PERCY, Henry (1564-1632)

With a pedigree stretching back to pre-Conquest Normandy, and a barony reputedly dating from the reign of William I, the Percies easily outstripped most aristocratic English families in terms of antiquity. Resident at Petworth, in Sussex, from the twelfth century, they also owned vast estates in the north of England, including the Northumberland stronghold of Alnwick. The barony was confirmed in 1299 when Henry de Percy^†, 1st Lord Percy was summoned to the Lords, while the 4th Lord Percy (Henry de Percy^†) was rewarded in 1377 for military service in France with the earldom of Northumberland. However, the 1st earl and his son, Harry ‘Hotspur’, then rebelled against Henry IV, initiating a lengthy record of Percy disloyalty towards the crown. The 3rd earl (Henry Percy^†) betrayed Richard III at Bosworth, while a brother of the 5th earl (Henry Percy^†) was executed for his part in the Pilgrimage of Grace. The family’s titles fell into abeyance in 1537, but were restored 20 years later to the 5th earl’s nephew (Thomas Percy^†, 1st earl of Northumberland). Strictly speaking, this was a new peerage creation, but the complexities of the Percy succession have generated such confusion that the Jacobean 3rd earl, the subject of this biography, is better known to historians as the 9th earl.32 Collins, ii. 217, 220, 232, 240, 247-8, 253-5, 261-5, 278, 300, 308, 314-15.

Elizabethan courtier, c.1585-1603

Percy, the future 3rd earl (or 9th earl, if one prefers), had a troubled upbringing. He was aged just five when his Catholic uncle, the 1st earl, joined the Rebellion of the Northern Earls, finally dying on the scaffold in 1572. Although Percy’s father Henry (Percy^†, 2nd earl of Northumberland) initially remained loyal to Elizabeth I, and inherited the Northumberland earldom, he was banned from visiting his northern estates. He in turn died in the Tower in 1585, suspected of involvement in the Throckmorton Plot, which aimed to replace Elizabeth with her Catholic cousin, Mary, queen of Scots.33 Ibid. 320-4; S.J. Watts and S.J. Watts, From Border to Middle Shire, 57. Percy had barely come of age when he succeeded his father as earl. Protestant and well educated, he made a favourable early impression. One Elizabethan observer found him ‘inward and reserved’, but thought ‘the faculty of his mind to be very really good’.

His speech is slow … for he never speaks by chance, … never but with exact truth, and never … but with great reason. … When we see him in court, his person and his age give him very good leave to seem as great a man as he is; and yet … civil, modest, and quiet.34 CP, ix. 732; CSP For. 1582, p. 368; HMC Bath, v. 99; Harg. 226, ff. 241-2.

Elizabeth at first proved well-disposed towards him. Created a knight of the Garter in 1593, Northumberland was nominated four years later to the wardenship of the Middle March, on the Scottish border. However, he rejected this chance to re-establish Percy influence in the north, preferring Petworth to Alnwick.35 Watts, 120-1; HMC Hatfield, vii. 322. He also declined to serve as an envoy to France in 1596, pleading growing deafness, a problem he had been battling since the late 1580s.36 Nicholls, 87; CSP Dom. 1595-7, p. 253; HMC Hatfield, vi. 260-1. The only significant appointment he accepted was that of general of horse, during the short-lived invasion scare of 1599.

While loss of hearing was undoubtedly a serious problem for Northumberland, it provided a convenient excuse for him avoiding the financial burdens of government service. Although his father bequeathed him a healthy landed income of at least £3,600 a year, which with careful management he more than trebled, Northumberland amassed substantial debts through lavish expenditure on personal luxuries, foreign travel, and intellectual pursuits.37 G.R. Batho, ‘Finances of an Eliz. Nobleman: Henry Percy, Ninth Earl of Northumberland’, EcHR, n.s. ix. 435-7, 442; HMC 3rd Rep. 51; HMC 6th Rep. 227, 230-1; M. Nicholls, Investigating Gunpowder Plot, 88-9. Indeed, he earned the sobriquet of ‘Wizard Earl’ though his fascination with science, and generous patronage of scholars such as the pioneering astronomer Thomas Harriot. Moreover, he assembled a substantial and costly library at Petworth and Syon House, the Middlesex seat which he acquired in 1594 through marriage to Dorothy Perrot, the widowed sister of Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex.38 G.R. Batho, ‘Percies at Petworth’, Suss. Arch. Colls. xcv. 19-21; J.W. Shirley, Thomas Harriot, 202, 209-10; Batho, ‘Finances’, 437.

Northumberland was also dissatisfied with the appointments offered to him by Elizabeth, believing that his rank automatically entitled him to high office. However, by being particular about what he would accept, he failed to recognize the need to undergo a political apprenticeship. This meant that, as Elizabeth’s reign drew to a close, he found himself sidelined by the key players at court. The temporary breakdown of his marriage in 1599 damaged his relationship with his brother-in-law Essex, but at the same time he failed to win the trust of the latter’s political rival, Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury), despite sending him regular reports while on military service in the Low Countries in 1600-1.39 HMC Hatfield, x. 56; xi. 53-4, 220-1, 280-2 xiv. 127. When in London, he preferred the company of a fellow intellectual, the ambitious and similarly frustrated Sir Walter Ralegh^‡.40 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 421, 429. Northumberland was abroad during Essex’s rebellion in 1601, but still suffered by association, as two of his brothers were implicated and briefly imprisoned.41 HMC Hatfield, xi. 53; APC, 1600-1, pp. 159, 283-4. He then offended the queen the following year by challenging the distinguished soldier Sir Francis Vere^‡ to a duel, the culmination of a feud begun in the Netherlands.42 CSP Dom. 1601-3, pp. 202-5.

During 1602, realizing that Elizabeth’s reign must be nearing its end, Northumberland began corresponding secretly with her likely successor, James VI of Scotland, whom he assumed would look more favourably on him, given the support once shown by his father and uncle for the king’s mother. The earl’s messenger was his Catholic kinsman, Thomas Percy, a trusted servant whom he would shortly appoint as his rent collector in Cumberland and Northumberland. Since Percy delivered verbal messages as well as letters, the full content of these exchanges is a matter of conjecture, but the earl certainly assured James of his support, while pointedly observing that some English peers were currently ‘unsatisfied that places of honour are not given them’.43 Hatfield House, CP 108/150; Nicholls, 98, 103; Corresp. of King Jas. VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxxviii), 53-61, 64-70. The king in return urged Northumberland to strengthen his own position at the English court, so that he might in due course be ‘a chief instrument’ in assisting James’s smooth succession. The earl was delighted with these replies, and even showed them to Cecil, unaware that the latter was already negotiating with James. Northumberland was also oblivious to the fact that another English courtier, Lord Henry Howard^* (later earl of Northampton), was busily denigrating him in his own letters to the king, insisting that the earl was really James’s enemy, and part of a ‘diabolical triplicity’ with Ralegh and Henry Brooke^†, 11th Lord Cobham.44 Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 185-9; Secret Corresp. of Sir Robert Cecil with Jas. VI ed. D. Dalrymple (1766), 29-30, 105.

As Elizabeth’s life drew to a close in March 1603, the government prepared for the transition to the next reign. With the Privy Council evolving into a council of accession, Northumberland was co-opted as a new member, and began to throw his weight around. Shortly before the queen’s death, he brought 50 cavalry horses to Essex House on the Strand, his late brother-in-law’s residence which he now used as his own London base. This was probably just a precaution against civil disorder, but it could also be seen as a show of strength, and it revived uncomfortable memories of Essex’s rebellion two years earlier. On 17 Mar. he again wrote to James VI, predicting a smooth succession. In particular, he assured the king that rumours of a Catholic uprising could be discounted; his own contacts within that community indicated there was widespread support for James. That said, English Catholics would be even more loyal if they were allowed ‘toleration of their consciences’. Northumberland carefully affirmed that this was a matter for the king’s judgment, but admitted that he was currently encouraging such hopes. James refused to be drawn on this issue, merely replying that he would not persecute Catholics who complied with the law.45 HMC Buccleuch, i. 236; Corresp. of King Jas. VI, 72-5; Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 207; Nicholls, 115.

A new reign: hopes raised and dashed, 1603-4

According to his friend the French ambassador, the comte de Beaumont, Northumberland was briefly proposed as protector of the realm when the queen died. Nothing came of this suggestion, but Northumberland’s brother, Sir Charles Percy, was one of the official messengers sent to tell James that he was now king of England. Although the council of accession continued to meet, it had no formal status until James reconstituted it as his Privy Council. Northumberland blocked a move by some members on 25 Mar. to carry on as though Elizabeth was still alive, and is said to have protested that it was time for the old nobility to have a voice in government again. When James’s accession was proclaimed at Cheapside that day, the earl pointedly took along his young nephew, Robert Devereux^*, the future 3rd earl of Essex.46 Nicholls, 117-18, 124-5; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. 1603-42, i. 85-6; Stowe 150, f. 180.

For a few heady months, it seemed as though Northumberland’s time had finally come. In April he was formally appointed a privy councillor, and performed a prominent role at Elizabeth’s funeral. Once James finally reached the home counties, he sought out the earl’s company, in May appointing him captain of the band of gentleman pensioners, the royal bodyguard. The next month, Northumberland entertained the king at Syon.47 APC, 1601-4, p. 495; CP, ix. 733; Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 65; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 118, 138, 165-6. However, the honeymoon period was short-lived. The earl was not offered the senior government role that he thought he deserved. James responded coolly when Northumberland presented a petition on behalf of the English Catholics, which dwelt on their former support for Mary, queen of Scots and implied that some reward was now in order. As early as June a new French ambassador, the marquis de Rosny, reported that the earl was dissatisfied with the Stuart regime.48 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 12; Nicholls, 128; W. Notestein, House of Commons 1604-10, p. 58. Northumberland also became careless. Probably around this time, he allowed his Catholic servant Thomas Percy to be sworn in as a gentleman pensioner without taking the oath of supremacy, in clear contravention of his own instructions. In July he ran into his old enemy Sir Francis Vere at court, and spat in his face in the king’s presence. For this breach of protocol the earl was promptly placed in the custody of the archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift^†. Northumberland’s timing was particularly poor, as the Bye and Main plots against James had just come to light. Given his close ties to Ralegh and Cobham, the principal suspects in the Main Plot, his arrest naturally fuelled rumours that he too was implicated, so that Northumberland felt obliged to write to the king to clear his name.49 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 9, 23, 273; Nicholls, 143-4.

Ralegh hoped that Northumberland would intercede for him, but there is no evidence that the earl did so until after the conspirators’ trial at Winchester, which he attended.50 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 50, 54; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 39, 42. After his brief imprisonment, Northumberland was for a time barred from court, and instructed to stay at Syon. However, he had been restored to favour by Christmas, and in January 1604 participated in preliminary peace discussions with the Spanish ambassador. In the following month a story even circulated that Northumberland would shortly be made a duke. In the event, the earl was merely appointed joint lord lieutenant of Sussex. It was becoming clear that this was as much advancement as he could expect.51 HMC Hatfield, xv. 383; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 32; Carleton to Chamberlain, 56-7; HMC 3rd Rep. 52.

The 1604 session of Parliament

In the elections for the first Jacobean Parliament, Northumberland secured seats in the Commons for his brother, Allan Percy^‡, and his steward, Edward Fraunceys^‡, at Beverley and Haslemere respectively. He also exercised influence in Cumberland, where his client Wilfred Lawson^‡ was returned as senior shire knight, the voters hoping thereby to induce the earl to help protect them from the burden of subsidies, from which they had hitherto been exempt as a border county.52 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 82, 397-8, 483. Northumberland attended the Lords for approximately two-thirds of the 1604 session, his absences gradually becoming longer as the months went by. Named at the outset as a trier of petitions from Gascony, he attracted 26 other appointments, and made at least seven speeches. By now an experienced member of the upper House, the earl chaired seven legislative committees, including that for the highly sensitive bill to resolve the case of Sir Thomas Shirley^‡, a Commons’ member imprisoned for debt. Northumberland was apparently an energetic chairman. Named on 4 June to scrutinize a bill on tanning leather, he reported back ten days later that the committee had consulted the relevant crafts, and concluded that the bill should be allowed to sleep.53 LJ, ii. 264a, 295b, 297a, 312b, 320b. On 2 Apr. he informed the House that the bill against witchcraft was so imperfect that the committee had drafted a replacement, which he also reported on 7 May.54 Ibid. 269a, 271a, 275a, 293a. However, he was unable to secure a decision from the committee dealing with the controversial restitution bill for Charles Paget, who had been attainted for his part in the 1586 Babington Plot. On 2 Apr. he explained to the Lords that no verdict had been reached, whereupon the measure was rejected. The remaining two committees which the earl chaired concerned bills on the estates of the Throckmorton family and the pilchard trade in Devon and Cornwall; the former measure was approved with amendments, while the latter was referred to the next session, for lack of time.55 Ibid. 267b, 271a, 292b-3a, 297a, 340a, 341b.

As a privy councillor, Northumberland was an obvious nominee for conferences with the Commons on wardship, the tunnage and poundage bill, a bill to create a royal entail, and the proposed Anglo-Scottish Union. He was also appointed to confer over the pro-Union book by the bishop of Bristol, John Thornborough^*.56 Ibid. 266b, 277b, 284a, 303a, 309a, 323a, 341b. The earl’s northern estates doubtless explain his nomination to the bill committees concerning harbour repairs at Bridlington and Whitby, Yorkshire, and the new charter of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland. He presumably took a close interest in the dispute over the proper descent of the barony of Abergavenny, since he was named to attend the king about this issue, and to help check the clerk’s record of the Lords’ proceedings in the case.57 Ibid. 281a, 286a, 303b, 307a, 309a. Arguably the earl attached less importance to parliamentary debates on religion. Although appointed in April to confer about ecclesiastical affairs, a few weeks later he privately mocked a Commons’ statement in support of nonconforming Anglican clergy, informing the king that at a banquet held to mark the new Anglo-Spanish accord, so many ‘ceremonies’ had been performed that puritans in Parliament would ‘fall to composing new bills against these new tricks’.58 Ibid. 282b; CJ, i. 200a; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1603-25, p. 533.

The Gunpowder Plot inquiry, 1605-6

In June 1604, the Spanish envoy, the count of Villa Mediana, assessed Northumberland as being ‘a man of importance’, but otherwise found him difficult to read. Seemingly a friend of neither France nor Spain, he was opposed to peace with the latter, ‘as he believes the king will have greater need of him in other circumstances’. This suggests that the earl now hoped to advance his career through military service.59 A.J. Loomie, ‘Toleration and Diplomacy: the Religious Issue in Anglo-Spanish Relations, 1603-5’, Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. n.s. liii. pp. 53. Indeed, three of the earl’s brothers volunteered in the following spring for military service in the Low Countries, though they at least were hispanophiles, since they enlisted on the Habsburg side. However, Northumberland himself remained in England, increasingly detached from public affairs. He continued to appear at court for major events such as the creation of Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) as duke of York in January 1605, or the baptism of Princess Mary four months later. Intermittently, he also attended the Privy Council, in September 1604 speaking in favour of limited toleration for English Catholics. Even so, he now felt that his presence there was little more than ‘a show to the honour of the table’.60 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 150; Nichols, i. 472, 512; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 73, 243; Hatfield House, CP 114/98; Loomie, 55-6. Increasingly, his energies were channelled into private business, such as remodelling Syon House and its grounds. Until now, he had merely held a lease of this property, through his wife, but in July 1604 the king granted it to him outright. During the next two years, Northumberland spent more than £3,000 on improvements there, and he threw himself into this task with enthusiasm, touring south-east England in search of inspiration from other major seats.61 C66/1648; Nichols, i. 166; Batho, ‘Finances’, 446; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 360; Hatfield House, CP 103/29.

Northumberland was at Syon on 4 Nov. 1605, the day before the next parliamentary session opened. Having had lunch with a number of guests, including Thomas Percy, who had arrived unexpectedly, the earl travelled up to London, spending the night at Essex House. There, he was woken early the next morning with news of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. Though few details of the conspiracy had yet emerged, it was already known that Percy was one of the ringleaders. Northumberland attended an emergency meeting of the Privy Council, but was instructed to return home again, on account of his closeness to a prime suspect. Unsure whether he was meant to be under house arrest, he took his seat in the Lords that afternoon for what turned out to be his final appearance in the upper House. Two days later, he was placed in the custody of Archbishop Bancroft at Lambeth. On 27 November, he was transferred to the Tower, where he remained for the next 16 years.62 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 239, 266; Nichols, i. 585-6; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 477-8, 518, 529-30; Nicholls, 9-10, 43, 153, 167; Alnwick Castle, Northumberland ms 101, f. 14 (BL microfilm); Syon ms UI 10, f. 28 (BL microfilm).

Northumberland was not actually put on trial until 27 June 1606, the delay indicative of the flimsy charges levelled against him, which were circumstantial rather than conclusive. The critical issue was whether the earl had been warned by Percy on 4 Nov. to stay away from the state opening of Parliament, when the gunpowder was meant to explode. William Parker^*, 5th Lord Monteagle (later 13th Lord Morley) had certainly been tipped off, and had immediately informed the government. If Northumberland had also been alerted, he had chosen to keep quiet, which would make him at the very least an abettor. Under interrogation, the surviving plotters revealed that Percy had considered telling the earl, though they were not certain that he had done so. Percy himself had been killed on 8 Nov., so only Northumberland now knew what had actually been discussed. However, while he denied that his kinsman had forewarned him, Northumberland undermined his own credibility by initially withholding information that he thought might look incriminating, and then contradicting his own evidence. Moreover, it was hardly impressive that, on sending out letters on 5 Nov. 1605 to his northern tenants instructing them to look out for Percy, he had primarily expressed concern about the whereabouts of his autumn rent money. The bulk of Northumberland’s revenues derived from his northerly estates, but by giving priority to his own finances rather than national security, Northumberland indicated at the very least that his loyalties were divided. That in turn drove the search for other evidence against him.63 Collins, ii. 334; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 264; Nicholls, 6-7, 20, 159-60, 175-6; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 510; Alnwick Castle, Northumberland ms 101, f. 4 (BL microfilm); ‘Percies at Petworth’, 3.

This inquiry eventually bore fruit. First, it emerged that two of Northumberland’s servants, Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester) and John Hippisley^‡, had helped Percy to rent a property close to the plotters’ target, the House of Lords. Then the government discovered that the earl’s client Thomas Harriot had commissioned the king’s horoscope, which would, of course, establish the date of James’s death. Northumberland’s efforts to distance himself from these activities just made him look more culpable. In this context, a motive was not hard to find. The earl’s well-attested advocacy of Catholic toleration demonstrated where his true loyalties lay. He had trusted Percy to deliver his secret messages to the king. He had handed the traitor a position within James’s bodyguard. A pattern seemed to be emerging which tied him to this latest Catholic outrage. The contemporary mindset also demanded that such an audacious scheme must have had an aristocratic mastermind, and again the notably intelligent, scientifically-minded Northumberland fitted the bill perfectly.64 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 113, 243, 263; SP14/16/102-3; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 529-30; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 293.

And yet, compelling as this scenario seemed, the government had no absolute proof of the earl’s guilt. In January 1606, with the Gunpowder plotters about to go on trial, the Venetian envoy Molin reported that Northumberland would soon be freed. A month later, the diarist Walter Yonge^‡ recorded rumours of an impending proclamation to confirm the earl’s innocence. By early March even the earl of Salisbury expected James to show clemency, and Northumberland began to make plans for after his release.65 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 315; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 3; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 295; SP14/20/4. Then, in late June, word suddenly broke that the earl would be put on trial in Star Chamber. Two Catholic peers, Henry Mordaunt^*, 4th Lord Mordaunt and Edward Stourton^*, 10th Lord Stourton, who had aroused the government’s suspicions by absenting themselves from the state opening of Parliament, had just been convicted of contempt in ignoring their summons to attend the Lords. This demonstrated the regime’s intention to punish all high-profile suspects, regardless of the weakness of the charges against them. On 27 June Northumberland too was found guilty of contempt, the specific issues being his efforts to promote Catholic toleration, contrary to the king’s expressed intentions; his appointment of Thomas Percy as a gentleman pensioner without administration of the obligatory oath; and writing to his tenants on 5 Nov. in a manner calculated to help Percy evade capture. In short, the earl was not actually charged with knowledge of the Plot. However, lingering suspicions that he must have been involved were reflected in his sentence of life imprisonment, a massive £30,000 fine, and permanent dismissal from all his offices. As one observer noted, the penalties were as ‘rigorous’ as the charges were ‘slight and strained’.66 Chamberlain Letters, i. 228; Collins, ii. 334-5; Nicholls, 74-5, 187; Shirley, 355; HMC Downshire, ii. 13.

The ‘wizard earl’ in the Tower, 1606-21

Northumberland’s pleas for royal clemency were largely ignored. However, intensive lobbying by his wife delayed the levying of his fine, which was instead left hanging over him for the next five years.67 Hatfield House, CP 108/150; 117/92; 192/111; HMC Hatfield, xviii. 280; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 330. In July 1611 a disaffected servant, Timothy Elks, unexpectedly claimed to have fresh information linking the earl to the Plot. Under renewed questioning, Northumberland finally admitted that he had excused Percy from taking the oath of supremacy, but nothing else was proved against him.68 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 58-9, 70, 77; HMC Downshire, iii. 109; Chamberlain Letters, i. 308. Nevertheless, the government once more demanded payment of the fine. This prompted further intensive negotiations, the king initially reducing the sum by £10,000, then changing his mind when Northumberland seemed to drag his heels. The earl certainly hoped for better terms after the death in May 1612 of Lord Treasurer Salisbury, whom he blamed for his harsh treatment, and indeed, he was eventually allowed to settle the fine by paying just £11,000 in 1613.69 HMC Downshire, iii. 139; Chamberlain Letters, i. 318, 343-4; HMC 3rd Rep. 59-61; HMC 6th Rep. 230; Batho, ‘Finances’, 440; C66/1994/8.

Meanwhile, Northumberland adjusted to a potential lifetime in prison. Although officially lodged within the Martin Tower, on the north-east side of the fortress, he actually enjoyed considerable freedom of movement, with access to gardens and the ramparts. He rented a stable, and went riding within the Tower walls. In return for an annual composition payment to the lieutenant, the earl also operated his own kitchen. Furthermore, he commandeered other rooms for the use of his servants and visiting relatives, particularly his eldest son Algernon (Percy^*, later 4th earl of Northumberland), much of whose education took place in the Tower.70 Shirley, 351-2, 357, 375-6; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 324; 1611-18, p. 569; HMC Ancaster, 378; Hatfield House, CP 127/113. In subsequent decades a myth grew up that the earl enjoyed regular scientific discussions with some of the mathematicians in his circle, Harriot, Robert Hues and Walter Warner, dubbed the ‘three Magi’. In fact, Harriot seldom visited, while Hues was primarily Algernon’s tutor. However, Warner did act as Northumberland’s scholarly assistant, keeping him supplied with books, maps and instruments. The earl’s accounts reveal numerous book purchases, across the fields of history, literature, geometry, mathematics, theology, law, astronomy and astrology. He enjoyed chess, and also acquired a set of lead soldiers for re-enacting military strategies.71 Shirley, 362-3, 365, 367, 369, 373, 375-6; HMC 3rd Rep. 229-31. Understandably, Northumberland was drawn to classic meditations such as Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae. However, he also put his own thoughts in writing, revising a private tract, his ‘Advice to his Son’, which he had originally drafted in the 1590s, and producing several drafts of a treatise on the art of war.72 G.R. Batho, S. Clucas and A. Beer, Prison Writings of Sir Walter Raleigh and the Ninth Earl of Northumberland, 1, 8, 11. In 1615 he devised an elaborate scheme for reconstructing Petworth. Indeed, his reputation as an architectural expert was such that Sir John Holles^* (later 1st earl of Clare) turned to him five years earlier for a loan of key texts, the authors ranging from older masters such as Vitruvius and Alberti, to currently fashionable writers like Serlio, Dietterlin, and De l’Orme.73 Batho, ‘Percies at Petworth’, 22; HMC Portland, ix. 152; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 27. In addition, Northumberland devoted a great deal of time to estate management, increasing his landed income by roughly a third during his years in the Tower, a vital issue in terms of addressing his Star Chamber fine.74 Batho, ‘Finances’, 440-2.

Affluence also ensured that Northumberland did not become altogether a social outcast. As early as 1608, there was talk of a marriage between Algernon and a daughter of Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk. Six years later, when a Scottish courtier, the 2nd Lord Scott of Buccleuch, proposed a match with Northumberland’s eldest daughter, Dorothy, the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain predicted that this might be ‘a means of her father’s delivery’.75 Chamberlain Letters, i. 281, 566. In fact, Dorothy instead married Robert Sidney^* (later 2nd earl of Leicester). Nevertheless, in 1617 her sister Lucy succumbed to the persistent advances of a more powerful Scot, James Hay^*, 1st Lord Hay (later 1st earl of Carlisle), a longstanding royal favourite. Northumberland was deeply opposed to this union, viewing it as an insult to his Percy ancestry that his daughter should ‘dance any Scottish jigs’, but it gave him once more a much-needed voice at court.76 CP, vii. 555; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 55, 58, 85; ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 27.

While he remained a prisoner, albeit one with considerable freedom of action, Northumberland found his political influence heavily constrained. Unable to attend the Lords during the remainder of the first Jacobean Parliament, or its successor, his scope for electoral patronage in 1614 was also limited. Two of his 1604 nominees, Sir Wilfred Lawson and Sir Edward Fraunceys, were again returned to the Commons, but they may have achieved this through their own local standing.77 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 82, 418-19. In 1621, however, the earl began to reassert himself. First, his cousin Sir Edward Cecil^* (later 1st Viscount Wimbledon) was elected at Chichester. Then, on 18 May, Northumberland petitioned the Lords, complaining that he had not yet received his writ of summons, even though he understood that the king was content for it to be issued. The lord chamberlain, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, promptly confirmed that this was the case, whereupon the Lords ordered that a writ be sent out. Of course, as Northumberland was still in the Tower, he was incapable of physical attendance, and immediately awarded his proxy to his son-in-law Lord Hay, who had presumably orchestrated the whole affair. Nevertheless, this was a symbolic step towards rehabilitation, which fuelled speculation that the earl’s release was now looming.78 Ibid. 409; LJ, iii. 4b, 128b-9a; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 376.

Release and retirement, 1621-32

Two months later, as part of a general amnesty for political prisoners arranged by the new lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), Northumberland finally re-emerged from the Tower. Visited there on 16 July by the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, he was collected two days later by Hay, who had also requested his release, and paraded through London in a coach. Chamberlain claimed that Northumberland was ‘nothing altered’ by his long years of imprisonment.79 R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, p. 141; J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), 70; Add. 72275, f. 117; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 389-90. Although now officially free, the earl was actually confined to a 30-mile radius of Petworth, which encompassed Syon but not London. On that basis, he was unable to attend the second sitting of the 1621 Parliament, though he seems to have followed its proceedings, as his papers include several key documents such as the Commons’ petition in favour of war with Spain, and the famous Protestation.80 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 390; HMC 3rd Rep. 65-6.

Northumberland was finally freed from all constraints of movement in November 1622, and for a time appeared frequently in the capital, grandly driving round in a coach pulled by eight horses so as to outdo his son-in-law Hay, now earl of Carlisle. Syon once more became a focal point of the social scene, with Buckingham a regular visitor.81 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 439, 451-2, 463, 525; Batho, ‘Percies at Petworth’, 14. In early 1624 the earl purchased lands recently granted to the favourite by the king, and a few months later he presented Buckingham, now a duke, with 1,000 walnut trees for his estate at New Hall, Essex.82 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 181; C66/2299/6; Add. 12528, ff. 17-18. Nevertheless, the earl had not been fully restored to royal favour, and accordingly he was instructed to absent himself from the 1624 Parliament. Northumberland’s hopes that Prince Charles would prove a more merciful monarch were dashed the following year, as he was also ordered to stay away from the first Caroline Parliament. On the latter occasion he awarded his proxy to Buckingham.83 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 438; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 546; Procs. 1625, p. 591; Alnwick Castle, Syon ms. PI 3n, ff. 18, 22v.

By the time of the 1626 Parliament, Northumberland was becoming resigned to the incompleteness of his rehabilitation. Accordingly, he voluntarily absented himself from the Lords, getting Buckingham to procure Charles’s permission on health grounds, and also stayed away from the coronation. Northumberland initially presented his proxy to the duke, but transferred it to his son Algernon when the latter was summoned to the upper House in right of the Percy barony. During this session, the granting of a writ of summons to the earl in 1621 was cited, inaccurately, as a precedent for securing the release from detention of John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol.84 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 559; SP16/20/8; Procs. 1626, i. 49, 323; iv. 11; E.R. Foster, House of Lords 1603-49, p. 17.

It was probably a sign of the earl’s frustration that, in early 1627, a story circulated that Northumberland would refuse to pay the Forced Loan. He duly received a stiff letter from Buckingham, warning that refusal would significantly damage his standing in the king’s eyes, and undermine the duke’s efforts to restore the earl and his children to royal favour. This message apparently had the desired effect, and no more talk of resistance surfaced.85 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 43. In fact, Northumberland was shortly distracted by tensions within his own family. During late 1627, Algernon, Lord Percy set his heart on marrying a daughter of William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury. Anticipating that his father would oppose the match, Percy initially kept him in the dark, and so it was only in January 1628 that Northumberland learnt that his heir proposed to wed the granddaughter of his ‘greatest enemy’. As the earl explained to Salisbury, he had not forgotten the treatment which he had received from the latter’s father: ‘I find the wounds fresh smarting in my sides to this day’. Nevertheless, he conceded that he had no power to stop Percy, as he had already entailed all his property on him 12 years earlier. After several weeks, Salisbury’s tactful messages and an increased dowry offer won him round, and the marriage went ahead.86 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 238-42; Birch, i. 312.

In the 1628-9 Parliament, Northumberland’s younger son Henry Percy^† (later Lord Percy of Alnwick) found a Commons’ seat at Marlborough through his kinsman William Seymour^*, 2nd earl of Hertford, an arrangement presumably brokered by Northumberland himself. Once again the now elderly man obtained leave of absence from the Lords, handing his proxy to his heir Percy, who doubtless briefed him on developments there. He also followed events in the Commons, courtesy of the Midhurst member, Christopher Lewkenor^‡, who supplied him with detailed weekly newsletters.87 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 446-7; v. 644; Procs. 1628, pp. 177-81; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 32; LJ, iv. 3b, 25b.

Northumberland spent his final years at Petworth, in declining health, but still taking an interest in the fighting in the Low Countries, thanks to news supplied by his sometime servant Dudley Carleton, now secretary of state and Viscount Dorchester. Latterly on warmer terms with relatives such as Carlisle, he gave indications finally of being reconciled to the past accidents of his long life.88 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 559; 1629-31, pp. 38, 58, 82. Having achieved through sheer longevity the curious status of ‘ancientist knight of the Garter’, a distinction which he evidently valued, Northumberland died at Petworth in 1632, appropriately on 5 November. Contrary to reports, he left no valid will, administration of his estate being granted to his heir Algernon, now the 4th earl.89 C115/106/8417; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 508; Birch, ii. 191-2; Household Pprs. 130-3.