PERCY, Algernon (1602-68)

In terms of lineage, wealth and public standing, Northumberland was one of the most significant peers to side with Parliament during the Civil War. However, he also had more reason than most to distrust the crown. Styled Lord Percy from birth, (his unusual first name, Algernon, deriving from a notable Norman ancestor), he was barely three years old when his father Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland, was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the Gunpowder Plot. Although only the flimsiest of charges were proved against the earl, the latter was detained for nearly 16 years and heavily fined.45 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 167; Collins, ii. 218, 221, 334-5; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 518. These events impacted heavily on Percy, who became a regular visitor to the Tower of London, and achieved adulthood proud, aloof and taciturn. As Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon later observed, ‘he was in all his deportment a very great man, and that which looked like formality was a punctuality in preserving his dignity from the … intrusion of bold men; … no man had ever fewer idle words to answer for’. All but debarred from court by his father’s disgrace, Percy rounded off his education with an extended period of foreign travel. Not until 1624, by which time his father had been released, did he begin to take his place in society. With Northumberland now living in retirement, Percy emerged as de facto head of his family, gaining parliamentary experience in the Commons between 1624 and early 1626, and gradually accumulating local offices.46 Batho, 133; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, ii. 538; Chamberlain, ii. 390.

The 1626 Parliament

By the time the 1626 Parliament met, Percy had acquired an important ally at court in the form of his brother-in-law James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, a sometime royal favourite. He also benefited from the patronage of the current favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, who sought the gradual rehabilitation of Northumberland and his family. In return, the duke turned to Percy for support when facing impeachment charges during the 1626 Parliament, arranging his summons to the Lords in order to strengthen his position there.47 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 27; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 43; C115/109/8844.

Percy took his seat in the upper House on 28 Mar., supported by Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey) and Thomas Cromwell^*, 4th Lord Cromwell. Once ensconced in the Lords, he took charge of his father’s proxy, which had previously been held by Buckingham.48 Procs. 1626, i. 216; iv. 11. During the remainder of this session, Percy was present for at least four-fifths of the sittings, attracting ten committee nominations. Of these, five concerned bills relating to the rights and behaviour of the clergy, church courts, and Sabbath abuses. Another two dealt with the regulation of apparel.49 Ibid. i. 231, 265, 267, 295, 300, 313, 327. On 4 Apr. he was named to help draft a certificate explaining the Lords’ assessment of the rival claims of Willoughby de Eresby and Robert de Vere^* (subsequently 19th earl of Oxford), to the office of lord great chamberlain and the earldom of Oxford. The extent to which Percy supported Buckingham during the Parliament is difficult to determine. On 22 May he was appointed to examine witnesses in the trial for treason of John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, one of the duke’s fiercest critics. However, a week earlier, he denied that Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had made treasonable comments when presenting the Commons’ impeachment charges against the favourite, one of several Buckingham allies to break ranks in this way.50 Ibid. 251, 477, 483, 540.

During the session, Percy launched a bid to improve his position in the upper House. Having been summoned in his father’s barony, which had been recreated in 1557, he had been seated accordingly, in the fifth highest place on the barons’ bench. However, on 14 June the committee for privileges was instructed to consider Percy’s claim that the barony should properly be dated from its original creation on 1299. This audacious argument, if accepted, would leave him outranking all other barons except Edward Conway^*, 1st Lord (later 1st Viscount) Conway, who enjoyed seniority as a secretary of state. In the event, no verdict was reached before the Parliament’s dissolution, but Percy, determined to reassert his ancient lineage, would return to this issue in the next session.51 Ibid. 627; CP, x. 456, 465; LJ, iii. 543b.

Following the dissolution it was rumoured that Percy would purchase Buckingham’s office of master of the horse, but in the event he acquired the equivalent post in the queen’s household. In November 1626 he was also appointed joint lord lieutenant of the three northern counties, his first major local office.52 Procs. 1626, iv. 346. With his public career now taking off, Percy began to contemplate marriage. Remarkably, his choice fell on Lady Anne Cecil, daughter to the 2nd earl of Salisbury. His father Northumberland, who ascribed his downfall to the enmity of her grandfather, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, was kept completely in the dark until news of the engagement broke in January 1628. Understandably, Percy found himself accused by his father of subterfuge and betrayal, but, as he evidently calculated, the old man was soon mollified by the promise of a large dowry, and accepted the fait accompli. Following the marriage, Percy took up residence at Syon House, Middlesex, his childhood home, Northumberland preferring the family’s ancestral seat of Petworth, Sussex.53 Birch, i. 312; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 238-42; Household Pprs. of Henry Percy, Ninth Earl of Northumberland ed. G.R. Batho (Cam. Soc. 3rd ser. xciii), p. xix; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 246.

The 1628-9 Parliament

Back in the Lords in 1628, Percy once again represented his family, exercising a proxy vote for his father, who had opted to stay away. Until the end of May he was a very regular face in the upper House, missing just four sittings, though he still attracted only seven appointments. Named to confer with the Commons about a proposed general fast, he was also nominated to help present the king with the joint petition requesting permission to hold this event. Percy was appointed both to consider proposals presented by Buckingham for increasing trade and shipping, and named to a bill committee for improving navigation on the Medway, in Kent, an issue of concern to his brother-in-law, Robert Sidney^*, 2nd earl of Leicester, with whom he frequently socialized at this juncture.54 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 78, 86, 146, 377; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U1475/A28/1. His three other legislative committees addressed the management of gaols, juries at assize trials, and the estates of William Cavendish^*, 2nd earl of Devonshire. As well as these appointments, Percy also acted as a supporter during the introduction to the Lords of three more Buckingham clients, Mountjoy Blount^*, 1st Lord Mountjoy (later 1st earl of Newport), Edward Howard^*, 1st Lord Howard of Escrick, and George Goring^*, 1st Lord Goring (later 1st earl of Norwich).55 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 74, 104, 133, 221-2, 272.

While the Parliament was in session, on 7 Apr., Percy secured a royal patent affirming that his barony did indeed confer on him the precedence he had claimed in 1626, on the grounds that this privilege had been accidentally overlooked when the title was restored to his family by Mary I. However, if he assumed that the Lords would immediately implement the change of seating that he desired, he was disappointed. The issue was not even raised in the House until 26 May, at which point discussion was merely deferred to the next session. Curiously, Percy was excused attendance five days later, and appeared in the Lords for just four more sittings prior to the prorogation on 26 June. No explanation for this long absence was recorded, and although illness cannot be discounted, it is also possible that Percy preferred to stay away rather than tolerate what he saw as an affront to his dignity. His brief reappearance on 5-7 June was most likely prompted by the attack launched in the Commons against Buckingham following the king’s first, unsatisfactory answer to the Petition of Right. Once it became clear on 7 June that Charles would reconsider, Percy may have felt that the duke no longer required his support in the Lords.56 C66/2494/2; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 531, 570, 678.

Three weeks after the end of this session, Percy unexpectedly resigned as the queen’s master of horse, and retired to his estates, incurring the king’s displeasure in the process. He may have been dissatisfied with his terms of employment, for his successor, Lord Goring, was promptly awarded a larger allowance.57 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 218; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 386. However, it is clear that he had also fallen out with Buckingham. Tensions had first arisen in the previous year, when his father Northumberland expressed opposition to the Forced Loan, prompting the duke to threaten a withdrawal of favour from his family. On learning of Buckingham’s assassination in August 1628, Percy responded dispassionately, telling his father-in-law, Salisbury: ‘I cannot believe that he was ever friend to anything but his own ends, and so I leave him as yet unlamented’.58 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 43; Hatfield House, CP 131/43/2.

Percy missed only four sittings of the short 1629 parliamentary session, during which time he again held his father’s proxy. He received four appointments, the first two of which concerned bill committees dealing with clergy incomes, and the naturalization of Charlotte, wife to James Stanley^*, Lord Strange (later 7th earl of Derby). He was also nominated to help deliver the Lords’ petition to the king requesting financial relief for the 19th earl of Oxford, and named to consider a proposal for the establishment of an academy for educating the sons of the peers and greater gentry.59 LJ, iv. 3b, 8a, 15b, 34b, 39b. Once again, however, Percy’s principal business in Parliament was his precedence in the House. The matter was referred on 5 Feb. to the committee for privileges, whereupon his claim to be senior baron was challenged by three other peers with titles of great antiquity: Lord Strange; Henry Clifford^*, Lord Clifford (later 5th earl of Cumberland), and Henry Neville^*, 9th or 2nd Lord Abergavenny. However, the latter’s lawyers were forced to abandon their argument based on antiquity after Percy’s counsel presented solid evidence that his ancestors were held to be barons not simply from 1299, but as far back as the 1080s. They now questioned whether any peer summoned in his father’s barony could claim a precedence date prior to his own writ of summons. This argument, though largely discounted by the committee, served to prolong the inquiry, with the result that no conclusion was reached by the time the Parliament was dissolved.60 Ibid. 22a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 336, 339-40; Fairfax Corresp. ed. R. Bell, i. 159.

Royal favour restored, 1629-35

Although Percy could still rely on the earl of Carlisle’s support, his other close associate at this juncture was his father-in-law Salisbury, who, like Percy himself, was a somewhat marginal figure at court. For the next three years, Percy continued to exercise his existing offices, but received no new marks of royal favour.61 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 396, 557; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 246, 251-2; APC, 1629-30, pp. 213-14. The situation improved only after he succeeded to the earldom of Northumberland in November 1632. There is some substance to Clarendon’s claim that the king now began to befriend and promote the young earl. In January 1633 Charles decided that Northumberland should accompany him on his summer progress to Scotland, while two months later he was appointed a member of the council in the North. By April, stories were circulating that he had been created a knight of the Garter, a clear indication of his growing prominence.62 Clarendon, i. 354; LC5/132, p. 358; Rymer, viii. pt. 3, p. 262; Newletters from the Caroline Ct. 1631-8 ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 177. During the Scottish progress, Northumberland rose in the king’s estimation by responding with restraint when a young hothead, Peter Apsley, challenged him to a duel. This was the behaviour Charles expected of ‘a person of a most noble family’. Moreover, when Apsley was subsequently fined heavily and imprisoned, the earl generously interceded on his behalf once the miscreant had acknowledged his fault.63 CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 93, 104, 442; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 98-9, 102; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 243.

Around this time, Northumberland began to forge new political ties. While in Scotland, he was apparently on familiar terms with the lord chamberlain, Philip Herbert^*, 4th earl of Pembroke. Moreover, on his way south from Edinburgh he visited Sir Henry Vane^‡, a privy councillor and comptroller of the king’s household.64 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 303 [miscalendared as 1639]; HMC Cowper, ii. 26. Significantly, Northumberland also attracted the attention of the influential lord deputy of Ireland, Thomas Wentworth^*, 1st Viscount Wentworth (later 1st earl of Strafford), to whom he was distantly related. By 1633 one of the lord deputy’s principal English correspondents, George Garrard^‡, was a member of Northumberland’s household, and kept him informed of the earl’s activities. In March 1634 the earl of Carlisle commended Northumberland to Wentworth, praising him as ‘one of the honestest, discreetest, and ablest young lords about court’.65 Strafforde Letters, i. 166, 176, 206, 220, 360.

Surprisingly, another year passed before Northumberland himself began corresponding with Wentworth. By then, the king had finally agreed to make him a Garter knight, at the request of Henrietta Maria, who had herself been lobbied by the earl’s brother Henry^* (later 1st Lord Percy of Alnwick). Northumberland’s Garter cavalcade in May 1635, a solemn procession from London to Windsor which took place prior to his installation, was the most magnificent of that decade, comprising around 300 horsemen, including a marquess and 13 earls.66 Ibid. i. 360, 363, 390, 427; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 388; Cust, 135. Nevertheless, although he was appointed joint lord lieutenant of Sussex four months later, major government offices continued to elude him. He hosted both Carlisle and the chancellor of the Exchequer, Francis Cottington^†, Lord Cottington at Petworth that summer, and Wentworth responded warmly to his overtures, but still he was not offered the kind of advancement that he believed his rank warranted. Even his domestic life brought disappointment; Garrard jokingly described the earl as ‘a bungler at getting of boys’ when his wife bore their fourth daughter in September.67 CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 256, 385; Strafforde Letters, i. 428, 469.

Admiral of the Ship Money fleets, 1636-7

This situation changed dramatically at the start of the following year. Northumberland’s appointment in February 1636 as admiral of the second Ship Money fleet caused general surprise, as the earl had no previous experience of naval affairs, but was broadly well received. His predecessor, the 1st earl of Lindsey, had proved ineffectual, and it was hoped that Northumberland’s ‘noble birth’ and ‘great prudence and ability’ would deliver a better outcome. The earl himself, conscious that he was at last being given the chance to make his mark, prepared energetically for his new role, clarifying his instructions with the Privy Council, and taking a close interest in the fleet’s preparation.68 Strafforde Letters, i. 517, 524; CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 526, 533; CSP Dom. 1635-6, pp. 259, 291, 307, 346; C115/109/8856; In March, as a mark of royal favour, Northumberland was granted an annual pension of £2,000, which had previously been held by Carlisle, who had just died. However, the king was displeased when the earl delayed putting to sea in order to attend his brother-in-law’s funeral.69 SO3/11, unfol. (Mar. 1636); CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 561.

From May to October, Northumberland patrolled the English Channel and North Sea, attempting to suppress piracy, and issuing licences to Dutch fishermen, in order to assert England’s authority over its coastal waters.70 CSP Dom. 1635-6, pp. 441-2, 450, 462, 545, 560-1; 1636-7, pp. 27, 358; HMC 3rd Rep. 72. The voyage was not entirely problem-free. The fleet was too small to accomplish all the tasks assigned to it, and poor communications hampered its response to unscheduled developments. In June the earl inadvertently arrested a Dutch ambassador. A month later, as a result of orders arriving late, he permitted the delivery to Flanders of a consignment of Spanish bullion that should first have been taxed and re-coined in England.71 CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 442; 1636-7, pp. 78, 116; CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 7-8; HMC Cowper, ii. 122, 124-6, 137, 141; HMC 3rd Rep. 72-3; C115/108/8603-4. Nevertheless, the licensing of the Dutch fishing fleet was reasonably successful. Although only £501 was raised from sales of licences, several hundred boats were made to comply with the English demands, thereby strengthening English claims to sovereignty over the Channel. Moreover, any encounters with Dutch warships had been handled diplomatically.72 A.D. Thrush, ‘Navy under Chas. I, 1625-40’ (Univ. of London Ph.D. thesis, 1991), 11; C115/108/8603; HMC Cowper, ii. 130, 134-5, 144; Birch, ii. 253-4; CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 156-7. By late summer, Northumberland was becoming more confident in his own judgment, and the king declared himself well satisfied with the earl’s ‘gallant and discreet carriage’.73 HMC Cowper, ii. 134-5; Alnwick Castle, Northumberland ms 14, f. 14 (BL microfilm).

Northumberland fell ill shortly after his return to dry land, but in early November his good service was formally recognized when he was sworn a member of the Privy Council.74 HMC Cowper, ii. 146; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 60. Around the same time, presumably in the hope of being appointed lord admiral, he drew the king’s attention to the fleet’s perceived shortcomings. Charles promptly commissioned a detailed report on these concerns, which ranged from the poor condition of ships and victuals, to problems with mariners’ pay. The most serious critique of naval administration for nearly two decades, this document identified a number of issues that were insuperable in the short term, such as the age of many of the vessels. Unsurprisingly, given his brief acquaintance with these matters, the earl was better at observing flaws than suggesting solutions.75 Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 445; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 202; Thrush, 95-8, 101. He also offended the Admiralty commissioners and Navy board by taking his complaints straight to the Privy Council, rather than first consulting the men who would have to implement any reforms. The king’s decision to exclude Northumberland from the Admiralty commission until he had acquired more experience made that dialogue more difficult. In February 1637 the earl despondently informed Wentworth that discussions were proceeding so slowly that he had abandoned all hope of reforms being achieved.76 Strafforde Letters, ii. 40, 42, 49; Thrush, 37; Works of Abp. Laud, vii. ed. J. Bliss, 297, 311.

Northumberland was now consolidating his relationship with the lord deputy, who believed that the crown benefited from employing men of the earl’s rank and wealth, and accordingly encouraged him to persevere with his reform agenda. As Wentworth explained in March, the current situation might be unsatisfactory, but it was through loyal service that greater rewards would be achieved. The lord deputy’s ally, William Laud^*, archbishop of Canterbury, also provided consistent support, helping to cement this bond at a time when Northumberland badly needed guidance, and increasingly doubted the sincerity of rival courtiers such as Cottington and Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland, the latter of whom was his rival for the office of lord admiral. Wentworth’s advice struck home. When the king appointed Northumberland to command the 1637 Ship Money fleet, the earl complied without argument, while privately assuring the lord deputy that he would much rather have refused.77 Strafforde Letters, ii. 42-5, 49, 51, 54; Cust, 47; Laud’s Works, vii. 300; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 79, 94.

In March 1637 the Privy Council finally approved some minor changes to naval administration in response to Northumberland’s complaints, and further reforms seemed to be on the cards. Wentworth, having established that the post of lord high admiral was being reserved for Prince James (James Stuart^†, duke of York), who was still an infant, began pushing for Northumberland to be appointed to this role on an interim basis. The earl soon warmed to this idea, promising the lord deputy that he would apply himself to that summer’s voyage ‘with cheerfulness’.78 CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 502; Strafforde Letters, ii. 54, 67. However, it was early June before he finally received his new instructions, as the king was waiting on the outcome of protracted negotiations for a new French alliance, intended to achieve the restoration of the Palatinate to Charles’s nephew. Northumberland, whose brother-in-law, the 2nd earl of Leicester, was currently ambassador to Paris, knew enough about these talks to question Louis XIII’s sincerity, and indeed the viability of the Palatine cause, and grew frustrated at this delay. Writing to Wentworth on 28 Apr., he complained: ‘The fleet is almost ready to put to sea, but yet I know not how it shall be employed; … if the king have not more use of his fleet than is yet known, he may well save one half of the charge, and give me leave to stay at home’.79 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 101, 110, 117-18; Strafforde Letters, ii. 71; CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 219.

Northumberland finally joined the fleet in mid June, but found himself with little to do. It was clear that the Dutch were likely this time to resist any attempt to impose fishing licences, and the king, recognizing that his fleet was no match for the Dutch navy, instructed the earl merely to offer the licences in return for protection against Dunkirk privateers. Predictably, the fishermen refused to take them.80 CSP Dom. 1637, pp. 215, 281-2, 287, 292, 307, 337; CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 231, 235. After six weeks at sea, with no resolution in sight, Northumberland was finally ordered instead to pursue pirates in the Channel. However, in early September this patrol was also cut short, due to bad weather and a shortage of victuals. Increasingly pessimistic about both the international situation and his own prospects, Northumberland informed Sir Thomas Roe^‡: ‘No man was ever more desirous of a charge than I am to be quit of mine, being in a condition where I see I can neither do service nor gain credit’. His dissatisfaction was reported widely enough for it to be noted by the Venetian ambassador.81 CSP Dom. 1637, pp. 347, 370, 384, 408; SP16/365/28; HMC Cowper, ii. 166; CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 271.

Lord admiral, 1638-9

Northumberland had not long completed his report on the 1637 voyage, in which he blamed the sinking of one ship on negligent maintenance, when his wife died unexpectedly in early December. As Garrard recorded, ‘he took her death most heavily; passion hath the least outward power of [sic: over] him of any man I know, yet in this it had got on him a great mastery’.82 CSP Dom. 1637, p. 578; Thrush, 343; Strafforde Letters, ii. 142. A much more agreeable surprise awaited Northumberland three months later. In mid March 1638, the king announced that the earl, who was already expected to command the next Ship Money fleet, would exercise the office of lord admiral during the duke of York’s minority. Northumberland had not solicited this promotion, and although he correctly suspected Wentworth’s influence, it was ultimately Charles himself who decided on the appointment. The earl of Holland, who had coveted the role for himself, temporarily withdrew from court in high dudgeon, but Northumberland’s elevation met with general approval.83 CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 377; PC2/49, f. 19r-v; Strafforde Letters, ii. 152-4; Thrush, 25-6; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 321.

Another month passed before the earl’s patent was sealed, by which time the king had made it clear that he would himself continue to play an active role in the management of the Navy, personally settling the list of captains for the summer patrol.84 Coventry Docquets, 205; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 356; Thrush, 28-9. However, Northumberland soon faced a much more serious challenge to his position. In late April, he developed ‘a most malignant fever’, which lasted for three weeks, and at one stage appeared life-threatening. The earl recovered slowly, suffering a relapse in June which forced him to abandon all hope of going to sea that year.85 Strafforde Letters, ii. 168; Laud’s Works, vi. 526; vii. 453; C115/109/8818; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 145; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 523. Command of the Ship Money fleet was handed to Northumberland’s usual deputy, Sir John Pennington, while control of Admiralty business passed temporarily to the earl’s friend Sir Henry Vane. By the end of July Northumberland was once again issuing instructions, but it was September before he was well enough to appear at court.86 CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 366, 428, 523, 578, 608; Strafforde Letters, ii. 185. He then succumbed in October to a violent attack of gout, which left him bed-bound for nearly two months, unable even to write. As one of Leicester’s servants commented, he seemed to have become ‘an old man in his youth’.87 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 59, 92, 103; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 151-2, 154.

Northumberland’s protracted ill health prevented him from attending the early meetings of the committee appointed to advise the king on the mounting crisis in Scotland. He was evidently briefed on its proceedings, as he was able to update Wentworth in July on the current balance of opinion. Arundel, Cottington and one secretary of state, Sir Francis Windebank^‡, favoured a military solution. However, Northumberland, like Vane and the latter’s fellow secretary, Sir John Coke^‡, believed that England was totally unprepared for war; the Exchequer was all but empty, while arms and experienced soldiers were both in short supply. Moreover, the king’s English subjects were ‘generally so discontented, by reason of the multitude of projects daily imposed upon them’, that they seemed more likely to side with the Scots than fight for their monarch. In the short term at least, it was better to reach terms with Scotland ‘than rashly to enter into war, not knowing how to maintain or indeed to begin it’. Wentworth broadly concurred, advising Northumberland to avoid any army commission he was offered, but urging steps to prepare for a future campaign.88 Strafforde Letters, ii. 186, 190-2.

During August 1638, the earl authorized surveillance of the Scottish coast, and in the following month he was instructed to reinforce the garrison on Lindisfarne. However, when the king finally decided in November to quell the Scots by force, command of the English army was assigned to Arundel, Northumberland being ruled out by his latest illness. If anything, the earl was relieved at being passed over as general. Still not fully fit in January 1639, he assured Wentworth that the country was no more ready for war than it had been a year earlier. A Parliament was the only obvious solution to the financial shortfall, but supply was unlikely to be granted, as popular discontent continued to increase, ‘there being no course taken to give any kind of satisfaction’.89 CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 595, 608; 1638-9, pp. 9, 131; Strafforde Letters, ii. 259, 266-7.

Northumberland enjoyed much better health during 1639, apart from some complaint which prompted him to take the waters at Bath in July.90 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 214, 378, 383, 392-3, 403. Accordingly, he became more active as lord admiral. It was probably around now that he drafted a memorandum on further reforms needed to the Navy, such as improving the efficiency of victualling, and preventing English mariners from enlisting in foreign vessels. Some improvements were achieved. Following a survey in September of all royal ships, the Privy Council authorized the replacement of two which were deemed unseaworthy. The earl was also finally exercising real power over Navy appointments, in January unexpectedly securing the joint treasurership for Henry Vane^‡, son of his political ally Sir Henry Vane.91 Alnwick Castle, Northumberland ms 14, f. 128 (BL, microfilm); Thrush, 29, 101-2; Add. 9297, ff. 359-63; PC2/50, f. 328A; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 159. Nevertheless, Northumberland was still obliged to defer to the king over the deployment of his resources, a constraint which he found increasingly irksome. Preparations for that summer’s Ship Money fleet were disrupted when Charles decided that a number of the vessels were required to escort soldiers being transported north by sea to fight the Scots. The customary Channel patrol was delayed until June as a result, and was prevented from dealing effectually with that year’s principal crisis, a confrontation in the Downs between Dutch and Spanish fleets, because the king took a month to settle on a course of action, much to the earl’s annoyance.92 Thrush, 32; PC2/50, ff. 9v-10; CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 25-6, 274-5, 494-5, 503-5, 538-9; 1639-40, p. 22; Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 612-13.

The First Bishops’ War, and later life 1639-68

Meanwhile, Northumberland was heavily involved in preparations for the First Bishops’ War, serving on the key planning committee, and, as lord lieutenant of Northumberland, attempting to address the deficiencies of the local militia in this key border county.93 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 339-40, 367-8, 449-50, 591. He remained sceptical of the chances of military success, writing to Wentworth on 29 Jan. 1639: ‘I find so much want of experience in those who manage this business, and such regards to private ends, that I have little hope to see any design prosper that may tend to the public good, honour or safety of this land’. In his opinion, senior appointments had been mishandled as a result of in-fighting at court, Arundel threatening to resign as general when Holland was given command of the cavalry at the request of the 3rd marquess of Hamilton (James Hamilton^*, 2nd earl of Cambridge), the king’s Scottish cousin, whom Northumberland believed possessed too much influence over Charles.94 Strafforde Letters, ii. 276. Moreover, there was still no coherent strategy for funding the royal army. The earl was probably one of the privy councillors who argued around this time for Parliament to be summoned, only for the king to veto the proposal. Instead, Charles expected his peers to spend their own money on the war. Northumberland strongly resented this demand, and must have been dismayed when Wentworth backed the king’s decision.95 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 377-8; Cust, 180; Strafforde Letters, ii. 280.

In March the earl was appointed general of all forces south of the Trent, and entrusted with the queen’s safety while Charles headed north to join his army. As one of the most senior councillors left behind at Whitehall, he applied himself conscientiously to government business while the military situation on the Scottish border settled into an uneasy stalemate. However, following the king’s return to London in August, he found himself largely excluded from the key policy discussions.96 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 622; 1639, pp. 350, 435; PC2/50, ff. 100v, 112, 137v. Despite his domestic difficulties, Charles remained committed to his strategy of recovering the Palatinate for his nephew, through an alliance with either France or Spain. Northumberland, whose brother-in-law Leicester was still negotiating with the French government, favoured the former option, as did Sir Henry Vane. However, the king’s most trusted advisers, notably Wentworth and Laud, espoused the Spanish side. Northumberland did not help his position by lobbying energetically for Leicester to be recalled, and appointed either as a secretary of state or as the next lord deputy of Ireland, proposals which were blocked by Laud and Wentworth respectively. Thus, the latter’s return from Dublin, which the earl had initially welcomed, quickly proved a disappointment.97 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 604, 613, 618, 623; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 182; Strafforde Letters, ii. 380.

In mid October 1639, Northumberland and Wentworth were both added to the committee given the task of devising a new response to the ever-worsening Scottish crisis. However, the earl found himself increasingly out of sympathy with the hard line being demanded by his former mentor, who was also pressing for a new treaty with Spain. Northumberland gloomily warned Leicester on 14 Nov. that there was now little chance of a French alliance, ‘when [the archbishop of] Canterbury, Hamilton and [the lord] deputy, who are the persons that do absolutely govern, are as much Spanish as Olivares’, Philip IV’s chief minister. As he lost ground in the government, the earl turned increasingly to another of Wentworth’s critics, Vane, and in early December Northumberland’s sister, the dowager countess of Carlisle, described the two men as ‘much united and ever of one opinion’.98 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 613-14, 617; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 201, 207-8.

With a further campaign against Scotland now inevitable, Wentworth, who sought to avoid a complete breach with Northumberland, now pressed for his former friend to be appointed general of the new army, Arundel’s recent poor health having ruled him out of contention. The king, as usual, concurred with the lord deputy, though the formal announcement was delayed until the end of December. A reluctant Northumberland was left once again to ponder how the war would be funded. Charles had finally agreed to request parliamentary supply, but in the short term money was urgently needed for reinforcing the northern border, and the king demanded loans of up to £20,000 from his privy councillors. However, a still resentful Northumberland merely offered £5,000, significantly less than he could afford. In January 1640 he explained to Leicester: ‘I believed the king would not expect from me (whose house hath in these latter ages received little or no advantage from the crown) the like assistance that he may do from those persons that have raised fortunes by his favours, or hold beneficial places under him.’99 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 204, 208; CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 194; Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 623-4, 626; Alnwick Castle, Northumberland ms 15, f. 1v (BL, microfilm).

In the event, Northumberland was too ill during the summer of 1640 to play an active role in the disastrous Second Bishops’ War. Having sided with the reformers in the Long Parliament, he was dismissed as lord admiral in June 1642, and declined to back the king during the Civil War. However, he helped to lead the peace party in the Lords, opposed Charles’s execution, and withdrew from public life during the Commonwealth. Although pardoned at the Restoration, and reappointed to the Privy Council, Northumberland never recovered his former prestige. He died on 13 Oct. 1668, and was buried at Petworth. His only son died less than two years later, leaving a daughter, through whom the estates and name of Percy passed eventually to Sir Hugh Smithson^†, created duke of Northumberland in 1766.100 M.C. Fissel, Bishops’ Wars, 51-2; Thrush, 64-5; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Great Civil War, i. 53; iv. 289; HMC Pepys, 295; Al. Cant.; CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 44; CP, ix. 738-40, 743.