RUSSELL, Edward (1572-1627)

Descended from Normans who settled in England shortly after the Conquest, the Russells rose to prominence through service to the early Tudor kings. John Russell^†, appointed comptroller of the household, lord admiral and lord privy seal by Henry VIII, became Lord Russell in 1539, and received the earldom of Bedford 11 years later as a reward for crushing the Prayer Book rebellion.18 Ibid. i. 1, 22, 182, 189, 319, 331-2, 336, 340, 367-8, 371-2; CP, ii. 74. His son Francis Russell^†, 2nd earl of Bedford, a long-standing privy councillor, owned property in ten English counties, and played a leading role in local government under Elizabeth, first as lord lieutenant of the four northernmost shires, and latterly as the greatest magnate in the West Country. The 2nd earl’s son Francis, a dashing soldier, looked set to continue this distinguished record, until his premature death in July 1585 from wounds received in a skirmish on the Scottish border. When the earl himself died the very next day, his titles passed instead to Francis’ 12-year-old son Edward, the subject of this biography, who inherited the great Russell estates but not his forebears’ political or administrative acumen.19 Wiffen, i. 399, 403, 413, 483-4, 510; Collins, i. 273; C142/211/183; CPR, 1585-6 ed. S.R. Neal (L. and I. Soc. ccxciv), 30-1. Once the 3rd earl of Bedford came of age, he gradually acquired the badges of local office associated with his rank and wealth, but he was never entrusted with positions of real power. Instead, he settled for the pleasures of life at court, where he and his cultured but extravagant wife, Lucy, soon ran up huge debts.20 L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 484; HMC Var. iv. 163; Lewalski, 97. In 1601 Bedford participated in the abortive rebellion of Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex. A peripheral figure in the rising, he was spared execution, but placed under house arrest, and fined £10,000.21 HMC Bath, v. 278; CSP Dom. 1598-1601, p. 558; HMC Hatfield, xi. 50-1, 214; APC, 1601-4, p. 145; Wiffen, 65-6. Barred from attending the 1601 Parliament, he remained in disgrace for the rest of Elizabeth’s reign.22 APC, 1601-4, p. 219; HMC Hatfield, xi. 533.

James I’s accession in 1603 brought the opportunity for a fresh start. The king had been on good terms with Essex, and was accordingly well disposed towards the late earl’s associates. Within days of Elizabeth’s death, Bedford and his uncle Sir William Russell^* (later 1st Lord Russell) wrote to James, pledging their loyalty and service, and the king in return promised to show them his ‘princely respect’.23 N. Akkerman, ‘Goddess of the Household’, Pols. of Female Households: Ladies-in-Waiting Across Early Modern Europe ed. N. Akkerman and B. Houben, 291; Eg. 2877, f. 80. Meanwhile, Lucy raced up to Edinburgh, quickly establishing herself as the new queen consort’s favourite lady-in-waiting, a role which she retained until Anne of Denmark’s death 16 years later.24 Akkerman, 287, 292; Wiffen, ii. 70; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 12; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 35. This charm offensive soon bore fruit: in June Bedford was pardoned the outstanding balance of his £10,000 fine, and a month later he was offered (but declined) membership of the order of the Bath. However, the earl, though he certainly attended court again around the time of James’s coronation, now preferred a more secluded existence, and left his able and strong-minded wife to represent his interests there.25 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 15; Wiffen, ii. 73; Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 65; K. Hearn, ‘Lucy Harington, Countess of Bedford, as Art Patron and Collector’, Evolution of Eng. Collecting ed. E. Chaney, 222. One reason for his choice of a quiet life is to be found in his continuing financial problems, which were exacerbated by expensive improvements to his houses and by the public profile adopted by his wife, who bolstered her position at court through lavish patronage of the arts and enthusiastic participation in costly masques.26 Akkerman, 287; Lewalski, 95; Hearn, 225-7, 229; R. Strong, Renaissance Garden in Eng. 120-2, 139-41, 141, 144, 146.

In the 1604 parliamentary elections, Bedford secured both seats at Tavistock for his nominees, these being his servant Edward Duncombe^‡ and a Buckinghamshire neighbour, Sir George Fleetwood^‡. However, he exercised no discernible electoral influence elsewhere, despite the scale of his estates.27 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 102. Although the earl participated in the royal procession through London on 15 Mar., and attended the state opening of Parliament four days later, he missed nearly three-quarters of this session, rarely turning up for consecutive sittings, and absenting himself from the Lords for five weeks during May and June. It was presumably at this juncture that he awarded his proxy to his wife’s kinsman, Robert Sidney^*, Lord Sydney (later 1st earl of Leicester).28 Wiffen, ii. 75; LJ, ii. 263a; Vis. Rutland (Harl. Soc. iii), 38. Unsurprisingly, Bedford attracted just three nominations. He doubtless took some interest in the bill to free Exeter Cathedral close from the control of the local corporation, since one of his lesser residences was located in the city. The earl took charge of this bill when it was committed on 30 Apr., but it progressed no further. He was also appointed to scrutinize the bill to suppress adultery, and to attend a conference on the tunnage and poundage bill.29 LJ, ii. 272a, 287a, 323a; APC, 1621-3, p. 486.

Bedford’s attendance of the next session was even less impressive. He missed the first two sittings, not taking his seat until the afternoon of 9 Nov. 1605, and after Parliament resumed in 1606 he absented himself throughout early March and for most of April and May, appearing only intermittently the rest of the time. In total, he was present for just a quarter of the sittings, and at some point assigned his proxy to Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury.30 LJ, ii. 355b. Bedford received only two committee nominations, both relating to the bill to avoid unnecessary delays in executions, which was committed twice.31 Ibid. 364a, 371a. However, he must also have followed the progress of the bill to permit the transportation of timber down the river Taw in Devon. He and his uncle, William Bourchier^*, 3rd earl of Bath, were the principal local landowners, and had been vigorously lobbying the government since 1604 to prevent this activity, which they claimed was damaging their property. The bill was designed to circumvent their objections, but it was thrown out by the Lords after the two earls made their opposition clear.32 Ibid. 397a-b, 413a; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 107, 138; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 362, 403; SP14/19/75-7.

Meanwhile, Bedford’s financial problems were intensifying. By early 1607 his debts stood at more than £15,500, of which nearly £12,000 was owed to moneylenders, though there were also numerous unpaid bills from ‘silkmen, mercers, goldsmiths and other tradesmen’. There was no easy solution, for his grandfather had tied up most of the Russell lands in elaborate entails to prevent their sale, and made allowance only for the granting of short, less valuable leases. Moreover, as the earl remained childless, his next heir was his uncle, the 1st Lord Russell, who was determined to protect his prospective inheritance.33 Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-3, 5; C142/211/183; SP14/26/34. In the face of Bedford’s profligacy, Russell had already made his nephew enter into a £20,000 bond in 1603, which would be forfeited if any entailed lands were sold. Nevertheless, around early 1606, the earl unilaterally restructured the entail agreement, giving himself the power to make long leases, a modification which had the potential to reduce the future profitability of the estates (though the basic scheme of inheritance was left unchanged). Bedford then went further, exploring his options for actually breaking the entails. One major obstacle was the fact that the crown held the reversion of the core estates in the event of the Russell male line dying out. However, in December 1606 the king agreed to relinquish his claim in part.34 LC4/27/19; SP14/24/35; 14/26/34; Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-3. A furious Lord Russell retaliated by imposing a new bond of £40,000 on Bedford, and extracting a promise from James that nothing further should be done to break the entails without the earl’s heirs being consulted.35 Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-2, 14, 16; SP14/26/34. Since Bedford could clear less than a third of his existing debt by selling land excluded from the entails, this left the earl in an impossible position. Following arbitration by Salisbury and Lord Treasurer Dorset (Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset), Russell finally consented to the sale of two other manors, but this still did not go far enough, and Bedford’s difficulties continued.36 Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-5, 7; SP14/26/33; C66/1766/92.

When Parliament met again in 1606-7, the earl’s attendance in the Lords declined still further. He managed just four sittings before Christmas, and another 16 after the recess, just 23 per cent of the whole session, though this time he apparently felt no need to appoint a proxy. Named in November 1606 to attend a conference with the Commons about the Union, he was also nominated in June 1607 to the committee for the bill to abolish laws hostile to Scotland. His only other appointment was to the bill committee concerned with ecclesiastical canons issued without parliamentary consent. A claim of privilege for one of Bedford’s servants in May was thrown out after it emerged that the man was not, in fact, one of the earl’s personal attendants, a key qualifying condition.37 LJ, ii. 452b, 503a, 513b-14a, 515b, 520b.

In 1608 Bedford’s wife added to her husband’s financial burdens by establishing an additional household at Twickenham Park, in Middlesex, where she surrounded herself with writers such as John Donne^‡. This was her personal retreat, and Bedford apparently preferred to spend his time either in London or out hunting. However, the pair were evidently not estranged, since the countess fell pregnant in 1610 and 1611. These pregnancies held out the hope that Bedford might break free of Lord Russell, but in the event Lucy suffered one miscarriage and the other child died within two hours of birth.38 R.C. Bald, John Donne, 172, 175; Wiffen, ii. 109; HMC Hatfield, xx. 190; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 229; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 306. With no male heir still, Bedford remained at his uncle’s mercy. To make matters worse, in mid 1608 the government also applied pressure to the earl to clear debts owing to the crown. Around six months later the king relented, and granted Bedford lands or reversions worth £120 a year. Even so, Bedford had to dispose of at least some of this property by the end of 1610. In practice, he remained happy to sell his core possessions if a way could be found. When, in April 1610, Salisbury asked to buy part of the Covent Garden estate next to his London residence, he initially responded by saying that a sale would breach his agreement with Russell. However, when Salisbury persisted, Bedford transferred the land in question to his wife, ostensibly to augment her own income, and left her to complete the sale.39 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 465, 491, 642; 1611-18, p. 69; SO3/5, unfol. (Nov. 1610); SP14/53/127.

The first parliamentary session of 1610 saw a marked improvement in Bedford’s attendance. Despite several extended absences in the latter stages, he was present for just over two-fifths of the sittings. That said, he still received only four appointments. Two were conferences relating to the Great Contract, the others were committees for the bills to improve agriculture in Devon and Cornwall and repair a weir near Exeter.40 LJ, ii. 550b, 593b, 623b, 644b. When Parliament briefly reconvened that autumn, Bedford managed to attend almost half of the sittings. He was again twice appointed to confer with the Commons about the crown’s finances, but attracted just one other nomination, to scrutinize the bill for conserving timber supplies. On 6 Dec., in what proved to be his final appearance in the Lords, he served as a commissioner for proroguing Parliament.41 Ibid. 669a, 671a, 678a; HMC Hastings, iv. 222-6.

In June 1611, the countess of Bedford procured a 20-year monopoly of the manufacture in England of gold and silver thread, a potentially lucrative grant which offered a partial solution to the continuing debt crisis. Around this time, the earl also began developing his London properties to improve his rental income.42 Archaeologia, xli. 237-8; Stone, 360. However, the couple now suffered two major personal blows. In November 1612, the countess nearly succumbed to a serious illness, apparently a stroke, from which she took more than six months to recover.43 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 211; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 166; HMC Downshire, iv. 16; Chamberlain Letters, i. 419, 470. Then, in July 1613, Bedford was thrown from his horse while out hunting, hit a tree as he fell, and either cracked his skull or broke his neck. Against all expectations, he survived this injury, but was left partially paralysed, with slurred speech. In a portrait of 1616 he is shown standing, but with his right arm supported by a sling. He remained an invalid for the rest of his life, his public career effectively over.44 Harl. 7002, f. 273; Chamberlain Letters, i. 470; Pvte. Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis Bacon, 77; portrait at Woburn Abbey. Another, undated, portrait of the earl seated also shows him with a sling: Wiffen, ii. 122. Excused attendance of the 1614 Parliament on health grounds, he presented his proxy to Henry Wriothesley^*, 1st and 3rd earl of Southampton, another former ally of the 2nd earl of Essex. Bedford’s electoral patronage was not affected by his illness, and Edward Duncombe once again sat in the Commons for Tavistock.45 LJ, ii. 686b, 700b; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 102.

In February 1614 John Harington^*, 2nd Lord Harington died, leaving his sister, the countess of Bedford, as his principal heir. However, his estate was even more debt-laden than Bedford’s own, so while the acquisition of the Harington estate significantly increased the Russell property portfolio in the short term, most of these lands had to be sold in the next few years.46 Chamberlain Letters, i. 516; C66/2053/44, 51-5; 66/2055/36; 66/2083/7, 55; 66/2088/14. In March 1614 the countess disposed of her gold and silver thread patent, which had lost her yet more money, though she did persevere with another monopoly for manufacturing copper farthings, which she effectively took over from her late brother.47 HMC Downshire, iv. 340; APC, 1615-16, pp. 663-5; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 387. With Bedford still childless, his next male heir, now his cousin, Francis Russell^*, 2nd Lord Russell (later 4th earl of Bedford), began to involve himself in the earl’s financial struggles. Unlike his father, Russell was prepared to countenance land sales in order to stabilize the remaining estate. In March 1617 Bedford consented to a major restructuring programme, which transferred some properties to Russell, and cleared the way for the disposal of others, the earl having recently spent £10,000 buying out the crown’s reversionary interest. For the next 18 months, the two peers jointly offloaded a string of minor properties. Then, in January 1619, Russell reached a new deal with the earl, taking immediate control of almost all the remaining estates, apart from those which formed the countess’s jointure, such as Moor Park. Two months later, in recognition of this transfer of wealth and power, Russell also replaced Bedford as custos rotulorum of Devon.48 WARD 7/76/172; SO3/6, unfol. (21 Dec. 1616); CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 350; C66/2156/31; 66/2160/1-3, 5, 10-13, 17, 39-40; 66/2163/68; 66/2195/94; 66/2196/23.

From this point onwards, the earl became little more than a cipher. His wife, in marked contrast, remained influential at court, despite the death of Queen Anne in March 1619, and a serious bout of smallpox three months later which apparently blinded her in one eye. Along with her kinsman William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, Lucy had been instrumental in promoting the new royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, and she remained on good terms with both men subsequently.49 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 598; 1619-23, p. 53; Addenda, 1603-25, p. 553; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 250, 265; T. Fuller, Worthies of Eng. ii. 232. She also cultivated the king’s Scottish cousins, the 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (Ludovic Stuart^*, 1st duke of Richmond in the English peerage) and the 2nd marquess of Hamilton [S] (James Hamilton^*, 1st earl of Cambridge in the English peerage), taking the former as her partner in the copper farthings monopoly, and attempting to marry off her niece to the latter’s son, James Hamilton^* (later 2nd earl of Cambridge).50 APC, 1615-16, pp. 663-5; Birch, ii. 120. With such powerful friends, the countess continued to secure royal favours, such as a grant of concealed debts in 1618, and a lease of a coal duty at Newcastle the following year. However, these benefits had little impact on Bedford’s financial position, as he and his wife were rebuilding Moor Park, and the Harington debt problem remained unresolved.51 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 594; 1619-23, p. 61; Strong, 141; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 275. In 1620-1, they were obliged to sell much of the countess’s remaining inheritance, with Buckingham snapping up the Rutland seat of Burley-on-the-Hill.52 C54/2520/30, 34; C66/2243/8, 79; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 63, 87.

Bedford was licensed to absent himself from the 1621 Parliament, and awarded his proxy to Pembroke.53 SO3/7, unfol. (24 Dec. 1620); LJ, iii. 4a, 14b. The earl’s electoral interest was now being exercised by Lord Russell, who presumably also sponsored a bill in the Lords to transfer certain fee-farms from property recently sold by Bedford to other lands still in his possession. The first version of this legislation was abandoned in committee. A new bill received its first reading on 4 May, and completed its passage through the upper House, but it made no progress in the Commons before the summer recess, and was not revived in the autumn.54 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 102; LJ, iii. 21b, 24a, 107b, 117b, 127b, 133b, 137b; CJ, i. 630a. No text of the bill has been found. During the course of the Parliament, the lower House discussed at length the countess of Bedford’s former patent for gold and silver thread, as part of its investigation into monopolies. However, Lucy’s decision to surrender her grant in 1614 worked in her favour, and Members instead pursued the patentees who had replaced her.55 CD 1621, ii. 164; CJ, i. 538a, 542a, 549a; LD 1621, pp. 43-4. The countess’ patent of farthings also generated complaints in the Commons, though no significant action was taken on this issue. Following the session, that grant was upheld by the Privy Council, as a matter falling within the royal prerogative, though the countess opted to surrender her share shortly afterwards.56 CD 1621, vii. 359.

In 1621-2 Bedford and his wife raised in excess of £50,000 through further land sales, but it still proved necessary to mortgage Moor Park, and in May 1622 the countess complained to her friend Sir Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester) that she remained ‘troubled with an encumbered estate’.57 C54/2479/10; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 446; C66/2291/5; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 385. Money worries did not, in fact, deter the countess from maintaining an active presence at court, where she had become a leading advocate for James I’s daughter, the exiled queen of Bohemia.58 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 372, 542; 1623-5, p. 114. By comparison, Bedford himself was now living entirely in retirement. He stayed away from the parliaments of 1624, 1624 and 1626 ‘in regard of his indisposition of body’, handing his proxy each time to the earl of Pembroke.59 SO3/7, unfol. (31 Jan. 1624); LJ, iii. 212b, 214b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 7; Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 590; Procs. 1626, iv. 10. It has been suggested, incorrectly, that Bedford exercised electoral patronage at Amersham in 1624-5; by this time the local manor had passed into Lord Russell’s hands: HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 21; WARD 7/76/172. During the 1624 session, a bill was introduced in the Commons relating to the countess’ coal duty patent, but it was lost in committee, and its precise objective remains unclear.60 CJ, i. 769b, 778b.

By the end of his life, Bedford had effectively become dependent on the charity of his friends. In November 1624 he remortgaged Moor Park, one of his last remaining assets, to Sir Paul Bayning^* (later 1st Viscount Bayning). Now obliged to raise at least £10,800 within two years in order to redeem the estate, he proved unable to find the money. At the last moment, Pembroke came to his rescue, buying out Bayning’s interest in January 1627, but allowing Bedford and his wife to remain in residence.61 C54/2607/1; 54/2688/6. In the event, the earl died in the following May, probably at Bedford House. Unsurprisingly, he left no will. Administration of his estate was granted a week later to his widow, but she too was dead by the end of that month, and a new grant was issued to one John Ansley of Rickmansworth, probably a creditor.62 According to his i.p.m., Bedford died in Westminster, though his admon. grant describes him as ‘late of Moor Park’: WARD 7/76/172; PROB 6/12, ff. 149v, 161. Bedford was buried in the Russell ancestral vault at Chenies but, independent to the end, the countess preferred to rest with her own ancestors at Exton in Rutland.63 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 223; CP, ii. 78. The final reckoning of the earl’s debts is not known, but it was clearly substantial as Sir Francis Goodwin^‡, a party to many of Bedford’s property transactions, was still trying to recover his losses in 1631.64 C54/2278/8; 54/2433/22; 54/2520/34; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 116.