STANHOPE, Philip (1584/5-1656)

The Stanhope family originally came from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but acquired property by marriage in Nottinghamshire in the late fourteenth century, becoming one of the most important landowners in that county by 1399.25 HP Commons, 1386-1421, iv. 452. Sir Michael Stanhope^‡ (d.1552) came to prominence thanks to his brother-in-law, Edward Seymour^†, 1st duke of Somerset, and lord protector under Edward VI. Stanhope was appointed groom of the stole to the young monarch in 1547. He acquired Shelford Priory in Nottinghamshire, which became the family’s principal seat, but shared in the fall of his patron and was executed for plotting an insurrection against Somerset’s enemies in January 1552.26 HP Commons, 1509-58, iii. 368-9; Oxford DNB, lii. 135.

Sir Michael’s eldest son, Thomas^‡ (d.1596) was restored in blood by the first Marian Parliament and substantially added to the family estates, particularly in Derbyshire, where he purchased the manor of Elvaston and (for £2,500) the manor and castle of Bretby. In 1584 Thomas passed Elvaston and other properties to his eldest son John. However, Thomas subsequently fell out with John and consequently settled Shelford and the bulk of his estate (after the death of his widow, Margaret) on John’s eldest son, Philip, the subject of this biography. He also granted Philip the remainder to Bretby,27 HP Commons, 1509-58, iii. 369; S. Glover, Hist. of the Co. of Derby, ii. 158; Cobbing and Priestland, 53-4; 167-8, 170, 315. which property Philip acquired following the death of an uncle in 1606. Seven years later, Margaret also died, whereupon Philip obtained Shelford. However, believing he had been cheated of part of his grandfather’s estate, he proceeded to sue Margaret’s executor, Sir John Holles^* (subsequently 1st earl of Clare), which resulted in a lengthy feud. Elvaston passed to Philip’s younger half-brother, another John^‡, apparently with Philip’s acquiescence.28 Cobbing and Priestland, 332, 340-2; C2/Jas.I/S2/5; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 417-18. In 1651 Parliament estimated the annual value of Philip’s lands in Derbyshire at £1,631 11s. and those in Nottinghamshire at £2,226 10s. 5d.29 J.C. Cox, ‘Docs. Relative to the Sequestration of the Derbys. Estates of Philip, 1st Earl of Chesterfield’, Derbys. Arch. Jnl. xi. 112; SP23/164, p. 197. These sums are probably underestimates, for in a Chancery suit of around the same time the whole estate was valued at £10,000 p.a.30 C78/540/14.

Philip was knighted in December 1605, shortly before his 20th birthday, having perhaps first accompanied the 1st earl of Hertford (Edward Seymour^*) on a special embassy to the Spanish Netherlands. Five years later he was involved in ‘a great affray’ with Sir George Gresley^‡ in Derby, resulting in a fatality. As a result of this incident, Stanhope gave security to appear at the assizes, which bond was forfeited the following year. Witnesses subsequently exonerated Stanhope, but it was later reported that he had been obliged to secure a pardon.31 W. Woolley, Hist. Derbys. (Derbys. Rec. Soc. 1981), p.51; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 43; SP14/118/123; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 142. In February 1615 the Privy Council wrote to Stanhope instructing him not to pursue his feud with Clement Coke^‡, the quarrelsome son of the lord chief justice of King’s Bench, Sir Edward Coke^‡. The following May he appeared before the Council, having previously entered into a bond before the mayor of Chester to do so, together with Randolph Davenport, a Chancery official, with whom he may also have quarrelled. In the same month he was granted a pass to travel, with his half-brother John, but there is no evidence that he made use of it; he was still in England in June.32 APC, 1615-16, pp. 136, 144, 204. In April 1616 he was a candidate to succeed Sir Henry Pierrepont^‡ as recorder of Nottingham, but lost out to a London lawyer.33 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 315-16.

By 12 Oct. 1616 Stanhope had come to an agreement with Secretary of State Sir Ralph Winwood^‡ to purchase the barony which Winwood had been granted to assuage his disappointment for not being made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. According to Chamberlain, the purchase price was £10,000. Of this, £2,000 was to be paid immediately in cash, and the rest was to be received in two instalments over the following year, although Stanhope may have conveyed property in Norfolk to Winwood, which he had inherited from his mother, in lieu of part of the purchase price.34 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 25; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 108; Blomefield, Norf. viii. 211.

Stanhope’s desire for a peerage may have arisen from the fact that his enemy Sir John Holles had recently purchased one. However, Chamberlain wondered whether Winwood might not have found someone more suitable on whom to bestow his favour.35 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 33. What was meant by this was made clear by Holles, now Lord Houghton. In a last ditch attempt to prevent the granting of the barony, Houghton wrote on 21 Oct. to the lord treasurer, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, drawing his attention to the affray at Derby and claiming that Stanhope had been twice indicted for buggery, only to escape punishment thanks to Sir Edward Coke (for whom he had secured a valuable advowson in Norfolk). He further remarked that Stanhope was involved in numerous suits in Star Chamber, where he had been adjudged to pay costs ‘for his unjust vexations’, and that he had been ‘oft bound to the peace, and good behaviour’. Houghton appears to have been correct in saying that Stanhope had been ‘thrust out of the commission of the peace’ in Nottinghamshire, although not in Derbyshire.36 Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 142; C66/2076. According to Houghton, Stanhope’s deal with Winwood had already run into opposition at court. However, Stanhope reportedly mobilized ‘the friends’ of his brother-in-law and second cousin, Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon. This may be a reference to the favourite, George Villiers^*, Viscount Villiers (subsequently 1st duke of Buckingham), whose stepfather, Sir Thomas Compton, was related to Huntingdon. Villiers certainly subsequently supported Stanhope and Huntingdon over their protracted Chancery suit concerning Repton school and an almshouse at Etwall, which had been founded by their great-grandfather, Sir John Porte^‡.37 Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 141-2; C2/Jas.I/H13/28; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 273.

Stanhope managed to overcome any misgivings about his suitability for the peerage and was created Baron Stanhope of Shelford on 7 Nov. 1616. At the investiture ceremony, Edward Denny^*, Lord Denny (later earl of Norwich) carried his robes, while Sir Thomas Compton’s brother, William Compton^*, 2nd Lord Compton (later 1st earl of Northampton) and Francis Norris^*, 2nd Lord Norreys (subsequently earl of Berkshire), assisted.38 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 223. The following month, Stanhope was restored to the Nottinghamshire bench.

Stanhope failed to reply to the Privy Council’s request for a contribution to the benevolence for the defence of the Palatinate in October 1620, as the following month the Council sent him a messenger demanding a response. There is no evidence that he ever paid.39 APC, 1619-21, p. 293; SP14/117/97. In the elections to the third Jacobean Parliament, Stanhope probably supported Michael Purefoy^‡, who was returned for Nottingham, as Purefoy had testified on his behalf over the Derby affray and was apparently his kinsman.40 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 316; SP14/118/123; STAC 8/23/18.

During the 1621 Parliament, Stanhope was marked as present at 11 of the 44 sittings of the upper House held before Easter, a quarter of the total. He was excused on 8 Feb. ‘in respect of law causes detaining his lordship’, but returned for the next sitting two days later.41 LJ, iii. 12b. His recorded attendance rose to a third between the Easter and summer recesses (14 out of 43 sittings) but declined again after the session resumed in November, when he apparently attended only five of the 24 sittings, 21 per cent of the total. At some point during the Parliament he appointed Huntingdon as his proxy.42 Ibid. 4b.

As an English baron, Stanhope not surprisingly subscribed to the petition of the English peerage, drawn up outside Parliament, against granting precedence to fellow countrymen who had purchased Scottish and Irish viscountcies.43 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 187. He may also have been appointed to three of the 85 or 86 committees appointed by the upper House during the Parliament. However, Stanhope was easily confused with his great-uncle, John Stanhope, 1st Lord Stanhope of Harrington who, though he died in March 1621, was succeeded by his son, Charles Stanhope^*, 2nd Lord Stanhope of Harrington. On 22 Feb. the Journal records that Stanhope of Harrington was named to consider the bill against the export of bullion, but he was not recorded as present that day, unlike Stanhope of Shelford, whose name it is that is listed in the committee book. It is also possible that it was Stanhope of Shelford who was named to consider a naturalization billon 25 May, and a measure concerning women felons, on 28 November. On both occasions he was the only Lord Stanhope recorded as present in the chamber. However, the committee book states that it was Stanhope of Harrington who was appointed on the first occasion.44 LJ, iii. 26b, 132a, 174b; PA, HL/PO/CO/2/1, pp. 2, 28. Stanhope made no recorded speeches.

Stanhope was no doubt disappointed that John Byron^* (subsequently 1st Lord Byron) was elected for Nottingham in 1624 in place of Purefoy, as he violently feuded with Byron’s father over conflicting jurisdictions in Sherwood forest. He was probably more satisfied by the result in Derbyshire, where his half-brother, Sir John Stanhope, was elected one of the knights of the shire.45 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 85, 317; J. R. Dias, ‘Pols. and Admin. in Notts. and Derbys. 1590-1640’ (Oxford Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1973), 313; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE687. Stanhope himself was granted dispensation from attending the last Jacobean Parliament. As Huntingdon had also been excused, Stanhope gave his proxy to Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, with whom he was connected through his stepmother. Oxford delivered Stanhope’s proxy to the clerk on 21 Feb., and Stanhope was recorded as having been excused when the House was called two days later.46 SO3/7, unfol. (16 Feb. 1624); LJ, iii. 212b, 215a; Vis. Staffs. (Staffs. Hist. Colls. Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. v), pt. 2, p. 289; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 8.

Despite having sent in his proxy, Stanhope was listed as present in the Journal three times in the 1624 Parliament. However, on the first occasion, 28 Feb., he was not recorded as present in the clerk’s manuscript minutes. Instead, it is the 2nd Lord Stanhope of Harrington, whose name appears (and whose presence is not marked in the Journal). On 8 Mar. both Lord Stanhope of Harrington and an undifferentiated Lord Stanhope are listed in the manuscript minutes. However, it was not unknown for peers to be listed twice in error, so this does not necessarily indicate that Stanhope of Shelford was present. The third occasion on which Stanhope is recorded as present in the Journal was 10 Mar., when neither Lord Stanhope appears in the manuscript minutes.47 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, ff. 20, 28, 31v. Stanhope left no further trace on the parliamentary records.

In 1625 Stanhope secured the election of eldest son, Henry^‡, to the first Caroline Parliament for Nottinghamshire, even though Henry was probably still a teenager. He may also have helped Sir John Stanhope get re-elected for Derbyshire.48 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 85, 309. Stanhope himself was listed as attending the prorogation meeting on 17 May, but two days later secured leave of absence and did not attend subsequently. Nevertheless, in June he instructed his son to join Huntingdon in lobbying the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), about Repton school and Etwall almshouse, of which Stanhope and Huntingdon were, by now, governors. Stanhope wrote to Huntingdon that he was optimistic of success because he had had a private interview with Williams, who had ‘used me wondrous nobly and upon my own private motion to him granted me two orders that I would willingly have given a hundred pounds for’.49 SO3/8, unfol. (19 May 1625); HEHL, HA12608, 12599. In the event Huntingdon also stayed away from the 1625 Parliament. Both he and Stanhope entrusted their proxies to William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke.50 Procs. 1625, p. 591.

Stanhope failed to attend the coronation of Charles I on 2 Feb. 1626, and secured another leave of absence from the Parliament 11 days later. On this occasion he gave his proxy to Pembroke’s brother, Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (subsequently 4th earl of Pembroke). He was listed as present in the Journal on 22 and 26 May, probably in error.51 SP16/20/8; SO3/8, unfol. (13 Feb. 1626); Procs. 1626, iv. 12. His son, Henry, again sat in the Commons for Nottinghamshire, while Sir John Stanhope was once more returned for Derbyshire after William Cavendish* succeeded as 2nd earl of Devonshire in March.52 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 85, 309. Following the dissolution, the king decided to levy money by means of a Forced Loan. On 26 Nov. it was reported that Stanhope had refused to pay the Loan. He apparently never did so, and so was purged from the bench in both Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in June 1627.53 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 172.

When Parliament was again called, in 1628, Stanhope was unable to secure the return for the county of his son, Henry, who had to settle for a seat at East Retford, while it was Huntingdon who secured the election of Sir John Stanhope at Leicester.54 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 228, 314. Stanhope himself was again granted leave of absence and gave his proxy to Pembroke. Nevertheless, he took his seat on 26 April. He was excused three days later but returned to the Lords on 3 May. In all he attended the upper House 19 times, 20 per cent of the total. He received one committee appointment, for the bill concerning navigation on the Medway, on 5 May.55 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87, 358, 377.

After the session was prorogued Stanhope was made earl of Chesterfield. Reporting the news, a correspondent of Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex (who thought Stanhope had been made earl of Chester) described the new earl as ‘mad’.56 HMC 4th Rep. 290. Chesterfield almost certainly acquired his title by purchase, money being then needed to pay for preparations for the expedition to relieve La Rochelle. However, there is no record of any receipt of the money in the Exchequer. Chesterfield may have agreed to the purchase to ease his rehabilitation at court, for at the end of the year he was restored to the bench, and in December his eldest son married the daughter and coheir of Thomas Wotton^*, 2nd Lord Wotton, in preparation for which Chesterfield settled his estate on Henry and Henry’s male heirs.57 SP23/211, p. 791.

Chesterfield failed to attend the 1629 session, when he again gave his proxy to Pembroke.58 LJ, iv. 3b, 25b. It seems that by the following autumn his feud with Lord Houghton, by now earl of Clare, had been settled. At that time Chesterfield obtained leave for the wife of Clare’s younger son, Denzil Holles^† (subsequently 1st Lord Holles), to visit her husband, who had been imprisoned for his part in the tumultuous last day of the 1629 session in the Commons.59 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 399.

In 1633 Chesterfield faced accusations concerning the wife of Sir Richard Lydall, a Berkshire knight, although the details are obscure. Writing to Secretary of State Sir Francis Windebank^‡ on 5 May, Chesterfield claimed that Sir Richard did not wish to pursue the matter, but the earl felt obliged to answer the charges as the king had taken an interest. He claimed that he had never owed or promised any money to Lady Lydall, nor received any favours from her. He also castigated her as ‘this unworthy lady’, who was ‘worthy to be banished all civil society’. However, the king, ‘being sundry ways informed of the incontinent and carnal courses of life taken by the earl of Chesterfield in all kinds’, required the court of High Commission to proceed against him. Chesterfield appeared in April 1634 where, after some hesitation, he agreed to take the oath to answer articles preferred against him. He denied the charges, and since his accusers failed to prosecute, the case was dismissed on 12 June.60 SP16/238/30; SP16/261, f. 13; SP16/535/12; CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 582; 1624-5, pp. 54, 112. A no doubt relieved Chesterfield entertained the king and queen with ‘a handsome banquet’ in a specially constructed arbour in Sherwood forest two months later.61 C115/106/8429.

Despite concerns about his personal morality, Chesterfield was a faithful supporter of the Church of England. For this reason, in November 1635 the Privy Council entrusted a child educated by a Catholic priest to his care.62 PC2/45, p. 253. The following year Chesterfield agreed to stand bound for his half-brother, Sir John Stanhope, who was summoned to the Privy Council for rescuing cattle distrained by Sir John Gell, the sheriff of Derbyshire, for non-payment of Ship Money. However, there is no evidence that Chesterfield himself refused to pay. On the contrary, he petitioned the Council to order the widow of his eldest son Henry, who had died of smallpox in 1634, to pay her Ship Money assessment in Nottinghamshire, after his tenants were distrained for her non-payment.63 CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 285, 338-9; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 418. On his son’s death, see C115/106/8441.

When Chesterfield was summoned in January 1639 to attend the king at York to fight the Scottish Covenanters, he claimed that he was ‘languishing upon my sick bed’, being ‘in such extremity of weakness, that I am not able to turn myself’. He added that he thought it doubtful that he would recover, ‘receiving but small comfort, for any hopes thereof from my physician’. Nevertheless, he claimed ‘the pain and torment’ he was suffering was not ‘so great unto me’ as his grief at being unable to obey Charles’s summons. He promised that if he did recover he would be ready to attend the king. There is no evidence that he did.64 SP16/413/75.

When civil war broke out in 1642 Chesterfield seems initially to have inclined to neutralism, but by November had committed himself to the royalist cause.65 Glover, i. app. pp. 70-1; Beats, 110; England’s Memorable Accidents, (21-28 Nov. 1642), 90. However, his role in the conflict was short-lived, as he was captured by the parliamentarians at Lichfield on 5 Mar. 1643.66 Stebbing Shaw, Staffs. i. pt. 2, p. 240. In July 1651 his estates were included in the act for the sale of royalist lands.67 CJ, vi. 594a. Chesterfield died on 12 Sept. 1656 and was buried in St Giles-in-the-Fields on 2 Oct., where his younger son, Arthur, constructed a large black and white marble monument to his memory.68 LMA, St Giles-in-the-Fields par. reg.; Thoroton, i. 291; Hatton, 260. No will or grant of administration has been found. He was succeeded as 2nd earl of Chesterfield by his grandson, Philip^†.