PARKER, William (1575-1622)

The eldest son of the 12th Lord Morley, William Parker had an uncertain claim to a more recent barony via his mother, the daughter and sole heir of William Stanley^†, 3rd Lord Monteagle. The latter was the grandson of Sir Edward Stanley^† (a younger son of Thomas Stanley^†, 1st earl of Derby) created Lord Monteagle or Mounteagle in May 1514 in reward for his services at the battle of Flodden. However, there is no evidence that a patent was issued; certainly none was enrolled, so there was nothing to determine whether the title could descend through the female line.20 CP, ix. 114, app. (F), 44. Parker was nonetheless described as Monteagle when he was admitted to Gray’s Inn in 1593, and frequently thereafter, in both official and unofficial documents. However, he was not summoned to Parliament in 1597 or 1601, despite coming of age in 1596. In large part this was probably because he was widely known to be Catholic, though Catholicism in itself was theoretically no bar to membership of the Lords. In 1601, though, he was also tainted by his participation in the recent rising of Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex.21 CPR, 1595-6 ed. S.R. Neal and C. Leighton (L. and I. Soc. cccxvii), 98; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 101.

Following the failure of Essex’s rising Parker, together with his brother-in-law Francis Tresham and Robert Catesby (both former supporters of Essex and both Catholics) sent Thomas Wintour to Spain with a proposal to recruit disaffected former supporters of the earl for a Spanish-backed conspiracy against the Elizabethan regime. However, Elizabeth died before this scheme came to fruition. Following the accession of James I in March 1603, Parker informed his co-conspirators that he was abandoning plotting.22 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 263; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 512-13. A Catholic tract stated that Parker proclaimed James I at the Tower of London ‘without any further warrant than the right, and justice of your [i.e. the new king’s] title’.23 Petition Apologeticall, Presented to the Kinges Most Excellent Majesty, by the lay Catholikes of England in July Last (1604), 8.

Parker undoubtedly hoped he would be summoned to the Parliament that was expected to meet imminently after James’s accession. To this end, perhaps, he secured an interview with the king, during the course of which the question of his faith arose. It is likely that James made it clear to Parker that acceptance of his claim to the peerage was conditional on his disavowal of Catholicism, just as he insisted that Henry Howard^* (subsequently earl of Northampton) conform to the Church of England before admitting him to the Privy Council. In an undated letter to the king, Parker stated that James, ‘admonishing me heretofore, to seek resolution in matter of religion’, had prompted prolonged soul searching, with ‘prayer … long, careful and diligent reading, and conference with learned men … and unpartial [sic] examination of their proofs and arguments’. As a result of this period of reflection, Parker declared that he had come to see the error of his ways, which he blamed on his upbringing, and now rejected Catholicism.24 Add. 19402, f. 146r-v. However, Parker’s letter contained no positive statement of faith and no affirmation of the doctrines of the Church of England. It is likely that he therefore remained, as the Jesuit, Oswald Tesimond, observed, ‘a Catholic according to his innermost convictions’. His wife certainly remained Catholic, bringing up her children as such and assisting priests, presumably with the acquiescence of her husband. Moreover, ‘after much ado’, Parker agreed to allow one of his daughters to become a nun, ‘in respect that she was crooked and therefore not so fit for the world’. The latter excuse should not disguise the fact that he agreed to pay £1,000 to the convent for her admittance.25 Gunpowder Plot: The Narrative of Oswald Tesimond alias Greenway, ed. F.S. Edwards, 115; A. Hamilton, Chron. of the English Augustinian Canonesses Regular of the Lateran, ii. 37-8.

Parker’s outward disavowal of Catholicism no doubt paved the way for the formal acceptance of his claim to the Monteagle barony at the end of May. In a letter to the lord keeper, Thomas Egerton^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Brackley), James indicated that he accepted Parker’s claim on the (erroneous) grounds that the peerage was a barony by writ. That is to say, it was stated that Sir Edward Stanley was created a baron by being summoned to the 1515 Parliament. His actual creation the previous year was either unknown or ignored.26 Bodl., Rawl. D892, f. 330. The following month James ordered the cancellation of the security Parker had given for payment of the fine imposed upon him for taking part in the Essex rebellion.27 SO3/2, p. 29.

Having been accepted as a peer, Monteagle was naturally summoned to the first Jacobean Parliament. Recorded as attending 50 of the 71 sittings of the 1604 session, 70 per cent of the total, he was particularly assiduous in the early weeks of the Parliament, missing only four of the first 30 sittings. He was subsequently absent more frequently; indeed, he missed the last five sittings. At some point, probably in mid May, he received the proxy of the recusant peer, Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu, who was committed to the Fleet on 26 June following his outspoken defence of his faith at the third reading of the bill for better executing the laws against Catholics.28 LJ, ii. 263b.

Monteagle was named to 23 of the 70 committees appointed by the upper House. In April he was twice instructed to confer with the Commons about the king’s proposals to unite England and Scotland. The following month he was nominated a commissioner for the Union and was named to confer with the Commons about the controversial book by the bishop of Bristol (John Thornborough^*) in favour of James’s proposal.29 Ibid. 577b, 284a, 296a, 309a. His 16 legislative appointments included bills to prevent the import of Catholic books and the anti-Catholic measure which prompted Montagu’s outburst. Monteagle was also named to consider bills for the benefit of a number of individual Catholics: the measure to restore Charles Paget in blood, and estate bills for the interrelated Jernegan and Throckmorton families.30 Ibid. 267b, 275a, 292b.

Monteagle was among those lords sent to the king in April to deliver the upper House’s verdict on the Abergavenny peerage dispute.31 Ibid. 283a. On two occasions privilege was demanded for Monteagle’s servants. On the latter occasion Monteagle himself was absent and the complaint was made by Thomas Gerard^*, 1st Lord Gerard, who, like Monteagle, had been an adherent of the 2nd earl of Essex.32 Ibid. 296a, 315a. He made no recorded speeches.

The Gunpowder Plot and its aftermath, 1605-6

By the summer of 1605 Monteagle had become disillusioned with the Jacobean regime. Like many English Catholics, he had evidently hoped that the new king would extend religious toleration to his Catholic subjects, only to discover that James had no intention of doing so. In July he met the Jesuit, Henry Garnett, at a house in Essex in the hope of securing a colonelcy in the Spanish army in the Netherlands with Garnett’s assistance. While there he participated in discussions concerning the condition of England’s Catholics with Catesby and his brother-in-law Tresham, telling Garnett that James was ‘odious to all sorts’. It is possible that Catesby wanted to recruit Monteagle to the Gunpowder Plot conspiracy. Monteagle was certainly present, although ‘standing afar off’, when Catesby discussed with Garnett the legitimacy of killing innocent victims. Moreover, Catesby told Garnett that he sought ‘to enter into new familiarity with this lord’ [i.e. Monteagle]. However, Monteagle hoped that Spanish protection would ease the plight of English Catholics. This may have convinced Catesby that Monteagle had no wish to resume plotting, and that it would therefore be dangerous to inform him of the conspiracy.33 S.R. Gardiner, ‘Two Declarations of Garnet Relating to the Gunpowder Plot’, EHR, iii. 511-13.

On 3 Oct. 1605 Monteagle attended the prorogation meeting of Parliament, and was accompanied by Thomas Wintour, one of the Gunpowder plotters.34 LJ, ii. 351a; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 254. On 26 Oct. Wintour told his fellow conspirators that Monteagle had recently visited Prince Henry to kiss hands at Richmond and learned that the prince would not be present when Parliament reopened on 5 November.35 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 510. As Wintour was conveying this information, Monteagle received an anonymous letter, passed to a servant in the street, while he was having dinner. Monteagle ordered it to be read out by one of his attendants only to find that it contained a warning to absent himself from the forthcoming Parliament because ‘they shall receive a terrible blow … and yet they shall not see who hurts them’. It has generally been believed, both then and since, that this letter came from Monteagle’s brother-in-law, Tresham. Inducted into the Plot 12 days earlier, Tresham was so alarmed that he tried to persuade the conspirators to abandon their plans. It has also been suggested that he had already revealed the existence of the Plot to Monteagle, and that he and Monteagle concocted the letter in an attempt to persuade their friends to abort their plans. Certainly the other plotters were informed of the delivery of the letter the following day, and also that Monteagle had taken it to the authorities.36 M. Nicholls, Investigating the Gunpowder Plot, 6-7, 214; State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, ii. 195; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 254; S.R. Gardiner, What Gunpowder Plot Was, 124, 42.

Monteagle later claimed that he did not know initially what to make of the letter, and thought it might simply be an attempt by his enemies to frighten him off from attending the Lords. However, well aware ‘how much danger there might be in hiding or ignoring it’ - he would be guilty of misprision of treason if the warning proved genuine - he immediately showed it to Secretary of State Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury. His principal concern at this stage seems to have been the fear of bothering an important and busy man with what might turn out to be nonsense, and he entreated Salisbury that he would not be ‘taxed’ with ‘humour or levity for his discovery howsoever the matter should prove hereafter’. Salisbury, however, took the letter sufficiently seriously to show it to the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, who observed that there were ‘diverse houses and rooms near adjoining the chamber of Parliament’ which had never been inspected. On 4 Nov. Suffolk made a tour accompanied by Monteagle, where they found a cellar containing a large amount of fuel. Monteagle’s suspicions were aroused when he was informed that the cellar had been rented by Thomas Percy, a gentleman pensioner and kinsman of Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland. He informed Suffolk that Percy was an old friend of his but ‘never had so much of an inkling’ that he kept a household in the vicinity of the palace, the only reason he might wish to store fuel there. Monteagle therefore suspected that it was Percy who had sent him the letter. A further search revealed gunpowder and Guy Fawkes.37 State Trials, ii. 195; Gunpowder Plot: The Narrative of Oswald Tesimond alias Greenway, 115-16; SP14/216/129.

Monteagle was present when the session started on 5 November. He was recorded as present at a further 36 sittings during the session, 44 per cent of the total, and was named to 21 of the 72 committees created by the upper House, seven of them ostensibly in absentia. On 25 Jan. 1606 he was instructed to consider the motion of Thomas Cecil^*, 1st earl of Exeter, for there to be ‘extraordinary proceedings and punishments’ meted out to the surviving plotters. Nine days later, he was appointed, apparently in his absence, to help consider the bill to attaint the conspirators and to confer with the Commons about strengthening the laws protecting Protestantism.38 LJ, ii. 363a, 367a-b. He was also appointed to consider a further bill for attainting the plotters on 26 Mar., along with a measure against seditious speeches and spreading rumours about the king.39 Ibid. 401a. Monteagle appears to have been named in his absence on 24 May to the committee for a bill to prevent the import of Catholic books, but was recorded as present on 29 Apr., when he was instructed to consider two bills against recusancy.40 Ibid. 380b, 419b. He made no recorded speeches.

Monteagle’s role in uncovering the Plot seems to have been ignored when the surviving plotters were tried on 27 Jan. 1606. This was despite orders, issued by James and passed on by Salisbury to the attorney general, Sir Edward Coke^‡, requiring that Monteagle be praised and refuting any suspicions of his involvement.41 Nicholls, 53; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 306. Consequently, on 31 Jan. Sir Henry Poole^‡ moved in the lower House that ‘some honour might be done’ to Monteagle, but he was opposed by the puritan lawyer, Nicholas Fuller^‡, who argued that this would detract from the role of the king, to whom he attributed ‘the true discovery’ of the Plot.42 Bowyer Diary, 16; CJ, i. 262a. Nevertheless, in April, Monteagle was granted a pension of £500 a year and lands worth 300 marks per annum in recognition of his services, although he was still haggling over part of the land grant in November.43 SO3/3, unfol. (Apr. 1606); CSP Dom. Addenda 1580-1625, p. 489.

Later life, 1606-22

Monteagle was marked as present at 51 of the 106 sittings of the 1606-7 session, 48 per cent of the total, and was named to about a quarter of the committees appointed by the Lords (ten out of 41). In November 1606 he was named to confer with the Commons about the Union and, the following June, to the committee for the bill to abolish the hostile laws between England and Scotland.44 LJ, ii. 453a, 520a. He was also named to consider bills to confirm defective titles, usury, and against the enforcement of ecclesiastical Canons not confirmed by Parliament. His private bill appointments included a measure concerning the estate of his deceased first cousin once removed, Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby.45 Ibid. 471b, 480a, 494a, 503a.

In February 1608 a settlement was reached over the disputed estate that had formerly belonged to Monteagle’s great-aunt (of the half-blood), Frances, daughter of Charles Brandon^†, 1st duke of Suffolk, and Mary, sister of Henry VIII. Monteagle and his father asserted that Frances had no lawful descendants, but were challenged by Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford, who claimed that his sons by Frances’ daughter, Katharine, were her heirs. However, though the legality of Hertford’s marriage to Katharine had never been accepted by the crown. According to the settlement a third of the property was reserved for the king while the remainder, valued at £400 a year, was divided equally between Hertford on one the one part and Monteagle and the heirs of Frances’ full sister, Eleanor, on the other. How much Monteagle’s share came to is unknown, but Hertford certainly bought out Monteagle and the other heirs the following year.46 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 410; SO3/3, unfol. (28 Feb. 1608); 3/4, unfol. (14 Mar. 1609); HMC Hatfield, xx. 97.

Monteagle was listed as attending 56 of the 95 sittings of the first session of Parliament in 1610, 59 per cent of the total. However, he received three committee appointments when he was not listed as present. These included the committee appointed on 10 Mar. to attend the king about the Great Contract. This was a reappointment of a committee sent to the king for a similar purpose on 26 Feb., when Monteagle had certainly been present.47 LJ, ii. 556b, 564b. The other appointments which Monteagle apparently received in his absence were to consider a bill concerning a farm in Wiltshire, and a measure requiring the taking of the oath of allegiance.48 Ibid. 634b, 645a.

In total Monteagle received 20 committee appointments, out of a possible 58. On 14 Feb. he was named to attend the conference with the Commons at which Salisbury outlined the crisis in the royal finances and initiated what became known as the Great Contract.49 Ibid. 550b. Among his legislative appointments was the committee for the bill to establish his kinsman, William Stanley^*, 6th earl of Derby, as lord of the Isle of Man, and a bill for settling the lands of his stepmother’s first husband, John Arundell^‡ of Trerice, Cornwall.50 Ibid. 601a, 619a. He took the oath of allegiance on 9 June but made no recorded speeches.51 Ibid. 610b. In the fifth and final session of the first Jacobean Parliament, in late 1610, Monteagle was recorded as attending only four of the 21 sittings, 19 per cent of the total, and received one committee appointment, for the conference to press the Commons to grant supply.52 Ibid. 678a; HMC Hastings, iv. 222-6.

In January 1612 Monteagle was one of the gamblers who played for high stakes at court on Twelfth Night. At the end of that year he formed part of Prince Henry’s funeral procession.53 Chamberlain Letters, i. 328; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 497. When Parliament was called again in 1614, Monteagle was marked as present at 20 of the 29 sittings, 69 per cent of the total. He was appointed to three legislative committees, those concerning the wasteful consumption of gold and silver, the prevention of lawsuits concerning bequests of land and enforcement of the Sabbath, as well as two conferences. These concerned the bill to settle the succession following the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Elector Palatine, Frederick V, and the Sabbath bill. In total, therefore, he was named to five of the Lords’ nine committees.54 LJ, ii. 691a, 692b, 694a, 708b, 713b. He made no recorded speeches.

Monteagle contributed £110 to the benevolence levied by James after the 1614 Parliament.55 E351/1950. In October 1614 it was reported that he was ‘very ill of a swelling in his throat’. He travelled to Spa in the bishopric of Liège in 1617, but had probably returned to England by the time of his father’s death in April 1618, whereupon he was required to pay £25 to the heralds because the funeral was held privately without the ceremonies appropriate for a baron.56 Pvte. Corresp. of Jane Lady Cornwallis Bacon ed. J. Moody, 78, 86; Coll. of Arms, I.8, f. 6. Now Lord Morley and as well as Lord Monteagle, he again travelled abroad later that year, when he went to Italy.57 HMC Downshire, vi. 285.

When Monteagle was called upon to contribute toward the benevolence initiated in October 1620 for the defence of the Palatinate he complained to the Council that he was ‘utterly unfurnished of money’. His pension was two years in arrears and he was embroiled in suits with both his stepmother, who was suing for her dower, and Sir Henry Compton^‡. The latter was the son of Anne, dowager countess of Dorset, by her second husband, Henry Compton^†, 1st Lord Compton. Anne’s first husband had been Monteagle’s grandfather, William Stanley^†, 3rd Lord Monteagle. Monteagle and his father had agreed to pay her an annuity of 400 marks a year in lieu of dower from the Monteagle lands. She had died two years previously, but arrears of the annuity were still unpaid. Monteagle claimed that the reason this money was outstanding was that she had refused it, wanting more.58 SP14/117/86; 14/118/82.

Monteagle, perhaps due to illness, evidently failed to attend the first, spring sitting of the 1621 Parliament, though he is recorded as present by the clerk on 22 February. He therefore granted his proxy to Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, the great friend of the 2nd earl of Essex.59 LJ, iii. 4a. On 1 June his tenants petitioned the upper House complaining they were caught in the cross fire between Monteagle on the one hand and his mother-in-law and Sir Henry Compton on the other. The petition was referred to the committee for petitions, but there were no further proceedings.60 Ibid. 151a. According to the Journal, Monteagle attended ten of the 25 sittings after the session resumed in November (when Southampton was forced to stay away), 42 per cent of the total. During this time he was named to six of the ten committees established by the Lords. Two of these appointments were made on 7 Dec., when he was not recorded as present, and concerned bills on the levy of fines and Welsh butter. The other four nominations were to consider measures concerned with pleading the general issue, relief of crown tenants, debts of attainted persons and the Merchants of the Staple. In addition, one of his servants who had been arrested was granted privilege.61 Ibid. 181a, 182b, 184a, 185a-b, 193b.

Monteagle made his will on 19 June 1622, when he described himself as ‘crazed in the health of my body’. He bequeathed £1,000 to his eldest daughter, Frances, to enable her to become a nun, and gave £6,000 to his second daughter, then aged about 16. However, he allocated only £600 to his youngest daughter, then aged about 11. He named his cousin, Thomas Leventhorpe, and his servant, Richard Man, as his executors and Thomas’ father, Sir John Leventhorpe, and Sir Francis Goodwin^‡_, as overseers. He gave the remainder of his property to his eldest son, Sir Henry Parker^*, who succeeded him in his titles, but only after the death of his wife. He died on 1 July at Great Hallingbury, his family’s home in Essex, and was buried on the same day, in accordance with his wishes, in the parish church ‘without ceremony’. His will was proved by Man on 8 July.62 PROB 11/139, ff. 71-2; Coll. of Arms, I.8, f. 7. In June 1641 Man petitioned the Lords claiming that Monteagle’s pension had been £1,750 in arrears at the time of his death. Of this sum, Man had been able to secure only £475, which fell far short of the amount needed to cover Monteagle’s debts. As a result, his own estate had been consumed and he had suffered a long imprisonment.63 HMC 4th Rep. 70.