VERE, Henry de (1593-1625)

Described as ‘corpulent, and heavy’ with fair hair and complexion and a pockmarked face, Oxford, who was erroneously styled Viscount Bolebec for the first 11 years of his life,21 Procs. 1626, i. 183-4; CP, ii. 203. inherited an ancient title and the hereditary office of lord great chamberlain of England.22 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 286; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 19. However, his father, Edward de Vere^*, 17th earl of Oxford, had sold almost all his lands, leaving him an estate worth less than £70 a year. Moreover, although the 17th earl had a £1,000 a year crown pension, the 18th earl, being aged only 11 on succeeding to his title in 1604, was granted just £200 p.a.23 EDWARD DE VERE; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 155. By then, however, he had already been launched on a career at court, having been made a companion to the king’s eldest son, Prince Henry, the previous year.24 A.H. Nelson, Monstrous Adversary, 434.

According to Arthur Wilson, secretary to Oxford’s friend, Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, ‘Oxford was of no reputation in his youth, being very debauched and riotous’.25 Wilson, 161. However, Oxford’s mother claimed that her son had given ‘good satisfaction’ until a penniless kinsman called John Hunt insinuated himself into his acquaintance in about July 1609. According to the countess, Hunt led the 16-year old Oxford to ‘taverns, ordinaries, [and] plays’, and encouraged him to hunt instead of attending Prince Henry. They apparently lived together for a while at an ordinary in Milford Lane, described as ‘a great house of play’.26 Nelson, 435-6.

As well as the neglect of his royal duties, Oxford may also have given concern to his mother because of his increasing indebtedness, which threatened her attempts to restore the de Vere family fortunes. In 1609 she negotiated the repurchase of Hedingham Castle, in northern Essex, the historic seat of the earls of Oxford, worth about £10,000, which the 17th earl had conveyed to his three daughters by his first marriage. She received financial assistance from her brother, Francis Trentham^‡ who, in return, was granted a reversion to the property should Oxford die without heirs. However, she also needed to sell some of the minor properties which her husband had left on his death. As Oxford was still under-age, this required a private act.27 Ibid. 437; HMC Hatfield, xx. 108; C54/1972; Morant, Essex, ii. 295. Such a measure, which named the lord treasurer, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury (uncle to the sellers of Hedingham, Oxford’s half-sisters), as one of the trustees for the sale of the property, was given a first reading in the Lords on 9 June 1610. Committed two days later, it was reported on the 14th with certain amendments by Oxford’s cousin, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton and cleared the House on the 16th. It received an equally smooth passage through the Commons and was shortly thereafter enacted.28 PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n33; LJ, ii. 611a, 613b, 614b, 635b.

Being a minor, Oxford himself played no part in the business of Parliament. However, he was made a knight of the Bath in June 1610, when Henry was created prince of Wales in full Parliament, and he may have attended the king in the upper House for the final day of the session on 23 July.29 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 166.

In the summer of 1611 Oxford, despite still being under-age, obtained control of his crown pension as well as an annuity worth £300 a year from the United Provinces. The latter had originally been granted by the States General to Oxford’s kinsman, Sir Francis Vere^‡, on his retirement as commander of the English contingent of the Dutch army. However, Sir Francis had ensured that after his death, which occurred in 1609, this annuity would pass to Oxford.30 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 61; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 283-4; Nelson, 437. This ensured that Oxford had a direct financial stake in the survival of Dutch republic and, more widely, the anti-Habsburg cause.

Years of travel, 1613-18

Oxford’s mother died in late December 1612 or early January 1613, leaving, according to the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain, lands worth £1,500 p.a. However, shortly before her death she conveyed most of this property to trustees, among them the clerk of the Commons, John Wright, for the term of 20 years. On 13 Jan. 1613 Oxford took out letters of administration, whereupon the trustees produced a will, which they proved on 15 Feb., thereby causing the administration to be revoked. In this will the countess instructed her trustees to pay Oxford the profits from her lands, but only after her bequests had been paid. Oxford disputed the revocation but it was confirmed by the prerogative court of Canterbury in the following June.31 Chamberlain Letters, i. 405; PROB 11/121, ff. 74-5, 435-6. Shortly thereafter Oxford left England. He went first to the United Provinces, then passed through the Spanish Netherlands, arriving in Paris by 25 August.32 HMC Downshire, iv. 161, 181; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 472. He was still in Paris when the Addled Parliament met the following year. Having recently come of age he was summoned to the Lords, but chose to appoint a proxy instead. It is not known which peer he chose to represent him, as the proxy had not arrived by the time the short-lived Parliament was dissolved.33 Add. 29549, ff. 33, 35; HMC Hastings, iv. 285.

During the Parliament a bill was preferred on Oxford’s behalf to confirm his ownership of a property on the outskirts of London. This had originally belonged to Magdalene College, Cambridge but had been conveyed to the queen in 1574 and purchased by the 17th earl in 1580. The college disputed the validity of the original grant and, in 1607, initiated a lawsuit against Oxford in an attempt to reclaim the property. Having been developed, it was much more valuable than when they had relinquished it. Indeed, the college was reportedly offered £10,000 to drop its case. This money was not offered by Oxford, who could not afford such a sum, but by his tenants, who presumably promoted the bill. This measure received a first reading on 18 May, but there were no subsequent proceedings.34 HMC 3rd Rep. 14; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 406; Eng. Reps. ed. A. Wood Renton et al., lxxvii. 1237; T. Fuller, Hist. of the Univ. of Cambridge from the Conquest to the Year 1634 ed. M. Prickett and T. Wright (1840), 233; Procs. 1614 (Commons), 331.

Oxford travelled through southern France in the autumn of 1614 and was in Florence by the following February.35 HMC Lindsey, 342; Stowe 175, f. 226. He remained based at Florence until April 1617, when he moved to Venice. By now he had decided to pursue a military career, and so offered his services to the republic, with the support of the English ambassador, Sir Henry Wotton^‡, who described him as ‘a goodly gentleman, of great ability for his years, both of body and judgement’.36 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 495; Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 114, 119. With Wotton’s support, Oxford obtained permission from James I to raise soldiers in England for the Venetians. However, in November 1617, the republic decided to employ instead the experienced soldier, Sir Henry Peyton.37 CSP Ven. 1617-19, pp. 48, 56; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 521, 531.

Back in England, Oxford had been dragged into a long-running dispute between the former lord chief justice of King’s Bench, Sir Edward Coke^‡, and his estranged wife, Lady Hatton. The latter’s first husband had been a kinsman of Sir Christopher Hatton^‡, to whom Oxford had entrusted his affairs in England. Lady Hatton was attempting to prevent the marriage of her daughter Frances to Sir John Villiers^* (subsequently Viscount Purbeck) the elder brother of the rising favourite George Villiers^*, earl (subsequently 1st duke) of Buckingham, a match strongly supported by Coke. In August 1617 she produced what she claimed was an espousal between her daughter and Oxford. However, by October it was reported that letters had arrived from Oxford denying that any contract existed between him and Frances, who, by this date was already married to Villiers.38 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 482; Chamberlain Letters, i. 520; ii. 100.

Return to England, 1618-22

Oxford remained in Italy in the first half of 1618. Indeed, in March of that year he was found with a young courtesan in his gondola during the Venetian carnival.39 CSP Ven. 1617-19, p. 175. He left for England in July, travelling back by way of Heidelberg, where he may have visited the court of the Elector Palatine and Princess Elizabeth.40 Letters and Dispatches from Sir Henry Wotton to James the First and his Ministers ed. G. Tomline (Roxburghe Club lxviii), 36, 47. Arriving back in England in the autumn, he attended the execution of Sir Walter Ralegh^‡ on 29 Oct., being one of the peers who intervened to allow Ralegh to make a final speech from the scaffold.41 HMC Downshire, vi. 566. In May 1619 he served as an assistant to the corpse at the funeral of Anne of Denmark. Later that month, it was reported that he was carrying a white staff as a symbol of his office of lord great chamberlain and that he would be allowed diet at court. It was also said that he would soon marry, possibly taking as his wife, Lady Diana Cecil, the daughter of William Cecil^*, Lord Burghley (later 2nd earl of Exeter).42 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 17, 46; LC2/5, f. 29; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 166.

Despite the rebuff he had received from the Venetian Republic, Oxford still wanted to pursue a career as a soldier. Shortly after his return to England in October 1618 he talked of seeking military employment in the Low Countries, where several of his kinsmen were in service with the Dutch army, among them Sir Horace Vere^*, later Lord Vere of Tilbury, and Sir Edward Vere^‡, Oxford’s illegitimate half-brother.43 CSP Ven. 1617-19, p. 346. However, as the Twelve Years’ Truce offered few openings in the Dutch forces, Oxford’s thoughts soon turned back to Italy. He and Sir Edward Herbert^†, later 1st Lord Herbert of Chirbury, whom he had met in Florence, agreed to raise two regiments for the Venetian Republic, but their plan came to nothing.44 Life of Edward, First Lord Herbert of Cherbury ed. J.M. Shuttleworth, 73, 88. He also sought military employment in Germany, where there were plentiful opportunities thanks to the advent of the Thirty Years’ War. On 24 Mar. 1620, a correspondent of William Trumbull^‡ reported that Oxford was seeking the king’s permission to raise forces to assist the Elector Palatine and Princess Elizabeth in Bohemia.45 Birch, Jas. I, ii. 137; Add. 72253, f. 104v.

Throughout this period, Oxford’s position at court became increasingly troubled. In March 1620 he fell out with William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke and lord chamberlain of the household, over the right to take precedence when the court processed to St Paul’s to hear a sermon to celebrate the accession of James.46 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 298-9; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 133. The following month, on Good Friday, accompanied by Sir Henry Parker^*, subsequently 14th Lord Morley, he clashed with the night watch. According to William Camden, he and Parker had intended to rape Anne, Lady Ros, the widow of Lady Diana Cecil’s half-brother, William Cecil^*, 16th Lord Ros, who had recently been imprisoned in the Tower for slandering the second wife of Diana’s grandfather, Thomas Cecil^*, 1st earl of Exeter. According to Chamberlain both men were ‘well battered and beaten by the watch, especially the earl’, who ‘is scant well yet’.47 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 56; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 302.

By mid June 1620 it was widely reported that Oxford would command a company in the force being prepared by Sir Horace Vere to defend the Palatinate.48 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 152; Add. 72253, f. 126. A doggerel circulated at the time expressed popular amazement that Oxford had agreed to go where ‘he neither shall have wine nor whore’.49 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 315. Oxford’s company was apparently recruited at the earl’s own expense which, he subsequently complained, ‘strained the sinews of my weak estate’.50 CSP Ven. 1619-21, p. 348; Misc. of the Abbotsford Club, i. 244. Wilson later claimed that Vere’s men were intended to be the advance guard for a larger force, in which Oxford would command a regiment. Whether the king ever gave such an undertaking is debatable, but it is probable that Oxford agreed to accept the lowly rank of company captain because he thought the expedition would herald a much larger English commitment to the war, which would see him obtain a more senior position in keeping with his social rank.51 Wilson, 136; CSP Ven. 1619-21, p. 297; Add. 72253, f. 126.

Vere’s force crossed to the Netherlands in August and then marched south to the Palatinate, where they met up with German Protestant forces. The Palatinate had been invaded by the Spanish army of Flanders, but both sides wished to avoid battle. Consequently, after a certain amount of manoeuvring, the English forces entered winter quarters without having seen any significant combat. On 19 Nov. Oxford set out for England to attend the forthcoming third Jacobean Parliament but intended, according to Vere, to return to his command as soon as he could.52 Wilson, 139; Add. 72315, f. 109.

In January 1621 Oxford was appointed to a commission established to examine what was needed to defend the Palatinate. At the end of that month he participated in the opening of the third Jacobean Parliament in his capacity as lord great chamberlain, when he rode on the right of Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales).53 Coll. of Arms, Heralds VII, p. 737. He subsequently attended the king on two further occasions (26 Mar. and 24 Apr.), when James visited the Lords.54 LJ, iii. 68b, 81a. Despite having led Vere to believe that he intended to return to the Palatinate, Oxford remained interested in serving in Italy, for that same month he again negotiated with the Venetian ambassador to raise soldiers for the republic. However, his offer was rejected because he demanded too much money. Clearly it was a military career, rather than specifically the Palatinate cause, that was Oxford’s primary interest.55 CSP Ven. 1619-21, p. 605.

Oxford is recorded as having attended 32 out of 44 sittings of the upper House before Easter (73 per cent), and 37 out of 43 between Easter and the summer recess (86 per cent). In addition, he participated in proceedings on 16 Feb., when the Journal fails to record the attendance of any of the earls.56 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 8. His cousin Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (subsequently 1st earl of Lindsey), appointed him as his proxy, presumably after Easter, when Willoughby ceased attending. In addition, Oxford also received the proxy of Richard Lennard^*, 13th Lord Dacre, probably in May, as the under-clerk’s minutes include a reference to a proxy for Dacre on the 5th of that month.57 LJ, iii. 4b; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 101. At the start of the session he was appointed one of the triers of petitions from Gascony by the king.58 LJ, iii. 7a. He subsequently made 11 recorded speeches and was named to 14 of the 74 or 75 committees appointed by the upper House before the session was adjourned for the summer.

On 5 Feb. Oxford was appointed to the privileges committee and took the oath of allegiance after the House rose.59 Ibid. 10b. Eleven days later he and Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, opposed the motion of Thomas Howard^* 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, to commit Oxford’s brother-in-law, Francis Norris^*, earl of Berkshire, to the Fleet as a close prisoner for shoving Emanuel Scrope^*, 11th Lord Scrope (later earl of Sunderland), but they agreed to withdraw their objection after a vote on the question was tied.60 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 8. On 18 Apr. Chamberlain reported that Oxford himself was involved in a ‘brabble’ with John Mordaunt^*, 5th Lord Mordaunt (later 1st earl of Peterborough), a crypto-Catholic friend of Buckingham, although it is not clear what that dispute was about, nor where it took place.61 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 364.

On 20 Feb. Oxford, together with Essex and Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, delivered to the king a petition, in the name of the English nobility, against the practice of allowing those Englishmen who had purchased Irish or Scottish viscountcies to enjoy precedence over English barons. However, James initially refused to accept the petition and Oxford, whose name headed the list of signatories, may have incurred the enmity of Buckingham, who evidently regarded the petition as evidence of a conspiracy against himself.62 APC. 1619-21, p. 353; CD 1621, vii. 579. According to the subsequent account of Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, Buckingham, suspecting ‘that the earl was entered into some cabal in Parliament against him’, told Oxford that ‘he would be forever his enemy, and do him all the mischief he could’. Oxford apparently replied ‘that he neither cared for his friendship nor feared his hatred; and from thence avowedly entered into the conversation and confidence’ of Buckingham’s enemies.63 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 39-40.

On 21 Feb. Oxford was granted privilege for one of his servants, who had been arrested. The serjeant-at-arms attending the Lords was subsequently himself imprisoned for failing to punish those responsible, but was released on Oxford’s motion on 3 March.64 LJ, iii. 25a, 31a, 35a. On 12 Mar. the Lords ordered, on Oxford’s motion, that the king be asked to grant no further reversions of the office of clerk of the parliaments until the House had been consulted. The earl apparently claimed the right as lord great chamberlain to appoint this officer himself, and was annoyed that the existing clerk, Robert Bowyer^‡, who was then terminally ill, would be succeeded by his assistant, Henry Elsyng, who held the reversion.65 Ibid. 42b; Cott. Julius CIII, f. 170; E.R. Foster, ‘Painful Labour of Mr Elsyng’, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. n.s. lxii. 9. Oxford seems to have been one of the peers who was anxious to avoid a clash with the Commons over the patentee, Sir Francis Michell, who, as he reminded the Lords on 22 Mar., had been committed by the lower House.66 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 34; C. Russell, PEP, 107, n.3.

On 18 May Oxford raised the issue of a fresh writ for Essex’s brother-in-law, William Seymour^*, 2nd earl of Hertford. Seymour had already been summoned by a writ of acceleration before the death of his grandfather, Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford, on 26 April. However, the new earl’s status was contested because James had refused to accept the validity of the 1st earl’s marriage to Katherine Grey, William’s grandmother. The Lords agreed to appoint a committee to attend the king about the matter, to which Oxford was initially nominated but not appointed.67 PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 125; WILLIAM SEYMOUR.

Oxford played little role in proceedings concerning religion. On 15 Feb. it was proposed that he be added to the conference with the Commons about the petition against recusants, but the House agreed not to increase the size of the committee.68 ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 16. On 18 May he moved to ask the Commons to deliver certain papers relating to Edward Floyd, a Catholic imprisoned in Fleet who had been accused of slandering the Elector Palatine and Princes Elizabeth.69 PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 123. In addition, on 1 June, he was among those named to investigate Thomas Jermy, who was alleged to have uttered ‘scandalous speeches touching the late sentence against Floyd’.70 LJ, iii. 151b.

Oxford was appointed to ten bill committees, of which he reported three. On 12 May he informed that House that the committee for the bill to confirm the conveyance of the rectory of Dorking by Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, considered the measure unfit to pass, whereupon the Lords agreed that it should sleep. He later recommended measures to confirm an exchange of property between Sir Lewis Watson^† (later 1st Lord Rockingham) and Prince Charles and settle the estates of Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu.71 Ibid. 119a, 127b, 140b.

Oxford’s property dispute with Magdalene College, Cambridge gave him an interest in the bill to confirm grants made by collegiate churches and corporations to Elizabeth I between 1571 and 1582, which he was appointed to consider on 8 May.72 Ibid. 114b. His own case had been resolved in his favour by Chancery, but Barnaby Gooch^‡, the master of Magdalene College, had been elected to the Commons, where, on 4 May, he raised the court’s ruling as a grievance, and introduced a bill to reverse it four days later. In the event Gooch’s measure failed to receive a second reading.73 HMC 4th Rep. 121; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 408.

Oxford, or possibly the bishop of Oxford (John Howson^*, later bishop of Durham), who was also present that day, intervened twice in the debate concerning the disgraced former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, on 2 May. On 30 Apr. Yelverton had given sensational testimony before the Lords to the effect that Buckingham was responsible for procuring some of the most obnoxious monopoly patents. He had subsequently been arrested by the king, who claimed that Yelverton had impugned his honour. ‘Oxford’, evidently trying to uphold the jurisdiction of the House, questioned how Yelverton’s accusations had reached James, arguing that ‘according to the ancient orders’ any such information should have been delivered by a committee, although none had been appointed.74 LD 1621, p. 55. He wanted the House to proceed with its own examination of Yelverton, arguing that they should compare the clerk’s record of what had been said with Sir Henry’s version of events.75 Ibid. 58. His known antipathy to Buckingham suggests that it was the earl rather than the bishop who was speaking. In that case, it was perhaps the bishop who spoke after Yelverton appeared before the Lords again, on 16 May, to defend himself. The speaker on this occasion was evidently unsympathetic to Yelverton, arguing that ‘he hath cleared nothing’.76 Ibid. 89.

Oxford was named a commissioner for adjourning the Parliament on 4 June.77 LJ, iii. 158b. However, on 13 July he was arrested and examined about words he had spoken at a dinner held a month earlier. He denied having said anything that ‘might any way reflect upon the king or his ministers about business of state, by way of discontentment’, but admitted that conversation had turned to the subjects of Bohemia and the Palatinate, and in particular to the embassy of John Digby^*, Lord Digby (later 1st earl of Bristol) to the Holy Roman emperor. He also freely admitted that he was opposed to the Spanish Match, which he thought was already producing greater toleration for Catholics. Moreover, he declared that the Spanish did not genuinely want the Match and that ‘the king in the end would be deluded’. Oxford appears to have been at pains to suggest that he had abandoned any thought of returning to the Palatinate. Indeed, he denied any intention of going abroad and disclaimed any interest in his company. Nevertheless, he complained that ‘he had spent much time, and of his fortunes, in the service of his majesty and his children, and hath received little thanks or countenance for it’. In fact, he appears to have received the promise of the proceeds of the sale of a peerage.78 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 388, 390; SP14/122/21.

Forwarding the examination to Buckingham six days later, Secretary Calvert (Sir George Calvert^‡) stated that ‘you may see how far he [Oxford] is faulty by his own confession’.79 Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 155. Nevertheless, the earl was promptly released with little more than an ‘admonition at the Council table, and order to follow the king to know his further pleasure’.80 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 390. Despite Oxford’s denial that he intended to leave the country, a letter from Robert Sidney^*, 1st earl of Leicester, probably dating from the autumn of 1621, indicates that Oxford was seeking command of one of the English regiments in the Dutch army.81 Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 351.

By the time Parliament reconvened, on 20 Nov., it was widely anticipated that Oxford would be appointed admiral of the winter guard. The Venetian ambassador thought this was ‘to keep him out of the way, or to render him easy in the Parliament, … where he is considered one of the freest speakers’. Certainly it suggests that Buckingham saw him as a threat. At this time the English East India Company was demanding action against their Dutch rivals for losses they had suffered in the East. The envoy from Venice thought that Oxford would be reluctant to take action against the United Provinces, but believed his appointment would aid negotiations over joint action against pirates and giving help to the Huguenots.82 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 406; Add. 72254, f. 64; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 46; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 171. The Spanish ambassador, Count Gondomar, also feared that the appointment might presage co-operation between the Dutch and English, and so protested that Oxford was a pensioner of the Dutch. It is a striking testimony to the extent to which Oxford had become identified with the Protestant cause that Gondomar described the earl as a puritan, although Oxford’s lifestyle could hardly be less puritan and he never showed any interest in further reformation.83 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. iv. 275.

Oxford initially attended regularly after the session resumed on 20 Nov., missing only one day before the end of that month. On 24 Nov. he (or less likely the bishop of Oxford), informed the House that the Commons had requested that scaffolding be erected in the Painted Chamber whenever conferences between the two Houses were held, which proposal was rejected.84 LD 1621, p. 95; CJ, i. 640b. This suggests that he was fulfilling some of the responsibilities for the fabric of the Palace of Westminster which subsequent lords great chamberlain were to undertake.85 E.R. Foster, House of Lords 1603-49, pp. 64, 171; Procs. LP, ii. 756-7. In addition, he received two committee appointments on 28 Nov., namely to consider bills to confirm the purchase of Kenilworth by Prince Charles and to prevent the hunt for concealed lands.86 LJ, iii. 173b, 174b.

On 4 Dec. Oxford was commissioned to command the squadron in the Channel, and, two days later, he took possession of his ship. Because of his social status, he received a higher than usual allowance of £3 a day.87 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 281; E351/2260. In his absence he appointed Lord Willoughby de Eresby as his proxy in the Lords, and was excused as early as 3 December. It is possible that a fault in his commission obliged him to return to London, which may explain why he was recorded as being present in the Lords on the 11th, but there is no further evidence that he attended the remainder of the Parliament.88 LJ, iii. 4b, 178b; Yonge Diary, 46; Add. 70499, f. 5v. In total he attended the Lords in eight out of 26 sittings (31 per cent) between the resumption of the session and the final adjournment of the Parliament on 19 December. On 6 Dec. the under-sheriff of Gloucestershire was summoned to the Lords for arresting the goods of one of Oxford’s servants. However, when he appeared before the House 11 days later the Lords were unsure whether privilege extended to a servant’s goods.89 LJ, iii. 183b-4a; 198a.

Receiving news that two Dutch East Indiamen were in the Channel, Oxford put to sea to intercept them at midnight, on 28 Jan. 1622, with barely a change of clothes.90 D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 62. However, his intended targets evaded him and was forced to return home empty-handed, a failure which was variously attributed to contrary winds, the presence of Dutch warships in the vicinity and the lack of men and arms.91 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 77; Add. 72254, f. 89; Add. 72275, f. 127v; CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 247, 258-9. At the end of March Oxford’s commission was withdrawn, ostensibly because two other Dutch ships had been taken; the Venetian ambassador thought that it was for other, unspecified offences.92 CSP Col. E.I. 1622-4, p. 31; Add. 72275, f. 135v; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 288. This is almost certainly a reference to the marriage, on 27 Mar., of Oxford’s niece, Elizabeth Norris, to Edward Wray^‡. Elizabeth was heiress to her father, Francis Norris, earl of Berkshire, who had recently committed suicide. Buckingham had intended Elizabeth to marry his brother, Christopher Villiers^* (subsequently 1st earl of Anglesey), but she contrived to elope with Wray and the couple were married with Oxford’s assistance.93 CSP Dom. 1619-21, p. 366; Add. 72299, f. 69. Oxford lost his naval command, but remained in pay until 17 May, and was forbidden from attending court.94 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 429; E351/2260.

Imprisonment in the Tower, 1622-3

The marriage of his niece appears to have prompted the major crisis of Oxford’s career. Accounts vary, but it seems that Oxford was angered by the crown’s attempts to prevent Elizabeth Norris from inheriting her father’s estate, attempts he believed were instigated by a vengeful Buckingham. He was also bitter that Wray, one of the grooms of the bedchamber, had been removed from his position at court, and publicly declared that he ‘hoped that there would come a time when justice should be free and not pass through his [Buckingham’s] hands only’. More seriously, he is alleged to have described the prerogative as a ‘bugbear’ or ‘devouring monster’ which would ‘absorb all the liberty of the kingdom’, and that, consequently, Parliament had been rendered useless. Secretary Calvert claimed that a witness to Oxford’s outburst ‘affirmeth the words in substance’, although not the exact phraseology, ‘and so in much in a manner my lord himself [i.e. Oxford] confesseth’. Oxford compounded his folly by also denouncing the Spanish Match. Two witnesses stated that he described James as merely the viceroy of the king of Spain, an accusation denied by Oxford himself. The earl may also have spoken hopefully of the king’s death.95 D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4, 75, 160; PA, BRY/96, f. 15; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 232; SP14/129/50; Add. 72254, f. 106; Add. 48166, f. 142v.

Among those who witnessed Oxford’s outburst was Sir John Wentworth who, like the earl, had served in the Palatinate. Despite attributing it to drink he informed the authorities, apparently fearing that if did not do so he would be blamed for neglect.96 Goodman, ii. 232. Oxford was committed to the Tower on 17 Apr., where he was examined by members of the Privy Council the following day.97 Add. 72254, f. 103v; Birch, Jas. I, ii. 305. Kept a close prisoner, Oxford soon fell ill. In early June Willoughby de Eresby petitioned James to ease the conditions of his confinement and allow access for physicians, but received a ‘round rebuke’.98 Add. 72275, f. 143v; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 252; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 438.

The following autumn James confiscated the remainder of the money owed to Oxford from the sale of a peerage. It had been received for an Irish viscountcy, but, unlike the titles which had been the subject of the petition Oxford had supported the previous year, the purchaser, Theobald Dillon, was Irish not English. Consequently, the honour did not challenge the status of the English peerage. Dillon paid £1,000 in the spring of 1622 but still owed a further £1,500 by the time of Oxford’s imprisonment.99 CP, iv. 357; HMC 8th Rep. pt. 2 (1881), 30; V. Treadwell, Buckingham and Ire. 1616-28, p. 114; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 456.

In February 1623, shortly before he departed for Spain with Prince Charles, Buckingham seems to have tried to persuade James to release the earl. The king informed Sir George Goring^* (later 1st earl of Norwich) that he would set Oxford at liberty. Nevertheless, James still intended to put him on trial, for as Sir Edward Conway^* (subsequently1st Viscount Conway) later informed Buckingham, ‘his Majesty was resolved to clear his equity and your honour’ by a public hearing.100 Harl. 1580, f. 432; Goodman, ii. 287-8. By the end of February the attorney general had drawn up a Star Chamber bill against Oxford ‘for scandalizing the person, state and government of the king’s Majesty’. This bill was examined by a committee of the Privy Council, which approved it all, with the exception of a charge that Oxford had refused to take the necessary oaths on becoming a justice of the peace, which was dismissed. Although the committee and the attorney general then recommended that Oxford should be released after process had been served on him, the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, advised the king that it was better to keep Oxford in prison while Prince Charles and Buckingham were abroad rather than ‘provide a ringleader for the mutineers’.101 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 505; PA, BRY/96, f. 15; Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 409. Conway responded that Oxford could not lead ‘true men’, except when it came to getting drunk. Nevertheless, on 18 Apr. James informed Buckingham that he thought it was safer to keep Oxford in the Tower. Consequently, the Star Chamber proceedings were suspended.102 Harl. 1580, f. 287-v.

Despite the fact that he was now a royal prisoner, Oxford concluded a match with Lady Diana Cecil that same month. The latter’s father, by now 2nd earl of Exeter, had no sons and promised to provide Oxford not only with £3,000 in cash but also £500 p.a. in land, plus a further £500 a year after he died.103 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 145; C2/Chas.I/O8/1. This match, taken alongside the property repurchased by Oxford’s mother, would go a considerable way towards repairing the fortunes of the de Vere family. Conway believed that Lady Diana would prove a steadying influence on Oxford, and hoped the match might prompt James to consider his release.104 Goodman, ii. 287-8; Harl. 1580, f. 287v. However, during the following month there were further moves to bring him to trial in Star Chamber after it was apparently concluded that this could be done without releasing him first. Consequently, he was allowed access to counsel, at which time he was also granted the liberty of the Tower.105 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 496; APC, 1621-3, p. 495.

Oxford preferred to sue for mercy rather than answer the charges against him. However, his petition to the king amounted to a defence of his conduct, and a denial of the words imputed to him, rather than a confession of his faults. He was ‘assured no poison could fall from my tongue’, and attributed the accusations against him to ‘the slanderous tongues of some few’ for their own ends. Moreover, he implicitly attacked the king’s foreign policy by claiming that Sir Horace Vere was ‘like (without the great helping hand of God) to perish’ in the Palatinate.106 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 621-2; Misc. of the Abbotsford Club, i. 244-5. Writing to Buckingham, Oxford rejected the suggestion that he had ‘harboured any treasonable thoughts, either against his Majesty or his issue that should make me uncapable [sic] of receiving his [the king’s] grace’, a statement that was ambiguous, to say the least.107 Cabala (1691), i. 308. On 27 June he told the Council that ‘racking my memory to the utmost proof I am not able to accuse myself of any misprising, undutiful, or mean thought of majesty’.108 SP14/147/74. It seems unlikely that either the king or Council derived much comfort from these statements, or from a report the following month from the lieutenant of the Tower that Oxford was visited by ‘infinite [numbers of] … men and women of all qualities’ including Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick; Thomas Cromwell^*, 4th Lord Cromwell; Thomas Wentworth^*, 4th Lord Wentworth and George Berkeley^*, 8th Lord Berkeley.109 Harl. 1581, f. 291; Harl. 1583, f. 84.

In October Charles and Buckingham returned from Madrid determined to break the treaty with Spain and, early the following month, there were rumours that Oxford would be released as part of their effort to court peers who had opposed the Match.110 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 147; Add. 72276, f. 64. Oxford himself naturally encouraged this. On 6 Nov. Goring reported that he had denied describing the prerogative as a ‘monster’ or the king as a ‘viceroy’, and asked for a general pardon for anything else ‘he hath offended in’, without going into details.111 SP14/154/13. Conway drafted a submission for Oxford, and the following month it was reported that he would be freed if he signed.112 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 122; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 204.

In late December Buckingham finally persuaded James to release Oxford. He found this more difficult than expected, as Oxford was freed without making a confession. On 1 Jan. the earl was married ‘for his New Year’s gift to his fair and faithful mistress the Lady Diana Cecil’.113 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 537; Cabala (1691), 275; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 192; Add. 72255, f. 107. At his request, all the records of the proceedings against him in Star Chamber were taken off the file.114 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 157-8.

The 1624 Parliament and the Netherlands, 1624-5

During the 1624 Parliament Oxford was recorded as attending 51 of the 93 sittings, 55 per cent of the total, although he is known to have participated in the House’s proceedings on 25 Feb., when he was not listed as present.115 Add. 40087, f. 21. He was excused at the morning sitting on 27 Feb., but attended in the afternoon. His longest period of absence lasted four weeks, and was caused by his horse falling on him, breaking his arm, while he was practising for the accession day tilt in full armour on 24 March. Parliament was then in recess, but when it reconvened on 1 Apr., he was excused by Southampton. He returned to the House on 21 April.116 Add. 72255, f. 132; Add. 40088, f. 2.

At the beginning of the Parliament Oxford received the proxy of Philip Stanhope^*, Lord Stanhope of Shelford (subsequently 1st earl of Chesterfield).117 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 8. He was appointed to 12 of the 105 committees named by the upper House and made six recorded speeches, although once again it is not always easy to distinguish him from the bishop of Oxford. Again appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony by the crown, he was named to both the committee and sub-committee for privileges.118 LJ, iii. 208a, 215a, 215b. On 25 Feb. he excused Lord Berkeley, and also assisted in the formal introduction to the House of Buckingham, who had been made a duke since the last Parliament. This latter act served as a symbol of the new alliance between the two former enemies.119 Add. 40087, f. 21. Once again, one of his servants was arrested during the Parliament, and a messenger had to be dispatched to Norwich to secure his release.120 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 77v.

Oxford was nominated to the committee to search for precedents for breaking off negotiations with Spain on 28 Feb., but was not appointed.121 Add. 40087, f. 39v. See also PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 20v. In the debate following Buckingham’s motion for a committee to examine England’s defences it was probably Oxford, rather than the bishop, who urged the disarmament of the Catholics; he was certainly appointed to the resulting committee.122 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 14. On 2 Mar. Oxford was ordered to help the Commons draw up reasons to justify the advice to the king to break off the negotiations with Spain. Three days later he was among those instructed to present the advice of both Houses to the king.123 LJ, ii. 242b, 246b.

A Catholic source reported that Oxford and various other lords attended a dinner at an ordinary in Milford Lane on 20 Mar. (perhaps the one where Oxford had misspent part of his youth). A toast to the ruin of Spain proposed by the earl of Dorset went down well, but when Oxford ‘drank a health to the confusion’, or possibly ‘conversion’, of ‘papists’, he provoked protests from his fellow dinners, including the earl of Essex, who objected that they had friends and relations who were Catholics. Clearly Oxford had lost none of his ability to talk his way into trouble.124 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621–5 ed. M. Questier (Cam. Soc. ser. 5. xxxiv), 260-1.

Oxford played little part in the impeachment of Middlesex, although he was added to a committee to consider a petition from the lord treasurer on 28 April. In the debate on Middlesex’s punishment, on 13 May, he unsuccessfully moved for the preamble to the former lord treasurer’s patent for his earldom to be altered. He specifically objected to the statement that Middlesex’s title had been granted for services to the crown.125 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 74v.

On 8 Mar. Oxford was appointed to the committee for the bill to naturalize the daughters of his kinsman, Sir Horace Vere, which measure Oxford successfully reported the same day.126 LJ, iii. 250a The following day he was named to the committee for the bill against swearing, which was instructed to meet presently; Oxford reported back that more time was needed. William Compton^*, 1st earl of Northampton, reported the bill, in Oxford’s absence, on 12 March.127 Ibid. 252a, 257b; Add. 40087, f. 64. On 28 Apr. Oxford was instructed to consider the private bill to confirm an agreement between Lord Wentworth and the copyholders of the manors of Stepney and Hackney, which he successfully reported on 4 May.128 LJ, iii. 325a, 339b.

A bill to confirm Oxford in possession of the property disputed by Magdalene College, Cambridge was introduced in the upper House in 1624, where it received a first reading in March. Five days later the measure was read a second time and committed, over the objections of the chancellor of Cambridge University, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, who asserted that the property was of ‘little profit’ to Oxford. Sir John Davies^‡, who was present in the chamber as one of the legal assistants, attributed the commitment of the bill to ‘the affection of the House’, which he said ‘was strong to my lord of Oxford’. Indeed, the measure was described as ‘a bill of great justice’ by Henry Montagu^*, Viscount Mandeville (subsequently 1st earl of Manchester), while the Chancery decree in Oxford’s favour was praised by the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York). Although the committee included Suffolk’s son, Theophilus Howard^* (subsequently 2nd earl of Suffolk), then sitting in his father’s barony as Lord Howard de Walden, it also numbered among its members Mandeville and Oxford’s friends Essex, Southampton, Berkeley and Wentworth.129 HMC 3rd Rep. 28; LJ, iii. 244b; 253b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 23; ‘Hastings 1621’, pp. 35-6.

Despite this favourable start the committee seems to have run into legal difficulties. On 18 Mar. they were allowed to call any of the king’s or prince’s counsel to their assistance, and, on 12 Apr., Sir Humphrey Winch^‡, one of the justices of Common Pleas, was added to their ranks in order to provide additional guidance.130 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 43; HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 16v. Nevertheless, George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, successfully reported the bill two days later. It was subsequently sent to the Commons, where it was referred to a committee which was already considering a cross bill promoted by the college. Both measures were ordered to rest on the last day of the session.131 LJ, iii. 304b; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 412.

On 18 Apr. Sir Francis Nethersole^‡ informed the English ambassador in the Netherlands, Sir Dudley Carleton^* (subsequently Viscount Dorchester) that a force of 6,000 men would be sent to assist the United Provinces, and that Oxford would be colonel of one of the regiments. However, in mid June a dispute arose between Oxford and Southampton (who had also been appointed a colonel) over precedence. Although no single commander was appointed, Southampton was nevertheless given precedence over the other colonels because he had, very briefly, commanded the cavalry under Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, during the Elizabethan wars in Ireland. Oxford initially ‘stood not much upon it’, but seems to have been persuaded by his friends that, as there was to be no military distinction between the colonels, he should retain his status, being both a more senior earl and lord great chamberlain.132 SP14/163/3; 14/168/40; 14/170/2; Goodman, ii. 347-8. The dispute was not finally resolved until late July, when the king, on the advice of the council of war, ruled that Southampton should have precedence in all military matters, and Oxford in civilian.133 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 304, 311. Oxford’s kinsman, John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, reported that Oxford had accepted the ruling, ‘preferring his devotion to this service before the injury to his ancestors and descendants’.134 Holles Letters, 286-7.

Recruitment for the new regiments started in early July. However, Oxford’s sergeant was promptly committed for calling for volunteers to fight ‘against the king of Spain and the archduchess of the southern Netherlands’. This form of words had apparently been ‘much applauded’ but was quickly amended to omit any mention of the enemy.135 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 567; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 294; Add. 72276, f. 109v. Oxford left for the Netherlands in early August, taking his wife with him, where he joined the forces trying to counter the siege of Breda.136 Add. 72276, ff. 112v-3; APC, 1623-5, p. 283; HMC Portland, ii. 114.

On 18 Oct. Oxford wrote to Buckingham to lobby for command of the English forces that were being recruited for Count Mansfeld. He may have found warfare in the Netherlands, which consisted of a succession of sieges, not to his liking, reporting that ‘there has been no alteration here, nor anything attempted on either side’ except that the English forces had finished digging their trenches.137 Fortescue Pprs. 202. Nevertheless, he remained in the Netherlands during the winter, attending the court of the exiled Palatines and that surrounding the Prince of Orange.138 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 532; Add. 70499, f. 53; Add. 46188, f. 63.

In February 1625 it was reported that Oxford would be made field marshal, or second-in-command, under Mansfeld.139 Add. 72276, f. 139. The earl also seems to have lobbied Buckingham for a command in the projected naval expedition against the Spanish, for in April there was a rumour that he would be appointed admiral of the fleet. However, on 5 May Buckingham wrote that he could only offer Oxford the position of vice admiral. As this post would be subordinate to the commander of the land forces, the duke added that he had thought it too lowly to attract Oxford. However, he may have been mistaken, as Carleton later reported that Oxford had been planning to take up a position in the expedition before his final illness.140 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 228; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 9-10; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 405.

On the night of 4 May Oxford acted as second-in-command to Sir Horace Vere in an attempt to relieve Breda by assaulting the Spanish positions at Terheijden. The attack was repelled but Oxford’s conduct was widely praised.141 Continuation of Our Weekly Newes (24 May 1625) xxiii. pp. 19-20; SP84/127, ff. 85, 148v; Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 235; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 399. The earl himself blamed the failure on lack of support from the Dutch forces, reportedly causing him to ‘swear, [that] whereas before he had been a friend to them, hereafter he would be their utter enemy’.142 Relation of Sydnam Poyntz ed. A.T.S. Goodrick (Cam. Soc. ser. 3. xiv), 46; William Whiteway of Dorchester: his Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 73. On 13 May he returned to The Hague with the intention of going over to England, but he ‘sickened of camp fever the very night of his arrival’, which Sir Horace Vere blamed on a hasty journey through the rain. He showed ‘some small signs of amendment’ on 25 May, but died the following day. Carleton described him as ‘the flower of our martial nobility’, whose death was ‘very much lamented, as well by strangers, as his own countrymen’, while the queen of Bohemia lamented that she had lost ‘a loyal friend’ and ‘a gallant and honest man’.143 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 405, 407; Add. 46188, f. 109; SP84/127, f. 102v; Corresp. of Eliz. Stuart, Q. of Bohemia ed. N. Akkerman, i. 538. His loss was particularly mourned because, lacking a son to succeed him he was considered, as Chamberlain wrote, ‘the only hope and support of so ancient and noble a house, which is like to go to ruin’, his nearest male heir, Robert de Vere^* (subsequently 19th earl of Oxford), being a penniless officer in the Dutch army.144 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 622; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 73.

In his will, drafted on 20 May, Oxford left all his property to his wife, ‘heartily wishing it were much more’, and made her his executor. It was witnessed by Carleton, Sir Horace Vere, Sir Henry Vane^‡, and Sir Dudley North^†, subsequently 4th Lord North.145 PROB 11/146, f. 96v. He was buried in Westminster Abbey on 15 July.146 Regs. Westminster Abbey ed. J.L. Chester, 124. Willoughby subsequently claimed both the Oxford title and the office of lord great chamberlain, but was only successful in securing the latter, the former passing to Robert de Vere. In 1629 Oxford’s widow married Thomas Bruce^†, subsequently 1st earl of Elgin [S] and 1st Lord Bruce of Whorlton.147 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 43.