WRIOTHESLEY, Henry (1573-1624)

It has been suggested that there were really two Southamptons: one the Elizabethan earl, ‘the profligate unstable friend’ of Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, most notable as the only certain dedicatee of works by Shakespeare; and the other older, Jacobean Southampton, a serious politician, a ‘country’ grandee and a leading figure in the Virginia Company.46 Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 176. There was, however, considerable continuity between his first and second personas. The Jacobean earl could be just as rash and intemperate as his earlier, Elizabethan incarnation. Arthur Wilson, who knew Southampton in later life, and indeed was present when the earl died, described the second Southampton as ‘no great courtier’ (meaning that he thought him a member of the anti-court, ‘country’ faction), and as one who ‘carried his business closely and slyly, and was rather an advisor than an actor’.47 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 161-2. There is some truth in this assessment, but Southampton was never the reserved, disengaged figure that Wilson suggests. Southampton was politically ambitious, and to that end he assiduously attended the court and cultivated a close personal relationship with James I. Up until 1611 he kept his ambitions hidden, but thereafter sought a prominent, perhaps dominant, role in the king’s counsels. James was understandably reluctant to allow Southampton the kind of position that Essex had sought to occupy in the late Elizabethan period, and Southampton’s attempts to find an alternative powerbase in Parliament were fatally compromised by his financial weakness, which made him dependant on the generosity of the crown. Nevertheless, Southampton played an important role in Jacobean politics as a focus for opposition; he was described in an anonymous libel in 1616 as the ‘head of the malcontents’, but he could always be brought to heel should the need arise.48 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 245.

Ancestry, early life and faith, 1573-1603

Southampton was descended from John Writhe (d.1504), who held the office of garter king at arms when the college of heralds was incorporated in 1484. Writhe’s sons, Thomas and William, changed their surname to Wriothesley.49 Oxford DNB, lx. 532. William’s eldest son, Thomas^† (1505-50), enjoyed a meteoric career in royal administration, becoming secretary of state in 1540 and lord chancellor in 1544. He was also created Baron Wriothesley in 1544 and earl of Southampton three years later.50 HP Commons, 1509-58, iii. 663-6. On the Dissolution of the Monasteries the 1st earl of Southampton acquired large estates in Hampshire, including the sites of Titchfield and Beaulieu abbeys, which were converted into residences. He also obtained a London house in Holborn.51 L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 210-11; VCH Hants, iii. 220; iv. 650-5; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 5.

Thomas’s son Henry, 2nd earl of Southampton, was imprisoned in the Tower in 1571 for his Catholic faith. He died when his son and heir, the subject of this biography, was just short of his eighth birthday.52 Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 10. The new earl of Southampton was initially loyal to his parents’ Catholic beliefs, and refused to attend Anglican services.53 Ibid. 18. However, his Catholic faith may not have survived boyhood. At his trial in 1601, Southampton denied that he was Catholic, and, in 1603, he, like Lord Henry Howard^* (subsequently earl of Northampton), declared the new king, James I, had won him over to Protestantism.54 State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, i. 1354; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 42. Although Howard’s conversion was anything but sincere, there is no evidence that Southampton remained secretly a Catholic; in 1620 one Habsburg diplomat reported that Southampton had urged James I to treat his Catholic subjects as the king of Spain had treated the Moriscos, the converts from Islam expelled from the Iberian peninsula in the early seventeenth century. This report may not have been entirely accurate, as Southampton is known to have had close personal connections with Catholics. He may even have supported toleration for loyal Catholics, as did Essex. Nonetheless, there can be little doubt that Catholics did not regard Southampton as sharing their faith.55 L. Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 493; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 180-1; P. E. J. Hammer, Polarisation of Elizabethan Pols. 174-8; Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621–1625 ed. M. Questier (Cam. Soc. ser. 5. xxxiv), 135.

Tradition has it that Southampton was converted to Protestantism by his future ally in the Virginia Company and Parliament, Sir Edwin Sandys^‡. However, this story must be considered doubtful, as it rests on an eighteenth-century biography of Nicholas Ferrar^‡ which gives no source for the assertion.56 P. Peckard, Mems. of Nicholas Ferrar (1790), 102; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 177. Perhaps the main reason Southampton became Protestant was that, following his father’s death, he was raised in the household of William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley, who acquired his wardship and sent him to St John’s College, Cambridge. At St John’s Southampton would have continued his Protestant education. The experience cannot have been disagreeable, as Southampton showed loyalty to St John’s for the rest of his life, giving books and manuscripts to its library.57 Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 22, 28, 149, 178.

Just how Protestant Southampton became is open to question. In 1620 he was described in diplomatic correspondence as a puritan.58 H.G.R. Reade, Sidelights on the Thirty Years War, i. 284. Moreover, while in Paris in 1598, he received tuition from the puritan, Henry Cuffe, whose influence over Southampton was later described by the latter’s Catholic brother-in-law, Thomas Arundell^* (later 1st Lord Arundell of Wardour) as malign.59 Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 130, 178-9. However, descriptions of Southampton as a puritan are unusual, while Southampton’s studies with Cuffe were concerned with political philosophy rather than religion. There is little indication that he ever acquired his tutor’s puritan beliefs. One possibility is that, as an adult, Southampton had no very strong religious views of any description, that he was merely a nominal Protestant, more interested in the material than the spiritual world. In a letter written to him in 1599, his friend, Essex, warned him not to use his talents ‘to serve this world, or your own worldly delights’. Instead, he was advised to dedicate them to the service of God. This tends to suggest that Essex feared that Southampton had insufficient faith rather than the wrong sort of faith.60 The Earle of Essex his Letter to the Earle of Southampton (1642).

Although it seems likely that Southampton was weaned off his Catholic faith by Burghley, there were limits to the influence that Elizabeth’s lord treasurer exercised over his young charge. Burghley hoped to bind Southampton to the Cecil dynasty by selecting one of his own granddaughters as his ward’s bride, but Southampton rejected the match. As a result, on coming of age in 1594, Southampton was obliged to pay compensation to Burghley, rumoured at £5,000. This outlay must have made a considerable dent in his finances, but Southampton compounded the problem by reckless extravagance. In 1598, for instance, he reportedly lost 18,000 crowns (£5,400) playing tennis in Paris. He was also a generous literary patron; Shakespeare dedicated to him his Venus and Adonis in 1593, and The Rape of Lucrece the following year. Not surprisingly, therefore, he was forced to raise £20,500 from land sales to keep his head above water, thereby reducing his annual income by more than a third.61 Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 36, 39, 58; Chamberlain Letters, i. 52; Stone, 217-18.

During the late 1590s Southampton attached himself to the earl of Essex, the foremost champion of an aggressively anti-Spanish military strategy in late Elizabethan England. In 1597 he served on the expedition to the Azores, during the course of which he was knighted by Essex. Nevertheless, he did not entirely neglect Essex’s rivals, the Cecils, as he joined Burghley’s son, Sir Robert Cecil^* (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury) on a diplomatic mission to France the following year. During his absence it was learned that Elizabeth Vernon, one of the queen’s maids of honour and a kinswoman of Essex, was pregnant by Southampton, who had briefly slipped back to England and married her. The queen was furious and Southampton was summoned home and committed to the Fleet. Aside from alienating Elizabeth, the marriage did nothing to mend Southampton’s financial fortunes, as his bride seems not to have brought him a dowry.62 Chamberlain Letters, i. 31. 44, 54; HMC Hatfield, xxiii. 21; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 70-3. No jointure was ever made for his wife. SP23/192, p. 204.

In 1599 Southampton accompanied Essex to Ireland, where his friend had been appointed lord lieutenant. Essex made him general of the horse, despite having received explicit instructions from Elizabeth not to do so. Unsurprisingly, Essex was soon forced to dismiss Southampton, who, now a mere captain, attended Essex’s unauthorized parlay with the rebel leader, the earl of Tyrone [I], in September.63 CSP Ire. 1599-1600, pp. 61-2, 100-1; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 91-2. Southampton left the Irish service in the summer of 1600, ostensibly to serve in the army of the Dutch republic, but probably to fight a duel with Thomas Grey^†, 15th Lord Grey of Wilton.64 CSP Ire. 1600, p. 329; HMC Hatfield, x. 262-3; Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 210, 216. He subsequently went on to play a prominent part in the ill-fated Essex rising of February 1601, and was condemned to death for treason. Cecil, whose rise to power had enraged Essex, may have initially supported the sentence; he certainly expected it to be swiftly carried out, but, he soon changed his mind and, with the assistance of the lord admiral, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, secured a reprieve for Southampton. Having made an example of Essex, Cecil perhaps wanted to avoid further executions among the nobility in order to maintain political stability. Nonetheless, Southampton lost his titles and lands and was confined to the Tower.65 A. Gajda, Earl of Essex and Late Elizabethan Political Culture, 7, 29-30; Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir George Carew ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxxviii), 66, 74; Corresp. of King Jas. VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and Others in Eng. ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxxviii), 68; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 18.

The accession of James I and the first Jacobean Parliament, 1603-10

On 24 Mar. 1603 Southampton was walking in the grounds of the Tower with a warder, to whom he was attached by leads, when he heard the proclamation announcing the accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne. Southampton was so delighted that he threw his hat into the air three times, on the last occasion sending it clear over the wall.66 Stowe 150, f. 180; E. Howes, Annales, or A Generall Chronicle of Eng. (1631), 817. Southampton’s reaction to the news of James’s accession is not surprising, as the Essex faction had long championed James’s claim to the succession. James himself was well aware of this fact, and on 4 Apr., before he left Edinburgh, he sent orders for Southampton to be released ‘in regard of the great and honest affection borne unto us by the earl’ and ‘in respect of his good parts enabling him for the service of us and the state’. He also ordered that Southampton be presented to him as soon as possible ‘with the nobles’, a sign that the former earl would shortly be restored to their ranks.67 Bodl., Ashmole 1729, f. 55; Stopes, 259-60; Manningham Diary ed. R.P. Sorlien, 235, 246; Chamberlain Letters, i. 192. Southampton’s favour with the new king came as little surprise in London. Indeed, even before the order for Southampton’s release arrived, Francis Bacon^* (later Viscount St Alban) wrote that Southampton was ‘already much visited and much well-wished’.68 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, iii. 74.

Towards the end of April Southampton was presented to the king, who, on the 27th, appointed him to carry the sword of state when he visited Hinchingbrooke, in Huntingdonshire, on his journey south.69 HMC Hatfield, xv. 58; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 98. Early the following month it was reported that he was in great favour and that the king had promised him rich rewards.70 Letters of Philip Gawdy ed. I.H. Jeayes, 129; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 25-6. This was correct, for on 16 May Southampton was granted a pardon and restored to his lands. Although by this date he was routinely referred to by his former title, the pardon describes him as ‘Henry Wriothesley lately earl of Southampton’.71 Hants RO, 5M53/1001. Towards the end of the month he was also promised the captaincy of the Isle of Wight after the death of George Carey^†, 2nd Lord Hunsdon. Described as valuable by the Venetian ambassador, this office fell to him the following September.72 Letters of Philip Gawdy, 131-2; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 135; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 56. In June Southampton was also elected to the ranks of England’s elite order of knighthood, the order of the Garter. However, prison had not taught Southampton to curb his temper, and at the end of June he renewed his quarrel with Lord Grey of Wilton. During a discussion of the Essex rebellion, in front of Anne of Denmark, Southampton called Grey a liar. The queen was so shocked that she confined both men to their lodgings. The following day the Council decided to send them to the Tower, but, before this could be done the king intervened and forced them into an outward show of friendship.73 Nichols, i. 197-8.

Southampton was formally re-granted the rank of earl on 21 July. Although his patent restored him to the precedence of the original 1547 creation, the right to inherit his title was limited to his male heirs rather than to the male heirs of his grandfather. (Consequently, in modern eyes, his patent was a new creation rather than a restoration.) This may have been an error, but it had no practical effect, because Southampton was the only male heir of his grandfather.74 47th DKR, 97. The following month he was granted the farm of the customs on sweet wines, which had previously been held by Essex. This probably yielded Southampton at least £2,000 a year and possibly doubled his income.75 CSP Dom. Addenda 1580-1625, pp. 427-8; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 135; Stone 220. The earl was also granted free access to the privy chamber. Significantly, though, James did not appoint Southampton to the Privy Council, which he might easily have done. This suggests that, for all the outward show of favour, James did not trust Southampton with political power. One reason for this, perhaps, was that Southampton’s quarrel with Grey had shown a worrying lack of discretion. Another, more serious factor, may have been the influence of James’s chief minister, Robert, now Lord, Cecil. Cecil may have been reluctant to bring into government a former member of a faction which had sought to destroy him. Moreover, Cecil and James may have been wary of Southampton in view of Essex’s political legacy of disobedience and rebellion.76 HMC Hatfield, xv. 385; M. King, ‘Essex Myth in Jacobean Eng.’, Accession of Jas. I ed. G. Burgess, R. Wymer, J. Lawrence, 178, 181-2.

The summoning of Parliament in January 1604 saw Southampton involved in elections to the House of Commons. The 2nd Lord Hunsdon, Southampton’s predecessor as captain of the Isle of Wight, had exercised electoral patronage over the three boroughs in the island, Yarmouth, Newtown and Newport, having revived their parliamentary representation. Southampton had apparently little difficulty in continuing this patronage in Yarmouth, where he secured the return of his servant, Arthur Bromfield^‡. At Newtown the earl initially tried to nominate both Members. On 4 Feb. he wrote to William Meux^‡, a local landowner, asking him to ensure that the borough returned two of his friends, whom he did not name. In fact, the borough elected Meux himself, alongside the vice chamberlain of the household, Sir John Stanhope^* (subsequently 1st Lord Stanhope of Harrington). It is likely that Stanhope was one of Southampton’s nominees, as the earl may well have agreed to nominate a privy councillor in gratitude for his rehabilitation. At Newport it is possible that Southampton nominated John Astell^‡, an obscure lawyer. However, there is no known connection between the two men, and Astell was probably already well known in the Isle of Wight.77 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 151, 154, 164; iii. 67; Add. 46501, f. 202.

On the mainland Southampton’s electoral influence was more uncertain. At around this time he replaced Hunsdon as both custos rotulorum and one of the two lord lieutenants of Hampshire, but the patent for the latter office was not issued until 10 Apr., after the 1604 session had started. Nevertheless, he may have played a part in the election to the junior knighthood of the shire of his friend, Sir William Jephson^‡, whose brother, John Jephson^‡, had served with him in Ireland.78 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 145; HMC Hatfield, xi. 20; Moryson, ii. 244. It is also possible that Southampton was responsible for the election of Sir Thomas Jermyn^‡ and Thomas Antrobus^‡ at Andover. Although not mentioned as high steward of Andover until 1606, Southampton had earlier connections with the borough, having received £10 from the town in the autumn of 1604. Moreover, the previous high steward had been Essex, who had secured a new charter for the town in 1599; Southampton’s close connection with the borough’s former patron may have given him influence over its parliamentary elections. Furthermore, Southampton had fought in Ireland with Jermyn, while Antrobus was connected with another former member of the Essex faction, Roger Manners^*, 5th earl of Rutland.79 Hants RO, 37M85/4/AC/2, unfol.; HP Commons, 1558-1603, i. 168; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 147; iii. 47. Southampton almost certainly encountered at least one failure in his attempt to exercise parliamentary patronage in 1604. On 27 Feb. Sir John Thynne^‡ of Longleat, Wiltshire was asked to provide a seat for an unnamed candidate, presumably for a Wiltshire borough. Southampton may have approached Thynne because he had recently intervened in an Admiralty Court case on behalf of Sir John’s brother, Edward, but, his request seems to have been declined.80 Longleat, Thynne Pprs. (IHR mic. XR.71/4) vol. 7, f. 306; Add. 12506, f. 121; Collins, Peerage, ii. 501. The three names at the bottom of the letter, headed by that of ‘Sir Edward [sic] Sandes’, must be of a later date because the second name is ‘Sir’ George Calvert^‡, who was not knighted until 1617. In total, Southampton appears to have played a role in the election of five or six members of the lower House.

In the 1604 session Southampton was listed as present at 47 of the 71 sittings, two thirds of the total. After attending the first two sittings (19 and 22 Mar.) he was excused on 26 Mar., when the lord chamberlain (Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk) announced that he had been commanded to attend the king at Royston.81 LJ, ii. 266a. He returned on 5 Apr., whereupon Parliament adjourned for Easter. After the session resumed on the 11th, he missed only one sitting (30 Apr.) before 21 May, but his attendance declined thereafter and he was subsequently absent 15 times. Ironically, it was probably during this latter period that Henry Windsor^*, 5th Lord Windsor, appointed Southampton as his proxy. No connection between Windsor and Southampton has been established, but the appointment indicates the earl’s continued personal connections with members of the Catholic community.82 Ibid. 263b. At the start of the session the king made Southampton one of the triers of petitions from Gascony and England’s other overseas territories, another sign that James was willing to grant the earl status, but not power.83 Ibid. 264a. Southampton was subsequently named to 19 of the 70 committees appointed by the upper House during the session but made only one recorded speech.

Southampton was appointed to his first committee on 5 April. Its brief was to consider two bills, one for payment of the debts of Sir Henry Unton^‡, a deceased Essexian diplomat, the other to prevent drunkenness. The texts of both were delivered to Southampton and the committee was instructed to sit on the 13th. However, it seems likely that the committee failed to meet at the appointed time, for on 14 Apr., on Southampton’s motion, the meeting was deferred until the following Tuesday. Neither measure was reported.84 Ibid. 274a, 278a.

Southampton was named to the committee to confer with the Commons about the proposed union with Scotland on 14 April. He and the rest of this committee, with additions, were instructed to attend a further conference a week later and, on 10 May, Southampton was nominated one of the commissioners for the Union. His remaining conference appointments concerned religion, purveyance and wardship. On the latter occasion (21 May) he was not recorded as present in the chamber.85 Ibid. 277b, 282b, 284a, 290b, 296a, 303a. His legislative appointments included measures to prevent the import of Catholic books, the use of gold and silver in dress and the export of artillery. He was also among those added to the committee for the bill to enforce existing laws against Jesuits, seminary priests and recusants after a revised version was given a second reading on 19 June.86 Ibid. 285a, 290a, 299b, 301b, 324b. On 19 Apr. he was among the lords sent to inform the king of the House’s decision concerning the disputed inheritance of the Abergavenny peerage.87 Ibid. 283a.

On 26 Mar. a bill to restore Southampton in blood received a first reading in the upper House. This measure removed Southampton’s corruption in blood, but its significance was largely symbolic, as in practice it did little more than confirm the previous year’s restoration of his lands and titles. It was read for a second time the following day, when it was ordered to be engrossed without being referred to committee. It was sent to the Commons at the end of the month. There the bill was committed on 2 Apr., alongside measures to restore Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex (the son of Southampton’s friend) and Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel. The committee included his friend Sir William Jephson, Sir John Stanhope (in his capacity as a privy councillor), and Sir William Hervey^* (subsequently Lord Hervey), who had married Southampton’s mother. All three bills were reported by Sir Francis Bacon on 3 Apr., and were given a third reading eight days later. It is noticeable that, although questions were asked about Arundel’s allegiance to the Church of England, nothing was said about Southampton. On the 24th the Speaker presented Southampton’s thanks to the lower House for passing the bill. It was enacted on 7 July, the last day of the session.88 Ibid. 266a, 267b, 269a; CJ, i. 160, 162, 168, 183, 941; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1603/1J1n36; HMC 3rd Rep. 11.

For most of the session Southampton was closely connected to the court. Not only did he attend the king at Royston, his daughter was baptized in the Chapel Royal in April. Moreover, letters written by Southampton on 16 Apr. and 17 May were dated from the court at Whitehall.89 Old Cheque-Book, or Book of Remembrance, of the Chapel Royal ed. E.F. Rimbault (Cam. Soc. n.s. iii), 173; Add. 12506, ff. 159, 213. However, late in the evening on Sunday 24 June he was suddenly arrested, along with two other former members of the Essex faction, Henry Danvers^*, Lord Danvers (later earl of Danby) and Sir Henry Neville^‡. Sir Maurice Berkeley^‡ and several other men were also detained. According to the French ambassador numerous contradictory rumours circulated to account for the arrests. It was said that a plot had been discovered against the king and Prince Henry, against the Scottish courtiers or against the Howards. It was also suggested that the charges against Southampton were trumped up because the earl was thought to be an ally of Cecil, whom the pro-Spanish faction at court wished to weaken in the peace negotiations with Spain, which were then underway. Another suggestion was that Southampton had been arrested because he was having an affair with Anne of Denmark; he had been appointed master of her game.90 PRO31/3/38; CSP Ven. 1603-7, pp. 165. 168; Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 140-2.

Evidence for the true reason for Southampton’s imprisonment is fragmentary, but it seems likely that it had its origins in allegations made by a Sussex recusant to Robert Sackville^*, Lord Buckhurst (later 2nd earl of Dorset), which eventually came to the attention of Cecil. Southampton, it was claimed, was the leader of a conspiracy to provoke a Catholic rebellion by persuading Parliament to tighten the laws against recusancy. (Southampton had been appointed to consider a bill to enforce the laws against Catholics on 19 June, and a redrafted version of this measure was presented to the Lords the day before his arrest.) Other alleged conspirators reportedly included the puritan Sir Maurice Berkeley and the Catholic Francis Tresham, who had participated in Essex’s rebellion.91 SP14/8/126. See also the examination of Sir Maurice Berkeley, misdated 1606, in Hatfield House, CP118/111. The fear that there existed an alliance of the disaffected, consisting of puritans and Catholics, much like the one that had supported Essex in 1601, would explain why a royal chaplain tried to recruit an emergency guard from among those gentry resident in and around London who were neither Catholics nor puritans.92 HMC Gawdy, 92-3. However, the claim that a conspiracy existed soon proved false as Southampton and the others who had been detained were examined by the Council and released the following day without further proceedings, forestalling any complaints that the privileges of Parliament had been breached. Before long the earl had returned to favour. According to the Venetian ambassador, Southampton told the king that if he knew the identity of his accuser he would challenge him to a duel, but James, though he responded sympathetically, declined to reveal his source.93 Ibid.; CSP Ven. 1603-7, pp. 165. 168.

Following his arrest Southampton missed five sittings in the Lords, but he resumed his seat on 29 June. Southampton’s return to favour was confirmed in late July when he received a grant of royal land, which he sold, probably making more than £2,500 in the process.94 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 137; Stone, 221. He subsequently played a prominent role in the ceremonies which accompanied the signing of peace with Spain, although, the previous year, he had reportedly been hostile to ending the war. In the celebrations following the conclusion of the treaty he led Anne of Denmark out to dance.95 A.J. Loomie, ‘Toleration and Diplomacy: the Religious Issue in Anglo-Spanish Relations, 1603-5’, Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. n.s. liii. 36; Spain and the Jacobean Catholics I: 1603-12 ed. A.J. Loomie (Cath. Rec. Soc. lxiv), 8. He remained in favour in March 1605, when the king, Cecil (by now Viscount Cranborne) and the countess of Suffolk acted as godparents at the christening of his first son, James^‡.96 Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, ii. 54.

Southampton was present in the upper House on the first day of the second session, on 5 Nov. 1605, when the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot was announced. He was subsequently recorded as attending 47 of the 85 sittings, 55 per cent of the total. He was named to a higher proportion of the upper House’s committees, 27 out of 72, but again made only one recorded speech. His first appointment, on 30 Jan. 1606, was to consider a measure against swearing. Given custody of the bill, he reported five days later that the committee thought the bill inadequate but would redraft it if some of the king’s counsel were instructed to assist them. He complained that so far the crown law officers had failed to attend the committee, even though Sir John Croke^‡, one of the king’s serjeants, had been appointed to do so when it was originally established. His motion was approved, but further consideration was deferred to the following day.97 LJ, ii. 365a, 368b. When the House reassembled it was the earl of Northampton who now took the lead. At his motion the legal assistants were instructed to attend a further meeting of the committee, and it was he rather than Southampton who introduced the new bill on 22 February. Nevertheless, Southampton and the other members of the old committee were named to consider the redrafted measure two days later.98 Ibid. 369a, 379b, 381b.

Appointed to the committee for reviewing anti-Catholic legislation in the light of the Gunpowder Plot, Southampton was named to confer with the Commons on the same subject on 3 February.99 Ibid. 360b, 367b. On 7 Apr. he was instructed to consider an answer to the request of the lower House for a conference on religion, and, perhaps for that reason, was included the following day on the committee named to attend this meeting ‘presently, or this afternoon’, although, he was not marked as present at that sitting.100 Ibid. 409a, 410b. Among his legislative appointments, he was presumably interested in that bill to provide a jointure for the wife of the 3rd earl of Essex.101 Ibid. 379a. He was apparently appointed to four bill committees in his absence, including a measure to confirm the sale of a manor by Charles Blount^*, earl of Devonshire. Devonshire, a former follower of Essex under whom Southampton had served in Ireland, had died on 3 Apr., before the sale had been completed.102 Ibid. 433b. Southampton may have been appointed in absentia because he was named an overseer of Devonshire’s will and was a trustee of Devonshire’s estate.103 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 81; PROB 11/108, ff. 1-2v.

The king visited Southampton’s home at Beaulieu in the summer of 1606. Lavishly entertained by the earl, James so enjoyed hunting there that he resolved to return frequently. Indeed, he not only returned the following year but six further times at least.104 Nichols, ii. 95 & n.2; iii. 492; iv. 903; HMC Hatfield, xviii. 270; xix. 206; Chamberlain Letters, i. 462; Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 16; Add. 72253, f. 140. Southampton’s estate was not all that James found agreeable, for in 1606, and on two further occasions, the earl’s conformist chaplain, Christopher Hampton, preached before him defending the divine right of kings, royal supremacy and episcopacy.105 Oxford DNB, xxiv. 994.

The third session of Parliament commenced in the following November. Although Southampton attended 75 of the 106 sittings, 71 per cent of the total, his personal appearances tailed off towards the end of the session. Indeed, he was recorded as present only 57 per cent of the time after Easter 1607. He was accordingly named to more than half of the committees appointed by the Lords, 25 out of 41, including three in his absence in June 1607, and probably spoke at least three times.

On 24 Nov. 1606 Southampton was named to confer with the Commons about the Union. On 9 Mar. 1607 he was also appointed to a subcommittee ordered to prepare a report to the Lords about the conference on naturalization held two days previously.106 LJ, ii. 452b, 485b. There is no evidence in the surviving parliamentary records that he opposed the Union. However, according to the French ambassador, he was one of a small group of peers who tried to persuade James over the Easter recess to conciliate the Commons. This overture apparently drew an angry response from the king, who accused Southampton and his fellow peers of ingratitude and opposition. Southampton was the first to draw James’s fire, but whether this indicates that he was considered to be the ringleader is unclear. It may, instead, suggest that James was particularly angry with Southampton, who had benefited more from his generosity than the other peers mentioned in the ambassador’s account.107 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie en Angleterre (1750), ii. 199-200.

During the course of the session Southampton seems to have demonstrated a close interest in three private bills. The first of these concerned the estate of the late Sir Jonathan Trelawny^‡. This measure was intended to confirm an act passed in the 1605-6 session enabling trustees, including Cecil (now earl of Salisbury) and Sir Henry Neville, to sell part of the Trelawny property. Southampton was named to the committee on 16 Mar., and four days later reported the bill, which was subsequently enacted.108 LJ, ii. 489a, 492b; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 560. The second private measure in which Southampton appears to have shown a close interest was the bill to confirm the economic privileges of the city of Southampton. On 17 Apr. the city corporation wrote to Southampton seeking his support, with the result that, when the measure was given a second reading in the upper House on 16 June, Southampton was named to the committee. The earl presumably helped ensure the bill’s enactment as the borough subsequently gave him a present of a ‘butt of most excellent sack’.109 Soton Mayor’s Bk. of 1606-8 ed. W.J. Connor (Soton Recs. Ser. xxi), 76, 88; LJ, ii. 526a. The third private bill in which Southampton may have taken a close interest concerned an exchange of property between the king and Salisbury. During the Easter recess Southampton was invited by Salisbury to view his newly acquired estate at Hatfield, and, after the session resumed, Southampton was appointed to the committee for the bill to confirm the exchange.110 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 354; LJ, ii. 511a.

Southampton was twice involved in matters of privilege during the session. The first occasion was on 31 Mar., when the House ordered the arrest of three men for imprisoning a servant of Francis Clifford^*, 4th earl of Cumberland. As the session was about to be adjourned for Easter, and the Lords did not want the culprits to languish in gaol during the recess, Cumberland and Southampton were ordered to settle the matter themselves.111 LJ, ii. 409b. The second occasion arose on 20 May, when Oliver St John^*, 3rd Lord St John of Bletso, claimed privilege for one of Southampton’s servants named John Foster, although Southampton himself was recorded as present in the chamber that day. Foster was brought before the Lords seven days later and released, whereupon Southampton moved that the party responsible should be discharged without punishment after making a ‘humble submission’. When the arresting officer appeared two days later, he too was released at Southampton’s request, although the earl was not then recorded as present.112 Ibid. 511b, 512b, 514b-15a.

During the interval between the third and fourth sessions of the first Jacobean Parliament, Southampton corresponded with Salisbury, appointed lord treasurer in May 1608, over a matter of great concern to his financial security. In June 1608 Salisbury decided to introduce a wide range of impositions to augment the customs on foreign trade. These new impositions were to be levied without the consent of Parliament, but it was not the constitutional implications of the levies which concerned Southampton, as his farm of the sweet wine duties already included an un-parliamentary imposition introduced in 1573. What Southampton feared most was that additional impositions would diminish imports of sweet wines, thereby lessening the value of his farm, which he described as ‘the best means I have to subsist’. Without this income ‘I should be enforced to live in a very mean fashion’. Having received assurances that he would suffer no prejudice by the new impositions, Southampton pressed for an extension of his lease, due to expire in 1612. Without such an extension, Southampton claimed, ‘I shall become bankrupt’. He also requested permission to farm any new impost on sweet wines, or at least that it should be collected by his officers.113 Hatfield House, CP125/169; 195/18; F.C. Dietz, English Public Finance 1558-1641, pp. 315-16, 347. However, sweet wines were exempted from the 1608 impositions, so the question of farming them did not arise.114 Dietz, 370.

Southampton received an unfavourable response from Salisbury to his request for an extension of his farm. The proposal, the lord treasurer wrote, was ‘repugnant to the instant time and to the nature of my place’, as it would deprive the king of future revenue which was desperately needed. This reply was calculated to instil in Southampton the fear that Salisbury intended to take the collection of the duties on sweet wines into the king’s hands. Nonetheless, Salisbury assured Southampton that when the king’s debts were paid ‘I will … do as much for you as you shall impose upon me’. Given the parlous state of the royal finances, this promise was all but meaningless. Salisbury also added, somewhat obscurely, that the new impositions ‘shall be so far from turning to your harm as it shall not only yield you present benefit but serve for a preparative hereafter to further that which now you desire’. He said he would explain his meaning in person when they next met.115 Nottingham UL, NeC2.

The fourth session of Parliament began on 9 Feb. 1610. Southampton attended 61 of the 95 sittings (64 per cent of the total), was appointed to 20 of the 58 committees established by the upper House, but made no recorded speeches. He is not recorded as having taken his seat before 15 Feb., but was named in his absence to attend the conference with the Commons that afternoon to hear Salisbury outline the crisis in the royal finances. On 26 Feb. he was appointed to the delegation sent to inform the king that the Commons wanted permission to negotiate with the crown over buying out feudal tenures and wardship in return for financial support.116 LJ, ii. 550b, 556b. He was also named to a subcommittee appointed by the committee of the whole House on 3 May to consider the problems of clerical non-residence and pluralism. The same committee, with additions, was instructed on 11 June to consider the bill against enforcing Canons which had not been confirmed by Parliament. Southampton was apparently absent that day, which may explain why he was added to this committee on 5 July, even though, as one of the Lords appointed on 3 May, he was already technically a member.117 Ibid. 587a, 611a-b.

On 18 Apr. Southampton quarrelled with Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (subsequently 4th earl of Pembroke) during a tennis match in which ‘the rackets flew about their ears’. According to one account he and Montgomery were going out to fight a duel when they were intercepted by Suffolk, who brought them before the king, whereupon they were reconciled.118 HMC Downshire, ii. 280; Chamberlain Letters, i. 297-8. The following month, following the assassination of Henri IV, it was reported that Southampton was being considered for an extraordinary embassy to France, but in the event the place was filled by Edward Wotton^*, 1st Lord Wotton.119 HMC Downshire, ii. 299; HMC Buccleuch, i. 91. In the feast following Prince Henry’s creation as prince of Wales, on 4 June, Southampton served as the prince’s carver.120 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 180; Nichols, ii. 360; HMC Downshire, ii. 316. However, the earl of Huntingdon says he was the cupbearer. Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 98.

When Parliament resumed in the autumn, Southampton was scarcely to be seen. He attended only seven of the 21 sittings of the session, a third of the total. Nevertheless, he was named to four of the seven committees appointed by the Lords. The first of these, on 22 Oct., was apparently in his absence, and concerned a bill for preserving timber. His other legislative appointments concerned the export of artillery and the administration of Prince Henry’s household and estates. He was also named, on 25 Oct., to attend a conference with the Commons to urge the lower House to come to a conclusion about the Great Contract.121 LJ, ii. 669a, 670a, 671a, 677a.

The quest for office, the Addled Parliament and foreign policy concerns, 1611-18

In June 1611, with his grant having less than a year left to run, Southampton surrendered his farm of sweet wines in return for a pension of £2,000, payable out of the same duties.122 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 40. Sir John Holles^* (later 1st earl of Clare) believed that Southampton owed the award of this annuity to the favour of the Scottish courtier, Robert Carr^*, Viscount Rochester (subsequently earl of Somerset), suggesting that, like Sir Henry Neville, Southampton had gained access to Rochester via the viscount’s intimate friend, Sir Thomas Overbury.123 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 74. Southampton, like Neville, with whom he had long been associated, began to hope for major political advancement in the autumn of 1611, presumably through Overbury. Southampton was subsequently described as Neville’s ‘champion’, and therefore it is likely that he was involved in Neville’s intrigues with Overbury.124 HMC Buccleuch, i. 101; Chamberlain Letters, i. 387.

Southampton had probably long hoped for a place on the Privy Council, but it was only now, with the prospect of success, that he made his wish known. Consequently, when, in September 1611, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, was made a councillor rather than him, Southampton was so disappointed that he retired to the country. In November the king attempted to soothe his injured feelings by offering to send him to Spain to convey the crown’s condolences on the death of Philip III’s consort, Margaret of Austria. This mission, observed John Chamberlain, would be ‘a step’ towards a seat on the Council, ‘the missing whereof’ he ‘took very unkindly’.125 Chamberlain Letters, i. 313, 352. Southampton, however, feared that an embassy to Spain would be more than he could afford, and by early December he had excused himself.126 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 259.

Southampton’s chief obstacle to a seat on the Council was almost certainly Salisbury. Consequently, following Salisbury’s death in May 1612, it was reported that Southampton would not only finally achieve his ambition but also succeed Salisbury as lord treasurer.127 Chamberlain Letters, i. 352; HMC Downshire, iii. 315. At the same time it was also reported that Neville would be appointed secretary of state. However, Southampton and Neville overplayed their hand. The king was informed of ‘meetings and consultations’ in Rochester’s rooms between Neville, Southampton, Edmund Sheffield^*, 3rd Lord Sheffield (later 1st earl of Mulgrave) and many of the more prominent members of the previous Parliament. James was affronted, and declared that he would ‘not have a secretary imposed upon him by Parliament’. By mid June Southampton was obliged to return home empty handed.128 Chamberlain Letters, i. 358-9.

Southampton was back in London by October 1612, when he formed part of the delegation which welcomed the Elector Palatine, Frederick V, on his arrival in England.129 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 403. The following month Chamberlain reported that Neville was making good progress towards securing the secretaryship, but was hindered by his insistence that places be provided for Southampton and his other allies.130 Chamberlain Letters, i. 387. At the end of November Southampton apparently overcame an important obstacle to preferment by being reconciled to Northampton, who also sought the lord treasurership.131 HMC Portland, ix. 39. The reconciliation was almost certainly superficial, as Northampton undoubtedly saw Southampton and Neville’s connections with Rochester, via Overbury, as a threat to his own ambitions. He therefore set out to break the relationship by encouraging his great-niece, Frances, unhappily married to Essex, to initiate proceedings to nullify her marriage. Frances had fallen in love with Rochester and, if her marriage was annulled, she would be free to wed the favourite, drawing him into Northampton’s kinship network. Moreover, Southampton would be bound to defend Essex, so opening up a rift with between Southampton and Rochester.

This plan worked perfectly. As Northampton had hoped, a quarrel soon erupted between Overbury and Rochester over the favourite’s plan to marry Frances, and, in April 1613, Overbury was removed from the scene entirely by being committed to the Tower, where he died the following September.132 A. Bellany, Pols. of Ct. Scandal, 52. By May 1613 the court had divided into two competing factions, the Howards on one side and, on the other, ‘all these that Overbury drew to him and about my Lord of Rochester’ including Southampton, ‘some of the most discontented noble men of the younger sort, and all the Parliament mutineers’.133 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 51.

Southampton and his allies now faced two major political problems. One was how to secure the release of Overbury, who had incurred the lasting enmity of the king. The other was the Essex annulment proceedings. Southampton also faced a further problem, his poor health, which necessitated a journey to Spa in late June. At the time that he left it was reported that ‘his great sickness is supposed to be a discontentment’ at not being made a privy councillor, but in fact he had been planning the journey for at least a month beforehand, and it probably did not suit his purposes to be out of the country at that juncture, especially as the king was planning to return to Beaulieu later that summer.134 HMC Downshire, iv. 117, 157; SO3/5, unfol. (24 June 1613); T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 252-3. By early August Southampton felt well enough to return to England. Before leaving, he expressed the hope that Overbury, after promising not to return without the king’s permission, would be allowed to go into voluntary exile. This done, the way would be clear for Neville to be appointed secretary. So far as the annulment of Essex’s marriage was concerned, he declared, somewhat surprisingly, that he would be glad for it to ‘go forward’. Nonetheless, his precise words suggest that he had doubts about the legality of the proceedings. He was also alarmed at the pressure the king had put on the investigating commissioners to decide in favour of the annulment.135 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 475.

The Essex marriage was formally annulled on 25 Sept. 1613.136 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 200. Nothing now stood in the way of Rochester’s marriage to Frances, cementing the Howards’ hold on the court. Publicly at least, Southampton signalled his approval; on 4 Nov. he carried the cap of state at the ceremony which saw Rochester created earl of Somerset.137 Nichols, ii. 702. However, aside from attending Somerset’s marriage the following month, he seems mainly to have stayed away from court.138 HMC Downshire, iv. 256; E.M. Tenison, Elizabethan Eng. xii. 529-30.

By November 1613 it was rumoured that a Parliament would soon meet. Southampton thought this unlikely, despite the parlous condition of the royal finances, and even if a Parliament did assemble, ‘the events of it, I fear, will ... be uncertain’.139 HMC Downshire, iv. 256. In fact writs were issued in February 1614. Southampton may have played a role in the return of as many as eight Members of the lower House. He certainly secured the re-election of Bromfield at Yarmouth in the Isle of Wight and may have nominated Neville’s son-in-law, Sir Richard Worsley^‡, at Newport. He probably also secured the election at Newtown of Sir Henry Berkeley^‡ (brother to Sir Maurice), who was married to another of Neville’s daughters, and George Stoughton^‡, whose uncle was the chief steward of the island.140 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 151-4, 164; iii. 205-6; vi. 843. Southampton certainly used his position as overseer of the earl of Devonshire’s will to secure the election of his follower, Sir Richard White^‡, at Bere Alston, where the Blount family were electoral patrons.141 Ibid. ii. 92. In Hampshire Southampton endorsed, ‘with the small power I have in the shire’, Sir Richard Tichborne^‡ and Sir William Uvedale^‡. However, at a meeting of electors held at the assizes, Sir Henry Wallop^‡ was approved as an alternative candidate. Those present wrote to Southampton seeking his support, but he replied that he was already committed to Tichborne and Uvedale, who defeated Wallop at the polls.142 Whithed Letter Bk. (Hants Recs. ser. i), 113-14; HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 145-6. There is no evidence that Southampton sought to influence the election at Andover, although he may well have been responsible for the return of his kinsman, Sir William Sandys^‡, at Winchester.143 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 163.

Southampton was marked as present at every sitting of the upper House in 1614, except those of 7 Apr., when no attendances were recorded, and 2 May. He held two proxies, those of Henry Grey^*, 1st Lord Grey of Groby, with whom he was related through his mother, and Edward Russell^*, 3rd earl of Bedford, who had taken part in the Essex rebellion.144 LJ, ii, 686a-b. He was again appointed a trier for Gascony,145 Ibid. 687a. and was named to six of the nine committees established by the Lords. These included, on 14 Apr., the body appointed to confer with the Commons about the bill to naturalize the children of the Elector Palatine and ensure their right of succession. They also included three legislative appointments, on bills for the preservation of timber, enforcement of the Sabbath and avoidance of lawsuits over bequests of land. His final appointment of the session, on 31 May, was to confer with the Commons about the Sabbath bill.146 Ibid. 692a, 694a, 607b, 708b. 713b.

Southampton made seven recorded speeches, all of them in the last ten sittings, as the Parliament began to founder. The Commons refused to grant supply unless the king surrendered his right to impositions. On 4 May Southampton opined that the Commons were proving obstructive, but he hoped that things would improve ‘when their first heat is a little more spent’.147 HMC Downshire, iv. 397. This assessment proved to be over-optimistic, for on 21 May the Commons asked to confer with the Lords about impositions. In the debates which followed, Southampton agreed with those of his fellow peers who favoured a meeting to hear what the Commons had to say rather than a full-blown conference. He opposed those who wished to consult the judges first, arguing that the House should seek a legal opinion only after they had heard the Commons’ objections.148 HMC Hastings, iv. 250-1. Indeed, on 23 May he acted as a teller when the matter was put to the vote.149 W. Petyt, Jus Parliamentarium (1739), 342, 344.

It soon became clear that a majority of the House was reluctant to discuss impositions with the Commons at all. Southampton was horrified, and, on 24 May he made a lengthy speech in which he argued that, by failing to meet the Commons, ‘we may hinder the business for which the Parliament is called’, namely the crisis in the royal finances. This would ‘do disservice to the king’. He also suggested that a meeting with the Commons would merely begin a long drawn- out process, which might not be concluded that session. This, he claimed, would give advantage to the king as the ‘vigour and force’ of the Commons would be dissipated. He argued that, despite Bate’s Case in 1606, the king’s right to impose had not been definitively established and that ‘this great and high court of Parliament’ could hear causes which concerned the king like any other court. He concluded by saying that he would be sorry if they left as ‘a memorial and record … that the higher House of Parliament should refuse to give the lower House a meeting to hear the just complaints of the people in a matter of right as they conceive’.150 HMC Hastings, iv. 260-1.

Southampton’s advocacy of the Commons’ right to be heard is, perhaps, rather surprising. Abolishing impositions would, after all, threaten the continued payment of his pension.151 LJ, ii. 705a. It is possible that Southampton had already come under the influence of Sir Edwin Sandys, who played a key role in drawing up the Commons’ case against impositions. On 17 May Sandys secured permission for Southampton and other peers with investments in the Virginia Company to be present when Richard Martin^‡ spoke as counsel for the Company.152 Procs. 1614 (Commons), 275. However, there is no other evidence that Sandys and Southampton worked together in 1614. In all likelihood, Southampton still regarded Neville as his primary contact in the Commons, and only turned to Sandys in later parliaments after Neville’s death in 1615. Co-operation with the ‘mutineers’ in the Commons had been a key part of Southampton and Neville’s strategy for securing high office since their intrigues with Overbury, and Southampton was evidently willing to risk his financial security to ensure the success of this strategy.

During the course of his speech, Southampton attacked Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York). Although he did not name the prelate, he quoted the Latin tag noli me tangere (do not touch me) which Neile had used to warn the Commons not to debate impositions. Neile had implied that attacking impositions was virtually treasonable, but Southampton joked that the tag sounded like ‘an ill disease’, and criticized the bishop for his lack of charity.153 HMC Hastings, iv. 261.

Neile’s remarks were reported to the Commons, where they caused uproar. On 31 May the Lords asked Neile to declare whether he had spoken the offending words, but their request led to ‘a great silence’, whereupon Southampton pressed the bishop to respond, seconding William Fiennes^*, 8th or 2nd Lord (subsequently 1st Viscount) Saye and Sele, who argued that if Neile failed to reply the House should produce their own version of the prelate’s words. This induced Neile to break his silence and make a tearful apology, whereupon Southampton declared that ‘none in this House is willinger to forgive than myself’. On ‘hear[ing] a muttering in the further side of the House’, presumably from the bishops’ bench, he added that ‘it is one thing to forgive and another … to affirm … what the words were that were spoken’. He was appointed to a committee to draft a reply to the Commons.154 Ibid. 275, 277; LJ, ii. 713b.

Southampton’s last recorded speech was delivered on 6 June. The king had issued a commission for dissolving the Parliament, but its execution was delayed while the upper House waited for the Commons to decide whether to vote supply. Suffolk queried whether the commissioners were entitled to hang fire, but Southampton declared this to be a matter for the commissioners alone to decide, and proposed that they should retire to consider it.155 HMC Hastings, iv. 281. In the event, the Commons failed to vote taxes and the Parliament was dissolved the next day. Following the dissolution it was reported that the king was angry with Southampton, whose chances of promotion were now bleak.156 HMC Downshire, iv. 426. The earl had already decided to return to Spa – his plans having been laid before the Parliament convened - and left England in July, possibly having already paid the £110 he contributed towards the benevolence levied by the king.157 SO3/6, unfol. (10 July 1614); HMC Downshire, iv. 351, 456, 469; Add. 72311, f. 7.

In the summer of 1614 a crisis over the succession to strategically placed German principalities in the lower Rhineland erupted. This led to the mobilization of the Spanish and Dutch armies and the seizure of Wesel by the former, although direct fighting between the Spanish and Dutch was avoided. Southampton was fascinated by these events and he travelled to the Rhineland to observe the armies and was present when the Dutch captured the town of Rees. On returning to England in September, he tried to impress on James the significance of the events in Germany, particularly the occupation of Wesel, which had so alarmed the Dutch. However, James was reluctant to take firm measures against Spanish aggression, since he was beginning to explore the possibility of a Spanish marriage for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales). This prospect horrified Southampton, who by now was a member of a faction at court which wanted Charles to marry a Protestant rather than a Spanish or French princess.158 HMC Downshire, iv. 499-501, v. 29, 31, 62; Autobiog. of Ld. Herbert of Cherbury ed. S.L. Lee, 79; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 233; J.I. Israel, Dutch Republic and the Hispanic World, 22; Add. 32023B, ff. 231v-232.

Southampton intended to return to Spa in 1615, but he was forced to abandon his plan when he learned that he would have to play host to the king at Beaulieu again.159 HMC Downshire, v. 268. That July he was listed by Holles as one of the supporters of Sir George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham), who was being promoted by Somerset’s enemies as an alternative favourite. Holles believed that Southampton was discontented at not having been made a privy councillor.160 Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 74. James subsequently visited Beaulieu, where he received the sensational news that Sir Thomas Overbury had been poisoned. This set in train an investigation which ultimately led to the downfall of Somerset, who was discovered to have been party to the murder of his former friend.161 Carew Letters, 16. Carew incorrectly dates the episode to October (rather than August) 1615.

By the autumn of 1616 his close association with Villiers meant that Southampton was once again in favour with the king. In September it was reported that he had been appointed to accompany James on his journey to Scotland the following year, ‘the king loving him so well that he will not leave him behind him’.162 HMC Downshire, vi. 3. When Prince Charles was created prince of Wales in November, Southampton served as cupbearer at the celebratory feast, while his eldest son was created a knight of the Bath.163 Nichols, iii. 213, 219. Although high office still eluded Southampton, James informed the Council in March 1617 that he intended to appoint the earl commander of a projected naval expedition against the Algerian pirates instead of the ageing Lord Admiral Nottingham.164 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 450. The proposed appointment was apparently promoted by Secretary of State Sir Ralph Winwood^‡, and was popular among the merchant community; in April the Venetian ambassador reported that they were willing to pay 40,000 crowns (£12,000) towards the expedition if Southampton was made admiral, and the earl himself was reputedly willing to contribute substantially to the costs, although in reality it is unlikely that he would have been able to afford to do so. The expedition was opposed by the Spanish ambassador, Gondomar, who suspected, quite correctly, that it was in reality aimed against Spain and that Southampton intended to supplant Nottingham as lord admiral. Playing on the king’s suspicions of Southampton’s forceful personality and popularity, Gondomar convinced James that ‘it would not be safe to place such a large force, so well armed, in the hands of a subject with such a following and of such high rank and spirit’. James may also have come to realize that he might face the same difficulty controlling Southampton in the field as Elizabeth had done with Essex, and that he would therefore lose control of his foreign policy.165 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 170; CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 496; 1619-21, p. 299; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. iii. 70.

Southampton was consequently not assigned command of the fleet, nor was he given significant office. Not surprisingly he was bitter, and, in June 1618, he reportedly persuaded Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer, whose eldest son William^* (subsequently 2nd Lord Spencer) had married Southampton’s daughter, not to purchase one of the earldoms put up for sale to fund the king’s progress.166 HMC Bath, ii. 68. Nevertheless, he continued to enjoy limited royal favour. The king visited Beaulieu again that year, and early in 1619 he was given, with Buckingham’s help, another pension, this time amounting to £1,200, out of the alienations office. This was to compensate him for the damage done to his land by the large number of deer in the New Forest.167 Nichols, iii. 492; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 16; SO3/6, unfol. (June 1619); G. P. V. Akrigg, ‘Something More About Shakespeare’s Patron’, Shakespeare Quarterly, xxviii. 70-1.

Southampton evidently did not blame Buckingham for his failure to secure command of the expeditionary fleet, despite the fact that it was the favourite, not he, who replaced Nottingham as lord admiral in January 1619. One reason for supposing this to be the case is that a paper was written in February 1619 for the new lord admiral by Southampton’s friend, Lord Danvers. In this document, Danvers envisaged that Buckingham himself would lead the forthcoming expedition to Algiers, and thereby gain both glory and valuable naval experience. In the process, he would also check the naval power of Spain, a matter of vital importance to Southampton. Although he did not say so, Danvers may have imagined that Buckingham, were he to lead the expedition in person, would require an experienced deputy, possibly Southampton himself.168 Bodl., Clarendon 2, f. 108.

Promotion to the Privy Council and the 1621 Parliament

At the end of April 1619 Southampton’s ambition was finally achieved. ‘Against all men’s expectation’, and ‘when he seemed least to look for it’, he was appointed to the Privy Council.169 Add. 72253, f. 33; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 234. He owed his sudden elevation to Buckingham, who had been alarmed by the king’s sudden, near fatal illness. According to both Sir Edward Conway^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Conway) and the Tuscan ambassador, Buckingham brought Southampton into the Council to strengthen his position there. The Tuscan envoy added that James only reluctantly made the appointment to please his favourite, as he did not like Southampton’s ‘restless and forceful character and is somewhat suspicious of his popularity’.170 R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 65; SP14/109/16. This was not perhaps entirely accurate as the king appears not to have objected to spending time in Southampton’s company. Nonetheless, James was certainly wary of the earl’s popularity, which was confirmed by the widespread applause with which the appointment was greeted.171 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 24; Add. 72326, f. 135. In early modern England, popularity was associated with demagoguery, and was perceived as inherently unstable and disorderly. It was particularly feared by James. Moreover courting popularity was an accusation which had been levelled against the 2nd earl of Essex.172 R. Cust, ‘Chas. I and Popularity’, Pols., Religion and Popularity ed. T. Cogswell et al. 238-41. Southampton himself wrote rather disingenuously to Sir Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester) claiming that he had not ‘sought directly nor [sic] indirectly by myself or any of my friends …, nor wished in my heart’ his promotion. He may have been more sincere when he warned his friends to remember ‘how things stand and pass with us, and how little one vulgar councillor is able to effect’. Southampton was clearly warning his allies not to expect a major change in policy towards Spain.173 Stopes, 398-9. Carleton appears to have been brought into Southampton’s circle on his marriage to the step-daughter of the Essexian scholar Sir Henry Savile^‡. SP14/94/50.

Southampton may have hoped that his appointment to the Council was merely a stepping-stone to further advancement. Conway reported in early May that Buckingham intended to surrender the mastership of the horse to him, while at the end of the month it was suggested that he would become captain of the gentlemen pensioners in place of Theophilus Howard^*, Lord Howard de Walden (subsequently 2nd earl of Suffolk). However, these proposals came to nothing.174 Recs. Virg. Co. i. 211. Southampton’s known anti-Spanish views meant that he was soon being mentioned in connection with military aid for the king’s son-in-law, the Elector Palatine, whose right to the throne of Bohemia was being contested by the Habsburgs. One foreign ambassador suggested that the earl was regarded as England’s pre-eminent soldier, which was presumably more a testimony to Southampton’s cultivation of the martial legacy of the Essex faction than his own relatively meagre military experience.175 Reade, i. 284; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 75. In November the Venetian ambassador to the United Provinces reported that Southampton and Sir Edward Cecil^* (later Viscount Wimbledon) would be sent to the Palatinate with 4,000 men.176 CSP Ven. 1619-21, p. 52. The following January his colleague in England claimed that the earl had offered to spend £40,000 of his own money on the expedition.177 Ibid. 137. There were further reports in March 1620 that Southampton would be appointed to command an English force to aid the German Protestant princes.178 SP14/113/33; Add. 72275, f. 100.

In the event James decided not to go to war in support of his son-in-law, although he did allow volunteers to be raised to defend the Elector’s hereditary lands. Southampton still hoped to be allowed to command these forces, and was supported by the Elector’s representative, but James would not permit one of his privy councillors to command an army unless it was in his name. Moreover, Gondomar again played on James’s fear of placing troops in Southampton’s hands. Consequently, the English forces were put under the command of Sir Horace Vere^* (subsequently Lord Vere of Tilbury).179 Add. 72253, f. 122r-v; SP81/17, f. 62v; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 100; CSP Ven. 1619-21, pp. 229, 275; Reade, i. 284.

Southampton’s failure to secure a military appointment meant that, in June 1620, he was free to accept his election as treasurer (effectively governor) of the Virginia Company, of which he had been a member since its foundation in 1609. The previous month James had vetoed the re-election of the former treasurer, Sir Edwin Sandys, ‘as [the] principal man that had withstood him in Parliament and traduced his government’. Southampton had thereupon led a delegation to the king requesting that the company be free to elect whomever they wished, but James had insisted on Sandys’s replacement.180 Chamberlain Letters, ii, 305-6; Recs. Virg. Co. i. 242, 260, 357, 384; iii. 216; HMC 8th Rep. pt. 2 (1881), 33.

Over the summer, James again visited Beaulieu, from where he watched the long delayed expedition against the Algerian pirates set sail.181 Add. 72253, f. 140; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 316. Following the Elector Palatine’s crushing defeat at White Mountain in October, Southampton entreated James to come to the aid of his son-in-law, and contributed £1,000 to the benevolence collected to defend the Palatinate.182 Duerloo, 493; SP14/117/2. Reluctantly, James agreed in November to summon a new Parliament. The following month Southampton left London, possibly to mobilize his clients ahead of the forthcoming elections.183 Recs. Virg. Co. i. 434.

Southampton secured control of both seats at Yarmouth in the Isle of Wight, which returned Bromfield with another of the earl’s servants, Thomas Risley^‡. Newtown elected John Ferrar^‡, the deputy treasurer of the Virginia Company, presumably at Southampton’s nomination; the following May Ferrar was re-elected deputy treasurer, specifically at the earl’s request. After Ferrar chose to sit for Tamworth, he was replaced by Sir William Harington^‡, probably at Southampton’s request and as a favour to Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, who had nominated Harington at Leicester. (In 1624 Huntingdon was to entrust his proxy to Southampton.) Southampton may also have secured the election of Sir William Uvedale at Newport, whose mayor sought the earl’s advice. In the Hampshire election he almost certainly backed Sir John Jephson, who was returned for the second seat. Outside Hampshire, Southampton may have been responsible for the election of Thomas Keightley^‡, a prominent member of the Virginia Company, for Bere Alston. The earl’s eldest son, James Wriothesley^‡, Lord Wriothesley, was returned for Callington, despite being only 15, probably at the behest of Pembroke, now lord chamberlain and, like Southampton himself, a supporter of the Bohemian cause.184 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 51, 92, 146, 152, 154, 164; iv. 546; Recs. Virg. Co. i. 473-4; I.o.W. RO, 16a/30, f. 153. In total Southampton probably had a hand in the election of eight members of the Commons.

During the 1621 Parliament, Southampton received the proxy of William Parker^*, 13th Lord Morley, a former adherent of Essex and a fellow member of the Virginia Company; Morley was also Catholic, which is noteworthy, since the London agent of the Archduke Albert (the ruler of the Spanish Netherlands) had recently reported that Southampton had urged James to expel all Catholics from England.185 LJ, iii. 4a; CP, ix. 227-8; Duerloo, 493. Southampton attended 39 of the 44 sittings before Easter, 89 per cent of the total. Appointed by the crown a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, he was also named to 18 of the 28 committees established by the Lords before Easter, during which time he gave 42 recorded speeches.186 LJ, iii. 7a.

Shortly after the Parliament began, Southampton was named to the newly created committee for privileges. By now one of the more experienced members of the upper House, Southampton also began to lecture his colleagues on proper procedure. However, this brought him into conflict with two of his less experienced colleagues on the Privy Council. On 14 Feb., after the Commons requested a conference to discuss drafting a petition against Catholics, he evidently sought to correct Arundel, who wanted the House to agree on the size of the committee before responding to the Commons’ messengers, by expounding upon ‘the ancient manner of the House’. He himself was named to attend the ensuing conference, but, the following day, he again proceeded to lecture the House after it was proposed to add members to the committee. ‘It hath not been the manner of the House’ to add to a committee once chosen, he declared. It would, he advised, be better to transform the committee into a committee of the whole House, for despite the inflation of honours, ‘our number is not great’.187 Ibid. 10b, 17a; ‘Hastings 1621’, pp. 13, 16. When the petition was debated on 16 Feb., Southampton rebuked the lord treasurer, Henry Montagu^*, Viscount Mandeville, (later 1st earl of Manchester), who objected to one of its clauses. Southampton reminded the Lords that they had already agreed to the petition and that Mandeville had been ‘present and consented’ when they did so. He also argued that, although they could propose an amendment to the Commons, they could not insist on a change to a text they had already approved. Aside from showing a strong desire to follow correct procedure, Southampton clearly remained concerned to maintain good relations with the lower House.188 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 5, 7.

On 3 Mar. the Commons requested a conference about monopolies. Southampton was eager to respond positively, moving that they should let the Commons know ‘that when they are ready we will be ready’. He also proposed that the Lords and Commons should act in concert to apprehend the notorious patentee, Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, after the latter escaped. He was subsequently appointed to confer with the Commons and to help draft an arrest warrant.189 Ibid. 11-12; LJ, iii. 34a, 35a. On 12 Mar. Southampton supported Pembroke, who criticized Mandeville and Bacon, now lord chancellor and Viscount St Alban, after they defended Mompesson’s patent at a conference. Southampton argued they had broken the orders of the House because, at conferences, ‘none [were] to speak but by directions’ from the Lords. He also argued that Mandeville had compounded his error by invoking his honour to justify his conduct, whereas ‘the honour of the House is to be preferred to any particular man’s honour’. He added that, since ‘an error’ had been committed, ‘satisfaction must be given’. As a result, Bacon and Mandeville were obliged to apologize.190 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 19.

Following these apologies the Lords asked the Commons to be allowed to view the evidence the Commons had collected against several monopolists. Southampton was appointed to attend the ensuing conference, as was Buckingham, who excused himself and was replaced. In the event, Buckingham did attend the conference, held the following morning, at which he attempted to defend himself against accusations that he had sponsored Mompesson and the other monopolists. He was interrupted by Southampton and Sheffield, on the grounds that he had not received the House’s authority to speak on this subject. Buckingham was so furious that he stormed out of the conference and complained to the upper House. Southampton defended his intervention, arguing that members of the conference committee had been given liberty ‘to be informed only of the proofs touching the business’. He asked his colleagues to vindicate both himself and Sheffield, as either they or Buckingham were at fault. Buckingham, too, wanted a ruling, but the House declined to put the question. According to William Camden, it took Prince Charles to reconcile both sides.191 LJ, iii. 42b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 20-3; ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 69. This incident provides the first indication that relations between Buckingham and Southampton had now soured.

Unlike Buckingham, Southampton enthusiastically supported the revival of the House of Lords’ power of judicature, since it provided a means of prosecuting the monopolists. This is perhaps not entirely surprising, as 20 years earlier Southampton and his fellow Essex rebels had contemplated a judicial role for Parliament. In 1601 Essex and his supporters had hoped to use Parliament to punish those whom they regarded as enemies of the commonwealth. Although there is no evidence that they had thought in terms of reviving impeachment, they had emphasized the role of the nobility in reforming the realm, against the will of the monarch if necessary. Southampton may well have viewed the reintroduction of impeachment in 1621 as a means of putting this idea into action.192 Gajda, 53, 248-9, 252-3.

On 15 Mar. the House resolved itself into a committee to discuss how to proceed with the information they had now received from the Commons. Southampton argued that they should begin by examining the execution of each monopoly. As three patents had been complained of, he recommended that three committees be appointed. He also suggested that, as the Lords, unlike the Commons, had the power to examine witnesses on oath, those who had given evidence to the lower House should be summoned to give sworn testimony. These proposals met with the approval of the rest of the House, and Southampton was subsequently the senior peer appointed to the committee for dealing with the concealed lands patent. He also went on to help establish the procedure to be used in swearing and examining witnesses, a list of whose names was drawn up at his suggestion by the attorney general.193 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 24-6; LJ, iii. 46b-7a.

On 22 Mar. Southampton delivered his report on the concealments patent. He concluded that ‘his Majesty had been abused in the grant, and in the execution’, and argued that the Commons’ complaint had been proved in ‘every point’. In fact, his committee had not only confirmed their investigation but also unearthed additional abuses. In so doing, Southampton openly admitted that he had had extensive informal contacts with ‘divers gentlemen of the lower House, who … as private gentlemen and friends’ had assisted the work of his committee.194 LJ, iii. 62b; C. Russell, PEP, 106. The other committees reported in a similarly damning fashion and, in the ensuing debate, Southampton moved to start by proceeding against Mompesson, whom he thought had been ‘most touched’ and whose flight was tantamount to a confession. The other monopolists could be proceeded against after Easter, which would allow time for them to receive a hearing.195 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 33. During this debate Prince Charles objected after Sheffield spoke twice, whereupon Southampton praised ‘the prince’s care’ but rescued his friend by moving that the House put itself into committee, thereby enabling peers to speak as often as they liked.196 Ibid.; LD 1621, p. 129. That afternoon Southampton once again showed his concern to respect the privileges of the Commons. Seconding Mandeville, he argued that the upper House should be ‘very tender’ in dealing with Sir Francis Michell, one of the patentees examined by the Lords but originally arrested by the Commons, because he was the Commons’ prisoner and ‘never in our custody’.197 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 36; LD 1621, p. 131.

Southampton reiterated the case against the concealments patent on 26 Mar., but that afternoon he argued that this project had been the least heinous of Mompesson’s three monopolies. In all three cases Mompesson had done ‘as much as in him lay to alienate the hearts of the subjects from the king’, and though he did not deserve to receive the death penalty his punishment should be ‘higher than a Star Chamber sentence’. He called for Mompesson to be degraded from the order of knighthood, for him to be banished if the king approved, and for his victims to be compensated from his estate.198 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 41, 43-5. On 27 Mar., after Arundel moved for the records of the upper House to be enrolled, Southampton proposed that the ‘grievances, and the full proceedings versus Mompesson’ should be recorded in a similar fashion.199 Ibid. 48.

Mompesson was not the only high profile figure to be investigated by the 1621 Parliament. On 19 Mar. the Commons accused Bacon, then absent due to ill health, of corruption. Southampton may have derived some satisfaction from the attack on the lord chancellor who, in 1601, despite having once been a follower of Essex, had participated in the prosecution of both his former patron and Southampton himself. Nevertheless, Southampton was keen not to appear vindictive. When Bacon asked to be allowed time to prepare his defence, he proposed that a sympathetic reply be sent, whereupon the Lords informed Bacon that they intended to proceed ‘according to the right rule of justice’, and that he should ‘provide for his defence’ without specifying a time limit.200 A.L. Rowse, Shakespeare’s Southampton, 159, 174-5, 272; LJ, iii. 55b. Nonetheless, Southampton evidently had little doubt that Bacon was guilty, as he did not question the truth of the claim made by two unsuccessful litigants that they had given bribes to the lord chancellor. On the contrary, his only concern was to establish whether those who had won their cases had also bribed Bacon.201 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 28.

Southampton was appointed the following day to one of three committees assigned to examine the accusations against Bacon. That afternoon he supported Holles, by now Lord Houghton, who, in view of the large number of witnesses, moved the investigating committees to select the most important and the points on which they were to be examined.202 LJ, iii. 58b, 60a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 31. On 23 Mar. Southampton reported that Sir Ralph Hansby, who had offered Bacon £500, had been reluctant to answer under examination for fear of prejudicing his case. In the ensuing debate he pointed out that the bribe paid by Hansby was already public knowledge, or else the committee would not have sent for him, whereupon the Lords resolved that Hansby should be re-examined.203 LJ, iii. 67b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 39. On 27 Mar. Arundel moved for the committees to meet over Easter, whereupon Southampton proposed that additions be made to their membership, which suggestion was approved.204 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 52; LJ, iii. 74b.

Southampton spent much of the Easter recess in London, as during that time he signed several documents as a privy councillor.205 APC, 1619-21, pp. 374-6. He also continued to attend one of the Lords’ committees investigating the charges against Bacon. After Easter he is recorded as having attended 39 of the 43 sittings before the summer adjournment. In addition, he also attended the House on 17 Apr., the first sitting after the recess, when he spoke at least three times. In this period he was named to 20 of the 46 or 47 committees appointed by the Lords and made 64 recorded speeches.

One of Southampton’s first tasks, after Easter, was to report to the House ‘what our proceedings have been, and what examinations we have taken’ over the holiday, and to move for additional witnesses to be sworn.206 LD 1621, p. 1. Two days later, on 19 Apr., he delivered his committee’s evidence to the House, along with a request for more time to examine the registrars in Chancery, who had until recently been out of town, in order to determine the truth of an allegation that Bacon habitually altered in private the orders he had made in public court. Despite his wish for further time, Southampton evidently supported Pembroke later that day when the lord chamberlain moved for the three committees to meet together to prepare a summary of the charges against Bacon. Indeed, he added a motion that the king’s counsel should attend the combined committee.207 LJ, iii. 79b-80a; LD 1621, pp. 9-10.

Southampton was eager to bring matters to a speedy conclusion, and, on 24 Apr., he moved the Lords to ‘expedite the cause of the lord chancellor depending’, whereupon the House agreed to sit that afternoon. At this meeting Prince Charles delivered a submission from Bacon which was read to the House. Southampton spoke no less than six times in the ensuing debate. At first he suggested that if the submission was ‘a confession of corruption’, then it was sufficient for the Lords to proceed to sentence the chancellor, but queried whether it was really anything of the sort.208 LD 1621, p. 14. Indeed, later in the debate he complained that there was ‘no word of confession of any corruption’ in the submission. He argued that the ‘justice and honour of this House’ demanded that anyone accused should be formally charged, something which had not yet happened in this case. A confession would then only be accepted if it related specifically to the charge. Nevertheless, protesting that he would ‘deal with the lord chancellor as with my best friend’, he did not insist that Bacon should be charged at the bar of the House. Instead, he was perfectly willing to allow the charges to be sent to him, so giving him time to prepare his defence. He would ‘deny the delinquent nothing without which he may pretend he cannot clear himself’.209 Ibid. 14-17.

Despite this display of reasonableness, Southampton remained a stickler for proper procedure. When, the following day, Bacon sent his reply to the formal charges to the acting Speaker, Southampton persuaded the Lords to ignore it because it was not addressed to the House. He argued that Bacon should instead be compelled to make a formal answer at the bar. He also supported Prince Charles, who moved that Bacon be required to state whether he intended to make a defence or confession. However, when the lord chancellor responded that he would confess, Southampton remained dissatisfied because Bacon had not specified when he would make his confession.210 PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, f. 46; LD 1621, pp. 20-1, 23.

After Bacon’s confession was read, on 30 Apr., Southampton was one of the peers sent to the chancellor to confirm its contents. The same members were also appointed to accompany Prince Charles, who was required to move the king to take the great seal from Bacon.211 LJ, iii. 101a. On 2 May Southampton spoke on the procedure for sentencing Bacon. The following day he made four contributions to the debate on the former chancellor’s punishment. Southampton argued that Bacon’s ‘corruption hath been great’ and unprecedented. Despite having ‘caused precedents to be search[ed] … I know never any chancellor hath been convict[ed] for corruption’. It was therefore up to the Lords ‘to make an example of this such as posterity may give us thanks for’. He moved that Bacon be degraded from the peerage, lose his lands and forbidden to come to court. He opposed banishment, although he thought Bacon ‘worthy’ of that penalty. After various speakers objected to degrading, Southampton argued that at the very least Bacon should be made incapable of sitting in Parliament.212 LD 1621, pp. 60, 62-3; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 91. In the event, the Lords agreed that Bacon should be fined, imprisoned in the Tower during the king’s pleasure, rendered incapable of holding public office and excluded from Parliament and the court. On 12 May, Southampton complained that Bacon was still at liberty. He called for him to be sent to the Tower, ‘that the world may not think our sentence is in vain’.213 LD 1621, p. 79.

Having already come into conflict with Buckingham before the Easter recess, Southampton again clashed with the favourite on the first day that the session resumed. Buckingham informed the House that his half-brother, Sir Edward Villiers^‡_, had returned from a diplomatic mission to Germany. Sir Edward had been involved in Mompesson’s monopolistic activities and Buckingham wanted him examined and cleared so that he could take his seat in the lower House, to which he had been elected. However, Southampton argued that Sir Edward could not be exonerated because he had not been formally charged. This suggested that Southampton was accusing Buckingham of attempting to rush the Lords into vindicating Villiers without giving the latter a proper hearing. Later that morning, Southampton felt obliged to deny that he had accused Buckingham of failing to ‘say anything to clear him’ [i.e. Villiers]. Nonetheless, he took the opportunity to point out that the Lords could question other parties about Sir Edward’s involvement, and to remind his colleagues just how far Villiers had contributed to the misdeeds of the monopolists.214 Ibid. 2; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, f. 23.

One of the accusations Southampton directed at Villiers was that he had urged the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, to imprison those who had resisted the patent for gold and silver thread. Before the recess the king had handed Yelverton over to the Lords for trial. Yelverton was summoned before the upper House on 17 Apr. and the following day, at Southampton’s prompting, he was examined.215 LD 1621, pp. 2, 6; R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, p. 117. On 18 Apr. Yelverton suggested that he could implicate important figures in the monopolies but failed to name names. On appearing again, on 30 Apr., Yelverton accused Buckingham of sponsoring the projects of Mompesson and Sir Edward Villiers. He also alluded to Hugh, Lord Le Despenser^†, the hated favourite of Edward II. Prince Charles protested that Yelverton was implicitly comparing his father to Edward II, thereby accusing James of being weak, and Buckingham moved for Yelverton to be sent to the Tower. However, Southampton argued that Yelverton’s words had been taken out of context and that he should be recalled to explain his meaning.216 Zaller, 119-20; LD 1621, p. 52.

On 2 May the king informed the Lords that, although they could proceed against Yelverton for offending Buckingham’s honour, he would take action himself for the damage to his own and so had taken Yelverton back into custody. However, Southampton protested that the Lords had not agreed that Yelverton had impugned the king’s honour. If he had done so, he said, they were ‘exceedingly to blame’ for failing to recognize the fact. If he had not, James had been misinformed, presumably by Buckingham. He moved the Lords to consider what Yelverton had actually said ‘and the opinion of the House to be had thereon’.217 LD 1621, p. 54; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 85. Buckingham retorted that the Lords should not contradict the king, a rebuke Southampton interpreted as an accusation. He twice called upon the House to clear him, although he seems to have been satisfied after Buckingham explained himself. Later that day Southampton supported Sheffield, who argued that the privileges of the House had been infringed and, what was worse, that its reputation in the eyes of the king had been damaged.218 LD 1621, pp. 54-5, 58-9; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, pp. 85-7. One account states that he told Buckingham that Yelverton had not intended to make any allusion to the king. At this there was ‘some exchange ... but Southampton spared not’ Buckingham.219 CD 1621, vi. p. 395.

In light of these debates, James agreed to refer the whole matter back to the Lords. On 8 May, Prince Charles called upon the House to clear Yelverton or condemn him. Southampton, possibly playing for time, moved the attorney general to repeat those parts of Yelverton’s speech which allegedly concerned the king’s honour.220 LD 1621, p. 72. Four days later, he supported Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, who queried how, if they received a satisfactory explanation from Yelverton after they condemned him, the Lords could reverse their earlier finding. He admitted that Yelverton had spoken foolishly, and deserved censure if he had impugned the king’s honour - an offence he described as differing ‘not much from treason’ - but they should ‘consider of the words before we say the king’s honour is touched’. Later in the same debate he moved that Yelverton be given another hearing. This request was granted, but if it was an attempt to avoid censure it failed, as shortly thereafter the House resolved that Yelverton had indeed impugned the king’s honour. Having asserted all along that Buckingham, rather than the king, had been the target of Yelverton’s remarks, Southampton unsurprisingly conceded, on 16 May, that Sir Henry had impugned the favourite’s honour.221 Ibid. 78, 90; LJ, iii. 119a.

These clashes between Southampton and Buckingham prompted reports that the earl, ‘followed by a large party’, was plotting against the favourite.222 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 53. Sir Anthony Ashley^‡ was almost certainly alluding to Southampton when he informed Buckingham, on 12 May, that ‘your adversaries continue their meetings and conferences … in Holborn’, the site of Southampton House. These same individuals, he added, were conspiring ‘to give his Majesty some foul distaste of you, as making you the only author of all grievances and oppressions’.223 Cabala (1691), i. 2; Gardiner, iv. 126. In reality there was nothing conspiratorial about Southampton’s conflict with Buckingham; he was openly and repeatedly clashing with the favourite on the floor of the upper House. Southampton was not intrinsically opposed to favourites or to Buckingham, with whom he had previously enjoyed good relations. However, by now he may have come to believe that Buckingham, rather than using the monarch’s favour to promote policies in the public interest (as Southampton no doubt thought the 2nd earl of Essex had done), was using it only to enrich himself and his relations. Nevertheless, Southampton appears never to have attempted to strike at Buckingham’s relationship with the king, the foundation of the marquess’ position, by promoting an alternative favourite. It is noticeable that all the incidents in which he came into conflict with the favourite had their origins in the alleged involvement of Buckingham or his relations with the monopolies. Monopolies were Southampton’s principal concern in 1621 because, as in 1614, his strategy was to ingratiate himself with the lower House by pursuing the principal grievance the Commons had identified. In so doing, he necessarily came into conflict with Buckingham.

Southampton’s strategy of conciliating the Commons required the maintenance of good relations between the two houses of Parliament. These were strained by the case of Edward Floyd, a Catholic lawyer whom the Commons tried to punish for insulting the king’s daughter, Elizabeth, queen of Bohemia, and her husband the Elector Palatine Frederick V, thereby infringing the Lords’ control of parliamentary judicature. The ensuing dispute placed Southampton in a difficult position. On the one hand he shared the desire of his colleagues to defend the power of the upper House, but on the other he had no wish to humiliate the Commons. Consequently, on 5 May he warmly approved of a motion to seek a conference with the Commons in order to defend the powers of the upper House. At the same time he urged that the Commons be told ‘why we desire a conference’, so giving them the opportunity to come prepared. He was subsequently appointed to the committee for drafting a message to the Commons.224 PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, pp. 99-100.

Southampton was one of the Lords appointed to speak at the ensuing conference, held that afternoon. Following this meeting, and at Southampton’s motion, the House’s legal assistants were instructed to consider the precedents cited by the representatives of the lower House as evidence that the Commons had judicial powers. Two days later, Southampton joined in the protests when the lord chief justice proceeded to give not merely the assistants’ opinion on these precedents but also their view of the sentence imposed by the Commons on Floyd, a matter Southampton presumably thought was for the House to judge.225 LJ, iii. 110b, 111b; LD 1621, pp. 67-8. In the subsequent debate Southampton declared that the Commons had ‘wronged us’ by infringing the Lords’ powers, and that the precedents produced by them concerned only the regulation of their own House. He therefore supported a proposal that the Lords assert their rights. However, he called for this to be ‘done friendly as with brothers’, by means of a small joint committee, which would settle the matter ‘without wrong to us, and least touch to them’. The proposal for a fresh conference was again debated on 8 May, when Southampton moved that the Commons be given an opportunity to add anything ‘more strong’ to defend their case, if they could. The Lords agreed to his suggestion of a committee to settle the dispute if the Commons did not back down, to which body Southampton was named. In fact, this proved to be unnecessary, as the Commons themselves suggested a committee, having been moved to do so by Southampton’s friend, Sandys.226 LD 1621, p. 74; LJ, iii. 116a; Zaller, 113. Southampton had shown that the rights of the upper House could be defended against the claims of the lower without the need to antagonize the Commons. In so doing he had demonstrated, once again, that he was working behind the scenes with prominent Members of the Commons, and that Sandys was now his principal contact in the lower House.

Subcommittees appear to have been Southampton’s preferred means of smoothing over differences between the two houses. When, on 24 Apr., the Lords and Commons initially failed to reach agreement over the informers bill, a measure which had originated in the lower House, Southampton seconded Sheffield’s motion for a subcommittee to resolve the differences between the two houses. He himself had been named to the committee to consider the bill a week earlier, and must also have been among those who conferred with the Commons about the bill, as Sir Edward Coke listed him as having spoken at the meeting. Sheffield’s proposal was approved by the House.227 LJ, 75a, 791-b, 83a; CD 1621, iii. 40; Add. 40085, f. 35r-v.

It was not only the informers bill and the dispute over judicature which resulted in the appointment of joint subcommittees. So too did bills to enforce the Sabbath and restrain the use of prerogative writs to transfer suits to the Westminster courts. Southampton, who was named to the committee on 8 Mar., took a keen interest in both measures, unlike many of his fellow committee members. On 2 May he reported that a meeting of the committee the day before had been so poorly attended that it had been abandoned. He moved that committees should be allowed to proceed ‘if a considerable number appear’, even if the latter were a minority of those originally appointed. He suggested that a quorum should be set at one third of the committee’s membership, but it is unclear whether this motion was approved.228 LJ, iii. 39a-b; LD 1621, p. 53. Gardiner mis-transcribed the marginal note beside Southampton’s proposal as ‘ordered’. In fact it reads ‘q[uery] so ordered’. Add. 40085, f. 93v. No order was entered in the Journal. Eventually, on 24 May, members of the bill committee were instructed to confer with their opposite numbers in the Commons in order to appoint a subcommittee to resolve differences between the two houses, to which body Southampton himself was named. At the conference between the subcommittees the following day, Southampton opened the proceedings, stating that the purpose of the meeting was to deal with ‘some exceptions’ against the writs bill, which, he added, the Lords nonetheless supported. Ever mindful of preserving good relations between the two houses, he subsequently assured the Commons’ representatives that the Lords ‘come not with a spirit of contradiction but with a desire of satisfaction and would be sorry to have occasion to say no to anything propounded by the Commons’.229 LJ, iii. 130b; CD 1621, iv. 374, 376-7.

Arrest and interrogation, 1621

Southampton may have shared Sandys’ alarm at James’s announcement, on 28 May, that the session would rise on 4 June, leaving little time to complete legislation. Sandys feared that the Parliament would never meet again, and his attempts to prolong the sitting aroused the suspicions of the king’s principal manager in the Commons, Sir Lionel Cranfield^* (subsequently 1st earl of Middlesex), that he was seeking to wreck the Parliament. As Sandys and Southampton were by now known to be working closely together, it is not surprising that similar suspicions were conceived against the earl.230 HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 185-6.

Southampton was one of the commissioners who adjourned Parliament on 4 June. Shortly thereafter, it was commonly reported about the capital that he and Sir Edward Coke^‡, another privy councillor who had taken a rather independent line in Parliament, were ‘like to receive some disgrace’. The reason was uncertain, but it was probably because ‘they have been too lavish of their tongues in the Parliament House’.231 Add. 72254, f. 37. Eleven days later the king ordered the arrest of Southampton, who was detained the following day, immediately after the Council met. However, the earl was not sent to the Tower but was instead committed to the custody of his ‘friend and old acquaintance’, the dean of Westminster, John Williams^* (soon to be bishop of Lincoln and subsequently archbishop of York). At around the same time Sandys was also arrested, as was John Selden^‡, who had been employed by Lords’ committee of privileges to research the privileges of the nobility.232 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 265; CD 1621, vii. 616; Add. 72299, f. 48; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 384. Southampton was not listed as present on that day in the council register, but did sign a pass dated the 16th. APC, 1619-21, pp. 395, 397.

On his arrest, Southampton made three requests to the Council. First, he sought permission to write a letter of reassurance to his wife, who ‘was much subject unto sudden grief and passion’. Secondly, he asked to be allowed to see his eldest son, Lord Wriothesley, who was about to travel abroad. Thirdly, he asked for a speedy hearing in the king’s presence.233 Birch, Jas. I, ii. 259, 263; Add. 72332, f. 48. The first two requests were granted, but not the third, although it was reiterated in a petition from his wife and ‘two more [unnamed] countesses’. Instead, a committee of privy councillors was appointed to examine him.234 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 385; Birch, Jas. I, ii. 260. On 23 June Chamberlain reported that Southampton declined to answer his interrogators on the grounds that he would not provide material for a future Star Chamber prosecution. Instead, he demanded to know ‘what he can be charged withal and to see his accusers’.235 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 285. However, Chamberlain may have been misled, as the committee did not actually seek to examine Southampton until after the 26th.236 Add. 36445, f. 152. By 6 July Southampton had apparently been examined, although only once and for only a quarter of an hour.237 Add. 72254, f. 41.

According to the newsletter-writer Joseph Mead, Southampton pleaded parliamentary privilege, and refused to answer interrogatories unless he was charged with a felony or treason. He is also said to have insisted that if he was to be charged with a criminal offence, he should be prosecuted either in Star Chamber or King’s Bench; if he was to be charged with matters ‘of lesser moment’, he should be brought before the Council. On receiving no response, Southampton allegedly declared that ‘he was resolved not to do anything which might prejudice the privileges and freedom of Parliament’ and ‘desired that he might make his answer in Parliament, and in the presence of his Majesty’.238 Birch, Jas. I, ii. 265, 267-8. However, Mead’s account may be no more reliable than Chamberlain’s, as copies of Southampton’s responses to the questions put to him circulated widely, albeit in summary form. How accurate these copies were is open to question, though. The text in the State Papers is in the handwriting of Edward Nicholas^‡, then secretary to Edward La Zouche^*, 11th Lord Zouche, who, though a privy councillor, was not involved in questioning Southampton. It should not therefore be regarded as an authoritative record of Southampton’s interrogation, but one among a number of copies of a widely circulated manuscript.239 SP14/121/136. Nicholas probably copied the manuscript as a supplement to his diary of the 1621 Parliament, although the version printed with his diary (Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. appendix, unpag.) is from Harl. 161, ff. 39-40. The text in Stopes, 406-8 is apparently a compilation from several versions, but is unreliable.

Southampton’s arrest unleashed a storm of speculation about its cause. Possible explanations included words which the earl allegedly spoke in private; his support for the king and queen of Bohemia; his encouragement of Yelverton; and even that he had been investigating the legality of the marriage of the 1st earl of Hertford (Edward Seymour^*) to Katharine Grey. There were also various reports that he was being punished for ‘conventicles and plotting about Parliament matters’.240 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 385, 390; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 199; CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 75-6, 80; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 41; Birch, Jas. I, ii. 263-4, 266; William Whiteway of Dorchester: His Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 38; PRO31/3/55; Add. 36445, ff. 152, 187v. Moreover, the circulated account of his questioning suggested that Southampton was accused of ‘unfaithfulness’ (or alternatively ‘undutifulness’ or ‘unthankfulness’) to the king ‘in the latter part of the Parliament’, both in the Lords and in the Commons, where he was accused of trying to manipulate events through Members ‘very near him’.241 Nicholas, ii. appendix, unpag.; Hatfield House, CP130/55; Bodl., Tanner 73, f. 23.

One reason for Southampton’s arrest was that he had aroused the enmity of Cranfield, who believed that the earl had conspired with Sandys to wreck the Parliament. In addition, the king was undoubtedly angered that Southampton, despite being a privy councillor, had publically clashed with Buckingham in the upper House; James interpreted attacks on his favourite as attacks on himself. However, Southampton’s interrogators were never able to admit the true cause of the earl’s arrest, as to have done so would have provoked a dispute over parliamentary privilege. Instead, they were forced to find other grounds for detaining him. Initially (assuming the accounts of Southampton’s interrogation are accurate), the earl’s questioners focused on Cranfield’s accusation that the earl had conspired with Members of the lower House to sabotage the Parliament. Southampton, who had made no secret of his contacts in the Commons, rejected the claim that he had tried to control events in the lower House, arguing that, ‘everyone being free there’, it was not ‘in his power to direct or hinder them’. He also denied conspiring during the Easter recess ‘to hinder the king’s ends’. Nevertheless, he acknowledged having heard rumours that there had been a meeting for that purpose, about which he made inquiries; some versions of his examination state that he added that ‘he found nothing’. He was accused in particular of directing Members of the Commons at meetings held in the committee chamber of the upper House. Southampton replied by acknowledging that ‘some of the lower House came thither every day’, and admitted that he discussed parliamentary business with them, but he argued that he did no more than other peers, and denied there was any plot. His interrogators tried to implicate him in Sandys’s volte face over the passing of bills before Parliament adjourned for the summer, asking whether he had had ‘practise with some of the lower House to cross the king’, but, he denied the charge. When asked about a scheme to pay part of the subsidies voted by Parliament directly to the king and queen of Bohemia, he stated that it was the first time he had heard of such a proposal.

On the second day of his interrogation, Southampton was initially asked about non-parliamentary matters. Asked whether he had any ‘discontents’, either with the king or ‘or any person near him’, he denied the first but made no attempt to refute the latter, arguing that ‘unkindness between him and any near the king’ was irrelevant. Accused of saying ‘things were amiss in the State’, he said that he had ‘spoken freely and ordinarily of all such things as had been handled in Parliament, as he thought everyone less had done; but had not been curious to seek the faults’. He denied saying that ‘there would never be a good reformation, while one did so wholly govern the king’ or that ‘he liked not to come to the Council board, because there were so many boys and base fellows’, the latter presumably being a reference to the former merchant, Cranfield. In fact, he had shown no reluctance to attend the Council, continuing to do so right up until his arrest. For the remaining questions his interrogators returned to more directly parliamentary matters, including events in the Lords, although they continued to avoid challenging him over any speeches or motions he made in the upper House. He admitted complaining to Thomas Morton^*, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (later bishop of Durham) about a motion the bishop had made ‘when the controversy was between my lord of Buckingham and him in the House’, a reference to the debate on 13 Mar., which had been concluded without a vote on Morton’s motion. He also acknowledged that Sir John Jephson had warned him that he intended to criticize the administration of Ireland in the Commons. However, he was not accused of prompting Jephson’s intervention.

One other question concerned the wearing of swords. Southampton was asked whether he had heard a motion that no swords should be worn in the upper House. He denied having done so, which is probably correct, as there is no evidence that any such a motion was made in 1621. Nevertheless, Southampton admitted that ‘when he saw everyone else’ wearing swords, ‘he did so too’, though he denied encouraging one of his fellow peers who had left his sword with a servant to go and put it on. Two versions of the interrogatories include a final question, omitted in other texts, which apparently refers to a dispute between the 3rd earl of Essex and John Digby^*, Lord Digby (subsequently 1st earl of Bristol); ‘whether he did not say, they had like to come to blows?’ To this Southampton responded by saying ‘that he saw that heat in the House, that if the prince had not been there, they had been like to have come to blows’, an observation shared by Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, who was questioned about the same incident.242 SP14/121/136; Hatfield House, CP130/55; Eg. 2651, ff. 33-6; Bodl., Tanner 73, f. 23; Harl. 161, ff. 39-40; I. Temple Lib. Petyt 538/19, ff. 1-2v. The two last versions, which are very similar, contain the final question. It is possible that the copyists have conflated the interrogations of Southampton and Oxford. For evidence that a least one other peer wore a sword in the upper House, see ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 19.

John Williams later told Buckingham that Southampton was ‘a delinquent by his own confession’. In fact, nothing was found during the earl’s interrogation with which to accuse him publicly. Southampton’s continued incarceration would inevitably lead to questions when the Parliament reconvened. Consequently, when Williams ‘propounded’ in mid July that Southampton be released, James and Buckingham agreed.243 J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), i. 69. Buckingham visited Southampton on the 16th, spending two hours with him, and, two days later, Williams brought the earl to the king. After a ‘long conference’ with James, at which only Buckingham and Williams were present, Southampton was allowed to return to his London house. Nonetheless, he remained under restraint, with instructions to go to Titchfield and await further orders.244 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 389-90; APC, 1621-3, p. 21.

Southampton’s release alarmed Cranfield, a member of the committee deputed to examine the earl. In a lengthy memorandum, he protested that there was ‘cause of a stricter chastisement than a few days restraint’. He accused Southampton of having ‘estranged himself very much from the court and Council board’ during the Parliament, meaning that the earl had failed to support his fellow councillors and courtiers in Parliament; Southampton had certainly not ceased to attend the Council. He also accused Southampton not merely of consorting with ‘those young lords’ and Members of the Commons who were ‘most stirring and active’ against ‘the present government’ but also of advocating ‘the supposed innate powers, prerogative and liberties of the Parliament’ and ‘ripping up supposed enormities in … the king’s servants’. He further charged the earl with ingratitude for, having received the equivalent ‘of a whole subsidy at least’ in the form of a royal pension, he had remained ‘stone cold dead in advising of means of support’, an observation which, while true, overlooked the fact that supply was properly the business of the Commons. Attempting to play upon the king’s suspicions of Southampton’s popularity, Cranfield also hinted that Southampton had republican tendencies. He had, he said, shown ‘too much freedom in crossing so ordinarily the prince … whereas he cannot but know that the prince is such a power as is one day to be sovereign’.245 CD 1621, vii. 615-17. Cranfield’s objections epitomized the gulf between Southampton and many of his fellow councillors. Whereas Cranfield believed it was a councillor’s duty to present a united front in Parliament upholding the king’s authority, Southampton believed that the king was best served by appeasing popular demands. However, Cranfield protested in vain, as he failed to prevent Southampton’s release.

Southampton remained in London until at least 25 July, as he endeavoured, with Williams’ support, to get the last traces of his restraint lifted. He could not believe ‘that any error by me committed deserved more punishment than I have had’, and if he was forced to travel to Hampshire it would be hard for him to control what his friends in the Commons said.246 Recs. Virg. Co. iii. 482, 491; Cabala, i. 259, 331. He appealed to Buckingham, who denied being the ‘kindler of his Majesty’s displeasure against you’, but admitted that ‘I had no reason to mitigate the same’. Buckingham, though, proved unable or unwilling to free Southampton from his restraint. However, he offered to meet the earl ‘with a heart free from any prejudice’, but declared that any assistance he gave him would depend on ‘success of the conference’.247 Nottingham UL, NeC5. Southampton responded by assuring Buckingham that at their meeting ‘you shall receive from me nothing but truth of what is past, and hereafter faithful performance of what I shall then profess’.248 Akrigg, ‘Something More About Shakespeare’s Patron’, 71. Despite these polite exchanges, Buckingham was clearly very angry with Southampton. Williams, though, urged the favourite to ‘forget the aggravations of malice and envy’ and lift the remaining restraints on Southampton, for ‘the more breathing time you shall carve out between this total enlargement and the next access of Parliament, the better it will be for his Majesty’s service’.249 Cabala, i. 260.

At the end of August James granted full liberty to Southampton, who nevertheless remained at Titchfield until November.250 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 286; Cabala, i. 331; Recs. Virg. Co. iii. 502; HMC 2nd Rep. 60; Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 166. On 20 Oct. Southampton sought permission, through Buckingham, to kiss the king’s hands. Previously his pensions had been paid to him directly by the receivers of the duties on sweet wines and the fees for alienations, but Cranfield, who had recently been appointed lord treasurer, had ordered all revenues to be paid into the Exchequer first. Given this change in arrangements, Southampton wanted reassurance that he would continue to receive his pensions, describing them as ‘the best part of the means to maintain myself and my family’.251 Akrigg, ‘Something More About Shakespeare’s Patron’, 70-1. Eleven days later he complained to Williams that Buckingham had not replied, and that without confirmation of his pensions he was ‘at a stand and know not what to do’.252 Bodl., Add. D.111, f. 152.

Southampton subsequently received permission to kiss hands, and came up to London, where he stayed until 13 November. As Parliament was due to reassemble shortly, he raised the question of his attendance. He evidently offered to stay away from Parliament, but in return he asked that his pensions continue to be paid.253 Fortescue Pprs. 166. This proposal seems to have been well received, as the Venetian ambassador reported that James was anxious to conciliate Southampton.254 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 172.

Shortly after Parliament reopened on 21 Nov., Southampton, who gave his proxy to Lord Spencer, was formally excused from giving his attendance, ostensibly on the grounds of ‘sickness’.255 Add. 40086, f. 12; LJ, iii. 4b. The explanation for his absence fooled no one. On 30 Nov. an attempt was made in the Lords to use the investigation into the loss of notes collected by Selden, who had been arrested at the same time as Southampton, to raise the question of the earl’s absence. However, this tactic failed because it was supported by only a few members of the House.256 Goodman, ii. 210-11.

Rehabilitation, and the last Jacobean Parliament, 1622-4

Southampton stayed away from London until the summer of 1622, during which time he loyally promoted the new benevolence for the Palatinate. His reappearance, on 5 June, at a court of the Virginia Company, led to a flurry of speculation. Some thought he had been summoned to the Council in disgrace and would soon lose his local offices, including the captaincy of the Isle of Wight, while others said he had come up to lobby Buckingham about his pensions. There may have been a grain of truth in the latter report, for, early the next month, it was rumoured that Southampton’s son would marry a daughter of Buckingham’s brother-in-law, William Feilding^*, Viscount Feilding (soon to be 1st earl of Denbigh), and that thereupon Southampton’s pensions and offices would be settled ‘fast’ upon the earl. However, the deal fell through.257 Add. 72275, ff. 143v, 145, 151v; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 385; APC, 1621-3, p. 220; Recs. Virg. Co. ii. 33; Yonge Diary, 61; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 438.

Although the marriage alliance with Buckingham failed to materialize, Southampton reportedly had, in August, a two-hour interview with James and Buckingham, which evidently went well. This successful meeting may have owed much to Williams, who worked hard to reconcile James to Southampton. By October, the earl had been ‘restored to the king’s face and favour’.258 HMC Rutland, i. 467; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe (1740) ed. S. Richardson, 94, 99; Hacket, i. 69. Southampton remained in the king’s good books throughout the following year, so much so that James again visited Beaulieu over the summer. Nevertheless, he continued to stay away from the Privy Council.259 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 41; Nichols, iv. 903; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 429. Having mended his fences with James, Southampton also tried to reach an accommodation with Cranfield, by now earl of Middlesex. At the start of September, Southampton proposed a match between his son and one of Middlesex’s daughters, telling the lord treasurer, who had fallen out with Buckingham, that ‘now is the time that he may have need of friends’, but the offer was refused.260 Cabala, i. 230. Middlesex continued to hold Southampton in low regard, and on receiving a visit from the earl about payment of the latter’s pensions, he called him a traitor, whereupon Southampton retorted that Middlesex was a fool (presumably for rejecting a potential ally).261 D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 176.

Towards the end of 1623 Southampton, as a long-standing advocate of an anti-Spanish foreign policy, found himself courted by Prince Charles, who had recently returned from Spain having failed to secure the Spanish Match. The Venetian ambassador reported in December that the prince was ‘very gracious’ to Southampton, and George Carew^*, Lord Carew (later earl of Totness) mistakenly expected that, as a result, the earl would soon start attending the Council again. Nonetheless, tensions between Southampton and Buckingham (now a duke) remained, and it took the intervention of the king to reconcile them.262 Add. 72276, f. 72v; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 134; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 204. This rapprochement, taken alongside the reconciliation of Pembroke to Buckingham which occurred at around the same time, considerably improved the prospects for a Parliament.263 Add. 72276, f. 72v. Southampton shared the widely held view that a Parliament would soon meet, but was not sanguine about the prospects of success. From Titchfield he offered a prayer that ‘the lower House may be composed of discreet and honest men, else all may be naught’. He hoped for the best, ‘and persuade myself I have reason so to do’.264 SP14/155/77.

At the end of December, following the issue of writs for the fourth Jacobean Parliament, Southampton was approached by Bacon, who wanted to attend the forthcoming assembly, despite the 1621 sentence debarring him from the Lords. Bacon’s overture was revealing, as it implied that Southampton was likely to be a prominent member of the 1624 Parliament, with the power to influence its decisions. It also indicated that there had been recent contact between Southampton and Bacon, as Bacon referred to a previous meeting between the two men, at which Southampton had revealed that he had not thought ‘that a Parliament would have been so soon’ and assured Bacon of his ‘love and favour’.265 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 454.

Southampton played no discernible role in the election of Hampshire’s knights of the shire in 1624, but he did influence the returns in five of the county’s boroughs. His heir, Lord Wriothesley, was returned for Winchester, while John Ferrar’s brother, Nicholas, who had succeeded John as Southampton’s deputy in the Virginia Company, was elected for Lymington. On the Isle of Wight Southampton again controlled both seats at Yarmouth, where Thomas Risley was elected with Wriothesley’s tutor, William Beeston^‡. At Newport he probably nominated Christopher Brooke^‡, a prominent member of the Virginia Company. When Brooke opted to sit for York he was replaced by Sir John Danvers^‡, a member of the Virginia Company and also brother of Southampton’s friend, Lord Danvers. At Newtown, Southampton may have been responsible for the election of George Garrard^‡, with whom he had been acquainted since at least 1617. Garrard was also a ‘near kinsman’ of the earl’s friend, Sir Thomas Roe^‡.266 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 150, 152-4, 163-4; SP14/92/101; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 507.

Southampton attended the prorogation meeting of 12 Feb., and subsequently 85 of the session’s 93 sittings (91 per cent), including that of 28 Feb., when he was recorded as present in the assistant clerk’s manuscript minutes but not in the Journal. His longest absence was in late April, when he missed four consecutive sittings (from the afternoon of the 24th to that of the 28th). The records of the Virginia Company indicate that, on the 26th at least, he was out of town. He received the proxy of Henry Hastings, 5th earl of Huntingdon, which he delivered to the clerk, on 25 Feb., and was again appointed a trier for petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland. He made 50 speeches and was named to 40 of the 105 committees established by the Lords.267 LJ, iii. 208a, 212b; Recs. Virg. Co. ii. 531; Add. 40087, f. 19. The proxy dated 10 Dec. 1622, from Lord Zouche to Southampton, printed in H. Elsyng, Manner of Holding Parls. in Eng. (1768), 135-6, as ‘the form of the proxy at this day’, is almost certainly fictitious as there was little prospect of a Parliament being summoned at that date.

At the start of the Parliament James invited its members to advise him whether to continue to pursue the Spanish Match and how to recover the Palatinate. Southampton was keen to start work on this business quickly and had little patience with delays. When, on 23 Feb., Lord Houghton moved to put in writing a message inviting the Commons to confer the following day about advising the king, Southampton, who clearly thought the request was needless, responded sarcastically ‘yea, if the judges [the Lords’ messengers] mistrust their meanings’.268 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 1. Southampton was also important behind the scenes. Carleton informed Roe that ‘some tares, which the envious man [possibly Middlesex] had sowed’ between Buckingham and Pembroke had been ‘weeded out by my lord of Southampton’s industry’.269 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 223.

On 24 Feb. Buckingham narrated what had transpired when he and Prince Charles had been in Spain. His account drew an angry response from the Spanish ambassador, who claimed that Buckingham had dishonoured his king. When the Lords debated the Spanish reaction on 27 Feb., Southampton defended his former adversary, who asked whether he should have omitted some of the details in his account. Buckingham, he declared, would have ‘deserved very ill if he had shortened his narration’, and he called for the House to exonerate him. Three days later Southampton proposed that both Houses should join together to clear Buckingham before the king.270 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 3, 13-14.

Southampton supported Buckingham’s motion of 1 Mar. to establish a committee for munitions, to which body he himself was appointed. He moved for the committee to survey the stores and for the master of the Ordnance Office, Lord Carew, to give an account of the supplies kept in the Tower.271 Ibid. 14; LJ, iii. 237b. That same day Southampton was appointed to speak at a conference the following afternoon on breaking off the Spanish marriage treaties.272 LJ, iii. 238a. In the debate preceding the conference, on the morning of 2 Mar., Southampton argued that they should tell the lower House it was their opinion that the Spanish Match ‘hath appeared a mere illusion in all things’ and that the king should be advised to break off negotiations. He also suggested that the Lords propose the creation of a joint committee of both Houses ‘to set down reasons of this opinion’, so that they could justify their advice to the king if necessary. Urging ‘haste’ and arguing that ‘delay [was] dangerous’, he urged ‘a course to be taken to deliver this to the king with all expedition’. His motion was approved and he was named to the proposed new committee accordingly.273 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 18; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 23; LJ, iii. 242b.

By 4 Mar. Southampton was confident that both Houses would agree to advise the king to break off the treaties. However, he was concerned that, once he had been informed that it was impossible to recover the Palatinate by negotiation, James would demand money for a war. Southampton, possibly acting for Buckingham (then absent), therefore proposed that when Parliament’s advice was formally presented to the king it should be accompanied with a declaration that both Houses would assist him ‘with our persons and estates’ if James broke off the treaties. The Lords agreed to communicate this proposed declaration to the Commons at a meeting that afternoon. As Southampton was not present at this particular meeting (of a joint subcommittee of which he was not a member), his proposal was presented to the lower House in the form of a draft which he had written with Pembroke.274 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 20; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 25v; ‘Hawarde 1624’, p. 179; R.E. Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, p. 193, n.63. This was reported from the subcommittee to the Commons on 5 Mar. by his friend Sandys, but Southampton had misjudged the mood of the lower House, which leapt to the conclusion that the Lords were encroaching on their sole right to initiate discussion of taxation. Consequently, Southampton’s proposal was rejected and the draft returned to the Lords.275 Ruigh, 193-5.

Inevitably, the question of subsidies did not go away. On 11 Mar. Middlesex, in his capacity as lord treasurer, outlined the state of the crown finances to the upper House. This was immediately glossed by Prince Charles, who declared that James was not looking for supply to settle his debts but for military preparations. Southampton welcomed Charles’s intervention, which had given ‘great satisfaction’ and would have a similar effect in the Commons. He then returned to the theme of his abortive declaration: ‘how to think that that which is extra and desired by both Houses [i.e. war] may be supported?’ Acknowledging his earlier error, he now realized that, in order to avoid ‘hurt’, it was ‘most proper’ for the Commons to raise the matter of supply, themselves. Nevertheless, he thought the Lords should remove some ‘impediments’ to action, and for this reason he moved for a conference to enable the prince to pass on his reassurances about the nature of the crown’s financial demands to the Commons. He was subsequently named to a committee for drafting a message to the lower House, and to the ensuing conference committee.276 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 25-6; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 33; Add. 40087, f. 72; LJ, iii. 256a.

In response the Commons drew up a resolution promising the king assistance in principle. This was presented to the Lords at a further conference, to which Southampton was appointed on 12 March. The lower House insisted that it would only accept amendments to the opening part of its resolution. In the ensuing debate in the Lords that afternoon, Southampton warned his colleagues ‘to proceed without colour of distaste to the Commons’. Arguing about the substance of the resolution would ‘lose time’. What the Commons had agreed was ‘sufficient’ for the Lords ‘to join with them for the present’. They could ‘proceed after, as his Majesty’s answer shall be thereupon’. This was shrewd advice, as it meant that the Lords need only intervene once the king had demanded a more specific offer of support.277 Ruigh, 208-9; LJ, iii. 258a; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 30.

At the beginning of April there was ‘some speech’ at the committee of munitions concerning the earl of Middlesex, who claimed that his honour had been impugned. Middlesex was alarmed that irregularities had been discovered in the accounts of the Ordnance Office, and asked that a subcommittee investigate so that he might be cleared of wrongdoing. Southampton, a member of the munitions committee himself, was named to this body on 2 Apr., when he moved that it be empowered to decide which witnesses to summon and have sworn.278 LJ, iii. 286a; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 50; Add. 40088, f. 4r-v. Three days later Middlesex also came under attack in the Commons, this time in respect of the fees demanded by his secretary. Middlesex responded by demanding that the subcommittee ‘hasten the thing that concerns him’, and claiming that he would ‘show a dangerous conspiracy … against him’.279 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 57.

Middlesex’s suspicion that he was the target of a conspiracy was well founded. The lord treasurer opposed war with Spain, and therefore had incurred the enmity of Buckingham and Prince Charles, who clearly orchestrated the attack on him. Since Southampton favoured war with Spain, and had little liking for Middlesex, who had rebuffed his earlier offer of a reconciliation, he not surprisingly joined in the assault on the beleaguered lord treasurer. On 9 Apr. Southampton’s friend, Essex, argued that the lord treasurer’s allegations of a conspiracy impugned the honour of the House. When Middlesex tried to assure the Lords that he was not accusing the whole Parliament of conspiring against him, Southampton retorted that this was ‘no clearing, for it never entered the heart of man that the two Houses [of Parliament] could be conspirators’. He also opposed the motion of Lord Houghton for the subcommittee to report, arguing that the work of the subcommittee and Middlesex’s allegations were separate.280 Ibid. 62. On 12 Apr. Southampton proposed that the lower House be allowed to send a copy of their charges to the lord treasurer, who should have ‘liberty to answer how he pleased’, which was agreed.281 Ibid. 66. He was subsequently named to an augmented version of the munitions subcommittee. He also moved for the latter’s parent committee to be empowered to divide itself into subcommittees ‘for expediting this business’, which suggestion was approved’.282 LJ, iii. 310b-311a; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 25v. Southampton was omitted from the list of the subcommittee when, with the addition of Mandeville they were instructed to draw up heads of the Lords’ charges against Middlesex, but this was probably a clerical mistake. LJ, iii. 301b.

Throughout the proceedings against Middlesex, Southampton evinced little sympathy for the lord treasurer. When, on 28 Apr., Middlesex petitioned to be given more time to answer the charges on the grounds that he was in poor health, Southampton argued that he should be allowed two or three days at most, with no possibility of an extension.283 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 38. On 7 May, during Middlesex’s trial, it was Southampton who informed the House what Buckingham had told him about the lord treasurer’s massive profits from the great wardrobe.284 Add. 40088, f. 51v. Four days later Middlesex notified the Lords that he was too unwell to attend the House, whereupon a committee was appointed to visit him and determine the truth of the matter. Southampton was appointed to this body, which took along a doctor after Southampton claimed that he for one ‘had not skill to feel the lord treasurer’s pulse’.285 LJ, iii. 371b; Add. 40088, f. 72; SP14/164/67. Later that same day Southampton reported that the committee had found Middlesex in bed but not sick.286 LJ, iii. 371b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 72.

On 12 May, after Middlesex had made his defence, Southampton proposed that they should take each charge in turn and vote ‘of which he is guilty of, and of which not, not: and how far’.287 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 74. The Lords then began with the charge concerning the great wardrobe. Southampton argued that Middlesex was guilty of failing to render accounts, dismissing the lord treasurer’s defence that he was excused from doing so by his patent. For Southampton, however, this was not the main fault of which Middlesex was guilty. The lord treasurer claimed to have reformed the great wardrobe, whereas in fact ‘a destruction only appears’. Middlesex had lined his own pockets while failing to make payments to the office. He was therefore ‘faulty in the trust, in the service and all’. Southampton took a more moderate view of the charge concerning the farm of the sugar duties, concluding that Middlesex was only ‘faulty in a proportion in this charge’. Nonetheless, he supported Spencer, who reminded the House that the Commons had complained that the lord treasurer had assumed ‘regal authority’ in levying the composition for purveyance for groceries.288 Ibid. 75-6, 80-1.

Middlesex was found guilty of four of the six charges against him. In the sentencing debate on 13 May, Southampton recommended that the House should establish by means of witness testimony as to whether Middlesex’s claim to have done the crown good service was justified.289 Ibid. 85. Later that day he argued that Middlesex’s crimes were ‘far greater’ than those of Bacon. The lord treasurer had been ‘a wolf to all the kingdom’, whereas the former lord chancellor had been a wolf only to ‘a few’. When the House debated how large a fine should be imposed, Southampton called for consideration to be given to ‘what the king hath lost’. In particular, he cited the £20,000 paid to James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, to compensate him for surrendering the great wardrobe. He also moved for all the lands and gifts which the king had given the lord treasurer to be confiscated and stated, somewhat obscurely, that Middlesex’s house at Chelsea was ‘a great vexation to the subject’.290 Ibid. 88-90.

The drive to war and the impeachment of Middlesex did not monopolize Southampton’s attention in the 1624 Parliament. On 3 Apr. Southampton was named to attend a conference about a petition against recusancy proposed by the lower House. In the debate in the Lords, on 5 Apr., about this petition, Southampton approved the first clause, to banish Catholic priests, but was doubtful of the wisdom of the third, which called for licences to travel issued to recusants to be revoked. Southampton argued that there was a danger that it would be ‘noised we will begin a persecution’. The same ends could be achieved ‘without clamour’ if existing laws were put in execution, as the recusants ‘are confined [to their homes] by law’.291 LJ, iii. 287b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 56. On 10 Apr. Prince Charles moved that, at a further conference about the petition, the Commons should be prodded to proceed with the subsidy, to which Southampton, no doubt remembering the problems his own earlier proposal on that subject had created, argued that such a motion should come only from the prince, ‘not from the House’.292 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 64.

On 20 May Southampton and the other lords who had been appointed to attend the conference about the recusancy petition were instructed to attend a further conference to hear a fresh petition from the Commons, this time against recusant officeholders. In this document the lower House listed those officers they thought were Catholics. In the debate on the petition the following day, Southampton evidently tried to assuage the concerns of the upper House. The two Houses had their separate functions and separate ways of proceeding, he remarked; the Commons were the ‘inquisitors’ whereas ‘we examine’. However, there was now not enough time for the Lords to scrutinize the petition. Rather than offend the lower House by failing to proceed any further, he suggested that the prince be asked to acquaint the king with the contents of the petition. He was subsequently named to a committee to draw up an answer to the Commons.293 LJ, iii. 393b; 397b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 100.

Although Southampton was deeply involved in the major political events of the 1624 Parliament, advising the king over the treaties and helping to impeach Middlesex, he also interested himself in more mundane proceedings. He was particularly concerned that little time was being devoted to private legislation. On 14 May he seconded the 5th Lord Paget (William Paget^*), who drew attention to the ‘40 bills depending’ and ‘commiserated’ with those who were promoting private measures, some of which had ‘passed two broken parliaments before’.294 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 93. Among the bills which occupied Southampton’s time was a measure to enforce the Sabbath, a hardy perennial. Named to the committee, on 8 Mar., he reported the bill the following day, when he assured the Lords that he and his colleagues had been careful to ensure that the measure did not ‘hinder the bodily exercise of the country people’.295 LJ, iiii. 249b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 22. That same day he also spoke at the second reading of a private bill promoted by his friend, the earl of Oxford, when he reminded the House that no one who opposed a measure could be appointed to consider it at the committee stage. He himself was named to the committee.296 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 23; LJ, iii. 253b.

It is likely that the bill to which Southampton attached most importance in 1624 was the bill against monopolies, which he was named to consider on 18 March. Following Mandeville’s report from committee on 20 May, Southampton asserted that there was ‘great expectation of this bill’, and he defended the clause invoking the penalties of praemunire against monopolists, arguing that ‘great and severe’ punishment was necessary to ‘restrain our nation’s natural inclination to monopolies’.297 LJ, iii. 267b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 98. Southampton himself reported three further bills, one concerning suits in inferior courts, another for relief of creditors of debtors who died in execution and a third concerning inns; all three were passed.298 LJ, iii. 397a, 404b, 411b.

Midway through the Parliament, on 18 Apr., Carleton was informed that Southampton would be appointed to command a force of 6,000 men to be sent to aid the Dutch army fighting the Spanish in the Netherlands. This command was possibly intended as a reward for his support for Buckingham in joining the attack on Middlesex.299 SP14/163/3. He was not subsequently talked about as commander of this contingent, but in mid May it was rumoured that he was ‘nigh sure’ of commanding one of the four regiments into which the force was to be divided.300 SP14/164/86. In fact, Southampton wanted his teenage eldest son, Lord Wriothesley, appointed colonel in his stead. However, this idea was vetoed by Prince Charles, who thought that Southampton’s name would assist with the recruitment. As a result, Southampton evidently agreed to serve in person.301 Add. 72276, f. 91v; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 324-5.

Southampton’s fellow colonels included the earl of Oxford, with whom Southampton was on good terms. Not only did he assist in the passage of Oxford’s bill, he also excused Oxford’s absence on 1 April.302 Add. 40088, f. 2. Nonetheless, the two men quarrelled over precedence in the new force. As both the holder of an ancient title and lord great chamberlain, Oxford normally ranked higher than Southampton, but at a meeting about the appointment of junior officers he found that Southampton had been listed first. This ranking was defended by Southampton, who argued that he deserved precedence as he had been ‘longer a soldier’, despite having not seen active service since 1600, and because he had been general of the horse in Ireland. Oxford replied that he would be willing to concede primacy if it had been intended that one colonel should be superior to his colleagues, but as the colonels were to be equally subordinate to Prince Maurice he saw no reason why he should be ‘jostled out of my birthright’.303 SP14/167/57; Goodman, ii. 347-8.

Final months, July–November 1624

Relations between Southampton and Oxford seem to have remained relatively harmonious during this dispute; certainly they socialized and worked together in preparing the regiments. By mid July, Parliament having now ended, Southampton was getting increasingly impatient for a resolution, joking to Conway that ‘if the business be not settled we must scratch for it, which I would be sorry for’. In the end the council of war recommended that Oxford should have precedence on civil occasions and that Southampton should come first on the battlefield, thereby acknowledging Southampton’s status as a former general. This recommendation was confirmed by the king and Southampton promised to abide by the ruling on 28 July.304 SP14/169/21-2, 36; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 304, 311, 315. The decision did not give the earl any formal authority over the other regiments, but in practice he seems to have assumed general responsibility for the preparations for the expedition. This meant that it was probably Southampton who was responsible for the appointment of Dr Samuel Turner^‡, with whom he had previously been connected, as physician to the four regiments.305 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 321; S. Adams, ‘Protestant Cause: Religious Alliance with the West European Calvinist Communities as a Political Issue in Eng. 1585–1630’ (Oxford Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1973), 382; SP84/114, f. 28; SP84/130, f. 204. See also CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 315-16.

Southampton crossed to the Netherlands in August, where he swore an oath of loyalty to the Dutch Republic.306 Add. 72276, f. 113; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 429. The following month he and the new regiments helped Prince Maurice take Cleves, in the Rhineland, before marching on Breda, which was besieged by the Spanish. The Habsburg forces were too well entrenched for Maurice to risk a direct attack, and by early October Southampton was thoroughly frustrated. Writing to Conway, he complained that ‘we have been here so long and done so little, and ... expect to do so little, that I protest ingenuously unto you I am ashamed’. He placed high hopes in intervention from France, which might lead to the raising of the siege, and for this reason expressed approval at the news that a marriage between Prince Charles and Henrietta Maria had been agreed.307 SP84/120, ff. 188-90.

On 12 Oct. Prince Maurice withdrew from his position and divided his army in two in the hope of intercepting the supply lines of the Spanish army besieging Breda. Southampton was part of the contingent sent to Roosendaal.308 C. Dalton, Life and Times of Gen. Sir Edward Cecil, ii. 68. Early the following month, both he and his eldest son, who was then serving as one of his father’s junior officers, fell ill. The latter died on 5 Nov., whereupon Southampton set out for England with his son’s body. However, on the afternoon of 7 Nov., at Bergen-op-Zoom, Southampton’s health, which had shown signs of recovery, deteriorated so rapidly that Essex, who remained at Roosendaal, was warned ‘that if you make not haste I fear you shall never see him alive again’. Southampton died three days later, probably from the plague, or exhaustion resulting from contracting the disease.309 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 309; V.F. Snow, ‘New Light on the Last Days and Death of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton’, HLQ, xxxvii. 62-3; Carleton to Chamberlain, 317-18; Wilson, 284.

Southampton left no will, but on his deathbed he asked that Dr Turner and Sir Jacob Astley^† (later 1st Lord Astley), secure for his wife the wardship of his sole surviving son, Thomas Wriothesley^*, who succeeded him as earl of Southampton. Astley communicated this request to the queen of Bohemia who, mourning the loss of ‘a most true and faithful friend’, swung into action. She wrote to her brother via Mountjoy Blount^*, Lord Mountjoy [I] (later 1st earl of Newport), the son of Southampton’s friend Devonshire, and also to Buckingham, whom she thought ‘might have crossed all’ if he had been ignored, to secure the wardship for the countess. Bishop Williams also lobbied Buckingham on behalf of Southampton’s widow and children.310 Snow, 63-4; Corresp. of Eliz. Stuart, Q. of Bohemia ed. N. Akkerman, i. 500; Rymer, viii. pt. 1, pp. 142-6; Cabala, i. 279.

Southampton’s widow was greatly distressed on hearing the news of her husband’s death, which was conveyed to her by Lucy Russell, countess of Bedford. However, the latter could not prevent the widowed countess ‘from falling into such an excess of passion as had like to have overwhelmed her sense and reason’. On Sunday 21 Nov., at the widow’s requests, prayers were offered in most of London’s churches for ‘her patience and strength of mind’. Five days later it was reported that ‘her mind is much raised and settled,’ she having received assurances from the king that she would have her son’s wardship.311 Add. 72276, f. 131. In March 1625 this was granted to the countess, as well as to Saye and Sele (by now 1st Viscount), lords Spencer and Danvers, her brother Sir Robert Vernon^‡ and Sir Henry Wallop^‡. However, the following October Charles, by now king, granted Buckingham oversight of the education and upbringing of the young earl.312 Rymer, viii. pt. 1, pp. 142-6.

The bodies of Southampton and Lord Wriothesley were conveyed to Southampton in a small barque, and buried at Titchfield on 28 Dec. 1624, in a vault attached to the family chapel in the parish church.313 Snow, 66; Wilson, 284; Coll. of Arms, I.8, f. 52v; Titchfield Par. Reg. 1589-1634 ed. K. Hayward, 109. As Southampton had died intestate, administration of his goods was granted on 2 June 1625 to his widow and servants, Bromfield and Risley.314 PROB 6/11, f. 145.