COMPTON, William (1567/8-1630)

The Comptons were a minor gentry family from Compton Wynyates, Warwickshire, until William Compton made his fortune as groom of the stole in the first half of Henry VIII’s reign. William married the daughter of Sir Walter Stonor^‡, constable of the Tower, built an elegant country house at Compton Wynyates, and, by the time of his death in 1528, amassed a vast estate worth £1,700 a year. A number of the estates he acquired were of questionable provenance, but he exploited the king’s favour to confirm his tenure.24 C. Carpenter, Locality and Polity, 81, 143, 199-200, 240-1; SR, iii. 271-2, 433-4. His son was married to one of the daughters of George Talbot^†, 4th earl of Shrewsbury, who had acquired his wardship. Compton’s widow subsequently took as her second husband William Herbert^†, 1st earl of Pembroke. By the time he was elevated to the peerage as Lord Compton in 1572, Henry Compton^†, this Member’s father, owned substantial estates in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire, with outlying properties in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Sussex.25 HP Commons 1558-1603, i. 635-6; G.W. Bernard, ‘Rise of Sir William Compton’, EHR, xcvi. 754-77; C142/224/37; 142/229/130.

Early life, 1589-1610

Compton inherited his patrimony in 1589, when he was recorded as being aged 21 years and upwards. He was therefore probably the child for whom the queen had stood as godmother sometimes between October 1567 and September 1568.26 C142/224/37; E351/541, f. 104v. In 1596 he was appointed master of the leash, in charge of the royal hunting dogs. He also participated in the social side of court life: a ‘great gamester and player at cards and dice’, he was sued in Chancery in 1602 for unpaid gambling debts; three years earlier, he was said to have owed more than £18,000.27 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. spec. ser. ix), 82; C2/Eliz/C19/9; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 67. The scale of these debts seem to have proved an obstacle to his marriage to the heiress of the London alderman Sir John Spencer, who initially claimed that his daughter’s pre-contract with a son of a Norfolk landowner, Sir Arthur Heveningham^‡, rendered the match impossible. Spencer was subsequently incarcerated for beating his wayward daughter, who was taken into the care of Alderman Sir Henry Billingsley^‡; but Compton, having smuggled her out of the house in a laundry basket, married her at St Catherine, Colman Street in April 1599. Even after the birth of their first son, Spencer Compton^* (later 2nd earl of Northampton) two years later, it was said ‘the hardhead her father relents ne’er a whit’, and in the absence of any support from Spencer, Compton continued to be plagued by debts: in 1605 he sold his Wiltshire estates to the financier Thomas Sutton for £13,500.28 Chamberlain Letters, i. 73, 124; Castle Ashby, Northants. 927-9, 1317.

Although Compton was said to have been on good terms with Robert Devereux^‡, 2nd earl of Essex, he was one of those who tried the earl after his abortive rising of February 1601; and he spent Christmas 1602 with Essex’s erstwhile rival, Sir Walter Ralegh^‡.29 Chamberlain Letters, i. 179. Compton retained his court post under King James, a keener huntsman than his aged predecessor, and in October 1603 he was appointed lord lieutenant of Warwickshire, an office which had stood vacant since the death of Ambrose Dudley^†, earl of Warwick, in 1590. As his duties in this role were light in the aftermath of the Spanish war, he therefore spent much of his time at court, appearing in the lists at the Accession Day jousts in 1606.30 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 23, 44, 78, 226, 375; Chamberlain Letters, i. 218.

Compton attended three-quarters of the sittings of the 1604 parliamentary session, and held the proxy of another Northamptonshire landowner, Henry Mordaunt^*, 4th Lord Mordaunt, but did not play a particularly important role in the Lords. He was ordered to attend the conference of 21 Apr., at which James laid out his plans for the union with Scotland, and another of 3 May at which Lords and Commons haggled over a national composition for purveyance.31 LJ, ii. 263b, 284a, 290b. He was appointed to committees for bills to prevent both the export of iron ordnance and the import of ‘seditious, popish, vain and lascivious books’; to naturalize four Scottish courtiers; and another which codified and enlarged upon the Elizabethan recusancy laws.32 Ibid. 272a-b, 285a, 290a, 301b, 313b, 324b. Local interests probably explain his appointment to committees for the estate bill for the Warwickshire gentleman Thomas Throckmorton and the poaching bill – he having been appointed joint keeper of Olney Park, Buckinghamshire in 1604.33 Ibid. 292a-b; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 83.

Compton’s attendance at the 1605-6 parliamentary session fell to around half the sittings. While his recorded activity increased slightly, he played little discernible part in the business of the session. In the spring of 1606 he was included on the committee for the bill to attaint the Gunpowder Plotters, and on another for the revived bill prevent the import of ‘popish, vain and lascivious books’. On 8 Apr. he was ordered to attend a conference about the Commons’ ecclesiastical grievances, which took place six days later, but he played no recorded part in the heated debates on this subject.34 LJ, ii. 367a, 380b, 411a. Though his only known link with Oxford University was the honorary degree he received in 1605, he was named to the committee for the bill to confirm the crown’s endowment of a divinity lectureship there; while his position at court presumably explains his inclusion on a committee considering two bills to regulate the Marshalsea court.35 Ibid. 386b, 437a. He was included on committees for private bills concerning the estates of several Midland families: Thomas Windsor^*, 6th Lord Windsor; Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex; William Brydges^*, late 4th Lord Chandos; and Sir Christopher Hatton^‡. He was also named to committees to scrutinize bills for the estates of the attainted plotters Henry Brooke^†, 11th Lord Cobham and George Brooke.36 Ibid. 376b, 379a, 386a, 395b, 403a.

At the start of the next parliamentary session, Compton was included on the Lords’ delegation to the conference of 24 Nov. 1606, at which the Commons were encouraged to begin consideration of the Union; on 8 June 1607 he was named to the committee for the sole item of Union legislation which reached the Lords, the bill for repeal of hostile laws. However, he cannot have attended this committee, having left London to assist in the suppression of a series of agrarian risings in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire, which detained him in the Midlands until after the prorogation.37 Ibid. 520a; J.E. Martin, Feudalism to Capitalism, 164-74. Shortly before his departure, on 16 May 1607, Compton made his only recorded speech of the first Jacobean Parliament, in which he sought (and obtained) privilege for a servant of Gray Brydges^*, 5th Lord Chandos.38 LJ, ii. 509a. Most of Compton’s other committee nominations involved legislation concerning social issues and private estates. His debts gave him an obvious interest in the usury bill, to reduce the rate of interest, and his nomination to two committees for bills to confirm private landowners’ titles to concealed crown lands suggests he had dealings with the defective title commissioners. His inclusion on committees for important legislation confirming the London livery companies’ titles to their endowments, and the manufacture of woollen cloth, may be presumed to have arisen from his father-in-law’s membership of the Clothworkers’ Company.39 Ibid. ii. 471b, 472a, 479a, 494a, 514b.

The Spencer inheritance, 1610

Compton attended the Lords almost every day during the opening weeks of the spring session of 1610, when he was ordered to attend the conference of 15 Feb. at which Lord Treasurer Salisbury (Robert Cecil^*) outlined the problems of the royal finances. On 27 Feb. he was named to attend another conference (which took place on 2 Mar.), at which the Commons raised objections about the absolutist language used by Dr John Cowell in his legal textbook, The Interpreter.40 Ibid. 551a, 557b. Compton attended very little of the session thereafter, because of the death of his father-in-law, on 3 Mar., and his mother-in-law, three weeks later. As an intestate, Alderman Spencer’s fortune descended to his daughter, who inherited property and other assets worth several hundred thousand pounds. When the vast scale of his good fortune became apparent, Compton temporarily lost his wits. Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, secured a promise of his estate during his lunacy, but when Suffolk and his men arrived to take an inventory, Compton’s stepmother the countess of Dorset (widow of Robert Sackville^*, 2nd earl of Dorset) reportedly declared that ‘never a knave nor rascal amongst them all should enter’, and thereupon struck Suffolk.41 C142/318/165; HMC Downshire, ii. 253, 261; Bodl., Carte 74, ff. 359, 363, 398; HMC Buccleuch, i. 87, 98-9; LMA, Acc/1876/F/03/05/2/27-8.

Compton’s health improved following consultations with the royal physician Dr Henry Atkins, and on 16 Apr. he recovered control of his estates from the Court of Wards and resumed his seat in the Lords. However, he only attended seven days’ sittings during the remainder of the session, on one of which (16 June) he took the oath of allegiance, which was newly required of all peers. The Spencer inheritance transformed his finances, turning him from a substantial debtor into a major creditor: in August 1610 he lent Sir William Herbert^† (later 1st Lord Powis) £7,000.42 LMA, Acc/1876/F/03/01; Acc/1876/F/03/05/2/30, 37; LJ, ii. 615a. He returned to the Lords at the start of the autumn session in October 1610, when he was named to the committee for a bill for preservation of timber trees, and was one of the delegation required to attend a conference at which the Commons were urged to signify whether they intended to proceed with the Great Contract. However, he stayed away from the House for much of November, following an outbreak of plague near his lodgings in the Savoy.43 LJ, ii. 671a, 676a. It seems likely that he could not stay instead at his town house in Bishopsgate (part of the Spencer inheritance) as he had probably let it out already.44 P. Norman, Crosby Place (Survey of London Monograph ix), 28 indicates that from at least 1615 this house was let out.

During the Addled Parliament of 1614, Compton attended almost every day but played a modest part in the Lords’ proceedings. He was ordered to attend the conference with the Commons about the bill confirming the right of Princess Elizabeth’s children to inherit the throne of England, and was named to committees to scrutinize bills for title to lands granted by wills, for preservation of timber trees and for the endowment of Monmouth grammar school. On 31 May he claimed privilege for one of his servants arrested by the sheriffs of London. However, the latter were discharged by the Lords without further proceedings when it emerged that his servant had not claimed privilege until three days after his arrest.45 LJ, ii. 692b, 694a, 697b, 711b, 712b; HMC Hastings, iv. 242.

The Spencer fortune funded a lavish refurbishment of Compton’s house at Castle Ashby, with a new wing in the classical style, and sustained his continued presence at court: at Christmas 1613 he took part in a masque and the New Year’s joust. He may have played a role in introducing George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham), stepson of his brother Sir Thomas Compton, to King James in August 1614. The two certainly developed a close relationship once Villiers caught the king’s eye and supplanted Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset as royal favourite. In August 1616 Compton acted as one of Villiers’s sponsors when he was created a viscount, and that same year Compton’s servant Sir Robert Pye^‡ transferred to Villiers’s household. Moreover, it was doubtless at the favourite’s behest that Compton was appointed lord president of the council in the Marches in October 1617, shortly after the death of the incumbent, Thomas Gerard^*, 1st Lord Gerard.46 Chamberlain Letters, i. 487, 498; ii. 22; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 10-12; HP Commons 1604-29, v. 785; HMC Rutland, i. 251.

Presidency of the council in the Marches, 1617-25

Compton’s only significant administrative experience prior to 1617 was the lieutenancy of Warwickshire, which offered little preparation for the oversight of 15 counties, a judiciary and a permanent secretariat, in an area where he was a stranger. His appointment was an early example of the rise of the Villiers kin, and there was speculation that he would sell the office for profit. However, during the winter of 1617-18 he toured his new jurisdiction. He held the presidency for the rest of his life, spending several months each year at Ludlow Castle.47 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 105; Chamber Order Bk. of Worcester ed. S. Bond (Worcs. Hist. Soc. n.s. viii), 146-7; NLW, 9056E/816, 825, 858; NLW, 466E/829; Salop RO, LB2/1/1, ff. 124r-v, 127v, 134v; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 26. In August 1618 he was created earl of Northampton, a promotion he had been seeking for 18 months. According to the Venetian ambassador, he paid around £8,000 for his title.48 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 69, 79, 162-3; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 156; CSP Ven, 1617-19, p. 281. As president, he quickly became involved in the convoluted politics of the Welsh cloth trade, acting as arbitrator in disputes between the rival interests in the finishing trades at Shrewsbury.49 Oswestry Town Hall, A75/1/21; APC, 1618-19, p. 487; 1619-21, pp. 49-50, 57-9; Salop RO, 6001/4260, f. 184v; Salop RO, 1831/6, f. 33.

Northampton’s stock at court fell slightly in September 1619, when the ‘penury’ of his entertainment of the king at Castle Ashby was mocked by the royal jester; a year later, he was reproached for the slowness of his contribution to the Palatine benevolence.50 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 263; SP14/118/59. Ahead of the 1621 Parliament, he stayed aloof from the hotly disputed contest for the Caernarvonshire seat, despite the efforts of both sides to recruit his support, assuring king and Council that he had taken measures ‘for the quietness of the election’. The only election he is known to have influenced was at Ludlow, succeeding, where earlier presidents had failed, in securing the return of a council nominee – his heir, Spencer Compton.51 NLW, 9057E/925, 933, 995; NLW, 966E/1000; Salop RO, LB2/1/1, f. 131; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 334-5, 554. During the 1621 Parliament numerous clients of Villiers, now marquess of Buckingham, were attacked for their greed, including Sir Thomas Compton, whose logwood patent was cited in the Commons, but Northampton himself was never investigated. He was, perhaps, insulated from financial concerns by his vast fortune, while the council in the Marches was not a particularly lucrative posting: in May 1621 Northampton apparently earned no fee at all from his appointment of Edward Littleton I^‡ as a justice at Ludlow.52 NLW, 9057E/954.

Northampton attended over three-quarters of the sittings in the Lords, and at the start of the session he was named to the newly established committee for privileges and another for bills to bar the export of iron ordnance and to require the updating of militia armaments.53 LJ, iii. 10b, 13a. He mostly held aloof from the impeachments which dominated the House’s agenda during the spring. However, on 7 May, when George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury moved to proceed with the trial of Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, who had named Buckingham as the prime cause of corruption at court, Northampton reminded the House of the ongoing dispute with the Commons over Edward Floyd, a Shropshire lawyer whose slanders against Princess Elizabeth had diverted attention from the Yelverton case. This intervention, which was unhelpful to the favourite’s cause, failed to divert attention from Yelverton’s case.54 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 67-8; R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, pp. 120-1.

Much of Northampton’s recorded activity in the Lords during the 1621 session concerned local issues. Early in the session, he was approached by the Ludlow corporation, probably for support in extending their municipal jurisdiction south of the River Teme. On 30 Apr., at the second reading of the Welsh cottons bill – intended to break the Shrewsbury drapers’ near monopoly of the Welsh cloth trade – he moved that nomination of the committee be delayed until the House was fuller. However, Suffolk, who, as lord of Oswestry, stood to gain from the bill’s passage, successfully moved for an immediate committal. This disagreement suggests that Northampton was attempting to defend the Shrewsbury drapers’ interests, although he had little success in this respect, as the final draft of the bill imposed no requirement that the Welsh market their cloth via Shrewsbury. However, the bill was lost at the prorogation in December 1621.55 Salop RO, LB7/1678; Add. 40085, f. 82; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 343-4. As president of the Marches, the earl was included on the committee for the bill to repeal a clause of the 1542 Act of Union allowing the crown to make law for Wales by proclamation, and another to regulate the export of Welsh butter. At the second reading of the bill against swearing, he endorsed the notion that one of the clerks of the House should be attached to this committee, suggesting that this innovation be extended to other committees.56 LJ, iii. 130a, 185b; Add. 40085, f. 82.

In June 1621 it was rumoured that Northampton was among those to be made a privy councillor, but his recent failure to defend Buckingham may have counted against him. He clearly had an uneasy relationship with the favourite, but any present difficulties were resolved in October, when Spencer Compton married Buckingham’s cousin, Mary Beaumont, at the marquess’ estate at Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland. Six months later, Northampton succeeded the recently deceased Lord Chandos as lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire, a county where he had only minor estates, which may be an indication of Buckingham’s favour.57 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 384, 401-2; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 358. His efforts to raise money via the benevolence which followed the dissolution of the 1621 Parliament had mixed success in the Marches: Herefordshire and Worcestershire collected almost a subsidy each, but Shropshire contributed half that sum, and Wales almost nothing.58 NLW, 9058E/1019; SP14/135/62.

In the 1624 Parliament Northampton supported the anti-Spanish ‘patriot’ cause, sponsored by Buckingham and Prince Charles (Charles Stuart^*, prince of Wales). His secretary, Ralph Goodwin^‡, was elected for Ludlow, while at Bewdley, near the council’s winter quarters, the duchy of Cornwall recruited his assistance in securing the return of the courtier Ralph Clare^‡.59 DCO, ‘Prince Chas. in Spain’, f. 35; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 427. At the start of the session, Buckingham delivered a detailed account of the breakdown of negotiations for the Spanish Match to both Houses; shortly before the Lords rose to attend this narration, Northampton asked Prince Charles whether he would be willing to speak at the conference; the latter agreed, and played an important part in the proceedings. Many of those inclined to support the patriot cause wanted to see swift passage of legislation lost at the dissolution of the previous Parliament, and it may well have been for this reason that Northampton also proposed to examine ‘the state of the bills’ – presumably those from the 1621 session.60 Add. 40087, f. 19; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 11v; C. Russell, PEP, 157-9; T. Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 77-105, 166-71. As in 1621, the Lords gave priority to the bill for the updating of militia arms; at its second reading on 1 Mar. 1624, when Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, moved to disarm Catholics, Northampton offered to show the House ‘how the recusants have increased and decreased in this time of connivance’.61 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 21v; Add. 40087, ff. 40v-1; LJ, iii. 237b. The two Houses petitioned the king for a breach with Spain, but on 5 Mar. James pronounced himself unwilling to take their advice without financial support. On the following morning Archbishop Abbot, who was due to report the speech, was absent through illness; Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, an opponent of war, moved to adjourn the House until Abbot’s return, but Northampton persuaded the Lords to proceed with reading bills, and then to meet with the Commons about the king’s speech. Abbot eventually made his report on 12 Mar., when Northampton spoke, though his words went unrecorded.62 Cogswell, 183-4; Add. 40087, f. 55r-v; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f.36.

In addition to his own interventions, Northampton secured copies of three of the king’s speeches from the clerk of the parliaments, probably those of 5 and 13 Mar., in which James expressed his doubts about breaking off negotiations with Spain, and 23 Mar., when he accepted the offer of three subsidies. The earl also obtained a copy of the recusancy petition, and James’s answer of 22 Apr., which was taken as evidence of the king’s commitment to a breach with Spain.63 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, ff.59v, 60v; HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, ff. 43, 80v-1; Russell, 176-7, 185-6; Cogswell, 215-17, 245-6. While Northampton demonstrated a keen interest in debates over the termination of the treaties with Spain, he played no part in Buckingham and Charles’s efforts to secure the disgrace of the pro-Spanish party at court, which suggests he did not entirely subscribe to the favourite’s political agenda. The centrepiece of this attack was the impeachment of the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, whose management of the great wardrobe was criticized on 12 May. Numerous peers censured his conduct, but Northampton insisted that his failure to render accounts could hardly be held against him, as his patent exempted him from doing so; despite this protest, Cranfield was unanimously condemned on this charge.64 LD 1624 and 1626, pp.76-7; M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 259-64.

While he focussed much of his attention on the high politics of the session, Northampton was also involved with more routine affairs. He claimed privilege for one of his servants, but waived the punishment of the bailiff who had made the arrest.65 LJ, iii. 314b, 384b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 93; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 76. As in 1621, he followed the bill to repeal the prerogative clause of the 1543 Welsh Act of Union: named to the committee on 22 Mar., he attended conferences with the Commons on the same subject on 14 Apr. and 22 April. According to one Welsh commentator, he opposed the measure, presumably because his own authority as president rested on the prerogative.66 LJ, iii. 273a, 304b, 314b; Add. 44088. f. 22v; NLW, 9059E/1216. Although Northampton had urged the House to proceed with legislation at the start of the session, he himself was included on few bill committees. He was appointed to the bill against swearing on 9 Mar., which he reported without amendment three days later; he admitted that numerous alterations had been suggested, but acknowledged his own shortcomings in this respect, and undertook ‘to amend much in myself, and make myself agreeable to the bill’, which duly passed.67 LJ, iii. 257b; Add. 40087, f. 76v; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 35. He was also included on the committee for the Welsh cottons bill, which finally settled the dispute between the Shrewsbury drapers and Welsh clothiers, a quarrel he had spent several years attempting to arbitrate.68 LJ, ii. 303; APC, 1621-3, pp. 300-1, 374; Oswestry Town Hall, A75/1/7, 23; CSP Dom, 1619-23, pp. 447, 463. Finally, on the penultimate day of the session, a complaint against Sir Thomas Myddelton II^‡ was referred to him to investigate in the Marches court.69 LJ, iii. 416b.

Returning to Ludlow in the autumn of 1624, Northampton prepared for war, purchasing arms for the militia, and raising 800 recruits for Ireland. In Warwickshire he also raised troops for Count Mansfeld’s expedition to the Continent.70 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 373, 383, 398; 1625-6, p. 8; NLW, 9059E/1258, 9060E/1287. At the 1625 general election Ludlow again returned Ralph Goodwin, but the earl’s nomination of the privy councillor Sir John Suckling^‡ at Coventry was unsuccessful.71 Coventry Archives, BA H/C/17/1, f. 276v. Despite the plague, Northampton attended on almost every day of the 1625 Parliament. Early in the session, he was one of the sponsors who introduced to the Lords John Holles^*, newly elevated to the earldom of Clare. He was again nominated to the committee for the bill for militia arms, and, on 5 July, to the committee for the bill to confirm the enfranchisement of tenants of the duchy of Cornwall manor of Macclesfield, Cheshire, a measure he reported the following morning. On 7 July he reported that the complaint against Sir Thomas Myddelton, which had been consigned to his care at the end of the previous Parliament, was not triable before the council in the Marches, and the petitioner was advised to seek remedy at the common law. Northampton attended every day of the brief Oxford sitting in August, but his only mention in the records was a nomination to the committee for the bill to strike down a patent for fishing off the coast of America.72 Procs. 1625, pp. 39, 72, 88, 95, 102, 179.

The war years, 1625-30

After the abrupt dissolution of the 1625 Parliament, Northampton went to South Wales where, with a Spanish war imminent, he mustered the militia and checked the coastal defences, to guard against a possible invasion.73 CSP Dom, 1625-6, pp. 105, 108. Despite prompting from the Privy Council, he was slow to rate the shires within his lieutenancy for privy seal loans in the winter of 1625-6; he attributed the delay to ongoing subsidy payments, non-compliance at local level, and the announcement of a fresh Parliament. Warwickshire was one of four English counties which failed to set a rate; in Gloucestershire, only the city of Gloucester paid any of its contribution; Shropshire raised no more than 15 per cent of its quota; and only in Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Wales did yields reach or exceed the national average of 30 per cent of assessed quotas.74 APC, 1625-6, p. 288; CSP Dom, 1625-6, pp. 218, 223, 237, 253; NLW, 9061E/1388, 1403. Loan quotas in E401/2586, receipts in E401/1913-14, 401/2443.

Northampton attended three-quarters of the sittings of the 1626 Parliament, but, like many of Buckingham’s affinity, kept a low profile in a session dominated by the duke’s impeachment. Early in the session he was, yet again, named to the committee for the militia arms bill, and another to consider national defence. On 15 May, following the arrest of two MPs for exceeding their briefs in delivering the impeachment charges against Buckingham, Northampton followed the majority of peers in testifying that nothing had been said to touch upon Charles’s honour, although he claimed not to have heard the actual words spoken. This convoluted explanation was probably designed to avoid offending the favourite, while still exonerating his accusers. Northampton was subsequently added to the committee examining witnesses for the impeachment charges against Buckingham’s chief critic, John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, although this achieved nothing before the dissolution, five days later.75 Procs. 1626, i. 53, 110, 477, 483, 605. The political turmoil of the session curtailed the Lords’ legislative business, but Northampton was nominated to committees for bills concerning citations into ecclesiastical courts, to enfranchise the copyholders of Bromfield and Yale lordship in Denbighshire and a jointure bill for Dutton Gerard^*, 3rd Lord Gerard, grandson of his predecessor as president.76 Ibid. 313, 327, 545. On 25 Apr., during a privilege hearing for a servant of Lewes Bayly^*, bishop of Bangor – one of Buckingham’s clients – Northampton exonerated the official involved, the under-sheriff of Caernarvonshire, observing that Bayly’s servant had provoked him by eating the arrest warrant.77 Ibid. 315.

Like the privy seal loans of the previous year, the Forced Loan of 1626-7 provoked controversy within Northampton’s jurisdiction. Starting in January 1627, he rode a circuit of the Marches, meeting with the county commissioners and attempting to secure their support. Where co-operation was possible, the task of securing compliance from taxpayers proved relatively straightforward – in Wales, Shropshire and Herefordshire yields approached the national average of 72 per cent of the quota set for each county – but Warwickshire (63 per cent) and Worcestershire (53 per cent) saw some resistance. Moreover, Gloucestershire proved one of the most recalcitrant shires in the country: despite strenuous efforts by Northampton, half the collectors resolved ‘it was not fit for them to persuade others to do that which they in conscience had refused to do’, and the county returned only 36.6 per cent of its quota, a failure which aroused alarm in government circles.78 NLW, Powis Castle 11822; SP16/54/28; 16/78/42; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 76-7, 270, 283; S. Healy, ‘Oh, what a lovely war?’ Canadian Jnl. of Hist. xxxviii. 446, 463; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 117-18, 136-7, 167. The high level of the Loan quotas also affected the lieutenancy, which collected funds and pressed recruits under the authority of the prerogative: Northampton asked for authority to punish those who defaulted at musters, or refused militia rates; but he also attempted to mitigate the impact of the troops billeted in Gloucestershire during the winter of 1627-8, as punishment for the county’s refusal of the Forced Loan.79 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 488; 1627-8, pp. 198, 428, 430, 435, 582-3; HMC Cowper, i. 310. Northampton seems to have had some misgivings about the policies he was obliged to promote: in February 1628, when the Privy Council postponed the meeting of the forthcoming Parliament and considered further prerogative taxation, the Warwickshire gentry recalled his promise that ‘they would be repaid the last Loan at the next Parliament’.80 T. Birch Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 325; Cust, 84.

The only return Northampton is likely to have influenced at the 1628 general election was that of Ralph Goodwin at Ludlow. In the Lords, he held the proxy of Richard Bourke^*, 1st Viscount Tunbridge and 4th earl of Clanricarde [I] (later 1st earl of St Albans), whose heir was his son-in-law.81 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 26. In a session dominated by the need to defend private property rights against arbitrary government, Northampton was more supportive of the prerogative than many other peers, perhaps chiefly because restrictions on the prerogative would undermine his own authority as lord lieutenant. On 22 Mar. he was named to the committee for the militia arms bill, and when this was reported on 7 Apr., he moved for a conference with the Commons about a new bill to give statutory authority to militia rates. When the Lords debated the Commons’ conclusions about the liberties of the subject, Northampton pronounced himself baffled by the legal technicalities of the arguments employed. He agreed that ‘no man ought to be committed without just cause shown’, but was concerned that ‘if I give my voice to it, where is the training of men, musters etc.?’82 Ibid. 88, 159-60, 323; Russell, 370-1. This issue came to a head on 24 May, when the Lords debated the Commons’ refusal to accept any ‘saving clause’ for the prerogative to be added to the Petition of Right. While Northampton acknowledged the fault of his own proceedings over the Loan, he was unwilling to concede the Commons’ demand:

As for the right of the Commons, I will with all humility beg it of the king. But when the king’s prerogative is in question, I will then on horseback defend the same with my life against all men. The dangers threatened cannot be helped than by the unity of the king and people.83 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 523, 526-7; Russell, 373-4.

While the Lords, and then King Charles, assented to the unaltered Petition of Right, this did nothing to resolve the problems caused by unpaid soldiers; at the end of the session, the Lords instructed Northampton to see to the punishment of an ensign who had slandered a Warwickshire magistrate.84 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 691, 694. Northampton was involved in little other business that session, being named to just one more bill committee, for reform of prisons, and claiming privilege, once for Theophilus Clinton^*, 4th earl of Lincoln, over a forcible entry, and also for himself, over a case of slander.85 Ibid. 272, 533, 535, 547-51, 557, 563-4, 566-7.

In July 1628 the earl secured a grant of woodland in Whittlewood forest, near his Northamptonshire estates; this was later assigned to another individual, but he may have made a profit from the arrangement.86 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 239, 334, 354; 1629-31, pp. 98, 254, 281; P.A.J. Pettit, Royal Forests of Northants. 191. He was elected a knight of the Garter two months later; his installation in April 1629 was a particularly sumptuous affair. Northampton missed all but the last two days of the 1629 parliamentary session, presumably because of business in the Marches, as he was noted to have been on royal service at the roll-call of the Lords on 9 February.87 LJ, iv. 25b. Appointed to the Privy Council in November 1629, he remained active until his sudden death, apparently following an over-indulgent dinner with James Hamilton^*, 3rd marquess of Hamilton (2nd earl of Cambridge in the English peerage) on 24 June 1630.88 CSP Dom, 1628-9, p. 524; C115/109/8066; Bodl., Ashmole 1108, ff. 7-9; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton, 82. He left no will, but his estates and the administration of his goods fell to his heir, Spencer Compton, who also succeeded him as lord lieutenant of Warwickshire and Gloucestershire.89 C142/476/144; PROB 6/13, f. 200.