HERBERT, William (1580-1630)

The 3rd earl of Pembroke was one of the biggest beasts in the jungle that was the early Stuart court. Best known today as the joint dedicatee of Shakespeare’s First Folio, he was a liberal patron to most of the leading literary figures of the day, from the Bard himself to Ben Jonson, John Ford and even the eccentric ‘water poet’, John Taylor.97 G. Parry, The Golden Age Restor’d, 166-7. According to Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, Pembroke was ‘the most universally loved and esteemed of any man of that age, … a man very well bred, and of excellent parts, … of a pleasant and facetious humour, and a disposition affable, generous, and magnificent’. These qualities, combined with substantial wealth, afforded him an unusual degree of independence and security within the court. However, his refusal to kowtow to successive royal favourites, discomfort with the Stuarts’ absolutist tendencies, and unyielding support for the Protestant cause, restricted his opportunities in government, and eventually set him on a collision course with the other great courtier of the 1620s, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham.98 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion ed. Macray, i. 71.

Early life, 1580-1603

A leading Welsh gentry family, the Herberts first acquired the earldom of Pembroke in 1468, before losing it again in the chaos of the Wars of the Roses. The title was recovered in 1551, when William Herbert^† was created 1st earl. A grandson of the original holder, and a kinsman of Queen Katharine Parr, William was one of the great survivors of the mid-Tudor political upheavals, serving as a privy councillor, master of the horse, lord president of the council in Wales, and lord steward of the household. He also acquired many of the family’s key properties, including their country seat at Wilton, and their London town house, Baynard’s Castle.99 Collins, iii. 105-11, 115-19. His son, Henry Herbert^†, 2nd earl of Pembroke, never achieved the same standing at court, but did become lord president of Wales, lord lieutenant of six English counties and vice admiral of south Wales. Married three times, his wives included a daughter of George Talbot^†, 6th earl of Shrewsbury, and Mary Sidney, the sister of the writer and Elizabethan hero, Sir Philip Sidney^‡. It was this latter marriage which finally provided the 2nd earl with his heir, the subject of this biography.100 Ibid. 122-3.

The future 3rd earl of Pembroke was styled Lord Herbert from birth, and as such must be distinguished from his distant kinsmen, William Somerset, and Henry Somerset^* (later 5th earl and 1st marquess of Worcester), who in turn bore the identical courtesy title. Herbert’s mother, a literary figure in her own right and a formidable personality, doubtless instilled in her son his love of learning and his hatred of Spain, the Catholic power against which his celebrated uncle had died fighting. From his father he inherited both a strong sense of his family’s importance on the national stage and the means to sustain that position.101 Parry, 167-8; Price, 148. Herbert began to attend court on a regular basis from 1597, when he was just 17. At around that time he also became a suitor for the hand of Bridget, daughter of Edward de Vere^*, 17th earl of Oxford, and granddaughter of William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley, then lord treasurer. The match did not proceed, but Herbert remained on friendly terms with Burghley’s family, especially his second son, Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury).102 HMC Hatfield, vii. 374; CSP Dom. 1695-7, p. 489; CP, x. 418. Although he quickly won the favour of Elizabeth I, Herbert took time to find his feet at court, some early observers considering him a ‘melancholy young man’. Nevertheless, in March 1600 Rowland Whyte, London agent of Herbert’s uncle Sir Robert Sidney^* (later 1st earl of Leicester), reported: ‘I believe he will prove a great man in court. He is very well beloved, and truly deserves it’.103 Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 121, 182;

Herbert succeeded his father in January 1601, inheriting a substantial estate in Glamorgan, Monmouthshire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset and Devon. However, a significant proportion of this property formed the jointure of his mother, who lived on for another two decades.104 WARD 7/80/203. Almost immediately the new earl suffered his first serious setback, when he was discovered to be conducting an affair with one of the queen’s ladies-in-waiting, whom he refused to marry despite getting her pregnant. Briefly imprisoned, and then banished to Wilton, he was soon desperately pleading with Sir Robert Cecil to be allowed back at court: ‘If the queen continue her displeasure a little longer, undoubtedly I shall turn clown, for justice of peace I can by no means frame unto, and one of the two a man that lives in the country must needs be’.105 CSP Carew, 1601-3, p. 20; Hatfield House, CP 87/141. This episode undoubtedly hampered Pembroke’s chances of stepping into his father’s shoes in local government, for although 1601 saw his appointment to the council in the Marches of Wales, and also as vice admiral of south Wales, he remained excluded from the magistracy until the following reign. Finally permitted to return to London in time for the last Elizabethan Parliament in late 1601, he was soon mixing in court circles again, and spent Christmas 1602 in Rutland with Sir Robert Sidney and Edward Russell^*, 3rd earl of Bedford, at the house of the latter’s father-in-law, Sir John Harington^* (later 1st Lord Harington). Bedford’s wife Lucy, another notable literary patron, would become one of Pembroke’s closest friends at court.106 HMC Hatfield, xi. 376; Chamberlain Letters, i. 179; Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 262; Parry, 173; S. Adams, ‘For. Pol. and the Parls. of 1621 and 1624’, Faction and Parliament ed. K. Sharpe, 143-4.

A rising star of the Jacobean court, 1603-7

In April 1603, Pembroke carried the ‘great embroidered banner of England’ in Queen Elizabeth’s funeral procession. The new monarch, James I, quickly took a liking to the young earl, and although it was his younger brother Philip who emerged as one of the king’s favourites, Pembroke was soon feeling the benefits of James’s affection.107 J. Nichols, Progs. of Eliz. I, iii. 625; CSP Ven. 1603-7, pp. 77, 206; HMC Hatfield, xv. 242. Granted privileged access to the privy chamber in May 1603, and created a knight of the Garter a month later, he rapidly accumulated further local offices. The king enjoyed the hunting at Wilton, and visited regularly, but Pembroke was also much in demand for court entertainments, becoming a regular participant in royal masques.108 Harl. 6166, f. 68v; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 254, 281; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 116; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 54, 56, 66. Selected that autumn to escort the newly arrived Spanish ambassador to London, by November he was being tipped as the next English ambassador to France.109 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 40; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 114. Though nothing came of this, in January 1604 he was appointed high steward of the duchy of Cornwall and lord warden of the stannaries in Devon and Cornwall, a role which would in time bring him significant powers of patronage. The lieutenancy of Cornwall followed four months later, even though Pembroke owned no property in the county. It was also in January 1604 that Pembroke cemented his relationship with Sir Robert Cecil, now 1st Lord Cecil, as the two men became joint governors of the new Mineral and Battery Works Company.110 WARD 7/80/203; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 68.

At the 1604 parliamentary elections, Pembroke secured up to eight seats for his clients. He would subsequently prove to be one of the most successful electoral patrons of the early seventeenth century, but at this juncture he was still constructing a framework of local political influence, and was essentially limited to constituencies where he owned property. He handed Wilton’s two seats to his secretary Hugh Sanford^‡ and Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡, who was helping to negotiate the earl’s marriage. He also secured both burgess-ships at nearby Old Sarum, handing one to his servant Edward Leech^‡, the other to a Chancery official, William Ravenscroft^‡, probably as a favour to the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, 1st Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley). Pembroke’s brother Philip was returned for Glamorgan. The earl was probably also responsible for the election of Robert Hopton^‡ at Shaftesbury, and Matthew Davys^‡, a family lawyer, at Cardiff Boroughs. Another client, Sir Francis Barnham^‡, found a seat at Grampound, though it is unclear in this case whether this was due to Pembroke’s newly bestowed Cornish offices.111 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 56, 116, 448, 453, 571, 573; iii. 138; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 83. Sanford would die in May 1607, his place at Wilton being filled by the earl’s steward, Thomas Morgan^‡. This early preference for advancing trusted servants was to remain a striking feature of Pembroke’s parliamentary patronage. Men like Sanford, Leech and Morgan left little trace in the Commons’ records, but doubtless kept their master briefed on proceedings in the lower House, a role which Ravenscroft certainly performed for Ellesmere.112 Ibid. v. 86, 423; vi. 18, 210.

During the first Jacobean session, Pembroke attended the Lords fairly assiduously. Although called away for four days at the end of March, to accompany the king on a hunting trip, he was rarely absent before late June. In all, he was present for more than 70 per cent of the sittings.113 LJ, ii. 266a. At the opening of the session he was appointed by the crown to the prestigious role of trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland. Thereafter he attracted 20 nominations. These included four conference committees on matters of concern to the royal finances, namely wardship, purveyance, and tunnage and poundage.114 Ibid. 263b, 266b, 290b, 303a, 323a. Pembroke was heavily involved in discussions about the proposed Anglo-Scottish Union. Following two conferences with the Commons in April, he was nominated on 3 May to a joint subcommittee to devise the framework for a subsequent cross-border commission on the Union. A week later, having presented to the Lords a bill to establish this commission, he was duly appointed one of its members. Subsequently, he was named to a further conference to discuss the book on the Union by the bishop of Bristol, John Thornborough^*, which had offended the lower House.115 Ibid. 277b, 284a, 290b, 296a, 309a.

Pembroke chaired the committee for the bill to prevent the remarriage of divorcees, reporting it with amendments on 30 May. He was also appointed to a conference on ecclesiastical matters, and nominated to help scrutinize both versions of the bills to enforce the recusancy laws and suppress popish books.116 Ibid. 282b, 290a, 298b, 301b, 309a, 313b, 324b. Appointed on 12 June to chair the committee on Sir Thomas Rous’s estates, he reported amendments to this bill later the same day. His other nominations included bill committees concerned with ordnance exports and the excessive use of gold and silver in clothing.117 Ibid. 285a, 299b, 319a.

In November 1604, Pembroke married Mary, daughter and coheir of the fabulously wealthy Gilbert Talbot^*, 7th earl of Shrewsbury, a match which had been under discussion for more than a year, due to disagreements over the marriage settlement. The new countess struggled to adapt to court life, and the marriage proved both childless and unhappy. Clarendon later suggested that Pembroke ‘paid much too dear for his wife’s fortune by taking her person into the bargain’, and the earl thereafter became a notorious, serial adulterer.118 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 35, 55-6, 83, 151-2, 161; Cat. of Arundel Castle MSS comp. R. Meredith, 144; Cal. of Talbot Pprs. ed. G. Batho (Derbys. Arch. Soc. rec. ser. iv), 236-7; J. Hunter, Hallamshire, 122; Clarendon, i. 72. However, such behaviour had no impact on Pembroke’s high standing at court. By now he was a firm favourite of the queen, Anne of Denmark, who used him to request favours on her behalf. He was also attracting the notice of visiting envoys. In September 1604 he was a guest of honour at a feast organized by the French ambassador, while a month later he received a gift from the Spanish delegation.119 W. Sanderson, A Compleat Hist. of the Lives and Reigns of Mary Queen of Scotland, and of her Son James (1656), 365; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 155; Carleton to Chamberlain, 64; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 98. In May 1605 his brother Philip was created earl of Montgomery, a further sign of royal favour towards the Herbert family. The new peer remained a financial burden on his elder brother for some time, but Pembroke was protective towards him, and they became a well-known double-act at court, accompanying the king on hunting expeditions, and putting on a show at tournaments.120 Clarendon, i. 74; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 223-4, 355; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 217-18; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 92 .

Pembroke attended the 1605-6 session of Parliament very regularly. He was present on the opening day, when news broke of the Gunpowder Plot, and in total missed just 14 sittings out of 85. The first of his 24 appointments came on 21 Jan. 1606, when he was named to a select committee to consider what legislation was required in response to the Plot. Thereafter, he was selected to confer with the Commons about a tightening of the recusancy laws, nominated to bill committees concerning the suppression of popish books and Catholicism in general, and appointed to a conference about other religious grievances.121 LJ, ii. 360b, 367b, 380b, 410b, 419b.

Pembroke was named to committees for three bills intended to consolidate the crown’s estates, and appointed to the legislative committee concerning letters patent. Having been nominated to scrutinize the bill for reform of purveyance, he was also named to a conference on the same subject.122 Ibid. 364a, 393b, 407b, 413a, 431b; Bowyer Diary, 116-17. As a member of the council in Wales, he was an obvious choice for the committee on the bill to amend the Henrician statute on Welsh government, and was similarly appointed to the committee for the Welsh cottons bill.123 LJ, ii. 406b, 408b. Pembroke chaired the committee for the bill relating to Worcester weavers, reporting on 3 May that a substitute bill had been drafted, though this new measure failed to progress. He was also named to five other committees concerning economic legislation, the topics ranging from free trade with France, Portugal and Spain, to the regulation of breweries.124 Ibid. 392a, 399b, 423b, 422a. During this session one of Pembroke’s servants was arrested for debt. Pembroke’s father-in-law, the earl of Shrewsbury, alerted the House on 5 Apr. to this breach of privilege, and then chaired the committee which resolved the dispute, a compromise being reached after five days.125 Ibid. 407b, 411b. Following the death of one of Wiltshire’s shire knights, a by-election was held in February to fill the vacancy in the Commons. The new Member, Sir Walter Vaughan^‡, was most likely Pembroke’s nominee, as his family were long-term Herbert clients.126 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 430.

Back in the Lords for the 1606-7 parliamentary session, Pembroke was present for three-quarters of the sittings and attracted 22 nominations. At the top of the crown’s agenda once again was the Union. Not surprisingly, therefore, Pembroke was named to attend a conference with the Commons on this issue, and also appointed to the committee for the bill to abolish hostile laws between England and Scotland. However, according to the French ambassador, the earl was among a group of younger peers who offended the king in late April 1607 by excusing the Commons’ antipathy towards the Union. Other government business that Pembroke was expected to consider included bills to confirm an exchange of property between the crown and the archdiocese of Canterbury, and grants of copyhold lands belonging to the king.127 LJ, ii. 452b, 503b, 520b, 524b; Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, ii. 199-200. Many of the earl’s other appointments related to private legislation. He probably took an interest in the bill to settle the estates of the late Sir Jonathan Trelawny^‡, as it involved many leading Cornish gentlemen, and perhaps also in the bill relating to the lands of Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby, a distant relative. Pembroke’s status as one of the few peers normally resident in London serves to explain his appointment to scrutinize bills concerning the property of the London livery companies, and the charter of Southampton. Both measures were of great significance for the capital’s merchant community, which had conceivably lobbied the earl to protect its interests. A solitary nomination with a religious theme saw him included in the committee for the controversial bill to restrain the execution of Anglican Canons which had not been confirmed by Parliament.128 LJ, ii. 479a, 480a, 489a, 503a, 526a; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 249, 253.

Promotions and setbacks, 1607-12

In September 1607, Rowland Whyte reported to the earl of Shrewsbury that the king had just cleared Montgomery’s debts. In contrast, he noted that ‘my lord of Pembroke waits passing well, but will beg nothing’. This aloofness was becoming one of the earl’s trademarks, and his seemingly effortless progress at court was starting to falter. For much of this year, he was embroiled in a dispute with his distant kinsman, Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester, the master of the horse, who claimed that the wireworks established in the Severn valley by the Mineral and Battery Works Company intruded onto his property. The Privy Council eventually intervened, appointing arbiters in October, though a final compromise was apparently brokered by Robert Cecil, now earl of Salisbury.129 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 203, 206-7; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 378. More seriously, the king acquired a new favourite in the form of Robert Carr^* (later earl of Somerset), who was sworn a gentleman of the bedchamber in December 1607. Montgomery sensibly avoided trying to compete with Carr, thereby retaining James’s goodwill, but Carr’s rise inevitably entailed the partial eclipse of the Herbert brothers.130 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 217.

Pembroke’s influence was also under attack elsewhere. In the summer of 1607, the government launched a survey of the duchy of Cornwall in preparation for handing over control to Prince Henry. Initially, it was only the earl’s stannary officers who were sidelined, but when a new council was appointed in 1610 to manage the prince’s estates, Pembroke himself was excluded from membership, an unprecedented snub for a lord warden. Such treatment was probably a symptom of the frostiness which had developed between the earl and the prince. While both men were travelling with James in December 1608, Henry decided that Pembroke’s lodgings would suit him better, and ordered him to vacate them; the earl declined, whereupon Henry’s servants forcibly evicted him.131 C181/2, f. 34; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 392; G. Haslam, ‘Jacobean Phoenix’, Estates of the Eng. Crown 1558-1640 ed. R.W. Hoyle, 271; CSP Ven. 1607-10. Two months earlier, Pembroke had also offended the king, by agreeing to fight a duel with a fellow courtier, Sir George Wharton^‡, after a dispute over cards got out of hand.132 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 242-5.

In January 1608, on a more positive note, Pembroke was appointed constable of the forest of Dean, an important source of timber for his ironworks. More significantly, in October 1609 he also became captain of Portsmouth. As the Venetian ambassador noted, the appointment ‘has confirmed the universal opinion of the great love his Majesty bears that gentleman, for many of the great lords of the court were aspirants to the post’. Pembroke took his new role very seriously, quickly seeking to enhance his authority over the town’s civilian rulers, and to arrange repairs to the fortifications.133 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 395, 609; CSP Ven. 1607-10, p. 394; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 190-1.

Pembroke’s attendance of the first parliamentary session of 1610 was punctilious, as usual. He missed only one sitting during the first month, and was present without a break from the end of March to late May. His only extended absence was in early July, when he was absent for four consecutive sittings while attending the king.134 LJ, ii. 637a. Early in the proceedings he obtained parliamentary privilege for one of his servants, arrested in London.135 Ibid. 551b-2b, 554a; Procs. 1610, i. 10. Later, during the closing weeks of the session, a bill passed through both Houses to clarify his title to the Wiltshire manor of Damerham, a property which he had sold to Lord Treasurer Salisbury two years earlier. Evidently doubts had arisen about the validity of this transaction, which Pembroke now undertook to resolve as a favour to his ally. The measure was amended by both Lords and Commons, but became law at the end of the session.136 LJ, ii. 621a, 624a, 630a, 632b, 641b-2b; Procs. 1610, i. 111; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n34; L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 35.

Pembroke was appointed four times to attend the king, as the Lords attempted to broker a deal between James and the Commons over the Great Contract. The earl was also named on 14 Feb. to confer with the lower House about this proposal, the same committee being reappointed for the numerous subsequent conferences. Furthermore, Pembroke was nominated to another conference at which Dr Cowell’s controversial book, The Interpreter, was discussed.137 LJ, ii. 550b, 556b, 557b, 564b, 578b, 618a. Pembroke’s status as a prominent courtier was underlined on 4 June, when he not only attended Prince Henry’s creation as prince of Wales, but also acted as carver for the royal heir at the Whitehall banquet after this ceremony.138 Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 169; Procs. 1610, i. 98; Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 332. Unsurprisingly, in July he was included in the Lords’ subcommittee entrusted with the task of refining the bill to improve the king’s personal safety, a matter that now appeared urgent in the aftermath of Henri IV’s assassination.139 LJ, ii. 651a.

Six of Pembroke’s remaining nominations related to religious affairs. Having been named to another subcommittee to consider how to improve the quality and incomes of the clergy, he was also appointed to bill committees concerned with the problem of female recusants, administration of the oath of supremacy, blasphemous swearing, scandalous ministers and, once again, the restraint of Canons issued without parliamentary approval.140 Ibid. 587a, 606b, 611a, 629a, 641b, 645a. Another dozen committee appointments covered a broad range of topics, including the estates of Edward Neville^*, 8th (or 1st) Lord Abergavenny, the degradation of Sir Stephen Proctor from his knighthood for corruption, reform of the practice of making payments to the crown in the form of reassigned debts, and the use of sea sand to improve tillage in Cornwall and Devon.141 Ibid. 593b, 595b, 601b, 647b.

When Parliament reconvened in October 1610, Pembroke broke completely with his normal pattern of reliable membership, and attended the Lords for just one-third of the sittings, missing both the beginning and end of this brief fifth session. He received only four committee appointments, of which one was of direct relevance to the earl himself. This was the bill to enable Prince Henry to make land transactions despite being a minor, a measure designed to facilitate his personal control over the duchy of Cornwall. Two other bills which he was required to consider sought to preserve timber supplies and avoid lawsuits over land bequeathed by testators. His final nomination was to a conference at which the Lords pleaded with the Commons to supply the king’s financial needs.142 LJ, ii. 669a, 675a, 677a, 678a; HMC Hastings, iv. 222-6. However, disillusionment over the Great Contract, and an acrimonious dispute over the crown’s arbitrary levying of impositions on trade, ensured that no deal could be reached. Pembroke was named as a commissioner for both the proroguing and the dissolution of Parliament, but failed to attend either event.143 LJ, ii. 683b-4a.

In June 1611, the earl obtained a fresh grant of timber in the forest of Dean, along with permission to establish ironworks there. This new project was unpopular with the local people, but furnaces and forges were in place by early the next year.144 C. Hart, Forest of Dean: New Hist. 1550-1818, pp. 6-7; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 40; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 348. Meanwhile, in September 1611, Pembroke finally attained a proper voice in government, becoming a member of the Privy Council. This promotion reflected his growing closeness to Lord Treasurer Salisbury. As the latter’s health declined, Pembroke became an increasingly important conduit between Salisbury and the king, passing on James’s instructions, and presumably delivering Salisbury’s replies. As the newsletter writer John Chamberlain put it that December, Pembroke was now the ‘communis terminus [contact point] between them’ for all government business.145 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 97, 99; Chamberlain Letters, i. 324. When the lord treasurer suddenly became gravely ill in February 1612, Pembroke and his brother Montgomery watched by his bedside. Salisbury rallied briefly, but in April he sought relief from his illness through the waters at Bath, leaving Pembroke and the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, to handle his duties in London. In May Salisbury died on his way back to the capital, largely unlamented. Pembroke was an exception to that rule, being one of only a handful of peers who attended his funeral. He also later penned a short epitaph defending Salisbury’s reputation.146 Chamberlain Letters, i. 336, 346; SP14/69/56; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 374; Dr. Farmer Chetham Ms: being a Commonplace Bk. in the Chetham Lib. pt. 2 ed. A.B. Grosart (Chetham Soc. xc), 188.

Pembroke and the Howards, 1612-14

In the aftermath of Salisbury’s death, the treasury was placed in commission. Rumours circulated that Pembroke would be a member, but in fact the earl found himself politically isolated, as power at court was shared out between the Howard clan headed by Lord Chamberlain Suffolk and his uncle, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, and the royal favourite Carr, now Viscount Rochester. Having become accustomed to being at the centre of the government, Pembroke greatly resented his change of circumstances. To compound his misery, during the summer Rochester attempted to obtain the mastership of the horse, currently held by the earl of Worcester. Pembroke maintained that James had promised him this office when it next fell vacant, and a very public row followed. The two rivals were not fully reconciled until the following November, by which time it was clear that Worcester had no intention of relinquishing the mastership. Nevertheless, Pembroke was eventually obliged to resign his own claim to Somerset, in return for an undertaking that he would in due course become lord chamberlain instead.147 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 376; Chamberlain Letters, i. 360; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 191, 210, 336; HMC Buccleuch, i. 118, 131; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 151. No less poisonous was Pembroke’s relationship with Northampton, the lord privy seal, who considered him ‘extremely odious’, and did his best to damage his reputation with the king. For example, by the summer of 1612 riots had broken out in the forest of Dean, in protest at the large-scale felling of timber for Pembroke’s ironworks. On James’s orders, work was finally suspended in the autumn of 1613, pending an investigation. However, Northampton claimed that Pembroke deliberately delayed implementing this instruction, and he urged Rochester to expose this ‘falsehood’ and ‘cozenage’.148 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 144; Hart, 7-8; Cott. Titus C.VI, ff. 126-7v.

Initially, the favourite kept his distance from the earl of Suffolk, on the advice of his confidant, Sir Thomas Overbury. However, Rochester was conducting an affair with Suffolk’s daughter Frances, the wife of Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, and by the spring of 1613 was contemplating marrying her if she could obtain an annulment. Overbury opposed this plan, and the king was persuaded to offer him a foreign embassy in order to get him out of the way. In April Pembroke, who had long hated Overbury, was sent to inform him of his promotion, which Sir Thomas refused to accept. The earl was no doubt delighted when a furious James consigned Overbury to the Tower, where he subsequently died.149 Chamberlain Letters, i. 443-4; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 447-8; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 191.

This incident served to polarize the court. With Rochester now firmly allied to the Howards, Pembroke became more clearly identified as a leader of the opposing faction, along with Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, and George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury. However, their loose alliance, based primarily on pro-Protestant, anti-Spanish sentiment, was soon tested. In 1613 the most pressing political issue was the question of a suitable bride for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales), now heir to the throne following Prince Henry’s premature death in November 1612.150 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 51-2; C. Russell, King Jas. VI and I and his Eng. Parls. ed. R. Cust and A. Thrush, 99-101. Pembroke strongly supported Princess Elizabeth’s marriage to the Calvinist Elector Palatine in February 1613, but there was no obvious Protestant candidate available for Charles. The king, who viewed the prospect of a large dowry as the perfect solution to his parlous financial state, favoured a French alliance, whereas the Howards wanted a Spanish match. The ardently hispanophobe Pembroke regarded the latter option as completely unacceptable, but, according to the French ambassador, was reluctantly prepared to consider the former. Nevertheless, there was widespread concern among English privy councillors that a deal with France would strengthen the influence of the Scots at court.151 T. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 15; Russell, King Jas. VI and I, 100-1; Add. 32023B, ff. 231v-2; A. Thrush, ‘The French Marriage and the Origins of the 1614 Parl.’, Crisis of 1614 and the Addled Parl. ed. S. Clucas and R. Davies, 28-31.

The resulting impasse lasted until January 1614, when Pembroke unexpectedly joined forces with Suffolk, now de facto head of the Howard faction as Northampton was terminally ill. Together they proposed a Parliament in order to solve the financial crisis. Between them they also agreed that, once Northampton was dead, Suffolk would become lord treasurer, a promotion which would allow Pembroke to succeed him as lord chamberlain. The Council was initially sceptical about the prospects for a successful session, but Suffolk and Pembroke believed that it was possible to secure the all-important grant of supply from the Commons by offering grace bills which addressed any likely grievances that the Members might raise. Negotiations with France having stalled, it was finally agreed to seek a parliamentary solution to the crown’s needs.152 Thrush, 30-1; Chamberlain Letters, i. 502; Russell, King Jas. VI and I, 100-1.

By 1614 Pembroke’s options for electoral patronage were expanding, and he made up to 11 nominations. Once again he was completely dominant at Wilton, which returned Thomas Morgan and the earl’s cousin, Robert Sidney^* (later 2nd earl of Leicester). William Ravenscroft retained his seat at Old Sarum, alongside Pembroke’s servant William Price^‡, despite a determined effort by William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury, to take control of the borough himself. Matthew Davys and Sir Francis Barnham again sat for Cardiff Boroughs and Grampound respectively. Shaftesbury this time accepted nominations from the earl of Suffolk, but Pembroke must surely have cooperated with his court ally over this.153 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 56, 117, 448, 453, 573. Meanwhile, the earl began to exploit his numerous local offices for electoral gain. Lostwithiel, administrative centre of the duchy of Cornwall, returned his secretary Edward Leech, and a courtier, Sir Henry Vane^‡, who was presumably also Pembroke’s nominee. The earl most likely exploited his Cornish connections to find a seat at Saltash for the prospective Commons’ Speaker, Ranulphe Crewe^‡. One of Pembroke’s estate managers, William Kent^‡, was elected at Devizes, where the earl was high steward, while his captaincy of Portsmouth would seem to explain the return there of George Thorpe^‡, whom he may have known through the Virginia Company.154 Ibid. 66, 79, 156, 437.

Pembroke’s determination that this Parliament should succeed was reflected in his attendance in the Lords, as he was present at every sitting apart from the final one, when the session was dissolved. Reappointed a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, he attracted eight other nominations, to committees whose subjects ranged from Monmouth grammar school to the conservation of timber and the avoidance of lawsuits over wills of land, the latter two measures being reintroductions from 1610.155 LJ, ii. 686b, 694a, 697b, 711b. Named to scrutinize the bill to punish abuses on the Sabbath, he was also selected to attend a conference with the Commons about this legislation. On 7 May he testified that Sir Francis Stewart^‡, a Scottish courtier who wished to be naturalized, had received the Anglican sacraments. In addition, Pembroke was nominated to a conference about the bill to include Princess Elizabeth’s children in the English line of succession.156 Ibid. 697b, 708b, 713b; HMC Hastings, iv. 247.

Unfortunately for the earl, the Commons ultimately proved unresponsive to the proffered bribe of grace bills. Sir James Perrot^‡, Pembroke’s deputy as vice admiral of south Wales, actively encouraged the lower House to consider these measures during the opening weeks, probably at the earl’s request, but the vexed issue of impositions refused to go away. Pembroke initially remained silent on this topic, but on 24 May he lined up with other privy councillors, among them Suffolk and Ellesmere, to insist that the Lords should not confer with the Commons about impositions. The peers were in no position to judge whether these levies were legal, and if they were illegal, in Pembroke’s opinion it was for the king to remedy the situation.157 HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 649-50; HMC Hastings, iv. 262; Russell, King Jas. VI and I, 119. Five days later, with controversy raging over the related attack on the Commons by Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), Pembroke moved for a committee of the whole House, in which the Lords agreed to draw a line under this affair. However, by now the damage was done, and even Perrot had begun to attack the crown. Pembroke’s final appointment, on 6 June, was to help discuss the timing of the imminent dissolution.158 HMC Hastings, iv. 277; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 650; LJ, ii. 716a.

Pembroke and the rise of Buckingham, 1614-20

The earl of Northampton died shortly after the end of the Parliament, begging the king on his deathbed not to bestow any of his offices on Pembroke. In fact, the latter lost out completely in the ensuing government reshuffle. When Suffolk became lord treasurer in July 1614, Pembroke fully expected to succeed him as lord chamberlain, but instead the post went to Rochester, who was by now earl of Somerset. Worcester once again refused to part with the mastership of the horse, and although it was briefly proposed that Pembroke should succeed Northampton as lord privy seal, that office was ultimately left vacant. Instead, he had to content himself with a vague promise that he would be appointed the next lord admiral, lord treasurer, lord chamberlain or master of the horse, whichever role first became available.159 Chamberlain Letters, i. 542, 548; CUL, Dd.iii.63, f.16; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 336, 339.

This very public humiliation drove Pembroke back into his earlier alliance with Archbishop Abbot. Both men remained firmly opposed to a Spanish Match, but Suffolk and Somerset had now won the king round to this option, and Sir John Digby^* (later 1st earl of Bristol) was dispatched to Madrid to open negotiations.160 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), p. xl; Chamberlain Letters, i. 557. There seemed no hope of reversing this policy while the Howard faction remained in power, and Pembroke needed little prompting to seek revenge for their shabby treatment of him. Accordingly he and Abbot looked for a way to displace Somerset as the royal favourite. By September 1614 a rival for the king’s affections had appeared at court, a young Leicestershire man named George Villiers. Somerset recognized the threat which he now faced, and in the short term managed to block Villiers’ advancement. Nevertheless, by the end of the year rumours were circulating that plans were afoot to ‘bring him on the stage’.161 R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 16; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 56; HMC Downshire, v. 58; Chamberlain Letters, i. 559, 561; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. rec. ser. xxxi), 74. Exactly when Pembroke became involved is unclear. One contemporary observer, Sir William Sanderson, described a private supper at Baynard’s Castle, perhaps in the spring of 1615, at which he was told of ‘the design to bring in Villiers’. Pembroke and his friend the countess of Bedford were both credited with assisting the young man’s advancement at court, and supporting him financially. The latter was apparently done surreptitiously; for example, in July that year, Thomas Perrot, a cousin of Pembroke’s client Sir James Perrot, arranged a payment to Villiers of around £20,000. Such investments paid off handsomely, and by the summer of 1615 Villiers had emerged as a serious challenger to Somerset.162 Sanderson, 455-6; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 86; T. Fuller, Worthies of Eng. ii. 232; LC4/36, m. 5; R.K. Turvey, ‘NLW Roll 135: a 17th-century Ped. Roll from Herefs.’, NLW Jnl. xxx. 399.

Meanwhile, Pembroke continued to position himself as an alternative to the Howard interest. Now aged 35, he was beginning to assume a certain gravitas at court. In April 1615 the attorney general, Sir Francis Bacon^* (later Viscount St Alban), reported to James on a recent speech the earl had given in Star Chamber, noting that Pembroke ‘did extraordinary well, and became himself well, and had evident applause’. Five months later the Privy Council once again met to consider how to remedy the king’s financial woes. Once a consensus had been reached that another Parliament was required, the question immediately arose of how to avoid a repeat of the 1614 fiasco. Pembroke, unabashed that his previous recommendations had failed miserably, lectured his fellow councillors on the need for careful advance planning. However, his principal recommendations for winning the Commons’ support, namely a deal over impositions, and a programme of retrenchment at court, stood little chance of being implemented, and were perhaps intended more as a side-swipe at Lord Treasurer Suffolk.163 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, v. 135, 203.

The irony of Pembroke’s encouragement of Villiers was that Somerset was about to fall spectacularly from grace of his own accord. In September 1615 it emerged that Sir Thomas Overbury had been poisoned in the Tower, and at the start of the following month Somerset and his wife were implicated. James rapidly distanced himself from the whole affair, and left them to their fate. By late November it was being predicted that Pembroke would now at last become lord chamberlain, though another month passed before he was actually sworn in. Shortly afterwards, he also became a commissioner for the office of earl marshal. By chance, it fell to the new lord chamberlain to supervise the preparation of Westminster Hall for Somerset’s trial, for which he was a commissioner.164 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. 1603-42, ii. 331-4; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 94; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 382; APC, 1615-16, p. 187; 1616-17, p. 124. These promotions did nothing to weaken Pembroke’s political convictions. Secure enough at court to speak his mind freely, he remained deeply suspicious of Spain. In April 1616 he was one of only two privy councillors to oppose the return of the Cautionary Towns to the United Provinces, arguing that this symbol of James’s commitment to the Dutch struggle against Spain counted for more than any short-term financial gain.165 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 397; Chamberlain Letters, i. 620.

When Lord Chancellor Ellesmere resigned as chancellor of Oxford University in February 1617, he recommended Pembroke as his successor. The earl was elected unanimously, the scholars recognizing him as a ‘great patron of learning’.166 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 52, 55-6; Ath. Ox. ii. 482. A month later, there were more rumours of a court reshuffle. Pembroke was tipped to become lord admiral, with Villiers, now earl of Buckingham, replacing him as lord chamberlain. Nothing came of these reports, but the lord chamberlain was one of the few major peers to accompany the king shortly afterwards on his progress to Scotland, where he was sworn in as a member of the Scottish Privy Council.167 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 58; CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 476. Nevertheless, it was becoming apparent that Buckingham no longer felt beholden to Pembroke, and was starting to make his own influence felt at court. During the autumn of 1617 the lord chamberlain lobbied hard for Sir Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester) to become a secretary of state, but instead the post went to one of Buckingham’s relatives, Sir Robert Naunton^‡.168 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 490-2; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 480. On 1 Jan. 1618 Pembroke witnessed the favourite’s elevation to the rank of marquess, whereby Buckingham outstripped him in terms of precedence. For the time being the earl accepted this situation, in February helping to warn off William Monson^‡, who was being promoted by the Howards as a possible rival to Buckingham. Nevertheless, it must have been galling that, in order to secure the appointment of Sir Humphrey May^‡ as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster a few weeks later, Pembroke was first obliged to gain the marquess’ approval. Indeed, a satirical verse which circulated around this time described him as the ‘weak lord chamberlain’.169 Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 452; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 144; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1603-25, p. 553; HMC Hatfield, xxiv. 235-6.

In the summer of 1618 it seemed likely that the sudden disgrace of the earl of Suffolk would bring about another major shake-up at court. Pembroke, a member of the commission on crown expenditure which precipitated the lord treasurer’s fall, was widely predicted to replace him, but he undermined his chances by pushing for his brother Montgomery to succeed him as lord chamberlain. The speculation continued into the following year, but came to nothing.170 Add. 34727, f. 31; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 163, 168, 204; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 596; 1619-23, p. 8. Thereafter, in November 1618, Pembroke damaged his reputation by arranging a clandestine marriage between Sir John Smythe^‡, the young son of a wealthy London merchant, and a daughter of Robert Rich^*, 1st earl of Warwick; according to John Chamberlain, it was ‘thought a strange thing that so great a man and a councillor should give countenance to such an action’.171 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 187-8; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 121-2. However, he somewhat redeemed himself in January 1619, when his prompt actions prevented the fire which destroyed the Whitehall Banqueting House from spreading to other parts of the palace. In the following April, when the king mistakenly believed he was dying, James particularly commended Pembroke to Prince Charles.172 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 201-2; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 7, 33.

Over the summer of 1619 the lord chamberlain confirmed his status at court by participating in an exclusive hunting trip to Braemar in Scotland, his travelling companions being James’s cousins the 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (Ludovic Stuart^*, earl and later duke of Richmond) and the 2nd marquess of Hamilton [S] (James Hamilton^*, 1st earl of Cambridge).173 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 93; Add. 72326, f. 152; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 71. However, Pembroke now needed such friends. In September he openly quarrelled with Buckingham over a minor appointment, which he claimed fell under his jurisdiction, but which the favourite had procured for one of his own clients. Buckingham protested that he had previously given way to Pembroke over promotions for Sir Humphrey May and another of the earl’s associates, Sir Benjamin Rudyard^‡. Nevertheless, the lord chamberlain refused to yield, and the dispute was resolved only in November, when the king himself intervened in the marquess’ favour. No sooner had this matter been settled than Buckingham retaliated by arranging his own appointment as justice in eyre south of the Trent, an office which Pembroke had been trying to secure for himself.174 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 263, 265, 275; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 190, 192; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 104-5. At the end of the year there was once again talk of the earl becoming lord treasurer, but as before he held out for Montgomery to become lord chamberlain in his stead, and the treasury remained in commission.175 Add. 72326, f. 170; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 278, 281.

While these events unfolded, the international situation deteriorated. The Elector Palatine’s ill-judged decision to accept the crown of Bohemia provoked a military backlash by the Austrian Habsburgs, and led to expectations that England would soon become involved in the conflict. However, as Pembroke reported to Carleton in September 1619, James was very reluctant to be drawn into the war himself, though the earl was confident that the good Protestants on the Privy Council would win out over those members who were ‘too much nourished with Spanish milk’. Along with Archbishop Abbot, Pembroke was one of the staunchest English supporters of the king and queen of Bohemia; as Rudyard commented the following year: ‘nothing makes him so sad or merry as the success of their affairs’. Indeed, he contributed £1,000 towards the defence of the Rhenish Palatinate in the autumn of 1620.176 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 80, 246; Adams, 143; SP14/117/2. By then, however, with the military situation rapidly deteriorating, it was becoming clear that there would have to be fresh recourse to a Parliament in order to find enough money to offer meaningful assistance. Perhaps conscious of the need for a united front over the crisis, Pembroke patched up his relationship with Buckingham, and in public at least there were ‘very great shows of love’ between them. It was a tougher challenge to get the king to view the forthcoming session with any pleasure, and when James himself drafted the proclamation summoning Parliament, the lord chamberlain failed to persuade him to remove the inflammatory phrase, ‘wrangling lawyers’.177 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 421; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 328.

The 1621 Parliament

Despite some setbacks, the elections to the 1621 Parliament saw a further expansion in Pembroke’s electoral patronage. Wilton as usual returned Thomas Morgan, this time with Sir Thomas Tracy^‡, a client of Pembroke’s brother, Montgomery. Although the earl of Salisbury monopolized Old Sarum, Pembroke may have been behind the election of Sir Thomas Hinton^‡ at another Wiltshire borough, Downton. At Shaftesbury, where two by-elections were held, the earl was able to place three nominees in all, including his cousin Percy Herbert^‡. Pembroke successfully backed William Price as shire knight of Glamorgan, brought in a distant kinsman, William Herbert^‡, at Cardiff Boroughs, and probably influenced the return of Sir Edmund Morgan and Charles Williams in Monmouthshire.178 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 117, 269, 439, 449, 453, 571, 573; v. 420. The earl’s scope for influencing Cornish elections was limited by the ambitious programme of nominations launched in duchy boroughs by Prince Charles’ council. Even so, he found a seat for the earl of Southampton’s son, James Wriothesley^‡, Lord Wriothesley at Callington, courtesy of William Coryton^‡, the recently appointed vice warden of the stannaries. Portsmouth obliged him by returning Sir Benjamin Rudyard, who would become Pembroke’s most important spokesman in the Commons.179 P.M. Hunneyball, ‘Prince Charles’s Council as Electoral Agent, 1620-24’, PH, xxiii. 318-19; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 51, 156. As chancellor of Oxford University, the earl most likely nominated Sir Clement Edmondes^‡, clerk of the Privy Council. Pembroke also used these elections to test the scope of his patronage in the Midlands, based on offices and property which had come to him around the time of his father-in-law’s death in 1618. As high steward of Derby he secured a seat for Edward Leech. His overtures to East Retford were rebuffed, but his intended nominee, his servant George Lassells^‡, was instead returned at Nottingham. He may also have influenced the election of Sir John Davies at Newcastle-under-Lyme.180 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 87, 311, 316, 324, 368. In total, Pembroke was responsible for the return of up to 16 Members of the Commons.

As lord chamberlain, Pembroke was responsible for fitting out the Palace of Westminster in readiness for the new session. Accordingly he issued warrants to the office of works and great wardrobe for the necessary supplies and labour, and commissioned a new embroidered barge cloth for the boat bringing the king to Parliament. His office also brought him greater precedence in the Lords’ seating arrangements, and a ceremonial role in the state opening, all of which tended to give him more prominence in the upper House. Furthermore, on 17 May the Lords agreed that great officers of state, such as the lord chamberlain, might be named in their absence to any committee which concerned their office, contrary to the convention which said that peers must be present in order to receive nominations.181 E.R. Foster, ‘Staging a Parl. in Early Stuart Eng.’, Eng. Commonwealth 1547-1640 ed. P. Clark, A.G.R. Smith and N. Tyacke, 129, 134; E.R. Foster, House of Lords, 1603-49, p. 9; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/OW100; LJ, iii. 126b. This, combined with his higher profile at court, helps to explain why Pembroke held the proxy votes of other peers for the first time during this Parliament. The peers in question were his old friend the earl of Bedford; his distant kinsman William Stanley^*, 6th earl of Derby; the latter’s nephew by marriage, Mervyn Tuchet^*, 12th Lord Audley; his own kinsman by marriage, Charles Grey^*, 7th earl of Kent; and Philip Wharton^*, 3rd Lord Wharton.182 LJ, iii. 4a-b; Collins, iii. 82.

Pembroke attended roughly three-quarters of the 1621 session, his only extended absence occurring in late May and early June, when he missed 12 consecutive sittings. He was officially excused on 14 Feb. and 4 May, on the former occasion on the unusual grounds that the king had kept him up late at a court masque the night before.183 HMC Hastings, iv. 289; LJ, iii. 108b. Although he received only 40 appointments during this Parliament, Pembroke made more than 100 speeches, most of them succinct. While his words commanded respect in the House, he was no orator, preferring to make procedural observations, or concur with other peers’ flights of rhetoric. As lord chamberlain, he was automatically appointed a trier of petitions by the crown when the session opened. Other significant nominations soon followed, and during February he was named to the newly created committee for privileges, and to a committee to review whether a recently submitted set of bills deserved to be read. In the latter capacity, he subsequently brought in a bill about silk dyeing.184 LJ, iii. 7a, 10b, 25b, 79a.

Inevitably Pembroke served as a conduit between the Lords and the court. On 18 Apr. he fleshed out a message delivered by the lord treasurer, Henry Montagu^*, 1st Viscount Mandeville (later 1st earl of Manchester), announcing that the king was willing to give an audience to both Houses. A month later, he confirmed that James did not object to the long-disgraced Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland being sent a writ of summons, and was promptly dispatched to ascertain whether the same applied to William Seymour^*, 2nd earl of Hertford.185 Ibid. 77a, 129a. Naturally, Pembroke was named to the legislative committee concerning duchy of Cornwall leases, a measure promoted by Prince Charles. He also chaired the committee for the bill to convey a Yorkshire property to the king’s cousin, Esmé Stuart^*, earl of March, which he reported with amendments on 12 March.186 Ibid. 26b, 31a, 41b. Pembroke presumably chaired the bill committee about navigation on the Thames between London and Oxford, since on 6 Mar. he moved that this body meet two days later. He may well also have shown interest in four other bills which he was appointed to scrutinize, the subjects being the earl of Bedford’s estates, the Welsh cloth trade, the jurisdiction of the Council in the Welsh Marches, and the cancelling of a controversial monopoly over fish-packing in Devon and Cornwall.187 Ibid. 22b, 24a, 38a, 101b, 128a.

The Commons’ pursuit of the notorious patentee, Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, soon revealed embarrassing connections with the marquess of Buckingham’s family. These revelations presented Pembroke with a golden opportunity to make trouble for the favourite, and he naturally seized upon this chance. Drawn into the inquiry on 3 Mar., when he attended a conference with the Commons to discuss how to apprehend the fugitive Mompesson, he was then appointed to help draft an arrest warrant. Three days later his cousin Sir William Herbert^‡, one of Pembroke’s informal spokesmen, proposed in the Commons that a detailed investigation be undertaken into Mompesson’s patent for the manufacture of gold and silver thread, one of the investors in this project being Buckingham’s half-brother, Sir Edward Villiers^‡.188 Ibid. 34a, 35a; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 654. On 12 Mar., after the lord treasurer and the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon, now Viscount St Alban, defended their actions in approving patent grants, Pembroke rounded on them, pointing out that they had spoken in contravention of the terms agreed for the conference in question, and forcing the two miscreants to offer a humiliating apology. However, when Buckingham committed the same offence on 13 Mar., Pembroke responded ambivalently, encouraging the Lords to draw a line under the incident.189 LJ, iii. 42a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 18-20, 23; Russell, PEP, 107.

Two days later, the earl reported back from yet another conference at which the Commons finally presented their grievances concerning monopolies. This cleared the way for the Lords to launch their own inquiry, in which Pembroke was, not surprisingly, given a key role. Appointed chairman of the committee to investigate Mompesson’s patent for licensing inns, he presented a preliminary report on 22 March.190 LJ, iii. 45a-b, 46b-7a, 62a. Four days later the king confirmed that he would implement any sentence imposed on Mompesson by the Lords. Pembroke spoke out against the death penalty, and reminded his fellow peers that banishment, the preferred option, was a sentence which only James could impose. With monarch and Lords now in agreement, Mompesson was formally condemned that same day.191 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 44, 46.

However, that was not the end of the matter. On 17 Apr. Buckingham requested that the allegations against Sir Edward Villiers be given a hearing in the Lords. As no evidence of wrongdoing had yet been found, the favourite no doubt hoped to have his brother formally cleared. Pembroke, however, threw his weight behind an alternative proposal for Villiers’ case to be referred back to the Commons, a move which greatly prolonged both the inquiry and Buckingham’s embarrassment. The next day, the earl also took a hard line in the debate on whether to proceed against the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, who had helped enforce Mompesson’s patent for inns. Arguing that the lawyer had ‘erred in his discretion’ and deserved admonishment, Pembroke ensured that further action would be taken.192 LD 1621, pp. 2, 5; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 631. He proved unsympathetic on 28 Apr., when Yelverton pleaded illness to avoid being examined in the Lords, twice demanding verification of this claim. Later that day he attended the king to help explain why Parliament was still questioning Yelverton, and on 30 Apr. he ensured that a report on this case was top of the Lords’ agenda. He seems not to have anticipated that the lawyer would himself go on the attack at this juncture, using his appearance before the Lords a few hours later to launch a stinging attack on Buckingham and the king. When a shocked earl of Cambridge called for Yelverton to be returned to the Tower forthwith, Pembroke quickly concurred.193 Add. 40085, ff. 76v-7, 80; LJ, iii. 96b; LD 1621, p. 53.

Yelverton’s outburst effectively derailed the inquiry into the inns patent. James initially insisted that he would deal personally with those remarks made about him by the lawyer. Pembroke affirmed James’s right to do so, but a majority of peers considered that it might breach the Lords’ privileges were the king to reverse his earlier agreement to allow charges against the lawyer to be judged in the upper House. Consequently, on 2 May the earl found himself drafting a message for the Lords to deliver to James, requesting him to reconsider.194 LD 1621, pp. 54, 56, 59-60. By the time the king consented, on 8 May, Pembroke had taken steps to revive the inns patent inquiry. However, the Yelverton affair had proved so troublesome that in the end he settled for a verdict, delivered on 16 May, that the lawyer had colluded with Mompesson. He then abandoned the wider investigation.195 LJ, iii. 114b; LD 1621, pp. 68, 90.

While these events were playing out, another major inquiry, undertaken by both Houses, claimed a much bigger scalp. On 19 Mar. the Commons levelled allegations of corruption against the lord chancellor. The next day Pembroke and the earl of Essex were appointed to receive written evidence on this matter from the lower House, but the situation was complicated by the fact that key witnesses had given bribes, and were fearful of exposing themselves to prosecution. Buckingham, who wished to protect Bacon, used this fact to try and discredit the witnesses. However, Pembroke argued firmly and successfully on 23 Mar. that they should be granted immunity, since their own offences did not render the lord chancellor any less guilty if the charges against him were proved by their testimony.196 LJ, iii. 55a, 57b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 37; Russell, PEP, 113.

Nevertheless, as it became clear that a full-blown investigation into Bacon’s activities might damage other government figures, the earl began to behave more obviously like a senior crown servant. Immediately after the Easter recess, the king gave the Lords permission to proceed against the lord chancellor, leading Pembroke on 18 Apr. to help prompt a hearing on the following day. Three different committees had examined witnesses, and the evidence quickly became repetitive. At the lord chamberlain’s suggestion, proceedings were suspended while these materials were collated. Pembroke then acted as teller in a vote which resulted in the House adjourning until 24 April. It seems likely that these moves were designed to buy time for negotiations to take place behind the scenes. Almost as soon as the Lords resumed sitting, Prince Charles announced that Bacon had sent a written submission, thereby obviating the need for further parliamentary inquiry.197 LD 1621, pp. 6, 10, 13. Unfortunately, as Pembroke swiftly observed, the affair could be ended only if this submission adequately responded to the charges levelled at the lord chancellor. That proved not to be the case, whereupon the earl pressed for Bacon to be required to produce a more comprehensive submission rather than appear at the bar of the House. On 25 Apr. he helped persuade the Lords that the lord chancellor should be brought before them only if he insisted on defending his conduct. Five days later, having visited Bacon to confirm that he stood by his revised, satisfactory submission, Pembroke attended the king when Charles asked his father to sequester the great seal from the fallen minister. Pembroke himself was one of four commissioners appointed to take temporary charge of the seal.198 Ibid. 13-17, 21-3, 41; LJ, iii. 101a, 104a.

Bacon had been successfully removed from the scene without being exposed to potentially sensitive questioning, but the issue of his punishment remained to be settled. On 3 May, Pembroke again made common ground with other privy councillors such as Buckingham, and proposed that Bacon be merely imprisoned and fined, but this motion failed to satisfy a number of other peers. He eventually conceded that Bacon should also be barred from public office, including membership of the Lords. However, he successfully held out against the suggestion that Bacon should be degraded from his honours.199 LD 1621, pp. 62-4.

Thus far, the lord chamberlain had displayed a broad willingness for grievances raised by the Commons to be taken seriously in the Lords. However, he was also sensitive to any sign of the lower House overstepping the mark, and reacted with concern to Edward Floyd’s case, in which the Commons sought to impose an exemplary punishment on a Catholic who had insulted Princess Elizabeth and her husband. No doubt alerted to this incident by his own clients, Pembroke was quick to shape the peers’ response on 5 May, commenting: ‘they, the Commons, have used to complain; the Lords examine and judge. If this be broken, he doubts of the success’. After explaining what had already happened in relation to Floyd, and suggesting that the lower House had breached the Lords’ privileges, he nevertheless recommended a measured response, to avoid aggravating the situation. Later that day, he helped explain the peers’ viewpoint at a conference in which the Commons signalled their desire to backtrack. He also served on the joint committee which thrashed out a final accommodation between the two Houses. It was surely no coincidence that in the Commons his kinsman Sir William Herbert also consistently argued for a peaceable resolution to this dispute.200 Ibid. 66, 75; LJ, iii. 110b, 116a; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 654.

During the recess, there were repeated rumours of government reshuffles. In June Pembroke was again tipped to become lord treasurer, but with his brother-in-law Arundel replacing him as lord chamberlain (Montgomery being compensated with a seat on the Privy Council). By October, as new appointments began to be made, word had it that Pembroke would soon be lord privy seal, with the chamberlainship going to Sir John Digby. As usual, none of this came to pass.201 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 381, 401; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 263; Add. 72254, f. 61.

When Parliament reconvened in November 1621, Pembroke contributed relatively little to the Lords’ proceedings, though he intervened when necessary to protect the government’s interests. On 21 Nov., he disingenuously excused the earl of Southampton’s absence on the grounds of illness, in the full knowledge that his colleague had in fact agreed to stay away from the House, having been detained during the summer on account of his actions during the Parliament’s first phase. Similarly, in December Pembroke defended the new lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York) against a complaint that he had mishandled a Chancery case, maintaining that the complainant’s own arguments were technically flawed. Ever the stickler for correct procedure, he insisted on 17 Dec. that parliamentary privilege did not protect the goods of peers’ servants, following a claim by an employee of Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford.202 Add. 40086, f. 12; LD 1621, pp. 109, 115, 117, 125. Appointed to confer with the Commons about a bill against informers, Pembroke was also nominated to help draft the heads of a new monopolies bill, and conceivably took an interest in bills concerning Welsh butter and Thames navigation near Oxford, being named to both committees. Nevertheless, the most significant events were all taking place in the Commons, where Members pondered the ever-worsening situation in the Palatinate. It is highly likely that when Sir Benjamin Rudyard called in November for a further grant of supply to fund the Protestant forces, he did so with Pembroke’s approval.203 LJ, iii. 171a, 177b, 179a, 185b; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 109. In the following January, Pembroke and his ally Hamilton are said to have argued ‘vehemently’ against the decision to dissolve the Parliament.204 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 281, 287.

The Spanish Match and 1624 Parliament

In March 1622, Pembroke fell out spectacularly with the new lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, Lord Cranfield (later 1st earl of Middlesex) over expenses incurred in entertaining the imperial ambassador. However, the two men may have made common cause that autumn, as Cranfield’s brother-in-law, Arthur Brett, began to catch the king’s eye at court. Pembroke cannot be firmly linked to Brett at such an early date, but it seems unlikely that he showed no interest in a potential rival to Buckingham.205 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 430; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 133, 140; R. Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, p. 304.

Towards the end of the year, speculation mounted that Pembroke was about to become lord privy seal, but as usual the gossip was not borne out by events.206 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 462, 471. In point of fact, this would have been a good moment to change roles. The king was now intent on securing a Spanish bride for Prince Charles, who left for Madrid with Buckingham in February 1623. As lord chamberlain, Pembroke was responsible for organizing the reception of the numerous Spanish diplomats who now started coming to England, and his displeasure at this task was soon apparent. In late February, he delayed informing the king of the arrival of the new Spanish ambassador. During March he persuaded James to reassure the Dutch government that it had nothing to fear from the proposed alliance, while in April he informed him of the Venetian Republic’s concerns about the negotiations. A few weeks later, as tension mounted at court over the progress of discussions in Madrid, James publicly insulted the earl.207 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 499; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 620; 1623-5, pp. 5, 23. Pembroke took the necessary steps to prepare St James’s Palace for the infanta’s arrival, including the disagreeable task of constructing a Catholic chapel. However, when the Privy Council endorsed the marriage articles in late July, he pleaded illness, possibly of a diplomatic nature, and missed the ceremony. He also surreptitiously opposed the introduction of de facto toleration for English Catholics, encouraging Joseph Hall^*, the future bishop of Exeter, to preach against it.208 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 536, 582, 590; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 80; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 429; Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 103; T. Cogswell, ‘Eng. and the Spanish Match’, Conflict in Early Stuart Eng. ed. R. Cust and A. Hughes, 123.

Pembroke should have been delighted when it emerged late in 1623 that Charles and Buckingham had now turned against Spain, and were instead advocating war. However, his hatred of the favourite, now raised to the near-royal status of duke, had become so strong that he deliberately obstructed their efforts to break off the marriage deal. In January 1624 the prince had to patch up yet another quarrel between the two rivals over a minor court appointment.209 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 196, 202; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 188. At the end of that month, during a meeting of the government’s committee for foreign affairs, Pembroke caused general astonishment by arguing that ‘if the Spaniard performed the conditions agreed on, he saw not how the king in honour could fall from the conclusion’. The earl’s friends subsequently blamed his behaviour on ‘some pique twixt him and the duke’. A week later, the Venetian ambassador reported that Pembroke still held Buckingham responsible for the trip to Madrid, ‘the origin of so many mistakes’. The Italian tried to convince the lord chamberlain that he should now value Buckingham as an enemy of Spain, but ‘found him very set in his opinions, namely that they must consider internal foes before external ones’. Indeed, around the same time Pembroke informed the Spanish ambassadors that Buckingham had bewitched Charles, this outrageous claim serving to convince the envoys that they enjoyed the lord chamberlain’s support.210 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 541-3; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 216; PRO 31/12/29 (Inojosa to Philip IV, 29 Jan./8 Feb. 1624).

Although Pembroke’s loathing of the Habsburgs finally won out, his insistence that Parliament was the appropriate venue for breaking off the Spanish treaties was probably a ploy to embarrass the duke, who had argued that the treaties should be scrapped before Parliament met. Pembroke was apparently hoping that if the favourite were questioned in Parliament about the Madrid visit, he would be vulnerable to attack. Only at the last moment, as the realization dawned that there was no hope of assisting the queen of Bohemia without a successful session, did Pembroke agree to a truce with the duke.211 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 216; Adams, 156; Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 156.

By 1624 the earl’s electoral patronage was settling into an established pattern. He could now be confident of securing places at Wilton, Old Sarum and Downton, Shaftesbury, Portsmouth, Cardiff Boroughs, and Monmouthshire. Derby could also be relied upon, though Pembroke did not again nominate to those other Midlands boroughs which he had approached three years earlier. On that basis, he provided seats for his servants Edward Leech and Thomas Morgan (now both knighted), William Price, John Thorowgood^‡ and Michael Oldisworth^‡; his kinsmen Viscount Lisle, Percy Herbert and Edward Herbert^‡; and his clients Sir Benjamin Rudyard, Sir Clippesby Crewe^‡ and Sir William Uvedale^‡. He probably also backed William Whitaker^‡ at Shaftesbury, and Sir William Morgan^‡ in Monmouthshire, and most likely endorsed the election of Sir Robert Mansell^‡ in Glamorgan.212 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 87, 117, 157, 268-9, 439, 449, 453, 571, 573. In addition, with the local assistance of William Coryton, he began to make his presence felt in Cornwall, sometimes even at the expense of Prince Charles’s council, which again issued its own nominations to the duchy boroughs. Coryton himself sat for the county, while Pembroke’s Mineral Company associate George Mynne^‡ was returned for West Looe. Another client, Sir John Stradling^‡, was placed at St Germans, and the earl was probably behind Fowey’s election of Sir Robert Coke^‡. Outcomes in Cornwall were less guaranteed, given Pembroke’s lack of property in the county, but there was clear potential here for broader patronage via the stannary network.213 Ibid. ii. 46, 55, 64, 74; v. 472; Hunneyball, 326-7, 330. Of course, the earl could not be certain that all 18 of these Members would actively represent his interests in the Commons. Most of them contributed little to the proceedings of the lower House, at least publicly. For this reason, he relied just as much on other clients such as Sir William Herbert and Sir James Perrot, who were returned without his assistance, or allies at court like Sir Humphrey May. Nevertheless, he was clearly now one of the leading patrons of the period, on a par with Buckingham himself.214 HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 654-5; v. 297, 656-7.

As in 1621, Pembroke received a number of proxies from other peers, namely the earls of Bedford and Derby, Edward la Zouche^*, 11th Lord Zouche, Henry Neville^*, 9th (or 2nd) Lord Abergavenny, and John Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy of Meinill. At least one of these proxies came with conditions: Zouche, writing on 6 Feb. 1624, specifically stated that Pembroke was to use his proxy for the ‘good of Church and country’.215 LJ, iii. 205b; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 160. The earl once again attended three-quarters of the Lords’ sittings, his longest absence being one week in mid-March. He was formally excused five times.216 LJ, iii. 216b, 256a, 267b, 294b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 11v. Again named to the committee for privileges, he received 39 other appointments, and made around 50 speeches.

As lord chamberlain, Pembroke moved on 5 Mar. for privilege to be granted to a royal servant named John Phillips. The earl no doubt took an interest in the bill to reform purveyance, being named to its committee in April. He was also nominated to legislative committees concerning duchy of Cornwall leases, and the nuisance caused by Westminster brewhouses, both of which measures were promoted by Prince Charles. Another bill with a royal angle provided for the archdiocese of York to hand the London mansion of York House to the crown, in order that the king might bestow it on Buckingham. On 14 May Pembroke insisted that this transaction would be advantageous to the archbishop, and he was named to the committee.217 LJ, iii. 215a, 247b, 263b, 269a, 288b, 384a; Add. 40087, f. 52; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 94. The earl presumably, as chancellor of Oxford, followed the progress of the bill to confirm the foundation of Wadham College, and may also have shown an interest in the bill for free trade in Welsh cloth. He was certainly appointed to help scrutinize both measures.218 LJ, iii. 275a, 303b.

Such legislation was of course a sideshow, in political terms, to the main business of promoting war with Spain. Pembroke reportedly rose from his sickbed on 24 Feb. to attend Buckingham’s lengthy narration of the Spanish Match negotiations, intervening once to draw attention to the timing of some letters which indicated opposition in Madrid to the whole project. Although this served to emphasize the Spaniards’ duplicity, it was also a subtle reminder that Buckingham had failed to heed the warning signs. Nevertheless, he defended the duke three days later against the charge that Buckingham had insulted Philip IV’s honour while delivering his narration.219 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 37; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 2; Russell, PEP, 159.

From the outset, Pembroke was clear that the Lords must work closely with the Commons if a breach with Spain was to be achieved, and on 27 Feb. he warned his fellow peers not to present their opinions to the king until the lower House had been consulted. Simultaneously, no doubt at his request, his clients Rudyard and Sir James Perrot urged the Commons to cooperate with the Lords.220 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 6-7; Russell, PEP, 163. By 1 Mar. the peers had broadly agreed that the Palatinate would not be recovered through diplomacy, and Pembroke was appointed to help assess the country’s readiness for war. Meanwhile, in the lower House, Rudyard urged that supply be voted for military purposes, specifically the strengthening of the Navy and the defences of England and Ireland, as well as for the Dutch alliance. Given Rudyard’s firm identification as Pembroke’s mouthpiece in the Commons, it was clear that the earl had, at least temporarily, joined forces with Buckingham in pursuit of a war with Spain.221 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 12-13; LJ, iii. 237b; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 109-10; Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 154-5.

Nevertheless, it was one thing to persuade Parliament to favour war, and another thing to persuade the king to do the same. On 4 Mar. a joint committee of both Houses drafted a statement setting out reasons for abandoning the Spanish treaties, Pembroke being one of the principal authors.222 LJ, iii. 244b; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 179; Russell, PEP, 176. However, in a significant misjudgment, he also backed the earl of Southampton’s proposal that the joint committee should request the Commons to offer a general undertaking to fund military preparations. The earls’ intention was to signal clearly to James that Parliament would meet the financial burden of conflict with Spain, but instead the committee’s message offended both the Lords, who had not authorized it, and the Commons, who jealously guarded the privilege of initiating supply.223 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 20; Russell, PEP, 179-80. Just such a non-specific declaration of support was eventually provided by the lower House on 12 Mar., but by that stage discussions were moving on to the practicalities of war, and two days later the king countered with a very precise demand for six subsidies and 12 fifteenths. This was too high a price for the Commons to contemplate, and discussions stalled again. Although Pembroke could not intervene directly, on 19 Mar. Rudyard proposed a compromise, a smaller sum just adequate to fund his four-point strategy of 1 March. After two days of intense debate, the Commons agreed to offer three subsidies and three fifteenths. Once this proposal had been communicated to the Lords, Pembroke attended the king for the formal presentation of the new offer.224 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 110; LJ, iii. 273b, 275a.

With James apparently now won round, the lord chamberlain was appointed on 25 Mar. to help draft a ‘manifesto’, during the imminent Easter recess, announcing the breach with Spain. However, the issue of supply continued to threaten the prospects for war. On 3 Apr. Pembroke had to urge patience as the Commons continued to drag their heels. Another fortnight passed without real progress, as the lower House developed doubts about the king’s commitment to the military cause. It was at this juncture that Charles, Pembroke and Buckingham pushed James into releasing the text of the official letter breaking off the Spanish treaties. Presented to both Houses at a conference on 17 Apr., this document had the desired effect, but even so it was 25 May before Pembroke was named in the Lords to the committee for the subsidy bill.225 LJ, iii. 282a, 312a, 406b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 51; Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 244-5.

While the Commons were slow to provide funding, they were happy to seize the opportunity offered by the breach with Spain to attack Catholics at home. Pembroke was appointed on 3 Apr. to a conference at which the lower House presented a petition against recusants. The expectation was that the Lords would also adopt this document, but the wording of the preamble, which dwelt on the military threat posed by Spain, provoked a sharp debate. The lord chamberlain, keen to introduce a more conciliatory tone before it was presented to James, advised the peers: ‘the king [is] careful not to give occasion to make this a war of religion, we [are] to be careful not to move him to do any such act’. Strategically, it was not in English interests to alienate potential anti-Habsburg allies such as Catholic France, but Pembroke was also aware of James’s sensitivity to claims that the recusancy laws were not being implemented properly. Accordingly, he proposed that the Privy Council be left to deal with any problems not covered by existing legislation. If this failed to have the desired effect, a more strongly worded petition might be drafted at a later date.226 LJ, iii. 287b; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 55-7. Further problems arose on 10 Apr., when the Commons additionally proposed that a proclamation be issued requiring the enforcement of the recusancy laws, an idea which Pembroke rejected outright as an infringement of royal authority. Another four days passed before the Lords were satisfied with the text of the petition, at which point the lord chamberlain was nominated to help present it to the king. A month later, the Commons generated a further petition, this time attacking recusant office-holders. This document found no favour with the Lords, but on 21 May Pembroke was appointed to help draft a conciliatory message proposing that it should be shelved, as the session was now nearing its end.227 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 63, 100; LJ, iii. 298a, 397b.

In the course of the Lords’ inquiries into the country’s readiness for war, evidence emerged that Lord Treasurer Middlesex had misappropriated funds intended for the Ordnance Office. The latter counter-attacked by asserting that his honour had been called into question by one of the witnesses. Pembroke was named on 2 Apr. to help examine these claims. In a crucial intervention ten days later he ensured that the Lords’ primary focus remained the critical report on Middlesex’s conduct in office, rather than the allegations of slander. He was duly appointed to help draft the heads of the charges against the lord treasurer, and, on 16 Apr., to investigate these complaints.228 LJ, iii. 286a, 301b, 311a; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 67, 69. Pembroke can have been in no doubt that he was once again cooperating with Buckingham’s political agenda, given that Middlesex represented an obstacle to war with Spain, and that the assault on the lord treasurer had been initiated by Buckingham’s clients in the Commons. It was therefore a sign of his commitment to the military solution that, over the next three weeks, he personally examined 17 witnesses in the case, laboriously amassing evidence of bribe-taking by the lord treasurer, and double-checking the claims made by the latter in his own defence.229 LJ, iii. 353a-b, 354a, 355b-7a, 358b-60a, 361a. Much of this material featured in the impeachment charges levelled at Middlesex by the Commons on 7 May. The lord treasurer was allowed to delay his defence for five days, but as each charge was debated by the Lords, the well-briefed Pembroke repeatedly picked holes in Middlesex’s arguments.230 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 74, 76, 78; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 71. On 13 May, the House having agreed on a guilty verdict, discussion turned to the question of Middlesex’s punishment, whereupon the lord chamberlain proposed a bill to make the estates of the now disgraced lord treasurer liable to any fine imposed. This harsh measure, designed to ensure that Middlesex could not avoid paying on the grounds that his property was held only in trust, received its second reading on 15 May, with Pembroke appointed to the committee. He was also named to the committee set up on 20 May to assess what damages Middlesex should pay to the officers of the Ordnance, whom he had defrauded.231 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 90; LJ, iii. 386a, 396a.

Transition to a new reign, 1624-5

Shortly after the lord treasurer came under attack in Parliament, the Venetian ambassador heard that Middlesex’s brother-in-law, Arthur Brett, was once again being promoted as a potential rival to Buckingham. The earl of Arundel reportedly gave Brett his backing, but Pembroke chose not to do so, even though William Coryton briefly acted as a go-between. However tempting the prospect of Buckingham’s fall might be, the lord chamberlain concluded that the duke could no longer be undermined this way, for ‘he perceived the prince to be so much for his grace’.232 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 268; Ruigh, 314-15.

Over the summer of 1624, Pembroke was privy to the preliminary negotiations for a French alliance, and in August it was again briefly rumoured that he would become lord treasurer. A permanent truce between Pembroke and Buckingham became a realistic prospect around early October, when a marriage was proposed between the duke’s daughter and Montgomery’s son, who stood to inherit the fortune of his still childless uncle. However, in the short term this overture, which was apparently made by Montgomery with Pembroke’s approval, failed to bear fruit. Relations soon soured again and, according to the Venetian ambassador, Buckingham was busy by December obstructing the lord chamberlain’s ambitions to become a duke himself.233 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 206-7; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 327; Harl. 1580, f. 445; Ruigh, 315; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 511.

Later that month, Pembroke reassured Carleton that the country was enthusiastic about war with Spain, and that the king would finally show the world the strength of his commitment to the Bohemian cause. Nevertheless, the earl was barred from the negotiations with France, his exclusion from the formal signing of the resultant treaty being a particular source of grievance. In reality his position at court was substantially weakened around this time by the deaths of key allies such as Southampton, Zouche and Hamilton. On 23 Mar. 1625, Pembroke’s friend, the countess of Bedford, described him as ‘the only honest-hearted man employed that I know now left to God and his country’.234 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 404; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 216; Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 317.

Four days after this letter was written, James died at his Hertfordshire mansion, Theobalds. Pembroke was in attendance, and was reappointed lord chamberlain a few hours later by the new king, Charles. The renewal of his other offices followed shortly afterwards, accompanied with other signs of royal favour. Predictably, given his household role, he was instructed to help plan James’s lavish funeral, but he was also added to the council of war, and appointed to Charles’s new cabinet council. There was even talk, yet again, of him becoming lord steward, with the chamberlainship passing to Montgomery.235 APC, 1625-6, pp. 2-3, 7; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 13; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 7. According to Sir Tobie Matthew^‡, in mid April Pembroke enjoyed the king’s confidence more than anyone except Buckingham, the principal secretary of state, Edward Conway^*, 1st Lord Conway, and the lord treasurer, James Ley^*, 1st Lord Ley. With Buckingham still firmly committed to the war with Spain, it is hardly surprising that the lord chamberlain opted to see whether these favourable circumstances would last, notwithstanding his resentment at the duke’s continuing monopoly of affairs of state.236 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 10; Russell, PEP, 216.

The new reign entailed the summoning of another Parliament. Pembroke, whose success as an electoral patron was now well known, found himself instructed to provide seats for two privy councillors, as a result of which he was unable to respond to a request from his friend Sir Dudley Carleton. The councillors concerned were Sir Thomas Edmondes, whom he nominated for Oxford University, the first time a chancellor had demanded this right, and Sir Richard Weston^* (later 1st earl of Portland), who was placed at Callington, presumably through the mediation of William Coryton.237 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 13; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 52, 325. Otherwise, Pembroke treated the first Caroline Parliament substantially as a continuation of the last Jacobean one. The same clients or relatives were returned for Downton, Old Sarum, Shaftesbury, Portsmouth, Derby, Cardiff Boroughs and Monmouthshire, with the exceptions that Sir William Uvedale found an alternative Hampshire seat, while Sir John Stradling secured the second place at Old Sarum. At Wilton, Thomas Morgan took the junior burgess-ship as usual, the senior seat going first to Sir William Herbert, who opted to represent Montgomeryshire, and then to Rudyard’s brother-in-law, Sir William Harington^‡.238 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 87, 117, 155, 157, 268, 439, 449, 453, 573; iv. 546. It seems likely that Pembroke again supported Sir Robert Mansell’s election for Glamorgan. Elsewhere in Cornwall, Coryton was returned at Liskeard, while one of his local allies, Charles Trevanion^‡, was probably responsible for finding a seat at St Mawes for the vice warden’s kinsman Sir James Fullerton^‡, who would certainly benefit from Pembroke’s patronage the following year. In total, the lord chamberlain could claim up to 19 electoral successes, despite having not exploited his West Country connections to any great degree.239 Ibid. 61, 571.

Almost more notable were the ten proxies that Pembroke received for this session. These included as usual the earls of Bedford and Derby, along with lords Zouche and Darcy. Next came another distant relative, Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, and his brother-in-law Philip Stanhope^*, Lord Stanhope of Shelford (later 1st earl of Chesterfield). The tally was completed by Francis Leak^*, 1st Lord Deincourt, Edmund Sheffield^*, 3rd Lord Sheffield, Edward Wotton^*, 1st Lord Wotton, and, controversially, the earl of Bristol, currently in disgrace and under house arrest for his advocacy of the Spanish Match. Only Buckingham himself outstripped him in this regard, with 13 proxies.240 Procs. 1625, pp. 591, 670.

Pembroke acted as lord steward for the duration of the 1625 Parliament, the office having fallen vacant upon the death of the marquess of Hamilton a few months earlier. This brought him responsibility for swearing in the Commons’ Members at the start of the session, but otherwise made no practical difference to his position in the Lords. Certainly he felt under no obligation to attend more frequently. In total he absented himself for just over half of this short session, although he was formally excused only on 27 and 30 June, and 6 July. Following the latter date he missed the remainder of the Westminster sitting, and the first four days of the Oxford sitting.241 Ibid. 31, 58, 71, 95.

In one of his first speeches, on 25 June, the lord chamberlain requested privilege for two royal servants. Thereafter, while Parliament remained in London, he primarily handled messages between the Lords and the king. On 24 June, for instance, having attended a conference with the Commons the previous day about the proposed joint petition for a general fast, he made arrangements for Charles to take delivery of the petition.242 Ibid. 43-4, 48, 52-3. Ten days later, with the Lords debating the Commons’ petition against recusants, the earl offered reassurances that only Queen Henrietta Maria’s French servants would be permitted to attend Catholic services at court. By the time this petition was ready for presentation to the king, Pembroke was apparently out of town, and Lord Keeper Williams was obliged to request in writing that he arrange an audience.243 Ibid. 86, 96, 104. Around the same time, the Commons employed Sir Benjamin Rudyard as a messenger to the earl, asking him in his capacity as lord chamberlain to ban London actors from touring in the provinces, for fear of spreading the plague. Although Rudyard assured the lower House on 22 June that he had never discussed parliamentary matters with the king or Buckingham, he was almost certainly acting as Pembroke’s spokesman when he urged Members that day to avoid disagreements with the crown, and give priority to granting supply. However, he proved unable to persuade the House to contemplate the quantity of subsidies that the government required to fund the war effort.244 Ibid. 322, 359; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 111.

Pembroke spent part of the recess at Windsor, and was no doubt occupied with the court’s transfer to Oxford, though this does not explain his own late arrival there. On 2 Aug. the Commons asked him, as university chancellor, to ensure that the following day’s fast sermon was not preached by Thomas Anyan, an academic against whom Members had petitioned in 1624. However, the matter was resolved by the vice chancellor, probably without Pembroke’s involvement.245 Procs. 1625, pp. 380-1. The earl had definitely reached Oxford by 5 Aug., when he wrote to his uncle, the earl of Leicester, confirming that he had arranged for the latter to be granted leave of absence. He added, gloomily: ‘I beseech you not to think of a journey hither, where all things are in heat, and, I think, will have a sudden and distasteful conclusion.’246 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 359.

In the remaining days of the session, Pembroke was named to two bill committees, concerned with fishing rights off the American coast and enforcement of the recusancy laws. He was also twice appointed to confer with the Commons about some pardons recently granted to Catholics.247 Procs. 1625, pp. 146, 174, 179. However, the key debates in Oxford centred on the worsening military situation, and the urgent need for more money, and on these fronts the earl had little impact. He was nominated to assist Buckingham on 8 Aug. when the duke briefed both Houses on the current state of foreign affairs, but seems not to have spoken during this meeting. In the Commons, his normally loyal lieutenant Coryton actually broke ranks with Pembroke’s other clients, and on 11 Aug. emphatically opposed any further grant of supply. As the earl had predicted, the session ended acrimoniously the next day.248 Ibid. 148; Russell, PEP, 254; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 679.

The 1626 Parliament, and the attack on Buckingham

Following the dissolution, a rumour circulated that the new queen, Henrietta Maria, intended to ally herself with Pembroke against Buckingham. On balance, there was probably no substance to this story, but the collapse of the Parliament without an adequate grant of supply to fund the war effort had left the duke vulnerable and suspicious. Moreover, the lord chamberlain was taking a close interest in negotiations with France, and was no doubt concerned by the duke’s clumsy handling of a loan of English ships to the French government, which caused a temporary stand-off between the two countries. Pembroke at least could see the dangers of England entering into hostilities with Spain and France simultaneously, a scenario which seemed to concern Buckingham rather less.249 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 233; Russell, PEP, 252-3, 266; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 45, 52, 75. Indeed, in Paris it was the duke who was blamed for the worsening relations. In early September the favourite was warned, correctly, that the French government believed Pembroke and Arundel could be persuaded to engineer his fall. While there was almost certainly an element of bluff in this, designed perhaps to destabilize Buckingham, the lord chamberlain did nothing to reduce the mounting tensions between them.250 Cabala (1691), i. 296; PRO 31/3/62, f. 129; Russell, PEP, 263, 266. At the end of the month, while on his way to inspect the fleet at Plymouth, Devon, Pembroke visited the earl of Bristol, still under house arrest in Dorset. When news of this act, a deliberate gesture of support for one of the duke’s most bitter enemies, reached the king, the latter reacted angrily but took no action. Nevertheless, a certain frostiness ensued between Buckingham and the lord chamberlain, who continued to resent the duke’s political dominance.251 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 360, 364-5.

By late October, it was widely known that another government reshuffle was imminent, the principal casualty being Lord Keeper Williams. As ever, there was speculation that Pembroke would finally become lord steward or even lord treasurer, but more acute observers at court, such as the 1st earl of Kellie [S], recognized that this was not now on the cards. The lord chamberlain was no longer held in the same esteem by Charles, while Buckingham was increasingly convinced that Pembroke had stirred up trouble for him during the 1625 Parliament.252 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 57, 59; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 235, 237; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 28. In fact, it was probably only towards the end of the year, as news arrived of the failure of the Cadiz expedition, a major setback in the conflict with Spain, that the earl finally decided to take action against the duke. Little evidence survives, but in mid January, with elections getting underway for a new Parliament, a secret rapprochement took place between Pembroke and the Cornishman Sir John Eliot^‡, hitherto a Buckingham client, but thereafter one of the duke’s fiercest critics in the Commons.253 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 223; SP16/523/77.

It is important to consider what Pembroke hoped to achieve by attacking the favourite. Contemporaries recognised that the impeachment of Buckingham during the 1626 Parliament, one of the pivotal political events of that decade, was driven by court rivalries. As one anonymous diarist subsequently noted, Pembroke and his allies ‘put the lower House upon it’ to question the duke because the latter ‘did obscure them in favour’.254 Procs. 1626, iv. 341. Nevertheless, the lord chamberlain must have understood that the king would never abandon Buckingham completely. At best he was angling for promotion for himself, and a reduction in the duke’s influence, particularly over foreign policy. Pembroke remained firmly committed to the war with Spain. A breach with France, which the duke’s actions seemed to be encouraging, would further reduce any chance of military success against the Habsburgs. In early March 1626, Buckingham was again warned that the French government was secretly communicating with his principal enemies; names were not supplied, but the earl was surely among their number.255 Cabala, i. 231; Russell, PEP, 266.

With Pembroke finally resolved to attack Buckingham, the 1626 parliamentary elections unsurprisingly saw the lord chamberlain’s most ambitious drive yet to get his supporters into the Commons. Most of Pembroke’s regular clients retained their usual seats, with John Thorowgood and William Whitaker returned at Shaftesbury, Sir Thomas Morgan at Wilton, Michael Oldisworth at Old Sarum, Edward Herbert at Downton, and William Price at Cardiff Boroughs. However, as a precaution Thorowgood was also nominated at Derby, which he eventually opted to represent. Pembroke thereupon handed his Shaftesbury seat to Dr Samuel Turner^‡. Similarly, Sir Benjamin Rudyard was elected at both Old Sarum and Grampound, the latter seat eventually being occupied by William Coryton’s Cornish associate Francis Courtney^‡.256 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 56, 87, 117, 439, 449, 453, 573. The earl presented the second Wilton seat to Sir John Evelyn^‡, and presumably also backed the latter’s brother-in-law, Walter Long^‡, in the Wiltshire election. An attempted nomination at Salisbury was rebuffed, but Pembroke apparently secured the remaining Downton burgess-ship for the Privy Council clerk William Trumbull^‡.257 Ibid. ii. 431, 439, 451, 454 Rudyard’s usual place at Portsmouth was taken by his brother-in-law, Sir William Harington, who was now lieutenant governor there. However, Harington was also returned on his own interest at Hertford, which enabled Pembroke to substitute Sir James Fullerton at Portsmouth.258 Ibid. ii. 157; iv. 546.

Pembroke’s client Coryton represented Cornwall in this Parliament. He also placed Sir Clippesby Crewe at Callington, the courtier William Murray^‡ at Fowey, Sir Francis Stewart at Liskeard, and Sir Robert Mansell at Lostwithiel, all on Pembroke’s behalf. Charles Trevanion probably arranged the election of William Carr^‡, a groom of the bedchamber, at St Mawes, and certainly provided seats there and at Tregony for his own kinsmen Sir Henry Carey^* (later 2nd earl of Monmouth) and Thomas Carey^‡, both of whom were critics of Buckingham. Sir James Perrot entered the Commons part-way through the 1626 session, and is likely to have been returned at Camelford, though no record survives.259 Ibid. ii. 46, 51, 53, 55, 61-2, 66, 78, 80. Mansell’s usual seat in Glamorgan was taken by Sir John Stradling. William Herbert and Nicholas Arnold, respectively a kinsman and former ward of Pembroke, were successful in Monmouthshire. Sir Thomas Edmondes was re-elected for Oxford University, at the earl’s request, though the election was disputed; Edmondes’ return was subsequently voided by the Commons, but curiously he nonetheless remained in the House, and even contributed to business. His challenger, surprisingly, was Sir Francis Stewart, who in this respect was evidently not following Pembroke’s instructions.260 Ibid. ii. 269, 325, 517. Elsewhere, Sir William Herbert was elected as usual for Montgomery on his own interest, while Sir John Eliot arranged his own return for St Germans.261 Ibid. ii. 74, 577.

Allowing for other, looser, political alliances, this gave Pembroke at least 28 clients in the Commons, a much higher number than in previous parliaments. This development did not go unnoticed, certainly by Buckingham’s adherent Sir James Bagg^‡ who, astonishingly, persuaded Coryton to reveal some of the planning behind it. Even before the parliamentary writs were issued, John Thorowgood had written to the vice warden instructing him to find seats for Stewart, Mansell, Crewe, Murray, and one other, whose name Bagg forgot. (It was evidently the unexpected election at Lostwithiel of Mansell, who had recently fallen out with Buckingham, which pointed the finger of suspicion at Pembroke, Coryton being warned subsequently by the earl to keep quiet about his involvement). Bagg also identified Turner, Fullerton and Eliot as Pembroke supporters, but failed to grasp the full scale of the electoral campaign. He did, however, observe one other significant fact about the lord chamberlain’s deployment of his followers in the Commons. Writing to Buckingham sometime after 3 Mar. 1626, he noted: ‘the earl of Pembroke … doth appear publicly rather by strangers than by Sir Benjamin Ruther [Rudyard], Sir William Herbert and others of his’. In other words, Pembroke was not using his accustomed spokesmen in the lower House, but was acting through men less closely associated with him in order to disguise the extent of his influence over events. If he was to achieve the promotion that he craved, he could not afford to attack the duke openly.262 SP16/523/77.

This claim is consistent with the parliamentary evidence. Sir William Herbert did indeed maintain a low profile during this Parliament. Rudyard was more visible, but went to almost comical lengths to avoid any suggestion that Pembroke was hostile to Buckingham.263 HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 656; vi. 111. By comparison, Mansell, Stewart, Turner and Eliot played prominent roles in the duke’s impeachment. However, Bagg’s other suspects, Crewe, Murray and Fullerton, ostensibly stayed out of this campaign.264 Ibid. iii. 730; iv. 188-92, 334; v. 248-9, 450; vi. 442-3, 583-4. It is of course possible that they were more active behind the scenes, discreetly lobbying for support on Pembroke’s behalf. The lord chamberlain surely had such a role in mind for Thorowgood, another entirely anonymous Member, given his key role in the electoral planning, and his double nomination for a Commons’ seat. Nevertheless, in order to cover his own tracks, Pembroke assembled a loose coalition of men who were, for the most part, less dependent on his patronage, and therefore less certain to do his bidding. This was a risky strategy. Some of these clients, such as Mansell, Coryton, Turner and Edward Herbert, did prove capable of working together for the common objective of Buckingham’s downfall, but many of them also had their own agendas, which did not necessarily coincide precisely with Pembroke’s. Roughly half of the earl’s electoral nominees are not known to have attacked the duke at all, while a number of others proved unreliable in their timing and targets. Moreover, in a House of nearly 500 Members, this small core of Herbert clients would achieve nothing unless they could persuade a majority of their colleagues to follow their lead. The lord chamberlain had created a blunt instrument, the impact of which was difficult to predict.265 Ibid. vi. 513; Russell, PEP, 16.

In the Lords, Pembroke carefully maintained a façade of business as usual. He achieved his customary attendance level of approximately three-quarters of the sittings, with few extended absences, though he was officially excused ten times. No reasons were recorded, but on 14 June John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare noted: ‘my lord chamberlain surfeits oft, and [is] thereby often absent from the House’.266 Procs. 1626, i. 53, 104, 143, 163, 179, 267, 327, 535, 545, 615; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 331. Pembroke received only five proxies, those of the earls of Bedford, Derby and Huntingdon, Lord Wotton, and Henry Somerset, Lord Herbert.267 Procs. 1626, iv. 11. He made around 40 speeches, and attracted 26 nominations during this session, the first being to the committee for privileges. Pembroke took a close interest in peers’ rights during the Parliament. On 23 Feb. he asked the Lords to order the suspension of a trial which affected the property of William Cavendish^*, 1st earl of Devonshire.268 Ibid. i. 46, 65. In the protracted dispute over whether the earldom of Oxford rightly belonged to Robert de Vere^*, the eventual 19th earl, or Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Pembroke staunchly supported the latter claimant, arguing repeatedly that the de Vere case was invalid. He was named on 4 Apr. to help draft a statement of the Lords’ conclusions, and the next day sent to the king to present this document.269 Ibid. 134, 233, 251, 256. The lord chamberlain chaired the committee for the bill to abolish some aspects of benefit of clergy, on 22 Apr. recommending its rejection. He also reported on 17 Mar. that the bill to reverse a Court of Wards decree concerning Charles Howard^*, 2nd earl of Nottingham should be allowed to sleep.270 Ibid. 120, 173, 295, 300.

The first criticism of Buckingham in the Commons was delivered obliquely by Sir John Eliot on 10 Feb., in a speech calling for redress of grievances before further supply was granted. Eliot probably acted on his own initiative, as he was not backed by other Pembroke clients, and he achieved little beyond alerting the lower House to his personal disaffection with the duke.271 HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 188. Nearly a fortnight passed before the next attack, during which time another contentious issue was debated outside Westminster. The 1625 Parliament had witnessed a sustained assault by the Commons on the outspoken Arminian sympathizer, Richard Montagu^* (later bishop of Norwich). In a deliberate sop to public opinion, Buckingham organized two debates at his London home, the so-called York House Conference, at which Calvinist theologians confronted Montagu and his allies. Pembroke attended these discussions on 11 and 17 Feb., a few days after the state opening of Parliament. By all accounts he was unimpressed by the Montagu camp, and reportedly observed that ‘none returned Arminians thence, save such who repaired thither with the same opinions’. That said, he also objected to some of the more extreme Calvinist positions, such as the doctrine that the elect could not fall from grace however bad their conduct, a view which he considered ‘pernicious’.272 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 86; T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain, vi. 34; J. Davies, Caroline Captivity of the Church, 91-2. Essentially a moderate Calvinist himself, Pembroke was by now using his position as chancellor of Oxford to limit the spread of Arminianism at the university, ably abetted by the Regius professor of divinity, the staunchly Calvinist John Prideaux^† (later bishop of Worcester), whom he twice nominated as vice-chancellor. However, the earl’s theological tastes were broader than this campaign suggests. He employed at least one chaplain, Thomas Lawrence, who was noted for his High Church liturgical leanings, while another of his clerical clients, a long-term rector of Wilton, was Walter Curle^* (later bishop of Winchester), a future lynchpin of the Laudian establishment.273 N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 79, 188; Oxford DNB, xlv. 343; Davies, 19; CCEd. So far as the York House debates were concerned, Pembroke seems to have been less interested in the theological controversy, than in the political implications of the government being seen to side with Montagu, as this would complicate the current negotiations with the United Provinces, where Arminianism had proved particularly divisive. In doctrinal terms, the York House Conference ended inconclusively, but, seen from Pembroke’s perspective, Buckingham’s failure to distance himself from Montagu was highly significant. Once again, the duke had disregarded the diplomatic priorities of the international anti-Habsburg alliance. At the same time, nothing had been done to mollify the Calvinist majority in the Commons, where Buckingham was henceforth seen as a crypto-Arminian. This increased the likelihood of Pembroke’s clients in the lower House drumming up support for their assault on the favourite. While it may be doubted whether even an emphatic Calvinist victory at York House would have deflected the lord chamberlain from his purpose, the actual outcome certainly helped to create conditions which encouraged the duke’s eventual impeachment.274 Tyacke, 76; SP16/25/46.

The first opportunity for an open attack may have come earlier than Pembroke expected. While the York House Conference was underway, the Commons attended to the routine task of assessing newly received petitions of grievance. On 18 Feb. a committee was appointed to examine complaints from merchants whose goods had been confiscated by the French authorities. Four days later, Eliot reported from this committee that Buckingham had exceeded his authority as lord admiral in arresting a French merchant ship, the St Peter, thereby precipitating the trade dispute, and damaging relations between England and France. This argument was relatively weak, but the issue was a convenient means of testing the strength of feeling against Buckingham in the Commons. Moreover, from Pembroke’s perspective, it had the advantage that the lord chamberlain could not directly be linked to it. Over the next few days, a number of the earl’s other clients, such as Coryton, Long and Mansell, supported an inquiry into the St Peter affair, and also demanded an investigation into the Cadiz expedition.275 Procs. 1626, ii. 68; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 680; iv. 189; Russell, PEP, 281. The first move against Buckingham in the Lords was a more subtle affair, a vote on 25 Feb. that beyond this session no peer should hold more than two proxies. The duke currently held 13, and was the obvious target of this decision. Pembroke made a show of neutrality, for when the House divided over the issue he is said to have split his own proxy votes equally between the yeas and noes. The outcome made little practical difference to Buckingham, who simply redistributed his surplus proxies among his allies in the upper House. (Pembroke apparently failed to follow his example.) However, it was a powerful symbolic challenge to the duke’s political dominance in the Lords, and the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain noted that he ‘had one feather plucked from his wing’.276 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 630; Russell, PEP, 286.

In the Commons, early March brought calls from Coryton and Long for the impounding of the St Peter to be adopted as a grievance, and Members decided to summon Buckingham to explain his behaviour. The Lords took offence at this breach of privilege, and Pembroke was appointed on 3 Mar. to help prepare for a conference at which the issue was thrashed out, though his thoughts on this business were incompletely recorded.277 HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 680; v. 157; Procs. 1626, i. 99-100. Three days later, with the king agitating for progress on funding for the war effort, the earl was named to the committee to consider the safety and defence of the kingdom. On 7 Mar., following Archbishop Abbot’s report from this committee, Pembroke opened the ensuing Lords’ debate, augmenting the points already made by the prelate, and specifically proposing the setting out of a new fleet and the provision of financial support for Denmark’s armies. Buckingham promptly endorsed the earl’s comments.278 Procs. 1626, i. 110, 122-3. Pembroke maintained this show of ministerial unity later that day at a conference with the Commons, briefing Members on England’s continental military strategy. According to Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu, he ‘performed his trust very nobly’. If the proxies vote had been a stick with which to beat the duke, this staunch defence of the war effort looked like a carrot, a reminder of how effective Pembroke might be if he was allowed greater influence in government.279 Ibid. i. 125; ii. 219-23.

Nevertheless, in the lower House the pressure on Buckingham was maintained, with Pembroke’s hand gradually becoming more obvious. On 11 Mar. the St Peter inquiry was dropped, having gradually stalled over technicalities. However, a new line of attack was immediately opened up by the earl’s client Dr Turner, who recommended a much broader investigation, to see whether there was substance to the widespread rumours that the duke was responsible for most of the nation’s ills. This novel tactic provided the framework for a new inquiry which led ultimately to Buckingham’s impeachment. Throughout this process, Pembroke’s clients, such as Eliot, Coryton and Edward Herbert were constantly to the fore, driving it forward. Nevertheless, once again there was a dual message, as Coryton in particular promoted the idea that supply might be granted in return for the dismissal of evil councillors.280 HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 680; iv. 189-91, 635; vi. 583.

By the end of the month Charles’s patience had run out, and he made a futile threat to dissolve Parliament if the Commons’ attack on Buckingham was not ended. Pressure was also brought to bear on the Lords, with the arrest of Pembroke’s brother-in-law, the earl of Arundel, ostensibly because the latter’s son, Henry Frederick Howard^*, Lord Maltravers (later 22nd or 15th earl of Arundel), had married a royal cousin without the king’s permission. It was immediately obvious that there was a political dimension to the detention of Arundel, a known critic of Buckingham. However, three weeks passed before Pembroke made his first public comment on the issue, intervening on 5 Apr. to help restart the Lords’ inquiry into whether this arrest constituted a breach of privilege.281 Russell, PEP, 291-2; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 812; Procs. 1626, i. 260.

Meanwhile, the lord chamberlain again put on a show of public unity with the duke. On 30 Mar. he confirmed, during a conference with the Commons, that Buckingham had obstructed the controversial loan of ships to France in 1625.282 Procs. 1626, ii. 403, 410-11. It is probable that, at this juncture, negotiations between the two rivals were proceeding behind the scenes. On 6 Apr. Rudyard commented that the storms in Parliament were now passing over, and that a renewal of the war with Spain was looking like a realistic prospect. Eleven days later, in a striking set-piece in the Commons, Pembroke’s client Sir James Perrot, Buckingham’s follower Sir Robert Harley^‡, and several other senior Members joined forces unexpectedly to urge that the attacks on Arminians be suspended. This was almost certainly a move planned at court. Shortly afterwards, on 20 Apr., the king informed the lower House that Montagu’s writings would be referred to Convocation, and that the government would clamp down on any future publications, Arminian or Calvinist, which tended to stir up doctrinal controversy.283 Russell, PEP, 293-4, 298; Procs. 1626, iii. 9-10; SP16/4/18 [miscalendared as 1625]. Politically, the effect of these interventions was to impose a truce upon the two theological camps, potentially removing a major source of friction within the Commons. Pembroke was not entirely happy about this outcome; according to Rudyard, he did not approve of Charles adopting a neutral stance over Arminianism. Nevertheless, it appears that the earl’s priorities had shifted again. By mid April, Anglo-French relations had improved significantly, and there was once again a realistic chance of renewing the continental war against Spain. On that basis, it was even more important to secure a grant of supply, and the steps taken over Montagu represented an olive branch to the Calvinist majority in the Commons.284 SP16/25/46.

There remained the question of where that left Pembroke’s relationship with Buckingham. As usual, the earl made no public statements around this time which might have revealed his attitude. On 25 Apr. both Rudyard and Coryton appealed to the Commons to vote a more generous level of supply, but simultaneously other clients such as Eliot, Mansell, Edward Herbert and Long were actively encouraging the impeachment process. There was similar confusion on 2 May, the day when the Commons formally resolved to transmit the impeachment charges to the Lords. While Eliot and Long spoke in favour of impeachment, Coryton conspicuously sided with Buckingham’s supporters in a bid to persuade Members to petition the king for reform instead.285 HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 680; iv. 191, 635; v. 158, 248-9; vi. 112; Procs. 1626, iii. 128-30. In Conrad Russell’s opinion, these events show that Pembroke was by now willing to strike a deal with his rival, but was unable to rein in all of his clients in the lower House, many of whom felt too exposed to abandon their attempt to bring down the duke. There may well be some truth in this. The lord chamberlain was certainly reappointed to the council of war on 3 May, while Rudyard added his voice two days later to government appeals for faster progress on the subsidy bill. Conversely, Coryton reverted to stirring up opposition to Buckingham, while proposals by Eliot and Perrot for improving the royal finances were most likely bargaining ploys, intended to maintain pressure on the favourite by encouraging the king to sacrifice him in return for supply.286 Russell, PEP, 301, 304; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 328; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 680; v. 158; vi. 112.

Having said that, it is also possible that Pembroke himself had second thoughts about a reconciliation with Buckingham. The lord chamberlain doubtless expected a truce at court to include his allies. Instead, on 27 Apr. Charles expelled Sir Francis Stewart and some of the duke’s other enemies, notwithstanding Pembroke’s efforts to prevent this.287 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 97-8; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 443. Shortly afterwards, in a bid to distract the Lords from the duke’s impeachment, Charles also levelled treason charges at Pembroke’s friend Bristol, who had now arrived in London with his own litany of complaints against Buckingham. If the lord chamberlain had been intent on maintaining good relations with the favourite, he would surely have distanced himself from Bristol at this juncture. Instead, the latter recruited Pembroke as one of his defence witnesses. On 6 May, quoting a conversation with the late marquess of Hamilton, Pembroke confirmed that Buckingham had taken steps to ensure that Bristol was arrested upon his return from Spain in 1624, for fear that he would disrupt the plans for an anti-Habsburg war. The duke did not attempt to deny this, but publicly criticized Pembroke two days later for revealing the confidential remarks of a man who was no longer alive to give his own version of events. The earl responded by questioning whether Bristol’s offences amounted to treason, as the crown was claiming, and by agreeing that he should be allowed access to official dispatches relevant to his case.288 Procs. 1626, i. 337, 365, 367, 371, 378, 380-2. On 9 May Pembroke chaired the committee which drafted a request for the judges to rule on the highly sensitive issue of whether the king could be called as a witness at Bristol’s forthcoming trial. The lord chamberlain subsequently also examined witnesses for both the prosecution and defence.289 Ibid. 389, 393, 540, 596, 599.

Meanwhile, on 8 May the Commons finally presented the impeachment articles against Buckingham to the Lords. Edward Herbert, assisted by Rudyard, delivered the first three articles, on the duke’s engrossing and purchasing of offices. Five days later, Pembroke himself reported these charges in the upper House. Given that they were precisely the grievances which most affected the earl himself, it is difficult not to sense the relish with which he repeated the complaint that too much power had been placed ‘in an inexperienced, and therefore in an insufficient hand’.290 Russell, PEP, 304; Procs. 1626, i. 410-414. However, having once again presented his own thoughts through the words of his clients, he all but fell silent on the subject of the impeachment, thereafter merely commenting on 17 May on how the articles should be stored, and on 8 June moving for the duke to present his answers.291 Procs. 1626, i. 497, 587. By the latter date the Commons had begun work on a remonstrance against Buckingham, Pembroke’s clients again playing a prominent role in the process.292 HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 680; iv. 635; v. 158; vi. 443. On 15 June Pembroke was one of the peers sent to try and persuade the king to postpone the impending dissolution, but Charles refused to listen. The earl helped to bring the session to a close later that day.293 Procs. 1626, i. 634, 637; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 453.

Pembroke eclipsed, 1626-8

After the Parliament came the reckoning. Buckingham had survived, and although he was not strong enough to end Pembroke’s court career, he did take steps to neutralize him as a potential rival. First, the proposal for a marriage between Montgomery’s heir and the duke’s daughter was revived and brought to a conclusion. In return for promises of a £20,000 dowry, a reluctant Pembroke was persuaded to make over a substantial chunk of his estate to his nephew, Montgomery himself not having enough assets to seal the deal. With this alliance concluded, Pembroke was finally promoted to lord steward, with his brother becoming lord chamberlain. It was even rumoured in the following November that Pembroke would be elevated to the rank of marquess.294 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 123, 132-3, 135; Harl. 383, f. 34; Russell, PEP, 326-7; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 338. However, in real terms these were merely face-saving gestures, which disguised a substantial loss of power on other fronts. Buckingham strengthened his grip over the government by bringing more of his allies onto the Privy Council. He also took steps to smash Pembroke’s local patronage networks. In Cornwall, Coryton and Eliot were removed from the county bench, the former also being dismissed as vice warden and purged from his militia command. Coryton’s replacement was a Buckingham loyalist, John Mohun^‡, while another of the duke’s supporters, John Poulett^‡, took control of local government in Somerset, another county where Pembroke was lord lieutenant.295 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 396; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 512; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 681; v. 339; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 201, 204-5.

The new lord steward was largely excluded from the king’s inner counsels, and lost any influence over foreign policy as the country lurched towards war with France, and a peace with Spain was mooted. There were minor successes, as in September 1626, when he procured Bristol’s release from the Tower, where he had been languishing since the end of the Parliament. However, in early 1627 Pembroke was also obliged to give his public backing to the Forced Loan, an arbitrary tax of which he disapproved.296 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 149, 186; Cust, Forced Loan, 26; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 583; CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 152-3; APC, 1627, p. 194. While he continued to attend court throughout this period, he ceased to have a significant voice there, though he was able to use his local offices to help ameliorate the impact of billeting in Cornwall, Wiltshire and Somerset.297 APC, 1626, p. 446; 1627, pp. 217, 344; Cust, Forced Loan, 126. Not until the end of 1627, with Buckingham once again weakened by the military defeat at the Île de Ré, did Pembroke begin to regain his confidence, in November publicly challenging the duke’s account of the losses suffered during that campaign.298 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 291; Cust, Forced Loan, 75. It is also highly likely that the lord steward was one of the privy councillors who, in January 1628, prevailed on the king to summon another Parliament.299 CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 584; Gardiner, vi. 225-6.

Unsurprisingly, Pembroke’s electoral patronage in 1628 was markedly more restrained than in 1626, with a maximum 13 nominations, and he also encountered some opposition. His secretary John Thorowgood was re-elected at Shaftesbury. Downton returned Edward Herbert, who was this time partnered by Sir Benjamin Rudyard. The earl placed Sir Thomas Morgan at Wilton as usual, after a nomination to Salisbury was rejected. The second Wilton seat went initially to Sir William Herbert, who opted for Montgomeryshire, creating a vacancy which was filled by John Poley^‡, the brother-in-law of Pembroke’s ally Sir Humphrey May. Pembroke successfully nominated Sir Henry Marten^‡ at Oxford University, but was rebuffed when he tried to secure the second burgess-ship for Michael Oldisworth, who instead sat for Old Sarum. At Derby the earl was presumably responsible for the election of Philip Mainwaring^‡, a client of his brother-in-law Arundel. Nicholas Arnold once again sat for Monmouthshire, while Lewis Morgan^‡, Sir Thomas Morgan’s heir, represented Cardiff Boroughs. Sir Robert Mansell retained his seat in Glamorgan, though possibly without Pembroke’s support.300 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 87, 117, 268, 325, 439, 449, 452-3, 571, 573; v. 249. In other words, all the constituencies where the earl was an established patron continued to cooperate, with the exception of Portsmouth, which elected two clients of the local lord lieutenant, Edward Conway, now 1st Viscount Conway. Pembroke may also have helped to arrange the return of his old servant Sir Edward Leech for Derbyshire, through the mediation of his friend the earl of Devonshire. However, in Cornwall John Mohun exploited the duchy’s patronage on behalf of Buckingham’s nominees. Pembroke acquiesced in this, and even summoned the county’s trained bands to attend the shire election, in which Mohun himself was standing. In the event, this show of strength backfired, the two seats going to the earl’s erstwhile clients Eliot and Coryton. The latter subsequently produced evidence of Pembroke’s failed intervention during the Commons’ inquiry into the Cornwall election, but the incriminating letter was ‘suppressed from the public notice of the House by the working of some of his lordship’s friends’.301 Ibid. ii. 47, 86, 157; v. 340; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 332. Sir Francis Stewart’s return for Liskeard was probably due to Coryton, not Pembroke: HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 62.

Pembroke attended barely three-fifths of this session. He missed most of the second half of May through illness, and was also absent for all but one of the last 13 sittings. In all, he was formally excused nine times.302 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 79, 127, 167, 189, 349, 367, 460, 641, 678; APC, 1627-8, p. 439. Curiously, despite the 1626 ruling on proxies, he was recorded as holding three, those of Lord Stanhope of Shelford, the earl of Derby, and the latter’s son, James Stanley^*, Lord Strange (later 7th earl of Derby); however, this may have been only a temporary arrangement, since Stanhope took his seat in April. Pembroke made 45 speeches, but received just 14 appointments. Nominated as usual to the committee for privileges, he opted to side with the crown in the dispute over whether peers could be compelled to testify under oath in court, affirming on 6 May that legal precedents had been produced during a 1627 Star Chamber hearing involving Theophilus Clinton^*, 4th earl of Lincoln.303 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 384. Pembroke was also named to the committee for the bill to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable. With a significant grant of supply now essential to maintain the war effort, he probably prompted Rudyard’s speech in the Commons that same day, urging an end to ‘divisions’ and ‘distractions’ so that Parliament could press on with addressing the dangers facing the country. This was in effect a signal that the lord steward would not be party to any further attacks on Buckingham.304 Ibid. 88; CD 1628, ii. 58-9; Russell, PEP, 342. Pembroke chaired the legislative committee concerning the earl of Devonshire’s estates, reporting the bill with amendments on 9 Apr., and was also named to the committee for the bill to entail certain properties to the earldom of Arundel.305 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 104, 179, 582.

Pembroke seems to have felt out of his depth when faced with the Commons’ preliminary resolutions on the liberties of the subject, calling repeatedly on 9 and 12 Apr. for the judges to advise the upper House on the legal precedents being cited. Although he spoke on 16 Apr. in favour of an ‘accommodation’ with the Commons, he was concerned by the demand for an end to the crown’s practice of detaining people without stating a reason, recognizing this as a challenge to the royal prerogative. On 22 Apr. he accused the lower House of hypocrisy, noting the frequency with which Members demanded the prosecution of people merely suspected of recusancy. Later in the same debate, he joined calls for the Commons’ proposition on arbitrary imprisonment to be modified to allow for the due execution of the prerogative. The next day Pembroke was appointed to help frame the Lords’ formal response to the Commons’ resolutions, which urged the need for a balance to be struck between subjects’ liberties and the royal prerogative.306 Ibid. 182, 205, 207, 244, 313, 321, 323, 333.

The lord steward responded positively to the Commons’ subsequent decision to proceed by means of a Petition of Right, but on 9 May echoed Buckingham in urging the removal of any content likely to offend the king. Three days later Pembroke spoke in favour of the Commons modifying the Petition to bring it in line with the king’s new offer to limit the use of arbitrary detention. He was duly appointed to draft the reasons to be put to the lower House, but the Commons simply took offence at Charles’s decision to intervene in the discussions over the Petition before it had been presented to him.307 Ibid. 401, 403, 412; Russell, PEP, 372. The earl argued on 14 May that a deal with the Commons over the precise wording of the Petition did not equate to a ruling on the legality of arbitrary imprisonment. Nevertheless, as discussions continued in the Lords, he insisted on 17 May that he had never believed that anyone could be detained indefinitely without cause being shown. Even after the Commons rejected the peers’ proposed amendments to the Petition, Pembroke continued to press for a compromise, and was appointed on 23 May to a committee of both Houses to settle these differences. He was absent when the Lords finally resolved to adopt the Petition as it stood, but would presumably have supported this decision.308 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 430, 433, 452, 508, 513. Following the king’s first, unsatisfactory reply to the Petition, both Rudyard in the Commons (6 June) and Pembroke in the Lords (7 June) called upon Charles to give a clearer response. The lord steward was appointed to attend the king both to request this fuller answer, and, on 10 June, to propose that the session be extended. In the event, the prorogation went ahead five days later.309 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 113; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 596, 603, 612.

Final years: political recovery, 1628-30

In July 1628, the government was reshaped again, sparking intense speculation that Pembroke was about to retire from public life, possibly with a dukedom as compensation.310 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 378-9; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 386. Instead, the political landscape was transformed in the following month by Buckingham’s assassination. Pembroke was attending the king at the time, and quickly impressed Charles by his willingness to work with Buckingham’s former clients. Almost overnight, the earl returned to royal favour, emerging as elder statesman of the Privy Council, and once again helping to shape foreign policy. By November, rumour had it that Pembroke would become the new lord admiral, effectively commander-in-chief of the war effort.311 R. Cust, ‘Was there an alternative to the Personal Rule? Chas. I, the Privy Council and the Parliament of 1629’, History, xc. 338; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 46; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 311; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 391; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 406, 408; HMC Skrine, 165. Meanwhile, the lord steward himself saw the death of his hated rival as an opportunity to rebuild relations between Charles and his Parliament. Pembroke’s priority was a successful outcome to the next session, which he saw as the essential precondition for restoring the country’s ‘lost honour’. As ever, he believed that the way to achieve this was to offer concessions to the Commons, to which end the king was persuaded in late November to announce a clampdown on both recusancy and Arminianism, in a bid to end disputes over religion.312 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 391; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 290; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 439.

The 1629 parliamentary session saw Pembroke’s attendance record recover to its customary level of roughly three-quarters, though he was still formally excused three times. He again held the proxy of Lord Stanhope, now earl of Chesterfield, as well as that of Robert Radcliffe^*, 5th earl of Sussex.313 LJ, iv. 3b, 10b, 32b, 36a. With the key political debates all happening in the Commons, there was comparatively little business for the Lords to attend to, and Pembroke received just nine appointments, including his usual nomination to the committee for privileges. During February the upper House heard a privilege claim on behalf of one of his servants, the steward of a Cornish stannary court, but the complaint was eventually adjudged to be malicious.314 Ibid. 6a, 30b, 32b, 39b; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 337, 339.

On 27 Jan. Pembroke moved for the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry to administer the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to Lord Strange’s wife, a prerequisite of the latter’s naturalization by Act of Parliament, and was named two days later to the committee for this measure. Appointed to draft the Lords’ resolution and petition to the king complaining about the precedence claimed over English barons by the holders of Scottish or Irish viscountcies and earldoms, Pembroke was also nominated to help present another petition to the king, requesting relief of the earl of Oxford’s poverty. In addition, he was instructed to consider a proposal for an academy to educate the children of peers and major gentry, an idea promoted by Arundel, but originally one of Buckingham’s projects.315 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 331; LJ, iv. 15b, 25b, 27b, 34b, 39b.

The lord steward helped to deliver one further petition, requesting the king to grant a general fast. He most likely approved of the Commons’ attempt to devise a new religious settlement on Calvinist lines, which certainly received Rudyard’s backing. However, these efforts eventually foundered over the problem of how to avoid the theological guidelines being misinterpreted. Intriguingly, Pembroke was now also working through Sir John Eliot again. On 19 Feb. the earl’s secretary, Michael Oldisworth, wrote to Eliot requesting that he block the progress of a Kent estate bill currently in the lower House, and hinting at some other business which Eliot had been asked to undertake.316 LJ, iv. 14a; Cust, ‘Chas. I, the Privy Council and the Parl. of 1629’, 347-8; J. Forster, Sir John Eliot, ii. 427; H. Hulme, Life of Sir John Eliot, 305-6; CJ, i. 929b.

The recriminations which followed the premature collapse of the session ended any hope of the king ruling in partnership with Parliament for the foreseeable future, but Pembroke, the principal architect of that strategy, emerged largely unscathed from this débâcle. With no further grants of supply, it was impossible to continue with military operations, but the lord steward was at the heart of peace negotiations with both Spain and France. In September 1629 he finally became justice in eyre south of the Trent, the office which Buckingham had once prevented him from securing, while two months later he even reinstated William Coryton as vice warden of the Cornish stannaries.317 CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 93, 128; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 374; Cornw. RO, CY/7241.

Pembroke died suddenly of apoplexy at Baynard’s Castle in April 1630, two days after his fiftieth birthday. During his autopsy it was found that ‘his heart, liver and lungs were all decayed, and one of his kidneys rotten’, testimony to the ‘excessive indulgences’ which Clarendon later attributed to him. Dying intestate, he left debts reportedly in excess of £80,000. His earldom passed to his brother Montgomery. Much mourned at court and in Calvinist circles, his reputation has fallen in subsequent centuries. S.R. Gardiner memorably dubbed him ‘the Hamlet of Charles’s court’, with ‘an intelligence greater than the power of his will’. Certainly he was notable for his political caution and sense of entitlement, but he was also a survivor, principled by the standards of his time, and an indisputably great patron of the arts and literature. He can scarcely have anticipated, when he first helped to introduce Buckingham at court, that his young client would become his greatest rival, a misjudgement from which his career never fully recovered. As Clarendon more generously commented: ‘he was a great lover of his country, and of the religion and justice which he believed could only support it; … and sure never man was planted in a court that was fitter for that soil, or brought better qualities with him to purify that air’.318 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 73-4; Clarendon, i. 73; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 329; Tyacke, 188; Gardiner, vii. 133; Ath. Ox. ii (Fasti), 313.