LA ZOUCHE, Edward (1556-1625)

Zouche inherited one of the oldest baronies in England. He was descended from Alan La Zouche (d.1190), a younger son from a Breton noble family who married an English heiress. Alan’s grandson, Eudo (d.1279), acquired by marriage the manor of Harringworth in Northamptonshire, which became the family seat. His son, William (d.1352), was summoned to Parliament from 1308, initially as Baron La Zouche, but after 1323 as La Zouche of ‘Haryngworth’.57 CP, xii. pt. 2, pp. 930, 938-40; Oxford DNB, lx. 1006.

Early life, 1556-1603

It is likely that Zouche was fostered in the household of his father’s friend, Sir Edward Montagu^‡ (d.1602) of Boughton, Northamptonshire, as in adulthood he wrote of his ‘bringing up in my tenderest years’ in the home of Montagu’s son, Edward^*, subsequently 1st Lord Montagu.58 Northants RO, PWill/3, f. 221v; C108/226, Zouche’s original will, 14 June 1617. Aged 13 when his father died in June 1569, Zouche subsequently became a ward of the crown. However, his wardship was not sold until 1576, when it was purchased in the name of Thomas Cecil^* (subsequently 1st earl of Exeter).59 CPR, 1575-8, p. 64. This presumably made little difference to Zouche, who, since April 1570, had been in the custody of Cecil’s father, the master of the Court of Wards, William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley.60 CSP Dom. Addenda 1566-79, p. 327. As a result he established an enduring connection with the Cecil family, including Thomas’ younger half-brother, Robert^* (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury). Burghley promptly sent Zouche to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was placed in the care of the master, John Whitgift^† (subsequently archbishop of Canterbury).61 S.R. Maitland, ‘Archbishop Whitgift’s College Pupils’, British Mag. xxxii. 366; T. Whitgift, Works, ed. J. Ayre, iii. 599. Zouche subsequently testified to Whitgift’s care for the religious instruction of his pupils, but lamented neglecting his studies in his youth, arguing that colleges only served to ‘foster idleness’.62 Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata ed. W.P. Baildon, 228; HMC Hatfield, vi. 195; C108/18, Zouche’s draft will, 21 Mar. 1612[/13].

Zouche’s religious faith was probably shaped by both Whitgift and the moderately puritan Montagu family. A deeply committed Calvinist, he espoused the view that ‘whatsoever befall us in this life we may constantly behold our saviour, assuring us in particular that we are of that number of his elect’.63 E.S. Cope, Life of a Public Man, 17; SP14/175/15. His relationship with puritanism was more ambiguous. In his youth he was connected to the puritan minister, Robert Johnson, and agreed with some godly criticisms of the Church, particularly regarding pluralism and non-residence. In the late Elizabethan period he even lived on intimate terms with the leading advocate of presbyterianism, Thomas Cartwright, and sent a young student to study with Laurence Chaderton, the puritan master of Emmanuel College. However, although he felt the established Church placed too much emphasis on outward conformity rather than faith, he did not believe the ceremonies of the Prayer Book to be contrary to the laws of God, and wished that puritans would obey their monarch.64 HMC Hatfield, ii. 332; Cope, 42; P. Seaver, ‘Puritan Preachers and their Patrons’, Religious Pols. in Post-Reformation Eng. ed. K. Fincham and P. Lake, 140. Moreover, despite his connection with Cartwright, he was a respecter of episcopacy. After becoming president of the council in the Marches in 1602, he argued that it would be scandalous if at least one bishop was not always in attendance.65 HMC Hatfield, xii. 463-4. No fewer than three ministers with whom Zouche was connected were sufficiently strong supporters of the established Church to get into trouble with the parliamentarians in the 1640s: his chaplain, John Reading; Jeremiah Stephens (whom he recommended for a living in 1621); and Hannibal Potter, tutor to Zouche’s grandson and ward, Zouche Tate^‡. This suggests that Zouche patronised conformists.66 Ath. Ox. iii. 795; Add. 37818, f. 53v; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 556, 604; Oxford DNB online sub. Stephens, Jeremiah (Jan 2008); Potter, Hannibal (Oct 2006).

Zouche married a distant cousin but had separated from her by 1582. At around the same time his rising debts forced him to start selling his estates. He travelled abroad in the late 1580s and early 1590s seeking, he claimed, to repair the defects of his education in order to fit himself for public service, although it was subsequently alleged that he had fled to avoid paying maintenance to his wife.67 CSP Dom. 1581-90, p. 74; Lansd. 30, f. 129; VCH Warws. vi. 51, 53; HMC Hatfield, iii. 242-3; HMC Portland ix. 83-4. He returned to England in 1593, when he was sent as ambassador extraordinary to Scotland, where he succeeded in antagonizing James VI.68 Warrender Pprs. ed. A.I. Cameron (Scottish Hist. Soc. ser. 3, xix), 43, 227. In 1598, thanks to Robert Cecil, by now secretary of state, Zouche was again sent on a diplomatic mission, this time to Denmark, but the cost involved worsened his finances.69 HMC Hatfield, xii. 156-7.

In 1599 Zouche retired to Guernsey to economise, and became deputy governor there the following year. However, in May 1601, he was summoned home on the grounds that he was ‘an ancient nobleman born to do her Majesty service’, whereupon he was left to kick his heels in London for a further year until he was made lord president of the council in the Marches.70 CSP Dom. 1598-1601, p. 489; Hatfield House, CP183/97. Following this appointment Zouche determined to assert his authority.71 Chamberlain Letters, i. 166; Manningham Diary ed. R.P. Sorlien, 95. His principal target was the quartet of lawyers who, from 1600, attended the council on a permanent basis. Zouche soon clashed with their most senior member, the chief justice of Chester, Sir Richard Lewkenor^‡, over precedence.72 P. Williams, Council in the Marches of Wales, 141, 300; HMC Hatfield, xii. 303-4.

The accession of James I and the defence of the council in the Marches, 1603-6

Zouche may have feared that he would lose office on James VI’s accession to the English throne in 1603. In fact he not only retained the presidency but was also sworn a member of the Privy Council, presumably thanks to Cecil. That July the Spanish ambassador was informed that Zouche was ‘a great heretic and hostile to the peace’ proposed between Spain and England.73 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics I: 1603-12 ed. A.J. Loomie (Cath. Rec. Soc. lxiv), 7.

Zouche was deeply disturbed by the trial in November 1603 of Thomas Grey^†, 15th Lord Grey of Wilton, for participating in the Main Plot. Zouche had been a close friend of Grey’s father, whose first wife had been Zouche’s aunt, and described Grey as his cousin (although Grey was not in fact a blood relation) and as ‘him I loved best in my life’.74 PROB 11/146, f. 293v; Hatfield House, CP98/27; C108/18, Zouche’s draft will, 21 Mar. 1612[/13]. Zouche was probably referring to Grey when he wrote to Cecil on 26 Nov. of the ‘young imp’ who was ‘dearer unto me then any child of mine’.75 Hatfield House, CP107/146. To Zouche’s relief, James reprieved Grey, although he remained confined to the Tower. As late as 1613 Zouche hoped that Grey would be pardoned.76 HMC Hatfield, xv. 337; C108/18, Zouche’s draft will, 21 Mar. 1612[/13].

In the elections to James’s first Parliament in 1604, Zouche exercised patronage as lord president, and thus secured the return for Shrewsbury of Francis Tate^‡, whose brother was Zouche’s son-in-law. Zouche also attended the tumultuous Worcestershire election on 29 February. A Catholic faction had mobilized large numbers to secure the election of a candidate sympathetic to their cause, which no doubt alarmed the fiercely anti-Catholic Zouche. He may have helped persuade Sir Henry Bromley^‡, whose father had been kind to Zouche in his youth, to stand in the Protestant interest. He was probably also responsible for the refusal of the sheriff to grant the Catholic faction’s demand for a poll.77 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 339, 456-7.

Zouche arrived in London on 16 Mar., three days before the session was due to begin. There he met Sir Francis Goodwin^‡, whose wife, Lord Grey’s half-sister, was Zouche’s cousin. Goodwin had been elected for Buckinghamshire after defeating Zouche’s fellow privy councillor, Sir John Fortescue^‡, but his election had been disallowed by the crown office ‘upon outlawries long since procured against him for small matters not followed against him and pardoned by divers pardons’. Zouche promptly wrote to Cecil pleading Goodwin’s cause, arguing that it was down to Parliament, not the crown office, to decide whether Goodwin had been duly elected and, if not, to issue a new writ. In so doing he was perhaps partly motivated by hostility to the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley), who may have been seeking to use the Goodwin case to assert the authority of Chancery over parliamentary elections. Zouche and Ellesmere had recently clashed over judicial patronage in Wales.78 Hatfield House, CP98/27; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 24; A. Thrush, ‘Commons v. Chancery: the 1604 Bucks. Election Dispute Revisited’, PH, xxvi. 305-6.

Zouche was marked as present at 65 of the 71 sittings of the 1604 session, 92 per cent of the total. One of the few that he missed was that of 27 Mar., when he was in Croydon carrying a banner at Whitgift’s funeral.79 J. Strype, Life and Acts of John Whitgift, ii. 508. At the start of the Parliament he was appointed by the king to the largely honorary position of trier of petitions for England, Scotland and Wales, no doubt because he was both a privy councillor and holder of an ancient barony.80 LJ, ii. 263b. Named to 44 of the 70 committees appointed by the upper House, he made no recorded speeches, though it is unlikely that he was silent, as in 1614 he described himself as having ‘been a great talker in former parliaments’. The debates of the upper House in the 1604 session went largely unrecorded and Zouche, as a baron, did not rank highly enough to be called upon to report from committees.81 HMC Hastings, iv. 253. His attendance of the committees to which he was appointed may have varied. He appears to have been present for at least one meeting on the bill concerning tanning, to which committee he was appointed on 4 June, but failed to attend the meeting on 20 June on the bill concerning the rectory of Godmanchester, to which he had been named on 2 June.82 LJ, ii. 311a, 312b; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/3, f. 17; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 146.

As a former ward, Zouche was no doubt interested in the conferences on wardship to which he was appointed on 26 Mar. and 21 May.83 LJ, ii. 266b, 303b. He certainly supported the proposed statutory union of England and Scotland, subsequently writing of his ‘true affection and joy for the reuniting of these kingdoms so long time separated and divided’.84 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 314; C108/18, Zouche’s draft will, 21 Mar. 1612[/13]. On 14 Apr. and 21 Apr. he was named to confer with the Commons about James I’s proposals and, on 3 May, he was appointed to the committee to draft the bill for the Union commission. A week later he was nominated one of commissioners.85 LJ, ii. 277b, 284a, 290b, 296a. He was subsequently instructed to attend conferences with the Commons about the bishop of Bristol’s (John Thornborough^*) controversial tract in support of the Union.86 Ibid. 309a, 332b.

During the session Zouche was named to several legislative committees relating to religion, their subjects including the protection of episcopal incomes, the suppression of Catholic books and the execution of the laws against Jesuits, seminary priests and recusants. He was also instructed to confer with the Commons about ecclesiastical matters more generally.87 Ibid. 279a, 282b, 290a, 301b, 302a, 314a, 324b. On 21 May he was named to the delegation that was sent to the king with the Lords’ recommendation concerning the Abergavenny peerage dispute. This matter probably interested him, as he was apparently on good terms with one of the candidates, Edward Neville^*, who consequently was summoned to Parliament as 8th or 1st Lord Abergavenny. Five days later he was appointed to the committee to check the official record concerning proceedings in the case.88 Ibid. 303b, 307a.

Following the prorogation in July, Zouche was alarmed to receive a letter from the Council demanding that he contribute towards a privy seal loan. Writing to Cecil on the 17th, he complained that, despite selling lands, he was £6,000 in debt and a promised gift from the king, procured by Cecil, had yet to materialize. He nevertheless contributed £200. Later that month he received a grant of crown lands worth £80 per annum.89 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 175; Lansd. 164, f. 516; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 137.

Towards the end of 1604 Zouche became embroiled in a dispute over the powers of the council in the Marches after King’s Bench released one of the council’s prisoners. Zouche protested that the decision was dishonourable to him as president of the council, but a series of hearings before the Privy Council in December 1604 and January 1605 failed to resolve the issue.90 P. Williams, ‘Attack on the Council in the Marches’, Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion (1961), 2; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 122; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 181-2; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 296; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, ii. 44. Zouche was still in London when Parliament was prorogued on 7 Feb., when he helped introduce to the Lords Edward Denny^*, Lord Denny (subsequently earl of Norwich), Grey of Wilton’s first cousin and Thomas Cecil’s son-in-law. He also served as one of the prorogation commissioners.91 LJ, ii. 3491-b.

The dispute over the jurisdiction of the council in the Marches worsened in the course of 1605 as the Westminster lawyers began to question whether the council had any jurisdiction over the English counties on the Welsh border. This was a major threat to that body as fines levied from those counties formed the major part of its revenue. In April Zouche unsuccessfully protested to Robert Cecil, now Viscount Cranborne, that King’s Bench was threatening to imprison the council’s under porter. Zouche argued that subjecting the council to the authority of King’s Bench would render him incapable of serving the king, as he would lose his power to arrest at his discretion. Instead, he would have to act only in accordance with the letter of the law, of which he was ignorant.92 Williams, ‘Attack on the Council in the Marches’, 3, 5; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 209; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 139-40.

Just as Zouche felt his political power was being eroded, his economic position began to improve. He received further grants of crown lands in May 1605, and during that year purchased the manor of Bramshill in Hampshire, which included a small house. Over subsequent years he rebuilt the property, creating ‘a goodly house with orchards and gardens of pleasure’ and created a compact estate in the surrounding area, spending perhaps £50,000 in the process, of which £30,000 may have been lavished on the house. He raised the money by selling Harringworth and the rest of his ancestral lands, in which he had little interest, because, having no sons, he regarded himself as the last of his lineage. He evidently preferred to use a significant part of his property for hunting rather than profit. After his death Chancery estimated the annual value of his lands at over £1,356, but this figure was conditional on ‘his parks being dis-parked’.93 VCH Hants, iv. 36; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 552; L. Stone, ‘Elizabethan Aristocracy –A Restatement’, EcHR n.s. iv. 306-7; C78/298/10; C78/341/9; C54/1848, indenture dated 7 Dec. 1606; C54/1867, indenture dated 10 Dec. 1606; C54/2456/26, 34; HMC Hatfield, iii. 242-3.

Zouche was recorded as attending 73 of the 85 sittings of the second session, which commenced on 5 Nov. 1605, 86 per cent of the total. His longest absence, according to the attendance lists, was between 1 and 8 Feb. 1606 inclusive, during which time he missed five sittings. However, he was named to a committee on 3 Feb., and consequently may not have been absent for the entire period. Zouche held the proxy of Lord Denny, and probably extended his electoral patronage by securing the return of his secretary, Richard Young^‡, for the newly enfranchised borough of Bewdley, which was close to the summer residence of the council in the Marches.94 LJ, ii. 355b, 367b; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 459. He was appointed to 45 of the upper House’s 72 committees but, once again, there is no record that he spoke.

Zouche’s primary interest during this session was to defend the council in the Marches, which came under renewed attack in December 1605, after Parliament adjourned following the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. Many men in the four English border counties resented the large increase in fines, imposed in 1600, which were needed to pay for the council’s four standing lawyers. A petition was presented to the king calling for these counties to be exempted from the council’s jurisdiction.95 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 552; xviii. 26-7; Williams, ‘Attack on the Council in the Marches’, 12-13. Moreover, after the session resumed in the New Year, a bill was preferred in the Commons to abolish the jurisdiction of the council over the English counties. When this measure received its third reading on 10 Mar., Zouche’s secretary Richard Young made a lengthy defence of his master but was unable to obstruct the bill, which was sent to the Lords three days later.96 CJ, i. 265b, 281b, 283b. Zouche himself was named to the committee after the bill received a second reading in the upper House on 3 Apr., and he presumably played an important role in defeating the measure. A new bill was introduced in the Commons on 13 May, but further proceedings were abandoned two days later following a conciliatory speech by the king.97 LJ, ii. 406b; CJ, i. 308b; Bowyer Diary, 164. Other measures concerning Wales or the Marches which Zouche was asked to help consider included bills on Welsh cottons, Chepstow bridge, and weirs on navigable rivers, the latter measure being of particular interest to the city of Hereford.98 LJ, ii. 408b, 410a, 421a; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 172.

Zouche continued to be appointed to committees concerning religion in 1605-6. On 21 Jan. 1606 he was among those named to review the laws for defence of the established faith and was also appointed to attend a conference on the same issue on 3 February.99 LJ, ii. 360b, 367b. Further committee appointments included fresh bills against Catholic books and recusants and a measure concerning church courts.100 Ibid. 380b, 419b, 437a. On 7 Apr. Zouche was instructed to help prepare an answer to the request made by the Commons for a conference on ecclesiastical grievances, and was named to attend the meeting the following day.101 Ibid. 409a, 411a.

Parliamentary sessions of 1606-10

In the aftermath of the session fresh instructions were drawn up for the council in the Marches severely restricting its powers. A furious Zouche resigned, reportedly stating that he would rather face prison than remain in office, although poor health seems to have been the official reason for his departure.102 Williams, ‘Attack on the Council in the Marches’, 4-5; Cal. Wynn Pprs. 68-9; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 88. He remained a privy councillor but was noticeably less assiduous in his attendance in the 1606-7 session than previously, being recorded as attending 83 of the 106 sittings of the upper House, 78 per cent of the total. Between 7 May and 8 June 1606 inclusive he was listed as present for only three of the 17 sittings, although he apparently received two committee appointments in that period. In total he was named to 25 out of 41 committees, but again made no recorded speeches.103 LJ, ii. 514b, 520a. His appointments included a conference with the Commons about the Union and the committee for the bill to abolish the hostile laws.104 Ibid. 453a, 520a. He was also named to consider bills to maintain a preaching minister in Devon, to prevent the enforcement of non-statutory Canons and to confirm an exchange of property between the archdiocese of Canterbury and the crown.105 Ibid. 489a, 503a, 504a.

In 1608 Zouche was appointed to the commission to inquire into abuses in the Navy established on the initiative of Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, who was seeking to undermine the lord admiral, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham. However, it is unlikely that Zouche was an ally of Northampton’s; in December 1605 he had complained that the earl had supported the opponents of the council of the Marches, and Northampton was apparently scornful of Zouche’s sale of his ancestral lands, deriding him as a landless baron. Zouche may therefore not have been disappointed that the commission’s findings failed to produce any effect.106 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 552; J. Stephens, Apology for the Ancient Right and Power of the Bishops to Sit and Vote in Parliaments (1660), 32.

Zouche’s presence was recorded at 82 of the 95 sittings of the fourth session, which began in February 1610. He was also appointed to a committee on 2 July when he was not marked as present in the attendance list.107 LJ, ii. 633a. Unlike previous sessions, the debates of the upper House were recorded, and Zouche is known to have made at least 23 speeches. In addition, he was appointed to 36 of the upper House’s 58 committees. On 19 Feb. Zouche presented the excuses of Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich (subsequently 1st earl of Warwick) and, on 10 Mar., did the same for Lord Abergavenny. On 19 May he was named to consider an estate bill for the latter.108 Ibid. 550b, 595b; Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 190.

The principal business of the session was the Great Contract, intended to restore the solvency of the crown by instituting permanent direct taxation in return for concessions, principally the abolition of wardship. On 14 Feb. Zouche was named to attend the conference at which Salisbury, by now lord treasurer, declared the need for reforming the king’s finances. However, when the Contract was debated in the Lords on 26 Feb., Zouche spoke in favour of wardship, although he acknowledged that he was speaking ‘contrary to the rest of the House’ and did not intend to be obstructive. He paid tribute to the ‘honourable dealing’ he had received from the 1st Lord Burghley when he had been a ward and, sceptical of ‘natural affection’, argued that wards would get better care from the king than from their friends and relatives. He also argued that Parliament should first vote money to the king, and then ‘propose our petitions’.109 LJ, ii. 550b; Procs. 1610, i. 17, 178. On 19 Mar. he moved to inform the king that it was the Commons who had first pressed for the abolition of wardship.110 Procs. 1610, i. 196.

However, Zouche subsequently adopted a more helpful attitude to the question of wardship. On 20 Apr. he argued that Richard Bancroft^*, archbishop of Canterbury, had misunderstood the king when he stated that James was only willing to do away with the profits of feudal tenures, not the tenures themselves, an arrangement which could leave the way for wardship to be reintroduced. Zouche asserted that the king only wanted to keep ‘such tenure reserved as may be for his honour’, a reference, perhaps, to grand serjeanty, which involved the performance of specific duties for the monarch, for instance at the coronation. Other tenures ‘may be departed with, as I conceive his highness is pleased to yield[,] as well as [the] profit’.111 Ibid. 211.

Six days later Zouche argued that, although the king’s financial demands ‘seem great’, the Commons would agree to them if they were fully informed of the reasons.112 Ibid. 217. On 19 July he moved the Lords to ‘devise some course’ for raising the additional revenue which the king was to receive from the Contract. However, when the 1st Lord Petre (John Petre^*) moved to establish a committee the suggestion was not taken up.113 Ibid. 153. On the final day of the session (23 July), Bancroft suddenly sought concessions for the bishops’ loss of wardship revenues, whereupon Zouche argued that ‘this motion it is not proper for this time but for the next session’.114 Ibid. 164.

The debates in 1610 shed further light on Zouche’s religious attitudes. In April, after Richard Parry^*, bishop of St Asaph, objected to the bill to restore Sir John Davies in blood on the grounds that Davies had requested a Catholic priest after being condemned to death, Zouche argued that Davies’ subsequent taking of the oath of allegiance was ‘hopeful of his coming’ to the Church of England.115 Ibid. 206. Later, at the second reading of the bill against pluralism and non-residence, Zouche moved for commitment, despite conceding that the measure contained ‘things not to be granted’. He subsequently defended the bill in grand committee, arguing that no one should ‘commend an evil because of the antiquity’ of it, and that ‘all councils condemn pluralities’. He urged that better ways should be found to reward ministers than granting ‘the worthier men’ multiple benefices. He also criticized clerical standards, suggesting that ‘if inferior ministers did live well’, laymen would be more willing to be generous towards them. Although the bill was rejected, a subcommittee was established to examine alternative means of dealing with the issues it raised, to which Zouche was appointed.116 Ibid. 73, 76, 226, 230; LJ, ii. 587a.

The pluralism and non-residence bill was not the only measure which Zouche thought should be committed, despite its imperfections. In June he made the same motion in respect of the bill against the enforcement of Canons which had not been confirmed by Parliament, although he ‘like[d] not the bill’, as the power of the bishops to create Canons derived from the royal supremacy, which had been established by statute, and consequently all Canons had the authority of Parliament. His motion was successful and he was named to the committee.117 Procs. 1610, i. 102-3; LJ, i. 611a. When the bill against scandalous ministers was first read on 7 July, Zouche opposed George Abbot^*, bishop of London (subsequently archbishop of Canterbury), who moved to cast out the measure, arguing that it was not the custom of the Lords to debate bills at first reading (‘it breaketh our privileges’). This was despite declaring that he ‘dislike[d] the bill’. The measure was given a second reading on 12 July, when Zouche was named to the committee.118 Procs. 1610, i. 128; LJ, i. 641b. Zouche also opposed the bill against swearing when it was debated on 7 July, arguing for the offence ‘to be punished by preaching not by laws’.119 Procs. 1610, i. 248.

In May Zouche was named to consider a private bill concerning allegedly fraudulent conveyances involving an innocent Kentish landowner, Sir Henry Crispe. He subsequently defended the committee from complaints that the text had not been read when it had met. He argued that reading the bill in committee had been needless because it had already been read in the House and because the committee had heard counsel for four hours. He himself protested later that day after further objections were raised at the third reading, arguing that these points had already been answered in committee.120 LJ, i. 586b; Procs. 1610, i. 138, 236-7.

Zouche attended the committee for the bill to separate the parsonages of Deane and Ashe in his new home county, Hampshire, to which he was appointed on 19 May. At the third reading on 23 June, he stated that he was still ‘of the same opinion now as before at the committee’, that the measure was ‘unseasonable’.121 LJ, i. 595b; Procs. 1610, i. 111. On 14 July Zouche criticized the Commons for passing a bill to punish the patentee Sir Stephen Proctor without giving Proctor a hearing.122 Procs. 1610, i. 138. Four days later he expressed alarm at the sudden presentation of a bill to increase the punishments for plotting against the king at a time when the judges attendant on the Lords were away on circuit. He moved for consideration of the measure to be deferred until the next session, but was opposed by Salisbury, who wanted it committed. He was named to a subcommittee to consider the bill on 19 July, which concurred with Zouche’s recommendation.123 Ibid. 151; LJ, ii. 651a, 653a.

Zouche played a much less prominent part in the brief final session held in late 1610. He attended 16 of the 21 sittings, 76 per cent of the total, and was appointed to all but one of the seven committees of the upper House, but made no recorded speeches. Four of his appointments were legislative, including the bill for the administration of the duchy of Cornwall, recently reconstituted for Prince Henry. His other two appointments were to conferences, one concerning the Great Contract and the other, following the failure of the Contract, to make a final attempt to persuade the Commons to vote supply. He attended the final meeting of the Parliament on 9 Feb. 1611, when he was one of the commissioners for dissolving Parliament.124 LJ, ii. 671a, 677a, 678a.

Ill health, and the Addled Parliament, 1611-14

Zouche’s wife died the following spring. Sir John Holles^* (later 1st earl of Clare) alleged that Zouche would have been willing to leave her body to rot rather than be put to the expense of her burial.125 HMC Portland, ix. 84. His wife’s death left Zouche free to marry again, and by early October he had wed the aunt of his friend Montagu. She presumably brought him a substantial dowry as he reportedly rejected an alternative spouse worth £10,000.126 Chamberlain Letters, i. 306.

Following Salisbury’s death in 1612, Zouche was appointed to the commission established to administer the treasury. It was rumoured that Zouche would be appointed lord treasurer, and indeed, he appears to have been promoted as a candidate by Salisbury’s old adherents, especially Zouche’s friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, Sir Julius Caesar^‡, in a bid to stop Northampton obtaining the post. However, in the event neither Zouche nor Northampton was appointed.127 Cal. Wynn Pprs. 94; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 42; SP14/70/36 Add 12504, f. 354. It was subsequently rumoured that Zouche had joined with Abbot, by now archbishop of Canterbury, in opposing Northampton’s attempts to persuade James to grant toleration for Catholics.128 Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xii), 225.

In February 1613 it was suddenly reported that Zouche had died, or that his life was in danger.129 Chamberlain Letters, i. 429. He was certainly in poor health, as he suffered pains in his legs and fainting fits in the first half of the year. He therefore drafted a will in March. Having already provided portions for his daughters, and having no sons, he refused to leave anything to those of his relatives ‘who have fashioned themselves according to their own will and not according to my desire and advice’. The one exception was his cousin, the civil lawyer, Richard Zouche^‡, who was to receive his books. Although he had sold his Northamptonshire lands he still enjoyed a rent charge from the properties, which he intended to use to fund an educational foundation in Edinburgh as an expression of his ‘joy for the reuniting of these kingdoms so long time separated and divided’. He proposed to bequeath Bramshill to Sir Edward Montagu and William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, in trust for Lord Grey, but if Grey was not pardoned they were to sell the property and use the proceeds for charitable purposes. His building work at Bramshill being still unfinished, Montagu and Pembroke were instructed to complete it ‘in such manner and form and in such a model as I have contrived the same’. Montagu was appointed one of the executors and Pembroke, Thomas Cecil (by now 1st earl of Exeter) and Edward Wotton^*, 1st Lord Wotton (whose brother Sir Henry Wotton^‡ had been Zouche’s travelling companion in his youth), were to have been the overseers. In the event, this will was never proved, as Zouche’s health subsequently recovered.130 HMC Montagu, 88-9; C108/18, Zouche’s draft will, 21 Mar. 1612[/13]; Lansd. 161, f. 318; Add. 12497, f. 440.

In January 1614 the Spanish ambassador reported that Zouche and Caesar supported a French marriage for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales). However, the declining prospect of concluding such a match forced James to agree to summon another Parliament the following month.131 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. ci), 112n; A. Thrush, ‘French Marriage and the Origins of the 1614 Parl.’, Crisis of 1614 and the Addled Parl. ed. S. Clucas and R. Davies, 31-2. Zouche was again appointed a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland and was recorded as attending 23 of the 29 sittings, 79 per cent of the total. He was excused by the lord chancellor on 14 Apr. ‘because of an ague’ and missed the next three sittings, returning on the 19th. He was again excused on 7 May when he was apparently suffering from a cold, but returned two days later.132 LJ, ii. 686b, 692a, HMC Hastings, iv. 242, 248. He made at least three speeches and was appointed to six of the nine committees established by the Lords.

As a loyal privy councillor, Zouche opposed the attempts of the Commons to secure a conference to put forward their case against impositions. He argued, on 23 May, that it was not fit for the Lords to meet the Commons and, if they did do so, they should hear the opinion of the judges first ‘for we shall wrong the king, to hear him complained on, and called to the bar before the judges be ready to answer’.133 HMC Hastings, iv. 253; W. Petyt, Jus Parliamentarium, 343. He returned to the same topic the following day, when he argued that, although the Lords should ‘keep correspondency’ with the Commons, it was ‘unfit for us to hear them’, on the grounds that the king’s counsel were members of the Commons and consequently unavailable to advise the Lords on James’s right to impose.134 HMC Hastings, iv. 259. Following the Commons’ complaints about the speech made by Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (subsequently archbishop of York), who had also opposed a conference, Zouche came to the bishop’s defence, declaring that he could not ‘concur’ in having the speech ‘brought in question’.135 Ibid. 269

Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, 1615-20, and elections to the 1621 Parliament

In May 1615 it was widely reported that Zouche would be appointed lord warden of the Cinque Ports, which post had lain vacant since Northampton’s death the year before, even though the king’s favourite, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset, had been discharging the duties of this office, and was reluctant to abandon control. At the same time it was rumoured that Archbishop Abbot’s brother Robert^*, would be made a bishop. George Calvert^‡ at least saw these two reports as evidence that Zouche and the archbishop were now allies.136 Chamberlain Letters, i. 597; HMC Downshire, v. 224; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 71.

Zouche was appointed lord warden in July. The following month it was reported that he was making a ‘show of great diligence’ in his new office.137 Chamberlain Letters, i. 612. He certainly set about dismissing many of the absentee subordinate officeholders who had been appointed by Northampton, replacing them with locals.138 L.L. Peck, Northampton, 44. In September Zouche contributed to the Privy Council debate about calling a new Parliament. He argued that before Parliament met, the king should first enforce the recusancy laws to improve his popularity. He also warned against interference in elections by ‘great men’ and advised that care be taken to ensure that the decision to call Parliament was believed to have been taken by James alone. In addition he endorsed the proposal of William Knollys^*, Lord Knollys (subsequently 1st earl of Banbury), to convert the more remote royal forests to productive use to improve the king’s revenues. However, James refused to call a new Parliament.139 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, v. 202.

Zouche was one of the privy councillors instructed by James the following month to assist the lord chief justice, Sir Edward Coke^‡, investigate the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, in which Somerset was implicated. He concurred with his colleagues in finding sufficient proof to proceed against the favourite.140 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. ii. 334; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 316. Zouche was subsequently a member of the jury which tried Somerset in May 1616, when he affirmed the truth of Coke’s account of the discovery of certain incriminating letters.141 State Trials, ii. 980.

In June 1617, when the king returned to his native country, Zouche sailed to Scotland from Dover and was subsequently added to the Scottish Privy Council.142 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 84. In preparation for the voyage he made a new will. As Grey was now dead, Zouche proposed to bequeath Bramshill and its surrounding properties to Sir Edward Montagu. No longer quite so hostile to his own family, he left some property to his kinsman, the rising courtier, Sir Edward Zouche. He had also abandoned his proposed Edinburgh foundation, possibly for lack of money. Instead he wanted the rent charges from his former Northamptonshire estates to be sold to pay for his bequests. In fact Zouche himself was obliged to sell them in early 1621.143 C108/226, Zouche’s original will, 14 June 1617; C54/2456/26, 34.

In late 1618 it was reported that Zouche would soon become master of the Court of Wards or lord treasurer, but neither rumour proved to be true.144 W.S. Powell, John Pory, microfiche supplement, 48; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 596. Zouche was seriously ill again in March 1619, prompting fresh rumours that he had died.145 Add. 72253, f. 24; Eg. 2584, f. 85. In June 1620 his former servant, Sir Richard Young, informed him that James had allegedly promised his new favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (subsequently 1st duke) of Buckingham, the wardenship of the Cinque Ports. Young concluded that ‘our days are numbered, and no man knows, whose turn is next’.146 SP14/115/73.

Zouche was a supporter of the Bohemian cause, to which he contributed £200 plus a promise of a further £100 a year in 1620. Moreover, he vigorously promoted the collections for that purpose in the Cinque Ports, requiring detailed certificates of contributors and refusers and threatening that, if receipts failed to meet his expectations, he would ‘leave you as men I have no interest in and of little feeling towards’. Young was probably expressing views that he thought acceptable to his erstwhile employer when he wrote to Zouche in September stating that he hoped the Spanish invasion of the Palatinate would result in James aiding his son-in-law. When James levied a benevolence for the defence of the Palatinate the following month, Zouche contributed a further £200.147 SP14/116/97; S.L. Adams, ‘Protestant Cause’ (Oxford Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1973), 298; HMC Hodgkin, 41; Add. 34324, f. 128v. However, by then he was almost crippled with gout, and had to hire a litter to come to London in October.148 Add. 37818, ff. 45v-6, 48v.

The defence of the Palatinate finally forced James, in late 1620, to summon another Parliament. The lord warden of the Cinque Ports traditionally controlled one seat in each of the seven parliamentary boroughs under his jurisdiction, which gave Zouche much more scope for electoral patronage than he had ever enjoyed before. He clearly had no compunction about exploiting the influence of his office, despite having previously expressed opposition to interference in elections by powerful figures. Nevertheless he seems not to have tried to use his patronage to build a body of supporters. He certainly wanted to have servants in the Commons who could keep him informed and defend his interests or the privileges of the Cinque Ports if the need arose, but most of his patronage seems to have been deployed at the request of others.

It is likely that once it was widely known that a new Parliament would be summoned Zouche was overwhelmed by requests for seats. On 9 Nov. Zouche was approached by Sir Ralph Bosvile, a Kentish knight, who seems to have then been rejected. Two days later, he was approached by Lord Wotton on behalf of Sir Ralph Nevinson, another Kentish knight, whom Zouche added to a list of candidates he would nominate if his preferred nominees were elected elsewhere.149 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 191, 192. A letter book kept by his secretary, Edward Nicholas^‡, includes what seems to be a model letter for rejected suitors. Undated and without an addressee, it states that ‘having been moved for more [seats] by many then are in my disposing by such friends as yourself whom I had no power to deny’ the ‘few places of burgess-ship that I have the bestowing of I am engaged for already’.150 Add. 37818, f. 165.

Although Zouche may not have been particularly concerned to wield power in the Commons through his clients, he was keen to assert his rights in the Cinque Ports. Indeed, if anything, he seems to have wished to extend the lord warden’s traditional rights of nomination. A way to do this was offered on 12 Nov., when William Leonard^‡, a former mayor of Dover, wrote to Nicholas seeking Zouche’s nomination for the borough. Traditionally, lord wardens had nominated the lieutenant of Dover Castle for election at Dover, but Leonard assured Nicholas that Dover would elect the lieutenant, Sir Henry Mainwaring^‡, as their own candidate. Leonard’s letter may have alerted Zouche to the possibility of controlling both seats at Dover, by establishing the custom that the borough elect his lieutenant for one seat and his nominee for the other.151 SP14/117/74.

By 28 Nov. Zouche had been persuaded to endorse candidates for the seats reserved for the borough’s own nominees. On that day he wrote letters on behalf of John Angel^‡ to Rye and Sir Peter Heyman^‡ to Hythe; in both he promised the boroughs that acceding to his request would not prejudice their rights in the future and asked them to continue to reserve the other seat for himself. Rye was informed that he had been reluctant to make the nomination, which he had done at the request of Angel’s father, the king’s fishmonger, and the numerous corrections to the rough draft of the letter in Nicholas’ letter book suggest a tortuous composition which may be evidence of Zouche’s hesitancy. Hythe was informed that Zouche would have made Heyman one of his official nominees had he not already made as many promises as he had places to fill. Both Angel and Heyman were subsequently returned.152 G. Wilks, Bars. of the Cinque Ports, and the Parlty. Representation of Hythe, 70-1; E. Suss. RO, RYE 47/96/3; Add. 37818, f. 49r-v.

Zouche was given a further opportunity to extend his influence when, on 6 Dec., the mayor of Winchelsea wrote to him asking him to arbitrate between the three candidates who had put themselves forward for one of the borough’s seats. Four days later, Zouche replied praising all three suitors, even the barrister, Thomas Aynscombe. The king had warned against electing ‘wrangling lawyers’, but Zouche assured the mayor that James ‘forbids not such [lawyers] as are modest and discreet’, suggesting that he was willing to interpret the king’s directions flexibly. Nevertheless, Zouche recommended Sir Thomas Finch, who was subsequently elected.153 SP14/118/9; Add. 37818, f. 51r-v.

By 10 Dec. Zouche’s subordinates in the Cinque Ports were becoming impatient to receive his official nominations.154 SP14/118/21. By then, however, Zouche had become aware that Sir Edward Zouche had promised the king that the lord warden would reserve three seats for candidates nominated by James. On 10 Dec. Zouche wrote to Buckingham, who had instructed Sir Edward in the king’s name to put his proposal into effect. He stated that, although he had always intended to seek the king’s approval for his candidates, he had never thought he would be expected to nominate specific individuals. He added that he would have been willing to nominate the three who had been put forward had he been given sufficient notice, despite not knowing two of them and objecting to the third, Sir Henry Marten^‡, judge of the Admiralty Court. The jurisdiction of the admiralty and the Cinque Ports were often in conflict, and Zouche claimed that the Cinque Ports would ‘take exceptions if I shall name any whom they may not be bold to express their griefs unto and be persuaded to receive assistance by them’. He hoped Buckingham would dissuade the king from putting forward Marten, but did not refuse to nominate him.155 Add. 37818, ff. 51v-2.

With his letter to Buckingham, Zouche enclosed the names of his nominees, divided into two lists. The first consisted of those men whom he had promised to nominate, the second reserve nominees in case any in the first list were elected elsewhere. The first list was headed by Christopher Neville^‡, the younger son of Zouche’s friend, Abergavenny, followed by Sir Guy Palmes^‡, a Rutland knight connected to Zouche’s second wife. They were followed by Sir Robert Hatton^‡, almost certainly included as a favour to Archbishop Abbot, and two courtiers. The first of these was Zouche’s ‘ancient acquaintance’, Emanuel Giffard^‡, the second a former servant of the earl of Exeter, Francis Fetherstonhaugh^‡. The first list ended with the names of two of Zouche’s own servants, Edward Nicholas and Samuel More^‡. The second list was headed by Sir Richard Young and Richard Zouche, followed by two Kentish baronets, Sir William Monyns and Sir Samuel Peyton^‡. It ended with Lord Wotton’s candidate, Sir Roger Nevinson. It should be born in mind that the only surviving copy of Zouche’s lists of candidates is almost certainly not the text sent to Buckingham, but a version kept by Nicholas, who annotated it to indicate the constituency for which each man had been nominated. This must have been done after it was clear that Neville and Palmes would not need a seat. Nevertheless, the names themselves are written in Zouche’s own hand. The first list also includes Sir Edward Zouche, but his name has been deleted. It is not clear what this signifies.156 Ibid.; SP14/118/26; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 536; iv. 251, 362, 593; v. 592.

On 14 Dec. Buckingham replied to Zouche, giving the king’s consent to his nominations. On the same day Christopher Neville was returned for Sussex and, around that time, Sir Guy Palmes was elected for Rutland, enabling Zouche to nominate Young and Richard Zouche in their places. Four days later Zouche sent out his nominations, all of which were returned, although Sir Robert Hatton was subsequently unseated. In all Zouche was remarkably successful in the elections to the third Jacobean Parliament. If the return of his lieutenant, Sir Henry Mainwaring, for Dover is included, he influenced ten of the 14 results. Of course, he had had five years to build up his influence in the boroughs under his jurisdiction, and had fewer distractions at court than most lord wardens in this period, who were usually more prominent political figures. Nevertheless, the outcome is a tribute to his skill in using his patronage and the respect with which he was regarded in the Cinque Ports.157 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 200; 1623-5, p. 493; Add. 37818, f. 52v; Wilks, 69-70; HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 326, 403, 516, 537.

The parliaments of 1621 and 1624

Edward Nicholas kept a detailed diary of proceedings in the Commons during the 1621 Parliament. It seems likely this was for Zouche’s benefit, as at least part of the manuscript is a fair copy.158 Queen’s Coll. Oxf., mss 60, 62. Published as Nicholas, Procs. 1621. When Parliament met in January, Zouche was again appointed one of the triers of petitions for England Scotland and Ireland.159 LJ, iii. 7a. However, poor health soon hindered his participation in the business of Parliament. On 21 Feb. his fellow privy councillor and enthusiast for the Palatinate cause, Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, persuaded the Lords to allow him address the House seated as he was unable to stand. However, there is no evidence that Zouche took advantage of this permission until December.160 Ibid. 25a; LD 1621, p. 104. Five days later, he was excused due to sickness. He did not return to the chamber until 22 March.161 LJ, iii. 29a. Nevertheless, he still attended 23 of the 44 sittings before Easter, 52 per cent of the total. Zouche’s absence meant that the Lords had to dispatch the gentleman usher to him on 3 Mar. with instructions to send orders to the Cinque Ports for apprehending the fugitive monopolist, Sir Giles Mompesson^‡.162 Ibid. 34a; HMC 13th Rep. IV, 159. It was perhaps due to his repeated absences and illness that Zouche made no recorded speeches, and was named to only 13 of the 85 or 86 committees established by the upper House. These included the newly created committee for privileges and committees on fresh measures relating to Welsh cottons and the government of Wales. He was also required to consider a petition from Kentish fishermen concerning a dispute with Christopher Roper^*, 2nd Lord Teynham, which Zouche had previously heard in his capacity as lord warden.163 LJ, iii. 10b, 101b, 102a, 130a; Add. 37818, f. 18.

Despite his illness, Zouche did not neglect his duties as lord warden. On one occasion he wrote to the corporation of Rye advising them to desist from lobbying the Commons until after Easter as there was ‘already such store of businesses in the Parliament’.164 Add. 37818, f. 55v. On 15 Mar. Sir Henry Mainwaring wrote to Zouche informing him of a valuable wreck. He wished the lord warden could see the money salvaged, as this would benefit Zouche more than his doctor’s medicines.165 Life and Works of Sir Henry Mainwaring ed. G.E. Manwaring (Navy Recs. Soc. liv), 82.

Zouche’s attendance improved after the Easter recess. He was recorded as attending 29 of the 43 sittings between the resumption of the session and the summer adjournment, 67 per cent of the total. Indeed, he was so busy that Nicholas noted that his master signed a letter to New Romney on 25 Apr. without reading it ‘because he was in haste going into the Parliament House’. Nevertheless, his attendance continued to be hindered by poor health. On 8 May, when he attended the morning sitting but not the afternoon, he complained to Exeter that he had neither leisure nor the use of his legs, which suggests that he had suffered another attack of gout.166 Add. 37818, f. 63r-v. On 15 Apr. Dover sought Zouche’s support for a bill to re-draw its parish boundaries, but it failed to pass the Commons.167 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 246; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 520. Shortly thereafter Dover and Hythe tried to persuade Zouche to obtain a grant of the Dungeness lighthouse to bring it under the control of the Cinque Ports, but there is no evidence that he made any efforts in that direction.168 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 247.

In June, after the session was adjourned for the summer, it was reported that Zouche would be replaced as lord warden by Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, and that he would be removed from the Privy Council. However, this rumour proved to be unfounded.169 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 260-2. The following month Abbot visited Bramshill, where he accidentally shot and killed one of Zouche’s gamekeepers while hunting. Zouche placed the blame on the keeper and consequently the incident did not mar his friendship with the archbishop.170 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 278.

When Parliament resumed in November, Zouche appears to have been in better health. He attended 22 of the 24 sittings, 92 per cent of the total, and made his only known speech of the Parliament, at the third reading of the monopolies bill on 1 December. He regarded the bill as unsatisfactory, probably because it encroached too far on the prerogative. However, he reminded the Lords that they could not recommit a measure at its third reading. He therefore called for the bill to sleep and for a new measure to be drafted that would deal only with grants already made (the king to be trusted not to grant further monopolies in future). The upper House agreed to reject the bill and establish a committee, which did not include Zouche, in order to draw up a new one.171 LD 1621, p. 104.

In 1623 Zouche fell out with Sir Henry Mainwaring, his lieutenant at Dover, demanding his resignation on 17 March. Zouche made various accusations of misconduct against Mainwaring, but in a letter to Sir Edward Zouche he revealed that the real reason for his anger was that Mainwaring had lied about his appointment to a place in the fleet being prepared to bring Prince Charles and Buckingham from Spain. Mainwaring had told Zouche that he had been appointed against his will, whereas he had actually lobbied for the position. Zouche persuaded Sir Edward, by now knight marshal, to gain the king’s support. It was no doubt as a reward for doing so that Zouche changed his will, as he now bequeathed Bramshill and the surrounding properties to the knight marshal instead of Montagu.172 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 509, 528, 571, 576-7; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 213; Add. 37818, f. 119v; C108/226, Zouche’s original will, 14 June 1617; Eng. Reps. ed. A. Wood Renton et al., xxi. 502.

Zouche did not replace Mainwaring; instead he went to Dover to fulfil the duties of the lieutenant himself.173 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 576-7. As a consequence he was not present on 20 July, when the Privy Council was sworn to uphold the Spanish marriage treaty and set aside the laws against Catholics. It is unlikely that he was displeased at his absence, as he was vehemently opposed to the Spanish Match. Indeed, he subsequently told Godfrey Goodman^*, bishop of Gloucester, that had he known in February 1623 that Prince Charles and Buckingham intended to journey to Spain he would have stopped them at Dover.174 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, i. 403. Zouche’s enemies at court were aware of his hostility to the Match, and wanted the king to summon the lord warden to attend the ceremony, presumably in the hope that he would refuse to take the oath and thereby be disgraced.175 Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 429; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 27.

Although Zouche was absent from the signing, the Spanish ambassadors insisted that he take the oath. Consequently, on 19 Aug. a letter was sent to him accordingly. Zouche replied by expressing his readiness to swear, and declaring that he believed the king could dispense with any human law (though he was confident that James would never command anything contrary to the law of God). Nevertheless, he played for time, seeking a direct written order from the king and copies of the oath and articles of the treaty. By the middle of September he was taking comfort from the reports of the imminent return of Charles and Buckingham, an event which he hoped would render it unnecessary for him to be sworn. However, by the 21st he had to concede that his demands had been met, and promised to take the oath as soon as a Council clerk was sent to tender it to him. He had still not been sworn when Charles and Buckingham returned on 5 Oct., but he was granted no respite, for at about the same time one of the Council’s clerks took his oath.176 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 59-60, 65, 67, 70; Add. 37818, ff. 139-41, 143; Add. 72255, f. 81. To make matters worse, Mainwaring had obtained the support of Charles and Buckingham, who pressed Zouche to reinstate his former lieutenant on their return. Zouche was consequently obliged to rally his allies at court and write lengthy justifications of his behaviour.177 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 100-1, 107, 109, 112-14, 119-20, 122-3.

The revelation that Charles and Buckingham were now adamantly opposed to the Spanish Match ensured that a new Parliament would be called, and Zouche was again lobbied to provide seats for friends and friends of friends. Dru Drury^‡, whose father had been a friend of Zouche, initially solicited a seat for Sir John Corbet^‡. Like Drury, Corbet was a native of Norfolk, but on 10 Dec. Drury informed Zouche that Corbet had instead decided to stand for his county and requested the seat for himself. In the event Drury was returned for Thetford.178 Ibid. 126; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 118. There is less evidence that Zouche interfered in the elections for seats reserved for the boroughs than he had in 1621, possibly because few opportunities arose. He nevertheless remained a successful electoral patron.

Zouche sent out his nominations on 12 Jan. 1624, of which six were the same as those put forward in 1620. However, instead of Giffard, he nominated at Rye one of the sons of Secretary Conway (Edward Conway^*, later 1st Viscount Conway), although he mistakenly identified him as Edward^* (the future 2nd Viscount Conway), who had been assured of a seat at Warwick, rather than his younger brother, Thomas^‡. Zouche was no doubt seeking to shore up his position at court by securing Conway’s support in his continuing conflict with Mainwaring. At Dover his formal nominee was again Young, but he evidently also secured the return of Sir Edward Cecil^* (subsequently Viscount Wimbledon), the younger son of Zouche’s now deceased friend, the earl of Exeter. (When Zouche had amended his will the previous year he had substituted Cecil for Exeter as overseer.) The Dover return was disallowed by the Commons after a challenge by Mainwaring, but Young and Cecil were re-elected. At Sandwich Zouche was presumably responsible for once again nominating Sir Robert Hatton, whose election this time went unchallenged. He may also have been responsible for the return of Francis Drake^‡.179 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 147; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., NR/AEp44; HMC 13th Rep. IV, 162-4; C. Dalton, Life and Times of Gen. Sir Edward Cecil, ii. 55; C108/226, Zouche’s original will, 14 June 1617; HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 517, 538.

Zouche procured a licence excusing his attendance for the forthcoming Parliament due to his ‘indisposition of body’ and appointed Pembroke as his proxy. He was, however, worried that in his absence the rights of the Cinque Ports would come under attack. He requested that Pembroke ‘stand for the preservation of their ancient privileges and for whatsoever may advantage them either in their trade or otherwise’. In addition, on 16 Mar., he wrote to his old colleague from the Overbury investigation, Sir Edward Coke, who had emerged as the leading figure in the late Jacobean Commons, asking him to ‘defend the ancient and long preserved privileges of your old friend’s government [i.e. the Cinque Ports], wherein I know reading hath stored you with many good precedents’.180 Eg. 2552, f. 2r-v; LJ, iii. 214b; SP14/159/18; Add. 37818, ff. 148v-9. The proxy dated 10 Dec. 1622 issued by Zouche to the earl of Southampton, printed in H. Elsyng, Manner of Holding Parls. in Eng. (1768), 135-6, as ‘the form of the proxy at this day’, must be an invention of Elsyng’s, as there was no prospect of a Parliament being summoned at that date.

During the session, Zouche complained of the ‘small acquaintance I have left in the House of Commons’, but in fact Richard Zouche and Sir Richard Young kept him regularly informed by letter of events in the lower House. Moreover, Edward Nicholas, who had been re-elected on Zouche’s nomination, continued to keep a detailed diary of events in the Commons, presumably for Zouche’s benefit. So too, perhaps, did Samuel More, though his account has not survived. On 14 Apr. Young, excusing the imperfections in his own account of recent events, informed Zouche that ‘your diligent servants will, and may supply my wants for they are constant waiters and faithful registers of the actions and passages of the House’. On 31 May the lord warden was referred by Richard Zouche to More and Nicholas ‘for a more exact relation’ of the ending to the Parliament.181 Add. 37818, f. 149; SP14/162/51; 14/165/70; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 192, 198, 200-1, 209, 213, 215, 237, 257, 262; ‘Nicholas 1624’.

Retirement and death, 1624-5

Shortly before the 1624 Parliament assembled, Zouche was in negotiations with Ludovic Stuart^*, duke of Richmond, and Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, to sell the wardenship of the Cinque Ports. However, Richmond died suddenly on 16 Feb., while Dorset, who survived only a few weeks longer, may have had difficulty reaching Zouche’s asking price.182 SP14/159/49; Procs. 1626, i. 569. Six weeks into the Parliament it became apparent that Middlesex, who was master of the Wards as well as lord treasurer, was in serious political trouble. Although he had not yet managed to find a buyer for the lord wardenship, Zouche seems to have put out feelers about securing the former post should Middlesex fall, for on 14 Apr. Young told him that he had been told ‘by an inward man, that it is already bestowed’.183 SP14/162/51. It soon transpired that Young’s information might be incorrect, though, for by the end of the following month it was rumoured that Zouche would be appointed master of the Wards in return for relinquishing the wardenship to Buckingham. It took some while for terms to be agreed, as it was not until mid July that Zouche agreed to transfer his office to Buckingham. His price was £1,000 in cash and an annual income of £500, the terms he had agreed with Richmond before the latter’s death.184 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 256-7, 304; Procs. 1626, i. 570. Even so, there followed several months of wrangling about the security that Buckingham would provide for fulfilling his side of the bargain, during which time Zouche rejected the offer of an additional lump sum in lieu of annual income. Zouche finally obtained security for the income on 25 Nov., by which time, or shortly after, he must have received the £1,000, as he surrendered the wardenship on 4 December.185 Add. 37818, ff. 155v, CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 344, 349, 353. 369; SP14/173/49; 14/173/113; C54/2608/4-5; Procs. 1626, i. 465.

Shortly after the 1624 Parliament was adjourned, Zouche found himself in trouble for having failed to give the king a customary New Year’s gift.186 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE1665. He received a letter from his proxy Pembroke, the lord chamberlain, with instructions from James to send his gift. Zouche replied on 13 June complaining that ‘it was long after the date before your lordship’s letter came to my hands’, and stating that he had never given a New Year’s gift, either to Elizabeth or James, because he ‘thought it had been a thing only pressed by officers and not esteemed by his Majesty’. He claimed to have told Pembroke’s predecessor, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, that he would only give if he heard that the king told him to do so, and he had heard nothing. Nevertheless, he sent his gift for the previous year and promised to give subsequently.187 Add. 37818, ff. 150v-1.

Zouche was again licensed to be absent when Charles I called his first Parliament in 1625, and once more appointed Pembroke as his proxy.188 Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 591. No longer lord warden, he made no discernible impact on the elections to the Commons. He died at Bramshill on 18 Aug., and was buried the following day in the local parish church of Eversley.189 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 87; Mins. of the Evidence, 100. It was subsequently reported that, shortly before his death, Zouche drank three healths, namely to the king, queen and Buckingham. The last of these toasts was presumably satirical, and intended to suggest that the favourite enjoyed regal power.190 Procs. 1626, iv. 348. His will was proved by Sir Edward Zouche on 20 September.191 PROB 11/146, f. 294r-v. Chancery subsequently estimated his personal estate at £4,000 and his debts at double that amount.192 C78/341/9. Contrary to his expectation, Zouche’s barony did not die with him; it fell into abeyance for nearly two centuries, until it was successfully claimed in 1815 by Sir Cecil Bisshop bt.^†, a descendant of one of his daughters.193 CP, xii. pt. 2, p. 954.