RAMSAY, John (1588-1626)

An obscure member of a minor Scottish gentry family, Ramsay earned undying royal gratitude at an early age for saving the life of James VI. Born in the parish of Lennel (now known as Coldstream),13 E134/2Chas.2/Mich3. close to the English border, Ramsay, a younger son, received no formal education, but instead entered royal service as a page. His court career began inauspiciously: in June 1599, aged just 11, he assaulted within the precincts of the palace of Falkland a royal carver who, angry at being called a liar, had struck him the previous day. When the matter came to trial five days later, Ramsay pleaded guilty and threw himself on the mercy of the king, who took pity on him, and allowed him to remain in post.14 Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland, II ed. R. Pitcairn (Maitland Club, xix), 91-3.

The Gowrie Conspiracy and James VI’s accession to the throne of England, 1600-4

On 5 Aug. 1600 the king prepared to go hunting, accompanied by Ramsay, now aged 12, and a small band of followers. As James made ready to leave, he was approached by the 19-year old Alexander Ruthven, master of Ruthven, who announced that his elder brother, John Ruthven, 3rd earl of Gowrie [S], had detained a man with a pitcher full of gold coins at his house in nearby Perth. His curiosity and greed having been aroused in equal measure, James, accompanied by his small party, set off for Gowrie House, where he was taken to a tower room by Ruthven, who accused him of murdering his father. A struggle ensued, but not before James had persuaded Ruthven’s servant to open a window. From the stables, where he had been left holding the king’s falcon, Ramsay heard James’s cries for help. While other members of the royal party, then in the garden, found their passage barred by a locked door, Ramsay made his way upstairs by a narrow side entrance. There, in an adjacent chamber, he found Ruthven in a headlock, unable to draw his sword and attempting to silence the king with his left hand. Throwing aside the falcon, Ramsay rushed forward and, on James’s instruction, stabbed Ruthven repeatedly in the face and neck with his short sword, thereby enabling the king to break free and hurl his assailant down the stairs. There, the severely wounded Ruthven was finished off by another of James’s servants, Thomas Erskine, who, along with the club-footed Dr Herris, now hurried to the top of the tower. No sooner had these welcome reinforcements arrived than Gowrie and seven of his men appeared. In the ensuing fight, Ramsay, Erskine and Herris all sustained wounds, and it must have seemed only a matter of time before all three would be overwhelmed. However, the quick-witted Ramsay wrong-footed his opponents by announcing that further swordplay was pointless, as James, who had been hurriedly bundled into the tower room before the fight began, was now dead. When Gowrie responded by lowering his sword, Ramsay seized his chance, and ran him through the heart.15 A. Lang, Jas. VI and the Gowrie Mystery, 12-14, 20-31, 56-9; Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland, II, 217; Mems. of the Affairs of Scotland by David Moysie (Bannatyne Club, 1830), 142.

In the immediate aftermath of the so-called ‘Gowrie Conspiracy’, Ramsay was hailed as a hero. Despite his youth, he was knighted by the king, perhaps on the spot, but certainly no later than 22 Aug., when Gowrie’s surviving servants were tried.16 Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland, II, 150. (He was also granted an addition to his family’s coat of arms: a hand, holding forth a dagger, piercing a bloody heart).17 D. Lloyd, State-Worthies (1756), ii. 72. Three months later, the Scottish Parliament passed an act ‘in favour of Sir John Ramsay’. After reciting the page’s ‘marvellous valour and divine success’, it granted him an estate near Dunbar, to be held of the king in return for a single red rose, payable on 5 Aug. every year.18 APS, iv. 222-3. On that same day, for the rest of his life, James held a feast at which Ramsay was guest of honour. (As late as 1623, one admiring correspondent addressed Ramsay as ‘sword of grace’.)19 SP94/29, f. 255. James never forgot the immense debt of gratitude he owed Ramsay, and ever afterwards allowed his former page an easy familiarity with him that only his closest friends enjoyed.20 See eg. CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 56.

Ramsay probably accompanied James south when the latter ascended the English throne in March 1603, for in May of that year he was granted part of the estate of a Somerset gentleman, Sir George Rodney, who had committed suicide two years earlier. He was certainly in England by late June, when he wrote to the Admiralty Court judge Sir Julius Caesar^‡ on behalf of a minister whose petition he wished to be ‘double considered of’.21 Add. 12506, f. 168r-v. Over the course of the next six months, Ramsay, like many of the Scottish servants who had accompanied James south, was showered with gifts by the king. These included two lump sums amounting to £600, a pension for life – initially set at £200 but quickly increased to £400 – and lands worth 100 marks annually.22 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 15, 41; SO3/2, ff. 125, 156, 169. Ramsay, though, remained dissatisfied, and, following the fall of Sir Walter Ralegh^‡, persuaded the king to grant him the latter’s wine licence, worth nearly £3,000 p.a. However, the award of such a valuable source of revenue to a relatively minor member of the household alarmed the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset, who reportedly intervened to prevent the grant from taking effect.23 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 58. On the value of Ralegh’s grant, see R. Dale, Who Killed Sir Walter Ralegh? 66. Undeterred, Ramsay next tried to obtain a lease of the former priory of Kersey, in Suffolk, which belonged to the provost and fellows of King’s College, Cambridge. However, the latter informed the king that they were legally unable to issue such a lease, presumably because Ramsay had not been naturalized.24 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 442.

When the English Parliament met in 1604, James sought to remedy Ramsay’s alien status. On 3 May he laid before Parliament a bill of naturalization, which took less than three weeks to complete its passage through both Houses.25 LJ, ii. 290a, 291b, 293a; CJ, i. 213b, 222a. Two days after the measure received its final reading, Ramsay was re-granted the lands conveyed to him by the king the previous September,26 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 113. suggesting that the earlier grant had run into the same difficulty encountered in respect of the lease of Kersey Priory.

Royal favour, 1604-21

By April 1604, and probably much sooner, Ramsay was a gentleman of the bedchamber. Indeed, he was, for the time being at least, the dominant figure in the bedchamber, becoming its unofficial keeper. His unrivalled access to the king quickly drew the attention of the French and Spanish ambassadors, both of whom were eager to win his favour. The French, keen to prevent James from concluding peace with Spain, were particularly solicitous, and dangled before Ramsay the offer of a present, a pension and admission to the order of the Holy Ghost. However, Ramsay inclined to Spain, whose representatives urged Philip III to grant him a pension.27 A.J. Loomie, Toleration and Diplomacy, 53, 55. Nonetheless, it was not Ramsay who was chosen to greet the constable of Castile following the latter’s arrival in England in August 1604 but Thomas Erskine, now Lord Erskine [S] and captain of the king’s guard. This was chiefly because Ramsay lacked the necessary languages,28 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 208. but also because he was temporarily bedridden, having fallen from his horse while out hunting.29 Carleton to Chamberlain, 62; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 486 (incorrectly ascribed to 1606 by the editor).

Although now a senior figure at court, Ramsay lacked substantial means with which to support himself, since his previous grants were relatively modest. In February 1605 James decided to remedy this situation, and ordered that crown lands worth £1,000 a year be bestowed on him. However Ramsay, dissatisfied with the wording of the grant, had the document re-issued the following May.30 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 197, 225; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 72. The bulk of the properties involved were situated in County Durham, with the rest being scattered across England.31 SP14/44/21. How quickly Ramsay gained control of his new estate is unclear, but at least two of the Durham manors were re-granted to him in May 1606, suggesting that the conveyance was anything but smooth.32 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 317. See also ibid. 310. These difficulties, and the fact that his 17th birthday was imminent, may explain why Ramsay’s pension was increased to £500 p.a. in April 1605. Another factor, perhaps, was that Ramsay, like so many of his fellow courtiers, quickly demonstrated that he was incapable of controlling his expenditure. Indeed, by July 1606 at the latest he had begun selling land. In November, despite the emptiness of the Exchequer, the king undertook to pay his debts, along with those of two other royal favourites, the 1st Lord Hay (James Hay^*, later 1st earl of Carlisle) and the earl of Montgomery (Philip Herbert^*, later 4th earl of Pembroke).33 C54/1859; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 238.

It had probably been James’s intention all along to raise Ramsay to the ranks of the nobility. After all, Erskine, Ramsay’s fellow hero of the Gowrie Conspiracy, had been ennobled in 1604. However, it was not until June 1606, shortly after he turned 18, that Ramsay was elevated to the Scottish peerage. Soon thereafter the new Viscount Haddington was dispatched to Scotland in the company of the chancellor of the Exchequer, George Home, 1st earl of Dunbar [S]. After being feasted at Edinburgh, the two men attended the Scottish Parliament, which met at Perth in July.34 Carleton to Chamberlain, 82; Extracts from the Recs. of the Burgh of Edinburgh 1604-26 ed. M. Wood, 20.

During the course of 1607 the king conveyed to Haddington additional parcels of land, together with £2,000 raised from the sale of parsonages and former chantry lands owned by the crown.35 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 364, 380. This royal assistance helped to keep Haddington in funds, but it was not a long term solution to the young Scot’s financial problems. By November it had been agreed that Haddington would wed Elizabeth Radcliffe, one of the daughters and coheirs of Robert Radcliffe^*, 5th earl of Sussex, the owner of extensive estates in Essex and Bedfordshire. The marriage, which was celebrated in the Chapel Royal on 9 Feb. 1608, was the highlight of that winter’s social calendar, it being followed by a masque in which all the leading courtiers of the day – Scots as well as English – took part.36 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 331, 343; Beaumont Pprs. ed. W.D. Macray, 17. The couple were naturally showered with valuable gifts. James increased Haddington’s pension to £600 p.a. and gave his fellow Scot a jewel costing £300, together with silverware, while Dunbar gave the couple a present reportedly worth between £4,000 and £5,000.37 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 417; F. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer, 81; Chamberlain Letters, i. 255.

Three months after celebrating his 21st birthday, in August 1609, Haddington, who had no country house of his own, was presented by the king with a sub-lease of Farnham Castle and park, in Hampshire.38 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 535. The head lease had been acquired by James at around the time of Haddington’s marriage the previous year from the bishop of Winchester, Thomas Bilson^*,39 HMC Hatfield, xx. 58-9. suggesting that the sub-lease was intended as a belated wedding present. Although the castle’s interior was in poor condition, the king paid for the necessary repairs, even after Haddington took possession.40 Ibid. xxi. 102; SP14/48/51. Haddington enjoyed Farnham Castle for less than five years, as the crown’s lease expired on the death of Bishop Bilson in June 1616. Nevertheless, during that time, in the late summer of 1615, the king stayed at Farnham, where, for the first time, he took to bed the rising young favourite, George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham). Like many of his fellow Scottish courtiers, Haddington eagerly promoted young Villiers in the hope of toppling the king’s principal favourite, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset.41 HMC Downshire, v. 58; GEORGE VILLIERS.

If James hoped that marriage to Sussex’s daughter would help shore up Haddington’s finances, he was soon disappointed. Sussex had financial problems of his own and there was little prospect that Haddington’s debts, which by January 1609 exceeded £7,124, would be cleared without royal assistance.42 SP14/43/15. In February the king, whose own debts amounted to more than £700,000, ordered that £7,200 be set aside to pay Haddington’s creditors.43 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 493. This was despite the fact that Haddington was then in bad odour for having issued a challenge to the 2nd duke of Lennox (Ludovic Stuart^*, later 1st duke of Richmond in the English peerage), the king’s cousin and a privy councillor. (The duel was stopped on James’s orders.)44 CSP Ven. 1607-10, p. 234. However, Haddington’s creditors seem not to have received immediate satisfaction. Not only was the Exchequer bare, but James was also under strong pressure from the lord treasurer, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, to restrain his gift-giving, particularly in respect of the Scots, for fear of antagonizing the English Parliament.45 P. Croft, ‘A Collection of Several Speeches’, Cam. Misc. XXIX (Cam. Soc. 4th ser. xxix), 310. It was therefore not until after the Parliament was dissolved, in February 1611, that James issued a further instruction. This time he required the Exchequer to pay £8,000 to Haddington ‘in consideration of his long and faithful service, and for other causes and considerations best known unto his Majesty’.46 Devon, 120; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 5. He also increased Haddington’s annuity, which now stood at £600, to £1,000.47 SO3/5, unfol. (Feb. 1610); CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 57.

Haddington’s financial difficulties nevertheless persisted. In 1612 the viscount was obliged to borrow £2,000 from a Bedfordshire gentleman;48 LC4/32, m. 1, no. 10; C3/323/7. the following year he was upbraided by the Privy Council for failing to contribute to the aid payable on the marriage of the king’s daughter.49 APC, 1613-14, pp. 60-1. By November 1613 at the latest, the king was attempting to find fresh sources of money for Haddington, this time in the form of arrears on fines payable by recusants.50 SP14/75/20; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 244. In addition, between August 1614 and February 1615 lands worth nearly £1,000 p.a. were conveyed to the young Scot.51 SP14/203/25. However, Haddington’s appetite was insatiable, and in April 1615 he placed before the Privy Council a proposal to erect an office for registering wills. The Council were impressed with this potentially lucrative scheme and referred it to the judges, but nothing further was heard of the matter, and in December a doubtless disappointed Haddington was awarded £800 as a free gift. Twelve months later, the king ordered that he receive a further £6,000, which sum seems to have been paid.52 HMC Downshire, v. 183; APC, 1615-16, pp. 102-3; SO3/6, unfol. (Dec. 1615, Dec. 1616); Lansd. 169, f. 146.

In 1617 Haddington accompanied the king to Scotland, where he sat in the Parliament which assembled in June.53 HMC Downshire, vi. 136; Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 96; APS, iv. 524, 527. Before leaving England, he begged to be admitted to the English peerage, as by now the two other leading Scots at court, Lennox and Hay, both had English titles. However, James reportedly promised him instead the sum of £15,000 and a Scottish earldom.54 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 156. The following year, at around the time three new English earls were created, Haddington renewed his request, this time asking to be made earl of Gloucester. Once again James declined to accede to Haddington’s wishes, but instead repeated his earlier offer of a Scottish earldom. Haddington, by now self-important and not a little spoilt, was incensed. He may also have felt aggrieved that, as a result of necessary financial retrenchment, his annuity of £1,000 had been halved. In February 1619 James attempted to soothe his injured feelings by assigning him £2,000 due from Sir Richard Wingfield for an Irish viscountcy. Moreover, in March, following the death of Anne of Denmark, he allocated Haddington £12,000 from the late queen’s jointure. However, Haddington refused to be mollified, and over the summer he decamped to France, having first obtained a licence to travel abroad for three years.55 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 211, 257; SO3/6, unfol. (Mar. 1618; July 1619); CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 25.

Dismayed by Haddington’s departure, James subsequently instructed the disgraced former lord treasurer, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, to pay his reduced Star Chamber fine of £7,000 to the young Scot.56 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 60; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 313. Haddington, whose debts had recently forced him to sell his Scottish estate, proved unable to resist the bait, and before long he had returned to England. On 5 Aug. 1620, the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy, he presented himself to the king, who received him ‘with great grace’.57 Reg. PC Scot. 1619-22, p. 235; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 170; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 315; SP14/116/72. Shortly thereafter the money owed by Suffolk was paid to Haddington, who was also given £2,000 by the king.58 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 179; Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 138-9; E403/2562, f. 12. The precise purpose of this additional gift is unclear, but it was presumably intended to enable Haddington to purchase Ham House, a ten-year old property on the banks of the Thames near Richmond, Surrey, which had recently become available and now became his country retreat.59 C. Rowell et al., Ham House, 60; HP Commons, 1558-1603, iii. 554. James further sought to mollify Haddington by finally agreeing to bestow on him an English earldom. In January 1621, after announcing his intention to settle in Yorkshire, the formerly sulky Scot was created earl of Holdernesse and given both Scarborough Castle and the nearby crown manors of Bridlington and Flamborough. He was also granted the right to bear the sword before the king on the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy.60 Kent Hist. and Lib. Centre, U269/1/OE387; HMC 7th Rep. 254; ‘Camden Diary’, 66.

Earl of Holdernesse, 1621-5

Haddington’s elevation occurred just eight days before the start of the 1621 Westminster Parliament. As a recent creation, the new earl of Holdernesse was permitted to ride at the head of his fellow earls in the procession which preceded the formal opening.61 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 338-9. His high standing with the king also meant that he was chosen to serve as one of the triers of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, a prestigious but largely honorific appointment.62 LJ, iii. 7a. However, Holdernesse played little part in the House of Lords, which he attended only sparingly. On 5 Feb. he took the oath of allegiance,63 Ibid. 10b. but thereafter he made no recorded speeches and was named to no committees.

The 1621 Parliament was nevertheless not entirely devoid of interest to Holdernesse. Shortly before it assembled, he contemplated introducing a bill to gain control of an east Anglian estate to which the earls of Sussex had a claim.64 Harl. 7000, f. 51. For the details, see HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 775. In the event, he failed to do so, but instead put forward a measure to confirm the sale of lands in Romney Marsh, Kent to Sir Martin Lumley, alderman of London. The lands concerned had previously belonged to Holdernesse, who had sold them to Lumley in order to help pay his debts.65 ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 111. They had been given to him by the king in 1616 after their original owner, Sir Francis James, refused to take the oath of allegiance.66 SO3/6, unfol. (9 Jan. 1616). It seems likely that Holdernesse closely followed the passage of this bill, which was laid before the Commons on 20 February. It is certainly significant that the committee appointed to consider the measure in the Commons included the clerk of the Stable, Sir George Wright, whose house at Richmond, Surrey, made him Holdernesse’s neighbour.67 CD 1621, iv. 81; CJ, i. 551b. However, the lower House gave little priority to private legislation in 1621, being distracted by more pressing concerns, and although Holdernesse’s bill was scheduled to receive a third reading on 18 May, the decision was ultimately taken to set it aside.68 CD 1621, vi. 163; iii. 279; CJ, i. 631a. Among the more pressing matters that concerned the Commons in 1621 was the impeachment of the lord chancellor, Viscount St Alban (Francis Bacon^*) on charges of corruption. One of the chief witnesses against St Alban was Edward Egerton, who had tried to obtain a favourable decree in Chancery through bribery. His chief agent in this endeavour was the bishop of Hereford, Theophilus Field^*, who in turn enlisted the aid of Holdernesse.69 LJ, iii. 143b. However, despite the revelation of their involvement, neither Holdernesse nor Field were ever required to explain themselves.

Holdernesse failed to take his seat when Parliament reconvened in November 1621. (His inclusion in the list of those who attended the Lords on 13 Dec. is evidently a clerical error.) Instead, he awarded his proxy to the earl of Montgomery. Following the dissolution, several leading Members of the Commons were imprisoned, among them the former lord chief justice of King’s Bench, Sir Edward Coke^‡. However, they were released in August 1622 after Holdernesse intervened on their behalf.70 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 448; Add. 72276, f. 5v. Holdernesse was concerned at the deteriorating situation in the Rhenish Palatinate, the territory ruled by the king’s son-in-law, which was then in the process of being overrun by Spanish and Imperial forces. Parliament would surely soon meet to vote the funds necessary for its defence, and under such circumstances it would not do for former leading lights of the Commons to remain behind bars.

It was not only the fate of the Palatinate which preoccupied Holdernesse at this time: so too did the fortunes of the Huguenots of La Rochelle, whose cause he supported. When the rebel Huguenot duc de Soubise arrived in England early in 1622, Holdernesse not only visited him but also became his constant companion. It was through Holdernesse that, in July, the king informed Soubise that if Spain failed to bring about a marriage between Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) and the infanta – upon which James pinned all his hopes of achieving peace – he would help both the Huguenots against Catholic France, and Catholic France against Spain.71 CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 56, 381; Add. 72276, f. 143. No longer a supporter of Spain, Holdernesse bitterly opposed the Spanish Match. In August 1622 his former chaplain preached a sermon at Paul’s Cross pointing out that, during the reign of Edward I, it had been Spanish sheep that had infected English sheep with a murrain, for which offence the culprit was imprisoned, only to be released after Holdernesse intervened.72 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 219-20; Diary of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. E. Bourcier, 94. The following month Holdernesse and the francophile Lord Hay, now 1st Viscount Doncaster, remonstrated with the king, pointing out the grave injury that had been done to his reputation by Spain.73 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 460. Opposition to the Spanish Match necessarily placed Holdernesse in opposition to the royal favourite George Villiers, now lord admiral and marquess of Buckingham, who, prior to the fall of Heidelberg (capital of the Rhenish Palatinate) in September 1622, warmly supported the proposed Spanish alliance. Holdernesse was unperturbed, and in June he brought before the king the disgraced wife of Buckingham’s brother John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck, without the knowledge of the lord admiral.74 Add. 72275, f. 143v.

Holdernesse remained opposed to the Spanish Match even after Charles and Buckingham journeyed to Madrid in 1623. When, in June, it was learned that the Spanish were unwilling to allow Charles to return to England until terms had been agreed, Holdernesse, who enjoyed a remarkable freedom of speech with the king, berated James for his weakness and folly.75 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 56. However, in July he felt compelled to sign the marriage articles subsequently agreed by Charles and Buckingham.76 Diary of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, 148. Following the return of the prince from Spain, a disgusted Holdernesse absented himself from court. His disappearance, which upset the king, occasioned a falling out with Buckingham,77 SP14/156/3. but their quarrel was of brief duration, as by now Buckingham himself was also deeply opposed to the Spanish Match.

Holdernesse attended the opening of the final Jacobean Parliament in February 1624, when he was once again appointed a trier of petitions from the king’s three kingdoms.78 LJ, iii. 208a. As in 1621, he attended the House of Lords only occasionally, and he did not sit at all after 6 April. On 8 May the clerk made a note in his draft Journal that Holdernesse wanted to be provided with ‘a catalogue of the lords according to their creation’, which request may suggest that Holdernesse was unhappy with his place in the House’s seating arrangements.79 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 81v. Although the Parliament was dominated by opposition to the Spanish Match, Holdernesse made no recorded speeches, nor was he appointed to any committees. Indeed, his only known activity was on 3 Mar., when he presented a private petition to the upper House.80 Add. 40087, f. 48. However, he took the opportunity of a fresh Parliament to reintroduce the bill regarding his sale of lands in Romney Marsh to Sir Martin Lumley. This time there were no hiccups, and the measure passed into law. However, on 4 May the Lords added both amendments and a proviso to the bill which were subsequently accepted by the Commons.81 LJ, iii. 339a; CJ, i. 788a.

One reason Holdernesse may have absented himself from Parliament for so long, perhaps, was that he was involved in negotiating a marriage with the wealthy London alderman, Sir William Cockayne (his first wife, Elizabeth Radcliffe, having died of smallpox in 1618). Like the king his master, Holdernesse pinned his hopes for financial relief on the large dowry that a second wife would bring. Indeed, early in 1624 he seems to have forestalled at least one of his creditors by holding out the imminent prospect of a marriage with Cockayne’s daughter Martha.82 Northants. RO, C2458. The negotiations were evidently protracted, as a settlement was not signed until 1 July, when it was agreed that Holdernesse would receive a dowry of £10,000. According to John Chamberlain, the marriage was celebrated a few weeks later, but a subsequent source suggests that the ceremony was not performed until 29 September. This latter claim is probably accurate, for it was in October that the king ordered payment to be made for a gold ring given to Holdernesse on the occasion of his marriage.83 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 572; NLS, ms 597, f. 7; SO3/8, unfol. (Oct. 1624).

Holdernesse may have been the beneficiary of at least part of the fine laid upon the disgraced lord treasurer, the 1st earl of Middlesex (Lionel Cranfield^*), who, during the final stages of his impeachment, enlisted the aid of the young Scot to gain access to the king.84 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 555, 580. He certainly continued to be treated generously by the king. In January 1624, James, aware that Holdernesse had been forced to sell all the lands he had previously been given, bestowed upon him a new estate worth £600 p.a.85 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 149; SO3/8, unfol. (9 Apr. and 29 July 1624).

It seems likely that Holdernesse had little sympathy for Middlesex, whose opposition to war with Spain contrasted with his own bellicose views. However, he was perfectly willing to act on behalf of the former lord treasurer, who wished to secure a reduction in his fine, in return for a fee.86 M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 473. During January 1625 he waited more than once two hours at a time to convey messages to James on Middlesex’s behalf, a task that required him to act in complete secrecy, as Charles and Buckingham were anxious to prevent all communication between James and leading hispanophiles.87 Kent Hist. and Lib. Centre, U269/1/CB105, bdle 1.

Holdernesse never achieved significant office; according to Sir Anthony Weldon, he was a man of somewhat limited ability.88 Secret Hist. of Ct. of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, i. 321. However, in January 1625 he was reportedly one of three peers selected by James for membership of England’s elite order of knighthood, the order of the Garter.89 T. Birch, Court and Times of Jas. I, ii. 487. The following month, the king again promised to pay his debts. He also pressed Holdernesse, who had abandoned all thoughts of settling in Yorkshire, to take as his chief country residence a house in Alice Holt forest, Hampshire, where Holdernesse had been keeper since about 1606. Despite his own penury, James offered to foot the bill for repairing this property himself.90 Northants. RO, C2888. However, the king died before he was able to make good either this promise or his offer of the Garter.

Final months, 1625-6

The new king, Charles I, honoured the crown’s existing commitments to Holdernesse, issuing orders in April to ensure that James’s grant to Holdernesse of lands worth £600 p.a. took effect. However, the change of monarch meant that Holdernesse never ever again occupied the favourable position at court he had for so long enjoyed. The accession of Charles, and the outbreak of war with Spain, also necessitated the summoning of a fresh Parliament. Although Holdernesse himself played little recorded part in this assembly, he secured the return for Scarborough of the local townsman William Thompson^‡, to whom he had previously assigned his interest in Scarborough Castle.91 J.B. Baker, Hist. of Scarborough, 224-5; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 207.

Holdernesse attended the opening of Parliament on 18 June, and took the oath of allegiance five days later, but was absent for most of the rest of the sitting, though he did not obtain formal leave until 6 July. When the session reconvened in early August, he put in only a brief appearance in the Lords, which he attended on 3 and 4 August. The timing suggests that he was hopeful that the new king would continue his father’s tradition of celebrating the anniversary of the Gowrie Conspiracy, but there is no evidence that the customary feast was held, and for the rest of the session Holdernesse was conspicuous by his absence.

Holdernesse was probably seriously ill when he drew up his will on 6 Jan. 1626. As all three of his children had died during infancy, he left the bulk of his property to his surviving brothers, among them his elder brother Nicholas, who was instructed to pay his debts. He also gave instructions that the dowry due from his father-in-law should be used to buy an estate for his widow, who was also left the house at Ham.92 PROB 11/151, ff. 103v-4v. Holdernesse died on 24 Jan., whereupon his titles became extinct, and was buried at night, alongside his children, in St Paul’s chapel, Westminster Abbey, on 28 February.93 Regs. Westminster Abbey, 125; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 324. His will was not proved until 16 Feb. 1627, following a lawsuit in which his widow was accused of undervaluing his personal estate in order to avoid payment of annuities to two servants.94 PROB 11/151, f. 105; C3/395/49. Not surprisingly, perhaps, his creditors had difficulty in obtaining payment of the sums due to them, while members of the Ramsay family quarrelled over Holdernesse’s lands in Norfolk, leading to petitions to the House of Commons in 1641.95 LC5/183, f. 4; HMC 4th Rep. 65, 94.