MANNERS, Francis (c.1578-1632)

Francis Manners was a younger son of John Manners^†, 4th earl of Rutland. After an extensive grand tour he returned to England in time to participate in Essex’s rebellion in February 1601, along with his brothers Roger Manners^*, 5th earl of Rutland, and Sir George Manners^† (subsequently 7th earl of Rutland). Briefly imprisoned, he was also fined 400 marks, which sum was granted to Secretary of State Sir Robert Cecil^* (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury), who was keen to avoid a feud with the Manners family. Consequently, Manners’ great-uncle, Roger Manners^‡, predicted, perhaps correctly, that the fine would be discharged for little or nothing.30 HMC Hatfield, xi. 214; HMC Rutland, i. 374, 377.

Manners’ elder brother, the 5th earl of Rutland, was restored to favour at the accession of James I in 1603. Manners himself was dubbed a knight of the Bath when the infant Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) was created duke of York in January 1605. His first wife, sister-in-law to the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, died the following October, reportedly from smallpox, having failed to produce a male heir. As a consequence, Manners was keen to marry again, especially as none of his brothers had produced children. By October 1608 he was negotiating a match with a wealthy widow, Cecily, sister of Nicholas Tufton^* (subsequently 1st earl of Thanet). In this he was assisted by Suffolk, who persuaded the bride’s father of the advantages of the match, and by Rutland, who agreed to settle additional property on Manners to enable him to offer his prospective bride a larger jointure.31 L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 196-7; HMC Rutland, i. 413-14; PROB 11/163, f. 143.

Manners’ new wife was a recusant. In 1609 she attended a service led by the Jesuit, William Wright. However, her Catholicism is unlikely to have been an impediment to Manners, who, like his brother Sir Oliver Manners^‡, seems to have been converted to the Catholic faith by the Jesuit, John Gerard, sometime before May 1606.32 Chamberlain Letters, i. 625; M. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern Eng. 189; J. Gerard, Autobiog. of an Elizabethan translated P. Caraman, 180, 185-6, 209. Cecily employed as her chaplain the Catholic priest, Richard Broughton. The latter also ministered to Manners, and, after the latter’s death, published a religious history of England in which he described Manners as having been ‘constant in faith and religion’.33 Oxford DNB, vii. 990; CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, p. 315; R. Broughton Ecclesiasticall Historie of Great Britaine (Douai, 1633), sig. †2v. Nevertheless, Manners was apparently not one of the ‘rigid forbearers’ of the established Church, and seems never to have been reluctant to take the oath of allegiance.34 J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), i. 42.

Succession to the earldom and first experience of Parliament, 1612-16

Francis succeeded his elder brother as 6th earl of Rutland in June 1612. The following month the groom of the stole, Thomas Erskine, Viscount Fentoun [S], observed that the new earl was popular at court and that the king and Prince Henry intended to visit his principal seat, Belvoir Castle, in Leicestershire, that summer. Consequently, Rutland was not only obliged to pay for his brother’s lavish funeral, held on 22 July, but also for his royal guests, who arrived on 7 August. In preparing for the latter visit he received gifts from a wide circle of east Midlands dignitaries, including Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, Henry Clinton^*, 2nd earl of Lincoln, Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey) and Charles Willoughby^*, 2nd Lord Willoughby of Parham. In addition, William Compton^*, 2nd Lord Compton (subsequently 1st earl of Northampton) lent plate.35 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 42; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 458; HMC Rutland, ii. 343; iv. 479, 489. The visit was evidently a success; it certainly impressed the Venetian ambassador, who had an audience with the king at Belvoir, and reported that Rutland ‘lives like a sovereign’.36 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 411.

Rutland does not appear to have been politically ambitious and may have been a reluctant courtier; an elegy written after his death by William Davenant suggested that he participated in court life merely out of a sense of duty.37 K. Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment, 91. Nevertheless, in the autumn of 1612 he was involved in welcoming the Elector Palatine on his arrival for his marriage to Princess Elizabeth, and in December he carried the targe (a light shield) at the funeral of Prince Henry, godfather to Rutland’s eldest son.38 HMC Downshire, iii. 391; Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 500; SP14/57/87. In March 1613 Rutland made an impressive appearance at the accession day tilts, in which he employed Shakespeare and Richard Burbage to produce an ‘impresa’, an emblem with a motto, probably for his shield.39 HMC Downshire, iv. 74; HMC Rutland, iv. 494.

In September 1613 Rutland reportedly quarrelled with Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (subsequently 4th earl of Pembroke) and Henry Danvers^*, Lord Danvers (later earl of Danby). The argument with Montgomery was quickly settled by the king, and the second also came to nothing; a report that he and Danvers went abroad to fight a duel was false.40 Chamberlain Letters, i. 474; Egerton Pprs. ed. J.P. Collier (Cam. Soc. xii), 463. Whether Rutland suffered disgrace as a result of these disagreements is unclear. On the one hand he attended the court at Hinchinbrook in October 1613, and Royston in November,41 HMC Rutland, iv. 497. but on the other he was dropped from the list of those invited to participate in the masque to celebrate the marriage of Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset, to the daughter of his friend, Suffolk. Nevertheless, he gave the couple three gilt flagon pots as a wedding present, for which he paid £127 5s., and participated in the New Years’ tilting on 1 Jan. 1614, which cost him over £50.42 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 208, Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 708, n.8, 729; HMC Rutland, iv. 499-500.

When the 1614 Parliament was summoned Rutland’s position as lord lieutenant of Lincolnshire presumably helped his brother, Sir George Manners, secure election for that county; the earl was probably also responsible for the return at Grantham of his brother-in-law, Richard Tufton^‡.43 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 229-30, 233. At the start of the session the king appointed the earl a trier of petitions from Gascony, a largely honorary position which nevertheless affirmed the new peer’s status in the upper House. Rutland was subsequently recorded as having attended 25 of the 29 sittings, 86 per cent of the total. Aside from 7 Apr., when no attendances were recorded, he was only absent for the first three sittings after the Easter recess, from 2-5 May inclusive. He took the oath of allegiance on 11 Apr, and was named to five of the nine committees appointed by the upper House. On 9 May he was instructed to consider a bill regarding an agreement between Sir Francis Fortescue^‡, who had married into the Manners family, and his tenants over copyhold tenures in a Buckinghamshire manor. Rutland was the senior member of the committee and reported the bill with amendments on 14 May. The report was Rutland’s only recorded speech of the 1614 Parliament. The amendments were agreed and the bill was passed by the upper House but the measure never emerged from committee in the Commons.44 LJ, ii. 687a, 691a, 700b; HMC Hastings, iv. 248; Procs. 1614 (Commons), 393; C78/188/9. In the aftermath of the Parliament the king paid another visit to Belvoir in August, and Rutland paid £150 towards the benevolence levied that year.45 HMC Rutland, iv. 501; E351/1950.

In July 1615 some of Rutland’s friends at court protested after Rutland’s cousin, William Cecil^*, 16th Lord Ros, was appointed to carry the sword before the king. Ros was the son of Elizabeth, only child of Edward Manners^†, 3rd earl of Rutland, and this honour, it was claimed, in effect conferred recognition on his right to the Ros barony, which Rutland and his brother, the 5th earl, had always disputed. (Rutland called his own eldest son Lord Ros.) However, James had not, in fact, decided in favour of Cecil, as commoners could also bear the sword.46 Chamberlain Letters, i. 607; HMC Rutland, iv. 497, 499. The dispute over the Ros barony was heard before the commissioners for the office of the earl marshal in January 1616, but was not resolved until the following July, when letters patent were issued declaring Cecil to be the rightful holder. However, it was also decided that there were, in fact, two Ros baronies, one of which had descended with the ownership of Helmsley Castle, in Yorkshire, which Rutland owned. It was therefore resolved that Rutland’s eldest son, ‘according to the laudable custom of England, shall enjoy the said name, title and dignity of Lord Ros of Hamlake, Trusboot and Belvoir in our parliaments and other assemblies’.47 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 16; A. Collins, Procs., Precedents, and Arguments, on Claims and Controversies Concerning Baronies by Writ (1734), 172; CP, xi. 97. In fact, Rutland’s son did not long enjoy the confirmed courtesy title as he died while still a minor in 1620. By then the earl held both Ros baronies, as William, Lord Ros had died childless two years earlier.

The Garter, Villiers and witchcraft, 1616-20

By the summer of 1616 Rutland had received a further addition to his honour, having been made a knight of the Garter the previous April. This had come as a surprise to commentators because, although Rutland was not openly accused of Catholicism at this date, his wife’s recusancy was known and the earl was described as a favourer of Catholics who kept dangerous company.48 Chamberlain Letters, i. 625; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 371. Rutland’s election had the support of the young Prince Charles, who regularly nominated the earl to the Garter between 1612 and 1615.49 R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 127. However, Sir John Holles^* (subsequently 1st earl of Clare), attributed the honour to the new favourite, Sir George Villiers^* (subsequently 1st duke of Buckingham), who became a member of the order at the same time as Rutland. Holles also observed prophetically that Rutland’s daughter Katherine would make a suitable wife for Villiers.50 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 128.

The Villiers family came from Leicestershire, and Rutland, like the 5th earl, was on good terms with Villiers’ stepfather, Sir Thomas Compton, the brother of Lord Compton. It is likely that either Sir George or one of his brothers was the ‘Mr Villiers’ to whom the 5th earl had bequeathed ‘all my hounds for the hare’.51 HMC Rutland, i. 428; iv. 502; PROB 11/120, f. 36v. Nevertheless, Rutland may have viewed the meteoric rise of a man whom he was presumably accustomed to regarding as a social inferior rather warily, especially as the rise entailed the fall of the former favourite Somerset, the son-in-law of Rutland’s friend, Suffolk. Although Rutland was one of the peers who tried Somerset and his wife for murder in May 1616, he signalled his sympathy for the erstwhile favourite by sending him a present of sugared fruits during the proceedings.52 HMC Downshire, v. 509; A. Somerset, Unnatural Murder, 380.

In November 1616 Rutland carried the sword at Prince Charles’s creation as prince of Wales and participated in running at the ring after the ceremony.53 Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 212, 215. The following year he accompanied the king on James’s return to Scotland, in preparation for which journey he had had a wagon embroidered with peacocks, the Manners’ symbol.54 Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 95; HMC Rutland, iv. 511; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 565. A rumour that he was sworn a privy councillor during the journey northward was unfounded.55 SP14/91/22; Holles Letters, 156. In September he attended the marriage of Sir John Villiers^* (subsequently Viscount Purbeck), the brother of Sir George Villiers, by now earl of Buckingham, suggesting that he had overcome any ambivalence he may have felt about the new favourite. He gave the couple three gilt bowls costing £65 15s. 6d.56 HMC Rutland, iv. 511. The following May he stood in for Buckingham at the funeral of Anne of Denmark.57 Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 539.

Rutland’s daughter was a particularly attractive potential wife for Buckingham as there was a good chance that she would become her father’s sole heir. The earl’s first son, Henry, had died in infancy in September 1613, and his second son, Francis, was sickly.58 Nichols, County of Leicester, ii. 49; HMC Rutland, i. 449; iv. 501-2, 507, 510, 519. Moreover, Rutland and his wife seemed incapable of having any more children. By 1618 it was suspected that his family were the victims of witchcraft, although the letter-writer John Chamberlain preferred to attribute the poor health of Francis, Lord Ros to the falling sickness.59 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 293. Accusations were levelled against Margaret Flower, a dissatisfied former servant, who admitted, under examination, to having taken a glove belonging to Henry to her mother Joan, who had bewitched him with the help of her familiar, a cat called Rutterkin. She also confessed to carrying out the same procedure on Henry’s brother, Francis, and to using witchcraft to ensure that the earl and his countess could have no more children. However, when she attempted to employ magic on Rutland’s daughter, ‘Rutterkin whined and cried mew’, whereupon Joan said ‘that Rutterkin had no power over the Lady Katherine to hurt her’. It was nevertheless claimed that Katherine was ‘many times in great danger of life’, suffering ‘extreme maladies and fits’. The two alleged witches, together with Margaret’s sister Philippa, were apprehended around Christmas 1618 and taken to Lincoln gaol, where Joan died before she could be brought to trial; the two sisters were executed at the assizes the following March. The published account of the case describes Rutland as exercising traditional open hospitality, making Belvoir ‘a continual palace of entertainment, and a daily receptacle for all sorts both rich and poor, especially such ancient people as neighboured the same’. However, his generosity may have been exaggerated to emphasize his victimhood.60 Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts of Margaret and Philip Flower (1618), unpag.

In June 1619 it was rumoured that Buckingham would marry Katherine and that the king was promoting the suit, no doubt eager to reward his favourite at no cost to himself.61 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 247. By 20 Aug. it was reported that the negotiations, despite reaching an advanced stage, had been broken off because Katherine refused to conform to the Church of England.62 SP14/110/22. It was subsequently alleged that a further sticking point had been Buckingham’s demand for a £20,000 dowry and £4,000 in land, to be increased to £8,000 in land if Francis, Lord Ros, should die. Rutland was not short of money - he had been expanding his estates - but the scale of Buckingham’s demands may have taken him aback. However, observers generally agreed that religion was the major problem.63 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 293; Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 195. Nevertheless, Rutland and Buckingham remained on cordial terms, and in November the latter passed to the former the office of justice in eyre north of the Trent.

In January 1620 there were renewed reports that Buckingham and Katherine would be married.64 ‘Camden Diary’, 52; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 113; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 284; Add. 72253, f. 90. The following month it was suggested that Buckingham was ready to surrender the mastership of the horse to Rutland in order to forward the match. The latter may have become more willing to acquiesce to Buckingham’s financial demands, particularly after the death in early March of Francis, Lord Ros.65 Add. 72253, f. 93v; Add. 72275, f. 96v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 293. However, the proposed marriage was thrown into jeopardy a few weeks later after Buckingham’s mother kept Katherine with her overnight following a dinner at which her young guest fell ill rather than sending her home with her attendants. As Buckingham also spent that night in his mother’s house, Rutland was furious. When Katherine was brought home the following day he refused her admittance, fearing that her reputation had been compromised, so forcing her to take shelter instead with her great-uncle, Thomas Knyvett^*, Lord Knyvett.66 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 296-7; SP14/113/38; Add. 72253, f. 104v.

Rutland subsequently wrote a furious letter to Buckingham, demanding that he marry Katherine. The earl raged against his daughter for failing to show him ‘any spark of affection’, but said he ‘must preserve her honour’ even if it meant ‘hazard of my life’, and promised she would find him ‘a loving father’ if Buckingham made an honest woman of her. In response, Buckingham broke off the match, claiming he had received the king’s pardon for everything he had done and, not unreasonably, blaming Rutland for having fanned the scandal by his own actions: ‘she never received any blemish in her honour but that which came by your own tongue’.67 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 189-92. Rutland and Buckingham were only prevented from coming to blows by the intervention of Prince Charles.68 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. iii. 357.

The following month Buckingham deliberately snubbed Rutland at the feast of the order of the Garter. However, Katherine finally agreed to receive communion in the established Church, and was converted to Protestantism by the dean of Salisbury, John Williams^* (later archbishop of York). Moreover, Rutland’s anger was assuaged by Sir Lionel Cranfield^* (subsequently 1st earl of Middlesex) and Rutland’s kinsman, Sir Thomas Savage^*, (the future 1st Viscount Savage), both of whom probably also dealt with the practicalities of the marriage settlement. The wedding took place on 16 May, at Lumley House, Savage’s London residence, where Rutland was staying.69 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 301-2; Hacket, i. 41-3; R. Davis, Greatest House at Chelsey, 133; Savage Fortune ed. L. Boothman and R.H. Parker (Suff. Rec. Soc. xlix), p. xxix. Rutland paid his new son-in-law £11,000 in cash, raised from loans and fines for leases, and settled property worth £5,000 on the couple after his death, a substantial sum but less than Buckingham had reportedly demanded.70 Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 198-9; HMC Rutland, iv. 520, 524, 525.

The third Jacobean Parliament and the Spanish match, 1620-3

On being asked in late 1620 for a contribution for the defence of the Palatinate, Rutland responded that he would answer ‘so soon as money cometh out of the country’. However, there is no evidence that he ever paid, suggesting that he was unconcerned for the Protestant cause in Germany.71 SP14/118/59. The fate of the latter nevertheless induced the king to summon another Parliament, which assembled in January 1621. Sir George Manners was re-elected for Lincolnshire, and Rutland secured the return of Sir Clement Cotterell^‡ for Grantham, probably at the behest of Cotterell’s patron, Buckingham. In addition, Rutland, having promised the borough £100 towards the improvement of the local waterways, secured the election for Lincoln of Sir Lewis Watson^† (later 1st Lord Rockingham), who had recently married into the Manners family. Meanwhile, Rutland’s interest in Yorkshire was mobilized by the lord president of the council in the North, the earl’s brother-in-law, Emanuel Scrope^*, 11th Lord Scrope (later earl of Sunderland), on behalf of Secretary of state Sir George Calvert^‡ and Sir Thomas Wentworth^* (subsequently 1st earl of Strafford).72 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 230, 234, 236, 468.

As the senior earl present without high office, Rutland bore the cap of maintenance at the opening of the 1621 Parliament on 30 January.73 CD 1621, v. 425; Coll. of Arms, Heralds VII, p. 737. Before Easter, he is recorded as having attended 34 of the Lords’ 44 sittings, but received no committee appointments and made no recorded speeches. During the Easter recess he attended horse races at Lincoln. He was excused when the session reconvened, on 17 Apr., and missed the first three sittings, but returned to London for the St George’s day feast on the 23rd, and took his seat in the upper House the day after. In total he was marked as present at 70 per cent (30 out of 43) of the sittings between Easter and the summer adjournment. However, he must also have been present on 25 May, when the attendance list fails to record the fact, as he reported a bill and received a committee nomination that day.74 HMC Rutland, iv. 521; LJ, iii. 75a, 138b.

Rutland was appointed to two committees after Easter (out of the 46 or 47 named by the Lords), both for private bills, and was the senior peer on both bodies. The first, on 18 May, was to enable Sir Richard Lumley, who had inherited Lumley Castle in county Durham after the death in 1609 of John Lumley^*, Lord Lumley, to sell land. Rutland had a distant connection with the Lumleys as his kinsman Sir Thomas Savage was married to the niece of Lumley’s wife. He reported the bill as fit to pass on 25 May, on which day he was also named to consider a measure about a manor in Hertfordshire which had been purchased by the London financier, Sir Peter Vanlore; this bill was reported by Robert Devereux*, 3rd earl of Essex, three days later, when Rutland was not recorded as attending.75 LJ, iii. 128b, 132b, 138b, 142a. The earl also secured copies of the impeachment charges against the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon, Viscount St Alban, and of the bill against recusants.76 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/1, pp. 54, 74.

In August 1621 Rutland again entertained the king at Belvoir.77 Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iv. 710. After the session resumed in November, Rutland was recorded as attending 15 of the 24 sittings (63 per cent of the total). In addition, on 20 Nov., although not marked as present, he helped introduce to the House two new viscounts who owed their titles to Buckingham: Sir Thomas Savage’s father-in-law, Thomas Darcy^*, Viscount Colchester (subsequently 1st earl Rivers), and Henry Carey^*, Viscount Rochford (later 1st earl of Dover). Rutland was nominated to two of the 11 committees appointed by the Lords (both legislative), one for regulating the dyeing of silk and the other for preventing the import of tobacco.78 LJ, iii. 162b, 174b, 193b.

In 1623 Rutland was described by the Venetian ambassador as ‘Spanish in his sympathies’ and there can be little doubt that the earl was a supporter of the proposed Spanish Match for Prince Charles.79 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 8. When, in January 1623, it was rumoured that the match was concluded it was reported that Rutland would be sent with a fleet to escort the infanta to England.80 William Whiteway of Dorchester: His Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 50. In fact, at this time, orders were given to prepare a fleet to be commanded by Buckingham, the lord admiral. However, Rutland, fearing that his son-in-law would lose favour if he was absent from James I for any prolonged period, offered to go in his stead.81 Gardiner, iv. 409; Harl. 1581, f. 132.

In reality, the match had not been agreed and, in February 1623, Prince Charles and Buckingham left England incognito in order to conclude it. Rutland wrote to his son-in-law on 10 Mar. describing the match as a ‘blessed work’ before adding that he did not expect Buckingham to return home soon as ‘I make no question but as you have begun so brave a piece of work you will see it finished before you come away’.82 Harl. 1581, f. 127. Six days later, he wrote again warning him of the dangers ‘in a hot country’ of sexual dalliances with prostitutes or ‘ladies of honour’.83 Bodl. Tanner 73, f. 288.

By mid April Rutland had been officially designated as admiral of the fleet that was to be sent to convey his son-in-law, the prince and the infanta back to England.84 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 558. During May and early June Rutland was constantly urged to hasten his departure, to which the earl, who had been reluctant to make any preparations until formally informed of his appointment by the king, responded by claiming the tides were against him, that his apparel had not been taken on board, and that his instructions were inadequate. On 15 May he took his leave of the court after the king, ‘with a loud’ voice, urged his departure as soon as possible, but on the 30th he forwarded a certificate from his captains stating that the winds made it impossible for them to sail.85 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 586, 588-9, 592; SP94/26, f. 251; 94/27, f. 2; Harl. 1580, f. 301; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 33. On 14 June Rutland finally weighed anchor, despite being begged to wait by Sir Francis Cottington^† (subsequently Lord Cottington), who had just returned from Spain with a message from Charles and Buckingham. Cottington’s advice proved to be correct, as messages had to be sent after Rutland and his fleet ordering them back to port.86 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 607, 609-10; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 421.

Rutland received further instructions to depart on 24 July, but he had still not left a month later, causing the Venetian ambassador to report that his departure was ‘constantly announced but never done’. By the end of August the fleet had reached Plymouth, from where they departed for Spain on 2 September. However, by then Rutland’s hopes that Charles and Buckingham had concluded the match had been dashed, and he was obliged to bring home a still single prince, leading the jester, Archie Armstrong, to ridicule the earl and his junior admirals, Henry Parker^*, 14th Lord Morley and Thomas Windsor^*, 6th Lord Windsor (who were also Catholics) for having expended large sums of money in their preparations but having lost any hope of reward.87 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 27, 71, 73; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 102; D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 156. Rutland did, however, receive the gift of a ‘great jewel’ from the king of Spain, in addition to payments totalling £600 from his own monarch. He was also sufficiently proud of his service for it to be mentioned on his tomb, which he built in his own lifetime. However, even had the match proceeded it is unlikely that Rutland would have secured high office, as his long prevarication over his departure, which did not arise from any doubts about the wisdom of the match, indicates that he lacked drive and decisiveness. He may not have all that disappointed, for when, sometime later, he was offered an important office in the household of Henrietta Maria, he turned it down.88 HMC Rutland, ii. 335, iv. 525; Nichols, County of Leicester, ii. 102.

The fourth Jacobean Parliament and the accession of Charles I, 1624-7

The failure of the Spanish Match turned Buckingham and Charles against Spain and in favour of war, necessitating a new Parliament. In the ensuing elections to the Commons Sir George Manners was returned for Grantham, along with Cotterell, while Sir Lewis Watson was re-elected for Lincoln.89 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 234, 235. Shortly after Parliament began, several Catholic peers ceased to attend rather than take the oath of allegiance. This may explain why it was incorrectly reported that Rutland was expelled for refusing to take the ‘oath of supremacy’ [sic].90 Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 73. In fact, Rutland attended 52 of the 93 sittings, 56 per cent of the total, and was entrusted with the proxies of two fellow Catholic peers, Viscount Colchester and William Eure^*, 4th Lord Eure.91 LJ, iii. 212b.

When the Parliament opened on 19 Feb. 1624, Rutland was (aside from the major officeholders) the second most senior earl present. It was probably for this reason that on this occasion he did not carry the cap but the sword.92 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 7. Although frequently in attendance, Rutland was appointed to just five committees during the session, out of the 105 established by the Lords. On three of these committees he was the senior peer named. He reported from one of these committees twice, on 11 May and 22 May, on the subject of the bill to prevent the infanticide of illegitimate babies.93 LJ, iii. 372a, 400b; SR, iv. 1234-5. However, he did not report either of the others, on bills to enfranchise county Durham and to sell a manor in Essex. The first was reported in his absence on 25 May; the second was reported by Rochford two days later, although Rutland was recorded as being in the chamber that day.94 LJ, iii. 402b, 404b, 406b, 410b; Add. 40088, f. 135.

Rutland’s opposition to war with Spain outweighed his allegiance to Buckingham, so consequently he refused to follow his son-in-law’s political lead in the 1624 Parliament. On 22 Mar. the Commons submitted to the upper House a unanimous declaration of their willingness to vote supply to support war with Spain. However, the Lords were forced to admit that, while they approved of the declaration, they themselves were not similarly unanimous, because Rutland had refused to give his assent, although ‘the prince and the lords had laboured him much to the contrary’. Sir Francis Nethersole^‡ suggested that the earl had refused ‘belike upon some promise made to his confessor’. Nevertheless, Buckingham ensured that Rutland was not identified as the dissenting peer in the formal records of the Parliament. Perhaps for the same reason part of the entry in the scribbled book has been obliterated.95 ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 20; SP14/161/36; SP14/161/30; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iii. 149; Add. 40087, f. 104v.

During the Parliament, Rutland visited Cranfield, now earl of Middlesex and lord treasurer.96 HMC Rutland, iv. 526. Like Rutland, Middlesex also opposed war with Spain. However, whereas Middlesex was subsequently impeached by the 1624 Parliament, Rutland was immune from attack, even though his name headed a list of Catholic officeholders presented by the Commons to the Lords on 20 May.97 LJ, iii. 394b. Not only did he suffer no loss of favour, he again entertained the king at Belvoir during the summer.98 Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iv. 394. In the autumn he lobbied Buckingham on Middlesex’s behalf.99 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/CP99.

Rutland signed the proclamation announcing the accession of Charles I on 27 Mar. 1625, and subsequently acted as one of the supporters of the new monarch at the funeral of James I.100 APC, 1625-6, p. 5; Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iv. 1047. In the elections to the 1625 Parliament, he may have supported Sir Nicholas Saunderson^‡, to whom he was connected by marriage, who was returned for Lincolnshire. He must also have assisted Sir George Manners in gaining re-election at Grantham.101 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 230, 234. He attended the first meeting of the Parliament on 17 May, when it was prorogued, and he carried the sword at the start of the session on 18 June.102 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 58. He subsequently attended the sittings of 20 and 22 June, on the latter occasion helping to introduce Oliver St John^*, 1st earl of Bolingbroke, and Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland (who had been the ward of Rutland’s great-uncle Roger Manners). However, when the House was called on 23 June, Rutland was recorded as absent due to ill health. He received a dispensation from attendance three days later and gave his proxy to Buckingham.103 Procs. 1625, pp. 40-1, 45, 591; SO3/8, unfol. (26 June 1625). It is not clear how long the earl’s poor health lasted. On 10 Aug. it was reported that his house was shut up because of the plague, which may explain why he continued to stay away after the session was adjourned to Oxford.104 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 208. In consequence he only attended three of the 31 sittings of the session, 10 per cent of the total, received no committee appointments and made no recorded speeches.

Rutland bore the ‘rod with the dove of clemency’, or dove sceptre, at the coronation of Charles I on 2 Feb. 1626.105 Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. lii; HMC Rutland, i. 476. By then the second Caroline Parliament had been summoned. Rutland may have secured the election of John Wingfield^‡ at Grantham at the behest of his brother-in-law, William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Exeter, but otherwise there is no evidence that he influenced elections to the 1626 Parliament.106 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 234.

Rutland attended 62 of the 81 sittings, 77 per cent of the total. Excused for ‘four or five days’ on 22 Mar., he missed the following two sittings on the 23rd and 24th, but returned to the House on the 28th. He was also excused on the mornings of 1 Apr. and 9 June but on neither occasion did he stay away long.107 Procs. 1626, i. 193, 242, 593. Rutland was entrusted with the proxies of Viscount Colchester, John Roper^*, 3rd Lord Teynham, and Richard Bourke^*, 4th earl of Clanricarde [I] (Viscount Tunbridge and subsequently 1st earl of St Albans in the English peerage). All three were Catholics, and Clanricarde’s wife had been the 5th earl of Rutland’s mother-in-law. They had all originally appointed Buckingham as their representative, but the duke’s proxies were redistributed after 25 Feb., when the upper House limited the number of proxies any lord could hold to two.108 Ibid. iv. 12. This restriction was only due to take effect in future parliaments, but Buckingham sought to gain political advantage by complying with the order immediately.

Rutland again carried the sword at the opening of the Parliament on 6 February. He took the oath of allegiance nine days later.109 Ibid. i. 23, 49. He received only one committee appointment, on 7 Mar., for a measure sponsored by Charles Howard^*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, to reverse a decree in the Court of Wards. He made one recorded speech, on 12 June, when he informed the upper House that one of Colchester’s servants had been arrested in defiance of parliamentary privilege.110 Ibid. 120, 610. Unsurprisingly, when William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (later archbishop of Canterbury), annotated his list of the members of the upper House, in 1626, he marked Rutland as a supporter of Buckingham.111 E. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 168.

On 13 Mar. Rutland’s sister, Elizabeth, Lady Scrope, informed her brother, Sir George Manners, that Rutland and her husband had both been attacked in the Commons for suspected recusancy as part of the assault on Buckingham, but had received assurances of support from the king.112 HMC Rutland, i. 477. At the Commons’ subcommittee of causes of causes on 21 Mar., Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby^‡ argued that Buckingham was responsible for Rutland’s appointment as justice in eyre. He also asserted that the prominence of Catholics like Rutland in the magistracy had led to an increase in recusancy. The subcommittee agreed that Buckingham was responsible for Rutland’s appointment, and, three days later, Sir John Eliot^‡ declared that Rutland’s appointment was an instance of Buckingham’s ‘bringing in popish governors and men ill affected in religion’ into positions of authority in local government. However, this accusation was not included in the final impeachment articles against Buckingham.113 Procs. 1626, ii. 362. Nevertheless, Rutland was included in the lower House’s petition against Catholic officeholders, in which he was said to have ‘affronted all the commissioners of the peace within the North Riding of Yorkshire’ for licensing a Catholic alehouse-keeper at Helmsley and patronising a ‘popish schoolmaster’.114 Ibid. iv. 210. However, the earl retained the king’s favour, attending Charles when the monarch came to address the Parliament on 11 May.115 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 102.

Following the dissolution, Rutland was reportedly offered the office of chamberlain to Henrietta Maria on the dismissal of her French attendants in August 1626. However, he refused, although his wife did become one of the ladies of the queen’s bedchamber.116 Ibid. 136, 139-41; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 520. Rutland paid his Forced Loan assessment of £600 on 28 Nov. 1626.117 E401/1386, rot 35. When he went to Lincolnshire the following January for the initial meeting of the county commission he found major opposition to the Loan. It was said that the county ‘did little better than rebel’ and that the house where the earl and the other commissioners met was nearly pulled down by opponents of the levy. Reports of the tumults seem to have been exaggerated, but there is no doubt that Rutland was faced with almost unanimous opposition. In response Rutland returned to London, where he obtained a revised commission with additional members, including two privy councillors, who accompanied Rutland to Lincolnshire in March. By then the most prominent local opponent of the Loan, Theophilus Clinton alias Fiennes^*, 4th earl of Lincoln, had been imprisoned, ostensibly for refusing to testify under oath. Other opposition was overcome by binding refusers over to answer before the Council and threatening them with impressment.118 R. Cust, Forced Loan, 117-18; Birch, i. 190; C115/107/8541; CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 119, 126; J. Broadway, R. Cust and S.K. Roberts, ‘Additional State Pprs. Domestic for Chas. I from the Docquets of Ld. Kpr. Coventry (1625-40) in the Birmingham City Archives’, Archives, xxxi. 149.

The third Caroline Parliament and Rutland’s last years, 1628-32

When the 1628-9 Parliament was summoned Rutland may have persuaded his brother-in-law, Exeter, to nominate Edward Baeshe^‡, Sir George Manners’ stepson, at Stamford. However, there is no other evidence that he exercised any electoral patronage.119 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 237. Rutland was entrusted with the proxies of Savage, recently made a viscount, and George Talbot^*, 9th earl of Shrewsbury, both of whom were staunch Catholics.120 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 26. Rutland himself attended 65 of the 94 sittings, 69 per cent of the total. Recorded as absent at the call of the House on 22 Mar., this may have been a clerical error, as no cause was recorded and he was marked as present in the attendance list for that day.121 Ibid. 87.

Rutland again carried the sword at the opening of the Parliament, on 17 Mar. 1628, and also when the king came to the upper House on 19 Mar. and 28 April.122 Birch, i. 331; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 67, 354. On 20 Mar. he assisted in the introduction of his kinsman and former deputy lieutenant, Robert Bertie, as earl of Lindsey, and took the oath of allegiance after the House was adjourned.123 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73-4. Rutland was appointed to only three of the 52 committees named by the Lords, one to consider a naturalization measure, the others to annex property to the earldom of Arundel and to suppress unlicensed alehouse-keepers. His only recorded speech was on 20 June, when he reported the naturalization bill as fit to pass.124 Ibid. 582, 678, 680. Rutland was again presented as a recusant officeholder by the Commons.125 CD 1628, iv. 323.

The assassination of Buckingham on 23 Aug. sent Rutland post-haste to London. He had been appointed one of the duke’s executors and, together with his colleagues, soon set about trying to establish the condition of his son-in-law’s estate, although he had returned to Belvoir by 24 September.126 HMC Rutland, iv. 223, 225; J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae ed. J. Jacobs, 252-3; Wills from Doctors Commons ed. J.G. Nichols and J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxxxiii), 91; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 310-11. On 28 Nov. it was reported that the king had decided to exempt Rutland from a purge of Catholic lord lieutenants, but Charles evidently changed his mind and he was replaced by Lindsey on 23 January. This was no doubt done to placate the Commons, Parliament having resumed sitting three days before Lindsey’s appointment.127 Birch, i. 439; Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 86; Sainty, 26. Rutland again received the proxies of Savage and Shrewsbury, attended ten of the 23 sittings of the 1629 session, 43 per cent of the total, and received one committee appointment, namely to deliver a petition to the king for support for the impoverished Robert de Vere*, 19th earl of Oxford.128 LJ, iv. 3a-b; 34b.

In October 1631 Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby, acting on instructions from Viscount Wentworth, who had succeeded Rutland’s brother-in-law as president of the council in the North in 1628, tried to indict Rutland for recusancy at the North Riding quarter sessions, possibly with the intention of forcing the earl to compound. However, the jury refused to convict because the earl had not spent sufficient time at Helmsley to come within their jurisdiction.129 Miscellanea: Recusant Records ed. C. Talbot (Cath. Rec. Soc. liii), 380. Nevertheless, the following January it was reported that Rutland was now going to church.130 Birch, ii. 158. The earl evidently remained part of the Catholic community, despite his outward conformity, for in August 1632 a Catholic letter-writer reported that Rutland wanted Richard Smith, the Catholic bishop of Chalcedon, to return to England.131 Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 129-30.

Rutland was clearly in poor health in late 1632. It was reported on 25 Nov. that he was recovering and that the king had allowed him to come to London for Christmas.132 HMC Rutland, i. 491-2. En route he suffered a near fatal relapse at Bishop’s Stortford in Hertfordshire, and he made his will, ‘sick in body’, on 30 Nov., adding a codicil the following day. On 8 Dec. it was reported that he was again improving, but this alteration was evidently short-lived. By 15 Dec. Rutland’s wife, his daughter, his brother (Sir George Manners, the heir to the earldom) and Viscount Savage had gathered at Rutland’s deathbed in an inn at Bishop’s Stortford. There the earl gave additional instructions, supplementing his will. He gave ‘his best heroner’ and a horse to the king, to whom he sent a message of loyalty, gratitude and service to be delivered by Savage. He also stated that his funeral need not be expensive because he had already constructed a tomb for himself in Bottesford church in Leicestershire, where his ancestors were buried. He died two days later. One commentator blamed his demise on the ministrations of Dr Samuel Turner^‡, who had played a prominent part in the proceedings against Buckingham in 1626, and to whom Rutland bequeathed £200 in his will. However, Dr Matthew Lister, a prominent court physician, also seems to have treated the earl in his final illness. On his deathbed the earl had instructed that his body should be removed from the inn as soon as it was embalmed, but it was not ready to be conveyed to Leicestershire until 13 Jan. 1633 and his funeral did not take place until 20 February.133 C115/105/8200; PROB 11/163, ff. 41-3v.; HMC Rutland, i. 492; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 462; HMC 3rd Rep. 282; Nichols, County of Leicester, ii. 100.

Rutland’s funeral was performed ‘with all due solemnity and state befitting his degree’, costing, despite his hopes, more than £3,500, including over £100 paid to the heralds and 40s. to their servants. The attendants at the funeral testify to the extent of Rutland’s familial and social network. The chief mourner was the new earl, assisted by Mildmay Fane^†, 2nd earl of Westmorland, Montagu Bertie^†, Lord Willoughby de Eresby (subsequently 2nd earl of Lindsey), Rutland’s godson and nephew, Francis Willoughby^†, 4th (CP 5th) Lord Willoughby of Parham, Francis Leak^*, Lord Deincourt (subsequently 1st earl of Scarsdale), and Rutland’s cousin, John Manners^† of Haddon in Derbyshire (subsequently 8th earl of Rutland). Among those who carried his corpse were Rutland’s brother-in-law, Sir Humphrey Tufton^‡, and Sir William Armyne^‡ (who had represented Lincolnshire in the 1626 and 1628 Parliaments). The bearers of bannerols included Sir John Byron^† (subsequently 1st Lord Byron) and Henry Pelham^‡; the great banner was borne by Sir Lewis Watson and the banner of the order of the Garter by Robert Sutton^†, subsequently 1st Lord Lexinton. His steward, treasurer and comptroller all carried their staves of office which they ceremonially broke when the corpse entered the tomb.134 Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 785; HMC Rutland, iv. 528; Coll. of Arms, I.8, f. 36r-v; PROB 11/163, f. 41.

Rutland appointed his brother and widow as his executors, and they proved his will, which gives no indication of the earl’s Catholicism, on 23 January. He gave his regalia of the Garter to his brother, who was instructed to continue ‘housekeeping and hospitality’ at Belvoir for six months after his death, and left £5,000 to his daughter, and as much again to his granddaughter, Lady Mary Villiers. Lord Willoughby of Parham was bequeathed the best horse in Rutland’s stable. The earl’s ‘very loving friend’ the attorney general, William Noye^‡, was given £100. The lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry, and Viscount Savage were made overseers of the will, although, on his deathbed, Rutland instructed Savage to refer matters to Coventry only if he could not arbitrate between his executors himself. Savage and Coventry were each given £100, and the former was forgiven all the debts he owed to Rutland.135 PROB 11/163, ff. 41-3v. Sir George Manners inherited the earldom but died childless in 1641, whereupon it passed to John Manners of Haddon.