VILLIERS, John (1591-1658)

The third son of a middle-ranking Leicestershire squire, John Villiers was sent to France, aged 17, to further his education, along with his handsome younger brother George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham).13 R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 10; HMC Rutland, iv. 465. He might have remained entirely obscure had not George subsequently sought a career at court. The latter so charmed James I that in 1615 he supplanted in the king’s affections the royal favourite, Robert Carr^*, 1st earl of Somerset. George proved eager to share his good fortune with his elder brother, and in June 1616 John was not only knighted but also appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber to the heir apparent, Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales).

Over the next few years, George, who became earl of Buckingham in January 1617, continued to assist his landless brother, their father having left the family estate to their elder half-brother, Sir William. In November 1616 he therefore suggested a marriage with the eldest daughter of the wealthy lawyer Sir Edward Coke^‡, then about to be dismissed as lord chief justice of King’s Bench. The merits of this scheme were not lost on Coke who, hoping to be reconciled with the king and return to high office, offered in February 1617 to settle lands worth £2,000 p.a. on Villiers.14 HMC Buccleuch, i. 181. This led the following month to the appointment of Villiers as master of the wardrobe to Prince Charles, a position more suited to Villiers’ prospective social standing than his bedchamber post.15 Lismore Pprs. ed. A.B. Grosart (2nd ser.), ii. 71. Nevertheless, Buckingham was dissatisfied with Coke’s offer, as he hoped the former lord chief justice would furnish a dowry of £10,000. To this end he arranged for his earldom to pass to his brother in the event that he himself died without male issue. In that way he held out the possibility that one day Coke would become earl of Buckingham. Coke, however, was a slippery customer, for the day after the grant of reversion passed the great seal he was reportedly ‘in the suds’ for having offered a dowry of only 10,000 marks.16 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 64. The former lord chief justice soon realized his mistake, and increased his offer accordingly.17 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 477-8; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 177. As well as agreeing to provide the required dowry, he made the young couple heirs to his Buckinghamshire estate and promised to pay them an annuity of 2,000 marks.18 G.A. Carthew, Hundred of Launditch, iii. 114; SP46/103, f. 27; C3/412/217. Thereafter, he devoted his energy to overcoming the opposition of his estranged wife, Lady Hatton, and their 16-year-old daughter Frances, the object of Villiers’ attention.

The ostensible reason for Lady Hatton’s objection to the proposed marriage was that Frances was already contracted to marry Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford. In fact this was no more than a ruse; Oxford was then conveniently abroad, and subsequently wrote to deny the existence of any such contractual obligation. The real reason for her opposition lay in the mental condition of Buckingham’s brother. As early as November 1616 Villiers had begun exhibiting worrying signs of instability: the newsletter writer John Chamberlain reported that ‘he is, as it were, in an ague, having a good day and a bad day by fits’.19 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 33. The cause of Villiers’ disturbance is unclear, but in August 1617 John Holles^*, Lord Houghton (later 1st earl of Clare), attributed it to a sore leg, which refused to heal.20 Holles Letters, 181.

Inevitably, however, Lady Hatton proved unable to resist the pressure on her daughter to marry Villiers. Not only was Buckingham in favour of the match, so too were the king and queen.21 HMC Downshire, vi. 255; HMC Buccleuch, i. 206. In mid September, having been separated from her daughter and placed under restraint, she finally gave her written consent, as (with some reluctance) did Frances herself.22 Harl. 1581, f. 155v; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 52. Consequently, on 29 Sept. Villiers and Frances were married at Hampton Court, the bride being given away by the king in person.23 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 100; Beaumont Pprs. ed. W.D. Macray (Roxburghe Club), 34. Almost immediately the marriage took a turn for the worse. By late November Frances had been sent to stay with her aunt, ‘some say upon discontent’, reported Chamberlain, ‘others more likely that the humour in Sir John Villiers’ leg bursts forth again, so that her company might do him harm’.24 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 119-20. According to another well-placed commentator, the ‘conjunction copulative’ had exacerbated Villiers’ sore leg. However, it was Frances who probably had most to fear from congress with her new husband: Villiers, an enthusiastic novice in these matters perhaps, had set about bedding his new wife with such frequency that his mother grew anxious for her daughter-in-law’s health.25 HMC Downshire, vi. 357.

Although Lady Hatton had been persuaded to agree to the marriage, she had not yet contributed anything to the settlement, despite being a wealthy woman in her own right, owning a considerable estate in the Isle of Purbeck. Buckingham hoped to induce her to leave her new son-in-law lands worth £2,000 p.a.,26 Beaumont Pprs. 35. and by the spring of 1619 it was reported that she would be made countess of Westmorland in return. At the same time there was talk of elevating Villiers to the peerage as Viscount Purbeck, a title chosen with the aim of flattering Lady Hatton.27 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 166; Add. 72253, f. 37. However, the latter refused to surrender her lands unless she was granted the power to revoke the conveyance at her pleasure. Buckingham was so displeased that he briefly contemplated altering Villiers’ prospective title to that of Viscount Beaumont.28 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 173. Despite Lady Hatton’s obstinacy, Villiers was created Viscount Purbeck without ceremony on 19 June, the letters patent being delivered the following day.29 C231/4, f. 86v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 248-9.

The ennoblement of Villiers suggests that Buckingham believed that his brother’s mental difficulties now lay behind him. He certainly had few qualms about seeking higher office for his sibling, who, according to Sir Anthony Weldon, had ‘more wit and honesty’ than the rest of his kindred.30 Secret Hist. of the Court of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, i. 444-5. As early as September 1618 Buckingham considered surrendering to his brother the mastership of the horse, and by June 1619 the newly ennobled Purbeck was being tipped as likely to succeed the favourite in this important role. In the event, Buckingham remained in post, so that Purbeck had to satisfy himself with appointment in July as keeper of Denmark House, which Thames-side property had reverted to the crown on the death of Anne of Denmark four months earlier. Purbeck nevertheless remained eager for advancement. When, over the winter of 1619/20, it seemed as though Sir Thomas Howard^* (later Viscount Andover) would be forced to resign as the prince’s master of the horse, he threw his hat into the ring. However, this vacancy too failed to materialize. This was perhaps just as well, as by January 1620 Buckingham was so inundated with business that he was obliged to refer all suitors to his brother, who, later that month, was one of three peers chosen to accompany Baron Dohna, the Palatine ambassador, to his first audience with the king.31 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 62.

Buckingham’s confidence in Purbeck’s ability to cope with his new responsibilities soon proved to be misplaced. Sometime over the next few months, Purbeck suffered a severe relapse into mental illness; angry outbursts were followed by periods of dull melancholy. In May his wife and sister spirited him away to Spa, in the bishopric of Liège, to take the waters, but he returned in September so unimproved that there was talk of him seeking further treatment at Padua. Unable to resume his responsibilities as master of the prince’s wardrobe, his place was taken in October by his kinsman by marriage, Spencer Compton^* (later 2nd earl of Northampton).32 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 58; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 319, 402. Purbeck was so ill that he could not even arrange to pay his contribution to the Palatine benevolence, but instead relied on Buckingham to do so for him.33 SP14/118/43.

Under these circumstances Purbeck could not be expected to play much part in the 1621 Parliament. Aside from attending the opening ceremony on 30 Jan., he sat in the upper House only twice, on 23 Feb. and 3 Mar., when he made no recorded contributions to proceedings. However, he did accompany the king to St Paul’s on 26 March.34 Harl. 5176, f. 241. His slim attendance, coupled with his inability to manage his own affairs, explains why he neglected to pay his fees to the clerk.35 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 54v.

Purbeck returned to Spa in late 1621, while Parliament was still in session.36 Add. 72332, f. 34. How long he remained there is unclear, but there is no trace of him again in the records until June 1622, when, as a guest of Buckingham at Wallingford House, on the Strand, he beat down the glass windows looking out onto the street with his bare fists and cried out to passers-by that he was Catholic ‘and would spend his blood in the cause’.37 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 439. This outburst, though deranged, was not entirely inexplicable, as Purbeck had recently been converted to Rome by the same Jesuit who had undermined the faith of his mother (now countess of Buckingham in her own right).38 Recs. of the English Prov. of the Soc. of Jesus ed. H. Foley (ser. 1), i. 532. However, it had the effect of persuading the renowned Buckinghamshire physician and divine Richard Napier to take Purbeck under his wing. Napier quickly came to the conclusion that Purbeck, a first-born child, had been driven mad by his doting mother. However, though he lavished the best treatment he could devise on his illustrious patient, his remedies, including purges described by one modern authority as a ‘pharmaceutical disaster’, proved ineffectual. Besides, Purbeck often refused to take them.39 M. MacDonald, Mystical Bedlam: Madness, Anxiety and Healing in Seventeenth-Century Eng. 21, 192, 256n.

Purbeck subsequently revisited Spa, and, on his return in the autumn of 1622, was sent to live, during the time of his ‘fit’, at Compton Wynyates, the Warwickshire seat of Buckingham’s kinsman by marriage, William Compton^*, 1st earl of Northampton. By this time his wife no longer lived with him, but instead was seeking maintenance from the king. Buckingham promised to provide for her himself out of his own pocket. However, he declined to buy her a house, and insisted that she live with her mother.40 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 439; Fortescue Pprs. ed. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 185. Frances later accused Buckingham of having failed to keep his promise: Cabala Sive Scrinia Sacra (1663), 346.

On 10 Feb. 1623 Purbeck’s duties as keeper of Denmark House were assigned to an under-keeper.41 SC6/Jas.I/1687. One week later Buckingham departed for Spain with Prince Charles. During the favourite’s absence, the king grew alarmed at Purbeck’s frequent public displays of bad temper, which, as Secretary of State Sir Edward Conway^* (later 1st Viscount Conway) observed, ‘may, and must, reflect upon his most noble brother’. In late August James ordered that Purbeck be removed from London by Buckingham’s client Sir John Hippisley^‡. Despite the protests of Buckingham’s wife, who argued that it would be better to wait until her brother-in-law was subject to his ‘melancholy fit’ before moving him, Hippisley immediately took Purbeck to Hampton Court.42 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 68; T. Longueville, Curious Case of Lady Purbeck, 70-2, 74. Shortly thereafter, Purbeck was made the responsibility of the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, at least temporarily.43 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 74.

When a fresh Parliament met in 1624 there could be no question that Purbeck would attend. Not only was he licensed to be absent, he also gave his proxy to Buckingham, now a duke, who paid the required fees out of his own pocket.44 SO3/7, unfol. (Feb. 1624); LJ, iii. 212b; Add. 12528, f. 12v. His sad condition was widely known, and when, in May, the House of Commons drew up a list of recusant officeholders, it was agreed to omit Purbeck from the list.45 CJ, i. 790b. Following Parliament’s adjournment for the summer, Purbeck’s condition suddenly improved. As a result, he was permitted to accompany the king on progress, which began on 17 July. There was even talk of creating him a marquess, to enable him to take precedence over his younger brother Christopher who, being an earl, now outranked him. However, by the 24th he had reportedly ‘fallen back to his old bias and worse’, and in August he was committed to the care of a former naval surgeon.46 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 573.

By December 1624 Purbeck was well enough to tend his wife, who had fallen ill of smallpox.47 Ibid. 593. His attentiveness may have been partly motivated by the fact that, two months earlier, Frances had given birth to a son (Robert Villiers alias Wright and Danvers^†). Although the father was almost certainly Sir Robert Howard^‡, a younger son of Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, with whom Frances had formed a close attachment, Frances persuaded her husband that the baby was his.48 Ibid. 599. Buckingham, though, was not so easily taken in, and immediately realized that, unless Frances’s son was declared to be illegitimate, the boy might, in accordance with the reversionary grant of March 1617, inherit his lesser titles, chief among them the earldom of Buckingham.49 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621-5 ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxiv), 338-9; Add. 72255, f. 165. At his prompting, Frances was confined to her lodgings and a commission of inquiry was established. Under interrogation, neither Frances nor Howard admitted to having sexual relations with one another, but it was learned that Frances had frequently visited John Lambe, a reputed sorcerer, in order to obtain charms. Before long Buckingham was convinced that Frances was not only guilty of adultery but also of having employed potions to bewitch both himself and her husband.50 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 220; Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham (no editor), 31; Add. 72276, f. 141; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 601.

Purbeck was soon persuaded of his wife’s guilt, and in March 1625 Frances was brought before High Commission, where she was accused of sexual incontinency and witchcraft. However, mental incapacity meant that Purbeck was unable to follow the case in person, and therefore, since Buckingham was occupied with matters of state, his interests were represented by his younger brother, the earl of Anglesey. However, matters initially went badly for Purbeck: the prosecution was forced to drop the charges of sorcery, and Frances ably defended herself against the accusation of adultery.51 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 605, 607, 608. By the time a fresh Parliament met in June 1625, the case had still not been settled. It seems likely that proceedings were then suspended, as Frances, being the wife of a peer, was entitled to parliamentary privilege, a right she exercised in 1626, when she was arrested for debt.52 Procs. 1626, i. 75-6. Purbeck naturally played no part in the 1625 assembly, but was once more licensed to be absent. He again granted his proxy to Buckingham, who had begun to assume financial responsibility for him, his own rents being required to provide maintenance for Frances.53 Procs. 1625, p. 48; Add. 12528, ff. 26, 28v. On Lady Purbeck’s claim on her husband’s rents, see SP16/36/56.

In October 1625 Purbeck accompanied Buckingham on a diplomatic mission to The Hague. The reason is unclear, but Buckingham probably feared that if Purbeck remained at home, Frances and her lover would seek to exercise undue influence over him.54 Add. 12528, f. 28. When a fresh Parliament met in 1626, Purbeck again failed to attend the Lords, although he was not formally granted leave by the king, nor did he issue a proxy immediately (none being mentioned when the Lords were called on 15 February). When Purbeck eventually provided a proxy, he gave it to Thomas Wentworth^*, earl of Cleveland rather than Buckingham.55 Procs. 1626, i. 49; iv. 11. However, this act is unlikely to have been intended as a snub as, following a ruling by the Lords on 25 Feb., Buckingham felt obliged to divest himself of most of his proxies to friends and clients in the House. Despite playing no part in its proceedings, Purbeck received a brief mention during the course of the 1626 Parliament, when Buckingham was accused of having diverted the revenues of the crown to his own use, and the use of his relatives. The duke retorted, correctly, that Purbeck had never been granted any land by the crown, but he could not deny that Purbeck was the recipient of a royal pension worth £1,000 p.a.56 Ibid. iii. 122, 127, 186.

Purbeck’s suit in High Commission seems to have been in abeyance throughout 1626, probably because it was no longer urgent to establish the illegitimacy of his alleged son, Buckingham’s wife having given birth to a baby boy in November 1625. However, in March 1627 Buckingham’s child died and, since the duke was about to lead a military expedition to France in person, the prospect that Frances’ son might inherit his lesser titles once again reared its ugly head. The case was therefore resumed, and in November 1627 Frances was found guilty of adultery, ordered to perform a public act of penance and imprisoned at pleasure. Frances was outraged, and, in January 1628, she escaped from house arrest with the assistance of the Savoyard ambassador.57 Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iii. 392-3; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 296, 312.

Although Frances was now a fugitive (several warrants being issued for her arrest), her case was far from desperate. In late January 1628 the king summoned another Parliament, which body might not only afford her protection, as it had done in 1626, but also overturn the judgement reached in High Commission. Were this to happen, Frances could never be charged with the same offence again, since the House of Lords was the highest court in the land.58 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 346. Purbeck – or rather Buckingham, perhaps – immediately spotted the danger, and before Parliament assembled he issued a statement, witnessed to establish its authenticity, in which he declared that, in the event that his wife sought Parliament’s protection, he did ‘disavow and disallow her ... all manner of privilege’.59 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33.

Purbeck probably realized that if his wife appealed to the Lords, it might prove necessary for him to attend the upper House. This would explain why, for the first time since 1621, he did not issue a proxy. In the event, however, his presence was recorded only once, on 7 Apr., even though Frances petitioned the Lords, as predicted, two weeks after Parliament opened. The House’s privileges committee immediately grasped the unusual nature of her case, since Frances was demanding to be allowed the privilege accorded to her husband against the latter’s wishes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the committee decided to hear legal arguments before reaching a verdict. Among the four lawyers chosen by Frances to represent her were the MPs William Hakewill^‡, perhaps the leading expert on parliamentary procedure, and John Selden^‡, no friend of Buckingham’s, whose knowledge of peers’ privileges was unrivalled.60 Ibid. The committee’s decision to hear legal arguments evidently irritated Buckingham who, on 18 Apr., moved the House to resolve the matter itself. However, he was rebuffed, on the grounds that the subject was still under consideration in committee.61 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 264.

Buckingham was far from satisfied, and on 21 Apr. a letter by Purbeck addressed to the lord keeper (Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry) was presented to the House and referred to the privileges committee. In this document, Purbeck, or those employed to act for him, put his case with admirable succinctness.

I conceive that the privilege is due to me, and to such only as claim it by me and not to those whom I disavow and refuse to protect … much less to her who having so abased herself to the wrong of my person and house shall plead my privilege against myself.

He explained that he was in the process of suing his wife for divorce in the Court of Arches on grounds of adultery, of which offence she had already been condemned in High Commission. He asked the House to grant him his wish, ‘if not for my sake, yet for honour’s sake’, in case other women were encouraged ‘to run the like course of whoredoms and adulteries as she hath done’. This appeal to personal honour, a subject on which the Lords were always especially sensitive, was probably shrewd. When the privileges committee put the matter to a vote on 28 Apr., Purbeck’s supporters outnumbered those of Frances 14 to two.62 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33. The following day the committee’s conclusion was reported to the House. However, after several peers registered their objections, a compromise was reached. The committee’s recommendation would be upheld, but Frances would also be allowed immunity from arrest for the next 20 days.63 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 358.

In the immediate aftermath of these proceedings, Purbeck appears only fleetingly in the records. He was evidently never granted a divorce, possibly because Buckingham, the driving force behind the proceedings against his wife, was murdered in August 1628. Following the duke’s death, Purbeck went to live with his mother, who quarrelled with Buckingham’s widow over responsibility for paying maintenance to Frances.64 HMC 4th Rep. 256; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 154, 172. When Parliament reassembled in January 1629, Purbeck neither attended nor nominated a proxy. At around the same time his wife sought to overturn the judgement against her in the Court of Common Pleas, where her lawyer, Edward Henden^‡, argued unsuccessfully that High Commission had exceeded its authority, ‘for the offence is spiritual, and the punishment temporal’. Henden also tried to persuade the court that Frances’s alleged offences were covered by the general pardon issued by the 1624 Parliament, with equal lack of success.65 Reps. and Cases ... Collected and Reported by ... Sir Thomas Hetley (1657), 107-8, 131. Frances subsequently moved to Shropshire to live with Sir Robert Howard, but was eventually forced to flee to France.66 HP Commons 1604-29, iv. 815.

By 1631 Purbeck was embroiled in a dispute with his mother-in-law, Lady Hatton, who attempted to sell lands in which he claimed a life interest.67 APC, 1630-1, p. 194. That same year he spent an extensive period in the care of Richard Napier.68 MacDonald, 256n. On the death of his mother in April 1632, Purbeck was placed by the king in the house of one of the queen’s physicians, who was instructed to ensure that he neither smoked nor drank alcohol, ‘which we are informed are most hurtful and dangerous for him’.69 Eg. 2552, f. 25v. Charles continued to issue instructions for Purbeck’s well being as late as the summer and autumn of 1640, when the seriousness of his own affairs might have been expected to have driven such thoughts from his mind.70 CSP Dom. 1640, p. 567; 1640-1, p. 127.

Purbeck failed to attend either the Short or Long parliaments.71 LJ, iv. 92a, 249b, 267a, 719a; vi. 387b. In February 1641 his wife, now returned from France, complained to the Lords of hard dealing at the hands of the late duke of Buckingham, who (she said) had separated her from her husband, seized her dowry and obtained, through the connivance of William Laud^*, then bishop of London, sentence against her in High Commission.72 CCSP, i. 218. Her petition remained under consideration as late as June 1641.73 LJ, iv. 276a. Two years later Purbeck himself petitioned the upper House after his brother-in-law Sir Robert Coke^‡ declined to pay him the annuity due from his Buckinghamshire lands on the grounds that his estate had been sequestrated. The Lords proved sympathetic, and ordered that his annuity be paid in future. Purbeck again appealed to the Lords in January 1646 after learning that he was suspected of royalism, but he evidently satisfied his fellow peers, because in April he was granted a pass to travel between London and his house at Stoke Poges, formerly the seat of his father-in-law Sir Edward Coke, now deceased.74 Ibid. viii. 117b, 118a, 269b.

Purbeck’s wife died in June 1645. Sometime thereafter, Purbeck acknowledged Frances’s son Robert, now in his late twenties, as his own, and in 1651 he entered into a conveyance to enable Robert to inherit Stoke Poges.75 C54/3609/27. In August 1655, having by now remarried, he drafted a short will, in which he declared, somewhat surprisingly, that he was in ‘perfect health and memory’.76 PROB 11/274, f. 185. Four months later he petitioned to be allowed to continue using his lodgings at Denmark House, now renamed Somerset House, only to be refused on the grounds that his office as keeper had ceased.77 CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 81.

Purbeck died in February 1658; his place of burial is unknown. His will was proved the following April by his widow, who survived him by 38 years. Robert Villiers subsequently disassociated himself from the Villiers’ clan, adopted the surname of his wife’s family (Danvers), and refused to take his father’s title. His eldest son, also named Robert, petitioned in 1675 for the right to be acknowledged as Purbeck’s heir, but without success.78 HMC 9th Rep. II, 58.