WEST, Henry (1603-28)

De La Warr succeeded to his title as a minor sometime over the summer of 1618, but news of his father’s death overseas - on 7 June according to the inquisition post mortem, or a month later, according to a libel in the High Court of Admiralty – did not reach England until the autumn.16 C142/373/77; Recs. Virg. Co. ed. S.M. Kingsbury, iii. 420; ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 37. The new Lord De La Warr’s wardship was purchased for 200 marks by his mother and by Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick, who, like De La Warr’s father, was a puritan interested in the colonization of America.17 WARD 9/162, f. 338. It is possible that De La Warr was summoned to the 1621 Parliament, despite being only 17, as he was included in the Journal attendance lists from 22 February. However, there is no evidence that he attended or played any part in proceedings.18 Cockayne, following Collins, states that he was summoned on 14 Nov. 1621, but this seems to be a misreading of Dugdale. CP, iv. 161; Collins, Peerage, v. 23; W. Dugdale, Perfect Copy of all the Summons of the Nobility, 549. It seems likely that his inclusion in the register was the result of clerical error. A writ of summons was apparently sent to his dead father in November 1620, and shortly before the Parliament met, Robert Bowyer^‡, clerk of the parliaments, wrote besides the name of the 3rd baron in a list of the 1614 House of Lords, ‘Q[uery] if now any such’.19 PA, BRY/54, f. 26; HL/PO/JO/10/1/13, 4 Feb. 1621.

By 1623 De La Warr was beginning to enter onto the public stage. In February of that year he was elected to the council of the Virginia Company, which had employed his father as governor of their colony. He was still a minor when the fourth Jacobean Parliament was summoned in December 1623 and was initially listed among the barons who were too young to receive a writ. Nevertheless, he was by now within a year of coming of age and there was evidently a last minute change of heart. Summoned to attend on 18 Feb., the day before the session started, he took his seat on the 19th.20 SP14/159/52; C218/1/18. In total he is recorded as having attended 53 of the 93 sittings of the Parliament. In addition, on 29 Feb., when the House stood adjourned, he accompanied William Cavendish^*, Lord Cavendish (subsequently 2nd earl of Devonshire) when the latter was sent to escort the Dutch ambassadors to their audience with the king. He left early for the Easter recess, missing the sitting on 25 Mar., and did not return to the House until 8 Apr., a week after the session resumed. His attendance also declined towards the end of the session, as he was present on only 17 of the final 40 sittings. On one of the days when he was missing, 28 Apr., he attended the quarterly court of the Virginia Company.21 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 31v; Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 137A [page incorrectly numbered 238]; Recs. Virg. Co. ii. 533.

De La Warr was formally introduced to the House on 25 Feb. by the 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*) and the 2nd Lord Stanhope of Harington (Charles Stanhope^*), for which he paid the officers of the House their fees.22 LJ, iii. 217b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 80v. As a new member he was named to only three of the 105 committees appointed by the upper House during the Parliament. These concerned a private bill, regarding a manor in Gloucestershire, and two public measures, for the better maintenance of hospitals and the improvement of cloth manufacturing.23 LJ, iii. 257b, 268a, 393a. He is known to have granted a protection to one William Beard on 23 April.24 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 81.

In the aftermath of the Parliament, De La Warr was appointed a captain in the infantry regiment commanded by Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, one of the four regiments raised in the summer of 1624 to augment the English contingent of the army of the Dutch republic. However, he was not with his company when it landed in Holland on 17 July as he was courting the daughter of Sir Thomas Edmondes, the treasurer of the Household.25 SP84/120, f. 287; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 572. On 14 Aug. Sir Francis Nethersole^‡ informed Sir Dudley Carleton^*, subsequently 1st Viscount Dorchester, that the couple were betrothed.26 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 327. The calendared version of Nethersole’s letter states that De La Warr had broken his breastbone hunting with the earl of Warwick, but the manuscript (SP14/171/49) makes clear that this accident befell a son of Sir Thomas Edmondes, presumably Henry^‡. De La Warr probably joined his company soon after and was certainly with them by October.27 SP84/120, f. 287. However, his military service was brief as he had returned to England to levy more recruits by late January the following year.28 E.H. Martin, ‘Mytton of Halston’ ed. J.E. Auden, Trans. Salop Arch. Soc. xlvii. 108.

De La Warr was still in England in March when he signed the proclamation announcing the accession of Charles I.29 APC, 1625-6, p. 5. By then he was married, and in May he and his wife accompanied the king to Dover to meet Henrietta Maria.30 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 152; NLW, 9060E/1336. On the 12th the lord keeper (John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln) ordered the release of Giles Thistlethwaite, a servant of De La Warr’s, who had been arrested for debt on 28 Apr. by Thomas West, possibly a kinsman. Though Parliament was not then sitting a meeting had been summoned, and servants of peers were protected by parliamentary privilege.31 HMC Lords, n.s. xi. 176.

The first Caroline Parliament convened the following month, and De La Warr attended 21 of the 31 sittings. He was excused on 7 July by John Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy, having already missed the previous day’s morning and afternoon sittings, but returned to the House when the session resumed at Oxford on 1 August.32 Procs. 1625, p. 102. He took the oath of allegiance on 23 June, on which date the manuscript minutes and the committee book (but not the Journal) record his appointment to the privileges committee.33 Ibid. 45-6, 48-9. Three days later he was appointed to the subcommittee of the privileges committee.34 Ibid. 59.

Including the privileges committee, De La Warr was named to 11 of the 24 committees appointed by the Lords in 1625, of which eight were to consider legislation. His military experience probably explains his nomination to consider the bill for making arms serviceable, and his connection with Virginia may explain why he was named to examine the bill to liberalize fishing in American waters.35 Ibid. 73, 179. He was also appointed to consider three measures relating to religion and moral reform: these concerned the observance of the Sabbath, restraining tippling and laws against recusants.36 Ibid. 72, 88, 174. In addition, on 8 Aug., he was among those instructed to confer with the Commons about religion.37 Ibid. 146. He made no recorded speeches.

Parliament was dissolved on 12 Aug. and, a month later, De La Warr went to Plymouth to take up a command in the projected naval expedition under Sir Edward Cecil^*, subsequently Viscount Wimbledon. Despite his lack of maritime experience he was appointed rear admiral of the squadron commanded by the vice admiral of the fleet, Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, who had previously served with De La Warr in the Netherlands.38 APC, 1625-6, p. 173; HMC Skrine, 36. On 4 Oct. De La Warr wrote to his father-in-law Edmondes from on board his ship, the St George. He already believed that they had little chance of achieving anything significant, and that ‘the only desire that I hear talked of now is for the Plate or Brazil fleet[s], which I fear will be passed our danger of taking before we shall come thither’. Moreover, he was concerned that the fleet was not adequately victualled.39 Stowe 176, f. 266.

On 8 Oct. De La Warr was promoted to vice admiral of Cecil’s squadron. However, at a council of war three weeks later Thomas Cromwell^*, 4th Lord Cromwell and Viscount Lecale in the Irish peerage, claimed that he and Henry Power, 1st Viscount Valentia, should have precedence as Irish viscounts over De La Warr, a mere baron. De La Warr replied that, as commander, Cecil could appoint whom he wanted and that the operation was an English expedition and not an Irish one. According to John Glanville^‡, secretary to the expedition, De La Warr, Cromwell and Valentia ‘showed no unkindness one to another in all the proceedings but rather conversed lovingly together as if they more desired a true judgement touching the right in general then the victory of themselves in particular’. The rest of the council of war seem to have regarded the issue as entirely within Cecil’s discretion but he was apparently incapable of making a decision. Consequently the question remained unresolved.40 Glanville, 13-14, 83-8.

Contrary to De La Warr’s expectation, the expedition attempted to capture Cadiz. However, this proved to be a fiasco. Writing subsequently to Edmondes on 11 Nov., De La Warr described how the initial surprise achieved by Essex had been ‘wilfully lost’, and lamented that ‘we might with great deal of ease have done much service but the neglect of time overthrew the business’. He complained that ‘never any army went out continued and returned with so much disorder and ill government as this’ and ‘we have done nothing like soldiers or discreet men’. As for his commander, De La Warr wrote that he could ‘not speak much good [of Cecil], for he doth none, nor hurt, for he does none’, thereby echoing the soldiers’ nickname for their general, ‘Viscount Sitstill’. He concluded by reporting that the English were now at sea again looking for the Plate fleet but he remained sceptical about their chances of finding it.41 Stowe 176, ff. 268-9; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 628.

By the time De La Warr wrote again on 29 Dec. he and most of the rest of the expedition, devastated by disease and lack of provisions, had been forced to take refuge on the west coast of Ireland. He reported that the majority of the crew of his ship were either sick or dead and that he himself had been seriously ill, although he was now recovering.42 Stowe 176, f. 270. He did not return to England until the beginning of the following March, when it was reported that he would make ‘great complaints’ against Wimbledon. In fact he took no part in the attack on the viscount launched by Essex and other officers of the expedition, perhaps suggesting that Edmondes warned him that Charles and Buckingham would not welcome it.43 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 84; Two Original Journals of Sir Richard Granville (1724), 29. De La Warr evidently remained in favour with the king who, at about this time, agreed to stand as godfather to his first son, christened Charles^† after his royal sponsor.44 E351/544, rot. 205. The payments concerning the christening are misdated April 1625.

Unable to attend the early stages of the 1626 Parliament, De La Warr was formally excused as absent on the king’s service when the House was called on 25 February. He was first recorded as being present on 4 Mar. but was again excused on 13 Mar., and also on the following day, when his absence was permitted ‘for a time’. He returned to the House on 18 Mar. and in total attended 43 of the 81 sittings.45 Procs. 1626, i. 49, 143, 150. However, he was named to only nine of the 49 committees appointed by the Lords, six of which concerned legislation. On 8 Mar. another bill to enforce the laws against recusants was referred to De La Warr and the rest of the committee which been instructed to examine the 1625 measure on the subject. He was also appointed to consider measures against scandalous ministers and in support of the clergy.46 Ibid. 127, 268, 292. Perhaps in view of his recent military experience, he was named to committees concerning the safety of the kingdom, a petition on behalf of those who had been captured by north African corsairs and a bill concerning the production of saltpetre.47 Ibid. 110, 191, 319. De La Warr was marked as an enemy of Buckingham in a list of members of the 1626 upper House annotated by William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids. However, this was probably a mistake.48 SP16/20/36.

In the aftermath of the 1626 Parliament De La Warr was appointed to command a militia regiment in Hampshire, whose lord lieutenant, Edward Conway^*, Lord (subsequently 1st Viscount) Conway, may have believed that the baron’s military experience would be valuable on the south coast in wartime. There is no evidence that De La Warr refused to pay the Forced Loan. Indeed he was sufficiently favoured by Charles I to receive a grant in March 1628 of £279 8s. 6d. in money and 37s. worth of goods belonging to Sir Edward Bishopp^‡ and forfeited to the crown for Bishopp’s manslaughter of De La Warr’s cousin, Henry Shirley.49 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 3, 495.

When a fresh Parliament assembled in 1628, De La Warr attended 47 of the 94 sittings of the first session. His presence in the chamber was last recorded on the afternoon of 23 May; the following day he was excused, probably because of ill health.50 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 527. Appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony by the crown,51 Ibid. 62, 73. he was also named to just four of the 52 committees that session, including one to confer with the Commons about the fast, and three on legislation. The latter concerned the increase of trade, and private measures for William Cavendish, 2nd earl of Devonshire and Henry Neville^*, 9th or 2nd Lord Abergavenny.52 Ibid. 78, 88, 104. 255. On 23 Apr. he assisted in the introduction to the House of Conway’s son, Edward Conway (subsequently 2nd Viscount Conway), summoned to the Lords by a writ of acceleration.53 Ibid. 333.

On 22 Mar. William Spencer, 2nd Lord Spencer^*, presented a petition to the House from Thomas Wylloughby, De La Warr’s servant, who had been arrested for debt the day after the 1626 Parliament was dissolved. However, it subsequently emerged that a number of other creditors had initiated proceedings against Wylloughby during his imprisonment and after the expiry of his parliamentary privilege. It was feared that their debts would be lost if Wyllougby were released. Consequently Wylloughby remained in custody until 6 May, when he was able to satisfy the Lords that all his debts had been settled. There is no evidence that De La Warr himself intervened in the case.54 Ibid. 88-90, 127, 353, 382.

On 30 Mar. 1628 the governor and council of Virginia wrote to De La Warr asking for his support in opposing a projected monopoly of the tobacco trade.55 CSP Col. 1574-1660, p. 90. However, De La Warr died on 1 June of smallpox, probably at Southampton House in Holborn, where his daughter was born five days later. De La Warr and his family were presumably the guests, for the duration of the Parliament, of Thomas Wriothesley^*, 4th and 2nd earl of Southampton, a fellow Hampshire peer. De La Warr was not buried in the local parish church, which perhaps indicates that his body was interred at Wherwell, though the parish register does not survive. In an epitaph penned by Ben Jonson, De La Warr was hailed as ‘Henry, the brave young Lord La-Ware, Minerva’s and the Muses care!’, suggesting that he may have written poetry; but if so, none survives. No will or grant of administration has been found. De La Warr’s only son Charles^†, aged just two, succeeded him in his lands and title.56 SP16/110/31; LMA, St Andrew Holborn par. reg.; Ben Jonson ed. C. H. Herford, P. and E. Simpson, viii. 233-4; xi. 92; WARD 7/78/95.