STUART, Ludovic (1574-1624)

Posterity has been unkind to Ludovic Stuart, 2nd duke of Lennox. Second cousin to James VI and I, and Scotland’s premier nobleman, with a court career spanning 40 years, he has been dismissed as little more than ‘a dignified courtier whose main duty was to eat several square meals daily in the king’s presence’.77 Goodare, 79-80. Aside from his mildness, courtesy and ‘Gallican decency’ in his manners, he was ‘poorly regarded’ by his contemporaries.78 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics I: 1603-12 ed. A. J. Loomie (Cath. Rec. Soc. lxiv), 7; J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), i. 173; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 554; Calderwood, vii. 595. Lennox himself was painfully aware of failing to attain a level of prominence in government commensurate with his high-born status. In 1611 he confessed that the king never sought his guidance in Scottish affairs.79 HMC Laing, i. 124. However, Lennox’s political insignificance should not be overstated. Seldom far from the king, Lennox enjoyed a high degree of royal favour and was one of the few men James really trusted.80 CSP Ven. 1607-10, p. 233; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe (1740) ed. S. Richardson, 22. In April 1606 the French ambassador to London was instructed to cultivate the duke, both because the king held him in great affection and because Lennox was intimately familiar with royal business.81 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie en Angleterre (1750), i. 6-7. During the middle years of James’s reign in England, Lennox’s influence over the king aroused considerable fear on the English Privy Council, and from 1615 until his death in 1624 he was head of the household below stairs. Moreover, during the final year of his life he was one of only a dozen councillors with responsibility for advising the king regarding the marriage of his son.

Early life, 1574-1603

A direct descendant of the youngest daughter of James II, Lennox was born in France in 1574, the eldest son of Esmé Stuart, Seigneur d’Aubigny and Catherine, daughter of Guillaume de Balzac, Seigneur d’Entragues. His family had long been closely associated with the French monarchy: the lordship of Aubigny had been granted in 1423 to Sir John Stuart for helping to defeat an English force at Baugé two years earlier, and the 4th Seigneur d’Aubigny, created a marshal of France by François I, co-founded a 200-strong royal bodyguard of Scottish troops under his own command.82 E. Cust, Some Acct. of the Stuarts of Aubigny in France, 7-9, 55-6. However during the late 1540s the family’s fortunes in France suffered a serious reverse. Lennox’s grandfather, the 5th Seigneur d’Aubigny, was briefly imprisoned in the Bastille for the misdeeds of his brother and stripped of his command of the Scottish guard.83 Ibid. 72-3 CP, vii. 602n.

Lennox’s father Esmé returned to Scotland in 1579 on receiving an invitation from the 13 year-old James VI. As first cousin to James’s murdered father, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley [S], Esmé was the king’s nearest surviving male relative. Indeed, since he was descended from a granddaughter of James II, he considered himself James’s heir apparent.84 Rogers, 9. James was soon infatuated with the handsome and charming Esmé, then in his late thirties, and it was not long before he began to shower him with honours, including the earldom of Lennox and the offices of great chamberlain and first gentleman of the royal chamber. By September 1580 Esmé reportedly stood ‘so high in the king’s favour ... that few or none will withstand anything that he would have forward’. There was considerable truth in this observation, for in December 1580 Esmé helped to overthrow the unpopular regent of Scotland, the 4th earl of Morton [S]. His position was further enhanced in August 1581, when he was created a duke. However, Esmé’s pre-eminence depended not only upon the favour of the king but also on the goodwill of Scotland’s Calvinist community, which was deeply suspicious of his motives – and with good reason. Prior to leaving France, Esmé had received secret instructions to re-establish the Catholic religion in Scotland. Although he publicly announced his conversion to Protestantism in January 1581, by the spring of 1582 he was deeply embroiled in a scheme involving France, Spain and the Pope to invade England, free the imprisoned Mary, queen of Scots, and restore Catholicism in both England and Scotland. Matters came to a head in August 1582 when a group of Protestant nobles seized control of the king at Ruthven and forced Esmé to return to France. James, who had remained in ignorance of his favourite’s true intentions, quickly restored order, executing the principal author of the Ruthven Raid in June 1583. However his beloved Esmé never saw Scotland again, but died in Paris in May 1583.85 Cust, 88-9, 92; Oxford DNB, liii. 147-8; R. Lockyer, Jas. VI and I, 12, 15.

Ludovic Stuart, now 2nd duke of Lennox, was just eight when his father died. Despite his tender years, James had him brought to Scotland in November 1583. In the following month he placed him in the care of John Graham, 3rd earl of Montrose [S], but instructed that he remain in the king’s own household for his ‘virtuous nurture and honourable education’.86 J. Spottiswoode, Hist. of the Church and State of Scotland (1677), 328; D. Moysie, Mems. of the Affairs of Scot. 1577-1603 (Maitland Club, 1830), 47; HMC 4th Rep. 527. Thereafter, as his third wife later recalled, Lennox was raised in the ‘bed and breast’ of the king,87 Kent. Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/OE608, duchess of Lennox to earl of Middlesex, n.d. now 17 and on the brink of manhood. One of the chief benefits of a court education was that Lennox was prevented from openly embracing the religion of his father. By 1592 the English government considered him a Protestant, as did (in 1603) the English Catholic Robert Spiller.88 Gent. Mag. n.s. xxxviii. 368; Spain and the Jacobean Catholics I: 1603-12, p. 7. However, James reportedly suspected Lennox of being Catholic at heart, and in 1620 Lennox tried to further the career of his sister, a nun living in France.89 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 106; PRO30/53/10, f. 61.

Like his father before him, Lennox was appointed great chamberlain and first gentleman of the king’s bedchamber. In May 1584, at the opening of Parliament, he bore the crown, a symbolic gesture which acknowledged his claim to the throne.90 Oxford DNB, liii. 196. At around the same time, his lands in Scotland being ‘very small’, he was given Methven Castle, in Perthshire, which had escheated to the crown on the death of its former owner.91 Rogers, 29; Gent. Mag. n.s. xxxviii. 368. During the king’s eight months absence in Denmark in 1589-90, Lennox, now aged 15 and James’s avowed heir, served as president of the Privy Council and governor of the kingdom, although real power was exercised by the chancellor, Lord Maitland [S] of Thirlestane.92 A. Stuart, Geneal. Hist of the Stewarts (1798), 262n; HMC Hatfield, iii. 442. In April 1591 he married, against the king’s wishes, the daughter of William Ruthven, 1st earl of Gowrie [S], though at around the same time he also fathered an illegitimate son.93 John Stuart of Methven, privately educated c.1600: NRS, GD220/6/2006. That same year he struck the laird of Logie with the flat of his sword in the king’s presence, for which he was temporarily banished from court.94 L. Barroll, Anna of Denmark, 17. Despite his youthful impetuosity and hot-headedness he retained the king’s favour, securing appointment as lord high admiral of Scotland in August and the mastership of the king’s hall horses in November.

Following the birth of Prince Henry in February 1594, Lennox could no longer regard himself as the king’s heir apparent. He nevertheless remained of central importance. Later that same year he was given a commission of lieutenancy after his Catholic brother-in-law, George Gordon, 6th earl of Huntly [S], a perennial rebel, was found to be in treasonable communication with Spain. In the summer of 1601 he was also sent as ambassador to Paris, ostensibly to renew the auld alliance with France, which had been in abeyance since 1560, but actually to visit his mother and tour southern France.95 Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, i. 343; CSP Dom. 1601-3, p. 113. On his homeward journey to Scotland in November he visited London, having first obtained English permission, where he was feasted by Elizabeth. It was popularly assumed that he had come to press James’s right to succeed the queen, and accordingly he was inundated with offers of assistance. Among those who approached him were Henry Brooke^†, 11th Lord Cobham and Sir Walter Ralegh^‡, both of whom hoped to ingratiate themselves with James in the hope of unseating their rival, the queen’s chief minister Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury). However, Lennox denied having received such a commission from James who, he declared, had no wish to antagonize Elizabeth. This may not have been entirely truthful, for soon after he returned to Scotland it was reported that he had conveyed to James a verbal assurance from the queen that on her death his right to the English throne would be upheld.96 Letters and Pprs. of Patrick Master of Gray (Bannatyne Club xlviii), 192-3; Spottiswoode, 467; CSP Dom. 1601-3, p. 148; Secret Corresp. of Sir Robert Cecil with Jas VI ed. D. Dalrymple (1766), 16, 131-2.

The early years of the reign of James I, 1603-12

Following the death of Elizabeth in March 1603, James instructed Lennox to accompany him to England ‘in your most comely and decent manner’.97 HMC 3rd Rep. 396. This wording is revealing, as James was well aware that Lennox, like his fellow Scottish peers, was poor compared with his English counterparts. It was perhaps for this reason that in April 1603, shortly after crossing into England, James bestowed upon his cousin the revenues of the archbishopric of Glasgow, which were worth an estimated 4,000 crowns, or £1,200 sterling, a year.98 NRS, GD220/1/F/8/2/7; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 23.

Soon after the king arrived in London, in early May, Lennox was one of five Scots appointed to the English Privy Council.99 APC, 1601-4, p. 496; P. Croft, King James, 51. As the man ‘deepest in the king’s confidence’,100 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 106. the duke soon became a vital conduit to royal favour. When London’s court of aldermen sent a deputation to Sir Robert Cecil, now Lord Cecil, about ‘the especial affairs of this City’ in February 1604 they also approached Lennox.101 LMA, COL/CA/01/01/028, f. 275. In May 1603 Lennox moved the king for the receivership of Middlesex on behalf of a friend of Sir Henry Bromley^‡, and in February 1604 Sir John Thynne^‡ turned to the duke for help regarding his suit to James.102 Egerton Pprs. ed. J. P. Collier (Cam. Soc. xii), 373; Longleat, Thynne Pprs. vii. f. 298.

Many leading Scots were disappointed that their countrymen were poorly represented on the English Privy Council. In order to mollify these critics, James indicated, shortly after his arrival in London, that he would make Lennox president of the Council, a position never filled under Elizabeth. However, this reportedly ‘occasioned misgiving throughout England’, and by mid June James, fearful of offending his new English subjects, was having second thoughts.103 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics I: 1603-12, p. 7; PRO31/3/35, Beaumont to Villeroi, 7/17 May 1603; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 56. By October Lennox was trying instead to secure for himself the office of lord steward which, like that of president of the Council, had long lain in abeyance. However, despite employing ‘his uttermost credit for the carrying of it’, he failed in his objective.104 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 54. Consequently, during the early years of James’s English reign, the only position of importance held by Lennox south of the border was that of commissioner for the office of earl marshal. Although Lennox regarded himself as first nobleman of the bedchamber, no such position existed and the duke exercised no official supervision over this department.105 N. Cuddy, ‘Revival of the Entourage’, English Court: from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War ed. D. Starkey et al., 185. Like James himself, Lennox initially under-estimated the extent of English animosity towards the Scots in general and towards himself in particular, there being no English duke.106 CSP Ven. 1603-7, pp. 139, 188.

Although denied high office during the early years of James’s reign in England, Lennox remained at the heart of court life, helping to organize a masque in 1609,107 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, iii. 95. and regularly participating in tilts. His performance at these tournaments did not always elicit favourable comment: he was reportedly outshone in the 1605 accession day tilt by his English competitors, and both he and the 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel (Thomas Howard^*) disappointed the crowds a year later, when their armour and equipment were described by John Chamberlain as ‘poor and penurious’.108 Winwood’s Memorials, ii. 54; Chamberlain Letters, i. 217, 223. However, at the accession day tilt in 1609 he ‘exceeded all in feathers’.109 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 92. It seems likely that responsibility for organizing these tournaments fell primarily to Lennox. The duke certainly organized the tilt that was staged to celebrate the visit of Christian IV in August 1605, when he had the honour of running first.110 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, i. 58; M.F.S. Hervey, Life, Corresp. and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, 34. Moreover he played a key role in bringing Prince Henry onto the public stage at the New Year tilt in January 1610.111 CSP Ven. 1607-10, p. 403; R. Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales, 103-4.

Shortly after Lennox journeyed to London in 1603, the king sent him back to Scotland to escort Prince Henry to England. His mission was of a rather delicate nature, because soon after James’s departure the queen, who had remained behind in Scotland, had attempted to seize control of the prince from his governors, the earl and countess of Mar.112 Barroll, 28; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 50-1. Moreover, there was a disturbing rumour that members of the Catholic community in Scotland were planning to abduct the prince in order to prevent him from leaving the kingdom.113 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 40. Lennox arrived in Scotland on 19 May with a commission to transport the queen and prince to England. Four days later, accompanied by several other noblemen, he formally took custody of Prince Henry.114 Calderwood, vi. 231; Reg. PC Scot. 1599-1604, pp. 571-2. However, when Lennox returned to England, James, far from thanking him, rebuked him for failing to prevent the queen from conferring the chamberlainship of her household on a Scottish gentleman rather than on Sir George Carew^* (later 1st Lord Carew) as she had been advised. He was immediately sent off to convey James’s displeasure, and a few days later he and two others peers issued instructions for the suppression of disorders in Anne’s court.115 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 11-112; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 15.

James’s displeasure was not, however, of long duration. Along with his fellow Scot, the earl of Mar, Lennox was invested with the order of the Garter on 2 July. A few weeks later he was granted letters of denization, so giving him the right to own land in England.116 Rymer, vii. pt. 2, pp. 84-5. The king thereupon conveyed to him an estate in Yorkshire worth about £600 p.a. that had previously belonged to his great-uncle Matthew Stuart, 4th earl of Lennox (d.1571), formerly an exile living in England.117 SO3/2, f. 67; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 28.

In October 1603 the king learned that Lennox’s troublesome brother-in-law Huntly, along with several other malcontent Scottish Catholic peers, was planning to send him a petition stating that England, having fallen to James by inheritance, should now be considered as accessory to Scotland. Huntly and his allies also planned to say that, if that were impossible, and the two kingdoms were to be governed by a single council, the English and Scots should enjoy equal representation on the new body. Such views necessarily placed in danger the statutory union of the two kingdoms that James intended to effect. James therefore contemplated sending Lennox back to Scotland to break up this combination of disgruntled peers. However, according to the Venetian secretary, he remained uncertain of Lennox’s devotion to Protestantism.118 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 106. He may also have feared that Lennox, having failed to secure high office in England, would make common cause with the malcontents rather than oppose them. Nevertheless by 9 Feb. 1604 James had instructed Lennox to go to Scotland.119 Longleat, Thynne Pprs. vii. f. 298. The duke did not leave immediately, but was still at court on 14 Apr., on which day a bill to naturalize himself, his brother and his daughter Lady Elizabeth Stuart, was laid before the House of Lords.120 HMC Hatfield, xxiii. 152-3; LJ, ii. 277b. However, he reached Scotland before the adjournment of the Scottish Parliament on 24 April. He and Mar were initially denied entry to this assembly on the grounds that their membership of the English Privy Council threatened the right of Scotland’s Parliament to debate its affairs in secret. Although eventually admitted, neither man was appointed to the commission for the Union by the Scottish Parliament.121 CSP Ven. 1603-7, pp. 154-5; B. Galloway, Union of Eng. and Scotland, 1603-8, pp. 62-3.

The bill to naturalize Lennox and his immediate family received the Royal Assent in June 1604. The duke himself returned to England by mid August, when he attended the banquet held in honour of the constable of Castile.122 Eng. as seen by Foreigners ed. W.B. Rye, 119. By the autumn Lennox, still in search of a role, was lobbying to become alnager for the new draperies, lightweight fabrics whose manufacture was increasingly replacing the old, heavier broadcloths.123 On the expansion of the New Draperies, see F.J. Fisher, ‘London’s Export Trade in the Early 17th Century’, EcHR, 2nd ser. iii. 154. Alnage was the medieval system of controlling quality in cloth manufacture through inspection, for which a fee was charged of the merchant. In October Lennox persuaded the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset, to grant him the right to inspect the new draperies outside London for 21 years. He did not seek to include London because Dorset himself exercised control over the relevant patent through his steward.124 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 324, 334; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 457.

While Lennox was attempting to secure this lucrative grant, disaster threatened to engulf his French relatives. His first cousin, Catherine Henriette de Balzac, marquise de Verneuil, was mistress to Henri IV. Following the annulment of his marriage to Marguerite de Valois in 1599, Henri promised Henriette marriage if she bore him a son within six months. As this condition was not met - the son delivered within the allotted time was still-born - Henri took as his new wife Marie de Medici, who gave him a son in September 1601. Soon thereafter, however, Henriette too gave birth to a boy, Henri de Verneuil, whereupon she claimed that she had fulfilled her earlier promise and that the king’s marriage was null and void. Quarrels with Marie ensued, and at one point Henriette threatened to take refuge with Lennox in England. Matters reached crisis point in the spring of 1604, when Henri IV discovered that Henriette and her father, François de Balsac, Seigneur d’Entragues, were in treasonable contact with the Spanish court and plotting to place Henri de Verneuil on the throne after his death. By the end of the year both father and daughter were under arrest facing charges of treason.125 V.F. Pitts, Henri IV of France, 226, 231, 233, 278-9.

News of the deteriorating situation in France led Lennox, in the autumn of 1604, to seek and obtain appointment as special ambassador to Paris. The purpose of his embassy was ostensibly to congratulate Henri IV on his marriage to Marie de Medici; to propose the revival of the French king’s Scottish guard, which had fallen into abeyance; and to obtain the restoration of the duchy of Chateauherault for the 2nd marquess of Hamilton (James Hamilton^*, later 1st earl of Cambridge).126 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 446-7. In addition, following the seizure at Rouen of English cloth worth £75,000 in November 1604, Lennox was expected to assist the resident English ambassador in pressing for full restoration.127 M. Lee, Jas. I and Henri IV, 54. However, it was widely recognized that Lennox’s personal affairs were ‘his greatest employment’.128 Chamberlain Letters, i. 198. See also Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 112-13.

Lennox set out for France on 22 Dec. with a relatively small entourage. The majority of the 40 gentlemen who accompanied him were Scots, as many of the Englishmen who had been instructed to attend him had begged to be excused.129 Add. 59771, f. 2; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 119; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 374. Lennox later claimed that he found the English in general ‘friendly enough’, but the intended slight is unmistakeable.130 HMC Var. v. 112. In theory the cost of Lennox’s embassy was borne by the king, who ordered that Lennox be paid £3,000 in advance, but in practice the duke was forced to mortgage ‘a great part of his lands and heritage’.131 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 112-13; Winwood’s Memorials, ii. 39; APS, iv. 353.

Lennox arrived in Paris on 5 Jan. when, according to one observer, ‘he could not have been more magnificently received’ had he ‘been the king himself’.132 HMC 7th Rep. 723 (letter mis-dated 1610). See also Journal de Jean Heroard ed. M. Foisil, 592. Lennox himself, however, complained at being slighted during his first audience by the nobles who stood around the king because they remained covered in his presence.133 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 222; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 28, 31. He subsequently pressed Henri to order the release of the detained English cloth, only to be told that it had been seized in accordance with ancient French law, which prohibited the sale of goods of inferior quality.134 SP78/52, ff. 5-6. He also attempted to have the trial of his relatives by the Parlement of Paris halted, and requested to be allowed to take custody of the marquise and her father.135 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 215. However, it was not until early February that Henri, who insisted that the trial should be allowed to run its course, heeded Lennox’s plea for clemency. Entragues and his fellow conspirators were permitted to retain both their lives and property, while Henriette was not banished to a convent, as had been threatened, but was eventually permitted to resume her earlier role as a royal mistress.136 Ibid. 221, 226; SP78/52, ff. 20v-1; Pitts, 279-80. Lennox therefore had every reason to feel pleased when he returned to England in March 1605. His pleasure can only have increased after Henri IV sent him a beaver hat studded with diamonds and other precious stones valued at £4,000.137 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 203; Winwood’s Memorials, ii. 52; ‘Camden Diary’, 83.

On his return, Lennox discovered that the office of alnager for the new draperies was not in fact vacant.138 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 22; xxiii. 217-18. To make matters worse, the judges ruled in May 1605 that, despite the wording of Lennox’s proposed grant, alnage was not payable on one of the principal types of new drapery ware, the worsteds made in Norwich and elsewhere.139 E. Coke, Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of Eng. (1642), 62; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 274. By mid September Lennox had succeeded in obtaining the surrender of his rivals’ grants, and a patent for 21 years.140 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 233; Add. 12504, f. 108v. However, the attorney general, Sir Edward Coke^‡, pointed out that part of Lennox’s patent had already been condemned by the judges, and that the grant as a whole was prohibited by the king’s proclamation against monopolies of May 1603. Coke subsequently made life even more difficult for Lennox, for, after being ordered by the Privy Council to draw up a proclamation requiring the king’s officers to assist Lennox’s deputies in the execution of their duties, Coke replied that it was against the law for a proclamation to be issued for the benefit of a private individual.141 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 441-2; xvii. 610; Add. 11402, f. 106v. Lennox was therefore forced to rely upon letters of assistance issued by the Privy Council to bolster the authority of his deputies.142 APC, 1615-16, pp. 104, 343; 1618-19, p. 407; 1619-21, p. 253.

Following the death of George Clifford^*, 3rd earl of Cumberland in October 1605, Lennox obtained from the king minor offices and lands worth £900 p.a.143 SO3/3, unfol. (13 Dec. 1605); CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 272; Birch, i. 41. These grants were made in the aftermath of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, when a terrified James, temporarily distrustful of the English, withdrew to the inner-most rooms of his palace and surrounded himself almost entirely with Scots.144 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 293. Lennox continued to be the beneficiary of royal grants the following year. In February 1606 he was given former church properties worth an estimated £1,100 p.a., which he subsequently sold at a profit.145 CSP Dom. 1580-1625, pp. 474-5; Cal. of Shrewsbury Pprs. ed. C. Jamison and E.G.W. Bill (Derbys. Arch. Soc. rec. ser. i), 3, 188 Five months later, James had the Scottish Parliament assign to Lennox the abbey and priory of St Andrews as compensation for having paid the costs of the 1604/5 embassy out of his own pocket.146 APS, iv. 353-5. In August 1606 the king forced the bishop of Durham, William James^*, to let Lennox use Durham House, on the Strand. However, the arrangement did not last long, for by 1611 the bishop had recovered possession.147 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 91; Harl. 7002, ff. 111, 113.

Despite having been issued only six months earlier, Lennox’s patent as alnager was the subject of complaint in the English House of Commons in 1606. The duke’s deputies were accused of exacting fees up to four times greater than was permitted and of violently seizing goods on false pretexts. Lennox’s counsel, the Irish lawyer Richard Hadsor, defended his client’s patent at the bar of the House in April. However, when it was pointed out that Lennox’s grant extended to items that were not subject to alnage, such as stockings and night caps, Hadsor made only a ‘short, weak defence’. Consequently, Lennox’s patent featured in the petition of grievances presented by the Commons to James the following month, shortly before Parliament was prorogued.148 Bowyer Diary, 112, 129, 154; CJ, i. 299a. James, of course, had no intention of quashing his cousin’s patent but he could not entirely ignore the Commons’ complaints either. Shortly before Parliament reconvened in November 1606, he therefore ordered that a new rate of fees be set down in respect of Lennox’s grant, which was then renewed.149 SO3/3, unfol. (27 Oct. 1606; Nov. 1606). Moreover, when Parliament reopened, James promised to punish severely any abuses committed by Lennox’s deputies in future and to allow the legality of the patent to be determined at law.150 CJ, i. 317a.

Shortly thereafter, Lennox’s patent was the subject of a lawsuit. However, the case was evidently restricted to the question of whether the Norwich worsted weavers, dornix weavers and knitted stocking sellers were under the authority of the alnager. The Norwich men argued that ‘by the laws and statutes of this realm there is no subsidy or alnage due or to be paid’ on their products, and claimed that a statute of 7 Edward IV gave them the power to inspect and seal cloth manufactured by members of their own company without payment of fee before the mayor of their city.151 SP14/24/1; Add. 12504, f. 110. See also Pprs. of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey V: 1603-7 ed. V. Morgan et al. (Norf. Rec. Soc. lxxiv), 226. Lennox seems not to have prevailed, but, since his patent was not suppressed, over the next few years he attempted to gain control of a number of local alnage patents that had been exempted from his grant.152 E214/156, 1472; Surr. RO, LM/COR/4/27L.

In 1607 Lennox was the principal, though unnamed, target of a further attack by the English House of Commons. During the debates on the proposed Union, Sir Edwin Sandys^‡ reported from committee that for there to be a Union the Scots must abandon their ties to France, for ‘the more they love the French our enemies, the less they love us’.153 Bowyer Diary, 220. English hostility to the Union was to some extent mirrored north of the border where, over the summer, the Scottish Parliament also met. Lennox was appointed to attend this assembly as the king’s representative, since the earl of Montrose, who had discharged this function in 1604, was ill.154 Reg. PC Scot. 1604-7, pp. 415-16; Scots Peerage ed. J.B. Paul, v. 237. He may not have relished this task, as he feared encountering as much opposition to the Union in the Scottish Parliament as James had encountered at Westminster.155 CSP Ven. 1607-10, p. 27. How far he succeeded in allaying Scottish concerns is unclear, but he certainly antagonized his fellow peers by inviting the archbishops of Glasgow and St Andrews to ride in first place in the procession to mark the opening of Parliament.156 Calderwood, vi. 669.

While in Scotland, Lennox took the opportunity to attend to a pressing personal matter. On coming to England in 1603 he had abandoned his second wife Jean Campbell, from whom he was bitterly estranged.157 HMC Var. v. 111. According to Jean’s brother, Hugh, Lord Campbell [S] of Loudoun, Lennox had left her and their children behind in Scotland with a large pile of debts and nothing but the clothes they stood in.158 Ibid. 115-16. Lennox now demanded custody of his daughter, Lady Elizabeth Stuart, who had reached the age to be educated, and was incensed when his wife refused to comply. In September 1607 he persuaded the Scottish Privy Council to denounce the duchess as a rebel. As a result, one of the duchess’ relatives by her first marriage gave security that Lady Elizabeth would be handed over on 21 Oct., on which day Lennox attended the Council in person.159 Reg. PC Scot. 1604-7, pp. 440, 447, 696.

Lennox returned to England shortly before Christmas 1607. In February 1609 he was challenged to a duel by his fellow Scot, John Ramsay^*, Viscount Haddington [S] (later earl of Holdernesse), but on being informed the king prevented the encounter.160 CSP Ven. 1607-10, pp. 78, 234. Not surprisingly, the French ambassador received a cold response when he subsequently asked Lennox to find a place in the Scottish guard for Haddington’s cousin.161 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, iii. 150-1. In April 1610 Lennox and his brother, Esmé Stuart, to whom the former had voluntarily surrendered the seigneury d’Aubigny, became undertakers for the plantation of Ulster, being assigned 3,000 acres – a quarter of the available land - in Portlogh, County Donegal.162 HMC 3rd Rep. 395; T.W. Moody, ‘Ulster Plantation Pprs.’, Analecta Hibernica, viii. 227-8; SO1/1, f. 112; CSP Carew 1603-24, p. 233; CSP Ire. 1611-14, p. 318. The following month, Lennox was tipped for appointment as extraordinary ambassador to France, but in the event the king bestowed the office on Edward Wotton^*, 1st Lord Wotton.163 HMC Downshire, ii. 299; Bell, 104. Lennox subsequently ingratiated himself with the newly appointed resident ambassador to France, Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡, since he relied upon the Paris embassy to convey letters to his mother and friends in France.164 Stowe 171, f. 262.

When the English Parliament met again in 1610 there was renewed criticism of Lennox’s alnage patent in the Commons, despite the fact that the duke had replaced the officials responsible for managing this grant the previous year. Voted a grievance on 12 May, it was included in the petition presented to the king on 7 July following. Quite apart from the fact that the abuses they had complained of in 1606 had not been tackled, the Commons were concerned that the legality of the patent had still not been decided at law. In response the king ordered the judges to consider the matter.165 Lansd. 161, f. 313; CJ, i. 427a, 428a; Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, ii. 268. The judges’ findings are unknown, but one legal obstacle to the validity of the grant had certainly already been dealt with. By medieval law, each successive lord treasurer was required to renew patents of alnage on taking office, or else these grants would be rendered null and void. Following the death of the lord treasurer in April, his successor, Robert Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, had renewed Lennox’s patent.166 W.H. Black, Cat. of the Ashmolean Mss, 155; SO3/4, unfol. (27 Apr. 1610); Procs. 1610, ii. 241.

The Commons’ complaints against Lennox’s patent ultimately accomplished little. In the summer of 1611 the Yorkshire clothiers accused Lennox’s deputies of blackmail, of carrying out malicious searches and of delaying inspections in order to elicit bribes.167 W.H. Price, English Patents of Monopoly, 27n. There was undoubtedly considerable truth in these allegations, but Lennox himself was quick to defend his deputies. Writing to Devon’s magistrates in February 1612, against a backdrop of complaints about the quality of English cloth, he declared that his officers had been ‘unduly taxed when the faults hath rested upon the search of such overseers appointed by law, who have neglected their charge’. Nevertheless, he offered to appoint new deputies chosen by their critics.168 HMC Downshire, iii. 280; Alnwick, ms 10, f. 20 (BL microfilm).

It has sometimes been assumed that Lennox and his deputies were more interested in the revenue-raising side of their activities than in quality control.169 L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 437. See also Mendenhall’s remarks on alnage in general in T.C. Mendenhall, Shrewsbury Drapers and the Wool Trade, 19. Lennox certainly had a reputation for avariciousness, and the report of the 1622 trade commissioners later indicated that failure to check the quality of cloth before the alnager’s seal was affixed was a principal reason for the poor reputation of English cloth abroad.170 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics I: 1603-12, p. 7; A. Friis, Alderman Cockayne and the Cloth Trade, 417-18. However, Lennox did not completely disregard the issue of quality. In April 1620, after discussions with the king, he approached the principal merchants and weavers of Devon in the hope of identifying the abuses employed in the manufacture of the new draperies and of hearing what remedies the weavers themselves could suggest.171 Devon RO, 1579A/16/23-5. This concern may, of course, have been entirely self-interested, for if Lennox convinced the king that he was genuinely committed to improving quality he stood a better chance of increasing his own authority, which remained only partial. In 1613, shortly before James issued a proclamation ‘for the true working of cloth’, Lennox tried unsuccessfully to persuade the king to allow his deputies rather than viewers appointed by the local magistrates to inspect cloth in Norwich, where the worsted weavers continued to claim exemption from alnage.172 Stuart Royal Proclamations I: Jas. I ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, 301; Alnwick, ms 9, ff. 199-200, 209.

The French marriage negotiations, 1612-16

In the summer of 1612 the king, as part of his restoration of episcopacy in Scotland, persuaded Lennox to resign to him the revenues of the wealthy see of St Andrews. In return he granted Lennox the reversion to the estate of the 11th Lord Cobham, who had been attainted in 1603.173 SO3/5, unfol. (11 June 1612). This consisted principally of four manors in north Kent, of which the most significant was Cobham manor, a 550-acre estate, including 200 acres of parkland, worth an estimated £264 8s. 9d. p.a.174 E. Hasted, Kent, iii. 329, 415, 449, 463; W.A. Scott Robertson, ‘Six Wills Relating to Cobham Hall’, Arch. Cant. xi. 233n; C54/2457, no. 21; Hatfield House, CP 145/125. However, though desirable for its proximity to London, Cobham was currently owned by the countess of Kildare, who evinced no willingness to part with it.

Lennox did not attend the Scottish Parliament of 1612, which confirmed both his office of lord admiral and his tenure of the duchy of Lennox.175 APS, iv. 497, 509-10. Following the arrival of the Elector Palatine in October 1612, Lennox helped negotiate the terms of a marriage between the Elector on the one hand and the king’s daughter, Princess Elizabeth, on the other. On the day of the wedding itself (14 Feb. 1613), Lennox, along with Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, was granted the honour of escorting the princess to the Banqueting House at Whitehall for the customary feast.176 Nichols, ii. 548. He was subsequently appointed to help escort Elizabeth to Heidelberg.177 Chamberlain Letters, i. 429; HMC Cowper, i. 77. This task threatened to impose an enormous burden on Lennox’s finances, which were already severely overstrained, for in July 1611 he had persuaded the king to convert his diet at court into an annual cash payment.178 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 60. It was doubtless to cover the cost of conveying the king’s daughter to the Palatinate that in March 1613 Lennox borrowed around £2,000 from a Bedfordshire gentleman.179 LC4/33, m.1. The recognizance recorded here was for £4,000. Lennox may have hoped to repay this sum by obtaining a half share in a new patent. John Harington^*, 1st Lord Harington had recently obtained the king’s permission to call in all tradesmen’s tokens and issue copper farthing tokens of his own making. The patent promised to be extremely lucrative, and at Lennox’s request James halted its enrolment. However, despite rumours to the contrary, Harington adamantly refused to share the proceeds and was therefore granted, on 10 Apr. 1613, a patent to coin copper farthing tokens until 24 June 1616.180 C.E. Challis, New Hist. of the Royal Mint, 740. For the false rumour, see CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 524. Lennox was not allowed to go away empty-handed, however, for on 13 Apr. the king granted him the alnage on the old draperies for 60 years.181 SO3/5, unfol.; E214/1161.

The marriage of Princess Elizabeth took place in the shadow of a succession crisis occasioned by the sudden and unexpected death of Prince Henry in November 1612. Because the new heir to the throne was Henry’s sickly younger brother, Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales), and because it was always possible that James himself would die within the next few years, it was decided that the Elector Palatine and his new wife would return in the autumn, and remain until Charles grew stronger.182 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 493. At the same time, James contemplated bestowing an English peerage on Lennox. This would bolster the position of Lennox on the Privy Council, and entitle him to sit in the English Parliament, an important consideration if there was indeed to be a royal minority. Lennox himself was naturally enthusiastic to have this plan carried to fruition, and lobbied hard to be made duke (or at least earl) of Richmond, a title customarily held by members of the royal blood. However, although he secured the support of the lord chamberlain (Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk), he was successfully opposed by several leading peers, including the lord chancellor, Lord Ellesmere (Thomas Egerton^*, later Viscount Brackley). By the time he left England in late April, Lennox was thoroughly disgruntled.183 Ibid. 524; Chamberlain Letters, i. 444; H. Wotton, Reliquiae Wottonianae (1672), 407.

After escorting Elizabeth to Heidelberg, Lennox journeyed to France. The ostensible reason was to visit his mother and sister and ask for command of the king of France’s Scottish bodyguard in place of Prince Charles, whose position as heir apparent made his continued captaincy undesirable. However his chief purpose was to make informal inquiries in Paris on behalf of the king about the possibility of a French marriage.184 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 550; 1613-15, pp. 4-5, 11-12; HMC Downshire, iv. 146; Birch, i. 255; Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 465; M.A. Everett Green, Elizabeth of Bohemia, 85n. Shortly before his death, Prince Henry had been offered the hand of Princess Christine, younger sister to Louis XIII, together with a dowry of 800,000 crowns, equivalent to £240,000. The financially embarrassed James did not wish to forgo such a large sum, particularly as he desired to avoid another Parliament, and therefore Lennox was instructed to discover whether the French would accept Charles as a replacement for his late brother, Prince Henry.185 A.D. Thrush, ‘The French Marriage and the Origins of the 1614 Parl.’, Crisis of 1614 and the Addled Parl. ed. S. Clucas and R. Davies, 26-7.

Lennox was initially sceptical about the prospect of securing a French marriage, which had first been suggested by the French themselves in the summer of 1612.186 Cott., Titus B.VII, ff. 437-8. However, once he was certain that James was genuine and not merely aiming to disrupt French plans for a marriage alliance with Spain, he naturally became enthusiastic. Half French himself, he was also a pensioner of the king of France and often helped to advance French interests at court.187 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, i. 276; iii. 9; CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 216. However, Louis’ chief minister, Villeroi, was suspicious of Lennox’s overture, as the duke arrived in a private capacity only, and without detailed instructions. Moreover, Lennox soon learned that the duke of Savoy was offering James the hand of his daughter who, being older than Christine, was more likely to produce an heir sooner.188 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 14; Birch, i. 258. Consequently, early in August, Lennox returned to England to press the case for a French marriage in person.189 SP94/20, f. 139v; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 53. Despite French foot-dragging and James’s own dissatisfaction at the terms the French were prepared to offer, it was widely expected that Lennox would shortly be appointed extraordinary ambassador to conclude the marriage treaty.190 Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xii), 233-4; Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 474.

Soon after returning to England, Lennox quarrelled bitterly with the royal favourite, Robert Carr^*, Viscount Rochester (later 1st earl of Somerset). As a mere viscount and one of only two Scots with English titles, Rochester resented the fact that Lennox was still trying to acquire for himself the earldom of Richmond.191 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 53. The other Scot with an English title was James Hay^*, Lord Hay (subsequently 1st earl of Carlisle). Moreover, Rochester was aligned with the Spanish faction at court, and as such preferred a Spanish or Savoyard marriage for the prince rather than a French alliance.192 Archaeologia, xli. 152. Rochester’s fear that Lennox was about to be advanced to the English peerage was well founded, for on 6 Oct. the king conferred upon his cousin the earldom of Richmond. However, shortly thereafter James also made Rochester earl of Somerset and lord treasurer of Scotland.193 Chamberlain Letters, i. 481, 485. The favourite was so delighted that his earlier enmity with Lennox was soon forgotten. Accordingly, in December Lennox asked Somerset to help him obtain a share in the farthings patent, the 1st Lord Harington having died the previous August. He also participated in the masque performed at Somerset’s wedding.194 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 215; Chamberlain Letters, i. 496.

Although Lennox could now count Somerset as a friend, a majority of members of the Privy Council, including Somerset’s new father-in-law, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, were vehemently opposed to a French marriage.195 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. ci), 111-12; Thrush, ‘French Marriage’, 28-9. As Sarmiento, the Spanish ambassador, observed, they feared that a French match would inevitably mean that the Scots ‘will be preferred in authority and favour before them’.196 SP94/20, ff. 241-2. They were therefore dismayed when, without permission, Sir Thomas Edmondes returned to England with an outline agreement. Accused of deserting his post and of leaving the Huguenot community in France leaderless, Edmondes was defended not only by Lennox but also by Somerset, who thereby disappointed those at court who thought the favourite was still inclined towards a Savoyard alliance.197 Add. 32023B, f. 185; Chamberlain Letters, i. 504. On 5 Feb. the king informed the Council that he intended to accept the French offer and send Edmondes back to France to settle all outstanding questions. Furthermore Lennox, who was now eager to announce the marriage publicly, was appointed to a subcommittee of the Council to discuss with Edmondes and the French ambassador the remaining details.198 SP94/20, f. 245v. However, news soon began to reach James that France was on the brink of civil war. Led by the earls of Suffolk and Pembroke, those on the Council most opposed to a French marriage now argued that the king had no alternative but to abandon his hope of a French dowry and turn instead to Parliament for supply. Reluctantly, James was soon forced to concede that the marriage negotiations should be put on hold,199 SP78/62, f. 128. and on 19 Feb. he summoned a Parliament to meet in early April.

Lennox was undoubtedly disappointed at this turn of events, and may initially have wanted nothing to do with the forthcoming assembly. In mid February, as pressure for a Parliament mounted, James considered sending him to Heidelberg as his representative at the christening of the newly-born son of the Elector Palatine, Frederick V. In the event, however, it was Christian of Anhalt who was asked to perform this function.200 CSP Ven. 1613-15, pp. 93, 98. Lennox, presumably to soothe his injured feelings, was instead permitted to perform the duties of earl marshal at the state opening of Parliament, which duties had, on previous occasions, been carried out by Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester.201 Chamberlain Letters, i. 522; Procs. 1614 (Commons), 5; ‘Camden Diary’, 10.

Lennox took his seat in the House of Lords in his capacity as earl of Richmond, having first been appointed by the crown one of the triers of petitions for James’s three kingdoms. Appointed a member of the committee for the bill to prevent the wasteful consumption of gold and silver on 11 Apr, thereafter he was recorded as absent on only six separate occasions. However, he played little recorded part in the House’s activities. On 3 May he was appointed to a second committee, for the bill to preserve timber, and during the division of 24 May he and Somerset (‘the two Scottish-English peers’, in Chamberlain’s words) voted against conferring with the Commons over Impositions.202 LJ, ii. 686b, 691a, 708a; Chamberlain Letters, i. 533.

Although the 1614 Parliament was conceived as an alternative to a French marriage, there was always the possibility that James would conclude a treaty with Paris irrespective of whether the Commons voted him supply. This possibility increased the longer the Parliament sat, for by the end of April it was clear that the disturbances in France were settling down.203 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 285-6. The hispanophile Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, was so alarmed at this prospect that he refused to meet Lennox, whom he described as ‘a regular Frenchman’.204 Add. 31111, f. 46. However, although the marriage negotiations were resumed in the summer of 1614, after Parliament had been dissolved, James opened secret talks with Spain.205 A.D. Thrush, ‘Personal Rule of Jas. I’, in Pols., Religion and Popularity ed. T. Cogswell, R. Cust and P. Lake, 88-9. This was judicious, as the French now made difficulties over the dowry, and in May 1615 the duc de Condé quit the French court, a prelude to further violence. By the end of June 1615 Somerset had achieved the not inconsiderable feat of persuading Lennox (albeit briefly) that a Spanish marriage was preferable to a French one.206 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 297.

Lennox missed out on the reallocation of offices which followed the death of Northampton in June 1614. Despite hoping to be made lord chamberlain in succession to Suffolk, who became lord treasurer, he was passed over in favour of Somerset.207 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 40. However, following the latter’s spectacular fall from grace in October 1615, the office of lord chamberlain again fell vacant. Although William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke was chosen to fill this position, James appointed Lennox lord steward (1 Nov. 1615), a position senior to that of lord chamberlain and one which Lennox had coveted as early as 1603. Lennox thus benefited from the fall of the favourite. However, he did not abandon his former friend but instead attended his many interrogations, which Somerset found comforting.208 Hervey, 96; ‘Camden Diary’, 14; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, v. 266; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 1. Nevertheless he could not bring himself to be present at Somerset’s trial for murder (24 May 1616).209 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 5.

The conclusion of hostilities in France in April 1616 was the signal for further discussion of a French marriage. Lennox alone raised objections to breaking off negotiations, and argued that the reason why the French had not offered a larger dowry was that they knew that James was now negotiating with Spain.210 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 126; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. ii. 391. His continued support for a marriage, coupled with the king’s loss of enthusiasm for a treaty, may explain why he did not head the embassy sent to France that summer to wind up the negotiations.

Financial difficulties and further grants, 1616-20

Over the summer of 1616 Lennox finally obtained a share of the farthings patent. This grant, which passed the great seal on 2 Aug., gave Lennox and his fellow patentee, Lucy, countess of Bedford (daughter of the 1st Lord Harington) the right to coin brass farthing tokens for seven years at an annual rent of 100 marks.211 APC, 1615-16, pp. 663-4; Challis, 740; CD 1621, vii. 358. See also CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 387. At around the same time Lennox fetched his brother-in-law Huntly (a marquess since 1599) from Scotland to England. Despite having earlier undergone a token conversion to Protestantism, Huntly had been excommunicated for his Catholic leanings, for which he was now granted absolution by the archbishop of Canterbury (George Abbot^*).212 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 19-20. The widely repeated claim that it was Lennox who was absolved of Catholic leanings is incorrect: CP, vii. 606n; Oxford DNB, liii. 198. Lennox returned to England in time to participate in Charles’s creation as prince of Wales, formally greeting the prince in Westminster Hall on 31 Oct. and carrying the cap of state in the creation ceremony on 4 November.213 Harl. 5176, ff. 222v, 224v.

Lennox participated in the investiture of the new royal favourite, George Villiers^*, as earl of Buckingham in January 1617.214 Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 75. However, he subsequently supported the appointment of Sir Henry Yelverton^‡ as attorney general against Buckingham’s candidate, and in March, furious at the favourite’s obstructionism, he ‘broke out into plain terms’ with Buckingham, exchanging ‘as hot words with him as ever he did with any of that rank’.215 Liber Famelicus of Sir J. Whitelocke ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxx), 55-6. Shortly thereafter, Lennox accompanied the king to Scotland, attending the opening of the Scottish Parliament on 17 June, when he was also chosen as one of the lords of the articles.216 Reg. PC Scot. 1616-19, p. 156n; APS, iv. 526. In early July he joined other members of the Scottish nobility in petitioning the king to show clemency towards the disgraced earl of Somerset, who now languished in the Tower.217 Corresp. of Sir Robert Kerr, first Earl of Ancram, and his son, William, third Earl of Lothian ed. D. Laing (Roxburghe Club, c), 5. After visiting Glasgow and Dumfries, he returned to England with the king in August.218 Soc. Antiq. SAL/444/1, p. 143; Nichols, iii. 389, 441n.

Lennox was evidently in financial difficulties by the late 1610s: in May 1618 he was obliged to borrow £2,000 from Henry Poole^‡ of Sapperton, Gloucestershire, and in the following February the Exchequer was instructed to demand his arrears of rent as alnager, amounting to £1,213 10s. 3d.219 LC4/4, m. 3; SO3/6, unfol. Not surprisingly, Lennox resumed his hunt for additional sources of income. By January 1618 he and Sir Thomas Edmondes, now no longer ambassador to France, were lobbying for the right to collect the fees payable to the seal office of King’s Bench and Common Pleas, commonly known as the greenwax and worth around £1,500 p.a. by 1624.220 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 134; HMC 6th Rep. 682. The following month Lennox obtained a grant from the king to compound with offenders against the Statute of Tillage (1563), but the patent was condemned as unlawful, presumably because the act concerned had actually been repealed in 1593.221 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 523. However, in July 1618 he was granted the alnage on the new and old draperies in Ireland for 56 years – which he had been trying to obtain for the past three years - in return for an annual rent of £20.222 CSP Ire. 1615-25, p. 200; Bodl., Carte 62, f. 436. These fresh patents meant that he now enjoyed a total annual income from alnage of about £2,400.223 HMC 6th Rep. 682. The word ‘alnage’ has been mis-transcribed by the editor as ‘vinage’.

Lennox’s lodgings at Whitehall were damaged in the fire which destroyed part of Whitehall Palace in January 1619.224 HMC Cowper, i. 103. He was already discontented with this accommodation, as the nascent State Paper Office had recently been transferred to rooms adjacent to his own. Consequently, following the death of the queen in May 1619, Lennox was found fresh accommodation, the old Council chamber being converted for his use.225 30th DKR, 230; Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 104.

In February 1619 Lennox, learning that the king had fallen seriously ill, rode post haste for Royston, where James, believing himself to be dying, commended him to Prince Charles.226 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 225, 227. In the following April he and Arundel were given permission to form the Guiana Company, the purpose of which was to trade with the Amazon. However, the grant so alarmed the Spanish ambassador, whose country’s interests were threatened, that it was suspended.227 APC, 1618-19, pp. 423-4. In July 1619 Lennox and Edmondes were finally granted the greenwax fees in return for reforming abuses in their collection. They were given the right to retain any sums received over and above £3,060 17s. 5d., but Lennox was entitled to twice as much as Edmondes.228 CD 1621, vii. 374-6; Add. 72253, f. 51v.

Accompanied by Hamilton and Pembroke, Lennox visited Scotland again in the summer of 1619 to ensure that English forms of worship recently imposed by the king on the Scots were in fact adopted.229 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 257; Archivio di Stato, Florence, file 4193, Salvetti dispatch, 2 Aug. [N.S.] 1619 While in Edinburgh, he was permitted to use the king’s own plate.230 PRO30/53/10, f. 28; Reg. PC Scot. 1619-22, p. 64. He returned to England in the autumn. During the November 1619 Star Chamber trial for corruption of the former lord treasurer, the earl of Suffolk, Lennox, one of the judges, condemned the taking of gratuities as the slippery slope to bribery, and argued that the court should impose a large fine so that it could be substantially reduced by the king.231 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 274; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 112; CUL, Add.27, f. 19.

Though he was a francophile, Lennox criticized the French ambassador for refusing to attend the accession day tilt in 1620. The ambassador complained that his seating was inferior to that allocated to his Spanish counterpart, but Lennox thought him ‘too precise’.232 PRO30/53/10, ff. 67, 71; Archivio di Stato, Florence, file 4193, Salvetti dispatch of 10 Apr. [N.S.] 1620. In June 1620 Lennox was appointed lord lieutenant of Kent, in which county Cobham manor was situated. The previous incumbent, Lord Wotton, had been unable to bring himself to resign the office to Lennox directly, having quarrelled with the duke two years earlier for trying to convey his position as treasurer of the household to a man not of Lennox’s own choosing. Instead, he had surrendered the office to Buckingham, who thereupon resigned it to Lennox.233 Add. 72253, f. 132; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 125.

Although he could probably ill afford to do so, Lennox contributed £1,000 in October 1620 towards the defence of the Rhenish Palatinate, which was then in the process of being overrun by Spanish and Bavarian forces.234 SP14/117/2. The following month he was appointed to the newly formed council for New England, a government-sponsored body which, two years later, voted him lands by way of dividend in what later became the state of Maine.235 ‘Recs. of the Council for New Eng.’, Procs. American Antiq. Soc. (1867), 62. With a Parliament on the horizon, Lennox exercised his influence as lord lieutenant of Kent by writing to the corporations of Canterbury and Queenborough for seats for two of his clients.236 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U951/Z17/2. However, neither his lawyer Richard Hadsor nor his secretary John Latham, who was ridiculed as a Catholic sympathizer, proved successful.237 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 192, 193, 201. Nonetheless, in December 1620 Lennox endorsed the successful candidacy at Rye of John Angell^‡, son of the king’s fishmonger William Angell, a man familiar to Lennox in his capacity as lord steward.238 E. Suss. RO, RYE/47/96/5.

The Parliament of 1621

Lennox accompanied the king when Parliament opened on 30 Jan. 1621,239 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton ed. W.R. Prest, 27. at which time he was once again appointed a trier of petitions for James’s three kingdoms. During the assembly he provided a useful conduit between the upper House and the king. When, on 2 May, the 8th (or 2nd) Lord Saye and Sele (William Fiennes^*) said that he thought the House had agreed not to refer to the king’s consideration whether the former attorney general Sir Henry Yelverton^‡ had impugned James’s honour two days earlier, Lennox announced that the king had taken notice of the matter ‘and therefore, as I think, we cannot meddle with it’.240 LD 1621, p. 56.

Doubtless as a result of his official duties, Lennox attended the Lords rather fitfully, though only once (on 6 Mar.) was his absence formally excused. On 8 Feb. he was appointed to committees to prevent the export of artillery and make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable.241 LJ, iii. 7a, 13a, 38a. This latter measure formed the subject of Lennox’s first recorded speech four days later, at which time the bill was reported, with various additions. Lennox declared that the bill ‘is well as it is’, and rather than ‘clog this with any other matter’ he suggested that it would be better if the proposed changes formed the subject of fresh legislation.242 HMC Hastings, iv. 289. He was named to a further eight committees, whose subjects included the naturalization of his fellow Scot Sir Francis Stewart^‡, Buckingham’s proposal to establish an academy for young noblemen, and the abolition of monopolies.243 LJ, iii. 25b, 26b, 37a, 75a, 96b, 102a. He had an interest in the latter topic, of course, and not simply because he was the king’s alnager, for among the monopolies condemned by the Commons was the patent for the coining of brass farthing tokens, in which he was a sharer.244 Ibid. 42b; CD 1621, vi. 292.

Although a monopolist himself, Lennox participated in the debates on the abuses perpetrated by the most notorious patentees. On 22 Mar., while the Lords were preoccupied with the case of Lord Chancellor St Alban (Francis Bacon^*), he agreed with Pembroke that the House was too busy to deal with the cases of the silk patentee Matthias Fowles and the alehouse licensee Sir Francis Michell. Four days later, he concurred with many other peers that the alehouse patentee Sir Giles Mompesson^‡ should be stripped of his knighthood, but argued that banishment should be left to the king. This advice was heeded, whereupon Lennox proposed that ever afterwards that day’s proceedings should be commemorated with a sermon in St Margaret’s church, Westminster, a suggestion he repeated the next day.245 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 45, 46, 48, 49. On 26 Apr., after hearing Fowles defend himself, he suggested that Fowles should prove that he was opposed to the false dyeing of silk.246 LD 1621, p. 32.

Lennox evidently supported the prosecution of Lord Chancellor St Alban. When, on 20 Mar., the earl of Arundel argued that the House should not actively seek out complaints of bribery against Bacon, Lennox replied that they should nevertheless be ‘curious’. Moreover, when a witness in the case expressed concern that he would inadvertently accuse himself through his testimony, Lennox was among those who said that he need not fear prosecution.247 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 29, 37. On hearing Bacon’s letter of confession read out on 30 Apr., Lennox suggested that they should confirm that it was genuine. He also proposed that the king be approached to demand the surrender of the great seal, whereupon James sent Lennox and three other peers to the lord chancellor on 1 May. Two days later, Lennox, after opposing Saye’s radical suggestion that Bacon be degraded, was appointed to the commission for discharging the office of lord chancellor.248 LD 1621, p. 56; ‘Camden Diary’, p. 71. He did not long enjoy this role, for on 18 May Lennox and his fellow commissioners were instructed by the king to deliver the great seal to the bishop of Lincoln (John Williams^*, later archbishop of York).249 Rymer, vii. pt. 3, pp. 198-200. On 12 May Lennox spoke on behalf of a fellow Scot, Sir John Kennedy, who sought the return of a rich cabinet he had given to Bacon.250 LJ, iii. 119b. He is also said, during the Parliament, to have defended the council for New England from the complaints of the Virginia Company, which regarded the new body as an upstart rival.251 Procs. American Antiq. Soc. (1867), 123-4.

Lennox showed little sympathy for former Attorney General Yelverton, who claimed on 30 Apr. that he had lost Buckingham’s favour for opposing Mompesson’s patent of licensing inns. Yelverton revealed that, while attorney general, he had received a warning from Mompesson that he would be dismissed unless he prosecuted those who refused to pay for licences. However, the messenger who carried Mompesson’s threat, Thomas Emerson, subsequently cast doubt on this version of events. Consequently when, on 16 May, the Lords came to decide whether to censure Yelverton, Lennox observed that Emerson’s information should have caused Yelverton to doubt Mompesson rather than suspect Buckingham.252 LD 1621, p. 89.

Lennox requested parliamentary privilege for one of his servants on 12 May. The servant was brought before the House from King’s Bench two days later and ordered to be released.253 LJ, iii. 199b, 122a. On 15 May Lennox helped set down in writing the earl of Arundel’s acknowledgement of his error in offending the 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*) one week earlier.254 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton, 36. As the sitting drew to a close, Lennox promised the Commons, who wished the Lords to join them in petitioning the king for more time to sit, that they would be answered shortly.255 CD 1621, iii. 340.

Shortly after Parliament was adjourned for the summer, the farthings patent was judged to be lawful by the attorney general. This meant that, when Parliament reassembled, Lennox’s hand would be strengthened in the event of a renewed attack by the Commons.256 Ibid. vii. 359. However, since the old grant was about to expire a fresh patent, for a term of 19 years, was issued. By then Lennox had been joined by a new partner, the countess of Bedford having assigned her interest to the marquess of Hamilton.257 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 304; APC, 1621-3, pp. 268-9.

When Parliament resumed in November, Lennox did not remain with the king at Newmarket but attended the Lords on an irregular basis. However, he played little recorded part in proceedings. Indeed, he made only one recorded speech, on 1 Dec., when he seconded Archbishop Abbot, who proposed that the monopolies bill should be replaced with a less draconian measure, and was named to just three committees. The first, unsurprisingly, was to help draft the heads of a new monopolies bill. The others were to consider bills concerning licences of alienation and the Merchants of the Staple.258 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 111; LD 1621, p. 103; LJ, iii. 179a, 181a, 182b. Shortly after the Parliament was adjourned, never to resume, the king conferred on Lennox a fresh grant of monopoly, the right to furnish the royal household with French and Gascon wines for 21 years.259 E403/3041, p. 32.

Final years, 1622-4

Over the summer of 1621 Lennox married the 43-year-old Frances Seymour (née Howard), the recently bereaved countess of Hertford, with whom he had been carrying on an affair for some time. Four years his senior, Frances, who brought with her a jointure worth £5,000 a year for life, was reputed to be ‘one of the greatest both for birth and beauty in her time’.260 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 258. Lennox loved her dearly, and found more contentment in this match than in his previous two marriages.261 Spottiswoode, 546; Pvte Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis ed. Lord Braybrooke, 89. It was perhaps because he was a newly-wed that Lennox declined to attend the Scottish Parliament in July, despite having been asked to represent the king.262 Add. 72254, f. 41; APS, iv. 592. Instead, he concentrated on setting up home with his new wife. In August 1621 he took a lease of Hatton House, in Holborn.263 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 397. However, he evidently regarded this as temporary, for he was soon on the hunt for something grander. In January 1622 he offered to take over the lease of York House, on the Strand from Viscount St Alban, the former lord chancellor. In return he promised to let St Alban have the house in nearby Canon Row which had recently belonged to the 1st earl of Hertford, his wife’s former husband. However, the exchange was refused.264 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 326-7.

The new duchess of Lennox soon became known for her bounteous hospitality, and reportedly outshone all the other ladies at court, where she dazzled those who beheld her ‘with her inestimable richness’.265 Hacket, i. 173; Add. 72275, f. 147v. Her friends included the royal favourite, Buckingham, for whom she stood as godmother to the latter’s daughter in March 1622.266 Add. 72275, f. 129. See also Chamberlain Letters, ii. 434; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 120. Since her lifestyle was ruinously expensive and her husband was already heavily in debt, Frances used her considerable charms on the king. In May 1622 James, who had only recently bestowed on Lennox the sole right to provide wine to the royal household, promised to let her have £10,000 with which to pay her husband’s creditors, and in the following month she received from the king a chain belonging to the late queen worth £3,000.267 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 436; Orig. Letters Illustrative of Brit. Hist. ed. H. Ellis (1st ser.), iii. 129. At around the same time James granted Lennox himself a pension of £2,000, together with a cash sum of £3,000.268 Rymer, vii. pt. 3, pp. 254-5; SO3/7, unfol. (July 1622). However, the £10,000, which was meant to be raised by the sale of a barony, had not been paid six months later, by which time Lennox was also owed £2,200 from the greenwax. In a letter to the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, Frances complained of ‘this bitter crying of debt’.269 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/OE608, undated letter, partially quoted in M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 413. However, neither husband nor wife was willing to curb their extravagant lifestyle. In December they agreed to buy Hatton house (which was subsequently renamed Richmond House) from Lady Hatton for £2,000 in cash and a further £1,500 p.a. for life. They subsequently also persuaded the bishop of Ely, Nicholas Felton^*, to part with the adjacent property, Ely House, with the intention of reuniting the two houses, which together had once formed the bishop’s palace. In return, the bishop would have Hertford House, in Canon Row. Lennox and his wife then proceeded to embark upon an extensive rebuilding programme, which required 1,000 tons of Portland stone.270 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 446, 466; Harl. 1581, f. 345; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 604.

At the beginning of 1623 Lennox was sceptical that the negotiations for a Spanish bride for Prince Charles would ever reach fruition, even though it was rumoured at court that the infanta would arrive in the spring. However, by April, the prince and Buckingham having suddenly departed for Spain two months earlier, he had revised his opinion, declaring that ‘I think now it will be a match, [or] else the devil is in it’.271 PRO30/53/10, ff. 155, 157, 159, 167. He kept up a friendly correspondence with Buckingham while the latter was in Spain, in one letter offering his ‘plain advice’ and in another signing himself ‘your true and faithful, loving, obliged friend, father and servant’. He also described Buckingham as his ‘best child’.272 Harl. 1581, ff. 56, 60, 62. The duchess, however, was less well disposed. On learning that the king had decided to elevate Buckingham to the status of a duke she laboured hard behind the scenes to prevent it, since she did not wish to ‘become retrograde’.273 Ibid. ff. 344-5; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 488. However, her fear at being eclipsed ultimately proved unfounded, for when Buckingham’s patent finally passed the great seal in May it was accompanied by another creating Lennox duke of Richmond, the title which Lennox had long coveted. Furthermore, with Buckingham’s consent, Lennox’s grant was allowed to take precedence over that of the favourite, who declared that ‘he would not take place of his father’. Lennox was deeply grateful for this act of kindness and, according to his wife, now held Buckingham ‘dearer than ever he did’.274 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 497-8; Harl. 1581, f. 344.

Elevation to the uppermost tier of the English peerage was not the only piece of good fortune to befall Lennox in 1623. In late March he secured a grant of the duties on coal payable at Newcastle, although it was not enrolled until September due to ‘the opposition of the hostmen and their confederates’.275 Harl. 1581, f. 78v; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 81; SP14/162/20. Three months later, in a deal brokered by his friend Lord Treasurer Middlesex, Lennox finally purchased Cobham Hall, using money that seems to have been provided by the crown.276 Prestwich, 412-13. He had been trying to persuade the countess of Kildare to sell to him ever since the previous summer, for which purpose he had enlisted the support of the king.277 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 441. In addition, he received a warrant for payment of 2,000 marks in connection with the greenwax.278 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 24; E403/2562, f. 92r-v. However, his wife was a born ingrate and continued to plead extreme poverty. In early April, shortly after her husband had obtained the coal grant, Frances complained that the £10,000 promised by the king the previous year had never been paid, so that Lennox had nothing ‘to satisfy his tormenting, vexing debt’. Four months later, despite having recently become mistress of Cobham Hall, she badgered Middlesex to let them have £1,500 payable from the greenwax, without which ‘we cannot live’.279 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/OE608, 2 Apr. 1623, duchess of Lennox to Middlesex; 4 Aug. [1623], same to same.

Lennox was among a group of peers who went to Southampton in June 1623 to make preparations for the reception of the infanta.280 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 171; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 501. In the event these arrangements were not needed, for in October the prince and Buckingham returned home empty-handed. However Lennox, who was among the first to greet Charles when he arrived at York House on 6 Oct., was not unduly troubled by this turn of events, as the terms of the marriage treaty had by now been agreed. Writing on 9 Nov. to Sir Edward Herbert^‡, the English ambassador to Paris, he remarked that ‘whatsoever the world conceive[s], we expect the infanta shall be here in the spring’.281 D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 162; PRO30/53/10, f. 180. Over the course of the next few weeks, though, it became clear that both Charles and Buckingham had deep misgivings about the treaty. Charles was angry at the treatment he had received at the hands of the Spanish, and both men were dismayed that they had been unable to make the restoration of the Palatinate a condition of the marriage. It also became apparent that Buckingham had fallen out with the English ambassador in Madrid, John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol. On learning that Bristol had written to the king complaining about his conduct, Buckingham tried to persuade Lennox and Pembroke that the ambassador should be committed to the Tower on his return to England. However, neither man was willing to countenance such an outrageous proposal. Both soon fell out with Buckingham, as it was now clear that the latter not only monopolized the king’s favour but also the prince’s.282 Procs. 1626, i. 365, 367-8, 372; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 542.

By the beginning of 1624 Charles and Buckingham were determined to bring about the end of the marriage negotiations. While Buckingham stayed with the king at Newmarket to prevent supporters of the marriage from gaining access to James, Charles travelled to Whitehall in order to try to win over the 12-strong council for foreign affairs, a select body of the Privy Council created in November 1623, of which he and Lennox were both members.283 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 527-8; CHARLES STUART. Though he had originally favoured a French marriage rather than a Spanish match, Lennox regarded an accommodation with Spain as the best way to achieve the restoration of the Palatinate. Indeed, he argued that if Frederick’s son were to be educated at the English court, Spain and the emperor might be persuaded to acknowledge the boy’s claim to the throne of the Palatinate.284 Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. v. 178. However, he was also reluctant to quarrel with Charles. Consequently, on being asked by the prince on 18 Jan. to leave Newmarket for London, he privately admitted to his friend Middlesex that ‘if I can I will excuse myself and stay here’.285 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE607, 18 Jan. 1624, Lennox to earl of Middlesex. He was obliged to travel to London anyway, and over the course of the following week he and the rest of the junto for foreign affairs debated the marriage thoroughly. When the matter was finally put to a vote, Lennox, like Pembroke and two others, chose to abstain.286 NLS, Adv. Ms 33.1.7, vol. 22, no. 68; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 541-2.

In the midst of these important affairs of state, Lennox was involved in pursuing his own foreign policy objectives. In 1618, to the dismay of King James, the French king’s Scottish guard had been disbanded.287 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 585. From at least June 1622, and doubtless egged on by his new wife, Lennox was trying to obtain not only their reinstatement but also the command for himself. On 8 Dec. 1623 Sir Edward Herbert sent word that the king of France’s final resolution in the matter would soon be sent and would be ‘to His Majesty’s contentment’.288 Add. 72275, f. 147v; PRO30/53/10, ff. 180, 184; SP78/71, f. 336. Lennox naturally assumed from this reassurance that he had been successful, as he is described on his funeral monument as captain of the Scottish guard. However, his commission evidently did not arrive before his death in mid February 1624, for shortly thereafter Lord Colville [S] asked the Scottish Privy Council for permission to go to France to solicit the re-establishment of the Scottish guard.289 G. Crawfurd, Lives ... of the Officers of ... State in Scotland (1726), 335; State Pprs. and Misc. Corresp. of Thomas, Earl of Melrose, 503.

In view of the determination of Charles and Buckingham to bring about an end to the Spanish Match, the king was obliged to summon another Parliament. Lennox once again nominated John Latham for a seat at Canterbury but, despite vigorous support from the corporation, his secretary was defeated.290 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 192, 194. When Parliament opened on 12 Feb. 1624 Lennox, as lord steward, helped swear in more than 100 Members of the House of Commons.291 CJ, i. 670. The assembly then adjourned for four days.

On the night of 15 Feb. Lennox supped cheerfully at Richmond House, enjoyed conjugal relations with his wife, and retired to bed.292 Hacket, i. 73; Wilson, 257. He awoke between five and six the following morning complaining of a severe pain in the back of his head. After drinking a cordial and getting a servant to rub his head until the pain eased, he fell asleep again. However, an hour later his servants found him dead, his bed sheets wrapped tightly in one hand, the other hand ‘lifted towards heaven’.293 Univ. Kansas ms E237, f. 93; J. Cleland, A Monument of Mortalitie, upon the death and funerals of the gracious Prince Lodovick, Duke of Richmond and Lennox (1624), 29.

The suddenness of Lennox’s death stunned the court, and before long it was rumoured that the duke had been poisoned. Indeed, his death reawakened the fear among Scots, dormant since 1614, of an imminent massacre.294 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 226; Harl. 159, f. 56v; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 241; Calderwood, vii. 595. However, the circumstances of his demise – coitus, followed by severe headache and seizure – points to a subarachnoid haemorrhage (massive bleeding in the subarachnoid area of the brain) as the cause. Subarachnoid haemorrhages are not uncommon, and aneurysms in the cerebral arteries are often congenital.295 We are grateful to Frederick Holmes, emeritus professor of medicine at the Univ. of Kansas Medical Center, for advice on this subject. For the relationship between increased blood pressure and coitus, see C.A. Fox and B. Fox, ‘Blood Pressure and Respiratory Patterns during Human Coitus’, Jnl. of the Soc. for Reproduction and Fertility, xix. 408-9.

Lennox was buried at night on 17 Feb. in the Henry VII Chapel, the area reserved for members of the royal family in Westminster Abbey, accompanied by a large number of knights and gentlemen.296 Cleland, 45; Westminster Abbey Regs. ed. J.L. Chester, 122. A formal funeral, conducted ‘with as much state and magnificence as if he had been a prince of England’, was held two months later, by which time a sumptuous monument of black marble and cast bronze, ‘purchased and prepared’ by the duke himself, had been erected by his distraught widow.297 SP14/163/16; Cleland, 53; Crawfurd, 335. The funeral was attended by an ‘extraordinary number’ of mourners, about 1,000, including most of the House of Lords, who adjourned their sitting for the day. The sermon was preached by John Williams, dean of Westminster as well as bishop of Lincoln. The focal point of the funeral procession was a life-size effigy of the duke, which had lain in state at Richmond House for the past six weeks dressed in Lennox’s Parliament robes. Paraded through the streets on a hearse pulled by six horses, it was preceded by two men each carrying an arrow, a reminder that Lennox had been an excellent archer.298 Cleland, 46-8; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton, 49; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 554; SP14/163/3. The following day a second funeral service was held for the benefit of the duke’s servants.299 Cleland, 2, 33.

Lennox, who died intestate, was succeeded in his lands and Scottish titles by his younger brother Esmé Stuart^*, earl of March. His English titles – duke of Richmond and earl of Newcastle - became extinct. In 1628 Charles I established an investigation into a claim that Lennox had failed to settle the Irish lands he had been granted in 1610 with English and Scots.300 SO1/1, f. 112r-v. This accusation contradicted the findings of the commissioners who had examined the state of Ireland in 1622. They had recorded that, under Lennox’s illegitimate son, Sir John Stuart of Methven, the nucleus of a borough town, inhabited by British settlers, had been created on the banks of Lough Foyle.301 Add. 4756, f. 117v. However, this favourable picture may have owed something to the presence of Lennox’s lawyer, Richard Hadsor, on the Irish commission.302 V. Treadwell, Buckingham and Ire. 188.

Lennox’s widow never recovered from the shock of losing her husband. Grief stricken, she tore out her hair and disfigured her face.303 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 545; HMC Hastings, ii. 63; Cleland, 30. In her will, drawn up in 1639, she instructed that she be buried in the same sheets that she and Lennox had used on their wedding night. On her death a few months later, she was interred in the same vault as Lennox.304 Robertson, 230, 246. See also Stone, 660.