FANE, Francis (1580-1629)

The owner of extensive estates in Kent, Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, Fane enjoyed an income of at least £3,000 a year and was a veteran of five parliaments by the time he was ennobled in 1624. His decision to purchase an earldom was doubtless prompted by a desire to outdo his bitter rival and fellow Northamptonshire magnate Sir Edward Montagu^*, who had been created Lord Montagu in 1621. His application was probably supported by his friend, Lord Keeper Williams (John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln), and also by Francis Manners, 6th earl of Rutland, father-in-law of the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham. Fane certainly enjoyed a close connection with the Manners family for, at the age of ten, he had become the ward of his father’s uncle and friend, Roger Manners^‡ of Uffington, in Lincolnshire.27 WARD 9/221, f. 235; PROB 11/77, f. 73. When Roger died in 1607, Fane acquired the lease of his lodgings in the Savoy Hospital. These rooms, conveniently situated on the Strand between London and Westminster, provided Fane with a London base.28 W.J. Loftie, Memorials of the Savoy, 130-1; PROB 11/155, f. 299v.

Fane initially asked to be known as earl of Gloucester, but this choice was evidently vetoed, presumably because of the title’s royal connotations. He then settled on Westmorland, perhaps because the last holder of this earldom had been a cousin of his mother, Mary Neville (now a peer in her own right). He was evidently unconcerned that Edmund Neville, the direct descendant of the last earl (who had been attainted for treason) was now living in exile in Flanders and had been styling himself earl of Westmorland since 1601. However, the king, James I, was reluctant to accede to this request, despite having raised no objections 11 years earlier, when the former royal favourite Robert Carr^* (later earl of Somerset) had contemplated adopting the Westmorland title himself. Fane therefore suggested that he be known instead as earl of Richmond, which title had become vacant on the death of Ludovic Stuart^*, 1st duke of Richmond earlier that year. However he was again denied, this time after the prince of Wales (Charles Stuart^*) objected that this earldom, like that of Gloucester, was customarily reserved for members of the royal family.29 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 587; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 387. Eventually the king’s opposition to reviving the Westmorland title was overcome, and on 29 Dec. 1624 Fane received his letters patent. To his chagrin, he was pipped to the post by Oliver St John^*, whose grant of the earldom of Bolingbroke was dated the previous day and therefore took precedence over his.30 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 595.

How much Fane paid for his ennoblement is unknown. However, it is unlikely that he parted with less than £5,000, not including the fees given to the heralds, which amounted to more than £174.31 Add. 34217, ff. 2v, 5; C.R. Mayes, ‘Sale of Peerages in Early Modern Eng.’, JMH, xxix. 24. Although Fane was wealthy, the outlay involved may have temporarily depleted his resources. This perhaps explains why, in June 1625, he and his eldest son Mildmay Fane^† (later 2nd earl of Westmorland), who now enjoyed the courtesy title of Lord Burghersh, borrowed £3,000 from Edward Wymarke^‡, a former friend of his wife’s family.32 LC4/55, m. 4, no. 113.

The parliaments of 1625 and 1626

Three months after Westmorland was ennobled the new king, Charles I, summoned a Parliament. No longer eligible to serve in the Commons himself, Westmorland nominated Burghersh for election as a knight of the shire for Kent, and was supported by Buckingham’s ally, the earl of Montgomery (Philip Herbert^*, later 4th earl of Pembroke).33 Procs. 1625, p. 686; Gent. Mag. lxviii. pt. i, 116-17. The ensuing election was hotly contested, but, thanks to the intervention of the sheriff, both Burghersh and Secretary of State Sir Albertus Morton^‡ were declared elected, even though their opponents evidently received more votes.

Westmorland attended the opening of Parliament on 18 June. Four days later, he was formally introduced to the Lords. He made little impression on the records of the brief sitting, giving no speeches, and ceased to sit after 4 July, presumably on account of the plague. He was named to just one committee, concerning the bill to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable, which measure doubtless interested him as a Northamptonshire deputy lieutenant. When the session resumed at Oxford in early August, Westmorland made his excuses and gave his proxy to Lord Keeper Williams.34 Procs. 1625, pp. 39, 40, 72, 135. He nevertheless kept tabs on developments in Parliament from his seat at Apethorpe, in Northamptonshire. One of his servants sent him detailed intelligence, which he shared with his friend Sir George Manners, brother of the earl of Rutland and one of the Members for Grantham, who, like Westmorland, had retired to the country to avoid infection. In one of his replies to Manners, Westmorland expressed surprise that the king had deputed the task of asking both Houses for more subsidies to Sir Edward Conway^* (later 1st Viscount Conway) and John Coke^‡ rather than the lord keeper, the lord treasurer (James Ley^*, 1st earl of Marlborough) or the lord president of the Council, Viscount Mandeville (Henry Montagu^*, later 1st earl of Manchester).35 HMC Rutland, i. 473-4.

Shortly after the dissolution of Parliament, the earl of Rutland resigned his place as chairman of the Northamptonshire bench to Westmorland, who immediately antagonized many of his fellow justices by summoning the local quarter sessions to meet at Kettering rather than Northampton, the customary venue. Kettering lay closer to Apethorpe than Northampton, but it lacked both a sessions house and inns fit to accommodate the justices. Led by Lord Montagu, who complained to Viscount Mandeville that Westmorland’s behaviour was so high-handed that it ‘cannot be borne’, the disgruntled justices appealed to the Privy Council, which, in early December, ordered the sessions to be held at Northampton Castle.36 HMC Buccleuch, i. 262; iii. 253, 255, 256; APC, 1625-6, pp. 256-7. A jubilant Montagu expressed the hope that if he and his ally the 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*) remained united ‘we shall be too hard for any domineering lord’.37 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 256. However, his celebrations were premature. On 29 Dec. the king countermanded the Council’s order, and instructed that henceforth Northamptonshire’s Christmas sessions were to be held at Kettering. Charles explained that this was because the men of the eastern division of the county had willingly contributed to the recent privy seal loan, and because they had also promised to build speedily both a gaol and a sessions house.38 APC, 1625-6, p. 293. However, this may have been little more than window-dressing. Charles’s intervention suggests that Westmorland had used his influence at court to avoid a humiliating defeat. The king certainly tried to protect Westmorland later that year, when Montagu hauled the earl before Star Chamber for libel. Charles not only sought to prevent the case from proceeding to trial, but was also slow in setting down the costs payable by Westmorland after the latter was found guilty by the court.39 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 307, 309.

The quarter sessions duly met at Kettering on 10 Jan. 1626,40 Ibid. 265. two days ahead of the county election to the second Caroline Parliament. Westmorland hoped to cement his triumph by securing the junior knighthood of the shire for his son Lord Burghersh,41 HMC Montagu, 110. but the latter’s basis of support proved to be so insufficient that he probably did not contest the seat. Westmorland himself was present at the opening of Parliament on 6 Feb., four days after the coronation, which he also attended.42 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l. Thereafter he missed only a handful of sittings. His exemplary attendance made him intolerant of others whose appearances were less regular. Following the call of the House on 15 Feb., he proposed that any peer who was absent, had not sent a proxy or supplied an excuse should be sent for by the sergeant-at-arms and fined, but his motion was considered too draconian. He subsequently moderated his demands: after the House was called on 24 Apr. he proposed merely that the privileges committee consider what to do about those absentees who had not appointed a proxy.43 Procs. 1626, i. 51, 310.

As in 1625, Westmorland played only a minor role in the Lords. Early in the Parliament, on 9 Feb., his fellow Northamptonshire peer, the 4th Lord Vaux (Edward Vaux^*), claimed parliamentary privilege in order to delay a Star Chamber case. Westmorland responded by proposing the establishment of a committee for privileges so that the House could hear what Vaux had to say by way of justification. In the event, the Lords did not appoint any such committee for another four days, but when they did they included Westmorland as one of its members.44 Ibid. 39, 48. On 11 Feb. Westmorland spoke a second time, when he called for a bill to regulate the fees paid to officers and lawyers. What prompted his motion is unclear, but it may be that Westmorland, who was threatened with a Star Chamber suit by Lord Montagu, resented high legal costs. His fellow peers agreed with his proposal, which included instituting a search for an Elizabethan bill on the subject of limiting fees, but no new legislation was ever introduced.45 Ibid. 44; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 264.

The 1626 Parliament was dominated by the impeachment of Buckingham. In view of his close connection with the Manners family it seems likely that, in general, Westmorland supported the duke. However, during the debate on the inflammatory words spoken by Sir Dudley Digges on the delivery of the Commons’ charges, he irritated Buckingham by his inconsistency. Announcing that he did not wish to rely upon his memory, and admitting that he did not have his notes to hand, he remarked that he thought that Digges had spoken with ‘no ill intent’. Buckingham was perplexed by this line of argument: ‘If you will not speak of the words because your notes are not here, how can you speak of the general?’ Despite this reasonable objection, Westmorland subsequently took the protestation exonerating Digges.46 Procs. 1626, i. 477, 483-4.

Westmorland was appointed to consider eight bills during the course of the session. These included the bill to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable, which had been reintroduced, and a bill to assure a jointure for the wife of his kinsman Sir Thomas Neville, son and heir of the 9th (or 2nd) Lord Abergavenny (Henry Neville^*). The remaining measures aimed to reverse a decree in the Court of Wards, allow free fishing off the American coast, regulate apparel, settle the lands and manors of the late 3rd earl of Dorset (Richard Sackville^*), preserve saltpetre and permit the free export of dyed and dressed cloth. Westmorland reported the findings of two of these bill committees himself, namely the fishing and cloth bills.47 Ibid. 53, 84, 120, 128 150, 231, 265, 300, 319, 327.

Westmorland helped to introduce the earl of Manchester to the House on 18 Feb., and was one of six peers chosen, on 23 Mar., to visit the archbishop of Canterbury (George Abbot^*), who was then ill, to receive from him an account of the money raised for ransoming English prisoners in Algiers. On 1 Apr., after the House resolved that the office of lord great chamberlain properly belonged to the 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (Robert Bertie^*), Westmorland proposed that message be sent to the king accordingly. Three days later, the Lords having decided that the earldom of Oxford rightly belonged to Robert de Vere^*, Westmorland moved that the king be asked, through Buckingham, to provide de Vere with maintenance for his support. On 5 Apr., during a debate on the absence of the 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel (Thomas Howard^*), who had been sent to the Tower, Westmorland proposed that king’s counsel produce precedents to justify the arrest of a peer during time of Parliament.48 Ibid. 57, 201, 245, 252, 260.

Westmorland was a member of the subcommittee for privileges, whose task it was to peruse the Journal. On 29 Apr. Westmorland implicitly argued that any order made by the House was not binding until the Journals committee had inspected the entry. He spoke in response to Lord Treasurer Marlborough, who observed that if the 1st earl of Bristol (John Digby^*) appeared at the bar he would automatically be freed from custody, so putting an end to the House’s previous order requiring that he be confined. Two days later, the 1st earl of Mulgrave (Edmund Sheffield^*) queried whether a peer could be committed on the basis of a bare accusation, whereupon Westmorland proposed that the privileges committee, of which he was a member, examine the precedents. As the Parliament entered its final phase, Westmorland was one of 11 peers added to the committee for petitions in order to help cope with the large number of petitions that had not yet been answered.49 Ibid. 48, 322, 341, 496.

Shortly after the dissolution, on 28 June, Westmorland succeeded his mother as 4th Lord Le Despenser, which title was thereupon assumed by his eldest son. That autumn, he was also appointed a commissioner for the Forced Loan in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire. In Northamptonshire there was considerable opposition to the Loan, but in January 1627 Westmorland was instrumental in helping to quell the unrest.50 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 15; APC, 1627-8, p. 285. Although the Loan was successful, it was not long before Westmorland foresaw the need for another Parliament. This was because, over the summer, Buckingham attempted to capture the Île de Ré from the French crown. By late August it was clear to Westmorland that, even if the island were captured, there were insufficient funds left to pay for the war with France. Only a Parliament, ‘to which I wish a happier agreement than hath been of late years’, could provide the necessary injection of cash.51 HMC Rutland, i. 483.

The Parliament of 1628-9

Westmorland’s prediction proved to be correct, as a new Parliament was summoned to meet in 1628. However, his support for the Forced Loan lost him his electoral influence in Northamptonshire, where the county seats were won by two opponents of the Loan. Westmorland attended the opening of Parliament on 17 March. Shortly thereafter he received the proxy of Thomas Brudenell^*, 1st Lord Brudenell. The latter was a convicted recusant, who had failed to pay his monthly fine. Two thirds of his estate was forfeit to the king, who had recently leased this property for a nominal rent to three of Brudenell’s neighbours and friends, among them Westmorland. They leased back the forfeited estates to Brudenell.52 M.E. Finch, Five Northants. Fams. 164; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 581.

As in 1626, Westmorland regularly attended the upper House. Indeed, he appears to have sat continuously until 9 May. (The clerk failed to record his presence on 21 Apr. in the Journal, an error not found in the draft Journal.) His longest period of absence occurred between 31 May and 5 June 1628. During this time Buckingham took the king to a country retreat to discuss how to respond to the Petition of Right. It seems possible that Westmorland, along with other allies of the duke, were parties to these discussions. Certainly several Buckingham loyalists, including the 2nd earl of Suffolk (Theophilus Howard^*) and the 1st earl of Bridgwater (John Egerton^*), were also absent from the Lords then.

On 20 Mar., after helping to introduce the 1st earl of Dover (Henry Carey^*) to the House, Westmorland was once again named to the committee for privileges. It was initially decided to reappoint all those who had sat on the committee in 1626, but Westmorland objected to this practice as several members of the previous committee were now absent. As a result of his intervention, it was resolved to exclude all the absentees, with the exception of Lord Treasurer Marlborough. He was appointed to the committee for petitions that same morning.53 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 72-6, 80n, 81.

The following day (22 Mar.), the precedence granted by the king to the recently created earl of Banbury (William Knollys^*) was debated. The 1st Viscount Saye and Sele (William Fiennes^*) was disturbed that Banbury had been accorded priority over those with more ancient titles than himself, and moved that the matter be referred to the privileges committee. His motion was approved, whereupon Westmorland offered to bring along some precedents. However, the 1st earl of Cleveland (Thomas Wentworth^*) pointed out that precedents were neither here nor there, at least as far as seating in the House was concerned, as the matter had been settled by an act of 1540. Westmorland nevertheless continued to take an interest in the matter, telling the House on 31 Mar. that the question could not be settled until the views of the peers affected were known. He himself drew attention to the act of 1540 on 26 Apr., when he pointed out that the 1st Lord Mountjoy (Mountjoy Blount^*) had been seated incorrectly above two other peers whose creations pre-dated his own.54 Ibid. 91, 130, 350.

Westmorland played little recorded part in the main business of the session, the debates over the liberties of the subject that culminated in the formulation of the Petition of Right. However, his intervention at a critical moment in mid May inadvertently helped to precipitate a serious quarrel in the Lords. On 12 May the king informed the Lords by letter that he would not allow his power to imprison without showing cause to be impeached. In other words, he required the Petition of Right to be amended before it was presented. Westmorland suggested that, in view of this letter, the House should confer with the Commons. Following the ensuing meeting, and at Buckingham’s suggestion, the House reassembled at 4pm. However, many peers wanted to adjourn until the next morning, whereupon Westmorland proposed that a third reading be given to the 1626 bill to assure the jointure of the wife of Sir Thomas Neville, which measure had been reintroduced. This done, he suggested that they ‘do no other business this night’. After the bill was read, several peers, thinking that the House now stood adjourned, left the chamber. However, the House had not in fact been formally adjourned, and on Buckingham’s motion the remaining peers discussed the king’s letter and agreed that the Petition should be amended. This continuation of business led to complaints the next morning that Buckingham and his supporters had ignored the orders of the House, whereupon a heated argument ensued.55 Ibid. 410-12, 417. Westmorland’s role in helping to precipitate this fracas appears to have been entirely innocent. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that he was unhappy at the king’s letter. On the contrary, on 14 May he declared that the Commons should ‘rest satisfied’ with the changes proposed by the Lords.56 Ibid. 425.

For Westmorland, the Neville bill was perhaps the most important piece of legislation before the House in 1628, if only because it named him as a trustee. However, he was also interested in other measures, including two bills which, like the Neville measure, had been revived from the previous session. The first was the apparel bill, which he again chaired in committee, delivering the committee’s report on 24 May. The second was the bill to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable. On 22 Mar. Westmorland persuaded the House to reappoint the committee that had considered this measure in 1626. Westmorland is also known to have supported the fen drainage bill, for on 21 May he moved that the committee, to which he had been appointed, be assigned a day on which to meet. His interest in this measure is not difficult to establish, as both Huntingdonshire and Kent contained extensive marshland. As the owner of Mereworth Castle, Westmorland was doubtless interested in the bill to make the Medway navigable between Maidstone and Penshurst. Certainly he was named to the committee on 18 April. Westmorland’s remaining legislative appointments were to consider bills on the better maintenance of the ministry; the estates of the tenants of Bromfield and Yale, in Denbighshire; trials of assize; leases made by prelates; the naturalization of Sir Daniel Deligne and Balthazar Gerbier; and the banishment of those bred as Catholics. On 16 Apr. Westmorland earned the distinction of being the only member of the Lords to oppose the bill to allow the 2nd earl of Devonshire (William Cavendish^*) to sell lands to pay off his debts.57 Ibid. 112, 120, 133, 245, 258, 264, 371, 389, 494, 527, 539, 606.

On 28 Mar. Saye and Sele called for the poor laws to be implemented. He was seconded by Westmorland, who recounted the effrontery of a beggar who, one evening, had climbed into his coach still wearing a hat and carrying a truncheon, and, on being put off, had struck at him. Effrontery of a different kind was demonstrated on 1 May, when Sir Andrew Gray informed the House that he would not release a ship he had seized belonging to the 2nd earl of Warwick (Robert Rich^*). Westmorland was outraged, and called for Gray to be committed, the ship having been seized in time of Parliament, but Warwick proposed that a reprimand would suffice.58 Ibid. 115, 368.

On 14 May, Westmorland demonstrated that, in minor matters at least, he was not afraid to oppose Buckingham. The duke moved that the lord keeper (Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry) reply to the eight Members of the Commons who were due to explain at a conference that afternoon why the lower House was unwilling to reduce the Petition of Right to the king’s letter of 12 May. Westmorland, however, proposed that the burden should be shared by the Lords’ committee as a whole. Since he was immediately followed by demands that the bishop of Lincoln be permitted to speak at the conference, his motion looks very much like an intervention designed to benefit a friend.59 Ibid. 425.

Westmorland made several speeches of a minor nature during the session. For instance, on 4 Apr., after the bishop of Exeter (Joseph Hall^*) suggested that the markets held in London, Westminster and Southwark be closed during the following day’s public fast, Westmorland announced that the mayor of London had already given the necessary orders. His last recorded intervention was on 19 June, when he reminded the bishop of Norwich, Samuel Harsnett^*, that he had suggested that two members of the House should treat with the Muscovy Company on behalf of their creditors.60 Ibid. 153, 674.

Following the assassination of Buckingham in August 1628, Westmorland, along with Sir George Manners, was included in the grant of the wardship of Buckingham’s son and heir George (Villiers^*, 2nd duke of Buckingham) to the duke’s widow.61 Coventry Docquets, 470. The docquet is incorrectly dated 1629. His health may have declined shortly thereafter, for on 8 Dec. he drafted his will.62 PROB 11/155, f. 298v. He nevertheless attended Parliament when it reopened on 20 Jan. 1629. Once again he attended regularly, missing only three days of the short session. However, this time he made no recorded speeches. Lord Brudenell once again assigned him his proxy. He was appointed to seven of the session’s 19 committees, four of them on the first day of the meeting. They included the committee and subcommittee for privileges, and the committee for petitions. His only legislative appointments were to consider measures regarding the maintenance of hospitals and the regulation of apparel, the latter of which he had chaired in committee the previous year. On 5 Feb. Westmorland was one of three peers publicly cleared by the 1st Lord Deincourt (Francis Leak^*), who had previously accused him of libel.

Westmorland did not long survive the Parliament, which was dissolved on 10 March. He died on 22 Mar. following, at Westmorland House, in St Bartholomew-the-Great, London, which property he had acquired on the death of his father-in-law in 1617, and occupied from 1625.63 E.A. Webb, Recs. of St Bartholomew’s Priory and St Bartholomew the Great, West Smithfield, ii. 263, 266. His funeral certificate incorrectly records his date of death as 26 Mar.: Coll. of Arms, I.8, f. 20. He was subsequently buried at Apethorpe; a memorial to him was erected at Mereworth.64 CP. Execution of his will, in which he left £3,000 apiece to his two unmarried daughters, fell to his widow. Responsibility for overseeing the will was divided between his brother Sir George Fane^‡ and Lord Brudenell. Westmorland was succeeded in his lands and titles by his eldest son, Lord Le Despenser. His widow used her influence to ensure that the Christmas quarter sessions in Northamptonshire continued to be held at Kettering, where Westmorland had built a sessions house at considerable cost.65 PROB 11/155, f. 299r-v; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 502; HMC Buccleuch, i. 268; Tracts Relating to the County of Northampton (4th ser.), ‘Kettering and its Worthies’, 4.