VILLIERS, George (1592-1628)

George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham, rose from obscurity to become the dominant political figure of his age. Like Robert Cecil*, 1st earl of Salisbury, who died just two years before his first appearance at court, he accomplished the not inconsiderable feat of serving two successive monarchs as chief minister. However, unlike Salisbury, whose political dominance was the result of a formidable intellect and an insatiable capacity for work, Buckingham, though clever and industrious, ultimately owed his position of power to good looks and charm.

Early years, 1592-1616

A younger son of a moderately well-to-do Leicestershire gentleman and his second wife, the beautiful Mary Beaumont, Villiers was, on his own admission, a quarrelsome child.75 HMC 4th Rep. 256. At the age of nine or ten he was sent to Billesdon vicarage, ten miles from the family seat at Brooksby Hall, where he spent three years under the tutelage of the capable vicar, Anthony Cade. On his father’s death in January 1606 he moved to the family’s dower house at Goadby Marwood, where his mother, expected to live on just £200 p.a., quickly cast around for another husband. In June 1606 she married a wealthy (and childless) octogenarian Huntingdonshire gentleman named Sir William Rayner.76 Lockyer, Buckingham, 9-10. When Rayner died shortly thereafter, Mary, now rich enough to provide her daughter Susan with a dowry of £2,500,77 Warws. RO, CR2017/F29. transferred her affections to the brother of William Compton^*, 2nd Lord Compton, thereby enabling her to ‘maintain and breed up her children in a better than ordinary education’. In May 1609 Villiers, now aged 16, and his older brother John Villiers^* (later Viscount Purbeck), were sent to France, where they studied first under the bishop of Blois, and then at the riding school at Angers.78 Lockyer, Buckingham, 10-11; R. Coke, A Detection of the Court and State of Eng. (1719), 81.

Villiers inherited both his mother’s striking good looks and her willingness to exploit them. On returning to Goadby, he pursued the wealthy Ann Aston, daughter of the late Anglo-Scottish courtier Sir Roger Aston^‡, only to be dismissed as a penniless fortune hunter.79 T. Frankland, Annals of King James and King Charles the First (1681), 29-30. The story is doubted by W. Sanderson, Compleat Hist. (1656), 455 and Lockyer, Buckingham, 11. An application to Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, who was known for paying large retainers to his gentlemen servants, was equally unsuccessful.80 J. Aubrey, Brief Lives ed. A Clark, ii. 209. He was subsequently persuaded to try his luck at court by Sir John Graham, one of the gentlemen of the king’s bedchamber,81 H. Wotton, Reliquiae Wottonianae (1651), 77. Little is known of Graham, who was appointed to the bedchamber in May 1603: Harl. 6166, f. 68v. with whom he perhaps became acquainted during his courtship of Ann Aston. Graham, a Scot, took Villiers under his wing,82 R. Davies, Greatest House at Chelsey, 113; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 361; Chamberlain Letters, i. 623. and in August 1614 he introduced Villiers to James I at Apethorpe, in Northamptonshire. The king, whose love of handsome young men was widely known, was immediately besotted with the tall, slender and effeminate-looking youth, and by early September it was reported that Villiers, now aged 22, ‘begins to be in favour with his Majesty’.83 Wotton, 77; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 56. D’Ewes, who saw him at close quarters in 1621, thought his face and hands ‘especially effeminate’: Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 166-7.

James’s infatuation with Villiers delighted many of the Scots at court, among them Viscount Haddington [S] (John Ramsay^*, later earl of Holdernesse) and Viscount Fentoun [S], who referred to Villiers as ‘my son’. (Though he too was a Scot, Somerset was hated at court, where he regarded himself as an honorary Englishman.) It also pleased the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*, who wished to undermine the established favourite, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset. With this backing Graham tried, in November 1614, to secure for his young protégé a place in the king’s bedchamber. However, Somerset, correctly interpreting this as a challenge to his position and authority, immediately had the king bestow the vacancy on his own nephew, William Carr^‡.84 HMC Downshire, v. 58; Chamberlain Letters, i. 559; Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 336; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 63, 65; Letters of John Donne ed. E. Gosse, 61, 65. On Somerset’s view of himself, see A. Somerset, Unnatural Murder, 67-8.

Though Somerset had temporarily blocked Villiers’ advancement, the king remained enchanted with his favourite’s young rival. Consequently, during the court’s Christmas and New Year festivities, Villiers, who excelled at dancing, was placed at centre stage by his backers, who received tacit encouragement from the king.85 Chamberlain Letters, i. 561; Lincs. AO, 10ANC/Lot 338. See also SP16/529/14. However, not until March 1615, when James went to see a comedy at Cambridge, did Villiers, primped and preened for the occasion by his mother, emerge as a serious threat to Somerset. James was so distracted by the youth’s dazzling beauty that, as one contemporary later recalled, ‘he became confounded between his admiration of Villiers and the pleasure of the play’.86 Coke, 82. This did not escape the notice of Somerset’s many enemies, and shortly thereafter members of the Herbert, Seymour and Russell families supped together at Baynard’s Castle, the Thames-side residence of the earls of Pembroke, where they resolved to topple Somerset by replacing him in the king’s favour with Villiers. To set the ball rolling, the conspirators agreed to purchase for Villiers a cupbearer’s place, as this would afford him regular close contact with James. The following day the privy councillor Sir Thomas Lake^‡, a disaffected former client of Somerset’s father-in-law the 1st earl of Suffolk (Thomas Howard^*), made the necessary arrangements.87 Sanderson, 456 (page incorrectly numbered 466); Lloyd, 844; T. Fuller, Worthies of Eng. ed. J. Freeman, 321. On Lake, see HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 63. In addition, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, provided Villiers with clothes and money, as the young man was so impoverished that he had attended a horse-race at Cambridge in an old torn black suit.88 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 86. Pembroke had been promised the lord chamberlain’s staff the previous year by Suffolk, only to see it handed to Somerset instead.

The faction fighting began almost as soon as Villiers appeared at court in his new capacity. On being severely rebuked by one of Somerset’s creatures for a minor breach of court etiquette, Villiers boxed the ears of his tormentor, for which offence Somerset tried to have him punished. Finding that Villiers was too well protected, the favourite directed his anger at Graham, who was dismissed in early April.89 Lloyd, 845; Sanderson, 456; HMC Downshire, v. 183. However, this merely created a vacancy in the bedchamber, whereupon Archbishop Abbot persuaded the queen, against her better judgment, to throw her weight behind Villiers. As a result, Villiers was sworn a gentleman of the bedchamber in place of Graham on 23 Apr. and knighted the following day.90 Rushworth, i. 456-7. Shortly thereafter the king bestowed an annual pension of £1,000 on Villiers, whose knowledge of French affairs James publicly commended. Somerset and his Howard allies were incensed, and in May the rival factions tried to outdo one another in public display, though Villiers himself was forbidden by James from participating.91 Chamberlain Letters, i. 597, 599.

Villiers’ success raised high hopes among his supporters. Abbot, for example, foresaw that God ‘will free our nation from that neglect whereunto it hath lately run’.92 HMC Downshire, v. 224. An equally delighted Pembroke now arranged for Villiers to be bankrolled on a massive scale: in July Thomas Perrot of London, a kinsman of the earl’s client Sir James Perrot^‡, advanced Villiers £20,000, secured on a bond for £40,000.93 LC4/36, m. 5. On Perrot’s kinship with Sir James Perrot, see R.K. Turvey, ‘NLW Roll 135: A Seventeenth-Century Ped. Roll from Herefs.’, NLW Jnl. xxx. 399. This was money well spent, for over the summer of 1615, Villiers having been instructed to follow the court, James was magnificently entertained at Goadby by the young man and his mother. Not long thereafter, while staying at Farnham Castle in Hampshire, Villiers was taken to bed by James.94 A. Weldon, Ct. and Character of Jas. I (1650), 96-7; SP16/529/14; Lockyer, Buckingham, 22.

Although a new star was in the ascendant, Somerset’s fall was far from certain. Indeed, as one of the earl’s clients remarked, it seemed unlikely that Villiers would rise sufficiently far to be able to ‘raze a chamberlain and a treasurer ... out of the book of life’.95 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 66. However, in July 1615 Secretary of State Sir Ralph Winwood^‡ learned that his patron, Somerset, was party to the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury. Thoroughly disenchanted with Somerset, who had repeatedly refused to part with the secretary’s seals of office,96 HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 824. Winwood revealed his discovery to a horrified James who, in November, ordered Somerset’s arrest.

While not directly responsible for the fall of Somerset, Villiers and his backers were its principal beneficiaries. Pembroke was created lord chamberlain in place of the disgraced Somerset, and Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester, surrendered the mastership of the horse to Villiers, who took up his new duties in January 1616. On the face of it, this office was a natural choice for Villiers, for under Elizabeth it had been monopolized by the queen’s favourites. However, at just 23, Villiers was remarkably young to hold such a senior post, and since he was not a skilled horseman he required fresh tuition before taking up his duties.97 HMC Downshire, v. 375.

The search for high office, 1616-19

His appointment as master of the horse led to a widespread assumption that Villiers had been – or was about to be – ennobled. This was entirely understandable as, for nearly 70 years, the mastership had almost always been held by a peer (the exception being Sir Edward Hastings, master between 1553 and 1556).98 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 104; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 102; HMC Downshire, v. 404; HEHL, Temple Corresp., Box 4, STT 1323. Sure enough, in August 1616, on the eve of his 24th birthday, Villiers was created Viscount Villiers, which rank, being one stage higher than a mere barony, gave him precedence over more than half the English peerage.

By now Villiers had also been elected to the order of the Garter and given lands in Buckinghamshire worth £700 p.a. formerly owned by the 15th Lord Grey of Wilton (Thomas Grey^*).99 Chamberlain Letters, i. 625; SO3/6, unfol. (April 1616). This flow of honours and gifts continued after his ennoblement, and involved lands and rents in Derbyshire worth an estimated £32,000, together with the remainder of the Grey estate.100 SO3/6, unfol. (Oct. 1616); HMC Downshire, vi. 30, 51. It was probably on the strength of these gifts that in March 1617 Villiers was able to raise the funds needed to make his first significant property purchase, that of Dalby manor, in Leicestershire, which he acquired from Sir Edward Noel^* (subsequently 1st Lord Noel) for £29,000 and which was situated just a few miles from Goadby Marwood.101 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 12.

Villiers’ elevation reflected James’s love of his new favourite, but it was also symptomatic of the enormous influence over policy and appointments that the young man had quickly come to exercise. When the Spanish ambassador asked Fentoun in January 1616 how to persuade James of the merits of a Spanish Match for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales), he was advised to bribe both Pembroke and Villiers.102 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. ii. 369. In September 1616 Fentoun told the earl of Mar [S] he was ‘much beholden to the master of the horse’ for his recent promotion as lord treasurer of Scotland, while in December Lewis Bayly^* was consecrated bishop of Bangor after offering Villiers a £600 bribe.103 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 67; LEWIS BAYLY. However, Villiers’ influence over royal patronage soon gave rise to conflict. As early as April 1616 the Privy Council was dismayed to learn that James, without any consultation, had decided to appoint Sir Oliver St John^* (later 1st Lord Tregoz) as lord deputy of Ireland at Villiers’ suggestion.104 J. McCavitt, Sir Arthur Chichester, 220. In March 1617 Villiers was rebuked by the king’s cousin, the 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (Ludovic Stuart^*, 1st earl of Richmond in the English peerage) for attempting to block the appointment of Sir Henry Yelverton^‡ as attorney general. Villiers, who had wanted to bestow the position on his own client Sir James Ley^* (later 1st earl of Marlborough), was unrepentant, and explained that Yelverton, by seeking his preferment by another route, had created the impression that Villiers was not ‘of that power he had been’.105 Liber Famelicus of Sir Jas. Whitelocke ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxxv), 55-6.

Equally contentious were Villiers’ determined attempts to control access to the king: in November 1616 he and Lord Hay (James Hay^*, later 1st earl of Carlisle) exchanged ‘round words’ after Hay introduced the disgraced former lord chief justice Sir Edward Coke^‡ to the king at Newmarket.106 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 447. By mid August 1616, as preparations were being made for his creation as Viscount Villiers, the favourite’s attempts to control both patronage and access to the king had lost him not only the widespread affection in which he had previously been held, but also the support of his ‘particular friends’.107 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 65. On the preparations for his ennoblement, see Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 4-5; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 407. Chief among these was Pembroke who had, until recently, been Villiers’ most powerful supporter next to the queen. It was Pembroke who helped Hay bypass Villiers at Newmarket, and it was Pembroke’s brother, the earl of Montgomery (Philip Herbert^*, later 4th earl of Pembroke), who attempted to topple Villiers in December by bringing to the king’s attention one of his own former servants, Adam Hill. At the same time, the handsome young 5th Lord Mordaunt (John Mordaunt^*) also secured a hold on the king’s affections.108 HMC Downshire, vi. 63; SP14/89/68; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 41.

As well as antagonizing former allies, Villiers took little care to cultivate the favour of the king’s 15-year old son, Prince Charles, whose standing in his father’s eyes he undermined. In March 1616 he flew into a rage and complained to the king after Charles failed to return a borrowed ring. According to a later account, he even threatened to strike the prince. Instead of defending his son, or trying to smooth out the incident, James banished Charles from his presence until the missing ring was found. Two months later Charles, in a moment of high spirits, splashed the favourite with water from the fountain at Greenwich. Though then still a mere knight, Villiers ‘was very much offended’, whereupon James rebuked the prince and boxed him round the ears.109 SP14/86/95, 14/87/40. For the later account of the episode involving the ring, which the author claims occurred at Greenwich, see Weldon, 152.

If Villiers regarded Charles as a rival for James’s affections, he also feared being upstaged by the prince. For this reason it was originally intended that Villiers should be elevated to an earldom when Charles was created prince of Wales in November 1616.110 NLW, Clenennau 339; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 373, 397. In the event wiser counsels prevailed, as Villiers’ advancement was delayed until the following January. However, Villiers remained determined to assert his dominance over Charles, and in mid November 1616 it was his client rather than the prince’s who was appointed bishop of Carlisle.111 SP14/89/35.

Although Villiers feared that he might soon be eclipsed in the king’s affections, the threat from Hill and Mordaunt vanished as suddenly as it had appeared, as by mid December his quarrels with Hay and Montgomery were forgotten.112 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 388. Indeed, relations with Montgomery were soon so cordial that the latter acted as one of the supporters at Villiers’ creation as earl of Buckingham in early January 1617.113 Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 75. The following day James presented the new earl with a special New Years’ gift: a portrait of himself ‘with his heart in his hand’.114 HMC Downshire, vi. 85. One month later Buckingham was further honoured by being appointed to the Privy Council.

In the spring of 1617 Buckingham accompanied James to Scotland, where he was treated with special favour. On 18 May, to the delight of the king, he was admitted to the Scottish Privy Council, an honour not previously bestowed upon an Englishman and one which enabled him to ride in the procession which preceded the opening of the Scottish Parliament on 17 June. The Council thereby hoped to continue Buckingham’s ‘affection to this country’, and also desired to show its appreciation of the ‘many good offices’ that (despite recent quarrels with Lennox and Hay) he had done for the Scots at court. Predictably, though, this mark of favour aroused considerable envy, and at the end of June four more Englishmen had to be admitted to the Scottish Privy Council, among them Pembroke and Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel.115 Reg. PC Scot. 1616-19, pp. xxix, 137; CSP Ven. 1615-17, pp. 515, 549. Moreover, in August, Lord Howard de Walden (Theophilus Howard^*, later 2nd earl of Suffolk) attempted unsuccessfully to foment unrest between Buckingham and one of Scotland’s most powerful noblemen, the 2nd marquess of Hamilton (James Hamilton^*, later 1st earl of Cambridge in the English peerage).116 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 31.

Buckingham was now the most influential figure at court next to the king. Whereas the Spanish ambassador paid him an annual pension of 6,000 ducats, he gave Lord Treasurer Suffolk, the next highest recipient, only two thirds as much.117 Add. 31111, f. 194. However, unlike Suffolk or Pembroke, Buckingham held no great office of state. Shortly after returning to England in September, Buckingham, attempting to remedy this situation, offered to buy out the aged lord high admiral, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham.118 HMC Downshire, vi. 300. At the same time, he planned to surrender the mastership of the horse either to Hamilton, now one of his closest confidants, or Montgomery.119 Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 5; Trevelyan Pprs. III ed. V.C. and C.E. Trevelyan (Cam. Soc. cv), 140-1. By mid November Buckingham’s appointment seemed to be little more than a formality. Certainly it was to Buckingham rather than Nottingham that Sir Thomas Lake, now secretary of state, directed a detailed report on the financial arrangements reached with the treasurer of the Navy, Sir Robert Mansell^‡.120 Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 31. See also Beaumont Pprs. ed. W.D. Macray (Roxburghe Club), 37. However, despite having restored friendly relations with Pembroke, the expected promotion did not materialize.121 Lockyer, Buckingham, 36. Buckingham claimed publicly that he turned down the admiralty due to his youth and inexperience, but in reality the king was having difficulty in meeting Nottingham’s demands for compensation, and it was also rumoured that Buckingham’s imminent appointment had aroused too much envy at court.122 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 510; CSP Ven. 1617-19, pp. 94, 107.

Perhaps the most likely reason Buckingham failed to become lord admiral in 1617 is that he found his path unexpectedly blocked. In 1612 James had granted the reversion of the admiralty to Prince Charles.123 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 111. Had Nottingham surrendered his patent, Charles’s reversion would have taken effect automatically. Since Charles disliked Buckingham, there was little likelihood of a voluntary surrender. Belatedly, it seems, Buckingham realized that he could proceed no further. James, who had become increasingly testy through illness and now wholly relied upon Buckingham to soothe him, was mortified that he was unable to gratify his favourite.124 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 121. By way of compensation, and to universal astonishment, early in the New Year he raised his disappointed young companion to the rank of marquess, which title he had not previously bestowed on anyone else. At a stroke Buckingham now outranked every other English peer with the exception of Prince Charles, who was duke of Cornwall, and William Paulet^*, 4th marquess of Winchester, who rarely came to court.125 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 1 (letter miscalendared); Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 452. James made the necessary arrangements in secret so as ‘to avoid counterposition and competition of others’. Harl. 5176, f. 228v. Buckingham demonstrated his gratitude by immediately holding a ‘great feast’ for the king and prince costing £600, and shortly thereafter it was rumoured that he would soon be elevated to a dukedom.126 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 127; Beaumont Pprs. 41.

By now Buckingham enjoyed warm relations with the Herbert family, which he valued so highly that he disappointed one of his own clients to allow Pembroke to bestow the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster on another.127 Lockyer, Buckingham, 36; HP Commons 1604-29, v. 294. However, the same could not be said of his relations with the Howard clan, headed by Lord Treasurer Suffolk. Under Suffolk the royal finances, which were already in a parlous condition, had deteriorated sharply. During his absence in Scotland, James had expected Suffolk and those other councillors who remained behind in London to devote their energies towards reducing his expenses, but on returning to the capital in September he discovered that little had been accomplished.128 Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 360-2. Indeed, by October 1617 the king owed more than £726,000 and the annual deficit was running at £137,000.129 Lansd. 165, f. 269v; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 486. Buckingham blamed Suffolk, and by mid September there was talk of placing the treasury in commission.130 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 80. In the event Suffolk was allowed to remain in post for the time being, but he was increasingly confined to the margins, as a vigorous campaign of financial reform led by others was now undertaken. The key figure was Buckingham’s own financial adviser and former City merchant Lionel Cranfield^* (later 1st earl of Middlesex), who had already helped to improve the favourite’s finances and was now placed at the head of a commission to reform the royal household. Suffolk, who had built a substantial fortune by siphoning off large sums from the Exchequer, was quick to perceive the danger, and early in the New Year he and his allies introduced to court the 18-year old William Monson^‡ in the hope of displacing the favourite. However, although they took ‘great pains’ to prepare the young man, including washing his face daily in ‘posset-curd’, the king saw through their scheme and banished Monson from court.131 Lockyer, Buckingham, 35; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 357.

Over the course of the spring and summer the quarrel between the rival factions intensified.132 Add. 31111, ff. 206, 210. However, from the start the Howards were fighting a losing battle, as Buckingham enjoyed the support of Pembroke and was in greater favour than ever. Indeed, in May 1618 the king granted Buckingham a lease of the Irish customs for ten years in order that he might more easily support his dignity as a marquess.133 Procs. 1626, i. 476n. On 10 July a commission led by Pembroke was established to uncover malpractice in the treasury.134 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 552. Buckingham, though not a member of this body, was undoubtedly its guiding spirit. Certainly the Spanish ambassador depicted the factional struggle as being between Buckingham and Suffolk rather than between Pembroke and the lord treasurer.135 Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España, ii. 38. Two days after the commission was established Suffolk was accused of fiscal maladministration; one week later he was dismissed.136 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 33, 34. In the immediate aftermath of this triumph, Buckingham proposed that Pembroke should succeed Suffolk as lord treasurer and resign to him the office of lord chamberlain. This arrangement would not only give Buckingham the high office that he craved but also ensure that he remained in close proximity to the king, even after he surrendered the mastership of the horse, as he still intended. However, Pembroke was reported to be ‘nothing fond’ of becoming treasurer unless he was permitted to convey his chamberlain’s staff to his brother Montgomery.137 Add. 34727, f. 31; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 168.

Buckingham had now been thwarted for a second time in his efforts to obtain high office. However, his situation was far from hopeless, as his relationship with Prince Charles had recently undergone a radical transformation. On 18 June 1618 Buckingham feasted the king at his newly acquired great house at Wanstead, in Essex without also inviting Charles, who lay only a mile away. Charles naturally resented this slight and complained to Buckingham who, rather feebly, blamed his steward for lack of provisions. One week later a contrite Buckingham threw an equally lavish feast for both father and son. The occasion proved to be a resounding success, as James seized the opportunity to break down the barriers of mutual suspicion that existed between Charles and Buckingham. Before the end of the evening the two young men had become firm friends.138 CSP Ven. 1617-19, pp. 250-1; HMC Bath, ii. 68; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 78; ‘Camden Diary’, 33. See also Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham (no editor), 12. Although they continued to exchange the occasional sharp word,139 For these minor spats, see HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 85; Add. 72275, f. 94v. it was soon apparent that Charles now looked up to Buckingham, regarding him, perhaps, as a substitute for his late lamented elder brother, Prince Henry. Indeed, by the end of the year the pair were on such intimate terms that Charles could write to Buckingham that ‘there is none knows me so well as yourself’.140 Orig. Letters of State ed. H. Ellis, 1st ser. iii. 102. The successful outcome of the ‘friends’ feast’, as it was dubbed, was to shape events for the next ten years. In the short term, however, it removed the major obstacle that had prevented Buckingham from succeeding Nottingham as lord admiral. Buckingham therefore began to take a renewed interest in the Navy, whose finances and management were now the subject of a commission of inquiry headed by Cranfield.141 Jacobean Commissions of Enquiry 1608 and 1618 ed. A.P. McGowan (Navy Recs. Soc. cxvi), xviii.

By the time the Navy commissioners presented their findings to the king on 29 Sept. it had been decided that Buckingham would take charge of the admiralty. However, since Nottingham was widely regarded as a hero for defeating the Spanish Armada, it was also resolved that the older man should continue to share in the office until such time as he died. Accordingly, in early October a patent to this effect was drawn up.142 APC, 1618-19, p. 263; HMC Downshire, vi. 527, 529-31, 533; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 582; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 91-2. From an administrative point of view, though, this arrangement was clearly unsatisfactory. Besides, Nottingham himself was only too eager to part with the admiralty provided he was handsomely remunerated. Buckingham thereupon suggested that he be offered £3,000.143 HMC Downshire, vi. 546; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 173. However, the ensuing negotiations ran into difficulty, and though Prince Charles formally surrendered his interest in mid October 1618, Nottingham did not resign until 27 Jan. 1619. Buckingham’s patent passed the great seal the following day.144 HMC Downshire, vi. 599; CCSP, i. 13; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 585; C66/1906/5 (we are grateful for this reference to Sir John Sainty).

The Navy was now headed by a 26-year old who had never previously commanded so much as a pinnace. However, to a considerable extent Buckingham’s youth and inexperience were immaterial to the smooth running of the Navy, because in February 1619 the former commission of inquiry was turned into a permanent board, with instructions to manage the Navy on a day-to-day basis and implement its own recommendations for reforming the organization’s administration and finances.145 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 12. If there was a problem, it was not that Buckingham was ill equipped to carry out his duties but that he would be left with nothing meaningful to do. The commissioners themselves were acutely aware of this danger, and towards the end of 1618, while Buckingham was still locked in negotiations with Nottingham, they offered reassurance on this point in case the favourite suddenly developed cold feet. Cranfield told Buckingham that the purpose of the commission was ‘to restore the lord admiral’s place’ to its ‘ancient right and greatness’, and declared that the commissioners would be ‘but your lordship’s servants’. His colleague John Coke^‡, the real workhorse of the commission and the most talented and honest naval administrator of his generation, also insisted that it was not the intention of the commissioners to derogate from the lord admiral’s power.146 Fortescue Pprs. 61-2; HMC Cowper, i. 99. However, these reassurances were unnecessary, since Buckingham was perfectly content to follow the commissioners’ advice. In return, he required the reform of the Navy to be seen as his own act, ‘so as even the commissioners that perform the service shall not assume so much as the project, the carriage or the dispatch’.147 Add. 64876, f. 119.

Although the task of reforming the Navy and managing the dockyards on a daily basis could safely be left to commissioners, there were still important duties for Buckingham to perform. Over the course of the previous year there had been reports of a large Spanish naval build-up. Ostensibly at least, these preparations foreshadowed an attack on the pirate base at Algiers, but there were grounds for supposing that Spain’s real objective was Venice. On taking office therefore, Buckingham gave orders to prepare a fleet of ships for service in the Mediterranean.148 M. Young, Servility and Service: The Life and Work of Sir John Coke, 75. He also ordered a survey of all the ships and mariners in the maritime counties to be carried out, the first time that such a census had been undertaken since 1582.149 Wilts. Arch. Mag. ii. 190. Only the returns for the vice admiralty of S. Devon are known to survive: Early-Stuart Mariners and Shipping ed. T. Gray (Devon and Cornw. Rec. Soc. n.s. xxxiii), 1-52. For the 1582 survey, the returns for which are also incomplete, see SP12/156/45. However, when Buckingham attempted to inspect the dockyard and ships at Chatham in February he was thwarted by the king who, reluctant to be left alone, even for a day, declared that he ‘could not spare him so long’.150 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 212. Not until the middle of July, six months after taking office, was Buckingham able to tour the naval facilities at Chatham.151 SP14/109/61; Autobiog. of Phineas Pett ed. W.G. Perrin (Navy Recs. Soc.li), 120; ‘Camden Diary’, 48.

The king’s reluctance to be parted from his favourite is a characteristic feature of the later part of James’s reign, when age and ill health began to take its toll. When James withdrew to Greenwich in May 1619 rather than attend the funeral of the queen, Buckingham, unlike the rest of the nobility, was obliged to accompany him.152 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 539. On the day of the funeral (13 May) Buckingham wrote to Bacon from Greenwich: Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 15. Likewise, Buckingham was prevented from travelling to Scotland in the summer of 1619 with Pembroke, Arundel, Lennox and Hamilton, despite expressing a firm wish to do so.153 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 241; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 93. However, if Buckingham ever resented the limitations placed on his freedom of movement by the king he wisely refrained from showing it. There were considerable advantages to the restrictions placed upon him, as constant close proximity to the king afforded him a remarkable degree of influence over policy. James, declared Fentoun in August 1618, ‘imparts to nobody’ except Buckingham, and in May 1619, at a meeting with the Spanish ambassador to discuss the terms of a marriage treaty, James insisted ‘that only the marquess of Buckingham should be present’.154 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 86; Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. xc), 146. For his part, Buckingham encouraged the king’s emotional and physical dependence upon him. When James fell seriously ill in March 1619, it was Buckingham who oversaw his care, for which act of kindness he was rewarded with the keepership of the queen’s former London residence, Denmark House, and lands worth almost £1,200.155 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 237; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 48-9, 64.

Conflict with former allies, 1619-20

Promotion to the admiralty coincided with a deterioration in Buckingham’s relationship with Pembroke. Pembroke still desired the lord treasurer’s staff, but having refused to let the favourite replace him as lord chamberlain he found that he could no longer rely on Buckingham’s support. It was perhaps for this reason that, in January 1619, Buckingham was approached by the recorder of London, Sir Henry Montagu^* (later 1st earl of Manchester), who offered £10,000 in return for the treasurership.156 Bodl., Tanner 74, f. 178. Buckingham did not take up this offer, at least not immediately. Instead, he may have hoped that the threat of Montagu’s appointment would induce Pembroke to accept Buckingham’s close ally Hamilton, or even James Hay, now Viscount Doncaster, as lord chamberlain in return for the treasurer’s staff.157 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 174; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 8. However, Pembroke refused to budge, and as a result relations between Buckingham and the lord chamberlain quickly deteriorated. In September 1619 a quarrel erupted after Buckingham appointed Sir Clement Cotterell^‡ as groom porter. Pembroke claimed that this office was within his gift, whereupon Buckingham accused the lord chamberlain of ingratitude, reminding him that he had already acceded to Pembroke’s wishes in respect of the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster and the surveyorship of the Court of Wards. Not until early November was a settlement finally reached, and only then after the king intervened personally on Buckingham’s behalf.158 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 263, 265; Add. 72253, f. 60; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 192; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 419; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 104-5.

Buckingham’s inability to persuade Pembroke to conform to his wishes in respect of the latter’s successor as lord chamberlain appears to have had a detrimental effect on his relationship with Hamilton. Before his appointment as lord admiral, Buckingham had promised to convey the mastership of the horse to Hamilton, but he had allowed himself to become diverted from this pledge by the prospect of securing for Hamilton an even greater prize, that of the lord chamberlain’s staff.159 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 241. By the beginning of 1620 it was perfectly clear that Pembroke would not allow himself to be dislodged on terms acceptable to Buckingham. However, instead of providing for Hamilton, Buckingham now contemplated handing the mastership to his prospective father-in-law, Francis Manners^*, 6th earl of Rutland. Hamilton not unreasonably felt betrayed, and in January 1620 there was ‘some cross speech’ after Hamilton and Arundel implied that Buckingham was guilty of debasing the ancient nobility by selling honours. The following month Hamilton accused Buckingham to his face of breach of faith. Buckingham was unrepentant, however, and in March an angry Hamilton secured for himself appointment as a gentleman of the bedchamber behind Buckingham’s back.160 Ibid. 286, 297; Add. 72253, f. 93v.

The discontent expressed by Hamilton and Arundel at Buckingham’s role in the sale of honours was not without justification. Although the first English peerage to be traded for money was sold before his rise to power, Buckingham had proved quick to exploit the practice for his own benefit. In the summer of 1616 he had obtained a peerage for Sir John Roper^* in order to induce Roper to surrender to him a valuable office; and in March 1617 his purchase of the Leicestershire manor of Dalby may have been lubricated by a barony, bestowed upon its former owner.161 C.R. Mayes, ‘Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart Eng.’, JMH, xxix. 22, 23, 25. In January 1618 Buckingham turned his attention to the Irish peerage, obtaining a barony for Mountjoy Blount^* (later 1st earl of Newport) in return for the manor of Wanstead. Buckingham subsequently offered Wanstead to the king, but as James declined to accept it, Buckingham sold this property for £7,300 to his client Sir Henry Mildmay^‡.162 Lockyer, Buckingham, 54-5; Essex RO, D/DGn 180; C54/2397/28. Over the next few years Buckingham developed a brisk trade in the sale of Irish titles, which yielded him nearly £25,000 between 1618 and 1622.163 C.R. Mayes, ‘Early Stuarts and the Irish Peerage’, EHR, lxxiii. 239-40.

Of course, it was not merely because he traded in peerages that Buckingham could be accused of debasing the ancient nobility, since he was also from a relatively modest social background. By the summer of 1619 he was engaged in marriage negotiations with the earl of Rutland, whose family had been ennobled nearly a century before. The Florentine ambassador thought this indicated that Buckingham’s star was on the wane, but nothing could have been further from the truth, as James was keen that Buckingham should follow his example and start a family.164 Lockyer, Buckingham, 55; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 200. Indeed, the king may even have participated in the marriage negotiations himself, as he stayed at Rutland’s seat of Belvoir Castle in August.165 Reg. PC Scot. 1619-22, p. 65. However, the chief obstacle to a marriage was religion: both Rutland and his daughter Katherine were Catholic, whereas Buckingham, despite advocating a Spanish bride for Prince Charles,166 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 153-4. was Protestant. This difference, coupled with the fact that Buckingham demanded an enormous dowry, initially caused the negotiations to founder.167 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 71; Lockyer, Buckingham, 59. However, Rutland changed his mind after learning that Katherine had spent a couple of nights with Buckingham’s mother. So too did Buckingham after Katherine was persuaded to relinquish her Catholic faith by the king.168 ‘Camden Diary’, 52; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 113; Add. 72253, ff. 90, 114; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 293. Buckingham was so delighted that he agreed to accept a dowry half the size of the one he had originally demanded.169 Lockyer, Buckingham, 59-60; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 133; Add. 72253, f. 104v; Goodman, ii. 192; Davies, 133; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 301. For the Spanish ambassador’s reaction to the news of Katherine’s conversion, see Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 156. However, to ensure that Katherine did not subsequently revert to her former faith, he had John Williams^* (later archbishop of York), recently installed as dean of Westminster by his own favour, pen a short treatise on the tenets of the Protestant faith, with guidance on how to counter Catholic objections.170 Hacket, i. 42-3.

Buckingham’s marriage, celebrated quietly in mid May 1620, was, as Buckingham himself acknowledged, ‘the last key-stone that made the arch’ in his preferment.171 Ibid.; ‘Camden Diary’, 57. He subsequently cast around for a suitable house in the country in which to raise a family, and by the summer of 1620 he had decided upon Burley-on-the-Hill, in Rutland, which boasted a great estate and lay 13 miles from his boyhood home of Brooksby. However, he was ill able to afford this property, his finances being in such a parlous condition that one of his own officers, Sir Robert Pye^‡, was forced to dip into his own pocket to help pay his master’s expenses.172 Bodl., Clarendon 3, f. 78. However, at the last moment, and shortly before his 28th birthday, Buckingham was given £8,000 by the king to secure the estate, which cost him £14,000 and one of his Warwickshire manors.173 Lockyer, Buckingham, 62-3, 87; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 170; Lansd. 93, f. 98v.

Shortly after Buckingham received his surprise birthday gift, news arrived that the Rhenish Palatinate, ruled by the king’s son-in-law Frederick V, had been invaded by imperial forces. Like the rest of the Privy Council, Buckingham was appalled at this development and, despite the impending purchase of Burley, in early October he contributed £1,000 towards a collection to help pay for the defence of the Palatinate.174 SP14/117/2. At around the same time, he and Pembroke set aside their differences, at least publicly.175 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 421. A Parliament was now inescapable, and over the course of the winter of 1620-1 parliamentary elections were held. Ironically Buckingham, though he exercised enormous powers of patronage as the king’s chief minister, as yet possessed little electoral influence. Though many of his clients secured seats in the Commons, most of them did so either on their own interest or with the help of other patrons. Sir Henry Mildmay, for instance, looked to the master of the Rolls, Sir Julius Caesar^‡, for a seat at the Essex borough of Maldon, while John Coke turned to his friend Sir Fulke Greville^* (later 1st Lord Brooke) for a place at Warwick. Even Sir Clement Cotterell, who came in for Grantham, a borough situated only eight miles from Burley-on-the-Hill, seems to have been returned without Buckingham’s help. Perhaps only two of Buckingham’s clients owed their seats to their patron: his servant Richard Oliver^*, who came in for the borough of Buckingham, and his elder half-brother Sir Edward Villiers^‡, who was elected for Westminster, where the marquess was high steward. Even so, Sir Edward appears to have needed the support of both the king and John Williams, dean of Westminster.176 NLW, 9057E/926; Add. 72253, f. 167v. The limitations of Buckingham’s electoral influence were perhaps most keenly demonstrated in January 1621, when the marquess attempted without success to persuade Sir George Hastings^‡ to stand aside in favour of Buckingham’s kinsman Sir Thomas Beaumont^‡ after both men were returned for a single seat at the Leicestershire county election.177 HEHL, Hastings Corresp., Box 8, HA 12993.

The Parliament of 1621

Buckingham carried the cap of maintenance in the procession which preceded the opening of Parliament on 30 Jan. 1621. He also attended the Lords on the first two days of business (3 and 5 Feb.), at which time he was appointed one of the triers of petitions from James’s three kingdoms (a largely honorific office).178 SP14/119/46; LJ, iii. 7a, 10b. However, he subsequently decamped to Theobalds with the king, thereby missing five consecutive days of sitting (between 6 and 14 Feb. inclusive). His position as lord admiral nevertheless required that he be named to committees for bills to prevent the export of iron ordnance and to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable during his absence.179 Fortescue Pprs. 150-1; LJ, iii. 13a. Following James’s return to London, Buckingham resumed his attendance. On 15 Feb. he, Prince Charles and several other peers who had also been absent were added to a committee instructed to wait upon the king. However, objections were thereupon raised, as it was unclear whether additions could in fact be made. Buckingham, who had never before sat in Parliament and so was unaccustomed to the wrangling over minor points of procedure that was a regular feature of both Houses, rapidly lost patience with the debate. ‘I pray your lordships think not to have any of us of the committee but his Highness’, he declared, ‘for methinks we have spent more time herein than such a business as this requireth, ... it being of no greater moment’, a suggestion which was hurriedly adopted.180 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 4; ‘Hastings 1621’, pp. 16-17.

Buckingham, though shown as absent in the Journal, may have spoken in the debate of 16 Feb. on whether to join the Commons in petitioning the king to execute the laws against Catholics.181 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 7; LJ, iii. 19a. Sometime over the next few days he learned of the existence of a petition signed by 33 of his fellow peers that had been prepared in secret. The malcontent peers, of whom no less than 26 were barons, were angry that English holders of Irish and Scottish viscountcies took precedence over them on local commissions, and sought permission to disregard their titles.182 A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187. This was an explosive request, for if Irish and Scottish titles ceased to carry weight in England their commercial value would be impaired, to the detriment of the king and Buckingham, who chiefly benefited from these sales. Not surprisingly, Buckingham was incensed, particularly after he discovered that two of his own clients, the 2nd earl of Salisbury (William Cecil^*) and the 3rd earl of Dorset, were chiefly responsible for drafting the petition. He took the earls aside, and expressed astonishment that they had embarked upon such a course when they knew that his interests were at stake.183 F. von Raumer, Hist. of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ii. 250-1.

Despite Buckingham’s anger the dissident peers were determined to persuade the upper House to adopt the petition as its own. They were opposed, inter alia, by Buckingham who, despite having recently expressed irritation on a minor point of procedure, argued that it was against the order of the House to add further signatures to the petition in the chamber.184 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 10-11. Eventually it was agreed that the authors of the petition should be permitted to present their document to the king that afternoon. Having been briefed by Buckingham, James was, if anything, even angrier than his favourite, and insisted that the petition be handed to the Privy Council rather than to him personally. This demand proved unacceptable to the petitioners, perhaps because Buckingham, who stood to lose most were the petition to be upheld, attended the Council board that same afternoon.185 Raumer, ii. 252. For the Council meeting, which is misdated 19 Feb. in the register, see APC, 1619-21, p. 352. An ugly confrontation was avoided only after the intervention of the prince of Wales.

Buckingham was evidently badly shaken by this early assault on his authority. On 5 Mar. he tried to recover the good opinion of his fellow peers by proposing the establishment of an academy for ‘the breeding and bringing up of the nobility of this kingdom in their younger and tender age’, to be financed by voluntary contributions ‘from persons of honour and quality’. The Lords were delighted by this suggestion, which loosely resembled a scheme first advanced more than 50 years earlier by Sir Humphrey Gilbert^‡, as no such finishing school existed except on the Continent. Consequently discussion quickly turned to consider who should teach in such a school and where it should be located. Indeed, so enthusiastic was the House that it established a committee to consider the suggestion.186LJ iii. 36b; J. Simon, Education and Society in Tudor Eng. 342. However, if Buckingham now hoped to be free from all further parliamentary criticism he was soon to be disappointed. At the end of February the Commons asked the Lords to punish Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, a distant kinsman of Buckingham’s, whose abuses as a monopolist were so notorious that Buckingham had been advised before the Parliament began to cancel his various patents.187 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 148-9. Following Mompesson’s escape from custody on 2 Mar., Buckingham swiftly moved to distance himself from his corrupt client by protesting how much he himself had been ‘wronged and abused’ by Mompesson and expressing concern that the malefactor should be recaptured. However, with Mompesson now gone, attention in the Commons soon turned to Buckingham’s elder half-brother Sir Edward Villiers, Mompesson’s partner in the monopoly for the manufacture of gold and silver thread, who was currently absent on a diplomatic mission. On 5 Mar. the Commons learned that Villiers had put pressure on the then attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, to imprison several silkmen who refused to enter into bonds promising not to manufacture gold and silver thread. This caused outrage, and many in the Commons assumed that Yelverton’s fear of Villiers and Mompesson indicated that the two monopolists were, in fact, acting on behalf of Buckingham himself. Indeed, there were suggestions that action should be taken against the favourite. ‘Let no man’s greatness daunt us’, declared Sir Edward Giles^‡, for ‘the more we do to great men, the more we prevent in future these mischiefs’.188 CJ, i. 538b, 539a.

Buckingham was now extremely anxious, as many of the monopolies that were the subject of complaint in the Commons had been ‘begotten by his favour and credit’. Indeed, according to one well informed source, the worry robbed him ‘of all peace of mind’. He turned for guidance to his friend and client John Williams, dean of Westminster, who advised him to ‘swim with the tide’, as thereby ‘you cannot be drowned’. The Commons, after all, were only engaged in ‘their proper work’, the hunting out of abuses. If Buckingham now used his influence with the king to bring about a dissolution in order to save wrongdoers, the storm would ‘burst out into a greater tempest’, as ‘succeeding parliaments will never be friends with those [with] whom the former fell out’. Both Buckingham and James considered this sound advice,189 Hacket, i. 94-5. but to help calm his favourite’s fears the king addressed the Lords on 10 March. In a lengthy speech, James admitted that Buckingham had often recommended projects to his consideration, provided they were beneficial to both king and people, but he claimed that Buckingham had never wanted any part of them himself. Moreover, he revealed that Mompesson had been warned by the lord admiral, in his presence, that his misconduct would give rise to parliamentary complaints. Far from being an eager searcher after fresh grants of monopoly, Buckingham was depicted by James as a victim of projectors, who pestered him so much with their schemes ‘that I may say his time hath been a purgatory to him’. However, if it transpired that Buckingham was guilty, as tavern talk suggested, James promised to have him punished. At this assurance Buckingham, in theatrical fashion, fell upon his knees and submitted himself to the king’s justice. A short while later he declared his innocence, blamed others for recommending the patents as fit to pass, and confessed, with a touch of gallows humour, that he ‘must be a papist’ as he was in purgatory. This little speech, though obviously rehearsed, was evidently considered ‘good and honourable’ by those who heard it.190 ‘Hastings 1621’, pp. 26, 28-9, 30; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 351; Lockyer, Buckingham, 94.

Buckingham now set about the task of winning the good opinion of both Houses. On 12 Mar. his ally the earl of Arundel told the Lords that Buckingham had recommended to the king that peers be allowed to give testimony in courts of law on their honour rather than on oath, and had thereby done them all ‘many good services’. After Arundel had finished speaking, Buckingham declared that he would continue to do whatever he could.191 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 16-17. The following day Buckingham participated in a conference with representatives of the Commons about the monopolies scandal. Buckingham saw the meeting as an opportunity to clear his name, but he did not realize that the Lords’ committee had been instructed merely to listen to the Commons’ spokesmen. Consequently, on beginning his defence, he was interrupted by the 3rd Lord Sheffield (Edmund Sheffield^*, later 1st earl of Mulgrave) and the 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton (Henry Wriothesley^*), whom Buckingham had counted only a few years earlier among his clients. Furious at having been thus humiliated, Buckingham left the conference early in order to complain of his treatment to the House, where he received a sympathetic response. However, when the remainder of the committee filed in it soon became clear that Buckingham had erred. Buckingham was too proud to admit his mistake and besides, he was probably already aware that Sheffield and Southampton were secretly trying to bring about his destruction. Like them, he wanted the question of blame to be put to a vote. However, a majority in the House agreed with the bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (Thomas Morton^*), who observed that a division would ‘beget more differences’. As a result the matter was quietly dropped.192 Ibid. 21-3. On Southampton’s previous good relations with Buckingham, see CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 43.

Following this altercation, the conference with the Commons resumed. Buckingham, now granted permission to speak freely, used the opportunity to assure the Commons of his cooperation. Were it to transpire that either Sir Edward Villiers or his younger brother Sir Christopher Villiers^* (later 1st earl of Anglesey) was at fault, he declared, ‘the womb that bare them hath also borne one that will seek to have them punished’. In addition, he thanked the Commons for having acquitted him of any wrongdoing, although the lower House had in fact done no such thing, except insofar as it had not brought any charges against him.193 CD 1621, ii. 212.

In the wake of the conference of 13 Mar., Buckingham proved eager to repair the damage regarding the monopoly that most closely concerned his brother Sir Edward. One of the charges against those who controlled the monopoly for the manufacture of gold and silver thread was that they had falsified their product by using white lead and arsenic. On 22 Mar. Buckingham advised that care should be taken in future to prevent such ‘sophistication’; he also recommended that imports of gold and silver thread should be permitted, thereby creating thousands of jobs. As a result of this motion the Lords ordered the attorney general to draft a proclamation for the king. James, meanwhile, remained as determined as ever to defend his favourite.194 LJ, iii. 62b, 65a. See also CJ, i. 540b. In a second speech to the Lords, on 26 Mar., he singled out Buckingham for praise, saying that he ‘hath been ready, upon all occasions, to do good offices, both for the House in general and every Member thereof in particular’. He also confirmed the statement made by Arundel two weeks earlier, that Buckingham had spoken ‘earnestly’ to him on the right of peers to swear on their honour rather than on oath. By this time, however, Buckingham was feeling unwell, and asked to be excused from attending that afternoon, when the absent Mompesson was due to be sentenced. In the event, he did attend, for after the Lords decided to strip Mompesson of his knighthood he asked whether it was necessary for Mompesson’s wife and children to undergo similar humiliation. The next day, as Parliament was about to rise for Easter, he delivered a message of thanks from the king and suggested that Arundel should set in train the work of erecting a bronze statue to the king and prince.195 LJ, iii. 69b, 73b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 42, 46, 49.

Although Buckingham had so far escaped censure, there was no guarantee that when Parliament reassembled in three weeks’ time the Commons would not turn their fire on him. The lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, was already under fierce attack for corruption and, it was widely believed, would soon be driven from office. If Bacon were dismissed, what guarantee was there that James – who had not prevented the fall of Somerset five years earlier - would intervene to save him? Rumours that James was prepared to throw Buckingham to the wolves were certainly circulating at around this time.196 Lockyer, Buckingham, 99. See also CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 15. Far from feeling relief or joy at his deliverance thus far, Buckingham, who was already ill, experienced something bordering on mental and emotional collapse. Instead of accompanying the king to Theobalds as promised, he fled to New Hall in Essex, seat of the earls of Sussex, which he had heard was as good a place ‘to ride away an ague as any in England’. From there he wrote James an emotional letter in which he apologized for running off. He also thanked the king profusely for trying ‘to endear me with the upper and lower House [sic] of Parliament, and so, consequently, with your whole kingdom’.197 Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, 12-13. cf. Lockyer, Buckingham, 95. For James’s departure for Theobalds on 27 Mar., see Chamberlain Letters, ii. 35. How long Buckingham remained at New Hall is unknown, but by Easter day he had rejoined the king, from whom he presumably received ample reassurance that his position was secure, for in early April he and his father-in-law travelled to Lincoln to see a horse race.198 Life and Works of Sir Henry Mainwaring ed. G.E. Manwaring (Navy Recs. Soc. liv), i. 84; HMC Rutland, iv. 521.

When Parliament resumed on 17 Apr. Buckingham, heedful of Williams’ earlier advice, renewed his efforts to clear his name by cooperating with the Commons in their investigation of his older half-brother, Sir Edward. Now that the latter had returned from his diplomatic mission abroad, Buckingham asked that he be allowed to speak in his own defence. At the same time he rebutted the suggestion that he had sent Sir Edward overseas in order to avoid a parliamentary inquiry into his activities as a monopolist. On the contrary, he declared, he had actually hastened his return to England.199 LD 1621, p. 2; LJ, iii. 76a. However, it soon became apparent that the main threat to Buckingham now came not from his half-brother’s activities but from another quarter entirely.

On the afternoon of 30 Apr. the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton, was brought to the bar of the upper House to explain his part in the monopolies scandal. Buckingham, of course, was no friend of Yelverton, having not only opposed his appointment but also helped secure his dismissal and subsequent imprisonment.200 Memorials and Letters relating to the Hist. of Britain in the Reign of Jas. I ed D. Dalrymple (1766), 99-100, 106. Not surprisingly, therefore, Yelverton cast all the blame for his misfortunes on the lord admiral. First, he claimed that he had only consented to the imprisonment of the silkmen because he ‘feared the lord of Buckingham’, who was ‘ever present at his Majesty’s elbow ready to hew him down’. Next, he alleged that he had received a message from Buckingham via Mompesson ‘that I should not hold my place a month if I did not conform myself in better measure to the patent of inns’. He added that, by his frequent opposition to Buckingham, he had lost most of his income, amounting to more than £20,000, so that ‘I retained little more than the name of attorney’. Finally, he angrily likened Buckingham to Hugh, Lord Le Despenser^†, the hated favourite of Edward II, who had been charged three centuries earlier by Parliament with various misdemeanours, and who - as his hearers were undoubtedly well aware - had met a grisly end as a result of his tyranny and presumption. This comparison necessarily cast James in the unflattering role of Edward II, whereupon an angry prince of Wales interrupted, saying that he was ‘not able to endure his father’s government to be so paralleled and scandalized’. Buckingham also realized that Yelverton had overstepped the mark, but coolly insisted that his accuser be allowed to continue, for ‘he that will seek to stop him’ is ‘more my enemy than his’.201 LD 1621, pp. 46-8; LJ, iii. 121b; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 369. In fact there were two men named Hugh, Lord Le Despenser, father and son, who served Edward II, but it seems likely that it was the younger of the two favourites to whom Yelverton was referring: CP, iv. 64.

Many of the Lords were so incensed at Yelverton’s reference to Le Despenser that they took little notice of the accusations he had levelled against Buckingham, who insisted that the king’s honour had been impugned. This latter charge was vehemently denied by Lord Sheffield who, like the earl of Southampton, was by now thought to be behind the attack on the lord admiral. However, Sheffield was unable to sway the House and, at Buckingham’s suggestion, Yelverton was sent to the Tower for his effrontery.202 LD 1621, pp. 52-3; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 53. Buckingham’s enemies now found themselves on the back foot. They included Lewis Bayly, bishop of Bangor, who complained that a ‘hard construction’ had been placed upon Yelverton’s comments, and insisted that there should not be a ‘squeezing of blood out of words’. However, these remarks were almost as inept as those uttered by Yelverton, as Buckingham demanded to know what Bayly meant by the implied accusation. Southampton was incensed at this rebuke,203 LD 1621, pp. 55-7. but neither he nor his supporters were able to steer the debate back to its original course.

By now it was clear that the attack against Buckingham was fast losing momentum. On 6 May the king, angry at being indirectly compared to Edward II, demanded that Yelverton be punished, for ‘to reckon me with such a prince is to esteem me a weak man, and I had rather be no king than such a one as King Edward the 2nd’.204 ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 33. Two days later the claim that Buckingham had threatened to displace Yelverton unless he cooperated with Mompesson was undermined by Thomas Emerson, who had carried Mompesson’s message to the former attorney general. Emerson revealed that Mompesson had indeed issued the threat described by Yelverton, but he also claimed that Yelverton had not believed it to be genuine. Indeed, Yelverton had so doubted Mompesson’s veracity that he had gone to see Sir Edward Villiers, whom he described as ‘one of the best friends I have’. As a result, Yelverton had discovered that Mompesson had put words into the mouth of the lord admiral.205 LJ, iii. 115a. These revelations destroyed one of the central accusations against Buckingham, and on 16 May, having already ruled that Yelverton had impugned the king’s honour, the Lords concluded that the former attorney general had maligned the lord admiral. Yelverton was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the Tower and ordered to pay the lord admiral 5,000 marks. Buckingham, who naturally played no part in the censure of his defeated enemy, immediately remitted the fine at the request of the House, for which act of generosity he received Yelverton’s thanks.206 LD 1621, pp. 86, 89-90; LJ, iii. 125a.

Buckingham’s triumph was not achieved without some loss to his own side. On 8 May his ally the earl of Arundel had helped resist calls for Yelverton to be re-examined by observing that the House had already heard him, whereupon the 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*) pointedly remarked that two of Arundel’s ancestors had been condemned by Parliament without a hearing. On being thus rebuked Arundel, the head of an ancient aristocratic family, disparaged the progenitors of Spencer, whose title was less than 20 years old, for which offence he was sent to the Tower. There he was visited by Buckingham ‘and all the grandees of that side’.207 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 375; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 258. However, perhaps the most significant loss suffered by Buckingham during the Parliament was not Arundel but Bacon, whose career he had helped to advance and who now found himself impeached for corruption. Though Bacon was largely the author of his own misfortune, Buckingham clearly regarded him as a kindred spirit, as he too was subject to parliamentary criticism. He frequently visited Bacon after the latter retired to his sick bed, and tried without success to cast doubt on the truthfulness of the witnesses against him. On one occasion he was also among only a handful of peers who voted against examining a witness who had allegedly bribed the lord chancellor. For his part, a desperate Bacon referred to Buckingham as his ‘sheet anchor’.208 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 356; LD 1621, p. 9; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 39; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 225-6.

Buckingham’s closeness to Bacon did not go unobserved by his enemies. Shortly after Bacon was stripped of the great seal on 1 May, the Lords considered what additional punishments to heap upon the disgraced former minister. By this time the faction fighting between Buckingham and Southampton was at its height, and so not surprisingly the debate degenerated at points into a trial of strength between Buckingham and his enemies. Southampton, for example, wanted to bar Bacon from future membership of Parliament, whereas Buckingham claimed that this was unnecessarily vindictive, as Bacon ‘cannot live long’. A further proposal, which originated with another of Buckingham’s enemies, the 8th (or 2nd) Lord Saye and Sele (William Fiennes^*, later 1st Viscount Saye and Sele), was that Bacon should be stripped of his titles of nobility. Buckingham mobilized his supporters in the House, including the prince and most if not all of the bishops. He also threw into the balance the nine proxy votes he had been accumulating ever since the beginning of the Parliament (presumably as personal insurance). As a result of his efforts, he narrowly defeated his opponents. However, in respect of four other proposed punishments – imprisonment, loss of office, loss of membership of Parliament, and the imposition of a large fine – Buckingham was unable to carry the House. Indeed, he was the only peer to vote against them.209 LD 1621, pp. 62-4; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 371; LJ, iii. 105b.

Preoccupation with his own safety meant that Buckingham probably devoted little time to other matters in Parliament. However, he may have sat on one or two of the handful of committees to which he was named, such as that for the bill concerning leases issued by the duchy of Cornwall, a matter of considerable importance to Prince Charles, and another regarding the petition of the fishermen of north Kent against Christopher Roper^*, 2nd Lord Teynham, whose proxy he held.210 LJ, iii. 26b, 102a. During the debate which preceded the appointment of this latter committee, Buckingham evidently suggested that the petitioners were wasting the time of the upper House, as he pointedly remarked that ‘the courts of justice are open’.211 LD 1621, p. 41. On 8 Mar. Buckingham was named to committees for bills to punish abuses perpetrated on the Sabbath and to prevent abuses in procuring writs of certiorari, and on 24 May he was appointed to attend a conference with the Commons about both measures.212 LJ, iii. 39a, 39b, 130b. It seems likely that he had some interest in the second of these bills, for since 1618 he had been prothonotary of King’s Bench, the court responsible for issuing writs of certiorari.

Shortly after Parliament was adjourned for the summer, Southampton and two of his closest associates were arrested. The Venetian ambassador thought that this was revenge for the imprisonment of Arundel and for attempting to topple the favourite.213 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 75. There was undoubtedly some truth in this. Buckingham had been reliably informed that Southampton’s house at Holborn had been the venue for many meetings of his enemies, who had plotted how to use the Parliament to bring him into disfavour with the king. Moreover, during his interrogation, Southampton was charged with having said that ‘there would never be a good reformation while one did so wholly govern the king’, and of declaring that ‘he liked not to come to the Council board’ because its members included ‘so many boys and base fellows’. This was a clear reference to Buckingham, who was not yet 29, and his former financial adviser Cranfield, now master of the Wards, whose father had been a Mercer.214 Cabala, Sive Scrinia Sacra (1663), 2; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. appendix. However, if James and Buckingham were initially keen to punish Southampton for his conduct in the Lords, they soon had second thoughts. Parliament would meet again shortly, and unless Southampton was released within the next few months Buckingham might find himself accused of infringing parliamentary privilege. Following a meeting at Theobalds arranged by Southampton’s friend John Williams, now appointed lord keeper at Buckingham’s request, Southampton was not only released in July but received ‘fair promises’ from the favourite.215 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 389-90; Lockyer, Buckingham, 105. Another peer with whom Buckingham sought to re-establish good relations over the summer of 1621 was Pembroke, whom he may have suspected of having some hand in his recent parliamentary difficulties. On 27 July Thomas Locke, the keeper of the Council chest, reported that the lord admiral ‘hath showed himself very kind of late to the earl of Pembroke’, with whom he had been ‘a little at odds’.216 Add. 72299, f. 50.

It may have been at around the same time that Buckingham’s health again gave way. However, by early August his condition had improved, and on 3 Aug. he entertained the king at Burley with plays and a masque written specially for the occasion by Ben Jonson. James, who stayed overnight, was delighted with these festivities, and read aloud some verses he had composed in honour of the favourite, news of which gave rise to more adverse comment than if Buckingham had committed some great crime.217 CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 113, 117, 439; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 395-6. James was more captivated by Buckingham than ever, and referred to him as ‘Steenie’ - the Scottish contraction for Stephen - probably because St Stephen reputedly had a face like that of an angel.218 Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 376. However, rumours that Buckingham’s 29th birthday would be celebrated with further promotion proved to be false.219 Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 42; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 397.

Over the summer and autumn of 1621 the military situation in the Palatinate deteriorated sharply. Parliament had recently voted two subsidies for its defence, but the sum involved – just £145,000 – was so small that it was clear that more money would soon be needed. Confident that the Commons would vote him the necessary funds, James retired to Newmarket shortly before Parliament reassembled.220 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 168. However, he also took with him Buckingham, whose health had once again taken a turn for the worse.221 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 408. See also Fortescue Pprs. 166; L. Jardine and A. Stewart, Hostage to Fortune, 481. Although Buckingham was thereby prevented from attending Parliament – the record of his presence on 11 Dec. in the Lords Journal appears to be an error - its business continued to concern him.222 LJ, iii. 189a. Indeed, he was kept informed of developments by Prince Charles, Secretary Calvert (Sir George Calvert^‡) and his client Sir George Goring^* (later 1st earl of Norwich), one of the Members for Lewes. He also acted as James’s amanuensis, for instance informing Lord Keeper Williams by letter on 24 Nov. that James warmly approved of his recent speech to the upper House.223 Goodman, ii. 209-10; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 456-7; Harl. 1580, ff. 18-1; Fortescue Pprs. 172; Hacket, i. 76. So busy was Buckingham with parliamentary matters that he apologized to Cranfield for not writing to him in person about naval affairs.224 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent., U269/1/OE108.

It was at Buckingham’s suggestion that, on 29 Nov., Goring moved the Commons to petition the king to wage war on the emperor, and if necessary also on Spain, if imperial forces were not withdrawn from the Palatinate.225 HP Commons 1604-29, iv. 438; CJ, i. 652a. Buckingham’s reasons for sponsoring this motion remain shrouded in mystery, but his intention may have been to persuade the Commons to offer a more generous supply, as the previous day the lower House had agreed in principle to give the king only a single subsidy. Many Members of the Commons were wary of giving a larger sum, having already voted two subsidies without having secured the passage of any other legislation.226 CJ, i. 650a; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 220, 226; HP Commons 1604-29, i. 412. Buckingham may have supposed that Goring’s motion would not only induce the Commons to be more generous but also strengthen the king’s hand in his diplomacy with Spain, for if the Spanish realized that James had at his disposal the financial means with which to wage war they might prove more cooperative over the Palatinate. However, Goring’s suggestion that it might be necessary to wage war against Spain as well as the emperor had the effect of suggesting that Buckingham had abandoned his support for the Spanish Match. This was not in fact the case, but the Commons, mistakenly reading between the lines, not only adopted Goring’s motion but also amended it so that war with Spain was no longer made conditional on an imperial withdrawal from the Palatinate. To make matters worse, the lower House added a further clause, requiring Charles to be married to a fellow Protestant. Both demands were calculated to enrage the king, who may have supported Buckingham’s intervention but who now angrily dissolved the Parliament.227 Lockyer, Buckingham, 109-10.

There is little reason to suppose that Buckingham had intended to sabotage the Parliament. Despite the mauling he had received during the first sitting, he was evidently dismayed at that James was now determined to have nothing more to do with England’s representative assembly. Indeed, in March 1622, after an attempt to raise money by voluntary donations yielded only a paltry £32,000, Buckingham secretly pressed the king to summon another Parliament on the grounds that only subsidies would enable James to wage war in the Palatinate.228 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 267. James, however, was convinced that the key to restoring the Palatinate lay not in military action but in a marriage between Prince Charles and Philip IV’s sister, the Infanta Maria. Buckingham, too, continued to believe that a Spanish alliance would help, and encouraged Charles to regard such a marriage as desirable. By the beginning of 1622 Charles needed little further persuasion, as he was angry that the Commons had tried to prevent the proposed match. In order to demonstrate to Spain the seriousness of his purpose, both he and Buckingham began to learn Spanish following the Parliament’s collapse.229 G. Redworth, Prince and the Infanta, 51.

The trip to Madrid, 1623

Buckingham’s enthusiasm for the Spanish Match earned him widespread unpopularity, and led to the suspicion that he was secretly Catholic. However, he himself had taken great trouble to avoid the latter accusation. Not only had he made conversion to Protestantism a condition of his marriage to Katherine Manners, he had also ensured that his wife took communion publicly shortly before the opening of the 1621 Parliament. However, in the spring of 1622 his efforts to persuade the populace at large that he was Protestant were brought to the point of collapse by his mother, Mary. Now countess of Buckingham in her own right, and widely regarded as ‘the chief architect and prop’ of her son’s fortunes, she announced that she was considering conversion to Rome.230 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 439; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iii. 138; The king, whose decision to empty the gaols of Jesuits and Catholic priests as a goodwill gesture to Spain had inadvertently provided the spur to this announcement, was alarmed, and sent for William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury), who had ‘much speech’ with the countess. James also organized a conference between the Jesuit John Percy (alias John Fisher) on the one hand, and Laud, John Williams (now bishop of Lincoln as well as lord keeper), and Francis White^* (later bishop of Carlisle) on the other. It was hoped that this conference would expose to the countess the falsity of Catholic doctrines, but neither this meeting, nor another held in September, prevented her conversion to Rome.231 Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 138-40; Hacket, i. 172-3; F. White, A replie to Jesuit Fisher Answer to Certain Questions propounded by his most gratious Majestie (1624); Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621-5 ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxxiv), 13, 30-1

Over the summer of 1622 James and Buckingham began to suspect that Spain, which had promised to use its influence to recover the Palatinate for the king’s son-in-law and daughter, was dragging out the marriage negotiations in order to allow the emperor time to overrun the rest of the Palatinate. Having associated himself so closely with the proposed marriage, Buckingham became worried that if the Match collapsed he would incur the lion’s share of the blame. His fear of the loss of favour that would inevitably ensue was far from being groundless, for in July 1622 the king began to make much of another young man at court named Arthur Brett. In mid September, therefore, Buckingham began to distance himself from the intended marriage, joining the chorus of voices at court which complained that Spain was negotiating in bad faith.232 CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 381, 460; Lockyer, Buckingham, 122. Later that same month, following the fall of Heidelberg, capital of the Rhenish Palatinate, this chorus of criticism became deafening. Sent to remonstrate with the Spanish ambassador, Don Carlos de Coloma, Buckingham made little attempt to conceal his anger. Indeed, the ensuing shouting match was so loud that it was heard ‘many rooms off’. Though he and Coloma parted on civil terms, by early October Buckingham had aligned himself with those who favoured war with Spain, and was offering to fight in person to help recover the Palatinate.233 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 179; Lockyer, Buckingham, 129.

As well as urging James to take up arms, Buckingham may have added his voice to the growing clamour for another meeting between the king and his subjects.234 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 541; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 457. This would help to explain why, at around this time, Buckingham tried to arrange marriages between the daughters of two of his clients and the eldest sons of the earl of Southampton and Lord Sheffield, his chief opponents in the 1621 Parliament.235 D’Ewes Diary , 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 100. However, James was determined to avoid both war with Spain and another Parliament, and may not have looked kindly on his favourite’s attempts to push him in either of these directions. Over the autumn of 1622 he turned his attentions from Buckingham to Brett, leading to speculation that Buckingham would soon be replaced as lord admiral by Hamilton.236 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 140-1. During the first half of November the crisis in the relationship between James and Buckingham - precipitated, ironically, by the marquess’ attempts to avoid loss of favour - reached its climax. Like Somerset before him, Buckingham angrily rounded on James and threatened his rival. Thankfully for Buckingham the storm blew itself out, aided, perhaps, by more favourable news from Spain, as at last John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol and England’s ambassador to Madrid, appeared to be making headway in the marriage negotiations. On 14 Nov., the day after the Venetian ambassador reported having heard of the rift between James and his favourite, Buckingham informed Cranfield, now earl of Middlesex, that in the spring ‘we shall go for the daughter of Spain’.237 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 511; D’Ewes Diary, 106; Lockyer, Buckingham, 122; Davies, 121-2.

In the midst of this crisis Buckingham attempted to regain the king’s favour by proposing, as an alternative to a Parliament, the raising of further voluntary contributions for the defence of the Palatinate. However, though he offered to pay £10,000 himself, his fellow privy councillors proved so unenthusiastic that his suggestion was never taken up.238 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 456; Add. 72275, f. 17v; Lockyer, Buckingham, 129, 132-3. This was perhaps just as well, as Buckingham could actually ill afford such a large sum. He had not yet finished paying for Burley and had recently purchased Wallingford House, a London property, for £3,000.239 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 337; Lockyer, Buckingham, 337. He also needed to find £10,000 for his mother’s ‘lying in and meublings’. The king, whose own track record in such matters was hardly exemplary, was greatly alarmed at the size of Buckingham’s borrowings.240 Orig. Letters of State, iii. 168-9. Ellis tentatively assigned this letter to July 1622, but the reference to the £3,000 Buckingham had agreed to pay for ‘the new house’ suggests it was actually written six or seven months earlier. However, Buckingham was every bit as feckless as James, and over the summer of 1622 he went on to purchase not only the lease of York House, a large Thames-side property on the Strand, for £1,300, but also New Hall from the 5th earl of Sussex (Robert Radcliffe^*) for £21,000. This was £9,000 less than the property was worth, but even so it was far more than Buckingham could well afford.241 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 441, 446; Lockyer, Buckingham, 120; Jardine and Stewart, 487.

In the immediate aftermath of the Brett affair, Buckingham was once again in high favour. Indeed, in mid December he reportedly received a gift from James worth 20,000 crowns per annum (approximately £6,300).242 CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 529-30. Moreover, if James still harboured any lingering doubts about his affection for Buckingham, these vanished entirely after Prince Charles announced that he and Buckingham intended to travel to Spain early in the New Year with only a handful of servants to fetch the infanta. The risks of such a journey were immense and not surprisingly James, a sensitive creature at the best of times, was reduced to floods of tears. The king could not bear the thought of losing his only son, ‘Baby Charles’, nor his beloved favourite, from whom he now discovered he could not bear to be parted.243 D.M. Bergeron, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, 150. However, Charles, who had persuaded himself that he was in love with the infanta, was immoveable, not least because Bristol had written that all that was now needed to conclude the negotiations was a papal dispensation.244 B. Pursell, ‘End of the Spanish Match’, HJ, xlv. 703; CHARLES STUART. Further grounds for optimism were given in early January by the arrival from Spain of Buckingham’s servant, Endymion Porter^‡, who brought news that Philip IV would shortly be sending to the emperor an ambassador to demand the restoration of the Palatinate.245 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 543; Lockyer, Buckingham, 133; Redworth, 59.

Although he was aware of Charles’s intentions before they were revealed to the king, and may even have encouraged them, Buckingham must have realized that they exposed him to considerable risks. James would inevitably hold him responsible for the physical safety of the prince; indeed, he later recalled that the king instructed him never to leave Charles’s side, ‘nor to return home without him’.246 LJ, iii. 209b. Moreover, in light of recent events, there was the danger that a period of prolonged absence might undermine his position in the king’s affections. (For this reason, prior to his departure, Buckingham arranged for his erstwhile rivals Arthur Brett and William Monson to be sent abroad).247 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 479. Finally, there was the likely damage to his reputation to consider. The intended journey would inevitably be regarded as an act of political recklessness and, until it bore fruit, he rather than Charles would incur heavy censure.248 Davies, 125.

Amid tight secrecy, Buckingham and Charles set out from Theobalds on 17 February.249 Autobiog. of Phineas Pett, 125; Life and Works of Sir Henry Mainwaring, i. 91. The following day they travelled to Dover, sporting false beards and travelling under assumed names. Their curious appearance, and the fact that one of the beards fell off at Gravesend, naturally aroused suspicion, and at Canterbury they were briefly stopped by the mayor. Nonetheless, on the 19th they sailed to Boulogne, enduring a six-hour crossing which was so rough that they were both seasick. Shortly thereafter James announced their departure to a horrified Council. As predicted, Buckingham was immediately accused of gross irresponsibility, but James replied, perfectly correctly, that the idea for the journey had originated with Charles alone and that Buckingham had accompanied the prince at his command.250 Lockyer, Buckingham, 136; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 480, 484; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 494; Goodman, ii. 253.

Although their ultimate destination was Madrid, the pair decided to make a brief detour to Paris for, unlike Buckingham, Charles had never before been abroad. They arrived on the 21st and took lodgings above an inn. The following day they bought themselves periwigs, darkened the colour of their skin and went to the Louvre so as to glimpse the French queen and her sister, Henrietta Maria.251 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 585; Wotton, 85-6; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 154-5; Goodman, ii. 254. They succeeded in their objective, but at dinner the French king, Louis XIII, grew so suspicious of the odd looking pair that they had to beat a hasty retreat. The next day they resumed their journey.252 H.G.R. Reade, Sidelights on the Thirty Years War, ii. 135; Orig. Letters of State, 1st ser. iii. 122; Lockyer, Buckingham, 139. Amid these schoolboy antics, Charles and Buckingham kept James fully informed of their movements. However, the king, though entertained, remained anxious, and took to wearing a picture of Buckingham under his waistcoat ‘next my heart’.253 Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 392.

It took almost two weeks for the pair to reach Madrid. Their journey was largely unadventurous, though Buckingham, whose horsemanship was far inferior to that of the prince, fell from his saddle seven times, and at Bayonne they were nearly arrested for taking jewels across the Spanish border.254 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 491; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 589. In the Spanish capital their arrival, though unexpected, was warmly welcomed: Buckingham was swiftly granted an hour-long meeting with the king’s chief minister, the Count-Duke Olivares, and also a private audience with Philip IV himself.255 Misc. State Pprs. i. 401; Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, xxvi-xxvii; Memorials and Letters relating to the Hist. of Britain in the Reign of Jas. I, 152-3. However, the warmth of their reception was soon tempered when the Spanish realized that Charles had no intention of converting to Catholicism, it having been assumed that this was his entire purpose in coming.256 Pursell, 707. Buckingham told an insistent Olivares that Charles’s conscience was ‘troubled with no scruples in that kind,’ and that if Spain continued to press for a conversion ‘they would mar all the harmony’.257 Rymer, vii. pt. 4, p. 108.

Despite the unwelcome discovery that Spain expected Charles to alter his religion, Buckingham remained optimistic that the marriage would soon take place and that he himself would shortly be returning home.258 Davies, 124. This confidence appeared to be entirely justified, as it was not long before the Spaniards gave up badgering the prince to convert; indeed, they were soon so full of apologies for jumping to conclusions that Charles and Buckingham announced that they ‘never saw the business in a better way than now it is’.259 Misc. State Pprs. i. 413. James was delighted at this apparent turn of events and, despite having previously ordered Buckingham to remain with the prince, he now agreed that his ‘Steenie gossip’ should return at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, he would send one of his warships, the aptly named St George, to fetch him.260 Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 407, 408. At around the same time he also offered to raise Buckingham to the rank of duke. Buckingham was flattered, but there being no other English duke aside from the prince, he was aware that such an advancement would arouse further envy of him at court. He therefore asked that the matter be postponed until his return.261 Lockyer, Buckingham, 154; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 488.

In the event, Buckingham did not return to England as speedily as either he or James expected, as the Spanish now changed tack. On 24 Apr. Charles was taken to Aranjuez, a royal palace south of Madrid, where the king’s confessor and three capuchins tried to persuade him of the merits of the papal supremacy. Buckingham looked on helplessly as Charles was subjected to a thorough grilling. At one point, after the capuchins insinuated that Charles was the adherent of a devil-based religion, he became so enraged that he left the room and trampled on his hat.262 Redworth, 91-2; Pursell, 711. Charles emerged from this attempt to convert him badly shaken, and consequently when Olivares proposed another such conference Buckingham declined on his behalf.263 Lockyer, Buckingham, 146.

The end of this ordeal signalled not the end but the beginning of Charles and Buckingham’s troubles. Shortly thereafter the two men learned that the long-awaited papal dispensation had arrived, but to their dismay they also discovered that the pope would only allow the marriage to proceed on condition that the right to freedom of worship was granted to England’s Catholic community.264 Harl. 6987, f. 84; Pursell, 710. This news threatened to set back the negotiations by weeks, if not months, as neither Charles nor Buckingham had the authority to agree to such a demand without fresh instructions. Since neither man wanted to spend the summer in Spain awaiting fresh instructions, Charles wrote to his father asking him to accept whatever undertakings he made on his behalf. James, who now only wished for his son and Buckingham to return home, willingly agreed, and in early May Charles gave a formal assurance that the recusancy laws would be suspended.265 Misc. State Pprs. i. 417; Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 412. Despite the magnitude of this concession, the Spanish remained dissatisfied and demanded security that James would honour his undertakings; indeed, Philip refused (albeit politely) to allow Charles to leave until this had been given. Buckingham was furious, and accused Olivares of gross discourtesy. He also told the papal nuncio that if the marriage did not now proceed, what little remained of Catholicism in England would be extirpated.266 Lockyer, Buckingham, 147-50; Pursell, 711. His quarrel with Olivares became so heated that in June Charles not only rebuked him but also replaced him in the negotiations with Bristol, whose pro-Spanish sympathies made him far more acceptable to their hosts.267 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 40, 53. However, though it caused disquiet among the favourite’s friends in England, Charles’s annoyance with Buckingham quickly passed.268 Cabala (1691), 283-4. In late May Buckingham learned that, despite his earlier protestations, James had elevated him to ducal rank. This was an extraordinary mark of favour, since Buckingham was the first commoner to be thus honoured in more than 80 years.

By the beginning of July 1623 the negotiations appeared to be deadlocked. However, at the last moment Spain modified her terms. After staying up all night discussing the matter with Buckingham, Charles decided to accept the new arrangements, even though this meant postponing the wedding (which would now be performed by proxy) until Christmas and delaying the handover of the infanta until the following spring.269 Lockyer, Buckingham, 158; Pursell, 714. On the face of it the negotiations were now at an end,270 Davies, 126. but Charles and Buckingham remained dissatisfied, and towards the end of the month Charles sent his friend to press Olivares to allow the infanta to return with him to England, without success.271 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 434; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 515-16. Charles also asked Philip IV for a treaty promising Spanish aid to restore the Palatinate, but the king refused to discuss the matter until after the marriage had taken place. By the time the marriage articles were signed in late August, Philip’s view had softened. Even so, he promised not a treaty but only to try to obtain the Palatinate for Charles as a wedding present.272 Pursell, 716, 718.

Charles and Buckingham returned to England in early October, uneasy about the agreement they had reached. At Royston they were reunited with James, who fell on their necks and wept.273 D’Ewes Diary, 161-3. All three men stayed up all night talking over the events of the past eight months, and as a result James agreed to instruct Bristol not to allow the marriage to proceed until he had received better assurances regarding the restoration of the Palatinate.274 T. Rymer, Foedera, vii. pt. 4, pp. 116-17. A few days later, Buckingham’s client Sir George Goring was sent to inform James’s daughter that England was determined to link the marriage with the Palatinate, so that ‘we will have either both or none’.275 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe (1740) ed. S. Richardson, 199, letter of 8/18 Oct. (printed in error as 8/18 Dec.)

Charles and Buckingham were probably equally responsible for persuading James to adopt this new strategy, but whereas Charles still hoped for a successful outcome to the marriage negotiations it soon became clear that Buckingham had grave reservations about the wisdom of continuing to deal with the Spaniards. As early as 24 Oct. one well informed observer noticed that whereas Buckingham had spoken to the French ambassador, he had largely neglected the two Spanish representatives, who soon found their access to the king curtailed. One week later the Venetian ambassador remarked that while Charles continued to praise the infanta, Buckingham was openly expressing his disgust with Spain.276 Add. 72255, f. 84r-v; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 145-6, 149. However, the sharpest difference to emerge over the next few months was not between Buckingham and Charles, who soon also became convinced that the Spaniards had been dealing in bad faith, but between Buckingham and Charles on the one hand and the king on the other. Though he had agreed to link the restoration of the Palatinate to the Spanish Match, James remained desperate to secure the large Spanish dowry on offer, and therefore pressed his son-in-law to agree to a Spanish proposal that Frederick’s son should marry the emperor’s daughter. However, Frederick rejected this idea out of hand, as it meant that restoration of the Palatinate would not occur in his lifetime.277 Procs. 1626, i. 522-3; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 158-60. For James this rebuff was a disaster, since it now placed him on a collision course with Charles and Buckingham. Not surprisingly, when Charles announced in early November that he wanted the question of the Palatinate (and by implication the fate of the marriage negotiations) resolved by Christmas, James, who had never fully recovered from his severe illness in 1619, suffered a physical and mental collapse.278 Pursell, 723; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 182.

The king’s incapacity had the effect of placing Charles and Buckingham in the driving seat. On 5 Nov. Buckingham briefed the special cabinet council that had been established before the trip to Madrid to advise the king on the Spanish Match and which was now convened on Charles’s instructions. By the end of the month Bristol had received orders to make the marriage contingent upon an agreement over the Palatinate. As neither Charles nor Buckingham was under any illusion that Spain would agree to this demand, both men turned their attention to recovering the Palatinate by force, for which a Parliament would be needed. To ensure that this new assembly was not distracted by attacks on Buckingham, as its predecessor had been, Charles reconciled the duke and Pembroke, with whom Buckingham had once again fallen out. He also cultivated the earl of Southampton, whose enmity had caused Buckingham such discomfort in 1621.279 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 149, 169; Pursell, 723, 726. Meanwhile Buckingham, doubtless with Charles’s assistance, sounded out several of the leading members of the 1621 House of Commons, among them Sir Robert Phelips^‡, Sir Edwin Sandys^‡ and Sir Dudley Digges^‡. These influential figures agreed to support a war with Spain and to avoid raising the vexed subject of impositions; in return, Buckingham undertook to try to get the king to break off the marriage negotiations and call a Parliament.280 T. Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 148; HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 415-16. The last of these objectives was achieved at the end of December, when James was reluctantly persuaded to summon a fresh assembly. However, a Parliament could only vote funds for a war with Spain; it could not provide Charles with a wife to help secure the succession. For this reason, early in the New Year Charles and Buckingham took the first tentative steps towards sounding out the French regarding a possible marriage between Charles and Louis XIII’s sister, Henrietta Maria.281 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 537.

The Parliament of 1624 and Spanish accusations

Between them, Charles and Buckingham had created a strategy for recovering the Palatinate that was predicated upon war with Spain rather than marriage to the infanta. To ensure their success they now placed James under a state of virtual siege, keeping him from holding private meetings with anyone, such as the Spanish ambassadors Inojosa and Coloma, who might persuade him to disregard their advice.282 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 201-2. However, in mid January these same ambassadors were permitted to see the king in the presence of both Charles and Buckingham. From them, James learned that Spain had finally decided to allow the marriage to be linked to the restoration of the Palatinate. Indeed, Philip now promised that if the marriage took place in March, Frederick would be restored to his patrimony that summer. On hearing of the new Spanish offer Charles was crestfallen, as was Buckingham, who took to his bed.283 Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 128; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 539; Add. 72367, f. 28v.

Having won over the king, the Spanish ambassadors now began lobbying the members of the special cabinet council, several of whom were already firmly in favour of the Match, including Lord Keeper Williams and Lord Treasurer Middlesex. Until recently both men had considered themselves clients of the favourite, but over the summer of 1623 Buckingham had received reports of ‘many ill offices done him of late by some great men’, among them Middlesex, whose loyalty to the duke was already in doubt since Arthur Brett was his brother-in-law. Williams too was regarded with suspicion, and by the end of the year he was said to be dead in Buckingham’s affections.284 Davies, 127; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 102; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 143, 144; Lockyer, Buckingham, 176. However, the ambassadors also lobbied the pro-Protestant Pembroke, whom they claimed was secretly trying to overthrow the duke. Incredulous at the hold Buckingham exercised over Charles, Pembroke apparently believed that the duke had bewitched the prince ‘by the means of a man who is said to be a great sorcerer’ - a reference no doubt to Buckingham’s astrologer, Dr John Lambe.285 PRO 31/12/29. When the 12-strong council voted on whether to advise the king to abandon the Spanish Match, Pembroke, egged on by Middlesex, allowed his hatred of Buckingham to overcome his hostility towards a Catholic marriage. He did not see, he said, how the Council could reverse their earlier decision to proceed with the treaty if Spain performed her part. In the event, Pembroke, like Hamilton, who was still aggrieved at Buckingham’s failure to surrender the mastership of the horse, preferred to abstain rather than vote to proceed with the treaty. However, five other councillors, among them Middlesex and Williams, registered their continuing support for the Match. Only Buckingham, Carlisle (James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle) and Secretary Conway (Edward Conway^*, later 1st Viscount Conway) voted against it.286 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 541-2. For evidence that Middlesex had helped to stir up Pembroke, see Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 223. This outcome forced Charles to announce that he would not now marry the infanta under any circumstances.287 Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 129-30.

Buckingham was not surprisingly disgusted at the behaviour of most of his colleagues on the cabinet council. As his patronage secretary John Packer^‡ explained to Lord Keeper Williams, by voting for the Match the council had done ‘no less than throw dirt into the prince’s teeth’. Either they were trying to force the prince to marry the infanta against his wishes, thereby treating him like a minor, or they were trying to make the responsibility for rejecting the marriage his rather than theirs. Buckingham, explained Packer, was also irritated that the council had called into question his conduct in Spain. However, he was so confident that he had behaved properly that he was content to allow the matter to be laid before ‘the greatest council in England’, namely Parliament. Those who had something to fear from Parliament, added Packer, were men like Williams, who had adopted a course both ‘dangerous’ to their country and ‘prejudicial to the cause of religion’, a cause which Williams, as a bishop, ‘should have laboured to uphold’. Williams was so alarmed at this veiled threat that he immediately approached Prince Charles who, in early February, arranged a meeting between the lord keeper and the duke. At this meeting the Calvinist Williams persuaded Buckingham that jealousy of the favour accorded by Buckingham to the anti-Calvinist William Laud had caused the rift between them. As a result the two men were reconciled, at least for the time being.288 Cabala (1691), 319, 273-4; Hacket, i. 171; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 148.

Although Charles had now helped broker an uneasy peace between Buckingham and Williams, there remained the problem of Pembroke, whose electoral patronage and allies in the Lords gave him the power to cause the favourite considerable difficulty in the forthcoming Parliament. On 9 Feb., just a week before Parliament was due to open, one Catholic writer predicted that there was likely to be strong opposition to Buckingham in Parliament even though the duke, by his quarrel with Spain, had ‘won the puritan faction in great part’. At around the same time the Venetian ambassador was told by Pembroke ‘that they must consider internal foes before external ones’ after the diplomat argued that it was necessary to preserve Buckingham in order to oppose Spain. When Charles again tried to reconcile Pembroke to the duke, he was rebuffed.289 Stuart Dynastic Policy, 69; Lockyer, Buckingham, 179; PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 10/20 Feb. 1624. Not surprisingly, therefore, Pembroke was denied the office of lord steward when it suddenly fell vacant on 16 February. Pembroke was not the duke’s only problem, though, as the Spanish ambassadors continued to undermine Buckingham in the eyes of the king. Shortly before Parliament met, they told James that the duke was a partisan of the Dutch and had gone to Spain with the purpose of sabotaging the marriage negotiations. James naturally defended Buckingham but, according to Inojosa, did so ‘very coolly’.290 PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 13/23 Feb. 1624.

On the face of it, James’s lukewarm support for his favourite, coupled with Pembroke’s continued enmity and Middlesex’s doubtful loyalty, did not augur well for Buckingham in the period leading up to the opening of the Parliament. Nor was it reassuring that many courtiers found seats in the Commons only with difficulty or proved unable to find them at all.291 HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 450; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 191. However, the outlook was very far from bleak, as the anti-Spanish feeling which had dominated the Commons in 1621 was now stronger than ever. Moreover, at least 17 of Buckingham’s clients obtained seats in the lower House, although only four of them - Sir William Beecher^‡, Richard Oliver^‡, Sir Robert Pye and Sir Edward Villiers - appear to have done so with direct assistance from the duke himself. In the Lords, too, Buckingham would have a sizeable following, led by Prince Charles and including his brother the earl of Anglesey, his father-in-law the earl of Rutland, his step-father the 1st Lord Compton (Spencer Compton^*) and his brother-in-law the 1st earl of Denbigh (William Feilding^*). His position was further strengthened by the fact that from the outset he controlled four proxies (and over the course of the Parliament he acquired a further two).

Buckingham attended the opening of Parliament on 19 Feb., when the king announced that Charles and the duke would shortly lay before both Houses the recent history of the Spanish Match. It soon became clear, however, that this task would be performed primarily by Buckingham rather than the prince. Indeed, it was only after Buckingham intervened, on the day before he was due to speak, that it was decided that Charles should assist at all.292 LJ, iii. 210a, 215a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 229; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 9v. This meant that it would be Buckingham, rather than Charles, who would incur Spain’s wrath.

Buckingham addressed both Houses at Whitehall on the afternoon of 24 February. If he was at all nervous about speaking to more than 600 peers and MPs he was careful to conceal it. His body language was relaxed - he leaned on the chair provided for the prince - and, according to Lord Keeper Williams, spoke ‘very distinctly and orderly’, using ‘an exact and perfect method’.293 ‘Ferrar 1624’, p. 24; LJ, iii. 220a. Over the course of the next couple of hours, supported by Charles, he recounted in detail the events of the previous spring and summer. On his instructions, copies of all the relevant documents were made available to the Lords.294 SP45/20/74. His narrative painted Spain in the worst possible light. Philip and Olivares were condemned for trying to convert Charles to Rome, and accused of offering to send the prince to England with an army at his back, of preventing Charles from leaving Madrid when he wished and of negotiating in bad faith in order to allow the emperor to overrun the Palatinate. Spain, however, was not the only villain to emerge from Buckingham’s tale, as Buckingham claimed that enthusiasm for the Spanish Match had led the earl of Bristol to exceed his instructions and to deceive the king into thinking that the Spanish were serious about a marriage.295 LJ, iii. 224b-25b, 230b. These charges were unjust, but Bristol was unable to defend himself, having not yet returned from Spain.

If Buckingham misled Parliament over the intentions of Bristol and the Spanish, he also misrepresented Charles’s own behaviour and motives. According to the duke, Charles, frustrated at the lack of progress in the marriage negotiations, had risked his life to expose the fraudulent dealings of the Spaniards, whereas in fact he had journeyed to Spain in the mistaken belief that the negotiations were all but complete. Buckingham further claimed that Charles had declined to discuss his faith with a number of Catholic divines, but this too was false, as the prince had actually been subjected to a detailed examination at Aranjuez.296 Ibid. 222b. This was not the only piece of information Buckingham withheld from Parliament. Nowhere in his ‘Relation’ was there any mention of the fact that, while in Spain, Charles had agreed that the penal laws against Catholics should be suspended. However, many of those listening had been weaned on tales of Spanish duplicity, and for them the narrative presented by the duke seemed both compelling and convincing. Among those who accepted Buckingham’s version of events without question was Archbishop Abbot, who had come to regret his role in the rise of the favourite. Writing to Sir Thomas Roe^‡ a few months later, Abbot repeated the key elements of Buckingham’s ‘Relation’: that Charles had been badly treated in Madrid, that he had witnessed at first-hand the Spaniards’ ‘irreconcilable hatred to our religion’, and that he had made the vital discovery that the negotiations were ‘not real’. As Buckingham intended, Abbot believed that Charles’s decision to travel secretly to Madrid had been nothing less than a masterstroke.297 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 252.

The day after he presented his narrative to Parliament, Buckingham was formally introduced to the upper House in his new capacity as a duke.298 LJ, iii. 217a. However, the following day he absented himself after learning that the two Spanish ambassadors, Inojosa and Coloma, intended to remonstrate with the king, then at Hampton Court. The ambassadors were enraged that Buckingham had accused Philip IV of offering to provide Charles with an army to deal with any domestic discontent arising from the Match and of proposing to carve up the world between their two countries. They were also furious that Buckingham had accused Spain of having negotiated in bad faith, a charge that was almost certainly false. Buckingham reached Hampton Court before the Spaniards and, pleading the right to defend himself, persuaded James to let him be present. At the ensuing interview, matters soon turned ugly. Buckingham was accused of having committed numerous errors in his speech, and James was told that in Spain any man who had spoken so disrespectfully about the royal person before such a large assembly would have been imprisoned and executed. However, Buckingham denied any impropriety, saying that his words had been committed to paper precisely to disprove such an accusation. Buckingham was further taken to task by the ambassadors for informing Parliament that Spain was preparing a fleet against England, when in fact all that had happened was that Philip had visited the southern coastal region of Andalusia. The duke could hardly deny this charge, for he had indeed spoken in the Lords to this effect on 23 Feb., but he evidently justified his behaviour by saying that it was necessary to persuade Parliament to vote subsidies.299 PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 26 Feb./7 Mar. 1624; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 1.

It was now Buckingham’s turn to complain of harsh treatment. The following morning the duke asked the Lords whether he should have omitted any of the details in his recent narrative, as he had been accused of casting aspersions on the king of Spain. The peers were so appalled at the suggestion that Buckingham had behaved improperly that even his enemies, past and present, flocked to defend him. Abbot declared that they were indebted to Buckingham ‘for his pains and hazard in bringing these things to light’; Pembroke denied that the duke had maligned the king of Spain; and Southampton declared that Buckingham would have ‘deserved very ill if he had shortened his narration’. The House thereupon commended the ‘fair proceeding of the duke’ and resolved to tell James that they had acquitted Buckingham of any wrongdoing. Buckingham was naturally grateful for this support, but, like Charles, he saw no point in trying to discover how the Spanish ambassadors had learned what was in his ‘Relation’. Instead, he asked what the House intended to do, now that it had heard his narrative. At Charles’s suggestion, the Lords sat that afternoon to consider the matter. At this meeting Buckingham produced further evidence of Spanish perfidy in the form of a letter from Bristol, which showed that Spain had promised to assist James against the emperor in recovering the Palatinate.300 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 2-5; LJ, iii. 233a. The following day he drew the House’s attention to a second letter, this time written by Olivares, which, he said, proved that Spain had only ever had her own narrow ends in mind during the marriage negotiations.301 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 11; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 20v.

Buckingham was now riding the crest of a wave in the Lords. He continued to be fȇted by former enemies – on 1 Mar. Lord Saye and Sele announced that the Spanish accusations were the ‘greatest honour’ that could have been done to him – and behind the scenes Southampton persuaded Pembroke to distance himself from Middlesex and abandon his enmity of the duke.302 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 13; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 223. On 28 Feb. he was appointed to the committee to identify precedents in respect of former marriage treaties. He evidently took charge of this body himself, for the following day he reported its findings to the House. These bore little relation to the committee’s brief. After repeating his earlier claim that the Spaniards ‘ever meant to juggle with us’, he called upon the House to take the lead in preparing the country for war by establishing a committee to examine the state of the country’s arms, munitions and forts, prevent the export of ordnance and inquire into the state of Ireland, which had proved vulnerable to attack in the last war with Spain. This recommendation was swiftly adopted, as just such a committee, with Buckingham as a member, was appointed to meet that same afternoon.303 LJ, iii. 236b, 237b; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 13-14.

It was not only in the Lords that Buckingham now enjoyed widespread popularity. In late February Sir Edward Coke, one of the most influential Members of the Commons, spoke for many of his colleagues when he declared that ‘never any man deserved better of his king and country’ than Buckingham.304 CJ, i. 721b. A short while later the earl of Mar was informed that ‘many of these Parliament-men that did disturb the last Parliament are now as much for my lord of Buckingham as they were then against him’.305 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 193. In early March the Commons joined forces with the Lords to draw up a document listing reasons for wishing to break off the marriage negotiations. Buckingham was one of the peers appointed to attend the meeting of members of both Houses, which took place on 3 March. At this gathering the duke again took centre stage, providing yet more information to supplement his earlier ‘Relation’. In Spain, he announced, he had received an offer to make James king of the United Provinces. He also revealed that on an earlier occasion the Spanish general Spinola had told the earl of Bristol that Spain would only agree to English terms if England helped reduce the Dutch rebels to obedience. These revelations were, of course, calculated to shock their listeners, as they demonstrated ‘the vastness of the Spanish desires’ and struck at the Dutch alliance, one of the cornerstones of English foreign policy for the last 50 years. However, as Buckingham observed, they also underlined Spain’s fundamental weakness. In order to maintain her dominion, Spain needed treasure from the New World. Were England and the United Provinces to combine their naval strength they might deprive Spain of her mastery at sea and so destroy the basis of her power. Clearly Buckingham, like his client Secretary Conway, had already begun to consider the type of war that would be needed to recover the Palatinate.306 LJ, iii. 242b; CJ, i. 727b; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 46; EDWARD CONWAY, 1ST VISCOUNT CONWAY.

Buckingham did not attend the Lords on 4 Mar., instead journeying to Theobalds on his own initiative to discover when Parliament would be able to present its recommendations to James. However, James was furious that Parliament intended to ask him not only to break off the marriage negotiations but also to go to war. He accused the duke of using ‘crude, Catonic words’ and threw the paper that Buckingham gave him into the fire, saying that ‘you wish to kill me’. Buckingham was understandably offended at this hostile response, and later the same day he sent James a terse note which said he would tell the Lords, as instructed, that the king was too unwell to receive Parliament’s deputation, having caught a cold on the hunting field. However, ‘I will forbear to tell them that, notwithstanding of your cold, you were able to speak to the king of Spain’s instruments’.307 Misc. State Pprs. i. 460; PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 7/17 Mar. 1624. Inojosa dated this incident to 5 Mar., but conflated it with the formal presentation of Parliament’s reasons, which was performed on this date (see below). Shortly thereafter, Buckingham sent the king a longer, more conciliatory letter, in which he pleaded with James to

send me your plain and resolute answer, whether, if your people so resolve to give you a royal assistance, as to the number of six subsidies and fifteenths, with a promise after, in case of necessity, to assist you with their lives and fortunes, whether then you will not accept it, and their counsel, to break the match with the other treaties.

He also asked for permission to reassure ‘underhand’ some of the leading Members of the Commons that Parliament would be permitted to continue sitting for the purpose of drafting new laws and seeking redress for the grievances of the subject once subsidies had been voted for a war. Finally, he sent the king a list of points that James might like to make in his reply when Parliament formally asked him to break off the marriage negotiations.308 Misc. State Pprs. i. 466-8.

Buckingham’s letters evidently found their mark. The next day representatives from both Houses proffered their advice to the king. Instead of refusing to receive them, James gave them ‘a grave, wise and honourable answer’.309 Add. 40087, f. 58. In essence, this was that, provided Parliament voted subsidies, he would consider their request. However, it also incorporated many of the suggestions contained in Buckingham’s second letter. For instance, James said that he hoped that they would not think him ‘such a king as would, under the pretext of asking your advice, put a scorn upon you’, a phrase that was lifted almost verbatim from Buckingham’s letter. James added that once subsidies had been voted for a war they should be administered by treasurers appointed by Parliament rather than by the king himself, a proposal which also had its origin in Buckingham’s advice.310 LJ, iii. 250b, 251a.

According to the Spanish ambassadors, it was Buckingham who presented Parliament’s advice to the king, but in fact this task was performed by Archbishop Abbot, who headed the parliamentary delegation.311 PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 7/17 Mar. 1624. Buckingham had originally been appointed to this body, but his name was subsequently struck off the committee list.312 Add. 40087, f. 52. He may have decided that, in the light of recent events, his presence would not be conducive to success. In the second of his recent letters to the king, he had declared that he would dearly love to wait upon James more often, but ‘you going two ways, and myself only one, it occasions many disputes’. Until James had decided what to do, ‘I think it is of more comfort and ease to you, and safer for me, that I now abide away’.313 Misc. State Pprs. i. 466-7.

Following these events, Buckingham adopted a low profile in Parliament. He was absent on 8 Mar., and again on the 10th, when he played tennis, probably with the prince, at St James’s Palace.314 Add. 12528, f. 12v. However, he attended the Lords on the 9th, when he was appointed to the committee for the bill to explain the Recusancy Act of 1606, and again on the 11th, when Middlesex detailed the state of the royal finances and Charles declared that only Parliament could pay for the war. In the ensuing debate, Buckingham supported calls for an immediate meeting with the Commons to discuss the matter, as a result of which he was named to the conference committee. The following day the duke missed the morning sitting but was appointed to two committees in his absence. He returned to the chamber that afternoon, by which time the Lords had received the draft of the Commons’ reply to James’s recent offer. He was not entirely happy with the wording, as the Commons were promising to support James in a ‘parliamentary manner’ once the king declared that the marriage negotiations were at an end, a phrase that was so broad in its meaning that it needed clarification. However, like Southampton, Buckingham thought it inadvisable to try to alter the substance of what the Commons had said as this would waste precious time, the start of the campaigning season being so close at hand.315 LJ, iii. 252b, 256a; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 27, 29, 30. Accordingly, the Lords decided to leave the text virtually unchanged.

Matters were now proceeding smoothly for Buckingham. All that was now needed was for the king to accept the declaration that the Commons had prepared and announce that the marriage negotiations were at an end. However, it was at this critical juncture that James played his trump card. On 14 Mar. he told both Houses that he needed five subsidies and ten fifteenths – about £650,000 - to pay for the war, and a further one subsidy and two fifteenths annually – about £130,000 - to pay off his debts. Buckingham was aghast, as were the rest of the king’s listeners, for as recently as 11 Mar. Charles had assured Parliament that James wanted Parliament in the first instance to provide funds only for the war. Indeed, he was so upset that he subsequently broke down and wept.316 LJ, iii. 257a; SP14/160/90. That evening, at Charles’s instigation, Buckingham set aside his earlier resolution to stay away and visited James in his chamber where, on his knees, he requested that Parliament be given a more acceptable reply.317 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 255.

Following the king’s speech, most parliamentarians were so appalled ‘that they seemed not to know which way to turn nor how to proceed’. Charles and Buckingham attempted to retrieve the situation, explaining that James had been misunderstood, as he actually wanted nothing for himself at all. Indeed, they declared, the king, who had now departed the capital for Woking, had given Charles permission to explain his true meaning. However, the doubters remained dissatisfied, and therefore Buckingham travelled to Woking, where he extracted from the king written clarification. On his return on 17 Mar., he announced that James now said that if Parliament would make up the amount to be voted for the war to six subsidies and 12 fifteenths he would be ‘well content to quit what he had asked for his own necessities’.318 SP14/160/89; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 189; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 33; LJ, iii. 266a. At this news both Houses breathed a collective sigh of relief. Certainly the reassurance Buckingham had now obtained cleared the way for the Commons to embark upon a full-blooded debate on the forthcoming war. Although Buckingham was obliged to watch from the sidelines, his allies in the lower House kept him closely informed of its progress. Consequently, when Sir George Chaworth^‡ gave a speech opposing war, the duke, together with the earl of Carlisle, protested to the king. James privately sympathized with Chaworth and refused to commit him to prison, but the duke was determined to have him punished, and shortly thereafter the Commons’ committee for privileges unseated Chaworth, declaring that his election had been irregular.319 Loseley Mss ed. A.J. Kempe, 480-2.

While the Commons turned their attention to war, the Lords reverted to the business of clearing Buckingham from the aspersions cast upon him by the Spanish ambassadors. On 21 Mar. a deputation from both Houses informed the king that the duke was innocent, whereupon James, despite the recent strain in their relationship, replied that he still trusted his favourite, whom he described as ‘my disciple and scholar’. Indeed, his only criticism was that Buckingham had felt it necessary to turn to Parliament for his justification. Far from giving any credence to the Spanish complaints, James praised Buckingham for his attitude towards public service, for the duke had never claimed a penny of the more than £40,000 he had spent on the trip to Madrid, ‘nor ever will’.320 LJ, iii. 278b-9b. This glowing tribute might easily be dismissed as empty words were it not for the fact that, nine days later, James instructed the archbishop of York (Tobie Mathew^*) to convey the ownership of York House to Buckingham in return for crown lands of equal or greater value.321 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 202.

The improvement in his relationship with James was not the only welcome development for Buckingham at this time. On 20 Mar. the Commons promised to vote three subsidies and three fifteenths provided the king broke off the marriage negotiations. Two days later the Lords signified their approval of this arrangement, whereupon Buckingham, now in light-hearted mood, was instructed to request a meeting with the king, which was arranged for the following day. At this gathering, James finally declared that he was willing to terminate the marriage negotiations. This announcement was the signal for an enormous outpouring of public joy, during the course of which servants of the Spanish ambassadors were molested in the street. Although he shared in the celebrations – indeed, it was in the grounds of York House that the first bonfires were lit - Buckingham disapproved of this maltreatment, and on 24 Mar. he brought it to the attention of the upper House, which promised to punish the offenders if they were caught.322 CJ, i. 744b, 746a; LJ, iii. 273b, 280a; PRO31/12/29, Coloma to Philip IV, 31 Mar./9 Apr. 1624.

The king’s announcement represented a severe blow to Spain and her friends at court, among them the earl of Middlesex. By the end of March Middlesex’s young kinsman, Arthur Brett, had been persuaded to return to England without the king’s permission by the lord treasurer and his ally, the earl of Arundel. For Charles and Buckingham, Brett’s return was tantamount to a declaration of war, and shortly after the Easter recess one of the duke’s clients, Sir Miles Fleetwood^‡, accused the lord treasurer in the Commons of corruption.323 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 197, 198. These charges were quickly taken up by the lower House, which began impeachment proceedings against the hapless minister. However, this development alarmed the king, who greatly valued Middlesex for helping to reform the royal finances. On learning that Buckingham was chiefly responsible, James, who was already irritated with the favourite for having recently voted in favour of a bill to prevent papists from evading the penal laws by transferring their property to others, tried, ‘with much warmth and passion’, to persuade him to call a halt to the attack. Buckingham, however, was unyielding, whereupon James rounded on him: ‘By God, Steenie, you are a fool, and will shortly repent of this folly’, for ‘in this fit of popularity you are making a rod with which you will be scourged yourself’.324 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 199; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 28.

Buckingham was once again at odds with the king, and it was not long before the Spanish ambassadors tried to capitalize on this fact. Late on the evening of 7 Apr. they requested a private meeting with James. They subsequently told him that he was virtually a prisoner, that the duke was now in league with ‘all the popular men of the state’ and intended ‘to alter the government of the state at this Parliament’, and that at present the kingdom was governed not by a monarch but by a triumvirate headed by Buckingham, whose least important member was James himself. Instead of dismissing these wild suggestions out of hand, James, whose fear of the ‘republicanizing’ tendency of his English subjects was a matter of record, replied that if the Spanish could furnish him with evidence that Buckingham had indeed adopted ‘popular courses’ he would ‘take a course with him’. He added that he had wondered why Charles had left for Spain ‘as well affected to that nation as heart could desire’ only to return ‘strangely carried away with rash and youthful councils’.325 Cabala (1691), 275-6.

While the Spanish were trying to foment unrest between James and his favourite, Buckingham himself was doing all that he could to persuade the Commons to vote money for the war, in accordance with their promise. On 10 Apr. he crossed swords with Sheffield, who thought it ‘not fit at this time’ to remind the lower House of their obligation. He pointed out that unless the Commons were prompted to vote supply the king would soon suspect that they were not in earnest.326 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 64. One reason for the delay, as Buckingham himself realized, was that James had not yet formally ordered the marriage negotiations to be broken off, even though the dispatch had been drafted. After consulting Charles, Pembroke and Hamilton, he asked the king for permission to read the relevant document to representatives of the Commons, which he did on 17 April.327 Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, 26-7; CJ, i. 796b-70a. At the same time he continued to make the case for supply by means of ‘some calculated scaremongering’. He brandished two letters, one from the king’s agent at Brussels warning of military preparations in the Spanish Netherlands directed against Ireland, and the other from Ireland’s lord deputy, warning that Ireland was ill prepared to resist an invasion.328 LJ, iii. 312b. The quotation is from V. Treadwell, Buckingham and Ire. 255. These letters, taken alongside the dispatch that was to be sent to Spain, produced the desired effect, for on 21 Apr. the Commons agreed to give the subsidy bill a first reading.329 CJ, i. 772b. These same letters also served to increase the pressure on Middlesex, for in his missive the lord deputy complained that his letters to the English Privy Council had gone unanswered. Lord Keeper Williams, desperate to regain Buckingham’s good opinion, revealed that the culprit was not the Council but Middlesex, who habitually pocketed the lord deputy’s letters, saying that he would deal with them himself.330 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 236-7.

If Buckingham was pleased with the way matters were now developing, his satisfaction soon turned into despair. Charles’s decision to allow the newly arrived German mercenary commander, Count Mansfeld, use of the apartments that had originally been reserved for the infanta was one provocation too many for the Spanish ambassadors.331 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 524-5; Add. 72255, f. 142. On 20 Apr., while Charles and Buckingham were in the Lords, they obtained a second audience with the king, helped by the earl of Kellie [S], formerly Viscount Fentoun, once one of Buckingham’s most enthusiastic supporters.332 Hacket, i. 196. At this meeting, Inojosa and Coloma terrified James by claiming, inter alia, that Buckingham had planned to depose James and replace him with Charles if he refused to break off the marriage negotiations. Shortly thereafter James had ‘a great quarrel’ with Buckingham and the prince. Buckingham was reduced to tears, and complained privately to Charles of James’s ingratitude, ‘saying that he had sacrificed himself for him’. Not long after, Buckingham was forced to kneel before the king while the charges compiled by the Spanish ambassadors were read aloud. Among other things, Buckingham was accused of revealing state secrets to Parliament. When Buckingham replied that everything he had said in Parliament he had spoken ‘for the service of the king’, James replied in a rage: ‘You are not to judge of what is to be done, but obey the orders that I give you!’ So angry was the king that he kept the duke on his knees for two hours.333 PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 5/15 May 1624; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 308-9. He also refused to take Buckingham with him in his coach to Windsor for the Garter ceremony, whereupon the duke retired, distraught, to Wallingford House.334 Hacket, i. 196-7; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 232-3.

Buckingham was now in great danger, but his position was far from hopeless as he still had powerful allies at court. On 26 Apr. Charles urged his friend not to say or do anything that would lead James to suppose he was concealing something, assured him that no one on the Council would perjure themselves in order to bring about his downfall and sent him a list of questions he should put to James concerning the Spanish accusations.335 Misc. State Pprs. i. 455-6. At around the same time Lord Keeper Williams, eager to demonstrate his loyalty to his patron, urged the duke to go to Windsor, saying that he suspected that Spain’s accusations were part of a wider plot to wreck the Parliament before it could pass any anti-Catholic legislation.336 Hacket, i. 197; NLW, 9059E/1218. On the 27th Buckingham therefore travelled to Windsor,337 Add. 12528, f. 14. where he was joined by Charles, who brought with him proof that Williams’ suspicions were correct in the form of a confession by Inojosa’s secretary, Don Francisco de Carondelet.338 Hacket, i. 197-9. As a result of this fresh information, and the fact that several councillors swore that the duke was innocent,339 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 240. James and Buckingham were reconciled.

There remained the problem of how to deal with the Spanish ambassadors. The noted antiquary Sir Robert Cotton^‡, advised Buckingham to lay the matter before Parliament, as Parliament would undoubtedly petition the king to confine the diplomats to their house.340 Cottoni Posthumi (1651) ed. J. Howell, 1-9. Charles and Buckingham, however, were determined on more drastic action, insisting that the ambassadors should be prosecuted, both as disturbers of the peace and for exceeding their instructions.341 Mémoires et Négociations Secrètes de M. de Rusdorf (1789), i. 295-6. To prevent such a development, the ambassadors obtained on 3 May an interview with the king, now at Theobalds, at which Buckingham was almost certainly present, hidden behind a curtain. James demanded that the two diplomats substantiate the charges they had made, whereupon the Spaniards denied having accused Buckingham of anything except revealing state secrets. Indeed, they said, all that they had done was to repeat to James rumours of Buckingham’s plotting that they themselves had heard.342 PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 5/15 May 1624. James was so unimpressed with this response that the following day Williams, on his behalf, reopened discussions with the archbishop of York over his plan to convey ownership of York House to Buckingham.343 Hacket, i. 187.

It was now clear that repeated Spanish attempts to topple Buckingham had failed. However, by 5 May it was also apparent that the duke was gravely ill.344 PRO 31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 5/15 May 1624. Since his return from Spain, Buckingham, whose sexual appetites were notorious, had been treated for gonorrhoea by the king’s physician,345 Sloane 2067, ff. 105, 115v. For one of his alleged sexual exploits, see Secret Hist. of the Ct. of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, ii. 355. but he was now suffering from bouts of fever, jaundice and unpleasant smelling urine, symptoms which point to acute hepatitis. This did not prevent some observers from commenting that the duke’s collapse was as much mental as physical, while Buckingham himself subsequently wondered whether there was a connection between his illness and the mental incapacity of his elder brother John, Viscount Purbeck.346 Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, 1-2; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 252; Archaeologia Cambriensis, 1st ser. ii. 16-17; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 154. We are grateful to Frederick Holmes, emeritus professor of medicine, Univ. of Kansas, for his advice. Whatever may have been the real nature of Buckingham’s sickness, an alarmed James took Buckingham to Greenwich to recuperate for a few days. However, there being no improvement, he returned with the duke to London, posting guards on Wallingford House to keep visitors away.347 Lockyer, Buckingham, 196-7; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 252. He subsequently lavished great care and attention on Buckingham, showering him with small tokens of his affection, which had now been entirely rekindled.348 HMC Cowper, i. 163.

Buckingham’s incapacity necessarily meant that leadership of the ‘patriot coalition’ now fell to Prince Charles. Although preoccupied with parliamentary business, Charles frequently visited his sick friend.349 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 318. So too did James who, despite the duke’s illness, tried to engineer a reconciliation between Buckingham and the earl of Bristol, now returned from Spain. However, Bristol was eager to vindicate himself from the aspersions that Buckingham had cast upon him in Parliament, and desired to be tried before his peers at the earliest opportunity. This was not a prospect which Charles relished, for unless Buckingham was well enough to testify it seemed likely that Bristol would go unpunished. Thankfully for Charles, James was in no hurry to grant Bristol his wish either, as Parliament was still sitting and a trial held in the upper House would necessarily involve the prince.350 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 558; Harl. 6987, f. 207.

In the Lords it was left to Charles to press home the attack on Middlesex who, on 13 May, was stripped of office and fined. That same day the bill to transfer ownership of York House to the king received a first reading. At its second reading the next day, it was opposed not only by the Lewis Bayly, bishop of Bangor, but also by Archbishop Abbot, who, though he reported the measure as fit to pass, declared that he was sorry that the king was trying to weaken a bishopric. However, Lord Keeper Williams, himself a bishop, supported by Pembroke, refuted Abbot’s suggestion, saying that York House was of little value to the archbishop of York as it was so ruinous, whereas the manor that the king was willing to surrender would increase diocesan revenues by £100 a year. The following day the bill passed, without further dissent, after Buckingham’s chaplain William Laud, now bishop of St Davids, assured the House that Buckingham, whom he had visited, did not wish the exchange to proceed unless it were advantageous for the Church.351 LJ, iii. 384a, 387a; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 92-3, 95.

By 14 May there were encouraging signs that Buckingham was over the worst of his illness, and on the 21st the duke was taken by chair to see Prince Charles and York House, which he had already begun to rebuild.352 Lockyer, Buckingham, 213; Add. 72255, f. 146v; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 152; SP14/165/23; Arch. Cambriensis, 1st ser. ii. 16-17. News of his improvement may explain why his fellow peers appointed him on 20 May to a committee for conferring with the Commons about recusant officeholders. However, it was not until the afternoon of 26 May that Buckingham was well enough to attend the Lords in person.353 LJ, iii. 393b. Even so he remained frail, and later that same day he journeyed to Greenwich for his health, the king helping him into his coach with his own hand.354 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 257. Shortly thereafter Parliament was prorogued, though not before the York House bill received the Royal Assent. To help rebuild the house, James gave Buckingham 2,000 tons of Portland stone.355 Lockyer, Buckingham, 213; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 260, 307; F. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer, 286-7.

York House was not the only significant acquisition made by Buckingham at this time. In late May the elderly Edward La Zouche^*, 11th Lord Zouche, agreed to surrender to the duke the lord wardenship of the Cinque Ports.356 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 256. This arrangement was perfectly sensible, for, with the coming war with Spain, Buckingham would now be able to press men and ships for the Navy in areas that were exempt from the authority of the lord admiral. Moreover, the wardenship would provide Buckingham with considerable parliamentary patronage, something he had conspicuously lacked hitherto. However, terms for the transfer were not finally agreed until mid July, when Buckingham promised to pay Zouche £1,000 in cash and an annuity of £500, and the handover did not finally occur until the following December.357 Ibid. 304, 333, 384.

The French marriage and Mansfeld’s expedition, 1624-5

Buckingham’s return to court at the end of May proved to be premature. In early June he retired sick to New Hall, pursued by the rumour that he was ‘crazed in his brain’, to escape ‘the importunity of visitors that would give him no rest’.358 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 563; Life and Corresp. of Sir George Radcliffe ed. T.D. Whitaker, 124. Disappointed that he had again been deprived of Buckingham’s company, James thereupon began to lavish attention on a certain Mr Clare, the younger brother of Ralph Clare^‡, one of the gentlemen of the prince’s privy chamber.359 SP14/167/26, 28. Charles was so alarmed at this development that he sang Buckingham’s praises at every opportunity, and attended James ‘more nearly and closely ... than ever’ in order to keep the interloper away, even lodging next to the king’s chamber.360 Add. 72276, ff. 99v, 101. It may therefore have been James’s wandering eye that induced Buckingham to return to court on 16 June.361 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 565. However, he had still not yet fully recovered, and on 24 June he suffered a brief relapse. He continued to receive medical attention until mid July, when once again he rejoined the court.362 Add. 12528, ff. 14v, 15; SP14/168/40; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 284. Buckingham’s decision to return, although clearly premature from a medical point of view, was timely, for on 10 July Arthur Brett had thrust himself unexpectedly in front of the king during the middle of a hunt, whereupon James had ordered him forcibly removed from the field.363 Lockyer, Buckingham, 201-2; SP14/170/2. Shortly thereafter one commentator remarked that Buckingham’s favour with the king was ‘great ... above imagination’.364 Add. 29974, f. 80.

Now that Parliament had ended, having voted the subsidies needed to commence a war for the recovery of the Palatinate, Charles and Buckingham were free to pursue a French marriage for the prince. Over the summer Buckingham feasted the French ambassador, the marquis d’Effiat, who, like the Spanish the previous year, insisted that toleration be granted to England’s Catholics as a condition of any marriage. This alarmed Buckingham’s puritan chaplain, Dr John Preston, but Buckingham brushed aside his concerns, arguing that the French would not be such sticklers as the Spanish and pointing out ‘that there was not a Protestant to be had, and to marry with a subject had always been unhappy and fatal to the kings of England’.365 Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston ed. E.W. Harcourt, 108. By early August the negotiations seemed to be going smoothly and therefore Buckingham, who was still not entirely recovered from his recent illness (despite reports to the contrary), travelled to Northamptonshire to try the waters at Wellingborough.366 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 209; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 327. For reports that he was perfectly recovered, see SP97/10, f. 96v; Add. 29974, pt. i. f. 80. However, his departure could not have been more inopportune, for soon thereafter James and Charles learned that Louis XIII’s chief minister, the marquis de La Vieuville, had been replaced by Cardinal Richelieu, who now demanded a written guarantee that England’s Catholics would not be persecuted. Both king and prince were incensed, and agreed that if the arrangements made with La Vieuville were now being disavowed the negotiations should be considered as having ended. News of this development soon reached the ears of Effiat, who was so concerned that he rushed over to Wellingborough to consult Buckingham, for whom the French marriage was a vital component of any anti-Spanish strategy. The two men thereupon journeyed to Derby to see the king. En route they encountered a messenger bearing a dispatch for France. Despite the impropriety, Buckingham broke open the packet and discovered that James had, in effect, terminated the negotiations. He thereupon redrafted the letter in such a way that it would not cause offence and showed the revised text to James and Charles who, with careful handling, were persuaded to continue the negotiations. However, James insisted that he would only provide the French with a letter rather than enter into any contractual agreement over toleration. Buckingham, who had little choice but to accept this compromise, assured Louis in writing that James had gone as far as he could go. This letter did ‘great good’, as James subsequently admitted, for by early September the marriage negotiations were back on course. Indeed, by the 17th the duke was laying plans to fetch the prince’s bride.367 Lockyer, Buckingham, 203; Gardiner, v. 257-8, 261-2; Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 440.

Late September and early October saw Buckingham succumb to a renewed bout of illness, occasioned by long hours of work and bad weather. ‘I have such a swelling in my throat and such a noise in my head’, he complained, ‘that I can neither swallow nor hear well’.368 Add. 72299, f. 133v; Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, 34. However, by the middle of the month, following a course of ‘much physic and baths’, he had entirely recovered.369 C115/107/8536. See also CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 350. During this period of sickness, Buckingham did not neglect his duties. In early October, for example, he wrote to the Catholic earl of Nithsdale [S], who was attempting to obtain a papal dispensation for the marriage, to explain James’s recent decision to prorogue Parliament, which had been due to reassemble on 2 Nov., to February 1625. Were Parliament to be sitting when Henrietta Maria arrived, he explained, it might occasion ‘exorbitant or ingentle [sic] motions’ and make it difficult for the king to implement ‘those passages of favours, grace and goodness’ that he had promised ‘for the ease of the Roman Catholics’.370 Orig. Letters of State, iii. 179-81.

The prospect of a hostile Parliament was not the only obstacle to be overcome before the French marriage could be concluded. In November the French proposed that the expedition now being prepared by the English under Count Mansfeld should be used to raise the Spanish siege of the strategically important Dutch town of Breda. James, however, had no intention of becoming embroiled in a direct confrontation with Spain, and therefore insisted that, as originally planned, Mansfeld’s army be sent directly to the Palatinate. Fresh quarrels with Charles and Buckingham ensued, and by mid November it was rumoured that James was secretly pursuing the possibility of an alternative marriage alliance, either with Savoy or one of the German princes.371 Lockyer, Buckingham, 222-4; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 499. However, Charles and Buckingham were adamant that French military assistance was vital for the recovery of the Palatinate, and in mid December, during the course of a three-hour long meeting with representatives of the French government, James was finally persuaded to sign the marriage articles.372 Stuart Dynastic Policy, 108. See also Annals of Camb. iii. 170; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 591. James’s reservations concerning the match with France were nevertheless fully justified, as neither Buckingham nor Charles had succeeded in persuading the French to abandon their demand that Mansfeld’s army be used to relieve Breda. On the contrary, early in January 1625 Louis cancelled the permission previously given to Mansfeld to land in France, in the hope that this would compel the English to disembark in the Low Countries instead. At first Buckingham refused to give in to French pressure, but by 23 Jan. he was left with no alternative, Louis having sent a message to Mansfeld telling him that under no circumstances was he to land in France.373 Lockyer, Buckingham, 224, 227; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 456; Harl. 6987, f. 203.

Buckingham was acutely aware that these diplomatic wrangles threatened the harmony of the forthcoming Parliament, which was due to reassemble on 16 February. Subsidies had been voted more than six months earlier, but the delays occasioned by disagreements with France meant that Mansfeld’s force did not actually sail until 31 January. By 12 Jan. Buckingham had become concerned that Parliament would express dissatisfaction at the loss of time and fruitless expenditure of large sums of money. He thereafter he had a further commission postponing Parliament drafted.374 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 445; Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, 33. Although James eventually signed this document (on 16 Feb.), he was angry that Buckingham was causing him to be led by the nose by the French, and therefore instructed the duke ‘to set a short day’, meaning that he would only allow the meeting to be delayed for a matter of weeks rather than months. Consequently, instead of the lengthy postponement that Buckingham had perhaps anticipated, Parliament was ordered to reassemble on 15 March.375 Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, 22; LJ, iii. 426n. These fresh tensions between Buckingham and James should not, however, be exaggerated. Ever since becoming reconciled to his favourite in late April 1624, James had expressed himself to Buckingham in the fondest terms. He regularly addressed the duke as ‘sweetheart’, for instance, and in October 1624 described him as ‘my sweet dear child, scholar and friend’.376 Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 436-7, 439-41.

Shortly after James signed the marriage articles with France, Buckingham proposed that a joint military and naval expedition should seize control of a fortified post on the Spanish coast with the aim of intercepting the treasure ships returning from South America. In order to overcome James’s opposition to a direct confrontation with Spain, Buckingham also suggested that this force should operate in the name of James’s son-in-law, the dispossessed king of Bohemia. James gave this scheme his blessing, and ordered that the necessary funds should be provided from the 1624 parliamentary subsidies.377 Gardiner, v. 302-3; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 409. However, thanks to Mansfeld’s expedition, money was now in such short supply that Buckingham received the £20,000 earmarked for fetching Henrietta Maria from France only in dribs and drabs (and even then £500 was still unpaid as late as 9 May).378 The instrument for payment is disguised as a free gift: PSO2/60, no. 3; E403/2562, f. 151. For the shortfall, see E403/2605, p. 99; 403/2563, f. 34v. For Buckingham’s complaint regarding slow payment, see Letters of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, 31. Consequently, at about the beginning of the fourth week in January 1625, James, having left London for Newmarket, instructed Buckingham to employ his own resources, and those of his friends, to help equip the fleet.379 Procs. 1625, p. 162. The letter no longer seems to exist. James had left London for Newmarket by 24 Jan.: HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 218. Buckingham thereupon borrowed £20,000, which he lent to the king even though his own debts were extremely pressing.380 E403/2605, pp. 202, 348-9; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 503; Ellis, iii. 189. Half the money borrowed came from Sir Paul Bayning^* (later 1st Visct. Bayning). The rest may have been obtained from Richard Robartes^*, who purchased a peerage at around the same time.

Early in March 1625 James fell seriously ill. Buckingham was now busy preparing for his departure to France, as the papal dispensation had finally arrived and it had been decided that he was to act as proxy for Charles at the forthcoming marriage, which was to be held in Paris.381 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 218; Add. 72332, f. 91. However, he immediately wrote James a ‘merry letter’ and sent him Dr John Remington of Great Dunmow in Essex, whose treatments he himself had found invaluable the previous year.382 R. Lockyer, ‘An English Valido?’, For Veronica Wedgwood These Studies in Seventeenth-Century Hist. ed. R. Ollard and P. Tudor-Craig, 52; Add. 12528, f. 18v. Despite having already sent his carriages to Dover, he rode over to be with the king at Theobalds, where he proceeded to interfere with James’s medical treatment, giving the king a posset drink and causing a poultice to be applied to his stomach and wrists, all without the knowledge or consent of the attendant physicians. The results were predictable: the poultice caused James to be violently ill and the doctors were furious, although their treatments were no more efficacious than the duke’s. Soon it was rumoured that Buckingham was trying to do the king harm. Buckingham was incensed, as the poultice had been devised by Remington, whose reputation was unimpeachable and who had previously enjoyed considerable success with this method of treatment.383 Lockyer, Buckingham, 233-4; Gardiner, v. 313-14; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 5; T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain, v. 568. His anger was shared by his enemy the earl of Kellie, an eye-witness to the duke’s ministrations.384 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 226. However, the slanderous rumour that Buckingham had sought to hasten the king’s end was to prove deeply damaging, as James died only a few days later.

The accession of Charles I and the Parliament of 1625

Buckingham remained at James’s bedside until at least 26 Mar., but whether he was in attendance when the king died the following day is unclear.385 Add. 37816, f. 17r-v. Buckingham brought news of James’s death to Laud at Whitehall on the 27th: Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 158. News of James’s death gave hope to the duke’s many enemies, as it was widely believed that Prince Charles, now king, secretly hated Buckingham.386 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 451. However, Charles quickly assured the duke of his continued love and friendship and confirmed him in all his offices. He also granted him exclusive right to enter the king’s bedchamber at any hour of the day or night and, for the time being, had him sleep in the room adjacent to his bedchamber. Moreover, he took him into his coach ‘as an equal’.387 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 4; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 3; HMC Skrine, 3. By the beginning of April at the latest it was clear that Buckingham was more powerful than ever, a state of affairs which, according to Kellie, ‘is not pleasing to most men’.388 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 227. See also Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston, 111-12. Consequently when, during the first Council meeting of the new reign, Arundel demanded an end to Buckingham’s monopoly over royal policy and the sale of honours, his plea went largely unheeded.389 K. Sharpe, ‘Earl of Arundel’, Faction and Parl. ed. idem, 227.

The assurance of Charles’s continued favour was doubtless an enormous relief to Buckingham, but the emotional strain of the past few weeks proved too great. ‘Much troubled with an impostume’ in his head, he fell ill on 1 Apr., remaining in poor health for at least 12 days, during which time he was confined to his chamber.390 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 4; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 609. There could now be no question of sending Buckingham to France for the forthcoming marriage ceremony. However, although not fit to travel, the duke remained well enough to carry on his correspondence. One of the most pressing matters requiring his attention was the forthcoming Parliament. The 1624 Parliament had been due to reassemble on 19 Mar., but James’s final illness had necessitated a further postponement, and now that the old king was dead it was essential to hold fresh elections, the previous Parliament having been automatically dissolved. Writs were accordingly issued on 7 Apr., and during the following week Buckingham, now a major parliamentary patron, wrote numerous letters on behalf of his clients. As a result, more than 30 of the duke’s followers secured places in the Commons.391 HP Commons 1604-29, i. 179.

Parliamentary business was not the only matter to occupy Buckingham during his illness. Now that James was dead there was nothing to prevent a direct military confrontation with Spain. On 9 Apr. Buckingham exhorted the captains of the king’s ships in the Narrow Seas to ply up and down the Channel, and on the 10th, having heard that many Dunkirkers had put to sea, he ordered an armed merchantman in Dover to join the Channel squadron.392 Add. 37816, ff. 18, 22. However, despite the conscientious manner in which he discharged his naval duties, Buckingham was by now planning to step down as lord admiral and become instead lord steward, which office was once more vacant. Lord Keeper Williams had recently pointed out that when war broke out he would be expected to lead the fleet in person, and that if he declined to do so for lack of experience he would incur ‘shame and ignominy’.393 Gardiner, v. 311-12. Buckingham’s plan to resign the admiralty met with the approval of the new king, who announced it shortly after his accession. It may also have been welcomed by Pembroke, who had previously coveted the lord stewardship and now intended to resign his staff as lord chamberlain to his brother Montgomery. Certainly he and Montgomery spent three hours in conversation with Buckingham at York House in early April. However, Charles resolved to defer a final decision until after the funeral of his father.394 Lockyer, Buckingham, 235.

Exchanging the office of lord admiral for that of lord steward was not the only alteration that Buckingham was urged to make at this time. Charles reportedly told the duke in the hearing of others that, though he might continue to hold the mastership of the horse if he wished, he would ‘think the better of him’ were he to surrender this office to another. This was a surprising development, as hitherto Charles had not publicly criticized Buckingham’s steady accumulation of offices. However, Buckingham would not countenance this proposal, despite having frequently declared that he intended to surrender the mastership to one of clients. Faced with this minor defiance, Charles not surprisingly declined to swear Buckingham in. Not until February 1626, when the duke faced a serious parliamentary threat to his authority, did Charles relent.395 NLW, 9060E/1336; HMC Rutland, i. 474, 476-7. Mead’s report that Buckingham was reappointed master in Apr. 1625 is false: Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 17.

Following his recovery, Buckingham quickly forgot his promise to surrender the admiralty and instead turned his attention to mounting an attack on Spain. The projected expedition, which he intended to lead in person, rapidly assumed paramount importance, with the result that defence was allowed to suffer: on 22 Apr., for instance, the duke ordered three ships of the Channel squadron to be added to the expeditionary force.396 Add. 37816, f. 23; A. Thrush, ‘In Pursuit of the Frigate, 1603-42’, HR, lxiv. 30. However, these preparations were interrupted at the end of April, when news reached England that the king had now married Henrietta Maria by proxy. On 11 May, four days after the funeral of the late king, Buckingham, armed with diplomatic credentials, set out for France ‘in a very splendid equipage’ with the earl of Montgomery and a handful of servants. Three days later he arrived in Paris, where he stayed as the guest of the duc de Chevreuse, who had taken his place as the king’s proxy at the recent wedding. The new ambassador extraordinary soon became the talk of the town, captivating his hosts with his striking good looks and fashion sense.397 Lockyer, Buckingham, 236; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 162; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 617; J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae ed. J. Jacobs, 237; G. Ascoli, La Grande Bretagne Devant L’Opinion Francaise au XVIIe Siecle, 35. However, his charm failed to impress Richelieu, with whom he proceeded to hold lengthy talks. Now that the marriage had been concluded, Buckingham desired France to join an anti-Habsburg military alliance that he intended to construct. Despite the recent wrangling over Mansfeld’s expedition, which had disintegrated without accomplishing anything, the duke was hopeful of success. Indeed, he and Charles had already agreed to lend France several warships in order to mount an attack on the Spanish satellite state of Genoa. However, Richelieu was no longer preoccupied with Spain but with the Huguenots of La Rochelle, who had recently made common cause with the rebellious duc de Soubise (godfather to Charles I). Consequently, the cardinal declined to enter the proposed league of anti-Habsburg states.398 Lockyer, Buckingham, 236-7. On Soubise as godfather to Charles, see CHARLES STUART.

It was a disappointed Buckingham who left Paris on 26 May laden with gifts reputedly worth £80,000.399 Stuart Dynastic Policy, 366; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 623. At Amiens he joined Charles’s new bride, Henrietta Maria, and her sister-in-law the queen of France, Anne of Austria. The duke was evidently so struck by Anne’s beauty that he made amorous advances towards her. News of his undiplomatic behaviour soon reached the ears of an angry Louis XIII.400 Lockyer, Buckingham, 240-1. At a stroke Buckingham had thrown into jeopardy any remaining chance of forging a military alliance with France. However, Buckingham was slow to realize that he had caused serious offence. In mid July, having learned (falsely) that Louis had concluded peace with the Huguenots, he contemplated returning to France, reasoning, no doubt, that since the Huguenot problem had now been resolved Richelieu would no longer refuse to join his projected anti-Habsburg alliance.401 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 230; Procs. 1625, p. 734.

Buckingham and Henrietta Maria were greeted at Dover by Charles on 13 June, and the royal couple entered London three days later.402 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 153; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 164. News of the duke’s diplomatic failure caused dismay since, as the Florentine agent in London observed, a military alliance with France had been ‘earnestly desired’.403 HMC Skrine, 22. However, there was little time to take stock of the new situation before the first Parliament of the reign began. Unlike other assemblies of the period, the meeting of this particular Parliament was unwelcome to many of its Members because of a serious outbreak of plague in the capital. The poor timing was widely blamed on Buckingham rather than Charles, even though the order to summon the Parliament had been given on 2 Apr., the day after the duke fell ill.404 Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston, 113.

Shortly before the Parliament met, Buckingham was warned in writing of a matter that would, in all likelihood, cause conflict with the Commons if not speedily dealt with in advance. The author of this memorandum was almost certainly Lord Keeper Williams, who announced that he had been instructed to draw up a proclamation concerning the office of seacoals in favour of the 4th duke of Lennox [S] (James Stuart^*, later 1st duke of Richmond in the English peerage). Though ‘much pressed for a present dispatch’, Williams was reluctant to comply because the patent of seacoals was ‘one of those things which was found amongst the grievances the last session’. Now that another session was near at hand, Williams asked rhetorically whether it was ‘seasonable’ to issue the intended proclamation. Buckingham evidently shared Williams’ reservations, for in the event no such proclamation was issued before the Parliament opened on 18 June.405 Eg. 2541, f. 55v. The memorandum is undated.

For Charles and Buckingham, the chief purpose of the Parliament was to obtain a further large grant of supply for a war with Spain. Both men evidently supposed that this would be an easy task, as the 1624 House of Commons had willingly opened its purse-strings once James had agreed to terminate the Spanish Match. However, neither gave any indication from the outset of the size of sums that were needed. Buckingham might have remedied this deficiency early in the session had he attended the upper House more regularly, but between the afternoon of 20 June and the morning of 7 July he was conspicuous by his absence. His time was instead occupied with entertaining the duc de Chevreuse, who had accompanied him back to England.406 Procs. 1625, pp. 47, 706; HMC Skrine, 24; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 624-5. The result of this benign neglect was little short of catastrophic. Left to their own devices, the Commons, out of a mixture of motives, decided in early July to vote the king just two subsidies, worth about £160,000. When Buckingham learned of this he rode over to Hampton Court, where the king had fled to avoid the infection. Charles, who had initially welcomed the grant, and even sent the Commons a note of thanks, was soon persuaded by Buckingham that a far greater sum was needed. Consequently, at around midnight on 7 July the duke held an emergency meeting at York House with his clients in the Commons. He did not, however, invite the two leading councillors in the lower House, Sir Humphrey May^‡ and Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡. This was partly because neither man was his dependant, but he was perhaps also displeased that they had not dissuaded the Commons from drawing up a bill to place on a temporary (rather than a permanent) footing the customs duties known as Tunnage and Poundage.407 HP Commons, 1604-29, pp. 418-21.

As a result of this meeting it was agreed that the duke’s client, John Coke, would attempt to secure an increase in the intended grant the next morning. However, when Sir Humphrey May learned of this plan he was horrified. A further demand for subsidies would seem like ingratitude and in all likelihood poison relations with the Commons. He therefore persuaded Sir John Eliot^‡, an ally of the duke, to remonstrate with Buckingham. However, the duke refused to countermand his instructions to Coke, who had stayed up all night drafting his speech. By the time Coke rose to his feet the subsidy bill had received its third and final reading and was on its way to the upper House. His demand for further supply thus came too late, and was roundly condemned. May and Edmondes were so embarrassed and angry that neither of them seconded Coke.408 Ibid.; Procs. 1625, pp. 347, 349, 519-20.

In the aftermath of this fiasco Buckingham proposed that the Parliament should be adjourned to Oxford, which was incorrectly assumed to be plague-free. In his view, the Commons had been unwilling to consider further supply because its Members were desperate to flee the capital to avoid infection rather than because they objected in principle to voting subsidies twice in one session. After all, towards the end of the 1621 Parliament – a single session assembly – had not the Commons reluctantly agreed to a second subsidy bill? The fact that no grant had subsequently materialized was the result of an angry dissolution occasioned by disagreement over the marriage of Prince Charles rather than because the Commons had had second thoughts. However, Lord Keeper Williams was aghast, warning that if the lower House was forced to reassemble its Members would ‘vote out of discontent and displeasure’. He cautioned the king against giving offence ‘in the bud of his reign’, but an impatient Buckingham brushed aside his objections, urging that ‘public necessity might sway more than one man’s jealousy’. In desperation, Williams took the king aside and warned him that Buckingham now had many enemies in the Commons who had ‘contrived complaints against him’, and that if Parliament reassembled these malcontents would have ‘no other aim’ but to attack him. Williams clearly knew that many Members of the lower House were unhappy that the penal laws against Catholics had been relaxed in accordance with the marriage agreement with France; he must also have known that Sir Robert Phelips, one of the duke’s key allies in the Commons in 1624, was angry at having not been rewarded for his loyalty with government office. However, when Charles asked Williams why he did not reveal his fears to Buckingham himself, the lord keeper replied that the duke ‘will not hear me with moderation’.409 Hacket, ii. 13-14. On the decision to vote the king a subsidy in Nov. 1621, see HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 412.

Charles was not persuaded by Williams’ arguments, and on 11 July he adjourned Parliament, ordering it to reassemble three weeks later at Oxford. Buckingham too was unimpressed by the lord keeper, whose loyalty he had previously suspected and whom he now believed was envious of his dominant position. When Parliament reconvened on 1 Aug., Williams found himself the target of attack for having assured the Commons that the laws against Catholic priests would be rigorously enforced only to sign a warrant the following day pardoning a Jesuit at Exeter. Mounted by Sir Edward Giles^‡, one of the Members for Totnes, and supported by Sir John Eliot, this assault was clearly inspired by Buckingham, even though Giles, unlike Eliot, was not one of the duke’s clients. This was certainly the conclusion reached by Williams himself, for the lord keeper later complained to the king that Buckingham’s allies had tried to recruit Sir Francis Seymour^† (later 1st Lord Seymour) to their cause, and that Sir William Strode^‡ and Sir Nathaniel Rich^‡, two Members ‘most noted to malice me’, were ‘never out of my lord duke’s chamber’. He also claimed to have heard from noblemen close to the king ‘that his grace’s agents stirred in all their powers to set the Commons upon me’.410 Hacket, ii. 14, 18; Procs. 1625, pp. 375, 376, 529, 530; Lockyer, Buckingham, 260; C. Thompson, ‘Court Pols. and Parlty Conflict in 1625’, Conflict in Early Stuart Eng. ed. R. Cust and A. Hughes, 179. However, if Buckingham was hoping to head off criticism of his own conduct by offering Williams as a sacrifice to the Commons he was in for a rude awakening, as the pardon granted to the Jesuit was clearly connected to the French marriage treaty. In the ensuing debate, Sir Henry Marten^‡, judge of the high court of admiralty and, in theory at least, one of the duke’s subordinates, launched an astonishing attack on this treaty and on those responsible for its negotiation. In former times, he observed, it had been the practice of the state to employ ‘old ambassadors ... whose wisdoms and experience might give a promise for their works’. The current situation was the result of employing ‘young men’. Marten’s outburst caused outrage among Buckingham and his allies at court, but, as Eliot later observed, in the Commons it ‘had a good approbation and acceptance, as it did speak that truth which was written in each heart’. Buckingham’s attempt to discredit Williams had clearly backfired. To make matters worse, the duke had succeeded in making an enemy of the lord keeper, as Williams, fearing that he was about to be impeached, ‘applied himself to some of the leading Members’ of the Commons. In so doing he allegedly ‘diverted them from himself to the duke of Buckingham as a more noble prey’.411 P. Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus (1668), 139.

One of the leading Members of the Commons to whom Williams may have ‘applied himself’ was the former councillor and lord chief justice Sir Edward Coke. On 5 Aug., the day after additional supply was again demanded, Coke launched a scathing attack on Buckingham. ‘It was never heard’, he declared, ‘that Queen Elizabeth’s Navy did dance a pavan’, with ‘so many men pressed’ and forced to ‘lie so long without doing anything’. The office of lord admiral, he added, ‘is the place of the greatest trust about the king, for the benefit of the kingdom, it being an island consisting of trade’. Its holder should therefore be ‘a man of great experience and judgement’, qualities that could not be attained in only a few years. Any office granted to an inexperienced man was void in law. These arrow shafts were well aimed, for only a few months earlier Buckingham had agreed, on the advice of Williams, to step down as lord admiral on the grounds that he was not experienced enough to lead a fleet to sea. Coke was seconded by Sir Robert Phelips who, echoing the views expressed by Arundel at the Council table four months earlier, complained that the right to counsel the king had been monopolized by Buckingham, an absurd state of affairs, he declared, as wisdom could not be ‘comprehended in one man’.412 Procs. 1625, pp. 399, 403, 542.

Buckingham was obliged to rely upon his supporters in the lower House to make his defence the following day. Unfortunately for him, two of his leading clients, Sir John Eliot and John Coke, disliked one another intensely. Eliot claimed that the delay in setting out the fleet was the fault not of the lord admiral but of the Navy commissioners, whereupon Coke, by now the leading Navy commissioner, retorted that ‘this tax of the commissioners is an artificial condemning of my lord admiral’. To make matters worse, another of Buckingham’s clients in the Commons, Edward Clarke^‡, accused Phelips and Sir Edward Coke of having engaged in ‘bitter invectives’ against the duke the previous day. He was particularly angry that Coke had said that Buckingham was incapable of holding office because of his youth. However, on trying to press home his attack, Clarke was stopped in his tracks by his colleagues, who ordered that he be committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms.413 Ibid. 413, 414, 417, 418.

The Commons’ punishment of Clarke jolted Buckingham into the realization that he was now in serious danger. At a meeting of his supporters on Sunday 7 Aug., he was advised to ‘endeavour an accommodation with the Parliament’ for his own safety. Two things were identified as necessary to restore his former reputation in the Commons. First, the criticism that he was ill qualified to serve as lord admiral should be rebutted by blaming the delay in preparing the fleet on the Navy’s administrators. However, Buckingham, who had no military or naval experience, should also abandon his plan to lead the fleet in person, despite having been formally appointed its commander the previous day. Secondly, Buckingham should demonstrate that he was sound in matters of religion. Questions concerning the duke’s religious loyalties had been raised not only by the de facto toleration granted to Catholics but also by Buckingham’s support of Richard Montagu^*, a royal chaplain and a canon of Windsor (and later bishop of Norwich), who had given grave offence to the Calvinist majority in the Commons by his espousal of Arminian doctrines in two recent books. Buckingham was therefore advised that if he left Montagu to be punished by the lower House it would be ‘a satisfaction for the present’. It was also suggested, probably by Sir Nathaniel Rich, that Buckingham should deliver a satisfactory answer to a petition concerning the government’s lax treatment of Catholics that had been presented to the king at the end of the Westminster sitting. Although such an arrangement was highly irregular, since petitions addressed to the king were customarily answered by the monarch in person, it would create the impression that Buckingham rather than Charles was responsible for the reply.414 Ibid. 550-1, 568n.

Buckingham’s reaction to this advice was mixed. On the one hand he agreed to relinquish command of the fleet, offering it instead to the experienced soldier Sir Edward Cecil^* (later Viscount Wimbledon).415 C. Dalton, Life and Times of Sir Edward Cecil, ii. 119-20. He also persuaded the king to respond favourably to the Commons’ petition, telling the Lords the next day ‘that all was granted which was desired’.416 Procs. 1625, p. 155. However, he declined to abandon Montagu to his fate, having been urged to defend the cleric as recently as 2 Aug. by several Arminian bishops, among them his own chaplain, William Laud.417 Cabala (1691), 105; Heylyn, 136. He also refused to blame the delay in setting out the fleet on the Navy’s administrators, as this would have meant turning on one of his key allies in the Commons, John Coke. Instead, at a meeting of both Houses on the 8th, he gave an account of the fleet’s preparations, during the course of which he asserted that he had not been backward, but had poured out his own money to help pay for supplies. In this same speech Buckingham also attempted to allay two other fears that were circulating in the Commons. The first concerned the ships that had recently been lent to the king of France. These, he declared, had not been paid for out of the 1624 subsidy money but by Louis himself, nor had they been lent to Louis for use against England’s co-religionists, the Huguenots. The second fear concerned the French marriage, which he had helped to negotiate and which many Members regarded as more objectionable than the Spanish Match. In response, Buckingham referred the Commons to the king’s reply to their petition concerning Catholics. Having answered his critics, Buckingham proceeded to ask for an additional £40,000, all that was needed to put the fleet to sea.418 Procs. 1625, pp. 160-5.

Buckingham’s speech did little to calm the fears of those who now doubted his motives. Eliot later recalled that its tone smacked of ‘self-flattery’, and that many of Buckingham’s answers ‘were judged imperfect’. He also observed that Buckingham conveyed the impression that, during his recent trip to France, the king had been ‘his deputy in his absence’.419 Ibid. 554. The following day the Florentine agent in London reported that many Members of the Commons now complained bitterly of the duke, whose reputation sank still further after it was discovered that it was he rather than Williams who was to blame for the pardon granted to the Exeter Jesuit. Williams was not only cleared of any wrongdoing but also commended.420 HMC Skrine, 29; Procs. 1625, pp. 153-5; Hacket, ii. 14-15. In the wake of this revelation, and with news reaching Oxford of heavy losses of merchant ships to the north African pirates who infested the Channel, the Commons’ attack on Buckingham was renewed on 10 August. Sir Guy Palmes^‡ declared that for the disorders committed under Henry VII, Empson and Dudley had been hanged. Henry Rolle^‡ flatly refused to consider further supply, demanding to know what success could be expected from a Navy ‘that cannot keep our own coast from being infected by Turkish [sic] pirates’. He was answered by Buckingham’s client Sir Henry Mildmay, who averred that ships had been assigned to guard the coasts.421 Procs. 1625, pp. 448, 451. However, this claim was misleading, as the Channel guard had been weakened to provide more ships for the expedition to Spain. As another of Buckingham’s clients, Sir Robert Pye, would tell the Commons in 1626, ‘there were no ships ready till June, and very few till July’.422 Thrush, ‘In Pursuit of the Frigate’, 30. Although orders to set out warships had been issued by the Privy Council in May, while Buckingham was in France, these had not been acted upon.423 APC, 1625-6, pp. 59, 79-80; Procs. 1625, p. 529.

These gaps in the provision of ships were embarrassing, but there were two further problems, of which the Commons were perhaps unaware, which meant that the Navy’s ability to provide adequate coastal protection was compromised. The first was that, on the recommendation of the Navy commissioners, who had responsibility for the day-to-day running of the Navy, the ordinary establishment of ships in the Channel guard had been reduced from five or six vessels to four in order to save money. To his credit, shortly after the Parliament ended, Buckingham persuaded the Council to reverse this decision.424 APC, 1625-6, pp. 139-40. The second problem was far more serious and rather more intractable. In the report they produced for the king in 1618, the Navy commissioners had placed their chief emphasis on maintaining a fleet of large ships; they had not seen any need to retain a number of small ships which, they said, could always be ‘had from the merchants’.425 Jacobean Commissions of Enquiry 1608 and 1618 ed. A.P. McGowan (Navy Recs. Soc. cxvi), 288. Consequently, when hostilities broke out in the spring of 1625, the Navy had very few vessels capable of catching the smaller, nimbler craft which operated out of Dunkirk and Ostend. In the summer of 1624 Buckingham’s attention had been drawn to this deficiency, and he had consequently ordered two ships of 350 tons each to be built along Dutch lines. However, these vessels were never constructed, with the result that in August 1625 one of the Navy’s captains complained to the duke that the enemy’s ships were too fast for his own.426 Thrush, ‘In Pursuit of the Frigate’, 35; Procs. 1625, pp. 721-2.

Criticisms of Buckingham’s performance as lord admiral were largely justified, but not all the charges laid at the duke’s door were fair. On 5 Aug. Sir Edward Coke told the Commons that if the royal finances had been better managed there would be no need for the king to demand further subsidies. The clear implication of this claim was that Buckingham was guilty of draining the king’s coffers. However, although Buckingham had certainly benefited from gifts of money and property under James I, his annual income in October 1624 amounted to just £14,800, a sum which, even had it been re-appropriated by the crown, was hardly capable of restoring the royal finances to health. Nevertheless, on 10 Aug. Coke repeated his earlier insinuations, along with criticisms previously made by Sir Robert Phelips, speaking at length of ‘the leak in the king’s estate, of the qualities of a counsellor, of the danger to men if they misled the king or affect to go alone against the counsel of other men’.427 Procs. 1625, pp. 400-1, 452; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 353. On the smallness of Buckingham’s income, see also Lockyer, ‘An English Valido?’, 52.

The renewed assault on Buckingham showed no sign of abating the following day. John Whitson^‡, sitting for Bristol, presented the House with a letter claiming that so many ships and men had been taken by the north African pirates that ‘scarce any dare put to sea’. John Glanville complained that ‘the king’s ships do nothing, going up and down feasting in every good port’, a charge confirmed by fellow Devonian Thomas Sherwill^‡. However, it was the former Navy treasurer Sir Robert Mansell who made the most startling revelation. On 8 Aug. Buckingham had tried to rebut the accusation that he was too inexperienced to serve as lord admiral by claiming that he had done nothing without the advice of a council of war established in 1624. However, Mansell, one of the members of this body, claimed that Buckingham had treated the council’s advice with disdain. This information opened up an entirely new line of attack, for Buckingham could now be accused not only of monopolizing the right to counsel the king but also of failing to take advice himself.428 Procs. 1625, pp. 457, 459-60, 714.

That evening, before Mansell could furnish proof to substantiate his allegations, Buckingham received an unannounced visit from the lord keeper. Williams began by declaring that the prediction he had made four weeks earlier, that the duke would suffer if Parliament reassembled, had now been vindicated. He therefore suggested that Parliament should be prorogued until after Christmas. In the meantime, Williams offered to try to assuage the ‘ill affections’ of Buckingham’s enemies in the lower House. If these efforts failed, Williams promised to do his utmost ‘to preserve you from sentence or the least dishonour’ should the Commons transmit charges of impeachment to the upper House. Williams also recommended that Buckingham divest himself of ‘one or two of your great places to your fastest friends’ in order to lessen the envy he now incurred. However, by combining friendly advice with subtle threats, Williams did not impress Buckingham, who believed, with some justification, that the lord keeper had helped stir up the very trouble he had predicted. Consequently, after replying that he would be careful whom he trusted, he stormed out of the room.429 Hacket, ii. 16-17, 21.

The next day the duke’s partisans, led by John Coke and the solicitor general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, attempted to silence Sir Robert Mansell by casting doubt on his credibility as a witness. Coke, for instance, portrayed Mansell as a prima donna, who had declined to attend meetings of the council of war because his advice had not been taken. Attempts to obtain subsidies were also made, notably by the admiralty court judge Sir Henry Marten, who now endeavoured to repair the damage he had inflicted on Buckingham 11 days earlier. For all the duke’s defects, he declared, the House should ‘remember what he did in Spain, and at the last Parliament’. However, Buckingham’s refusal to reach an accommodation with Williams the previous evening, and the fact that Christopher Sherland^‡ now called for a Remonstrance against the duke to be drafted,430 Procs. 1625, pp. 464, 480. sealed the fate of the Parliament. After summoning the Council to Woodstock, the king, not wishing to allow Buckingham to be molested, announced that he had decided to dissolve the Parliament. This news came as a thunderbolt to the lord keeper who, ‘with reasons, with supplications, with tears’, implored the king to order a prorogation instead. Williams pointed out that if the first Parliament of the new reign ended badly it would ‘disseminate ... much unkindness’ throughout the kingdom. It would also mean that when a fresh Parliament met ‘the next swarm will come out of the same hive’. Many of those councillors present expressed agreement with Williams, including Buckingham himself who, declaring that he was not afraid to defend himself against his critics, went down on his knees to plead with the king to let the Parliament continue. However, it is difficult to avoid Eliot’s conclusion that this dramatic appeal was insincere.431 Hacket, ii. 16; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 147; Procs. 1625, p. 567. For an alternative view, see Lockyer, Buckingham, 267. Indeed, Buckingham’s intercession looks very much like a public relations exercise, designed to redeem the reputation of its author rather than save the Parliament which had shown every indication of wishing to destroy him.

The fall of Lord Keeper Williams and the anti-Habsburg league

In the aftermath of the Parliament, Buckingham resolved to destroy Williams. Although he did not hold the lord keeper entirely responsible for the trouble he had encountered – he strongly suspected the earls of Arundel and Pembroke and Archbishop Abbot of having also plotted against him432 Strafforde Letters (1737) ed. W. Knowler, i. 28; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 237. – he clearly regarded Williams as the ringleader. In late August he accused the lord keeper of criticizing him publicly at Oxford and of consorting with Sir Robert Cotton, a close ally of Arundel.433 Hacket, ii. 18; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 45. Shortly thereafter, at Southampton, he offered Williams’ office to the attorney general, Sir Thomas Coventry^* (later 1st Lord Coventry), whose services Buckingham had already employed in a private capacity. However, Coventry hesitated to accept, realizing perhaps that the king was not yet convinced that Williams was as guilty as Buckingham maintained.434 Harl. 1581, f. 328. His reluctance was astute, as Charles was anxious to play down the disastrous nature of his first meeting with his subjects. In court circles it was reported that the king was ‘not ... much troubled’ by the attacks in Parliament on Buckingham, which he attributed to ‘the distemper of 5 or 6 men’.435 R. Cust, Chas. I, 49. Sacking Williams would indicate that Charles took these attacks more seriously than he was willing to admit.

Although Charles did not yet see eye to eye with Buckingham over Williams – a rare disagreement – both men were united in their determination to prosecute the war with Spain. On 8 Sept. a military alliance with the Dutch was signed at Southampton. Shortly thereafter Buckingham, hot on the heels of the king, travelled to Plymouth to hasten the departure of the fleet.436 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 110; Yonge Diary, 86. Aware that the campaigning season had almost ended, the duke displayed great energy at Plymouth, accomplishing in one week tasks which the commanders on the ground had thought would take three.437 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 116; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 462. However, on 4 Oct. he was obliged to depart, leaving the final preparations to John Coke, who had now been knighted.438 HMC Cowper, i. 218. The king had decided to send Buckingham to the Low Countries in order to construct an alliance against the Habsburgs, and also to pawn some jewels,439 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 235. for in view of Parliament’s failure to vote additional supply, money was now urgently needed.

In view of the Navy’s failure to secure the Narrow Seas, Buckingham decided to travel overland to Harwich, in Essex, before sailing for the Low Countries, rather than risk a sea journey up the Channel. He reached the court at Salisbury on 8 Oct., the date on which the fleet finally sailed, where he again urged the king to dismiss Williams. While in the West Country he had learned that Williams (who had presumably heard that Buckingham had offered his office to Coventry) had been plotting against him with the earls of Bristol and Pembroke, and ‘divers great ones in the House of Commons’. This time Charles took Buckingham’s complaint seriously, for by now there were alarming rumours of ‘a secret movement in favour of a new Parliament’, and he had discovered that Pembroke and Montgomery had visited Bristol at the latter’s country house at Sherborne, in Dorset, to which the former ambassador had been banished ever since his return from Spain. Consequently, on 11 Oct., the day on which Buckingham left Salisbury, the king at last agreed to dismiss Williams.440 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 440-1; HMC Skrine, 33; Hacket, ii. 22. Pembroke was enraged,441 C115/108/8632. but in the short term the removal of Williams enabled Buckingham to reassert his authority at court. Indeed, one commentator shrewdly observed that the duke, having now achieved that which ‘he often attempted and failed’ under James, was more powerful than ever.442 NLW, 9060E/1377.

En route to Harwich, Buckingham visited Leez Priory, the seat of his friend the 2nd earl of Warwick (Robert Rich^*). After inspecting the Ipswich trained bands and the fortifications at Landguard Point, he sailed from Harwich on 5 November.443 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 60-2; Maynard Ltcy. Bk. ed. B. Quintrell, 114-15; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 126. At The Hague he held talks with the prince of Orange, to whom he proposed a joint assault on Dunkirk, which the English Navy had been attempting to blockade, without success. However, as the campaigning season was now past the prince declined to contemplate a siege until the following spring. Buckingham therefore proposed that the coastal town of Sluys be handed over so that it could be used as a base of operations by English troops, but this request, too, was turned down.444 Gardiner, vi. 35. Despite these rebuffs, Buckingham’s diplomatic efforts were far from unsuccessful, for on 29 Nov. he signed the treaty of The Hague with representatives from the Low Countries and Denmark. The signatories promised to work together to contain Habsburg power, secure the restoration of the Palatinate and preserve the liberties of the German Protestant princes. Moreover, England promised to contribute £30,000 a month towards the upkeep of the Danish army.445 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 466.

When Buckingham set out for the Low Countries, the king expected that he would subsequently journey to France to renew his earlier attempt to induce Richelieu to join the anti-Habsburg league.446 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 12; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 234. One of the principal obstacles to such an alliance now seemed to have been removed, for in early September the Huguenot fleet under Soubise had been defeated off La Rochelle. However, the planned visit to France took no account of the fact that the French now regarded Buckingham as their sworn enemy. In part this was because, shortly after the dissolution of the 1625 Parliament, the king had issued a proclamation ordering the laws against Jesuits and Catholic priests to be strictly enforced, in accordance with a promise contained in his answer to the Commons’ petition on religion.447 Stuart Royal Proclamations, II: Chas. I ed. J.F. Larkin, 52-4; Procs. 1625, p. 158. This answer had, of course, been delivered by Buckingham on the advice of his confidants to create the impression that he was personally responsible for the change of policy. Unfortunately for the duke, this tactic had done nothing to win over the Commons but had merely served to alienate the French. By early September the queen’s confessor was complaining that Buckingham was the ‘principal, if not the only author’ of the proclamation, which contravened the recent marriage treaty. Soon France’s diplomats were plotting with Arundel and Pembroke to overthrow Buckingham, who refused to make concessions to the French for fear of further alienating a future Parliament.448 Cabala (1691), 296; Reade, ii. p. xli. However, the main reason why Buckingham was unlikely to be welcome in France was that in early October Soubise was driven into Falmouth with the remains of his fleet.449 HMC Cowper, i. 216. Soubise was loud in his complaints against Buckingham, claiming that the ships that had been lent to the French crown earlier that year had been the cause of his defeat. Buckingham was horrified, and ‘made mighty promises of wonderful repairs’.450 Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston, 114-15.

Whether he liked it or not, Buckingham was at the centre of the deterioration in Anglo-French relations, which continued while he was at The Hague. There Charles informed him that he was contemplating expelling his wife’s French household officials as they were fomenting marital disharmony. Buckingham’s reply is wanting, but shortly thereafter 40 of the queen’s household were sent packing.451 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 2-3. To make matters worse, La Rochelle was now under siege, raising the prospect that Buckingham might soon have to mount an expedition to relieve the city. As Sir John Coke observed in mid November, if the French Protestant community was extinguished, France ‘will be for many years to us worse neighbours than Spain’.452 Bodl., Tanner 72, f. 37r-v. In the event the question of a French visit was taken out of the duke’s hands, as Richelieu made it clear that Buckingham was no longer welcome.453 Lockyer, Buckingham, 281.

Early in December Buckingham returned to England, where his diplomatic triumph at The Hague was acclaimed.454 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 66. However, soon after reaching Hampton Court, he learned that the fleet that had sailed for Spain two months earlier had met with disaster.455 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 171. Cecil had landed at Cadiz but had failed to seize the town or the treasure fleet. In addition, many of the sailors and mariners had perished on the homeward journey. It was clear that a fresh expedition would have to be mounted, and this in turn meant that Parliament would have to be summoned. During Buckingham’s absence Charles had foreseen this eventuality, for in early November, when the duke was at Harwich, he had taken the precaution of appointing as sheriffs several of the leading troublemakers in the previous assembly, thereby disabling them from serving in the Commons.456 Strafforde Letters, i. 28; M.C. Noonkester, ‘Chas. I and Shrieval Selection, 1625-6’, HR, lxiv. 305-6. However, a final decision to summon Parliament was not taken until 16 Dec., three days after Charles and Buckingham decided to build some frigates to combat the Dunkirkers.457 Cust, Chas, I, 50; Thrush, ‘In Pursuit of the Frigate’, 36.

The York House Conference and the start of the 1626 Parliament (6 Feb. – 7 March)

Once it had been resolved to call another Parliament, Buckingham went to Burley to visit his wife who, while he was abroad, had given birth to their first son. He was therefore absent when the Council demanded loans from the king’s wealthier subjects.458 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 10; HMC Skrine, 40; Lockyer, Buckingham, 285-6. By the end of December, though, he had returned to London, where he set about soliciting seats in the Commons for his clients. However, his letters to the Cinque Ports were delayed, possibly due to the illness of his secretary Edward Nicholas^‡. The lieutenant of Dover Castle, Sir John Hippisley^‡, was so alarmed that he warned the duke that he might not secure the election of his own candidates. Hippisley’s fears were justified, for by the time the letters were dispatched four of the eight seats that Buckingham requested had already been filled.459 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 517; Lockyer, Buckingham, 304. Despite this setback, Buckingham secured places for around 27 of his clients – about the same number as were returned by his main rival, Pembroke.460 HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 179. Nevertheless, in a House of Commons consisting of almost 500 Members, this was hardly more than a drop in the ocean.

Buckingham’s position in the Lords was somewhat stronger. With the notable exceptions of Archbishop Abbot and John Williams, bishop of Lincoln (who was ordered to stay away), most of the 26-strong bench of bishops could be relied upon to support the duke,461 HMC Skrine, 56; NLW, 9061E/1414. even Lewis Bayly, bishop of Bangor, who had criticized the favourite in the 1621 Parliament but was now a member of the duke’s affinity. Moreover, Buckingham had a powerful following among the 99 lay peers who received writs of summons before Parliament met. Precisely what proportion of the peerage considered themselves friends and allies of the favourite is difficult to say, but it was certainly not less than one third of the total. (This following included 13 peers who, before the Parliament met, assigned their proxies to Buckingham.) The duke could also rely on the loyalty of the lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry, whose responsibility it was to chair proceedings in the upper House.

Buckingham’s advisers were confident that they were ‘strong enough, by the party they had made’ in both Houses, to keep Buckingham ‘from all offence’. However, their optimism was not shared by the Venetian ambassador, nor by John Williams, who suggested that Buckingham should go abroad on embassy while Parliament sat, advice which was thoroughly ‘dis-relished’.462 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 311; Hacket, ii. 65. The king, too, suspected that Buckingham would be given a rough ride. On 2 Feb., the day of his coronation, Charles took the duke by the arm after Buckingham tried to help him up some steps, saying ‘I have more need to help, than you have to help me’.463 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 291-2.

Four days after the coronation, at which Buckingham presided as temporary lord high constable, the new Parliament began. During the opening procession the bridle on Buckingham’s horse broke, causing the plume and feathers that it held to fall to the ground.464 Pvte. Corresp of Jane, Lady Cornwallis ed. Lord Braybrooke, 143. However, the attack on Buckingham that this accident appeared to presage initially failed to materialize. When Sir John Eliot, who now counted himself among Buckingham’s enemies, launched a violent assault on his former patron on 10 Feb., his speech was considered ‘unseasonable’ and ‘too soon’. Six days later, a debate on the damage done to coastal shipping and trade by the Dunkirkers was put off for almost a week.465 Procs. 1626, ii. 17-18, 55-6; Negotium Posterorum ed. AB. Grosart, i. 155; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 82. For the time being, as Conrad Russell observed, ‘it looked as if the Commons ... had no more inclination to take up the attack on Buckingham than they had to take up the proposals for supply’.466 C. Russell, PEP, 278.

This was an extraordinary turn up for the books. On the face of it, the confidence exhibited by Buckingham’s advisers had been entirely vindicated. However, the poor reception accorded to Eliot’s speech signified not that Buckingham had recovered his former popularity but that many in the Commons were waiting on events. At the suggestion of the earl of Warwick, Buckingham had agreed to hold a conference at York House to discuss the writings of the Arminian cleric, Richard Montagu, who continued to enjoy the duke’s protection.467 Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 182. This conference had been due to commence on 9 Feb., but the two sides were not ready by this date and therefore proceedings did not begin until the 11th – the day after Eliot delivered his speech.468 Bodl., Tanner 303, p. 51. In short, Buckingham’s enemies were waiting to learn the outcome of the conference before deciding whether to renew their assault.

Buckingham opened the first session of the York House Conference in person. He explained that the purpose of the meeting, which was attended by several key political figures, among them Pembroke, was to establish whether the doctrinal position held by Montagu was ‘erroneous and dangerous’, as Calvinists such as Warwick were claiming. It soon became clear that Buckingham’s own sympathies, like those of the king, lay firmly with Montagu. During the course of the proceedings he accused Thomas Morton^*, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, of falsely claiming that Montagu had denied the royal supremacy. He also criticized Morton and one of his own chaplains, the puritan Dr John Preston, for implying that grace was not conferred by the sacraments. Moreover, when William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, and Sir John Coke proposed that the rulings of the Synod of Dort – a meeting of divines held in the Low Countries in 1618 which had condemned Arminian teachings - should be made binding on the Church of England, Buckingham declared that ‘it can stand neither with the safety of this State nor Church’ to do so.469 Ibid. 52; Lockyer, Buckingham, 306-7.

At the end of this meeting, the participants agreed to reassemble in five days time. During the interim Sir Nathaniel Bacon reported that ‘little is yet done in Parliament, but snarling on both sides, and much muttering against the duke’.470 Pvte. Corresp of Jane, Lady Cornwallis, 142-3. When the Conference reconvened on the 17th, it was attended by a ‘concourse of lords’, among them several of Buckingham’s supporters, such as the 1st earl of Manchester, the 1st earl of Bridgwater (John Egerton^*) and the 4th earl of Dorset (Edward Sackville^*), but also by old enemies like the 1st earl of Mulgrave (formerly Lord Sheffield).471 B. Donegan, ‘York House Conference Revisited’, BIHR, clv. 315-16. However, after six hours’ debate the conference broke up, with the Calvinists having failed to achieve their objective, a condemnation of Montagu by Buckingham.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the outcome of the York House Conference. Buckingham, whose ecclesiastical patronage had previously straddled men of both doctrinal persuasions, had been forced to choose sides in the increasingly bitter dispute between Calvinists and Arminians. Indeed, shortly after the conference ended, he dismissed John Preston from his service. He was now regarded, as Christopher Sherland was later to remark, as ‘the principal patron and supporter of a semi-Pelagian, semi-popish faction, dangerous to the Church and State’. As such, he incurred the hostility of many men who had previously counted themselves among his supporters.472 Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston, 123, 142; Procs. 1626, i. 448. In the Commons, where the number of Arminian sympathizers could be counted on the fingers of one hand, the failure of the duke to reassure mainstream Calvinist opinion acted as the signal for an all-out assault on Buckingham.

The attack developed quickly. On the 18th, the day after the conference ended, the Commons appointed a committee to investigate the complaints of various merchants whose goods had been seized in retaliation for the recent English arrest of French cargoes thought to be Spanish. Four days later Sir John Eliot reported the key finding of this committee. This was that French action had been prompted by English treatment of the St Peter of Newhaven, which ship had been arrested, released and then re-arrested on the orders of Buckingham. In private the duke responded by blaming two of his subordinates, Sir John Hippisley and the lieutenant of the Tower, Sir Allen Apsley, who were summoned before the Commons on the 23rd. The following day, Eliot attempted to widen the scope of the Commons’ inquiry by repeating demands he had made on the 10th. He called for an Act of Resumption to be passed, and for an inquiry to be held into the mismanagement of the war. At the suggestion of Christopher Wandesford, one of those who had criticized Eliot on the 10th for speaking too soon, the House also established a special grand committee known as the committee for evils, causes and remedies.473 Procs. 1626, ii. 68, 102-7; Lockyer, Buckingham, 309-10. This body subsequently became the main vehicle for examining complaints against Buckingham.

While these events were unfolding in the Commons, Buckingham played no discernible part in the life of the Parliament. Indeed, between 13 and 23 Feb. inclusive he did not even attend the Lords. Nevertheless, he remained mindful of the complaints that were now beginning to surface against him, for during this period he convoked a special meeting of the Privy Council to discuss a scheme he had devised to improve the defence of the coasts. He suggested that London and the port towns between Plymouth and Newcastle should between them provide, at their own expense, a fleet of 22 ships for this purpose. However, London’s governors declined to give their assent.474 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 344.

Buckingham did not reappear in the Lords until 25 February. By then he had almost certainly been warned that an attack originating in the Lords’ committee for privileges was imminent. Although chaired by his ally the earl of Manchester, this committee was dominated by Buckingham’s enemies: Archbishop Abbot, the earls of Pembroke, Arundel and Mulgrave, and Viscount Saye and Sele. On the 25th the committee recommended that in future no peer should hold more than two proxies. This was a transparent attempt to deprive Buckingham of a substantial section of his support in the Lords, for no other peer had anything like the number of proxies held by the duke. During the ensuing debate, Buckingham’s ally Dorset opposed the committee’s recommendation, arguing that the Lords should continue to observe their ancient practice of allowing peers to hold as many proxies as they wished. He was seconded by Buckingham himself, who declared that the proposed change would impose an unnecessary restraint on peers and make it hard for them to find anyone capable of receiving their vote. He further argued that such a major procedural change required the authorization of the king. However, in the ensuing vote, which he attempted to delay, Buckingham was defeated. Although the new ruling was not due to take effect until the next session of Parliament, Buckingham immediately set about divesting himself of all but one of his proxies (that belonging to Thomas Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Exeter). The rest – a dozen in all- he caused to be distributed to his allies and kinsmen in the House, including his brother-in-law Denbigh and his father-in-law Rutland.475 Procs. 1626, i. 70-2; iv. 10-11; ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 38; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 351. As a result, Buckingham now had fewer proxies at his disposal than Arundel and Pembroke, both of whom had five.

Aside from indicating that Buckingham was no longer as safe in the Lords as he had previously supposed, the main result of the Lords’ ruling was to stiffen the resolve of the duke’s critics in the Commons.476 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 352. Four days later, on 1 Mar., the Commons decided to require Buckingham to explain, by 9 a.m. on 4 Mar., why he had ordered the St Peter to be stayed after she had received a legal discharge. Unless they received a satisfactory explanation, they intended to complain about him to the king.477 Procs. 1626, ii. 162; Pvte. Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis, 192-3 (letter incorrectly assigned the date 21 June 1628). However, by approaching Buckingham directly rather than clearing the matter first with the Lords, the Commons had exceeded their authority. Realizing this, and perhaps hoping to provoke a quarrel between the two Houses, Buckingham informed an offended upper House the following morning, whereupon the Commons withdrew their demand for an answer. However, Buckingham’s triumph was short-lived, since the Commons did not also rescind their complaint. When the duke raised the matter again with the Lords on the 3rd he was given leave to do as he saw fit. He therefore now had little choice but to agree to answer his critics the following Monday (the 6th).478 Procs. 1626, i. 92-3, 95, 100, 102, 104-5, 107; ii. 177, 197; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 357.

Rather than demean himself by attending the Commons in person, Buckingham sent the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath, on his behalf. Heath explained that Buckingham had initially ordered the St Peter to be released because he had been informed that her cargo was French, but on learning that it was actually Spanish he had caused her to be detained once more. He also explained that the arrest of the ship had not occasioned the general embargo imposed by the French on English shipping, as this had actually been introduced one month earlier. On the contrary, the embargo had been applied because of French dissatisfaction at the slow pace of legal proceedings in the English admiralty court.479 Procs. 1626, i. 111-12, 115; ii. 210-11; Lockyer, Buckingham, 312. These statements were entirely accurate and consequently, for the time being, the Commons were unable to pursue a line of attack that had at first seemed so promising.

Although resentful at having to answer his critics in the lower House,480 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 384. Buckingham had now caused the attack to stall. In the Lords, matters also improved for the duke. One reason for this was that on the afternoon of 5 Mar. the earl of Arundel was sent to the Tower.481 Procs. 1626, iv. 271. At a stroke, Buckingham’s enemies in the Lords were deprived of one of their leaders and all five of his proxy votes. Ostensibly, Arundel was imprisoned because a marriage had been contracted without the king’s consent between his son, Lord Maltravers (Henry Frederick Howard^‡), and the daughter of the late earl of March (Esmé Stuart^*), a lady of royal blood. However, one observer believed that Arundel was incarcerated ‘by the duke’s means’.482 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 91. The timing of the arrest certainly suggests that it was an act of revenge connected with the motion to restrict the number of proxies held by peers.

Many in the Lords were privately angry that Arundel had been arrested,483 HMC Skrine, 50. but for the time being they felt powerless to act. This was because Abbot and Pembroke, probably under instruction from the king, appear to have been persuaded to work with Buckingham for the common good. It is certainly striking that when the Lords appointed a committee to consider matters relating to the defence of the realm on 6 Mar., Buckingham, Abbot and Pembroke were all named as members. The Florentine ambassador believed that this committee was the brainchild of Buckingham himself, but if this was indeed the case Buckingham did not try to dominate the committee but instead allowed others to take the lead. It was thus Abbot, not Buckingham, who reported the committee’s recommendations to the House on the 7th. These were that the Commons should be asked to provide money to set out fleets to attack Spain and defend the coasts, and to maintain the Danish army and the forces commanded by Mansfeld. Abbot’s motion was seconded by Pembroke, who was followed by Buckingham. Later that morning the duke again played a supporting role, this time after the earl of Warwick voiced concern at the enemy shipping operating out of Dunkirk. However, Buckingham did not entirely relinquish his grip on proceedings, for when Saye suggested that the Commons should be allowed to take the initiative he was quickly silenced by the duke. That afternoon the Lords conferred with the Commons. Once again, Buckingham took a back seat, for although he and his ally the earl of Carlisle were appointed spokesmen for the upper House, so too were Pembroke and Abbot, both of whom appear to have done all the work.484 Procs. 1626, i. 112, 116, 120, 122, 123; ii. 220-3.

By the end of the first week in March it looked as though the storm that had threatened to burst over Buckingham’s head following the York House Conference was nothing more than a brief squall. The Commons had been put to flight, Arundel had been arrested, and the leading Calvinist peers in the Lords – Abbot, Pembroke and Warwick – had all apparently rallied to Buckingham’s side. Not surprisingly, one well informed observer commented on 8 Mar. that ‘I believe the duke will stand upright, notwithstanding the various reports about the town’.485 NLW, 9061E/1395. The king, too, seems to have believed that all was now well, for two days later Charles asked the Commons to declare ‘without any further delay’ what supply they were prepared to give.486 Procs. 1626, ii. 249.

Prelude to impeachment: 10 Mar. – 6 Apr. 1626

In fact, the storm had not even begun. Many in the Commons were disappointed at having failed to undermine the duke but, as the Florentine ambassador observed on 10 Mar., they still retained the ‘disposition and determination’ to embark upon ‘other means of attack should they offer themselves’.487 HMC Skrine, 49. This assessment proved to be only too accurate, for the next day Dr Samuel Turner, one of the Members for Shaftesbury, launched a blistering attack on Buckingham. After asserting that there had to be a general cause for all the ills that now beset the country, Turner declared that ‘common fame presents one man to be this cause’. He thereupon posed six questions, all of which were intended to implicate Buckingham. The first was whether the lord admiral’s incompetence was ‘a cause that the king has lost much of his regality and command of the Narrow Seas’. The second was whether the gifts that Buckingham and his family had received were ‘not a cause of the king’s wants’. Monopoly of office by Buckingham and his circle was the subject of the third question. The fourth suggested that ‘a great cause of the encouragement of papists’ was that Buckingham’s Catholic relatives were permitted to live at court. The fifth charge concerned the sale of office by Buckingham, ‘a cause of suffering to the commonwealth’. The final accusation related to the Cadiz expedition. Here Turner, apparently unaware that he was implicitly contradicting his own first question, asked whether Buckingham’s decision not to command the fleet in person was ‘a cause of the miscarriage and ill success of the action’.488 Procs. 1626, iv. 205.

Turner’s speech caused ‘much ado’ because it struck its target ‘point blank’.489 HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 583. It also raised a key question: was Turner acting alone, or had he been encouraged by someone else? It was left to the duke’s client Sir James Bagg^‡, then sitting for East Looe, to provide Buckingham with the answer. ‘You may be pleased to take notice’, wrote Bagg, that Turner was sitting for the same borough which had previously returned Pembroke’s secretary, John Thorowgood^‡. Pembroke, added Bagg, was now operating in the Commons through ‘strangers’ like Turner rather than familiar clients like Sir Benjamin Rudyard^‡.490 N and Q, ser. 4, x. 325. Gardiner thought this letter was written shortly after 3 March. As its author dwells on Turner, it must actually have been composed sometime after 11 March. In other words Pembroke, who only a few days earlier had publicly thrown his weight behind Buckingham, was playing a double game. Outwardly he supported Buckingham in order to please the king, but behind the scenes he was trying to topple the duke.

Turner’s intervention was welcomed by Buckingham’s enemies in the Commons. Consequently, when the king demanded that Turner be punished, the lower House pursued the matter only slowly. In the days which followed it became clear that if Charles wanted subsidies he would have to tolerate the attack on Buckingham. The king was incensed, for in effect he was being held to ransom by a lower House bent on impeachment. However, short of dissolving the Parliament, his only recourse was to try to reason with the Commons. He reminded them that in 1624 they had held Buckingham ‘worthy of all that was conferred upon him by my father’. Since then, he added, the duke had ‘engaged himself, his friends and his estate for my service’, and yet ‘you question him’. It was not his wish that the Commons should question his servants, ‘much less one that is so near me’.491 Procs. 1626, ii. 293-4; HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 583-4; HMC Skrine, 51.

It was not only in the Commons that Turner’s attack emboldened Buckingham’s enemies. On 14 Mar., while the duke was absent from the Lords, Theophilus Clinton^*, 4th earl of Lincoln, argued that Arundel’s arrest had breached the House’s privileges. In the ensuing debate Bridgwater and Carlisle denied this was the case, and Lord Keeper Coventry explained that Arundel had been arrested for reasons personal to the king. Nevertheless, a committee was instructed to search for precedents. The following day Saye recommended that Arundel should be restored to his seat while his alleged misconduct was referred to arbitration, but he was successfully countered by Buckingham, now present, who advised the House not to put the matter ‘out of the course begun by the king’. Though prepared to support the drafting of a protest, to be entered in the Lords Journal, he did not agree with those peers who wanted to petition the king.492 Procs. 1626, i. 156, 157, 159.

Following Turner’s speech, Buckingham attempted to direct attention elsewhere. On 17 Mar. he reminded the Lords that they had not yet received a reply from the Commons, who had been asked to vote money for defence at the conference held ten days earlier. However, the Commons brushed aside the subsequent message from the Lords with the vague assurance that they would ‘ever be careful of the safety and defence of the realm’. Buckingham seized upon this statement as evidence that the Commons were ‘unwilling to confer’, whereupon his ally Carlisle proposed that the House should send a protest to the king. However, Buckingham failed to manufacture a quarrel between the two Houses.493 Ibid. 174-5, 176.

Five days later Buckingham took advantage of a petition submitted by prisoners held by north African pirates to try to shore up his position in the Lords. He denied being an incompetent lord admiral who had lost control of the seas surrounding the coasts. On taking over the admiralty, he declared, he had found the Navy to be in a weak state, but with the help of specially appointed commissioners he had not only increased the size of the fleet but also reduced the Navy’s annual cost. He further maintained that he always had at least four ships at sea to defend the coasts, and sometimes as many as 30. Some captains had been negligent, certainly, but the main reason that so many merchant ships had been lost was that the enemy’s warships were ‘too swift for our ships to follow’. It was an exaggeration to say that England had lost command of the seas, for ‘we never fought battle’ and ‘we have taken more of their ships than they have of ours’. However, if Buckingham was hoping to win over his critics by these arguments he was to be disappointed. Some of his listeners were offended that he had appeared to cast aspersions on his predecessor as lord admiral, while the 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*) observed that 140 merchant ships had been taken about the coasts, most within the last two years, ‘and the fault must lie in somebody’.494 Ibid. 194-5, 222.

Buckingham was powerless to halt the juggernaut that was fast bearing down upon him. Two days later, Spencer’s view was echoed in the Commons, where Sir John Eliot reported from committee that responsibility for the failure to guard the Narrow Seas lay with Buckingham. When Sir John Coke protested that shortage of money was the true cause, and that Buckingham had been blamed ‘unjustly’, he was attacked for impugning the work of the committee.495 Ibid. ii. 359-60. Eliot’s report was followed three days later by an announcement by Wandesford that ten specific complaints had been formulated by the lower House. However, to ensure that Charles did not dissolve the Parliament, the lower House promised on the 27th to vote three subsidies and three fifteenths once they had submitted their grievances. An irate Buckingham fulminated that the Commons had decided to proceed against him without first allowing him to be heard in his own defence. No less angry was the king, who rebuked the Commons on 29 Mar. for their ‘unparliamentary proceedings’. Through the lord keeper, Charles complained that the lower House, following the lead given by Dr Turner, was attacking Buckingham on the basis of rumour and generalizations rather than evidence and proof.496 Ibid. 368; i. 222, 391-2.

In the Lords, too, the pressure on Buckingham continued to mount. Sympathy for the plight of Arundel in the upper House, and the growing criticism of Buckingham, encouraged the earl of Bristol to petition the Lords. For the past two years he had been under house arrest, and, despite his own repeated requests, he had never been brought to trial to answer the allegations that Buckingham had made against him in 1624. To add insult to injury, he had also been denied a writ of summons. Bristol’s sudden reappearance on the political scene threatened to multiply Buckingham’s difficulties. Were the earl to take his seat in Parliament he might cast doubt on the veracity of Buckingham’s ‘Relation’ of February 1624, but if he continued to be barred there might be a protracted privilege dispute with the Lords, which would play into the hands of the duke’s enemies. Since neither scenario was palatable, Charles agreed to issue Bristol with a writ, but only if Bristol did not sit.497 Ibid. i. 192, 225, 227.

Bristol’s petition reawakened demands for Arundel’s release. Uncertain whether he now commanded sufficient strength to ward off this threat, an anxious Buckingham evidently persuaded the king to bolster his support in the Lords by issuing a writ of acceleration to one of his allies in the Commons, Algernon Percy^*, eldest son of the 3rd earl of Northumberland (Henry Percy^*). This understandably irritated Buckingham’s enemies, whose own strength was weakened by the fact that Arundel (and thus his five proxy votes) remained under lock and key. On 30 Mar. one of the duke’s leading opponents in the Lords, John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, proposed that the proxies of an absent lord should be returned to the peers who had given them so that they might be conferred anew. He subsequently pursued this matter in the committee for privileges, of which he was a member. Buckingham responded by persuading the king to issue a second writ of acceleration, this time to Spencer Compton^* (later 2nd earl of Northampton), one of his kinsmen by marriage.498 Ibid. 227, 256-7.

While Clare tried to erode his majority, Buckingham decided to counter-attack. Bristol’s sudden reappearance, though disquieting, presented the duke with an opportunity to put the bloodhounds that were sniffing at his heels onto another scent. On 30 Mar., after announcing that the king would now grant Bristol his writ, Buckingham read to the Lords a letter written two months earlier by the king. In this missive Charles expressed amazement that Bristol was asking for favour, given that he had tried to persuade him to convert to Rome while in Spain. Bristol had shown no concern for the fate of the Elector Palatine and his family, declared Charles, and had set ‘a vile price’ on the kingdom. By revealing the contents of this letter to the Lords, Buckingham, doubtless with the king’s blessing, hoped to erode the sympathy for Bristol that had developed in the wake of the latter’s petition. He was also attempting to persuade Parliament to switch its attentions from his own shortcomings to the far greater crime perpetrated by Bristol, that of trying to subvert the religion of England. However, this tactic was so heavy-handed and transparent that it succeeded only in arousing feelings of disgust.499 Ibid. 225-6; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 386.

Attacking Bristol formed just one part of Buckingham’s new strategy. Later that day, during a meeting with the Commons to explain that the king’s disappointment at the small sum on offer was not the prelude to a dissolution, Buckingham suddenly embarked upon a lengthy defence of his actions. He denied being a Catholic sympathizer, for he had resisted Spanish attempts to convert him while in Spain. Nor was he heedless of the counsel of others, a charge that had been laid at his door at the end of the previous Parliament. The minute book kept by the council of war showed that he took advice, while the decision to send Cecil’s fleet to sea had not been taken by him alone but by the whole Privy Council. The performance of this fleet had fallen far short of expectation, he admitted, but this was not because it had sailed too late in the season or because the provisions it carried were unfit. On the contrary, it had arrived safely off Cadiz, and the victuals provided were ‘all good in quality and proportion’. He had not accompanied the fleet in person because the king thought he would be more usefully employed putting together an anti-Habsburg alliance. So far as his management of the Navy in general was concerned, he repeated the arguments he had made in the Lords eight days earlier. However, he now claimed that his chief difficulty arose from the success of the Navy commissioners in reducing the annual cost of the Navy from £54,000 to £22,000, as this had slashed his budget. Before finishing, Buckingham urged his listeners not to ‘pick quarrels with one another’ as ‘we have enemies enough abroad’. He also begged his audience to put whatever mistakes he had made into perspective, for ‘they are no errors of wilfulness, nor of corruption, nor suppressing the people, nor injustice, but the contrary’.500 Procs. 1626, ii. 404-9. By answering his accusers at this stage, Buckingham presumably hoped to prevent the formal laying of charges.

Buckingham spoke twice more before the meeting ended. On the first occasion he explained his behaviour regarding the loan of warships to the king of France, saying that he had done everything he could to delay the handover. Indeed, he forced Pembroke, who was closely involved in this business, to admit publicly that this was true. On the second occasion he dealt primarily with the accusations surrounding his financial affairs. He admitted having sold offices, but pointed out that he had not begun this practice and that others were just as guilty as him. The lands he had received from the king were worth no more than £5,000 a year, whereas his debts in the king’s service amounted to more than £100,000. For the last five or six years he had received nothing from the king, as ‘I often told my master that his liberality would bring envy upon me, and I have too much already’. He admitted that he had bought the lord wardenship of the Cinque Ports, but justified doing so on the grounds that it made no sense for the admiralty and the lord wardenship to be held by different incumbents. Indeed, were he to surrender both offices tomorrow he would advise the king ‘not to sever them’.501 Ibid. 410-12.

Most of what Buckingham told his listeners was entirely accurate. It was even true that the victuals carried by Cecil’s fleet had not contributed to the failure of the Cadiz expedition, since they had not proved unwholesome until the return journey.502 A.D. Thrush, ‘Navy under Chas. I’ (Univ. London Ph.D. thesis, 1990), 294-8. However, several of the duke’s claims are open to question, particularly his statement that he had received nothing from the king within the last five or six years, which overlooked the gift of York House in 1624. It was also misleading for him to claim that diplomatic pressures had prevented him from assuming command of the Cadiz expedition, as lack of military experience had also been a factor. However, Buckingham was understandably anxious not to give ammunition to those who claimed that he was ill suited to discharge the duties of lord admiral. Perhaps the least convincing aspect of Buckingham’s speech was the claim that the defence of England’s coastal shipping had not been neglected. Warships had not always been provided in the numbers that were needed, nor had Buckingham yet built any vessels capable of overhauling the Dunkirk frigates.

Many of Buckingham’s listeners were unimpressed with the duke’s performance. According to the Florentine ambassador, it was widely felt that the duke had done himself ‘more harm than good’ by his defence.503 HMC Skrine, 53. He nevertheless continued to try to win or retain the good opinion of his fellow peers. In late March, for instance, he canvassed successfully on behalf of one of his chief supporters, Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey), who was anxious to achieve recognition of his claim to be hereditary lord great chamberlain.504 Memorials of the Holles Fam. ed. A.C. Wood (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, lv), 105. Moreover, on 1 Apr., while the Commons debated whether they were entitled to proceed against him on the basis of common fame, Buckingham tried to impress his fellow peers by announcing that he had captured some Dunkirkers ‘and built others after their form’.505 Procs. 1626, i. 242; ii. 420. This claim was not entirely accurate, for although four or five small prize vessels, ‘better able to annoy the enemy than any English ships’, were now being fitted for service, the Navy had not yet finished building two 300 ton ships begun earlier that year (construction work which was subsequently abandoned). All that Buckingham had actually accomplished was to modify one small pinnace so that she was now equipped with oars like the enemy’s sloops.506 Thrush, ‘In Pursuit of the Frigate’, 37.

Impeachment and dissolution, 12 Apr.-17 June 1626

The adjournment of Parliament for a week on 6 Apr. gave Buckingham a much needed breathing space, during which time he tried to win over some of his critics with ‘various proposals and inducements’. He also attempted to defuse the ill feeling against him in the Lords, where he feared his majority was slipping away. On 11 Apr., two days before Parliament reassembled, Arundel was released from the Tower, and ordered to stay at his mother’s house in Surrey.507 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 390; HMC Skrine, 56, 57. When Parliament reconvened on the 13th, the king, hoping that enough had now been done to satisfy the duke’s critics, once again instructed the Commons to lay aside their investigation into Buckingham on the grounds that ‘the affairs of Christendom will not permit any loss of time’.508 Procs. 1626, ii. 436.

Buckingham did not resume his seat when Parliament reassembled. The events of the past two months had placed a considerable strain on his health, and on 14 Apr. he fell ill of a fever.509 Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 188. Despite being thus incapacitated, Buckingham continued to transact business. On the 17th he asked his ally Manchester to demand from the lord treasurer, the 1st earl of Marlborough (James Ley^*), that all the receipts from tunnage and poundage be paid to the Navy, since this money was theoretically provided to maintain ships to defend the coasts. Were Marlborough to decline this request, as indeed proved to be the case, it could then be demonstrated to Parliament that the blame for lack of money lay with the lord treasurer rather than him.510 SP16/25/7; APC, 1625-6, pp. 440-1. Three days later Buckingham also gave orders (never implemented) for the construction of six small oared vessels to combat the Dunkirkers.511 Thrush, ‘In Pursuit of the Frigate’, 37.

During his absence, the duke’s enemies continued their work with relentless determination. On the 18th a Commons subcommittee resolved that Buckingham was guilty of extortion for having refused to allow ships belonging to the East India Company permission to sail unless the Company first paid him £10,000, this being the lord admiral’s share of prizes taken by them two years earlier. Two days later the finding of the Commons’ subcommittee was confirmed by its parent body, whereupon the lower House resolved ‘to proceed in the great business in hand concerning the duke of Buckingham forenoon and afternoon, setting all other business aside not conducing to that till that be done’.512 Procs. 1626, iii. 19, 29-30. Meanwhile, in the Lords, the peers ruled that Arundel’s continued detention infringed the privileges of the upper House. News of this development encouraged Bristol, who thereupon sought the advice of the Lords. He had now received his writ, which required him to give his attendance on pain of being fined, but he had also received a letter instructing him to stay away from Westminster. What, he asked mischievously, was he to do? His inquiry aroused the wrath of the king, who instructed the Lords to summon the earl as a delinquent. They were, he said, to charge Bristol with offences committed during the negotiations for the Spanish Match. They were also to proceed against him for casting aspersions on Buckingham and himself, ‘by whose directions the duke did guide his actions and without which he did nothing’.513 Ibid. i. 285, 295-6. However, by issuing these instructions, Charles finally gave Bristol the parliamentary platform he craved from which to challenge Buckingham.

Buckingham did not resume his seat in Parliament until 24 Apr., by which date he had heard that the Commons were about to vote on the various charges they had compiled.514 Ibid. 308. However, the Commons had not in fact finished their inquiries, for the next day a specially appointed committee investigated the potentially explosive allegation that Buckingham had poisoned the late king during the latter’s final illness, a crime which, if proven, would certainly cost the duke his head.515 Ibid. iii. 64-7; HP Commons 1604-29, i. 425-6. During the breathing space that the continuing investigations afforded, Charles and Buckingham tried to seize back control of the parliamentary agenda. On 1 May Bristol was brought before the House of Lords, where Attorney General Heath began reading out the king’s charges. Bristol, however, interrupted, saying that his purpose in petitioning the Lords had been to accuse, not to be accused himself. Declaring that he had warned James I of Buckingham’s ‘unfaithful service’, he then demanded that his own charges should be considered ahead of the king’s. After some debate it was decided, at Buckingham’s suggestion, to read both sets of charges. Bristol’s allegations, of which there were 12, failed to impress the assembled peers. ‘We expected great matters’, complained Lord Spencer, while Lord Montagu observed that only two of the charges were ‘of any moment’. A protesting Bristol was thereupon committed to the custody of the gentleman usher.516 Procs. 1626, i. 328-31, 338, 340, 342.

Matters now seemed to be moving in Buckingham’s favour, for on 6 May Bristol, angry that Buckingham remained at liberty while he was under arrest, was formally charged at the bar of the House. Buckingham himself decided not to attend these proceedings, ‘lest my presence might any way disturb him and put him into passion or in any other way disadvantage him in his cause’.517 Ibid. 357-65, 400. However, the duke was not given long to savour Bristol’s discomfiture, for two days later the Commons presented the first of their impeachment charges to the upper House. Buckingham listened with a confidence that his enemies found insufferable, but his provocative behaviour was matched by the Commons’ own spokesmen, who referred to the duke ‘so plainly’ it was as though ‘he had been the meanest man in the company’.518 Ibid. iii. 208; iv. 284.

Owing to the sickness of one of the Commons’ spokesmen, presentation of the remainder of the charges was delayed until the 10th. This time Buckingham decided not to attend, a tactful gesture that was not reciprocated by Sir John Eliot, who took the opportunity afforded by his absence to inveigh against him in the strongest possible terms. Claiming that he was ‘full of collusion and deceit’, Eliot likened his former patron to stellionatus, a foul beast from mythology, and to Sejanus, the notorious favourite of the Roman emperor Tiberius. Eliot’s language was equalled in its offensiveness by words uttered by fellow spokesman Sir Dudley Digges, who not only implied that Buckingham had poisoned the late king but also that Charles may have been involved in this crime.519 Ibid. iv. 284; iii. 200, 223; i. 410. Not surprisingly the king was so angry that he sent both men to the Tower the following day.520 Ibid. i. 398-9. Charles claimed publicly that he did so against Buckingham’s wishes, but the duke subsequently announced that Digges’ words had impugned the king’s honour to such a degree that they were treasonable. Indeed, on 15 May Buckingham led the attempt in the Lords to have Digges condemned. However, most peers, including many of Buckingham’s closest supporters, such as Denbigh, were prepared to give Digges the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, when the matter was put to the vote, only six peers supported the duke.521 Ibid. 398, 477; iv. 285.

Now that they had presented their charges against Buckingham, the Commons, taking their cue from Bristol, formally demanded on 11 May that the duke be deprived of his liberty. However, since the Commons had resolved two days earlier to present this request to the Lords, Buckingham came to the upper chamber that day armed with a speech drafted for him by his chaplain, William Laud, and accompanied by the king, who declared him to be innocent. Reading from Laud’s text, he admitted that he was no ‘angel amongst men’, but declared that he was puzzled at having lost the good opinion of the Commons. He added that he would not stoop so low as to ‘cast dirt at those who have taken pains to make me foul’. He also said that he had been planning to absent himself from the chamber voluntarily while the Lords considered the charges against him, but since the Commons had had the temerity ‘to prescribe the manner of my judgement’, he would not now do so. In striking this note of defiance, Buckingham deviated from the text provided by Laud, who urged the duke to absent himself.522 Ibid. i. 398-400; iv. 161.

Buckingham was as good as his word, for thereafter, until 2 June, his attendance was exemplary. During this time he took a close interest in proceedings, including the accurate recording of the charges against him. Indeed, he twice complained that there were ‘many things reported otherwise than there spoken’, to the annoyance of Saye, who demanded that Buckingham should identify any inaccuracies and omissions. However, the duke declined to be more precise, suggesting instead that the notes taken at the conference with the Commons be compared with one another. While the Lords were thus busy establishing the precise nature of the charges, Buckingham proved unable to resist the temptation to defend himself. On 15 May, for instance, he declared that it was absurd to describe him as the patron of heretics, having never been fed ‘with any other milk than of the Church of England’.523 Ibid. i. 441-2, 480-1.

In the short term, the Lords ignored the Commons’ request to imprison Buckingham. However, on 16 May the earl of Lincoln reminded the House that no answer had been given. During the ensuing debate, Buckingham offered to leave the chamber while the matter was discussed, but his request was denied after Manchester declared that his departure would infringe the House’s privileges. However, it was also resolved that Buckingham would be allowed no say should his imprisonment be put to a vote. Consideration then turned to drafting a reply to the Commons. Two peers with diametrically opposed views – Dorset and Saye - were instructed to retire and frame a document on which all could agree, but predictably enough they returned with separate texts. Following ‘some arguing’, it became clear that a consensus was impossible to reach, and therefore Buckingham’s supporters proposed that the matter be postponed. This motion, too, proved contentious, but, according to Lord Montagu, the duke comfortably won the resultant vote by a margin of 19, and without the need for proxies.524 Ibid. iv. 489-91. See also Pvte. Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis, 156. (The claim made by Henry Wynn^‡, who was not present, that Buckingham won by just three votes appears to be false.)525 NLW, 9061E/1414.

Buckingham may have taken comfort from this victory, as it demonstrated that he still commanded a considerable majority in the Lords. However, he must also have been aware that his triumph was somewhat hollow, for there was no end in sight to the proceedings against him - the suggestion made by some historians, that the Lords, in effect, dropped the charges following the king’s visit on 11 May is false526 Russell, 318-19; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 48. - and all the while Parliament remained preoccupied with his impeachment the new campaigning season was slipping away. Far from exulting in the defeat of his opponents, Buckingham was soon contemplating travelling abroad on a diplomatic mission, either to the Dutch Republic or Savoy, in the hope that Parliament would then turn its attention to voting supply.527 Procs. 1626, iv. 286; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 433. However, although he continued to entertain this idea,528 HMC Skrine, 71. for the time being he preferred to fight his corner. His tactics were sometimes every bit as dirty as those of his opponents. For instance, his distant kinsman Edmund Bolton penned some verses denouncing Dr Eglisham, one of the key witnesses for the Commons in their complaint that Buckingham had poisoned the late king. Bolton then had a friend take the credit so that authorship of these verses should not be traced back to Buckingham’s circle.529 SP16/529/9. However, Buckingham put his main energies not into vilifying his opponents but in trying to ensure that the Lords, who would be his judges in his forthcoming trial, remained sympathetic to his cause. On 20 May he attempted to persuade the upper House that he was exploring every avenue to improve the Navy’s ability to provide adequate coastal defence. He announced, inter alia, that he needed £17,000 to equip a squadron to protect the Newcastle colliers, and proposed that the necessary funds should be provided from the fees charged for measuring coals in London. At present these fees were collected by the City of London, but anciently, as Buckingham had revealed some weeks earlier, they had belonged to the admiralty. This matter, along with a number of other items of naval concern, was referred to the committee for the safety and defence of the kingdom, which debated the subject four days later.530 Procs. 1626, i. 240-1, 536-7, 548. However, if Buckingham expected the Lords to solve his difficulty for him he was to be disappointed, and by early June he was exploring a legal solution instead.531 Eg. 2533, f. 21.

Although Buckingham had won the vote on 16 May by a comfortable margin, most peers continued to favour allowing Arundel to resume his seat in the Lords. To ensure that Buckingham’s majority remained secure, the king, at the end of the third week and the beginning of the fourth week in May, ennobled three of the duke’s supporters: Dudley Carleton^* (as Lord Carleton); Edward Montagu^*, styled Viscount Mandeville (as Lord Kimbolton); and Oliver St John (as Lord Tregoz). This was in addition to Henry Ley^* (later 2nd earl of Marlborough), who had been summoned by writ of acceleration as Lord Ley at the beginning of March. However, Charles’s continued refusal to restore Arundel, despite a formal petition from the Lords on 24 May, proved damaging, and on 25 May the upper House considered refusing to transact any further business. Consequently, when Buckingham raised the matter of his legal representation in his forthcoming trial, the upper House declined to hear him.532 Procs. 1626, i. 553, 556.

Thankfully for Buckingham, Parliament adjourned for Whitsun before the disagreement over Arundel turned any uglier. During the ensuing recess, the earl of Suffolk, chancellor of Cambridge University, died. Responsibility for the election of a new chancellor lay with the fellows of the university, but the king told Richard Neile^*, the Arminian bishop of Durham (later archbishop of York) and one of the duke’s staunchest supporters, that he wished Buckingham to be appointed as Suffolk’s successor. Neile thereupon wrote to the vice chancellor and the masters of the various colleges on behalf of Buckingham, who, on receiving assurances that he would not be opposed by his own client Theophilus Howard, now 2nd earl of Suffolk, dispatched his secretary Robert Mason^‡ to the university to canvass on his behalf. Despite fierce competition, the duke narrowly triumphed on 1 June, by 108 votes to 102.533 The Eagle, xvi. 243-4; Cooper, iii. 185-6, 188; CUL, Add.23, no. 60. On Charles’ continuing support for Buckingham, see Pvte. Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis, 158 (letter dated 2 June by the editor but probably written 25 May).

The day after the election the Lords resumed sitting, but the continuing disagreement over Arundel meant that business remained suspended until the 8th. During the interim Buckingham attended a newly created council of war, whose advice in respect of the allocation of naval resources he was careful to solicit, presumably to avoid any repetition of the accusation that he was unwilling to be guided by others.534 SP16/28, f. 6v. By the time the Lords reconvened on 8 June, Charles and Buckingham had decided on a dramatic change of tactics. Rather than continue to antagonize the Lords, Arundel would be allowed to sit after all. It was thus in an atmosphere tinged with gratitude and relief that Buckingham sought permission to answer the Commons’ charges.535 Procs. 1626, i. 464.

Before delivering his answer, Buckingham addressed the upper House. He was grief stricken that the proceedings against him had occasioned the loss of that year for military ventures that might have aided their allies and secured their own safety. He regretted that the matter had proceeded this far, which it would not have done had the Commons ‘taken the means to have been better and trulier informed of the particulars’, or ‘given me cause to have informed them’. He admitted having been promoted ‘beyond my merit’, but declared that ‘what I have wanted in sufficiency for the service, I have endeavoured to supply by care and industry’. Following this lengthy, well argued preface, Buckingham’s answers were read out by his counsel. Where the Commons had proceeded on the basis of rumour and innuendo, Buckingham provided clear and detailed factual evidence capable of withstanding close scrutiny.536 Ibid. 564-85, 591. His arguments were not entirely watertight; he continued to overlook the grant of York House, for example, and to deny having made mistakes as lord admiral. However, in general the duke demolished the case against him. His friends were certainly persuaded that, in the wake of this ‘ingenuous and clear answer’, the Lords would have little choice but to find Buckingham innocent.537 Pvte. Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis, 160; HMC Skrine, 72. The view conveyed by Sir Henry Herbert, a cousin of the earl of Pembroke, that the Lords were unimpressed with Buckingham’s defence, appears to have been little more than wishful thinking.538 C115/107/8538.

Buckingham’s enemies in the Commons were naturally in no mood to admit that they might have erred. They were angry that Buckingham, far from shedding some of his offices as they had been demanding, had now acquired the chancellorship of Cambridge University. Consequently, they did not wait to examine the duke’s answers before deciding on their next course of action. After referring Buckingham’s reply to the committee which had drafted the impeachment charges, the Commons proceeded to draft a Remonstrance, in which fresh accusations were now made. For example, it was said that Buckingham was responsible for pricking several Members of the 1625 Parliament as sheriffs to prevent them from sitting in the current assembly. This charge was almost certainly groundless, since the decision to select those identified as troublemakers had been taken by Charles in the absence of Buckingham, who was informed of those chosen by letter. The Commons also imputed to the duke responsibility for the continued collection of tunnage and poundage, which duties the previous Parliament had failed to grant to the king. They ended by declaring that Buckingham was ‘averse to the good and tranquillity of the Church and State’ and ‘an enemy to both’, and by asking the king to ‘remove this person from access to your sacred person’.539 Procs. 1626, iii. 433-41; Misc. State Pprs. ii. 7.

The Commons were now prejudging the outcome of their own impeachment proceedings. Or, more correctly, they were demanding that the king should punish the duke, regardless of whether or not the Lords found him guilty. Before the Commons could finish drafting the Remonstrance, however, Buckingham’s client Sir Edwin Sandys asked whether the lower House would now vote subsidies as it had promised. The answer he received was not encouraging. At the suggestion of Pembroke’s client William Coryton^‡, the Remonstrance was given priority. This was tantamount to saying that subsidies would only be granted if Buckingham were sacrificed. Since he had no intention either of abandoning the duke or of receiving the Remonstrance, Charles, after first consulting Buckingham, Carlisle and the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich^*),540 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 111. dissolved the Parliament on 15 June.

Buckingham’s supporters made little attempt to disguise their joy, and Buckingham himself was doubtless relieved that the threat of impeachment had now been removed. However, this outcome was far from satisfactory for the duke, as the dissolution not only deprived the king of badly needed subsidies, it also denied Buckingham the opportunity to clear his name. Had Parliament continued sitting, it was reasonable to suppose that the Lords would soon have declared him innocent. Indeed, had the Commons been convinced otherwise, they would probably never have drafted their Remonstrance. In the aftermath of the dissolution, it was widely believed that Buckingham had escaped censure, but in reality he had been denied the opportunity of being cleared.541 Warws. RO, CR136/B108; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 453.

It may have been with the intention of remedying this situation that, two days after the dissolution, Attorney General Heath, in the name of the king, summoned to his chambers Eliot and other leading Members of the Commons who had been closely involved in the impeachment proceedings. Heath announced that Charles himself intended to prosecute Buckingham, and therefore demanded to know what proof they had to substantiate their charges. However, Eliot and his colleagues declined to cooperate. This was ostensibly because their activities in the Commons were covered by parliamentary privilege, but the more likely reason is that they had no wish to see the duke exonerated in open court.542 De Jure Maiestatis ed. A.B. Grosart, ii. 6-9.

War with France, 1626-8

Now that Parliament had ended, Buckingham was free to turn his attention to military and naval matters. Despite having previously stated that the campaigning season was too far advanced, he planned to send another fleet against Spain. Anxious to regain his lost popularity, he also announced that he would take the field himself.543 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 468; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 371. However, by early July, on the advice of his doctors – or so it was reported – he abandoned the idea of leading the fleet in person, entrusting command instead to Lord Willoughby de Eresby, who had some military (though no naval) experience. The expedition was no more successful than its predecessor, being forced to return to England after encountering fierce storms in the Bay of Biscay. On learning of this latest setback Buckingham was disappointed but philosophical: ‘it is God’s doing, and we may not repine at it’.544 Add. 37816, f. 175.

Over the summer of 1626, rumours of Spanish naval preparations led the government to believe that England was in imminent danger of invasion. These rumours, coupled with the fact that Pembroke had been one of the architects of the recent opposition against him in Parliament, may help explain why Buckingham chose this moment to reach an accommodation with his chief rival at court.545 Russell, 326. He finally agreed to let Pembroke become lord steward and resign to his brother Montgomery his office as lord chamberlain. To cement the new accord, it was also agreed that Buckingham’s only daughter, then aged three, would eventually marry Montgomery’s son, who stood to inherit not only his father’s lands and titles but also those of Pembroke, who consented to provide the couple with a dowry of £20,000.546 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 123, 132-3, 135; HMC Skrine, 82; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 542.

Buckingham’s willingness to conciliate Pembroke was mirrored a few months later by earnest, if somewhat belated, attempts to regain the good opinion of the French. Over the course of the summer, England’s relations with France had continued to deteriorate, despite the fact that, shortly before the 1626 Parliament began, the French king had come to terms with the Huguenots.547 Cust, Chas. I, 51; Add. 37816, f. 63v. Louis XIII’s conflict with the Huguenots, and his reliance on ships borrowed from England, had persuaded Richelieu of the need to create a French navy. By June 1626 the cardinal had gone some way towards laying the administrative foundations for this new endeavour, causing Buckingham and his advisers to consider launching a pre-emptive strike against the French.548 Lockyer, Buckingham, 346; SP16/28, f. 13; 16/34/87. Anglo-French relations were poisoned still further in late July, when the queen’s remaining French attendants were expelled.

Despite this deterioration, Buckingham was forced to reconsider his attitude towards France in mid September, when news of the defeat by the imperialists of Charles’s uncle, Christian IV of Denmark, at the battle of Lutter reached England. It was now more urgent than ever that France should join the anti-Habsburg league that he had created.549 HMC Skrine, 95. Consequently, when a French ambassador extraordinary, Marshal Bassompierre, arrived in London to learn why the queen’s servants had been expelled,550 Ibid. 82, 83, 85-6. Buckingham launched a major charm offensive, visiting him on his arrival and offering his friendship. The following day Bassompierre returned the courtesy by paying a call on Buckingham at York House. The meeting was so successful that the two parted company ‘fort bons amis’. Over the next few months Buckingham and Bassompierre became all but inseparable, often riding in the same coach and frequently dining together.551 Journal de ma Vie: Memoires du Marechal de Bassompierre, iii. 256, 258, 267; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 151, 157-8, 271. The warmth of their relationship suggested that the differences between their respective countries might soon be bridged, thereby paving the way for a military accord. In fact, this was an illusion. Shortly before Bassompierre arrived, an English squadron had seized three French ships carrying Spanish goods, an act which subsequently triggered retaliation by the Parlement of Rouen.552 HMC Skrine, 89; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 434; Lockyer, Buckingham, 351. Charles was so angry that France was undermining England’s war effort that his exchanges with Bassompierre became heated.553 Lockyer, Buckingham, 350. Nevertheless, Buckingham persevered, negotiating a deal in early November for the return of some of the queen’s French servants, and throwing a magnificent feast for the king and the ambassador at York House, which reportedly cost £4,000.554 HMC Skrine, 91, 94-5; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 166, 169.

Buckingham’s assiduous cultivation of Bassompierre was not entirely motivated by a desire to draw France into his anti-Habsburg league. News of the defeat of the Danes at Lutter had led to a widespread expectation that the king would soon call another Parliament. In the short term this expectation was misguided as Charles, thoroughly disenchanted by the behaviour of the 1626 assembly, decided to levy money for the war by means of a Forced Loan instead. However, the king also promised to call another Parliament if the Loan was paid in full, a prospect which terrified Buckingham. No less frightening were the increasingly desperate assaults by unpaid soldiers and sailors. The failure of the 1626 Parliament to vote subsidies had left the king without the means to pay the seamen and troops in his service, and not surprisingly Buckingham soon became the target of their anger. In early October the duke was so ‘hotly encountered’ by a number of sailors that he was forced to place a guard on York House. Later that same month his coach was smashed to pieces by angry seamen. In early November a tumult outside his house was only ended after the duke paid the rioters £10 out of his own pocket. Perhaps the most terrifying incident occurred a few weeks later, when six captains who had served in Ireland forced their way into his chamber at Whitehall while Buckingham was at dinner. Buckingham threatened to have them all hanged, whereupon they replied with ‘such uncouth language’ that he was forced ‘to promise them upon his honour they should very speedily be satisfied’.555 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, 158, 176-7; HMC Skrine, 89; Add. 12528, f. 32. Following this episode, the Florentine agent observed that the duke ‘shows a more than ordinary wish’ to journey to France. There Buckingham could negotiate the long desired military treaty with Richelieu. There, too, he could escape the hordes of soldiers and sailors who daily threatened to harm him. And there he could also avoid the unwelcome attentions of another Parliament.556 HMC Skrine, 97; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 176; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 30.

Buckingham looked to Bassompierre to ensure that he was made welcome in France. For his part, the marshal encouraged Buckingham to go to Paris, and intimated that France might be prepared to send an embassy to the emperor to plead for the Elector Palatine if the English proved cooperative.557 HMC Skrine, 95; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 31. By the beginning of December Buckingham’s departure seemed imminent. Indeed, on the morning of the 2nd, the duke spent three hours with the king, apparently to receive his instructions for the journey, which he intended to begin in four or five days time.558 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, 179-80; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 490. However, his plans were quickly overtaken by events that lay outside his control. Bassompierre’s masters in Paris were dissatisfied with the terms he had obtained in the recent negotiations, and therefore the duke was advised to delay his departure until the marshal had reported to Richelieu in person. Furthermore, the quarrel over the French conveyance of Spanish goods had now reached such a pitch that the English wine fleet at Bordeaux had been detained, prompting Charles to order all French ships and goods in England to be stayed.559 HMC Skrine, 99-100; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 180; APC, 1626, pp. 391-2. Despite these setbacks, Buckingham continued to make preparations for his intended journey, even sending his coaches to Dover. However, armed conflict was now all but unavoidable, and on 22 Dec. the king ordered the duke to take, sink or destroy a number of Dutch-built vessels at Le Havre that had been bought by the French for their fledgling navy.560 HMC Skrine, 102; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 503-5.

The seizure of the English wine fleet increased demands for a Parliament, as the livelihoods of between five and six thousand families in London were now at risk. Public opinion held that if Parliament sat, the Commons would not only vote subsidies but also promise not to molest the duke.561 CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 68-9. However, neither the king nor Buckingham believed these assurances. Buckingham’s antipathy towards Parliament was such that he now regarded with disfavour his former client Lord Keeper Coventry, who had pleaded with Charles to continue the 1626 assembly. It also led him, in February 1627, to reverse the position he had taken in the 1621 Parliament regarding the right of peers to swear in court on their honour. To the disgust of one observer, who declared that ‘Parliament, like dirt, [is] trodden under his Highness’ feet’, he forced the earl of Lincoln, one of his opponents in the Lords in 1626, to deliver his evidence in Star Chamber on oath.562 HMC Skrine, 111; Holles Letters, 345. Instead of advocating another Parliament, Buckingham enthusiastically supported the Forced Loan, promoting its collection in Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire in January 1627, and writing in person to the earl of Northumberland, who was threatening to be refractory, urging him to contribute.563 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 30, 43; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 188; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 119; Add. 12528, f. 33.

Although Buckingham had done his utmost to avoid conflict with France, he threw himself wholeheartedly into the military and naval preparations, inspecting the ships in person.564 Winthrop Pprs. I: 1498-1628 ed. Mass. Hist. Soc. (1929), 344. See also Add. 12528, ff. 17, 38v. During the early spring of 1627, his health having improved since the previous summer, he announced that he would lead the forthcoming expedition to France himself, and started parading about London in military attire. At first this posturing was not taken seriously, as Buckingham had twice before made similar pronouncements, only to change his mind.565 HMC Skrine, 114, 116; Procs. 1628, pp. 110, 112; Corresp. of Sir George Radcliffe, 136. However, this time Buckingham was in earnest, as he had come to realize that war with France afforded him the opportunity to recover his former popularity. When asked later that year the purpose of his military campaign, Buckingham did not answer that he was trying to topple Richelieu and force the French to join his anti-Habsburg alliance, though this was certainly one of his key objectives.566 For Buckingham’s determination to overthrow Richelieu, see Lockyer, Buckingham, 369-70. On the contrary, he said that it was to redeem his lost honour.567 W. Fleetwood, An Unhappy View of the whole behaviour of my Lord Duke of Buckingham, at the French Island called the Isle of Rhee (1648), 3. Martial success abroad would silence his enemies at home.568 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 217. Parliament, when next it met, would fete him as it had done in 1624 rather than seek to impeach him, and this in turn would make the task of obtaining subsidies that much easier.

Despite the success which accompanied the raising of the Forced Loan, shortage of money threatened to delay the sailing of the fleet until the late summer. However, in April the royal coffers received a badly needed fillip after the Navy captured 20 heavily laden French merchantmen worth an estimated £128,000.569 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 147; APC, 1627, p. 411. Consequently Buckingham, appointed admiral and captain general on 14 May, was enabled to sail from Portsmouth on 27 June with 90 ships, 6,000 soldiers and three-and-a-half months’ supplies.570 SP16/66/45; Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 205; A.D. Thrush, ‘Origins and Development of Ship Money’, War and Govt. in Britain ed. M. C. Fissel, 135; SP16/75/80. The troops, though largely pressed men, were of better quality than those that had been sent to Cadiz in 1625, as any that were physically unfit had been replaced with others more suitable.571 SP16/62/6; 16/526/82. The professional soldier Sir John Borough, who accompanied the expedition, certainly believed that they were ‘fit to be employed’.572 SP16/66/19.

Four days into the voyage, Buckingham summoned his chief officers to a council of war, at which he apparently proposed to take and sack Bordeaux, the centre of the French wine trade. Some of the colonels present opposed this plan,573 Gonville and Caius ms 143/193, p. 113. and therefore, for the time being at least, the fleet headed for La Rochelle, whose Huguenot inhabitants were considering rebelling against the French crown. After a largely uneventful passage, the fleet arrived off La Rochelle on 11 July, to the consternation of Richelieu, who had believed Buckingham to be incapable of mounting an expedition without parliamentary funding.574 T. Cogswell, ‘Prelude to Ré: The Anglo-French Struggle over La Rochelle, 1624-7’, History, lxxi. 17. The following day, having made contact overnight with the citizens of La Rochelle, Buckingham resolved to land part of his army on the nearby Île de Ré.575 Bodl., Tanner 303, f. 89v; Add. 26051, f. 2. This was a risky operation, as it was unclear how many French troops, if any, lay hidden in the sand dunes. In fact, there were around 1,000 regular infantry – reputedly the best in France - and at least 250 cavalry, a size of force that should have been easily capable of repelling an English landing. Had the French commander, Marshal Toiras, acted firmly, Buckingham’s dream of martial glory would have ended ignominiously there and then. However, instead of trying to prevent a landing, Toiras permitted around 2,000 English troops to come ashore and form up so that he could have the honour of defeating them. He then compounded his mistake by ordering his cavalry to charge without infantry support. In the ensuing mȇlée many of the English were either cut down or drowned, but the survivors rallied and drove off the horse, leaving the French infantry, now demoralized and outnumbered, to face the English alone. They too were forced to withdraw in disorder after they found their pikes to be shorter than those of the English.576 Add. 26051, ff. 2v, 12v; 4106, f. 161v; 64892, f. 87; 32093, f. 9r-v; Bodl., Tanner 303, ff. 89v-90; SP16/74/10. In the aftermath of this reverse, the French claimed that they had been defeated by the guns of the fleet, which may have been true, and by a secondary landing that had caught them in the flank, which was certainly false.577 Les Papiers de Richelieu, ii. 330; Gonville and Caius, ms 193/143, p. 116; CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 301, 303.

Thanks to the ineptness of his French counterpart, Buckingham had won a notable victory. Although he had lost 409 men killed,578 SP16/289/39. including several senior officers, as many as 500 Huguenots joined his army a few days later.579 SP16/72/22.I; Bodl., Tanner 303, f. 92v; Add. 4106, f. 162. Buckingham’s part in the battle is uncertain, but he reportedly helped rally the troops after the charge of the French cavalry.580 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 256. The next few days were taken up in landing the rest of the men and the army’s supplies rather than in pursuing the defeated French, who were thereby afforded the opportunity to take refuge in the citadel of St Martin. Buckingham’s failure to pursue Toiras has often been criticized, but a successful pursuit would have required cavalry, and although the army included a small body of horsemen, their mounts needed time to recover from their long sea journey.581 R. Stewart, ‘Arms and Expeditions’, War and Govt. in Britain ed. Fissel, 124; Add. 26051, ff. 12v-13; 4106, f. 162. On the 134-man strong troop of horse, see Add. 64891, f. 111.

Now that the army had landed and the French garrison was bottled up in the citadel of St Martin, Buckingham was faced with an important strategic decision. On the one hand, he could march through the island with impunity, sack its towns and villages and then turn his attentions to the neighbouring Île d’Oléron. On the other, he could lay siege to the citadel, force Toiras to surrender, and establish complete control over the island. Sir John Borough favoured the first of these options, as the citadel was a modern fort built on rocky ground at the water’s edge. It would be impossible to undermine its defences, he argued, even if they had the engineers, and bombarding the fort would require mortars, which the army had failed to bring with them. A direct assault by infantry was also out of the question, since the garrison was around 1,500 strong, as was a long siege, the enemy having had sufficient time to lay in provisions.582 Bodl., Tanner 303, f. 96; Add. 26051, f. 13v. However, Borough’s arguments took no account of wider strategic interests. Holding Ré would make it easier to support and supply the Huguenots of La Rochelle once they had decided to rebel. This would be popular in England, and would undermine Richelieu’s grip on power. It would also help strangle French commerce and provide Buckingham with the financial means to maintain the war indefinitely, since the salt pans at Brouage and the mouth of the Gironde lay only a few miles distant; the entrance to the Loire, too, was not beyond reach. Between them, the salt and wine revenues of the region were worth between two and three million pounds a year.583 CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 322. Control of this trade was an enormous prize, as the earl of Clare, no friend of Buckingham, ruefully observed.584 Holles Letters, 367. See also the remarks of Edward Herbert^†, 1st Lord Herbert of Chirbury: Expedition to the Isle of Rhe ed. E.J.H. Powis (Philobiblon Soc. 1860), 129. Buckingham himself was fully aware of the strategic importance of Ré, even if some historians have not been.585 According to Michael Young, Buckingham ‘improvised’ when he arrived off the French coast and allowed himself to get ‘bogged down besieging a French fortress’: M. Young, ‘Buckingham, War, and Parl.: Revisionism Gone Too Far’, PH, iv. 58. Confident in the assurances given by his naval commanders, that the fort could be denied fresh supplies from the seaward side by means of a close blockade, Buckingham decided, entirely reasonably, to disregard Borough’s advice.586 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 30. See also SP16/526/117.

Over the next two months, the military advantage lay with Buckingham. By mid August the French were so short of food they were reduced to eating ‘things unnatural’, with the result that many of them deserted.587 Add. 26051, f. 4v; A Continued Journall of all the Proceedings of the Duke of Buckingham ... in the Ile of Ree (2 Nov. 1627), 7. The English, by comparison, remained well supplied, and in early September received a consignment of sheep and oxen, together with 2,400 fresh troops.588 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 33; Add. 26051, f. 5; SP16/73/20; Bodl., Rawl. C827, f. 73v. However, if there were grounds for cautious optimism, there were also plenty of causes for frustration. Reinforcements of men, weapons and equipment arrived only slowly, causing Buckingham to exclaim on 25 Aug. that ‘if I had had supplies I had by this time forced the citadel, disposed of part of my fleet upon the coasts of France and Spain, and eased my master of the daily and necessary charge he is at for the want thereof’.589 SP16/75/7. The duke’s difficulties were further compounded by Borough, whose resentment that his advice had been ignored soon divided the other commanders into two factions. These divisions ran so deep that when Borough was shot and killed on 11 Sept. his partisans immediately suspected that Buckingham had procured his murder. Only with difficulty was further bloodshed avoided.590 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 26; Add. 4106, f. 128; Fleetwood, 7. On top of all these difficulties, Buckingham’s army was forced to endure unusually wet weather, which turned the ground to mud, filled the trenches, and replenished the fresh water of the French, whose supplies had run dangerously low.591 SP16/75/12; TNA, MPF 1/256/3. Indeed, without the heavy rain the French would almost certainly have surrendered.

How far Buckingham shared the privations of the men under his command, or exhibited the other qualities expected of a good general, is uncertain. However, news sent back to England by his closest aides portrayed the duke in glowing terms. In one such letter, for example, it was said that Buckingham’s ‘care is infinite, his courage undauntable ... himself views the grounds, goes to the trenches, visits the batteries, ... goes himself in person to places of the greatest danger oftener than becomes a person of his rank’.592 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 24. Nothing was said, of course, about the divisions within English ranks. This account is also contradicted by one anonymous participant in the campaign, who claimed that Buckingham ‘loved not to visit’ the men in the trenches, an attitude which ‘got him great hatred from them all’.593 Add. 4106, f. 164. Nevertheless, the heroic image of Buckingham was assiduously cultivated by the duke’s partisans. Indeed, they ensured that detailed accounts of the landing and siege, depicting Buckingham in a favourable light, found their way into print.594 T. Cogswell, ‘The People’s Love: the Duke of Buckingham and Popularity’, Pols., Religion and Popularity ed. T. Cogswell et al., 224-8. How far Buckingham was personally responsible for this propaganda campaign is unclear, but he was no stranger to what, in a later age, would be called ‘spin’, having presented to the 1624 Parliament an account of the Trip to Madrid that was highly questionable. He had also caused to be published two accounts of his attempts to prevent his mother from converting to Catholicism, to counteract the widespread view that he was sympathetic to popery.595 Hacket, i. 173; Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 30n. By allowing himself to be portrayed in an heroic light, Buckingham undoubtedly hoped to achieve one of his principal aims, the recovery of the popularity he had lost at home. In the short term, he evidently enjoyed some success, as the news-sheets were snapped up so fast that the first instalment had to be reprinted.596 T. Cogswell, ‘“Published by Authoritie”’, HLQ, lxvii. 2-3, 8-14

During the second half of September the siege entered a critical phase. On the 15th two deserters announced that the garrison was on the point of starvation.597 Bodl., Rawl. D117, unfol. Five days later a few boats broke through the English cordon, but the supplies they brought were inadequate,598 SP16/86/43. and on the 24th the English received a much greater quantity of fresh men, money and supplies.599 Add. 4106, f. 164; SP16/80/43. On the 27th, with the French soldiers abandoning their positions ‘in troops’ and the rest on the verge of mutiny, the deputy governor came to discuss surrender terms.600 Add. 4106, f. 164. Buckingham was now on the brink of achieving a famous victory and political rehabilitation. Turning to the fleet’s secretary Sir William Beecher^‡, he declared that he would write to the king to ‘desire him presently to call a Parliament’ and ‘reconcile himself to his people’.601 CD 1628, iv. 116.

That night, the French snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. In the early hours of the morning the wind suddenly shifted in their favour, whereupon a flotilla of 35 flat-bottomed boats crammed with men and supplies set out from the mainland.602 Add. 26051, ff. 6v, 17. In the ensuing confusion, 14 or 15 of the French craft were captured, but the night being dark and ‘somewhat stormy’ the remaining vessels slipped past the blockading ships, too deep-draughted to pursue, carrying with them six weeks’ provisions and 600 men. An attempt the following day to burn these boats was thwarted, as the wind dropped and the defenders used long poles to keep the English fireships at bay.603 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 48-9: SP16/80/43; CSP Ven. 1627-8, p. 422; Mems. of the Sieur de Pontis (1694) transl. C. Cotton, 141-2; Lockyer, Buckingham, 397-8.

It was clear that Buckingham had now lost. As Viscount Wimbledon observed in one of his letters of advice to the duke, if the English were unable to prevent the fort’s relief by sea ‘it is but lost labour to continue the siege’.604 Dalton, ii. 277-8. However, despite sickness caused by wet weather and consumption of bad grapes, which decimated the English ranks,605 Add. 4106, f. 164; Misc. State Pprs. ii. 49. Buckingham doggedly clung on. He pinned his hopes on a major relief expedition that was preparing in England under the command of the earl of Holland, and also on news that the supplies received by the French had been spoiled by salt water.606 Expedition to the Ile of Rhe, 164; Add. 4106, f. 7r-v. On 12 Oct. the French landed 2,000 troops at a small fort in the east of the island that Buckingham had not bothered to capture on the grounds that the fall of the citadel would lead to its capitulation without loss.607 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 27; Add. 26051, f. 8. See also Add. 4106, f. 162. On learning of this, many of his colonels pressed Buckingham to retreat. They pointed out that there was no dishonour in raising a siege under such circumstances, the renowned Spanish soldier Spinola having done so only five years earlier at Bergen-op-Zoom. However, the duke was furious, accusing one of them of cowardice and another of talking ‘as if he had come from an alehouse’.608 Add. 26051, f. 17v; Bodl., Tanner 303, ff. 103v-4. Far from ordering a withdrawal to the ships, he now gave instructions to prepare for a direct assault. This was little short of madness, for even if the Huguenots provided an additional 800 troops as they promised, the English army was now too small to storm the fort. Not surprisingly, the colonels signed a protestation declaring that the plan was hopeless.609 Add. 4106, f. 165.

Having committed one serious error of judgement Buckingham now proceeded to make another. Instead of launching the assault immediately, while the French forces in the east of the island were still relatively small, he decided to wait until Holland arrived with a further 1,000 men. By the time he realized that Holland was not coming, two weeks had elapsed, during which time the French had landed a further 1,000 men of their own on the island.610 Bodl., Tanner 303, f. 105. Even were the English now to take the fort, it was unlikely that the island would now fall. On the contrary, it was much more likely that they would find themselves besieged. Undeterred, on 27 Oct. Buckingham threw his meagre force of less than 4,000 men at the fort.611 Add. 26051, f. 8v; SP16/84/78. The result was disastrous. Although the outer-works were overrun, those soldiers who managed to reach the walls found that their scaling ladders were too short. However, it was the imminent approach of fresh French forces which caused Buckingham to call off the assault.612 Lockyer, Buckingham, 400; Expedition to the Isle of Rhe, 203-4.

There was now no alternative but retreat to the western end of the island across a causeway 500 feet long and only four feet wide. After praising his troops for their ‘forwardness and valours [sic]’, Buckingham caused the remains of his army to fall back in good order. However, they were pursued by the French, who overran the rearguard, causing panic.613 Gonville and Caius ms 193/143, p. 143; Lockyer, Buckingham, 401. In the ensuing rout, many English soldiers fell into the salt marshes and were drowned, while others were simply cut down. An English newsletter subsequently claimed that Buckingham fought bravely to defend the rear. This is not implausible, as the duke was no coward: in August 1628 he would face a mob of 300 angry sailors singlehanded and arrest their ringleader. However, it was later claimed that the man dressed as Buckingham was actually one of his followers, and that the duke himself had already stolen aboard ship.614 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 423; Oglander Mems. ed. W.H. Long, 45; Fleetwood, 9-10. In the aftermath of their defeat, the English claimed to have lost only 250 men in the retreat. In fact, the final day of fighting cost the lives of 3,985 English and Irish soldiers.615 Holles Letters, 373; SP16/289/39; Letters of Peter Paul Rubens ed. R.S. Magurn, 217.

Although much of his army had now been destroyed, Buckingham was reluctant to return home. Instead, he proposed to take refuge in La Rochelle and await the arrival of Holland with fresh troops. However, as the Rochellais declined to reply to his message seeking admission he was obliged to sail for England on 8 November.616 Expedition to the Ile de Rhe, 268-9; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 430; Lockyer, Buckingham, 401. This was a bitter blow, as Buckingham had wanted to return as a conquering hero, and he had come within an ace of success. The king, wracked with guilt that Holland had failed to sail in time, reassured the duke that he had ‘gained as much reputation with wise and honest men in this action as if you had performed all your desires’.617 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 20. However, this view was not widely held. The Venetian ambassador reported in mid November widespread fury with Buckingham. In London on 20 Nov., the law student Simonds D’Ewes^‡ saw dejectedness ‘almost in every man’s face’. Few now remembered their own eagerness to avenge the seizure of the wine fleet; the war, it was now said, had been fought merely to satisfy Buckingham’s ‘lust with some French lady’. Buckingham had taken up arms not to assist the Protestants of La Rochelle but to betray them.618 CSP Ven. 1627-8, p. 485; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 361, 364, 367. Shortly after arriving at Plymouth on 11 Nov., Buckingham was met by an express messenger from court warning him that there was a plot afoot to assassinate him.619 Cogswell, ‘“Published by Authoritie’”, 23.

After making what provision he could for the sick and wounded, Buckingham journeyed to court, where he was much caressed by the king.620 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 430, 441; HMC Skrine, 132-3; Holles Letters, 373. Shortly thereafter, the king’s coffers being empty, he sent £2,000 of his own money to Plymouth to help pay the arrears of the surviving soldiers.621 Add. 37817, ff. 145, 151; Bodl., Rawl. C827, f. 71v. Despite his defeat, it was clear to Buckingham that the war with France was far from over. He still hoped to topple Richelieu and force France into a military alliance against Spain.622 Lockyer, Buckingham, 404. Moreover, having drawn the Huguenots into the conflict, neither he nor Charles were willing to abandon La Rochelle to its fate. The only question in their minds was not whether to mount a further expedition, but how to pay for it. Over the winter of 1627/8 discussion of this topic dominated the Council’s agenda. One suggestion was that a temporary tax should be levied upon wine or beer. Sir Richard Weston^* (later 1st earl of Portland) proposed that the easiest way to raise this money would be to tax alehouses, but Buckingham favoured a straightforward sales tax on the grounds that ‘all men must drink, so all men must pay’.623 R.J. Swales, ‘Ship Money Levy of 1628’, BIHR, l. 170. Another suggestion was that Parliament should be summoned. Surprisingly, perhaps, the chief advocate of a Parliament was Buckingham, who realized that a fresh meeting was probably inescapable and that news of his support would earn him the gratitude of those in the House of Commons who would otherwise be inclined to seek his ruin.624 CSP Ven. 1627-8, pp. 558-9; Cottoni Posthumi (1651) ed. J. Howell, 320. Charles, too, regarded a Parliament as unavoidable, for in early January he ordered the release of those gentlemen who had been imprisoned for refusing to contribute to the Forced Loan.625 APC, 1627-8, p. 217. However, in order to let Buckingham claim responsibility for summoning Parliament, he publicly opposed a meeting. When he finally relented, at the end of January, it was in return for a promise, extracted from leading members of the Council, that there would be no further attacks on Buckingham. Should the Commons fail to exercise self control at a critical moment, a motion to dissolve the assembly would be made.626 Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 207; CSP Ven. 1627-8, pp. 559, 584, 589.

Although a Parliament had now been summoned to meet on 17 Mar. 1628, Buckingham soon got cold feet, and behind the scenes he sought to defer or even cancel the assembly. The main reason he gave for doing so seems to have been that the foreign policy situation was so dire that the king could not wait for Parliament to vote him supply. Following the English departure from Ré, Spanish warships had arrived to help the French king blockade La Rochelle. There was a danger that ‘unless there be present means found to set a powerful fleet to sea’, La Rochelle ‘and our religion in those parts’ were ‘sure to be ruined’. These arguments led the king, on 12 Feb., to issue letters demanding the immediate payment of Ship Money from all the maritime shires. Parliament was now to be postponed until 24 Apr. to allow time for the money to be collected, and if this was not paid promptly and in full, Parliament would not meet at all. However, almost as soon as these letters were issued it was learned that Franco-Spanish relations had broken down, prompting Charles to abandon the Ship Money scheme.627 Swales, 171, 174-5; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 322. Undeterred by this setback, Buckingham and his allies on the Council urged the king instead to raise money through privy seals and for Parliament to be postponed until 28 or 29 April. A proclamation to that effect was even drafted. However, the duke proved unable to prevail against more moderate voices on the Council.628 Holles Letters, 375-6; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 324-5; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 85. The only concession that he and his supporters obtained was the establishment of a commission on 29 Feb. to investigate alternative means of raising money, whether ‘by imposition or otherwise’.629 Rushworth, i. 614-15. This body, which owed its origins to the earlier excise debate, was clearly intended to be held in reserve in case the Parliament failed to vote subsidies.630 R. Cust, ‘Chas. I, the Privy Council and the Parl. of 1628’, TRHS, 6th ser. ii. 28.

Now that a Parliament was imminent, Buckingham had little choice but to prepare for it as best he could. He therefore strained every nerve to ensure the election of as many of his supporters to the House of Commons as possible. His efforts were not wasted, for at least two dozen of his clients subsequently obtained seats in the lower House.631 CSP Ven. 1627-8, p. 605; HP Commons 1604-29, i. 179-80. In addition, Buckingham had his ally Sir John Maynard publish, or perhaps distribute in manuscript form, a discourse which argued that he was not an Arminian and that he was the ‘eminent cause’ of the Parliament.632 Procs. 1628, p. 214. The discourse has not been found. In an attempt to forestall any further parliamentary criticism of his defence of the Narrow Seas, Buckingham belatedly gave orders for the construction of ten small warships fast enough to capture the Dunkirkers. However, the new pinnaces, dubbed the Lion’s Whelps, were not completed until June.633 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 538; 1628-9, p. 156. It may also have been with one eye on the forthcoming Parliament that Buckingham decided in early February to wind up the Navy commission. The king had indicated that Holland’s relief expedition had not sailed in time because of the commission, which, he said, was too large and cumbersome to operate efficiently. This claim was false, as by 1627 there were only four active commissioners, all of whom were diligent and capable.634 Thrush, ‘Navy under Chas. I’, 73-5. However, by dismissing the commissioners Buckingham could say that he had taken action to reform a structural weakness in the Navy’s administration should Parliament blame him for the defeat at Ré.

Before Parliament met, Buckingham returned to Plymouth to oversee the ships that were now being prepared to relieve La Rochelle.635 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 326. He had decided not to lead this fleet, even though command would have allowed him to avoid attending Parliament. Instead he appointed as admiral his brother-in-law Denbigh. Clearly Buckingham placed little trust in the assurances that had been given to the king regarding his own safety at the hands of Parliament, or the rapprochement he had reached with Pembroke following the 1626 assembly. Should there be any renewed attempt to impeach him, he intended to defend himself in person.

The parliamentary session of 1628

Buckingham returned to London two days before Parliament commenced, giving him just enough time to organize the formal opening procession. This duty would normally have fallen to the earl marshal, but the earl of Arundel remained under a cloud for his attempts to undermine Buckingham in 1626.636 Ibid. 329; HMC Skrine, 142; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 22. Once Parliament began, Buckingham’s fears for his own safety were quickly dispelled. During the first few weeks of the meeting the Commons showed little inclination to revive their earlier impeachment proceedings, despite the best efforts of Sir Francis Seymour and Sir John Eliot who, on 22 Mar., denounced the ‘great projector’.637 Cust, ‘Parl. of 1628’, p. 32; HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 289; H. Hulme, Life of Sir John Eliot, 188. Moreover, behind the scenes, Buckingham reached an accommodation with the earl of Bristol, whose charges against him had never been dismissed by the Lords. He also extended the hand of friendship to Arundel, Williams and a number of other peers whose opposition had previously caused him discomfort in Parliament. By mid April his position appeared to be so secure that it was rumoured that he might soon try to get the impeachment charges of 1626 withdrawn.638 CSP Ven. 1627-8, p. 45; Procs. 1628, p. 208.

During the opening stages of the Parliament, Buckingham played little part in the life of either House. In the Lords he was appointed on 21 Mar. to discover when the king would be willing to receive Parliament’s petition for a general fast. He also promised to identify and punish one of his servants who had misbehaved himself on the stairs, and spoke on the subject of the riotous conduct of some soldiers. Otherwise he did so little that towards the end of March he did not even bother to attend.639 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 78, 86, 88, 104. In the Commons management of government business was left in the hands of Sir John Coke, now secretary of state and somewhat less enamoured of Buckingham than he once was, and the councillors Sir Thomas Edmondes and Sir Humphrey May. All three were men of moderate persuasion since they were far more attached to parliaments than Buckingham himself. On 4 Apr. Coke achieved a rare success. After announcing that the king was willing to confirm the liberties of the subject - liberties that had been widely disregarded with the levy of the Forced Loan, the imprisonment of Loan refusers, the imposition of martial law and the billeting of troops – the Commons agreed in principle to vote the king five subsidies. On hearing this news, the king was so deeply moved that he declared that he now loved parliaments and ‘will rejoice to meet them often’.640 CD 1628, ii. 325.

Coke’s success astonished Buckingham, who had been quietly telling Charles that the Commons was ill affected towards him. For a moment he was thrown off balance.641 Procs. 1628, p. 188. Nevertheless, he quickly recovered his composure and ‘humbly besought his Majesty to grant all the Parliament’s desires’, being persuaded that its Members intended ‘nothing more than his and the kingdom’s good’. Like Charles, he hoped that parliaments would now meet more frequently. It saddened him that he was widely considered responsible for dividing the king from his people. To remove all grounds for this belief, he declared that he would relinquish to the king’s loyal subjects his position as favourite, and surrender to Hamilton the mastership of the horse and to Carlisle the lord wardenship of the Cinque Ports. He would remain as lord admiral, but exercise the office only ‘in time of peace and at home’; in wartime, he would leave it to the Council and Parliament to appoint another ‘for all services at sea’.642 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 337-8; Ephemeris Parliamentaria (1654), 41-2.

Buckingham had clearly been carried along the tide of euphoria that now swept the court. However, although he sold the lord wardenship three months later, he had no real intention of surrendering his power. Consequently, when his speech, delivered to the king and Council, was printed no mention was made of his offer to divest himself of most of his offices.643 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 339. For what appears to have been the printed text, see CD 1628, ii. 325-6. Buckingham nevertheless hoped to earn the praise of the Commons after his words were reported to the lower House by Sir John Coke. However, the reaction there was decidedly frosty, as Buckingham’s insincerity was obvious. Regular parliaments, after all, would expose the duke to ‘constant fear of reproof’, as the Venetian ambassador observed. The speech was also presumptuous, as its author implied that he occupied a mediating role between the king and his subjects.644 Procs. 1628, p. 183; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 85.

Buckingham participated in the Lords’ debate of 7 Apr. on the arms bill after the measure was reported from committee. The 1st earl of Northampton (William Compton^*) proposed that the Commons should be consulted before proceeding any further, but Buckingham suggested instead that the measure be redrafted to take account of the defects identified by Viscount Wimbledon, whom he praised. Unlike Buckingham’s recent speech at the Council table, this intervention reportedly gave ‘much contentment’.645 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 159; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 338. Two days later Buckingham again offered his advice, this time after the Commons indicated that they wished to take action to defend the ‘ancient and fundamental liberties of the kingdom’. The first to speak in the debate, he proposed that the House should decide upon the manner of their deliberations; only then would he ‘declare my mind therein’. He subsequently supported Saye, who proposed that the king’s counsel should be heard.646 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 182.

By now the Easter vacation was fast approaching. Under normal circumstances Parliament would have expected to rise for the holiday, but on 9 Apr. the king asked the Lords to continuing sitting. No equivalent message was received by the Commons, where a rumour circulated that Buckingham had begged the king not to force its Members to sit. Confident that an adjournment was imminent, many Members therefore returned home. The following morning, however, the lower House was instructed to continue sitting. To those who had stayed behind it looked as though the crown was about to try to force the subsidy bill through a thin House, a suspicion which grew on the 11th, when Sir Edward Coke moved to set a date for its reading. The finger of blame was pointed at Buckingham’s friends, who were said to have started the earlier rumour. One Member, Sir Benjamin Rudyard^‡, believed privately that Buckingham himself was trying to sabotage the Parliament by stirring up mischief, he being ‘almost out of his wits’ that the Parliament had gained credit with the king. How far these suspicions were justified is impossible to determine. However, it is just as likely that the attempt to ambush the Commons originated with Charles as with Buckingham, for on the 11th the king made abundantly clear his frustration at the Commons’ failure to read the subsidy bill.647 CD 1628, ii. 399-400, 413, 414, 417, 419; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 189-90.

In the aftermath of this ugly affair, the Lords turned their attention to one of the Commons’ chief grievances, the king’s right to imprison without revealing the cause. To Buckingham, the power to detain offenders without bringing them before the courts was fundamental to good government. He had little time for legal niceties in time of war: in 1627, to the fury of the former lawyer Manchester, he had pressed a prisoner who was due to be hanged for inciting others to rescue him by force.648 Procs. 1628, p. 111. By 15 Apr., after two days’ deliberation, he had lost all patience with the debate. ‘The time’, he declared, was ‘much spent’. He had heard so much ‘there cannot be more said’. In fact, as the earl of Bristol observed, they had not even come to the main point yet. Consequently, although he had now persuaded the king to increase his following in the Lords by the addition of several new peers,649 George Goring, Lord Goring; Edward Howard^*, Lord Howard of Escrick; Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston; and John Mohun^*, Lord Mohun. Buckingham was forced to endure another week of debate upon the same subject. On the 22nd he again urged the House to speed up its deliberations, for unless subsidies were voted soon it would be too late to lay in provisions for fleets to relieve La Rochelle and defend the Baltic, which was now in danger of falling under Habsburg control. Indeed, he urged the House to determine the king’s right there and then, without any further reference to the Commons. However, his words fell on deaf ears, as Archbishop Abbot proposed that further discussion be deferred until the morning and there was considerable support for a further meeting with the lower House. Buckingham was beside himself with frustration: ‘cannot we resolve the proposition of the Commons of ourselves?’ he demanded.650 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 235, 237, 329-30, 325.

The duke’s exasperation was understandable, for only the previous day the Lords had received a dramatic demonstration of the government’s urgent need for subsidies. A large number of mariners who had served at Ré had come to the door of the chamber in disorderly fashion demanding their pay. (For some time bands of sailors had been roaming London, stealing food, and in February one such band had violently assaulted York House – now renamed Buckingham House – only to be driven off by Buckingham, sword in hand.) Far from deploring the behaviour of these mariners, Buckingham spoke in their defence. Moreover, as in 1626, he shifted the blame for the shortage of money from his own shoulders to those of the lord treasurer. At Ré, he declared, he had been assured that they would be paid on their return to England; he had not deceived them with false promises. For the time being these words, coupled with an assurance from the lord treasurer that they would soon be paid, sufficed to pacify the sailors.651 Ibid. 314; CSP Ven. 1627-8, pp. 606-7. However, Buckingham subsequently set up notices near the Royal Exchange and Leadenhall which, while repeating this explanation, threatened to punish those mariners who offered to pull his house down around his ears.652 Procs. 1628, p. 218.

Buckingham spent the first week of May in Whitehall rather than at Westminster.653 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 98; APC, 1627-8, p. 393. However, he resumed his attendance of the Lords on 7 May, the day after the Commons declared their intention to preserve the liberties of the subject by means of a Petition of Right. As a member of a committee appointed on 23 Apr. to communicate with the Commons over the ‘great business’, Buckingham probably attended the conference on 8 May at which the Commons submitted the Petition to the Lords.654 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 336, 396. He certainly delivered to the Lords a letter from the king on the 12th, in which Charles declared that he could not relinquish his right to imprison without showing cause ‘without the overthrow of sovereignty’. After the Lords had conferred with the Commons regarding several other suggested amendments to the Petition, Buckingham persuaded the House to sit that afternoon to consider this important letter. However, when the House reassembled at four o’clock, the 1st earl of Westmorland (Francis Fane^*) tried to avoid this discussion, proposing instead that it adjourn immediately after reading a bill. Many Members believed that Westmorland’s motion had been carried, and therefore left the chamber after the chosen bill was read. However, Buckingham remained behind, as did Pembroke and several others. An attempt to recall those who had left was made by the lord keeper, but without success. During the ensuing debate it was agreed, on Pembroke’s motion, that the Petition should be modified to accommodate the wishes of the king.655 Ibid. 412-13, 415.

The following morning saw a bitter row develop between Buckingham on the one hand and many of his old enemies in the House on the other. For the second time in a month Buckingham was suspected of attempting to rig a debate by employing underhand tactics. The 1st Lord Grey of Warke (William Grey^*) came closest to making a direct accusation when he complained that the business was ‘not fairly carried’. Buckingham, however, was outraged at the suggestion that he had acted improperly and rounded on Grey, who was forced to beg forgiveness. Although Archbishop Abbot declared that the quarrel had resulted from a simple misunderstanding, Buckingham demanded that a ruling be made that he and his supporters had not ignored the House’s orders or proceeded ‘upon advantage’. Matters were only quieted after Members unanimously adopted the fiction that the previous day’s proceedings had been perfectly regular.656 Ibid. 415-16.

The determination of Buckingham and his allies in the Lords to alter the Petition in line with the king’s wishes was not widely shared in the Commons, where it was decided to disregard Charles’s letter on the grounds that the king was entitled to respond to the Petition only after it had been formally presented. At first sight it appeared that an impasse had been reached. However, on the 14th Buckingham proposed that, in view of the Commons’ refusal to consider the letter, the Lords should amend the wording of the Petition themselves. Once they had done so, as Lord Keeper Coventry observed, they would seek a conference with the Commons about the changes.657 Ibid. 428. In other words, one way or another, the Commons would be forced to take account of the king’s letter. This suggestion was subsequently adopted, and on 16 May the Lords agreed upon an alternative form of words that preserved the king’s general right to imprison without requiring him to reveal the cause while also denying him the specific right to arrest those who refused to lend.658 Ibid. 429-30, 445.

It now appeared that Buckingham had succeeded in his objective. However, the following day the proposed addition was debated at length, whereupon it became clear that it no longer commanded universal approval. Arundel suggested that it would be tactful if the Petition were to avoid all mention of the prerogative, ‘that when we go to the king we may have a gracious answer’. Buckingham was initially delighted with this suggestion, and moved that Arundel’s words be committed to paper, for they were ‘no more than the Commons have already protested this Parliament to the king’. However, when the 1st Lord Weston (Richard Weston^*, later 1st earl of Portland) proposed that the House should instead explicitly seek to preserve ‘the just power of the king’s prerogative’, Buckingham changed his mind, supporting the drafting of an additional clause to the Petition, which promised ‘to leave entire this sovereign power wherewith your Majesty is trusted’.659 Ibid. 452, 453, 454, 456.

Although the Lords had finally reached agreement among themselves over the amendments to the Petition, they now had to persuade the Commons that these changes were necessary. One of the chief areas of disagreement concerned the clause on martial law. The Commons opposed commissions of martial law as being ‘wholly and directly contrary’ to the laws of England,660 Ibid. 463, 465; Stuart Constitution ed. J.P. Kenyon, 84. whereas the Lords argued that these were necessary to maintain discipline among soldiers and naval seamen. Buckingham shared this view, as he was not convinced that the common law had the power to punish soldiers who refused to obey their commanders. Indeed, on 19 May he challenged the Commons’ chief spokesman, Sir Edward Coke, to tell him ‘what may be done in this case’. For Buckingham this question was not merely hypothetical, for three days earlier Denbigh had returned to England without having relieved La Rochelle, his officers having declined to attack the mole erected across the harbour by the French king’s forces. However, so far as the Petition of Right was concerned, Denbigh’s case was neither here nor there, because the key point was whether commissions of martial law had any force in England. Buckingham appears not to have grasped the importance of this distinction, for when Coke asked him whether he was referring to service in England or abroad he replied ‘abroad’. Coke thereupon declared that the culprits might be executed under martial law, for ‘the common law meddles with nothing that is done beyond the seas’.661 CD 1628, iii. 486-7.

Buckingham’s failure to obtain satisfaction from the Commons regarding martial law was mirrored by the Lords’ inability to persuade the lower House to adopt the saving clause proposed by Weston. Buckingham considered this proviso essential, and on 21 May he asked his fellow peers whether they would be willing to consent to the Petition without it. Three days later he made a ‘long passionate speech’ on the same subject, in which he declared that the Petition, by denying the right of the king to imprison without showing cause, contained words not found in Magna Carta. He advised the House to submit its own petition if the Commons refused to accept the saving clause. However, an angry Saye retorted that if both Houses petitioned separately the Petition ‘will be of no strength’. This was a winning argument, as it soon became clear that there was no appetite in the Lords for Buckingham’s suggestion. As the king still required subsidies, and as the Commons would not pass the subsidy bill until the Petition of Right was accepted, there was little alternative but to drop Weston’s proviso.662 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 494, 523-6.

On 26 May the Lords unanimously accepted the Petition without most of the alterations they had previously required, whereupon the Commons gave the subsidy bill a second reading. As soon as the vote was concluded Buckingham and the earl of Clare were dispatched to the king with the House’s supplementary declaration.663 Ibid. 534; CD 1628, iii. 618-19. Buckingham was not present on the 28th, when the Petition was formally presented to Charles, and shortly thereafter he took the king to a country seat for a long conversation away from prying eyes.664 CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 126-7. On his return, Charles gave his reply to the Petition (2 June). On the face of it, the king accepted the Petition in full, but in fact his response contained a proviso similar to the one that the Lords had been forced to abandon: after saying that he was obliged in conscience to preserve the liberties of the subject, Charles added that he was obliged to preserve ‘his prerogative’.665 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 577.

There can be little doubt that Buckingham wholeheartedly endorsed the wording of this reply and indeed, given the importance he had attached to Weston’s proviso, he may even have been its author. This suspicion was certainly entertained in the Commons, where many Members regarded the reply as wholly unsatisfactory, for on 4 June there was the first sign that the truce that had hitherto existed between the lower House and the duke was about to break down. Complaining of ‘the neglect of guarding the seas’ and of ‘a world of shipping lately lost’ between Berwick and Dover, Sir Dudley Digges demanded to know ‘what shipping is remaining for defence?’ The following morning an alarmed king told the Commons not to lay aspersions upon ‘the state, government or ministers thereof’. His message had precisely the opposite effect from the one he intended. Unable to contain his anger any longer, Sir Edward Coke burst out: ‘God has punished us because we have not spoken plainly.’ To cries of ‘It is he! It is he!’, Coke identified Buckingham as ‘the cause of all our miseries’, adding that ‘till the king be informed thereof we shall never go out with honour, nor sit with honour here’. Coke’s assault was seconded by Edward Kirton^‡, who urged the House to vote Buckingham ‘the enemy of the commonwealth’, and supported by Christopher Sherland, who thundered, ‘disgrace at Ré, Denmark forsaken, Rochelle and the Protestants not assisted but betrayed. Would not any man think we sought our own ruin?’ When Buckingham’s client John Ashburnham^‡ warned the House not to make itself ‘the greatest grievance’ he was commanded to be silent.666 CD 1628, iv. 91, 93, 113, 115, 116, 119, 120.

The Commons were now on the brink of naming Buckingham as an enemy of the state, and that afternoon the Council met in emergency session to decide whether to recommend a dissolution.667 Procs. 1628, p. 195. After lengthy consideration they decided on an alternative strategy, for on 7 June Buckingham announced that he would support a proposal to ask the king for a second, fuller answer to the Petition. This approach found favour, and that afternoon the king gave a second, satisfactory reply to the Petition, which caused relief in the Commons and widespread public rejoicing.668 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 598, 602-3.

In the immediate aftermath of the king’s second answer, Buckingham may have hoped that the hostility directed against him two days earlier would now vanish as suddenly as it had appeared. After all, had not this outburst been designed to force the king to give a better response to the Petition? However, any hope that the Commons would now abandon its attack was quickly dispelled. The king had assented to the Petition without first obtaining a vote of subsidies. What was to prevent the Commons from using the subsidy bill, which had yet to receive its third and final reading, as a bargaining chip to compel the king to punish Buckingham?

On 11 June the Commons set aside all other business in order to renew their attack on the duke. Indeed, from early in the morning until late in the evening they laboured to draw up an eight-point Remonstrance against Buckingham, egged on by Coke, who assured them it was their duty to ‘free the king, who sees and hears by other men’s ears and eyes’.669 CD 1628, iv. 260; Procs. 1628, p. 196; Pvte. Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis, 178. Two days later they directed their attention to the commission issued on 29 Feb. requiring Buckingham and others to investigate means of raising revenue ‘by imposition or otherwise’. As has been seen, this commission, drawn up as part of the government’s contingency plan in case the Parliament collapsed, owed its origins to debates within the Council over the desirability of introducing an excise. The Commons not only wanted the commission cancelled but also its advocates punished on the grounds that sales duties were ‘against the law’.670 CD 1628, iv. 294, 296. As the main proponent of an excise, it was clear that Buckingham was the primary target of this attack.

The ferocity of the Commons’ assault on Buckingham engendered a dangerous public mood. On 14 June the duke’s astrologer, Dr John Lambe – the ‘sorcerer’ whom Pembroke believed had cast a spell over Charles - was fatally wounded by a mob. Soon the refrain was heard about London: ‘Let Charles and George do what they can / The duke shall die like Doctor Lambe’.671 Procs. 1628, p. 117; Rous Diary ed. M.A. Everett Green (Cam. Soc. lxvi), 17; Rushworth, i. 618. Buckingham’s closest advisers were so alarmed that they begged the duke to wear chainmail ‘or some other secret defensive armour’ under his doublet, but he dismissed their concerns, saying there was no need, for ‘there are no Roman spirits left’.672 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 381.

Despite the threat to his life, Buckingham continued to attend the Lords. On 16 June he rebutted the Commons’ criticism of the revenue commission, whose purpose, he pointed out, was only advisory; it did not authorize the commissioners to levy an excise. It was absurd to suppose that the king would ‘call a Parliament and give out a commission for the raising of monies contrary to the course of Parliament and the privilege of the subject’. It was equally ridiculous to suppose that a sales tax was incompatible with the liberties of the subject, for in Spain the government imposed a ten per cent duty on all goods sold with the consent of the people. However, the Lords decided that it would be advisable if the commission were cancelled in line with the Commons’ request, and therefore a committee was appointed to draft a message to the king, to which Buckingham himself was appointed. That same day Buckingham also complained that he had been traduced by a Member of the Commons, subsequently identified as Christopher Lewknor^‡, who claimed that Buckingham had announced at the dinner table that it did not matter what Parliament did, ‘for without my authority they shall not be able to touch the hair of a dog’. Buckingham protested that he had entertained no such thought, and demanded the right to send a protest to the Commons.673 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 647-9.

Before Buckingham could obtain redress, the Commons, on 17 June, presented their Remonstrance to the king. Many of the accusations it contained resembled the charges presented in 1626, but there was also some new matter, including the allegation that Buckingham had told the king that the losses at Ré amounted to only a few hundred, whereas they actually ran to six or seven thousand. The Remonstrance ended by asking Charles to remove Buckingham both from office and from his presence.674 Rushworth, i. 624-6. However, the Commons had finally overplayed their hand, for the previous day the subsidy bill had been sent to the Lords, where it was given a swift passage. Charles, though he still wished Parliament to confer statutory authority on his collection of tunnage and poundage, now had little incentive to humour the Commons. On hearing the Remonstrance read, he declared that its authors had ‘fallen upon points of state, which belong to me to understand better than you’. Buckingham thereupon fell to his knees and begged permission to answer his critics, but Charles refused to let him speak.675 CD 1628, iv. 351-2.

Charles had no intention of sacrificing Buckingham, and to demonstrate this publicly he had the duke ride with him in his coach through London on 21 June.676 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 369, 371; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 172. Five days later, the Parliament was prorogued, Charles having learned that the Commons were preparing a second Remonstrance, concerning tunnage and poundage. According to one observer, many on the Council would have preferred an adjournment to a prorogation, thereby allowing the Commons, when they reconvened, to resume their business where they had left off. However, Charles was apparently dissuaded from ordering an adjournment by Buckingham, who did not relish such a ghastly prospect.677 Procs. 1628, p. 186.

Assassination, 23 Aug. 1628

Now that he was no longer preoccupied with Parliament, Buckingham could turn his full attention to foreign policy. Following Denbigh’s return, he and the king had decided to equip a much larger fleet to relieve La Rochelle. As there could be no question of entrusting the unsuccessful Denbigh with this task, Buckingham therefore decided to reassume command himself. However, the likelihood that force would be required to assist the Huguenots was now beginning to look remote. The Dutch were exerting strong pressure on England to reach a peaceful settlement with France for the common good.678 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 222. Moreover, as he told one of his confidants in July, Buckingham hoped to exploit recent events in northern Italy ‘to kindle a war’ between Spain and France.679 For a fuller discussion, see Lockyer, Buckingham, 449-50. Consequently, in early August the duke let the Rochellais know that, although the fleet would sail shortly for their relief, he expected to learn, on his approach, that they had concluded peace with Louis XIII.680 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 233; HMC Skrine, 160-1. Such a settlement would enable him to make his own peace with France, and so draw the French into his anti-Habsburg league.

Completion of these diplomatic arrangements caused Buckingham to delay his departure for Portsmouth until 12 August. The king, who had left for nearby Southwick several weeks earlier, was impatient to see him, and when Buckingham finally arrived he was greeted ‘as if he had been the greatest prince in the world’. Charles’s enthusiasm for the duke was not shared among the ordinary mariners of the fleet, however, for at around this time 300 unpaid seamen surrounded Buckingham’s coach. When one of them threatened to pull him from his carriage, the duke leaped out and grabbed the man. A short while later these same seamen attempted to rescue their arrested comrade as he was being led to his execution, but Buckingham, assisted with 200 officers, fell on the mutineers ‘with great fury’, killing two of them.681 Oglander Mems. 44-6; Rous Diary, 27.

At breakfast on the morning of 23 Aug. Buckingham received a report that La Rochelle had made peace. Delighted, he made ready to ride over to Southwick to tell the king. However, as he was about to leave his lodgings, he was stabbed in the left breast by Lt John Felton, a soldier disappointed of promotion who interpreted Parliament’s recent Remonstrance against the duke as a licence to commit murder. Plucking the knife from his chest, Buckingham took two or three paces towards his assailant, tried to draw his sword, and collapsed, blood gushing from his chest and mouth. Within seven or eight minutes he was dead. Many of those present turned on Soubise, for earlier that morning he and Buckingham had quarrelled loudly over Buckingham’s intention to abandon the Huguenots. However, the Frenchman was saved from injury by Felton, who loudly identified himself as the assassin.682 Procs. 1628, p. 214; Rous Diary, 25, 28; Oglander Mems. 42; HMC Skrine, 163, 164; CUL, Add.27, f. 96; CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, p. 292.

Buckingham’s murder was the signal for widespread celebration. In view of the public mood, the king decided to bury his friend quietly, in the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey, for fear that the coffin might otherwise be overturned by a jubilant mob. A public ceremony, complete with empty casket, was nevertheless held the following night (18 September). Poorly attended, the affair was marred by the City trained bands who, instead of trailing their pikes and beating their drums in a slow, doleful manner, shouldered their weapons, thundered loudly on their drums and omitted to fire even a single volley by way of salute.683 Rous Diary, 31; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 399.

In his will, drafted two days before he sailed for Ré in 1627, Buckingham left £5,000 to his sister, the countess of Denbigh, and a further £7,000 out of money he was owed by the crown to the 3rd earl of Northumberland.684 Wills from Doctors Commons ed. J.G. Nichols and J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxxxiii), 90-1. The king subsequently gave orders to repay more than £53,000 that Buckingham had advanced from his own pocket.685 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 252; Coventry Docquets, 278. Buckingham was succeeded by his second son George, who had been born the day before the writs for the 1628-9 Parliament were issued.686 Works of Abp. Laud, iii. 207. A third son, Francis, was born posthumously in April 1629.

Assessment

Few of his contemporaries lamented the death of Buckingham. Aside from the king and the duke’s own immediate family, only a handful of intimates, such as Edward Nicholas (who set about gathering material for a sympathetic biography of his late master),687 SP16/241/85, 86; 16/529/14. were grief stricken. Many shared the view of Sir Edward Peyton^‡, who regarded Buckingham as ‘first in vice and villainy’ and ‘a ravenous kite’.688 Secret Hist. of the Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 599, 566. Unpopularity was an occupational hazard of royal favourites, of course, but nothing like the visceral hatred directed at Buckingham had been seen since the early fourteenth century. Buckingham himself was bewildered by it, and attributed its source to envy. He told the 1626 Parliament that he had begged James to restrain his liberality towards him because it attracted envy, of which ‘I have too much already’, and, on the eve of his departure for Ré, he entertained the king with a masque in which he had himself depicted being pursued by Envy in the form of ‘divers open-mouthed dogs’.689 Procs. 1626, ii. 412; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 226. His monopoly on power certainly aroused jealousy, and though he frequently promised to surrender his government positions the only office he ever parted with – the lord wardenship of the Cinque Ports – was perhaps the least important. However, envy alone will not explain the depth of hostility towards Buckingham.

One of the main reasons Buckingham was so deeply hated is that he crossed the boundary that separated subjects from their king. Indeed, the skill with which he did so was an essential element in his charm and rise to prominence. James adored Buckingham’s playful sense of humour, and loved nothing better than to be chastized in terms of mock severity by his favourite. Writing from Spain in 1623, for instance, Buckingham teased James by threatening to send him no more presents unless he dispatched enough jewels for Charles to look fine at the Spanish court. He also demanded that James send him ‘the best rope of pearl’ with a rich chain, ‘or else your Dog must want a collar’.690 Orig. Letters of State, 1st ser. iii. 147-8. Instead of rebuking Buckingham for his presumption, James bestowed upon his favourite a dukedom. From the summer of 1618 the easy relationship that existed between James and Buckingham was extended to include the prince, who revelled in his pet name ‘Baby Charles’. Buckingham became Charles’s friend and mentor, and the two young men enjoyed such a closeness and intimacy that all social barriers between them vanished. However, to contemporary observers, the familiarity with which Buckingham behaved – and was encouraged to behave – towards Charles was shocking. In Spain, Buckingham caused grave offence to his hosts by habitually referring to Charles by ‘ridiculous names’, by sitting with his feet up while the prince remained standing and by keeping his hat on when Charles was bareheaded. He also upset Spanish sensitivities by giving the impression that, despite his common birth, he thought himself entitled to be treated like a king.691 Pursell, 712; PRO 31/12/29, La Fuente to Philip IV, 10/20 May 1624. By the early 1620s Buckingham was so comfortable around the king and the prince that he no longer jumped when called. In early 1622 James sent for Buckingham, who was then playing tennis, but despite the dispatch of several messengers, the favourite did not come. Finally, James went to the tennis court himself, and called to Buckingham in person. ‘Of the two’, remarked Simonds D’Ewes in his diary, ‘the king waited more upon him [Buckingham]’.692 D’Ewes Diary, 57.

The elevation of Buckingham to ducal rank in May 1623 represented the final stage in an astonishing metamorphosis. For some time it had been clear that James had come to regard Buckingham almost as a second son. In March 1623, for example, he had jokingly referred to Buckingham as ‘my bastard brat’. Buckingham, in turn, often addressed James as ‘dear dad and gossip’. This latest promotion was therefore ‘a further indication that as far as James was concerned the favourite was to all intents and purposes a member of his own family’.693 Lockyer, Buckingham, 154-5; Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 394.

While James lived, Buckingham was constantly nervous that the special status he had been accorded might one day be withdrawn. These fears of replacement were far from groundless, for in 1624 Buckingham came perilously close to destruction. However, James’s view that the royal family now included Buckingham was shared by Charles, a more constant companion by far. When Buckingham’s first-born son died in 1627 Charles, by then king, had the infant interred in the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey, the burial place reserved for members of the royal family.694 Westminster Abbey Regs. ed. J.L. Chester, 126. Buckingham, too, regarded himself as semi-royal. Certainly he seems to have hoped that his progeny would enjoy formal royal status. At The Hague in November 1625, Buckingham visited the king’s sister Elizabeth, the exiled queen of Bohemia, at which meeting (according to the Venetian ambassador in London) the duke proposed a marriage between his three year-old daughter Mary and Elizabeth’s eldest son.695 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 230; Lockyer, Buckingham, 194.

Buckingham’s de facto absorption into the royal family was an astonishing development that had profound implications. It meant, for example, that when the Spanish ambassadors told James in April 1624 that England was now a triumvirate, with Buckingham at its head, they had some chance of being believed. When Charles came to the throne in 1625 he saw Buckingham not so much as his leading subject but as his partner in power. Charles relied upon Buckingham for guidance, and without him he often felt paralysed. In November 1625, for example, while Buckingham was in the Low Countries, the Venetian ambassador reported that without the duke the court seemed incapable of reaching a decision. This was a shrewd observation, for only a few days earlier Charles had written to Buckingham asking what he should do about his wife’s troublesome French servants. He was considering cashiering them, he said, but ‘I shall put nothing in execution till I hear from you’.696 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 236; Misc. State Pprs. ii. 2.

Between 1625 and 1628 Britain’s three kingdoms were, in effect, ruled by a dual monarchy. Ostensibly at least, Charles was the senior partner: his initial refusal to dismiss Lord Keeper Williams following the dissolution of the 1625 Parliament, or to reappoint the duke as master of the horse immediately, despite Buckingham’s wishes, certainly points to this conclusion. However, Charles seldom disagreed with Buckingham, whom he trusted without reservation. In February 1628 he informed the duke that he had not answered his letters because, ‘not differing with you in opinion (as I do but seldom) it is needless to make any’. Consequently, Buckingham was permitted an extraordinary degree of latitude in policy formation. A striking illustration of this is to be found in a letter written after Buckingham’s defeat at Ré. Overcome with guilt at having failed to relieve the duke in time, Charles gave his friend the power, ‘in case you imagine that you have not enough already’, to put into operation any of the military designs he had previously discussed, ‘or any other that you shall like of; so that I leave it freely to your will whether, after your landing in England, you will set forth again to some design before you come hither; or else that you will first come to ask my advice before you undertake in a new work’.697 Misc. State Pprs. ii. 20, 22. This letter must rank as one of the most remarkable ever written by a British sovereign to one of his subjects.

Buckingham’s elevation to unofficial royal status was the product of weak kingship rather than personal design, but it necessarily earned the duke widespread hatred. Buckingham was a cuckoo in the royal nest, and in order to protect the king from himself, he had to be toppled, by whatever means necessary. For this reason the 1626 House of Commons, despite its domination by lawyers, proceeded against Buckingham on the legally questionable basis of ‘common fame’. Charles, though, never understood the true nature of the parliamentary attack on Buckingham. Throughout the Parliament of 1626 he repeatedly declared that the Commons’ assault on the duke was, in reality, an oblique attack on himself.698 Procs. 1626, ii. 285; Rushworth, i. 227; Stuart Royal Proclamations, II, 94. This was a fundamental misreading of the evidence, but it was a mistake that Charles was almost bound to make, in part because he was encouraged to believe it by partisans of the duke,699 R. Cust, ‘Chas. I and Popularity’, in Pols., Religion and Popularity ed. T. Cogswell et al., 237. but mainly because he identified himself so closely with Buckingham.

His quasi regal status was not the only reason Buckingham incurred such hatred. Another key factor was religion. As a result of the French marriage, doubts were cast on Buckingham’s commitment to Protestantism, doubts which were fuelled in August 1625 by the pardon granted to a Jesuit, the blame for which Buckingham tried to fix on Lord Keeper Williams. However, it was the York House Conference that destroyed Buckingham’s remaining credibility. Forced to choose sides in the increasingly bitter dispute between Calvinists and anti-Calvinists, Buckingham had little option (unless he wished to risk a rupture with Charles) but to throw his weight behind the Arminians, thereby alienating many of his own supporters, such as the earl of Warwick and Viscount Saye and Sele, and incurring the wrath of the House of Commons. Henceforward, since Calvinists regarded Arminians as nothing more than closet papists, Buckingham was seen to be at the heart of a conspiracy to lead the Church of England back to Rome. Evidence for the existence of this dark design was not difficult for those of a conspiratorial bent to find: Buckingham’s mother was an avowed Catholic, and ships lent to the French king for a joint expedition against Genoa were employed, contrary to Buckingham’s wishes, in an operation against the Huguenots of La Rochelle. To many it must have seemed that Buckingham had not only infiltrated the royal family, but that he was also trying to undo the Reformation. Viewed in this light, it is understandable that the 1628 House of Commons described him as ‘the grievance of grievances’.

As if these perceptions were not bad enough, Buckingham compounded his unpopularity with poor political judgement. His relations with the earl of Pembroke are a case in point. His refusal to accommodate himself to Pembroke’s wishes in respect of Montgomery and the lord chamberlain’s staff prior to July 1626 was a major error. Had this concession been made several years earlier, Buckingham might have saved himself considerable trouble and paved the way for more harmonious relations between the king and his parliaments. Another serious mistake occurred at Ré in early October 1627. The successful relief of the citadel of St Martin by the French on the night of 28 Sept. should have served as the signal to raise the siege and return home. Had Buckingham ordered an immediate retreat, he might have retired with his honour, and the bulk of his army, intact. Instead, he remained on the island, despite the advice of his colonels, while the French forces against him grew stronger. In so doing, Buckingham virtually doomed his army to destruction and gave his enemies in England further reason to hate him.

Buckingham’s handling of Parliament also deserves censure. It is, of course, true that in 1624 he was feted by all sides in Parliament, even by his former enemies, for his role in bringing about the collapse of the Spanish marriage negotiations. In the immediate aftermath of this meeting one commentator observed that Buckingham ‘sways more than ever, for whereas he was before a favourite to the king, he is now a favourite to Parliament, people and City for breaking the match with Spain’.700 Howell, 213. However, this successful management of Parliament was far from typical. Aided by Sir George Goring, and perhaps encouraged by the king, Buckingham unwittingly helped bring about the collapse of the 1621 assembly by means of an ill considered motion made in the Commons. Moreover, in 1625 he spent the first part of the Westminster sitting entertaining the duc de Chevreuse and his wife instead of pressing the Commons for a large vote of subsidies. On realizing that he had taken his eye off the ball, Buckingham attempted to obtain additional supply, despite the advice of others more experienced in parliamentary affairs than him. The result was a policy both crass and insensitive. His later attempt, at Oxford, to deflect the criticism now directed at him by inciting an attack on Lord Keeper Williams was equally ham-fisted, and served merely to provoke a devastating counter-attack.

Buckingham did little better during the Parliament of 1626. During this meeting it was essential for him to retain the confidence of the upper House, for without the support of the Lords the Commons could not hope to obtain a parliamentary condemnation of the duke. However, in March Buckingham, angry that in future he would not be permitted to control more than two proxy votes, had the earl of Arundel arrested. He thereby precipitated a crisis which threatened to erode and perhaps even destroy his majority in the Lords. As a result he was obliged to persuade the king to create an additional six peers to shore up his support.

Perhaps the most maladroit of all Buckingham’s actions in relation to Parliament occurred at the end of May 1628, when the duke whisked Charles off to a private meeting to discuss the royal answer to the Petition of Right. Though the Commons had refused to countenance any such suggestion, Buckingham was determined that the Petition should pass with a proviso relating to the royal prerogative along the lines of the one proposed by Arundel. It seems likely, therefore, that he heavily influenced the wording of Charles’s original reply, which contained just such a reservation. His intervention was certainly suspected by his enemies in the Commons. If these suspicions were indeed correct, then Buckingham jeopardized a vote of supply and precipitated a further furious assault on him by the Commons, all to no avail, since Charles was subsequently obliged to provide a second, more satisfactory answer to the Petition anyway.

Although Buckingham was deeply flawed, both as a politician and as a soldier, his domination at court was not without its advantages. Early Stuart scholars have been slow to realize that Buckingham’s rise to power coincided with a collapse in English fears of Scottish domination. These fears, which had first erupted over the Union between 1604 and 1607, and which manifested themselves again during the Parliament of 1614 (when an imminent massacre of the Scots in London was predicted in the House of Commons), evaporated with Somerset’s replacement by an English favourite. It should also be acknowledged that Buckingham was by no means responsible for every misjudgement or abuse of power between 1615 and 1628. He did not invent the sale of honours, nor can he reasonably be depicted, as Gerald Aylmer claimed, as ‘the archetypal parasite on royal generosity’.701 Aylmer, 362. On the contrary, the gifts he and his family received from the king were on a relatively modest scale, and he emptied his own purse in the king’s service to a quite ruinous extent. It is equally important not to attribute to Buckingham decisions that probably originated with Charles, such as the Trip to Madrid in 1623 or the selection of several leading Members of the 1625 House of Commons as sheriffs.

By the same token, it is a mistake to suppose that Buckingham recklessly plunged England into war with France in 1627. As Roger Lockyer showed,702 Lockyer, Buckingham, 349-50, 352. and as this study confirms, Buckingham did everything within his power to avoid the encounter. Once war was unavoidable, however, Buckingham embraced it, both as a means of restoring his lost honour, both inside and outside Parliament, and as a way of forcing France to join his anti-Habsburg alliance. His hope that war would precipitate the fall of Richelieu was entirely realistic: Richelieu’s grip on power in the spring and summer of 1627 was so fragile that had the childless Louis XIII died of the fever that struck him down in June, as seemed likely, the cardinal would certainly have been dismissed by his heir, Gaston d’Orléans.703 J.H. Elliott, Richelieu and Olivares, 89-90. Moreover, Buckingham’s grasp of the strategic significance of the Île de Ré was uncharacteristically brilliant. Had the Ré expedition succeeded, as it very nearly did, the political landscape in England would have been radically altered, at least in the short term: Buckingham would have returned home a hero, his enemies would never have dared to attack him openly in Parliament in 1628, and he probably would not have died that summer by an assassin’s knife. However, whether the underlying causes of resentment against Buckingham would finally have been dispelled is something that can never be known.