VAUX, Edward (1588-1661)

The Vaux family first rose to prominence in the late fourteenth century, when they acquired a substantial Northamptonshire estate through marriage. In 1522, as a reward for distinguished service to the first two Tudor monarchs, Nicholas Vaux^† was created Baron Vaux of Harrowden. (The territorial suffix subsequently became confused with the name of the barony, Nicholas’ successors often being referred to as ‘Lord Harrowden’.)12 Anstruther, 3, 10-11, 15-16, 32, 36. Following the Reformation the family, who were staunch Catholics, withdrew into subversive retirement. The 3rd Lord Vaux (William Vaux^†) may have been involved in the Ridolfi Plot against Elizabeth I, and was imprisoned between 1581 and 1583 for sheltering Edmund Campion, the Jesuit martyr. Vaux’s eldest son, Henry, a key figure in the underground Catholic movement, renounced his inheritance in order to become a priest. Henry’s brother George, the new heir, was educated in French Catholic colleges, while one of their sisters became a nun.13 Ibid. 43, 53, 96, 104, 120, 122, 127, 138, 145, 147, 182; First and Second Diaries of the Eng. Coll., Douay ed. T.F. Knox et al., 192, 194.

An intensely Catholic upbringing, 1588-1611

George predeceased his father, leaving an infant son, Edward, who succeeded to the Vaux barony in 1595 aged six. His wardship was initially purchased by Sir Thomas Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Exeter) and the latter’s servant Richard Frampton.14 C142/307/72; WARD 9/159, ff. 10, 24v; Anstruther, 231-2. However, Vaux was raised by his mother, Elizabeth, who also secured the wardship in 1598 with the help of her wealthy father, Sir John Roper^* (later 1st Lord Teynham). Elizabeth, an emotional, obsessive woman, was strongly influenced by the Catholic priests she sheltered at Harrowden Hall, such as the prominent Jesuit John Gerard.15 Anstruther, 227, 232; John Gerard, 144-5, 147-8. Consequently, Vaux grew up in an intensely Catholic atmosphere, surrounded by the artefacts of his faith and the relics of his saintly uncle Henry. Three boys educated with him later became Jesuits, while one of his sisters entered a Flemish convent. Vaux also had early experience of persecution, as his home was intermittently searched by government agents hunting the priests protected by his mother.16 John Gerard, 158-60; 174-5, 195, 257; Anstruther, 244; Recusant Docs. from the Ellesmere MSS ed. A.G. Petti (Cath. Rec. Soc. lx), 136-7. Despite this seemingly reclusive upbringing, his status as an English peer ensured that he retained some contacts with mainstream society. Around early 1605 his family negotiated for him to marry Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard^*, the powerful 1st earl of Suffolk. Discussions had stalled by the summer, but the 16 year-old Vaux was now on friendly terms with Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, to whom he applied for permission to travel abroad ‘for the gaining of languages and experience’. In August that year, James I stayed overnight at Harrowden while on progress in the Midlands.17 John Gerard, 148; Hatfield House, CP 111/31; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 249; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 518, 526.

These encouraging developments came to an abrupt halt with the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot in November 1605. When Guy Fawkes was apprehended, he had one of Elizabeth Vaux’s letters in his possession. Although this missive was several months old, and addressed to one of her friends, it hinted that she was expecting some extraordinary event which would benefit Catholics. She and Vaux were promptly brought to London for interrogation, sparking widespread rumours that they knew of the Plot in advance, and that Vaux had been clapped in the Tower. Indeed, additional circumstantial evidence soon emerged to link them to the conspiracy. Fawkes was the cousin of one of Elizabeth’s former chaplains; another of the plotters, Francis Tresham, was Vaux’s own cousin, while two more conspirators, Robert Catesby and Sir Everard Digby, had recently visited Harrowden. Moreover, the Vauxes had been alerted to the Plot on 5 Nov. by another suspected plotter, Henry Huddlestone, who had met the fugitive Catesby earlier that day.18 John Gerard, 145; CP, xii. pt. 2, pp. 222-3; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 239-40, 254, 256, 259, 268; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 490-1; Anstruther, 287; J. Childs, God’s Traitors, 303-4; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 2. Vaux himself, who had in fact been on the verge of visiting London to try and revive the Howard marriage project, managed to convince Salisbury of his innocence. However, Elizabeth, who was anxious not to betray any Catholic clergy, became evasive under questioning. Although nothing was ultimately proved against her, she remained in custody for at least six months. This episode also inevitably terminated any prospects of a Howard match, and Suffolk’s daughter was married off in January 1606 to an elderly suitor, William Knollys^*, Lord Knollys (later earl of Banbury).19 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 249, 259, 268; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 569-70, 645; xviii. 114; Anstruther, 320, 340.

Despite these events, Vaux continued to enjoy a relatively privileged existence. Although convicted of recusancy in Northamptonshire in March 1606, he was permitted to evade the financial penalties which normally ensued.20 T. Rymer, Foedera, viii. pt. 1, p. 32. Two years later he again sought permission to travel abroad, and finally departed for France early in 1609. After spending time at the well-known riding academy at Angers, he travelled on to Italy. There, he became travelling companion to a fellow Catholic, Sir Oliver Manners, brother to Roger Manners^*, 5th earl of Rutland, with whom he visited Milan, Florence and Rome.21 SO3/4, unfol. (8 Sept. 1608); LC4/29/364; Anstruther, 377-8; HMC Rutland, i. 419; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 610; Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xii), 84. Vaux was thus abroad when he came of age in September 1609, and although now eligible to sit in the House of Lords, he made no effort to attend either parliamentary session of 1610. Indeed, it was not until October 1611 that he wrote from Milan to Salisbury announcing his intention to return home via Flanders. He reached Brussels in mid November, where he communed with the local Jesuits, ‘in a disguised and unknown habit passing for an Italian’. The English agent in the city, William Trumbull^‡, thought this behaviour suspicious, but the ever-patient Salisbury reassured him that Vaux was merely keeping a low profile to save money.22 SP14/66/96; HMC 10th Rep. I, 543; SP77/10, f. 148v; HMC Downshire, iii. 200.

Crisis over the oath of allegiance, 1611-14

In fact, Vaux was about to face the most serious crisis of his career. Back in England, with the government again clamping down on Catholics following the assassination of Henri IV of France, Elizabeth Vaux had once more been arrested for sheltering priests at Harrowden.23 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 313; John Gerard, 257; HMC Downshire, iii. 180. Clearly anticipating further repercussions, Vaux placed most of his key properties in trust shortly after his return home, ostensibly to arrange for payment of his debts, but almost certainly with the primary objective of transferring legal ownership to third parties.24 Mins. of Evidence, 204-7; Anstruther, 395. This was a sensible precaution. At about the same time, in early 1612, Vaux was requested to take the oath of allegiance to James I. For a devout Catholic, this equated to rejection of papal authority, but the penalty for refusal was forfeiture of all property to the crown. Only one Catholic peer, Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu, had thus far refused the oath, though he had negotiated a heavy fine as an alternative to outright confiscation of his estates. Doubtless aware of this, Vaux prevaricated. The government allowed him to delay his decision for a few weeks, during which time he sought theological guidance, though in the event this merely stiffened his resolve.25 Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead, 138, 143; M.C. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern Eng. 358-9, 361; A.F. Allison, ‘Later Life and Writings of Joseph Creswell’, Recusant Hist. xv. 112. At length, summoned before the Privy Council on 1 Mar., he offered to swear temporal allegiance only, and when this option was rejected, he refused the oath outright. He was promptly confined to the Fleet, and put on trial for praemunire. Convicted by King’s Bench in mid May, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and the loss of all his possessions. His mother, who had refused the oath some months earlier, had already suffered the same penalty.26 Mins. of Evidence, 200; Chamberlain Letters, i. 337-8, 349; Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead, 143, 220.

If the government believed that these exemplary punishments would settle the issue of Catholic allegiance, it badly miscalculated. Far from repenting of his actions, Vaux relished the role of martyr, writing from prison:

I embrace my fate as the most felicitous and welcome one that could have befallen me; … The consolation that I feel in my present state far exceeds anything that I have ever before experienced during the whole course of my life …; if I feel any pain, it is solely because I have no more to lose for the love of God.

This reaction served to fuel the disquiet already building within the ranks of the peerage at this assault on aristocratic property rights and legal privileges. As one anonymous Catholic observed, even firmly Protestant nobles saw Vaux’s treatment as ‘a common insult to their grade’. The decision to prosecute him in King’s Bench rather than Star Chamber, the customary venue for aristocratic cases, was also interpreted as a mark of dishonour. The Howard faction at court, especially the crypto-Catholic Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, soon began lobbying on his behalf.27 H. Foley, Recs. of the Eng. Province of Soc. of Jesus, vii. 1039-40; Anstruther, 404; SP14/70/25, 46. Meanwhile, Vaux’s efforts to protect his estates were bearing fruit. Although he owned land in six counties, comprising at least 26 manors, much of this property was now either held by trustees or encumbered with debts and annuities. The crown’s ability to realize its true value was therefore severely limited. Faced with all these obstacles, James backed down. In October 1612 Vaux was pardoned for refusing to swear allegiance, given an undertaking that he would not be offered the oath again, and restored to his forfeited estates.28 Anstruther, 404-5, 414; Lansd. 153, ff. 89-90; SO3/5, unfol. (Oct. 1612); C66/1957/15; 66/1983/13. However, this unexpected leniency came with conditions attached. A few days later, he was transferred to the custody of the dean of Westminster, George Montaigne^* (later archbishop of York), ‘to see what good may be done with him’. Elizabeth Vaux was released from prison in the following summer, but Vaux himself, who was predictably unmoved by Montaigne’s Protestant arguments, remained under house arrest until November 1614. Consequently, he was again unable to attend the Lords when Parliament met that year.29 SO3/5, unfol. (15 Oct. 1612); Chamberlain Letters, i. 382; Anstruther, 428; APC, 1613-14, pp. 179-80, 327, 615.

Good behaviour, and military service, 1615-24

In 1616 Vaux and his mother left Harrowden and settled at Boughton, another of their Northamptonshire estates. Elizabeth remained a thorn in the government’s side, and was again summoned before the Privy Council in March 1618. Vaux, however, though excluded from local government, not only avoided further controversy but also contributed £50 towards the Protestant war effort in the Palatinate in 1620.30 Anstruther, 429; APC, 1618-19, p. 57; SP14/117/2; 14/118/11. When Parliament again met in the following year, with the war high on the agenda, he obtained permission to stay away. He awarded his proxy first to Thomas Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy of Chiche (later 1st earl Rivers), who proved to be another absentee, and then to Oliver St John^*, 4th Lord St John of Bletso.31 SO3/7, unfol. (13 Feb. 1621); LJ, iii. 4a, 14b; Add. 40085, f. 21.

After five or more years of good behaviour, Vaux was now itching to express his religious fervour again. When James agreed in 1622 to allow two regiments of English Catholic volunteers to serve in the Spanish Netherlands, he leapt at the chance to command one of them, even though such a move was inevitably controversial. The king was walking a diplomatic tightrope between Spain and the United Provinces, and when Vaux took his leave, James ‘said a great deal to him showing that the business was little to his liking’.32 Add. 72254, f. 101v; APC, 1621-3, pp. 191, 213; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 378; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 307. Once on the Continent, Vaux’s troops became bogged down in the protracted siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, their pay was poor and infrequent, and as early as February 1623 they were being reduced in number and reorganized. Nevertheless, this military service abroad was a clear opportunity for Vaux to promote his faith, and he made the most of it. Towards the end of the year, the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain reported gatherings of young Catholics in London, who had ‘made an association and taken certain oaths and orders … to conceal one another’s secrets’, a practice which he claimed had originated in Vaux’s regiment in the Low Countries.33 Harl. 1580, f. 245v; Anstruther, 433-4; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 530.

Vaux was back in England by February 1624, when he finally took his seat in the Lords, attending all the opening formalities. However, on the Parliament’s third day, the peers were instructed to take the oath of allegiance if they had not yet done so, whereupon Vaux and several of his co-religionists promptly withdrew from the House for the remainder of the session.34 LJ, iii. 214b-15a; Add. 40087, f. 18; ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 35; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 232. While England hovered on the brink of conflict with Spain, James attempted to maintain a façade of diplomatic evenhandedness. Accordingly, in early June Vaux was granted permission to recruit fresh volunteers for his Catholic regiment. However, at the critical moment, and ‘to his great chagrin’, this plan was blocked by Prince Charles, who was committed to an anti-Habsburg war. Once it became clear that Vaux would not be returning to Flanders, the authorities there also revoked his command.35 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 267, 283; SP14/167/28; SP16/181/99 [misdated as 1630]; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 20; Add. 72276, f. 99v; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 354, 363; SP77/17, f. 232.

Further trouble over the oath of allegiance, 1625-6

Following this setback, Vaux turned his attention to domestic concerns. In the opening months of Charles I’s reign, he negotiated a pardon for all offences arising from his persistent recusancy, thereby removing the threat of further confiscations of his property. In reality this was an endorsement of the status quo, as he was already protected by his status as a peer, and no fines had actually been levied on his estates since he recovered them in 1612.36 Rymer, viii. pt. 1, pp. 31-2; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 534. Presumably buoyed up by this success, Vaux attended the opening two days of the 1625 Parliament, only to find that he was again required to take the oath of allegiance, whereupon he once more withdrew from the Lords in protest.37 Procs. 1625, pp. 39-40, 47.

Events now took an unexpected turn. On 31 Oct. several Northamptonshire deputy lieutenants arrived at Boughton to search for weapons, as part of a general disarmament of Catholic peers. Vaux initially cooperated, but was then drawn into an argument between these officers and his hotheaded brother, William. Eventually a fight broke out, during which Vaux gave Richard Knightley^‡ ‘a good blow on the face’, and floored one of Knightley’s servants with a cudgel.38 APC, 1625-6, p. 229; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 142; HMC 10th Rep. VI, 118; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, ii. 7-8. In HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 38 and vi. 400 it is incorrectly stated that Vaux’s brother attacked Knightley. Inevitably, in mid November Vaux and his brother were summoned before the Privy Council for resisting the royal writ. Even now there were some councillors who ‘favoured the Lord Vaux’s cause, and magnified much his natural and accustomed modesty and discretion’, but the king himself insisted on referring the matter to Star Chamber. A furious Vaux thereupon accused one of the key witnesses, Sir William Spencer^* (later 2nd Lord Spencer), of lying, and once again found himself committed to the Fleet, where he spent the next 12 days.39 APC, 1625-6, pp. 231, 234, 237-8, 248; Misc. State Pprs. ii. 4, 8; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 150.

With the war against Spain going badly, and the mood at court hostile to Catholics, Vaux had good reason to fear the outcome of his Star Chamber hearing, which was scheduled for 10 Feb. 1626. Accordingly, he played for time. The second Caroline Parliament opened on 6 Feb., with Vaux present for the king’s speech. Two days later, he absented himself from the Lords in order to prefer a petition for a stay of the Star Chamber case, on the grounds that it infringed his parliamentary privilege. On 9 Feb. the lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry^* (later 1st Lord Coventry), informed the Lords of this development, indicating that the government would not oppose Vaux’s privilege claim. In fact, the strongest objections came from within the House itself, where there was clearly resentment at Vaux’s habit of staying away to avoid taking the oath of allegiance. This was summed up by William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, a noted puritan, who asserted that, since privilege existed to ensure that members were free to attend Parliament, it followed that Vaux, by consistently flouting his obligation to swear allegiance, had ruled himself out of membership, and therefore did not qualify for privilege. Though Coventry tried to sidestep this issue, Saye stuck to his guns, and pushed the Lords into challenging Vaux over his previous behaviour. Summoned to the House, and with no more room for manoeuvre, Vaux finally agreed to take the oath as required. He was duly awarded privilege, resumed his seat in the Lords, and swore allegiance at the end of that day’s proceedings. Whatever Vaux’s own qualms at the turn of events may have been, there was evidently also some lingering discomfort in the Lords about his treatment. On 20 Feb. the House voted that his grant of privilege should be entered in the Journal without any record of the preceding debates.40 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 63; Procs. 1626, i. 38-41, 61.

For the remainder of this session, Vaux was a regular face in the Lords, with an overall attendance record of 80 per cent. Formally excused three times, his only extended absence was during early April.41 Procs. 1626, i. 143, 172, 265. He spoke just once more in the House, affirming on 15 May that Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had not made treasonable remarks during his impeachment speech against George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham. He also attracted ten appointments. As a member of the committee to examine witnesses in the trial of John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, Vaux took evidence from Digges himself on 9 June. Predictably he was named to consider the bill concerning the estates of his brother-in-law, Henry Neville^*, 9th (or 2nd) Lord Abergavenny. Doubtless on the strength of his military experience, he was also nominated to discuss measures to improve the nation’s defence capabilities.42 Ibid. 84, 110, 482, 541, 597; CP, i. 37. Of his remaining seven bill committees, two were concerned with overseas trade, while two others related to the estates of Charles Howard^*, 2nd earl of Nottingham and Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset.43 Procs. 1626, i. 104, 120, 231, 300.

A scandalous liaison, 1627-35

Following this session, the government moved to rehabilitate Vaux, the Privy Council noting on 25 July that ‘he hath of late given good testimony to his Majesty of his good inclinations to that [which] the state may require of him’. He and his brother had already been provisionally pardoned a month earlier for the Boughton incident, following ‘very powerful intercession’ at court, though the formal sealing of the pardon was delayed by the king until June 1627, in order ‘not to give offence’. As a further sign of improved relations, Vaux contributed £100 towards the Forced Loan in December 1626, and was appointed a commissioner for this unpopular levy shortly afterwards.44 APC, 1626, p. 132; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 567; Coventry Docquets, 732; E401/1913, unfol.

Vaux attended the 1628 parliamentary session, though he missed half of the sittings, with extended absences in April and May. He was formally excused attendance on 7 Apr., for reasons which were not recorded. Unsurprisingly, he attracted less business this time, being nominated to just four bill committees, the subjects of which were trade, clothing regulations, the conduct of assize trials, and fen drainage.45 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 88, 112, 133, 157, 371. When the Parliament reconvened in 1629, Vaux was present for 14 out of 23 sittings. He received just two appointments, to again review the country’s military capacity, and to consider a proposal by Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, to create an academy for educating aristocratic children.46 LJ, iv. 37b, 39b.

Vaux had reached the age of 40 without marrying, but it was becoming common knowledge that he was conducting an affair with Elizabeth Knollys, countess of Banbury, whom he had hoped to wed in 1605. This liaison, which probably dated from at least 1623, became an established fact in April 1627, when the countess bore a son at Harrowden Hall, naming him Edward. For appearances’ sake, it was reported that she had gone into labour unexpectedly while taking the waters nearby at Wellingborough. The earl of Banbury, who was now in his late seventies, did not formally disown the child, but Vaux was generally presumed to be the father. Tellingly, when Banbury settled property on Elizabeth in 1629, he arranged for it to descend to her own heirs, in the event that she had no offspring by the earl himself. Two years later, in another conveyance, Banbury identified his nephew, Sir Robert Knollys^‡, as his closest male heir. By then, Vaux and the countess were no longer attempting to conceal their relationship, and a second son, Nicholas, was born in January 1631, again at Harrowden.47 CP, xii. pt. 2, p. 225; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 596; Anstruther, 457; H. Nicolas, Treatise on the Law of Adulterine Bastardy, 301-3; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 53-4. Later that year, Vaux supported the ‘Protestatio Declaratoria’, a Jesuit-sponsored complaint to Rome against Richard Smith, the bishop with oversight of English Catholics. While Vaux probably needed little prompting to side with the Jesuits in this dispute, it was subsequently alleged that he had turned against Smith out of fear of being excommunicated for adultery.48 Questier, Catholicism and Community, 475; Newsletters from the Caroline Ct. 1631-8 ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 122; Anstruther, 458.

Banbury died in May 1632, his funeral certificate and inquisition post mortem both describing him as childless. Within weeks, Vaux married Elizabeth, but the legal status of their sons was left ambiguous, doubtless to preserve their tenuous claim to the Banbury earldom. When a settlement was drawn up in 1635 to provide for Vaux’s family, the boys were carefully described as the countess’s children, born while she was still Banbury’s wife, though they had now adopted the surname of Vaux. In 1641, a second inquisition post mortem into Banbury’s estates went further, stating that the eldest son, Edward, was the earl’s legitimate heir. Although this claim was never widely accepted, Vaux’s conduct did not make him a social pariah, as demonstrated by the fact that the parties to the 1635 settlement included Elizabeth’s brother-in-law William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury, her cousin the earl of Arundel, the 4th earl of Dorset, and Philip Herbert^*, 4th earl of Pembroke, some of the most prominent figures at court.49 CP, i. 401; Nicolas, 304-5, 311-12; Mins. of Evidence, 208-9.

Later life, 1635-61

The later 1630s passed relatively quietly for Vaux, though he was rebuked by the Privy Council in September 1638 for failing to pay a subscription due to the Fishery Association. Summoned to attend the king at York ahead of the First Bishops’ War in 1639, he initially declared himself ready to lay his life and fortune at Charles’s feet, but on reflection opted to pay £300 in lieu of personal service.50 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 6, 15, 456; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 605; SO1/3, f. 114v. By the spring of 1640 Vaux was abroad, apparently in France, and therefore failed to attend the Short Parliament. He remained overseas for the next six years, and therefore played no part in the Civil War, during which conflict two-thirds of his property was sequestered on account of his recusancy.51 LJ, iv. 58a; viii. 384b; Procs. Short Parl. 61; HMC 8th Rep. i. 4. Since the sequestration was not lifted until the Restoration, he experienced significant financial difficulties in the interim.52 LJ, xi. 67b-8a; HMC 7th Rep. 101. Vaux died in September 1661, without ever resuming his seat in the Lords. As he left no legitimate children, his barony passed to his elderly brother Henry, and then fell into abeyance upon the latter’s death in 1663. Vaux was also survived by his younger bastard son, Nicholas, who maintained his spurious claim to the earldom of Banbury, and even briefly sat in the Lords in 1660. However, his pretentions were not accepted by the upper House, which finally ruled against his descendants in 1813.53 LJ, xi. 112b, 259b; Anstruther, 466, 474-6; Nicolas, 322-4, 397, 530.