SEYMOUR, Edward (1539-1621)

The Seymours claimed to have come originally from St Maur in Normandy. In 1361, Cecily, wife of Sir Roger Seymour of Undy, Monmouthshire, became joint heir to her deceased brother, John Beauchamp^†, 3rd Lord Beauchamp of Hatch, in Somerset. Her grandson, also called Roger (d.1420), married the daughter and heiress of Sir William Sturmey^‡ (Esturmey), of Wolf Hall in Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, whose estates brought the family to prominence in that county. However, not until five generations later, in 1536, when Jane Seymour, the daughter of Sir John Seymour^‡ (d.1545) married Henry VIII, did the family become nationally important.31 H. St Maur, Annals of the Seymours, 2, 13-17; HP Commons, 1386-1421, iv. 343; CP, ii. 49-50.

This marriage brought immense rewards to Sir John’s eldest son, Edward^†, who received substantial grants of land and was raised to the peerage, first as Viscount Beauchamp in 1536, and then as earl of Hertford (1537). However, Edward doubted the paternity of John Seymour^‡, supposedly his eldest son by his first wife, Katherine Fyloll, and therefore ensured that his titles and estates would descend to his offspring by his second wife, Anne Stanhope. In addition, he secured a private act of Parliament in 1540 to settle all his property, including that which he had received on his first marriage, on his second wife and her children. However, the act also included a remainder to Edward, his second son by his first wife.32 HP Commons, 1509-58, iii. 293; CP, xii. pt. 2, 59-60; Oxford DNB, xlix. 867; LP Hen. VIII, Jan.-June 1536, pp. 526-7; 1540, p. 219.

On the accession of his nephew, Edward VI, in 1547, Hertford became lord protector and duke of Somerset. Overthrown two years later, he was acquitted of the charge of treason, his execution on 22 Jan. 1552 being for conspiring to commit a riot. Consequently, his estates and titles were not automatically forfeited to the crown. John Seymour, his putative eldest son by his first wife, was then sitting in the Commons and therefore able to sponsor a private bill to repeal the 1540 statute. This measure was amended to include the forfeiture of Somerset’s titles and, following its enactment, a partition was made of the former lord protector’s estates by William Paulet^†, 1st marquess of Winchester, then master of the Court of Wards. However, John did not live long enough to derive benefit from the 1552 act as he died later that same year. Instead, John’s full brother, Edward, obtained properties in Devon around Berry Pomeroy. The bulk of the estate, mostly concentrated in Wiltshire, Hampshire and Somerset, was reserved for the duke’s eldest son by his second marriage who, somewhat confusingly, was also called Edward. For the time being these estates were administered by the Court of Wards, as this same Edward – the subject of this biography - was still underage.33 Oxford DNB, xlix. 866; CJ, i. 19a; CSP Dom. 1547-53, pp. 223-5; CPR, 1550-3, p. 278; 1553, pp. 76-7; D. Loades, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, 213-14.

Seymour was restored in blood under Mary Tudor and was advanced to the peerage soon after the accession of Elizabeth, being created Lord Beauchamp and earl of Hertford in January 1559. Four months later his lands were released from the custody of the Court of Wards.34 SR, iv. 200; CPR, 1558-60, p. 235. However, in late 1560 he endangered his new-found favour by secretly marrying Katharine Grey, daughter and co-heiress of Henry Grey^†, duke of Suffolk. Katharine, the eldest surviving sister of the ill-fated Lady Jane Grey, was descended from Henry VII’s youngest daughter Mary, whose line had been given precedence in the succession over the offspring of her elder sister, Margaret, by Henry VIII’s will. Consequently, Katharine’s legitimate descendants would have a claim to the crown if Elizabeth died childless.35 Oxford DNB, xlix. 889.

The following year Hertford went abroad to complete his education, but he was summoned home in August 1561 when Katharine’s evident pregnancy led to the discovery of the marriage.36 CSP For. 1561-2, p. 262. Both the earl and his wife were imprisoned in the Tower and Elizabeth initiated an inquiry into the validity of their marriage. According to Hertford and Katharine, the marriage had been conducted by a minister according to the rites of the Church of England, albeit in Hertford’s bedchamber. However, as neither could remember the name of the clergyman, and the only witness, Hertford’s sister Jane, had since died, they were unable to prove that the marriage had in fact taken place. Their union was therefore declared void. Nevertheless, they remained confined, and Hertford was not released until after Katharine’s death in January 1568.37 M. Ingram, Church Courts Sex and Marriage, 132; Harl. 6286, ff. 24-8; W. Camden, Hist. of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princess Elizabeth (1688), 58-9; HMC Hatfield, i. 272.

Hertford was only slowly restored to favour. In 1571 he was allowed to return to court, and in 1582 he received a patent confirming his title to his estates.38 Oxford DNB, xlix. 869; CPR, 1580-2, pp. 237-8; HMC Bath, iv. 188. His lands probably made him one of the richest peers in England, for in 1595 he was described as one of Elizabeth I’s wealthiest subjects and in 1611 he had the second highest subsidy assessment of any member of the nobility.39 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 177; T. Carte, General Hist. of Eng. iii. 750; E179/70/126. Hertford’s building work is also indicative of substantial wealth. In about 1582 he moved his principal residence from Wolf Hall to Tottenham Court, a former hunting lodge in Savernake forest, Wiltshire, which he substantially enlarged. In 1595 he bought the site of the former priory of Amesbury, also in Wiltshire, where he built another mansion house. In addition to these two properties, Hertford spent significant amounts of time at various houses he owned in Hampshire, the most important of which was at Netley, purchased in 1602; he usually moved to his London residence in Canon Row, Westminster in November for the winter.40 Earl of Hertford’s Ltcy Pprs. 3, 14; Jackson, 157-8; VCH Wilts. xv. 32; VCH Hants, iii. 477.

Although Hertford had now secured the title to his estates, there remained the question of legitimizing his two sons by Katharine Grey. The eldest, another Edward, was generally known by the courtesy title of Lord Beauchamp, indicating that he was popularly regarded as his father’s legitimate heir. However, unless his parents had legally married this widespread assumption was unsound and it was doubtful whether Beauchamp would be able to inherit Hertford’s titles and lands. Consequently, Hertford’s relations with Elizabeth were again thrown into crisis. In 1595 Hertford, now in his mid fifties, initiated proceedings to validate his marriage to Katharine Grey, whereupon he was again imprisoned in the Tower, albeit briefly.41 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 177, 183; St Maur, 155. He had sufficiently redeemed himself by April 1601 to be appointed lord lieutenant of Wiltshire and Somerset, but a further crisis loomed at the end of the following year. Arbella Stuart who, like the future James VI, was descended from Henry VII’s elder daughter, Margaret, proposed that she should marry Beauchamp’s eldest son, Edward. She had never met her prospective bridegroom and was probably motivated by a desire to marry someone she regarded as of equal status to herself, Edward being one of the few young men of royal blood available. Her offer necessarily implied that Katharine Grey’s children were legitimate and had a claim to the throne, a claim which would be strengthened by the union with Arbella. This was evidently alarmed Hertford, who immediately informed Sir Robert Cecil^* (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury) and the proposal was quashed.42 Letters of Arbella Stuart ed. S.J. Steen, 28-9, 31; HMC Hatfield, xii. 583-7, 627-30.

The accession of James I and the 1604 session

The Seymour claim to the throne meant that there were wild rumours concerning Beauchamp following the death of Elizabeth in March 1603. One report stated that Beauchamp had started to gather forces, another that Sir Richard Knightley^‡, who had married Hertford’s sister, had proclaimed Beauchamp king at Northampton, while a third claimed that Beauchamp had fled to France. However, Hertford evidently had no wish to risk a civil war for the uncertain prospect of securing the throne for his son and, consequently, was determined to prove his loyalty to James I. He hastened to Salisbury to proclaim the new king before going to London to personally pledge his allegiance to the monarch. He evidently had little difficulty in keeping his son in line; indeed, he may not have needed to do so as the diarist, John Manningham, heard that reports that Beauchamp had challenged for the crown had arisen from a misinterpretation of the latter gathering his followers to proclaim James. In September Hertford entertained the new king and queen at Tottenham.43 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 190; HMC Hatfield, xv. 18, 223; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 2; Add 22925, f. 48v (ex inf. Chris Kyle); Queen Elizabeth and Her Times ed. T. Wright, ii. 495; Manningham Diary ed. R.P. Sorlien, 224; Nichols, i. 256.

Hertford’s estates enabled him to exercise considerable parliamentary influence in Wiltshire. He may have helped Sir Francis Popham^‡, one of his deputy lieutenants, become one of the knights of that shire in 1604. He almost certainly secured the election of his cousin’s husband, Sir John Rodney^‡, for Great Bedwyn, his steward, James Kirton^‡, for Ludgershall, his auditor and counsel, Lawrence Hyde^‡, for Marlborough, and another servant, Alexander Tutt^‡, for Wootton Bassett.44 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 430, 439, 443, 447, 454. When the first Jacobean Parliament began, in March 1604, Hertford was appointed by the crown to the honorific office of trier of petitions for England, Scotland and Ireland.45 LJ, ii. 263b. He attended 53 of the session’s 71 sittings, three quarters of the total, but was only present for three of the last 11 sittings. He was appointed to 17 of the 70 committees established by the Lords and was recorded as speaking in the upper House on three occasions.

On 29 Mar. Hertford was instructed to consider the bill against witchcraft. Although this measure was delivered into his custody, it was Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland, the senior member named, who reported it on 2 April. The committee found the bill so unsatisfactory that they redrafted it. Hertford was appointed to consider the new bill nine days later, when the text was entrusted to Gilbert Talbot^*, 7th earl of Shrewsbury.46 Ibid. 269a, 271a, 275a. Hertford did report one bill, against adultery on 4 Apr., having been appointed to the committee the day before, despite the fact that the text had been given to Edward Russell^*, 3rd earl of Bedford. Hertford stated that the committee found ‘the said bill rather to concern some particular person than the public good’, and he returned the measure to the House, which let it drop.47 Ibid. 272a, 273a.

Hertford reported two private bills which had been entrusted to him when they were committed, both of which were enacted, although he does not seem to have had a personal interest in either measure. The first was to restore in blood Thomas Lucas, son of Sir Thomas Lucas^‡ of the Inner Temple and Colchester, Essex. Lucas had been convicted of the murder of William Brooke alias Cobham^‡, the younger son of William Brooke^†, 10th Lord Cobham, in a duel in 1597, but had been pardoned by James I.48 Ibid. 269b, 270a; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1603/1J1n41. The second bill concerned the estate of John Theobald of Seal in Kent.49 LJ, ii. 324b, 325b; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1603/IJIn.69.

During the session a bill was passed to confirm the settlement of a long-standing dispute between Hertford and the dean and canons of Windsor over the prebend of Bedwyn. The case had been referred by Elizabeth to the two chief justices for arbitration, who had awarded the freehold to the dean and canons and a 99 year lease of the property to Hertford. The bill passed smoothly through both Houses, and after its second reading in the Lords on 3 Apr. it was ordered to be engrossed without being examined in committee. It was committed in the Commons on 21 Apr., but Hertford’s clients Kirton and Tutt were members of the committee, and it was subsequently enacted.50 LJ, ii. 282b; CJ, i. 181b-2a; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1603/1J1n64.

During the 1604 session a private bill was promoted by Edward Seymour^‡ of Berry Pomeroy, the son of Hertford’s half-brother Edward, who had been elected for Devon. Seymour was seeking confirmation of the remainder, which he had inherited from his father, in Hertford’s estates should the male line from Protector Somerset’s second wife become extinct. This remainder had been confirmed by the 1582 patent, but Seymour accused Hertford of seeking to void it by ‘nice devices in law’.51 FSL, Ld.1022; CPR, 1580-2, pp. 237-8. Seymour was presumably referring to attempts by Hertford to ensure that his lands passed to Beauchamp, and probably in particular to the settlement which the earl had made in May 1602 in which the earl had described his sons by Katharine Grey as his male heirs and given them priority in the inheritance over his half-brother’s descendants. This settlement was only compatible with the 1582 patent if Hertford’s sons were legitimate, a point which Seymour was no doubt keen to contest because, if they were not, it was likely that the legitimate male descent from Protector Somerset’s second marriage would fail as the only other surviving representative was Hertford’s childless full brother.52 Wilts. IPMs, 23.

The Commons granted Hertford permission to be heard by his counsel on 27 Apr. and the earl himself was allowed to attend the lower House on 15 May, when the issue was debated between the lawyers on both sides, and again three days later. On the latter occasion Hertford and Edward Seymour were even allowed to speak, and ‘sundry bitter terms of spleen and imputation, to themselves, and their ancestors, passed between them’. The measure was committed, on 12 June, to Kirton and Hyde among others, but progressed no further.53 CJ, ii. 187b, 210b, 237a-b, 975a. However, despite the failure of the bill, Hertford’s 1602 settlement could still have been contested after the earl’s death, unless the earl was able to establish that he had been married to Katharine Grey and, consequently, that his sons by her by indisputably his legal heirs.

Hertford’s attendance in the upper House in the latter stages of the 1604 session may have declined because he was busy lobbying the Privy Council, almost certainly about the legality of his first marriage. James initially gave Hertford permission to bring a lawsuit to test the legal status of his marriage to Katharine. The earl’s chosen method of doing so was to contest the claims of William Parker^*, 5th Lord Monteagle (and subsequently 13th Lord Morley), to the lands, predominantly in Lincolnshire, which had formerly belonged to Charles Brandon^†, 1st duke of Suffolk. Katharine Grey, like Monteagle, had been descended from Brandon and, if she had been legally married, her children would have a claim to those estates. However, the king seems to have developed second thoughts, presumably for fear of strengthening the Seymour claim to the throne. The matter soon became mired in technicalities, and, in November 1604, a group of senior common law and civil law judges were instructed to report on whether a commission could be issued to consider the impediments to a hearing of the suit, an issue still not resolved by the following January.54 Add. 12506, f. 201; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 309-10, 440, xvii. 118; CP, ix. 116; Add. 12503, f. 184.

On 19 Aug. 1604 it was reported that Hertford would be sent as an ambassador extraordinary to Spain to witness the ratification of the recently concluded peace treaty between England and Spain. In the event it was decided that two delegations were needed, one led by the lord admiral, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, which would go to Madrid, and the other, headed by Hertford, which would go to the Spanish Netherlands. However, on 5 Dec. 1604 the earl of Shrewsbury was informed that Hertford, who was now in his mid sixties, had refused the office. Attempts to find another candidate ‘able and willing to undertake the charge’ were unsuccessful, and on 28 Dec. it was reported that James had ‘newly written unto him [Hertford] to enjoin him to obedience, all excuses set apart’. Hertford remained reluctant to go, and on 3 Jan. 1605 wrote to Cecil, now Viscount Cranborne, citing his age and lack of diplomatic experience. However, his excuses were dismissed and, four days later, Hertford ‘not knowing how to put off the journey’, finally gave his consent.55 Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, ii. 26; Carte, iii. 750; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, 113, 120; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 5; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 68.

Hertford may have hoped that by finally agreeing to undertake the embassy he would be rewarded with a confirmation of the legality of his marriage to Katharine Grey. He certainly petitioned the king to settle his estate before he left. On 11 Feb. Cranborne, who was master of the Wards, announced that the king had agreed to a trial between the rival claimants to the Brandon estate. Although further proceedings were adjourned, Hertford appears to have been satisfied, as the way was now clear for the legality of the marriage to be tested in court. Indeed, he let it be known that he would be willing to spend £10,000 of his own money to ensure that his embassy was suitably magnificent.56 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 118; Hatfield House, CP140/205; Winwood’s Memorials, ii. 52. Taking his leave of the king on 9 Apr., he left Dover ten days later and arrived in Brussels on the 27th. After formally presenting Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡ as the permanent English ambassador, he witnessed the ratification of the treaty on 1 May. He started on his return journey soon after, arriving back in London on the 20th, reportedly £12,000 poorer.57 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 145; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 150; Add. 32092, f. 205; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 244; HMC Cowper, i. 62.

The 1605-6 session

During the second session of Parliament, which commenced on 5 Nov. 1605, Hertford was recorded as attending only 28 of the 85 sittings, a third of the total. He was present once, on the afternoon of 9 Nov., before the session was adjourned due to the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. When the session resumed in January 1606, he attended 17 times before 17 Mar., but was not again marked as present until 8 May. He was still at his London residence on 19 Mar. but was at Netley by 4 May. Although there is no record that he was given formal leave of absence, he granted his proxy to Cecil, by now earl of Salisbury. After he resumed his seat in May he apparently attended nine times before the end of the session.58 LJ, ii. 355b; Add. 63543, f. 45r-v; Earl of Hertford’s Ltcy Pprs. 107-8.

Hertford was named to only six of the 72 committees appointed by the upper House during the session and made no recorded speeches. On 3 Feb. he was named to attend a conference with the Commons concerning laws for the preservation of the Protestant religion. Hertford and all but one of that committee were subsequently appointed, on 29 Apr., to consider two bills against recusancy, although by this date the earl was absent. The same committee was also instructed, on 10 May, to consider a measure against those who attended church but refused to receive the sacrament. His other committee appointments concerned measures to regulate solicitors and brokers, making the Thames navigable between London and Oxford and the confirmation of letters patent.59 LJ, ii. 367b, 382a, 383a, 388a, 393b, 419b, 429a.

At the start of February 1606, while Parliament was sitting, the dispute between the Seymours and Lord Monteagle, ostensibly over the Brandon estates, but in reality ‘to prove the lawfulness of the earl of Hertford’s marriage’, was heard in the Court of Wards before a jury. However, on 12 Feb., with the jury ready to deliver its verdict, the attorney general, Sir Edward Coke^‡, halted the proceedings, claiming that the king had a claim to the lands in question.60 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 49, 60; Hatfield House, CP140/205. Coke thereby ensured that James did not get an unwanted ruling in favour of the legality of Hertford’s marriage. Instead, on 11 Mar., Hertford was approached in the long gallery at Whitehall by Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, a prominent privy councillor, who offered Hertford letters patent guaranteeing that his lands and titles would pass to his eldest son. In return, Hertford should cease trying to prove the validity of the marriage in the law courts. Hertford rejected this offer, and eight days later wrote to Northampton, ‘I know in all clearness of my own conscience that my son Beauchamp is my lawful son proceeding from a lawful marriage, and this my knowledge I have professed to the world upon my several oaths of record’.61 Add. 63543, f. 45r-v. It is possible that it was his disappointment which prompted his departure from Westminster. However, he soon returned, as his conduct as lord lieutenant was criticized in the Commons.

On 16 Apr. the Commons debated charges levied by lord lieutenants to pay for muster masters, widely held to be illegal. Hertford personally came under attack from Sir Henry Poole^‡, a prominent Wiltshire knight, who charged the earl with not merely levying the fees but also for appointing his own secretary as muster-master, abusing justices of the peace who opposed the fees and imprisoning those who refused to pay.62 Bowyer Diary, 130. There may have been considerable truth in these complaints, as Hertford had little time for those who refused to contribute to the levy for the muster-master. In an undated petition to the king, Hertford defended his conduct as lord lieutenant in absolutist language. He argued that, because the king was charged with the defence of the commonwealth, ‘regal, prerogative and absolute pre-eminence and jurisdiction (and most especially in martial designs) is inseparably annexed’ to the crown and was ‘neither bounded within the lists of usage or custom, nor limited within the rules and grounds of the common laws of this realm’. He claimed that the system of trained bands and lord lieutenants had been created by Elizabeth purely by the power of the prerogative ‘without help or assistance either of the common law or any statute or custom’ and that the prerogative ‘should not be publically controverted in the censures of the vulgar, nor by them once questioned what your Majesty can rightfully command thereby, and what not’. He accused the justices of the peace who opposed the levy for the muster master of ‘seeking to limit’ the prerogative ‘and to tie and confine your commands to the rules of the common laws, or to statutes to be made in Parliament whereunto all their assents must be gained, … a thing very dangerous to be permitted’, which ‘will perhaps animate the like opposition against your prerogative royal to ascend in matters of far greater consequence’.63 Earl of Hertford’s Ltcy Pprs. 102-3.

Faced with criticism in the Commons, Hertford was forced to adopt a more moderate line. On 4 May he told his kinsman by marriage, Sir John Holles^* (subsequently 1st earl of Clare), then a Member of the lower House, that although his secretary was indeed muster- master of Wiltshire he had held the latter post before he had entered the earl’s service, a claim unlikely to have been true. He also stated that he had only ever imprisoned two people in his capacity as lord lieutenant of Wiltshire and Somerset, one for ‘raising a mutiny’ and the other for ‘appearing to my warrant … in riotous manner’ with 30 friends. He asked Holles to inform the Commons of these facts, ‘wishing nothing more than to be retained in their good opinions, nor to be censured by more upright and worthy judges’.64 Ibid. 107-8. Hertford had resumed his seat in the Lords by the time the matter was debated again in the lower House on 10 May. Holles spoke in Hertford’s defence and was supported by Kirton, brother of the accused muster-master, who moved without success for a committee to vindicate the earl’s honour.65 Bowyer Diary, 154-6.

The 1606-7 session and the settlement of the inheritance of Hertford’s lands and titles

Hertford’s attendance improved in the third session of Parliament which began in November 1606. He was recorded as present at 56 of 106 sittings, 53 per cent of the total. He was frequently absent between 10 Mar. and 1 June, when he only attended the upper House six times, but subsequently missed only four sittings before the session was prorogued on 4 July. He was appointed to ten out of the 41 committees named by the Lords, two of them in his absence. The committees to which he was named in absentia were to consider a new bill to confirm defective titles (23 Mar. 1607), and a bill to preserve timber (22 June). In both cases he had previously been named to committees on the subject while present in the House. Of his remaining appointment, perhaps the most noteworthy was a measure concerning the estate of Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby. As Ferdinando’s mother had been Katharine Grey’s first cousin, the Stanleys also had a claim to the Brandon inheritance. On 16 June, Hertford was named to the committee to confirm a charter granted to Southampton, of which city Hertford himself was a freeman.66 LJ, ii. 471b, 473a, 480a, 494a, 526a, 528b.

Hertford was probably more interested in the on-going proceedings concerning the validity of his first marriage than with events in Parliament. Following the obstruction of proceedings in the Court of Wards, James had referred the issue to a committee of six privy councillors. On 4 May 1607, it was reported that the Brandon property was to be divided into three parts, one third going to Hertford, one third to the king and the final third to Monteagle and the Stanleys. In response, Hertford protested that not only would he thereby receive less than was due to him, he would also have to pay an extortionate composition for the privilege. In addition, because the legitimacy of his son had not been established, he would have to make another composition with the crown before he could bequeath his existing estate to Beauchamp. He was willing to pay the two compositions, if the money demanded was reduced, but in return wanted his titles settled on himself and his son ‘by way of restitution according to the precedency of … my father’s creation of[sic] earl of Hertford’ in 1537 rather than his own creation in 1559.67 C115/107/8505; Hatfield House, CP Petitions 2368. However, his request was rejected. According to John Donne^‡, Hertford was so infuriated that he quarrelled with Salisbury, one of the Privy Council committee. As a result Salisbury challenged Hertford to a duel, which was only prevented by officers sent by the king to intercept them.68 Life and Letters of John Donne ed. E. Gosse, i. 230-1.

The proceedings in the Court of Wards had been adjourned, not halted completely. In May 1607 Hertford’s solicitor tried to get the jury in the case to deliver its verdict on the identity of the heir to the Brandon estates. However, he was thwarted by the officials of the court after only the first line or two of the verdict had been read out.69 Hatfield House, CP140/205. Both the antiquarian, William Dugdale, and Hertford’s grandson, William Seymour^* (subsequently 2nd duke of Somerset), later claimed that this verdict upheld the legality of the marriage. Indeed Dugdale, whose source seems to have been the foreman of the jury, states that the minister who had performed the ceremony had been found and had testified in court. However, none of this was of any use to Hertford, because the verdict was never formally given.70 W. Dugdale, Baronage of Eng. iii. 369; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 18.

In February 1608 Hertford was forced to accept the crown’s terms. Letters patent were issued granting Beauchamp his father’s honours after Hertford’s death, but as new creations, not by inheritance. Moreover, Hertford had to pay over £8,000 to enable him to settle his existing lands on his son.71 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 410; SO3/3, unfol. (28 Feb. 1608, May 1608). It is a measure of Hertford’s wealth that, the following year, he agreed to buy out the other claimants to the Brandon estate for £16,600. He also offered to pay the crown £15,535 for confirmation of his title to the Brandon lands, although he got £987 deducted from this sum in return for agreeing to pay a crown debt, due imminently to certain merchant strangers.72 SO3/4, unfol. (13 Mar. 1609, 14 Mar. 1609); CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 499.

The 1610 sessions and Arbella Stuart

Hertford attended 50 of the 95 sittings of the fourth session of the Parliament which opened in February 1610, 53 per cent of the total. His absence was excused by the lord chancellor on 3 May due to ill health, and he missed the following 14 sittings. The next occasion when he was recorded as present was 30 May; he was certainly back in the chamber by 8 June, when he took the oath of allegiance.73 LJ, ii. 586b, 609b. He was appointed to ten of the 58 committees established by the Lords that session, including one in his absence, on 21 May. This was to redraft a bill for appropriating the revenues from a depopulated parish in Dorset for religious and charitable purposes in Dorchester, a measure which he had been previously appointed to consider on 28 March.74 Ibid. 563b, 567b, 596b. His other committees included the conference with the Commons at which Salisbury detailed the crisis in royal finances, initiating what became the Great Contract, a further bill to regulate brokers and a measure concerning property in Wiltshire belonging to the other great magnate of that county, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke. On 5 May, while he was absent, privilege was granted to one of Hertford’s servants, who had been arrested for debt.75 Ibid. 550b, 583b, 588a-b, 619a; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n34.

At the start of the session Hertford was summoned before the Council because of renewed rumours that Arbella Stuart intended to marry one of his grandsons, on this occasion Beauchamp’s second son, William. According to the Venetian ambassador, Hertford ‘showed no dislike of the plan’ but James I was vehemently opposed to ‘the union of the claims of these two houses, who are the nearest to the crown’. William undertook not to proceed without James’s consent and, although Arbella initially asserted her right to find ‘a husband of her own rank’, she also promised to submit herself to the king’s will. Nevertheless, Arbella and William were secretly married on 22 June, for which they were arrested and imprisoned after James learned of their union three weeks later.76 CSP Ven. 1607-10, pp. 433-4, 439; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 939.

Hertford attended 17 of the 22 sittings of the short-lived fifth session in late 1610, 77 per cent of the total. He was named to all but two of the seven committees appointed by the Lords, including two conferences with the Commons, one of which concerned the Great Contract and the other a final attempt to persuade the Commons to vote supply. In addition, he was named to consider a bill concerning the administration of the duchy of Cornwall, recently reconstituted to support Prince Henry. He was appointed to the commission to dissolve Parliament, and attended when the commission was executed on 9 Feb. 1611.77 LJ, ii. 671a, 677a, 678a, 684a.

Hertford lingered in London for a few days after the dissolution before going to Hampshire. There, at Netley, on 5 June, while preparing to go to bed, he received a letter from his grandson, Francis^† (subsequently 1st Lord Seymour of Trowbridge) informing him that William and Arbella had escaped. The following day Hertford wrote to Salisbury complaining that he had ‘slept never a wink’ the night before. Claiming that he had always opposed ‘the unfitness of the match’, he expressed his ‘unquiet mind to think … I should be grandfather to any child that hath so much forgotten his duty’. He contrasted his conduct in the Tower half a century earlier, patiently ‘tarrying the Lord’s leisure’, with that of William, who ‘would not tarry for the good of favour to come from a gracious and merciful king’. As a result William had ‘plunged himself farther into his Highness’s just displeasure’. He asked Salisbury to assure James ‘how distasteful this, his foolish and boyish action is unto me’.78 T. Lewis, Lives of the Friends and Contemporaries of Lord Chan. Clarendon, ii. 324-6; St Maur, 409-10.

James subsequently summoned Hertford to appear before the Council, although he was uncertain whether the ageing earl was still alive as it was rumoured that Hertford had died of shock on hearing of his grandson’s actions. In the event Hertford appears to have remained in the country, possibly because he was deemed too unwell to travel; he informed Salisbury that he was ‘not fully recovered of a second great cold I took’.79 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 39; Winwood’s Memorials iii. 282; St Maur, 409-10; D.N. Durant, Arbella Stuart, 198. William fled abroad, but Arbella was intercepted and returned to custody. This significantly mitigated the king’s anger, as it ensured that Arbella died childless in the Tower in 1615. In the aftermath of this affair, Hertford was careful to keep Salisbury informed about his contacts with William. Moreover, in his capacity of lord lieutenant of Wiltshire and Somerset, he vigorously enforced the privy seal loans levied by the crown in late 1611, which probably helped ensure he did not fall from favour.80 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 939; CSP Dom.1611-18, pp. 48, 53, 59, 74, 76, 84, 92; Earl of Hertford’s Ltcy Pprs. 177, 179-81, 184-5, 188-90, 193. In July 1612 Anne of Denmark visited him in Hampshire. The following December he attended the funeral of Prince of Henry, at which he carried one of the prince’s gauntlets.81 E351/544; Nichols, iii. 500. Nevertheless, if Hertford hoped to be restored to his father’s dukedom of Somerset, he would have been disappointed when the king’s favourite, Robert Carr^*, was made earl of that county in 1613.

Final years, 1614-21

When a new Parliament was summoned in 1614 Hertford secured the election of Lawrence Hyde’s brother, Robert^‡, at Great Bedwyn, Kirton again at Ludgershall, and Popham at Marlborough.82 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 440. 443, 447. By this date he was nearly 75 years old. Nevertheless, he attended 19 of the 29 sittings of the upper House, two thirds of the total. He was absent on 14 Apr., when he was excused by the lord chancellor (Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere, later 1st Viscount Brackley), who stated that ‘his lordship hath taken cold’. However, he returned on 7 May, having missed eight sittings. One of the peers excused on 4 June ‘by reason of sickness, wherewith they are all presently visited’, he returned for the next sitting two days later. He received only one committee appointment, on 7 May, to consider a private bill.83 LJ, ii. 696b, 692a, 699b, 714b. Hertford took the opportunity of being at Westminster to lobby the earl of Somerset about William. This led to an audience with the king at which, he later wrote, he hoped he ‘satisfied him [James] in each particular’. Continued poor health caused Hertford to depart for the country soon after the dissolution, from where, on 17 June, he sent his contribution towards what became the 1614 benevolence, consisting of £110 in cash and 30¾ ounces of gilt plate.84 SP14/77/17; E351/1950.

In February 1616 William was allowed to return to England and kiss the king’s hands. Shortly after, at James’s command, Hertford received his penitent grandson back into his household. The following November, at the ceremonial creation of Prince Charles (Stuart^*) as prince of Wales, both William and his elder brother, Edward, were made knights of the Bath.85 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 939; Misc. of the Abbotsford Club, i. 237; Shaw, Knights of Eng. i. 159. Hertford himself entertained the king in 1618 and 1620.86 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 417; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 315. However, in late 1620 he suffered a ‘sudden dangerous apoplexy’, and although he recovered his ‘sight, hearing and wits’ his illness prompted renewed fears about his mortality. By now both Beauchamp and Beauchamp’s eldest son had died, leaving William as Hertford’s heir. Hertford wished to ensure that William would succeed him as lord lieutenant of Somerset and Wiltshire and sit in the Lords with the precedence that he himself enjoyed, and not in accordance with that of the 1608 patent.87 Harl. 1581, f. 346r-v. Nevertheless, he made little effort to ingratiate himself with the king, for when James appealed for a benevolence in October 1620 to defend the Palatinate, the hereditary possessions of his son-in-law, Frederick V, he proved unwilling to contribute. This was despite the fact that, on 2 Nov., he wrote to James saying that he hoped to see Princess Elizabeth as ‘an empress, and your Majesty’s self to be the overthrow of the anti-Christian pope’. As late as 18 Jan. 1621 the Council was still pressing him for a contribution. It may be, of course, that Hertford’s enthusiasm for recovering the Palatinate was feigned, as there is no evidence that he had contributed to the previous collection initiated by Frederick V’s ambassador. His language certainly seemed designed to worry James, who had no wish to see the crisis over Bohemia develop into a general war for religion. Perhaps Hertford’s real intention in writing to James was to hint that undertaking to defend the Palatinate could lead to England being dragged into just the kind of conflict that the king wished to avoid.88 Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 140-1; APC, 1619-21, pp. 292, 335.

Hertford managed to secure the election of his grandson, Francis, for Wiltshire to the 1621 Parliament. He was less successful in the case of William, whom he unsuccessfully nominated for Somerset. The latter was returned at Malmesbury, but did not take his seat as Hertford managed to obtain for him a writ of acceleration to the Lords. Hertford also had Popham returned at Great Bedwyn.89 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 349, 439, 440. 447. Hertford attended the opening of the Parliament, although he was described by one spectator, Sir Simonds D’Ewes^‡, as ‘decrepit with age’. He attended just three sittings, on 30 Jan., 3 and 5 February and played no other part in proceedings.90 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 170. By 24 Mar. it was rumoured that Hertford had ‘fallen into a dead palsy’. He died on 6 Apr. at Netley, and was buried in Salisbury Cathedral, where a monument was erected to his memory.91 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 356; Rutton, 283-4. On 5 May letters of administration were granted to William, who inherited his father’s title.92 PROB 6/10, f. 108v. Despite Hertford’s efforts, the lord lieutenancy of Somerset and Wiltshire was bestowed on William Herbert, 3rd earl of Pembroke, and his grandson did not secure his precedence until 1626.