PAULET, John (c.1598-1675)

Evidently a confident youth, Paulet spent four or more of his teenage years travelling on the Continent, taking in France, Italy, Germany and the Low Countries. He was later described as being fluent in French and Italian. In 1619, at about the time when he came of age, he represented his reclusive father at Anne of Denmark’s funeral.19 Newsletters from the Caroline Court ed. M. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 79 n. 220; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 538. Two years later he gained his first experience of Parliament, serving in the Commons as a Member for his family’s pocket borough of St Ives, Cornwall. During the summer of 1621 his prospects were transformed by the death of his elder brother.20 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 76; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 396. Now styled Lord St John, and heir to the marquessate of Winchester, in December 1622 he married Jane Savage, the Catholic daughter of the future Viscount Savage, a union which emphatically confirmed his own religious preferences as well as those of his father.21 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 157; SP16/229/20.

There was no automatic bar to Catholic peers in the House of Lords, even though the 4th marquess habitually stayed away, and in February 1624 St John was summoned to Parliament by right of his father’s barony.22 SO3/7, unfol. (10 Feb. 1624). Sitting in the upper House as Lord St John of Basing (to distinguish him from St John of Bletso), he announced his arrival on 21 Feb. by stating that he would act as proxy for the absentee marquess, an arrangement confirmed at a call of the House on 23 February. Later that day, St John, though Catholic, took the oath of allegiance.23 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 8; LJ, iii. 214b, 215b. Present for just over half of the sittings during this session, he attended regularly up to the Easter recess, but was missing for almost half of April and most of late May, despite being granted formal leave of absence only for 5 April.24 LJ, iii. 288b.

St John received just one appointment, to help scrutinize the bill to settle the estates of Anthony Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu. This measure was of considerable personal interest to him, for his late brother had married one of Montagu’s daughters, and the bill was intended in part to resolve problems with dowry payments. Indeed, the widowed Lady St John was one of the witnesses summoned before the committee.25 Ibid. 254b; CP, xii. pt. 2, p. 766; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 588; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 23. This business aside, St John’s principal concern was with the drive to war with Spain, and the concomitant hostility towards English Catholics. Around 21 Mar. he requested a copy of a recent speech by James I, almost certainly one responding to parliamentary demands for the breaking of the Spanish treaties, and subsequently obtained the text of the joint petition of both Houses against recusants.26 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 60v; 5/1/3, f. 81v. On 24 Mar. he and his fellow Catholic, William Petre^*, 2nd Lord Petre, were the only peers to vote against the bill to tighten the penal laws against recusants.27 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 48; SP14/161/36. Having thus isolated himself within the House, it is unsurprising that he featured no further in the Lords’ proceedings except to pay the fee he owed as a newly summoned peer. Curiously, he opted while in London to stay at his father-in-law’s house by Tower Hill, rather than at his father’s residence in Austin Friars, perhaps in order to save money.28 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 54v; 5/1/3, f. 80v; C142/448/102.

At the elections for the first Caroline Parliament, St John probably influenced the return of Sir William Parkhurst^‡ at St Ives. Parkhurst’s connection with the Paulets was through Sir Anthony Mayney^‡, a former member of their household, who had fallen out with the marquess but remained on friendly terms with St John.29 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 76; C2/Jas. I/W20/48; PROB 11/151, f. 131v. When Parliament finally met, St John attended for the first two days, but on 24 June obtained a licence to absent himself, shrewdly offering his proxy to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham.30 Procs. 1625, pp. 591, 597; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 541.

With the country now at war with Spain, the government began to clamp down on recusants. Around this time St John was indicted for avoiding Anglican worship, though his status partially protected him, and although he was convicted, no formal judgment was recorded.31 SP16/229/20. Meanwhile, in October 1625 the Privy Council ordered the confiscation of any arms held by St John or his father. The government rejected a proposal that the family instead sell the weapons to help pay their debts, and after a series of delays the local authorities finally acted in the following February, seizing a ‘holy water sprinkler’ along with the guns and armour.32 APC, 1625-6, pp. 228, 336, 342; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 157, 172; SP16/23/104. Within three months the Council was obliged to order the release of gunpowder designated for use at Netley Castle, on the Hampshire coast, where St John was the captain. However, the other items were not returned until 1630, and then only on the understanding that they would be sold.33 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 317; APC, 1625-6, p. 493; 1630-1, p. 91.

In the 1626 parliamentary elections, St John secured a seat at St Ives for his wife’s cousin, Edward Savage. He himself stayed away from Westminster, again giving his proxy to Buckingham, though it was later transferred to the duke’s kinsman James Ley, 1st earl of Marlborough, probably after the ruling on 25 Feb. which limited the number of proxies held by one peer. Inevitably, St John was a target for anti-Catholic measures, and in June he was named in the Commons’ petition against recusant officeholders on account of his captaincy of Netley Castle.34 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 76; Procs. 1626, iv. 11-12, 211.

By 1628 Parliament’s focus had switched to secular grievances, and St John again felt able to attend the Lords, albeit only for the first two days. As in 1625 he then obtained permission to depart, his absence being formally noted on 22 March. Like his father, he awarded his proxy to his wife’s cousin Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland. He was doubtless also behind the election at St Ives of John Payne^‡, who was Edward Savage’s brother-in-law.35 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26-7, 40, 87; SO3/9, unfol. (21 Mar. 1628); CP, iv. 78-9; vi. 538; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 76. Two weeks into the 1629 session St John’s father died, and thus it was as marquess of Winchester that his absence was noted on 9 February. His proxy for this session, which at this juncture had not yet been received, was again given to Holland. Winchester was ostensibly in London on 16 Feb., when he was granted letters of administration for his father’s estate, but he did not attend the Lords.36 LJ, iv. 3b, 25b; PROB 6/13, f. 74.

In February 1630 the king and the lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, 1st Lord Weston (later 1st earl of Portland), agreed to be godfathers to Winchester’s son Charles^† (later 6th marquess of Winchester).37 C115/105/8122. This signal mark of approval cleared the way for the marquess to take his expected place in society, despite his continuing recusancy. Drawn reluctantly into the controversies that split the English Catholic community in the early 1630s, he sided firmly with the secular clergy, who advocated cooperation with the state as a means of achieving religious toleration.38 M. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern Eng. 439-40, 475-7; Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 99. Following the death of his first wife, it was rumoured in August 1632 that he would now marry the widowed duchess of Buckingham, though in the event he found an alternative Catholic bride, a daughter of the 1st earl of St Albans (Richard Bourke^*). This match in 1633 brought him a dowry reportedly of £8,000 or £10,000, a welcome boost to his existing estate, which comprised nearly 50 manors in six counties, but was almost entirely limited by trusts and entails.39 Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 124, 206; Add. 46,188, ff. 146, 148; C115/104/8111; 115/105/8210; C142/448/102; Savage Fortune ed. L. Boothman and R.H. Parker (Suff. Rec. Soc. xlix), pp. xxxiv-xxxv. Now acknowledged in recusant circles as ‘the best Catholic nobleman of England’, Winchester nevertheless also socialized with conspicuously Protestant peers such as Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, the new marchioness’s half-brother. Such pragmatism doubtless eased his way at court, where he became a firm favourite of both the king and queen, even though he rarely performed ceremonial functions.40 Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 79, 149; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP15/364; Add. 46188, f. 156; CP, iii. 231; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 83.

Summoned to attend Charles at York in early 1639, Winchester initially responded positively, but then had a change of heart, and instead contributed £500 towards the costs of the first Bishops’ War.41 SO1/3, ff. 114v-15; CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 478; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 605. He did, however, travel north in the following year for the Great Council of Peers, and from then on emerged as one of the king’s most stubborn supporters, attracting particular notice during the Civil War for his prolonged defence of Basing House against parliamentarian forces.42 SP16/466/42; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, iii. 409, 414, 427, 441; iv. 153. The claim in Cust, 320 that Winchester was a commr. of array in 1642 is unproven. Captured there in October 1645, the marquess was imprisoned in the Tower of London for two years, had his property sequestered, and until 1649 faced being tried for treason.43 CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 202; LJ, vii. 649b; CJ, iii. 280b; v. 294b; vi. 165a. Thereafter he remained in custody and exempt from pardon. However, during the following decade the bulk of the family estates were covertly recovered by his son Charles, who surprisingly acted through two of Oliver Cromwell’s^‡ closest associates, Charles Fleetwood^‡ and Walter Strickland^‡.44 CCC, 138; S.R. Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, i. 41; TSP, iv. 239, 444; J. Thirsk, ‘Sales of Roy. Land During the Interregnum’, EcHR, n.s. v. 192-3; C54/3728/30. At the Restoration Winchester was finally rehabilitated and officially restored to his lands, but received only limited compensation from Charles II for his losses. He passed his final years in retirement at Englefield, in Berkshire, a property that he had purchased in the 1630s, and died there in March 1675.45 LJ, xi. 128b; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 91; VCH Berks. iii. 408.