and sincere friendship and association with those whom either neighbourhood, and alliance, and common interest of state and religion have joined unto you; and last of all cast off and remove the jealousies which are between your Majesty and your people … at this overture of your Parliament, by a gracious, clear and confident discovery of your intentions to your people. Fear them not, sir, never was there a better king that had better subjects, if your Majesty would trust them.84 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 527-8, 537, 541-2; Harl. 1580, f. 195r-v; Schreiber, 55-7; Cogswell, 78-9.

As in 1621, Carlisle spent much of the parliamentary session in the Lords, attending over half the daily sittings, but participated little in its proceedings. He was named to a single committee, to confirm a 1613 grant of forfeited lands to another Scottish bedchamberman, John Ramsay^*, earl of Holdernesse, while his concealments patent was again presented as a grievance by the Commons, and rescinded by the crown. In giving his assent to the concealments bill, James commended Carlisle for waiving the gains he made from his own concealments patent, ‘seeing the bill was conceived to be so necessary for the public’; he presumably received a promise of compensation, and indeed his concealments patent was revived two years later.85 LJ, iii. 305b; HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 546; SP14/167/10. Carlisle was also dragged into the impeachment proceedings against Lord Treasurer Middlesex, who was charged, among other offences, with malfeasance in the wardrobe. The treasurer insisted that he was considerably less corrupt and incompetent than his predecessor had been, and on 11 May, Carlisle was forced to spend an awkward afternoon defending his own conduct before the Lords. His plea, as in 1618, was that his budgets were inflated by ‘extraordinary charges’. With Middlesex in their sights, and taking their cue from Prince Charles, the Lords showed little interest in Carlisle’s shortcomings. Instead, they accepted his assertion that the money Middlesex had paid him for the mastership was a bribe, which allowed them to convict the lord treasurer on this charge.86 LJ, iii. 335a, 349a, 377a, 379a; Add. 40088, ff. 83-4, 88, 98; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 70r-v; Prestwich, 448-9, 455-6.

Middlesex’s impeachment was no sooner accomplished than Carlisle was dispatched to Paris, ten days before the prorogation, to join Kensington in negotiating the French Match. Following James’s public breach of the treaties with Spain, and a reshuffle at Paris, which gave Louis’s regime a more anti-Habsburg complexion, the talks were being taken more seriously by the French, although they remained suspicious of James’s prevarication. Like the Spanish, the French demanded a significant easing of the recusancy laws against English Catholics – Louis could hardly ask for less than his brother-in-law Philip IV. Carlisle and Kensington insisted they did not have the authority to make this concession, and referred the question to London, where Tillières, obviously sceptical about the negotiations, was removed and replaced by the Marquis d’Effiat, a friend of Carlisle’s. The problem was resolved by consigning an agreement to a separate, secret treaty, which was to be acknowledged in a private letter from James to Louis, so clearing the way for the French to approach the pope to issue a dispensation for the marriage.87 Schreiber, 59-69; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 198-201.

The agreement nearly collapsed in early August, with the appointment of Cardinal Richelieu as Louis’s first minister. Richelieu had chaired the marriage negotiations, but the secret treaty had been concluded by his then superior, La Vieuville, and the cardinal now disavowed this accord. James was incensed, regarding Richelieu’s act as a delaying tactic ‘to spin out time and expectation unprofitably’. He therefore instructed Carlisle and Kensington to inform Louis that he construed the cardinal’s disavowal as a breach of their agreement. Buckingham, however, intercepted this inflammatory letter, and, with Effiat’s assistance, persuaded James to moderate his tone. He and Effiat also blamed Carlisle for raising James’s suspicions of French duplicity, with the result that Kensington opened unilateral negotiations with Richelieu behind his colleague’s back. Nevertheless, James took Carlisle’s advice to expedite a decision by issuing an ultimatum: if the French negotiators insisted the English publicly agree to allow toleration for English Catholics, the Match would be at an end. This gamble achieved the desired effect, as the French immediately conceded the point.88 SP78/73, ff. 5-10; Eg. 2596, ff. 20-1; Schreiber, 69-77; Lockyer, 201-5.

By this point, though, Carlisle’s relations with his fellow ambassador Kensington, now earl of Holland, were severely strained, and in September Goring was sent to Paris to smooth over the differences between the two men. Meanwhile, negotiations moved on to the equally tricky question of a military alliance. In the spring of 1624 both sides had agreed to subsidize an expeditionary force to retake the Palatinate under the command of the German mercenary, Count Mansfeld, but James was now worried that linking this treaty to the marriage could jeopardize both.89 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 580; Eg. 2586, ff. 31-4, 57-8; C115/107/8536; Schreiber, 60-1, 79-81; Cogswell, 238-48; Lockyer, 207-9. The issue was resolved by the time the marriage treaty was signed and ratified in November/December 1624, with regimental commands under Mansfeld going to Carlisle’s son and Holland’s brother. Carlisle’s reward for the treaty was the Garter he had long coveted.90 C115/107/8536; NLW, 466E/1254; Harl. 1580, ff. 197v-9; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 590-1, 595; Shaw, i. 31.

Any celebrations proved premature, as several hurdles remained before the marriage could take place. When the papal dispensation arrived in Paris in February 1625, it insisted upon a public announcement of the required toleration, which Carlisle condemned as ‘a new treaty … after a perfect treaty concluded, signed and sworn by his Majesty’. He rehearsed the injustices committed by the French during the negotiations, and warned Buckingham that ‘nothing can more justify and advantage Digby [now earl of Bristol] than the admission of the least of these new conditions, which carry with them more prejudice and dishonour than the conditions of the Spanish treaty’. While the concessions made in Madrid could be excused, ‘the prince his precious person being in their hands’, there was now ‘no such necessity’ to agree to such demands. To do so would mean that ‘the envy and danger will be wholly cast upon the negotiators’. The favourite took the hint, and the English refused all Effiat’s attempts to solicit concessions.91 Harl. 1580, ff. 203-8; Schreiber, 81-5; Lockyer, 229-31. The other difficulty concerned the Huguenots, who seized a French naval squadron in the port of Blavet, which guarded the approaches to La Rochelle, in January 1625. Although the English agreed to lend their allies ships to recapture this squadron, Louis accused Carlisle of inciting the rebels. These developments raised tensions on both sides, which the earl exploited by allowing the French to suppose that the fate of the treaty was under question – which made it easier to secure ratification of the marriage treaty without any further crises. Yet the agreement over Mansfeld’s army failed to materialize: his English troops landed in the Netherlands in January 1625, but their French counterparts never arrived, as James would not allow these forces to be diverted to help the Dutch.92 Schreiber, 83, 86; Lockyer, 222-9. By the time of King James’s death (27 Mar. 1625) the marriage treaty was complete. Buckingham therefore went to Paris in May to escort Henrietta Maria to England. The French bestowed lavish parting gifts: Carlisle received 22,000 crowns, and it was said that he and Holland were promised £50,000 from the queen’s dowry for their expenses.93 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 623, 625; Schreiber, 87-9.

On his return to England, Carlisle, together with Montgomery, was once again spoken of as a contender for the office of lord chamberlain. However, Pembroke remained in office.94 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 623, 625; NLW, 9060E/1346; Schreiber, 87-9. When Parliament met that summer, Carlisle attended one-third of the Lords’ sittings (appearing at both Westminster and Oxford), but left no trace on the House’s proceedings. In the Commons, though, Sir Henry Marten^‡ questioned his conduct of the marriage negotiations, dismissing him as ‘so ceremonious and affected that his judgment and reality was in doubt’.95 Procs. 1625, p. 531. In the autumn of 1625, the Anglo-French alliance, designed as the cornerstone of the anti-Habsburg cause, quickly disintegrated. The francophile Carlisle was incensed that the queen’s French household servants – ‘pragmatical Monsieurs’ as he termed them – were meddling in English domestic politics, while the new French ambassador, Blainville, moved him to scorn with empty promises of support for Mansfeld’s forces, then disintegrating in the United Provinces.96 SP16/8/21; Cabala, Sive Scrinia Sacra (1654), 271-2; Schreiber, 91-3.

At the opening of the 1626 Parliament, Carlisle and Buckingham worked closely together to salvage the French alliance which they had brought into being. As a result, the earl was much more assiduous in his attendance in the Lords (over 80 per cent of sittings) and supported the duke against those who sought his impeachment. On 7 Mar., at the conference at which Pembroke and George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, outlined plans for a revival of the anti-Habsburg coalition, Buckingham and Carlisle acted as assistants. The Commons responded with an empty gesture, offering Charles unspecified funds to make him ‘safe at home and feared abroad’. When this was reported to the Lords, Carlisle moved that the upper House should give a similar undertaking, but his motion was laid aside.97 Procs. 1626, i. 120, 123, 175-6; ii. 293-4; C. Russell, PEP, 287-8.

The leading hispanophile peer, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, was removed from the Lords on 5 Mar., when the king arrested him for allowing his son to marry the daughter of the late 2nd duke of Lennox. Charles assured the House that this had nothing to do with Parliament, and Carlisle added that it was ‘as lawful for the king to commit him as it was for this House heretofore’ [in 1621]. The Lords repeatedly pressed for Arundel’s release, and on 24 May Carlisle and Lord Carleton (Dudley Carleton^*, later Viscount Dorchester) were ordered to arrange a time for the House to present their latest petition on the earl’s behalf.98 V.F. Snow, ‘The Arundel Case, 1626’, The Historian, xxvi. 323-30; Procs. 1626, i. 151; R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, pp. 121-2; THOMAS HOWARD, 21ST OR 14TH EARL OF ARUNDEL. Meanwhile, the MPs Sir Dudley Digges^‡ and Sir John Eliot^‡ were arrested by the king for suggesting (during their presentation of impeachment charges against Buckingham) that the favourite had poisoned King James on his deathbed. Many peers took a protestation that no such words had been spoken, but Carlisle was one of the few who demurred, desiring ‘that he might not make any protestation until he be commanded’.99 Procs. 1626, i. 478; Russell, PEP, 305-7.

Buckingham’s main critic in 1626 was not Arundel but Bristol, who was initially denied a writ of summons, but who finally appeared before the Lords on 1 May, to answer impeachment charges brought by the king. Bristol filed his own charges against the duke, and a brisk debate ensued about which should be heard first. Carlisle moved that the king’s charges should be heard first, as they had been filed before Bristol’s, which proposal was ultimately agreed by the House. On the following day, it was Carlisle who noted that Bristol had caused his charges against the duke to be delivered to the Commons as well as the Lords, ‘and therefore desired to know how far that might trench into our liberties’; it was eventually resolved not to proceed against Bristol on this point, as the Commons had not formally notified the Lords of their receipt of the charges.100 Procs. 1626, i. 337-8, 345-9; Russell, PEP, 303-4.

While Carlisle was obviously hostile to Bristol, he did not wish to deprive him of his rights, and on 15 May he cited a precedent of 28 May 1624 which established that defendants should be allowed counsel, if desired.101 Procs. 1626, i. 484; LJ, iii. 418a. On 8 June Bristol attempted to overturn the Lords’ ruling of 1 May, urging that his charges against Buckingham and those of the king’s might be allowed to proceed in tandem. Carlisle, too, ‘moved the accusations and all might be heard together’, which suggests that he was putting a little distance between himself and the duke, who would have one of the main charges in his own impeachment struck down by default if Bristol were convicted first; no decision was taken in this instance. Carlisle and others began their examination of witnesses on the following day, but Charles ordered Parliament to be dissolved on 15 June; Carlisle was one of four peers sent to ask the king to hear a plea from the Lords for further time, but they were ignored, and the dissolution went ahead.102 Procs. 1626, i. 540, 589, 593, 595-7; Russell, PEP, 320-1.

Anti-French manoeuvres, 1626-30

Shortly after the end of the Parliament, news arrived in England of the conclusion of a Franco-Spanish peace treaty at Monzón, which had been kept secret since its signature on 24 Feb. 1626. This obviously spelt the end of the Anglo-French military alliance, and left Buckingham and Carlisle looking like dupes of Richelieu – who had, in fact, been forced to accept the treaty by the dévôt party at the French court. This perception altered Carlisle’s view of foreign policy: henceforth, while Richelieu remained at the helm of the French state, the earl regarded him as the prime threat to British interests, and this ultimately led him to an appreciation of the benefits of a pro-Spanish policy. It is possible that Carlisle encouraged some of his contacts in the entourage of the king’s brother, Gaston d’Orléans, to plot against the cardinal; several of Gaston’s clients were executed in the summer of 1626. The earl also endorsed Buckingham’s fear that Richelieu’s recent attempts at building a French Navy posed a threat to English control of the Channel.103 Wilson, 383-4; Schreiber, 95-6; Lockyer, 335-8.

In London, dissatisfaction with the intrigues of the queen’s French household led Buckingham to attempt to co-opt several of his own female relatives onto the establishment. Henrietta Maria objected to the inclusion of Lucy Carlisle, probably supposing that she was being installed as the king’s mistress. Charles’s response, which presumably owed something to the advice of Buckingham and Carlisle, was to send almost all his wife’s French servants home. In addition, Lucy Carlisle joined the queen’s bedchamber, and her brother Algernon Percy^*, Lord Percy (later 4th earl of Northumberland) became master of the queen’s horse.104 CSP Dom, 1625-6, p. 416; W.S. Powell, John Pory, microfiche supplement, 106; Schreiber, 96-9; Lockyer, 334-5. At the same time, Buckingham came to an accord with Pembroke, one of the promoters of his impeachment, by arranging a marriage between his daughter and the earl’s nephew. As a result of this agreement Pembroke became lord steward, and passed his office of lord chamberlain to his brother, Montgomery. Carlisle, who had long contended for the chamberlainship, secured a position in the bedchamber, but this was clearly a disappointment, and his relationship with the favourite cooled thereafter. Carlisle was partly consoled for this snub with financial rewards: Sir John Townshend revived the earl’s patent for concealed crown lands, and in 1627 Carlisle was appointed governor of the ‘Caribbee Islands’ of Barbados and St Kitts, although his associates had to fight off a challenge from a rival syndicate which looked to Montgomery for patronage.105 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 500; Schreiber, 100, 169-74; Univ. London, Goldsmiths’ ms 195/1, ff. 9v-10; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 342, 387-8; L. Gragg, Englishmen Transplanted, 29-38.

As a privy councillor, Carlisle played an active part in promoting the Forced Loan in the spring of 1627, being sent to Sussex, where his wife’s family had estates at Petworth. At court, his credit was damaged when it emerged that his daughter was having an affair with a French musician who had rashly talked about murdering Buckingham. The duke, aware of Carlisle’s resentment at being spurned for the chamberlainship, made sure that the earl was kept away from the king over the summer during his absence at the Île de Ré, when he attempted to rescue the Huguenots of La Rochelle from another attack by the French royal army. Consequently, Carlisle spent more time with his wife in the queen’s household, and there was talk of his being sent abroad on a peacemaking mission.106 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26-7; Schreiber, 100-4.

Carlisle was present in the Lords when Parliament met again in March 1628, being named to the committee for privileges at the start of the session, but he granted his proxy to Buckingham on 4 Apr., and was hardly seen in the House again. He departed on embassy at the end of April, arriving at The Hague on 1 May, where Lord Carleton was holding desultory peace talks with French and Spanish envoys.107 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 73; Schreiber, 104; Bell, 198; T. Osborne, Dynasty and Diplomacy in the Ct. of Savoy, 122-40. He moved on to Brussels, where he was received by the Archduchess Isabella; back in England, MPs noted that his entourage included Captain Plumleigh, a suspected Catholic who had formerly served with the army of Flanders.108 CD 1628, iv. 201; SP92/13, ff. 278-9; Schreiber, 105-8. Carlisle then proceeded to Savoy via Lorraine and the Swiss cantons. As he explained to a Venetian diplomat, although ‘more of a Frenchman than a Spaniard’, his intention was to construct an anti-French alliance, as the attack on La Rochelle proved that Richelieu could not be trusted. However, with a Franco-Spanish conflict looming over the succession to the duchy of Mantua, the Italian states were unlikely to entertain his overtures, and Carlisle was only saved from embarrassment by Buckingham’s assassination, which prompted Charles to recall him in November 1628.109 CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 204, 270-1, 400-1; Schreiber, 108-14; Wilson, 438-46.

By the time Carlisle arrived home in January 1629, great changes had taken place at court. His wife had won the queen’s favour, and Carleton, now Viscount Dorchester and newly appointed secretary of state, was undertaking peace talks with France, which undermined the policy Carlisle had striven to promote on his embassy. Goring, writing to Carlisle shortly before the latter’s return, advised him to keep himself aloof from the rapidly-changing factions at court for a week after his arrival, particularly as he was regarded as ‘hugely Spanish’, which led the new lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston (later 1st earl of Portland), the leading court hispanophile, to extend the hand of friendship. A series of meetings with the king on his return established that Carlisle’s relations with Charles remained cordial, and he was appointed to the Privy Council’s subcommittee on foreign affairs. Here he raised doubts about the wisdom of a peace with France, but Louis, with his army on the march to the relief of the Italian fortress of Casale, had no other option, and the treaty was signed at Susa in April 1629.110 SP16/123/8; CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 514-15; 1629-32, pp. 9, 61-2; HMC Cowper, i. 386-7; Schreiber, 117-23; Wilson, 442.

Many of the pro-Spanish party at the English court were uneasy at the prospect that a successful Parliament might lead to a revival of the war with Spain, but those who proposed such a deal overreached themselves without any assistance from their enemies; thus Carlisle, who attended only one-third of the sittings of the 1629 session, left no trace on the sparse records of the Lords’ debates. Although Carlisle was not closely involved in the peace negotiations with Spain, Châteauneuf, the new French ambassador, convinced Henrietta Maria to remove Lucy from her court; it took Charles’s intervention to secure her restoration to favour.111 CSP Ven. 1629-32, pp. 264, 271, 281; Schreiber, 123-7.

Final years at court, 1630-6

Carlisle remained active in his quest for preferment during the early years of the Personal Rule; as the Venetian ambassador observed, his expensive court lifestyle made him heavily dependent on royal generosity, which was considerably reduced under Charles. Early in 1630, he supported Pembroke’s bid to succeed Buckingham as lord admiral, in the hope that Montgomery would replace his brother as lord steward, which would allow Carlisle to succeed as lord chamberlain. He also tried to ingratiate himself with another aspiring candidate for the admiralty, Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset, but pointedly ignored the final contender, the pro-French Holland. The king ended this jockeying by denying any intention of making an appointment, but a year later, Carlisle was appointed groom of the stole, an important position because of the ease of access it allowed to the king. However, Carlisle apparently believed the post to be beneath his dignity, to the extent that an alternative candidate was lined up for it if he refused.112 CSP Ven. 1629-32, pp. 204-5, 263, 276-7, 478-9; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 516.

Carlisle remained at court for the rest of his life, entertaining diplomats and accompanying the king to Scotland in 1633. The earl revised his low opinion of Richelieu following the ‘Day of Dupes’ in November 1630, when the cardinal secured the disgrace of his dévôt critics, but he was not subsequently used on embassy to France. His influence was diminished in 1633-4, when his former secretary, Sir Francis Nethersole^‡, embarrassed the king’s sister, Elizabeth of Bohemia, by revealing dispatches which exposed the extent of her disappointment at her brother’s failure to secure the restitution of the Palatinate. His finances were somewhat straitened in his final years, although the customs revenues from his Caribbean ventures proved lucrative. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, his wife became notorious for her infidelities, while he broke with his heir James Hay^† (later 2nd earl of Carlisle) for marrying a daughter of Francis Russell^*, 4th earl of Bedford, without his permission.113 Ceremonies of Chas. I ed. A.J. Loomie, passim; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 558; Schreiber, 127-35.

After a protracted illness, Carlisle died of a stroke on 25 Apr. 1636, and was buried, with suitable pomp, in St Paul’s Cathedral; his creditors, said to be owed £120,000, were unimpressed. His Yorkshire and Lincolnshire estates were settled on his wife, while the Essex lands he had acquired via his first wife went to his only surviving son.114 C142/550/93; CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 524, 527, 558; CSP Dom. 1635-6, pp. 300, 420; C115/108/8607; Schreiber, 137. The latter struggled to regain control of his Caribbean plantations, and in 1641 his father’s creditors petitioned the Commons for payment of £11,000 of outstanding debts. The countess, who never remarried, lived until 1660.115 LPL, ms 3513, ff. 16-17; Gragg, 38-42; Schreiber, 182.