VERE, Robert de (1588-1632)

Robert de Vere was presumably the ‘simple lieutenant’ serving in the Netherlands, whom the Venetian ambassador to the United Provinces assumed would inherit the earldom of Oxford on the death of Henry de Vere*, 18th earl, in May 1625. This also seems to have been taken for granted by John Chamberlain, who lamented that ‘so ancient and noble a house … is like to go to ruin’, Henry’s successor ‘being a man of mean worth or regard’.11 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 73; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 622. It was therefore presumably Robert who was summoned to the 1625 Parliament as earl of Oxford, and who was marked as absent abroad on 23 June. There is no evidence that he attended this assembly.12 Procs. 1625, p. 45.

By early August 1625 it was known that the earldom, together with the office of lord great chamberlain of England, a hereditary post held by previous earls of Oxford, was also claimed by Robert Bertie*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (subsequently 1st earl of Lindsey), who was first cousin to the late earl. This caused considerable indignation among the English forces in the Netherlands, where there was a significant Vere contingent.13 HMC Portland, ii. 117. However, Willoughby was not the only rival claimant as the 18th earl’s half sisters, the countesses of Montgomery, Derby and Berkshire, were still alive. As the offspring of Edward de Vere*, 17th earl of Oxford’s first marriage, they had a claim to both the peerage and the office if it could be shown that these were not tied to the male line. Consequently, when the king referred Willoughby’s claim to the Privy Council, on 14 Aug., Philip Herbert*, earl of Montgomery (subsequently 4th earl of Pembroke), moved that the rights of his wife and her sisters should also be taken into consideration, at which point further discussion of the issue was deferred.14 APC, 1625-6, p. 134.

The matter was still unresolved by the end of 1625, by which time de Vere appears to have been in England.15 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 315. He petitioned the king, Charles I, complaining that he had not received a writ of summons to the second Caroline Parliament, which was soon to assemble, and that commissioners appointed to examine the dispute had not yet met.16 SP16/19/106. De Vere was supported by the antiquarian scholars, Sir Robert Cotton^‡ and Simonds D’Ewes^‡, who joined their ‘best skill and searches together to assert and uphold the said Robert de Vere’s just and undoubted title’ to the earldom. D’Ewes erroneously described de Vere as a captain, but also stated that Willoughby’s claim had been met with ‘all men’s wonder and the great distaste of most’.17 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 290.

The commissioners finally held their hearing on 25 Jan. 1626. It evidently went well for de Vere for, on 3 Feb., Sir Benjamin Rudyard^‡ reported that the ‘the title of Oxford is likely to continue in the name of Vere’. However, the commissioners failed to make a formal recommendation, with the result that, at Charles’ coronation on 2 Feb., the earldom of Oxford was marked as vacant. (During the ceremony, the role of lord great chamberlain was consequently performed by Edward Somerset*, 4th earl of Worcester). De Vere petitioned Charles to require the commissioners to make their report or refer the matter to Parliament, which opened on 6 February. Charles chose the latter course, but made it clear that the final decision lay with him.18 Procs. 1626, i. 83-4; iv. 306-7; Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), pp. li-lii.

On 1 Mar. the lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry* (later 1st Lord Coventry), presented petitions from Willoughby and de Vere to the Lords, who ordered that counsel for both sides should be heard the following Saturday (the 4th). In the event this initial hearing was deferred until the 6th. Further arguments were heard three days later, and again on 11 Mar., when the Lords referred the issue to the judges.19 Procs. 1626, i. 84, 105, 110-14, 131-4, 138-41. On 20 Mar. Lord Chief Justice Crewe (Ranulphe Crewe^‡) reported the judges’ opinion that the earldom of Oxford, having been entailed on the male heirs by Parliament in the 1390s, belonged by right to de Vere. However, a majority also thought that the office of lord great chamberlain should descend to the heir general – meaning Willoughby – although they requested further time to consult more records.20 Ibid. 183-4. Two days later the Lords agreed unanimously that the earldom should descend to de Vere as the male heir; however, the descent of the office was referred back to the judges. Although John de Vere^†, 16th earl of Oxford, had entailed the lord great chamberlainship on his male heirs in 1562, the Lords were unsure whether the descent of a public office could be determined by a private legal device.21 Ibid. 191. On 28 Mar. Crewe reported that three of the available judges thought that the office should pass to the heir general, and two that it should descend with the male line. Consequently, two days later, the Lords ruled against de Vere’s claim to the office of lord great chamberlain.22 Ibid. 216, 231.

Having decided that de Vere was rightfully earl of Oxford, some peers were clearly concerned that his poverty could dishonour an ancient dignity and bring the rest of the peerage into disrepute. On 1 Apr. Edward Sackville*, 4th earl of Dorset, urged the upper House ‘to move the king to accompany this honour for the earl of Oxford with some means to maintain the same’.23 Ibid. 245. Consequently when, on 5 Apr., a committee was appointed to present the Lords’ recommendation to Charles the senior member, George Villiers*, 1st duke of Buckingham, was specifically instructed to move the king ‘to add some maintenance to the supportation’ of the earldom ‘in consideration of the greatness of the honour’.24 Ibid. 255-6.

A writ of summons was issued on 14 Apr. to Oxford, who took his seat the following day, being placed as the second most senior earl.25 Ibid. 267. He subsequently attended the upper House at every sitting except those on the 24 May and the morning and afternoon sittings on the 14 June. He received two committee appointments, one on 21 Apr., when he was named to consider a bill to abolish the benefit of clergy for some crimes, and the other on 17 May, when he was added to the committee for petitions. In addition, on 10 June, he was among the proposed additions to the committee concerning the charges against John Digby*, 1st earl of Bristol, but, in the event, the Lords decided to keep the original committee unchanged.26 Ibid. 295, 496, 605. He made only one recorded speech, on 15 May, when he agreed that Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had not said anything that could be interpreted as dishonourable to the king when he had been presenting the charges against Buckingham five days earlier. Oxford was one of the peers who took the protestation to that effect.27 Ibid. 477, 484.

Oxford probably returned to his regiment in the Netherlands shortly after Parliament was dissolved. A manuscript tract opposing the Forced Loan, which circulated in early 1627, listed Oxford among the peers who refused to pay the levy, but it is doubtful whether he had sufficient wealth in England to have been assessed.28 SP16/54/82i. In April that same year he was promoted to captain with the command of a company in the regiment of his kinsman, Horace Vere*, Lord Vere of Tilbury. The following June Willoughby, now earl of Lindsey, agreed to pay Oxford £2,000, possibly to compensate him for relinquishing his claims to the great chamberlainship.29 LC4/56/3, no. 95; HMC 14th Rep. IX, 277-8.

In early 1628 the Dutch authorities discovered that the musters for Oxford’s company included 70 civilian stand-ins. This was a fraud generally committed by officers seeking to embezzle the wages of the fictitious soldiers, but the earl escaped punishment.30 Raa and Bas, iv. 270; M.C. ’t Hart, Making of a Bourgeois State, 38. Nevertheless, this incident probably explains Oxford’s absence from the beginning of the third Caroline Parliament. He was recorded as being abroad at the call of the House on 22 March.31 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 87. Six days later his kinsman, John Holles*, 1st earl of Clare, wrote to him with news of early proceedings under the curious misapprehension that it was Oxford’s first Parliament.32 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 380-1. Oxford did not attend the Lords until 4 June, after which point he was present at every sitting except those in the morning and afternoon of 25 June. In total, he was recorded as attending 21 of the 94 sittings of the upper House (22 per cent), receiving four out of a possible 52 committee appointments and making two recorded speeches. In addition, he attended the king carrying the cap of state on 7 June.33 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 679.

On 4 June Oxford was named to consider the bill to annex lands to the earldom of Arundel.34 Ibid. 482. Three days later he spoke in favour of a conference with the Commons in order to obtain a more satisfactory answer from Charles regarding the Petition of Right.35 Ibid. 598. He himself was named to attend the conference with the Commons about the king’s proposed amendments to the title of the Petition of Right on 20 June.36 Ibid. 679. The following day he was among those instructed to consider a bill to confirm a decree of the court of the duchy of Lancaster concerning Henry Parker*, 14th Lord Morley (who had been a friend of the 18th earl of Oxford), and the tenants of the manor of Hornby in Lancashire. Oxford successfully reported the measure later that day and it passed into law.37 Ibid. 684, 686. Two days later he was also appointed to consider a naturalization bill.38 Ibid. 690.

Oxford attended all but one of the sittings of the Lords in the 1629 session, 22 in total, but received no committee appointments. On 14 Feb. a committee was appointed to draft a petition to the king ‘to add some maintenance to the supportation’ of Oxford’s earldom, for which Oxford ‘rendered their lordships most hearty thanks’, the only occasion he was recorded as addressing the House during the session.39 LJ, iv. 31a. The petition was reported by Thomas Howard*, 14th (or 21st) earl of Arundel, five days later and approved. The Lords argued it was ‘a constant maxim … to keep such families’ that had hereditary titles in ‘an honourable means of upholding the same’. Oxford they claimed had, through ‘no fault of his own’, been ‘left wholly denuded of any estate’ but had ‘much ability … to serve your Majesty’ through his military experience. They, therefore, requested that Charles ‘employ him in your service before others of meaner birth and merit’ and ‘give some beginning to the establishment of him … in some grounded estate’.40 Ibid. 34a-b. The petition was delivered to the king on 21 Feb., when Charles ‘gave … a fair answer, that already he had been willing to show favour and would continue it’.41 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 340. However, peace ended any possibility for Charles to employ Oxford as a soldier and royal retrenchment left little scope for him to provide the earl with an estate suitable to his rank.

Oxford played no further recorded part in the session. On 3 May he was knighted at Greenwich, but probably returned to the Netherlands soon after. During the summer he took part in the siege of s’Hertogenbosch (Bois le Duc) where, after the death of his kinsman, Sir Edward Vere^‡, he succeeded the latter as lieutenant colonel of Lord Vere’s regiment.42 H. Hexham, Historical Relation of the Famous Siege of the Busse (Delft, 1630), 19, 23, 25-6. His straitened finances are evident from a letter he wrote the following September to his wife, who was preparing to join her husband in the United Provinces, as he urged her to bring ‘as few … servants as may be’, the money payable by Lindsey having been almost entirely exhausted, except for £100 which was still owing.43 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 278. Oxford was still in Dutch service in August 1632, being at the siege of Maastricht, where he received ‘a mortal shot through his head’.44 H. Hexham Journall, of the taking in of Venlo (Delft, 1633), 26. Lord Vere subsequently wrote that his ‘industry was such that’, given time, he would have become ‘an able … soldier’, a comment which perhaps suggests that Vere had not been entirely satisfied with Oxford’s abilities heretofore.45 SP84/144, f. 229. The following month it was reported that Oxford’s body was being brought back to England for burial, but it is not known where.46 C115/105/8193. In October administration of his estate was granted to his widow.47 PROB 6/14B, p. 234. His eldest son, Aubrey^†, then five years old, succeeded him as 20th earl of Oxford.