SIDNEY, Robert (1595-1677)

Scholarly and reserved, with a tendency towards irresolution,30 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 434. Sidney was heir (after the death of his elder brother in 1612) to the leading magnate in Kent. Bred up from the age of 16 as a soldier, he commanded a regiment of English infantry in Dutch service between 1616 and 1623, but quit his commission due to the poverty and illness of his father, the former governor of Flushing (Vlissingen), who purchased the earldom of Leicester in 1618. The latter was a committed Calvinist and deeply hostile to Spain, like his nephew the lord chamberlain, the 3rd earl of Pembroke (William Herbert^*). Sidney shared the Protestant zeal of his father and cousin, and consequently, as ambassador extraordinary to France in 1636, he visited the Huguenot community at Charenton.31 Sydney Pprs. ed. R.W. Blencowe, 261. This led William Laud^*, archbishop of Canterbury, to describe him in 1639 as ‘a most dangerous practising puritan’.32 Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, vii. 568. However, there is, in fact, little reason to assume that he was anything other than an orthodox Calvinist. Sidney himself pointedly remarked that he had never been called a puritan ‘by anybody that was not a papist’.33 J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic, 1623-77, p. 53. See also Oxford DNB, l. 573.

Sidney was 20 when he married Lady Dorothy Percy, whose father Henry Percy*, 3rd earl of Northumberland, spent 15 years in prison on suspicion of involvement in the Gunpowder Plot. Their union was a love match, and was both fruitful (producing 15 children) and happy.34 G. Warkentein, ‘Robert Sidney (1595-1677), Second Earl of Leicester’, Ashgate Research Companion to the Sidneys, 1500-1700, I: Lives ed. M.P. Hannay, M.G. Brennan and M.E. Lamb, 124. Dorothy’s sister Lucy married James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, with whom Sidney enjoyed a close relationship, although the two men quarrelled in 1622, after Sidney’s daughter, Mary Wroth, traduced in print Carlisle’s former father-in-law, Edward Denny^*, earl of Norwich.35 HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 331. The two men may have become reconciled as early as 21 Dec. 1622, when Sidney gave 4s. 6d. to the porter of Essex House. Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U1475/A41/4, unfol. Like Carlisle, Sidney lived (by 1626) in an apartment at Essex House, the Thames-side residence belonging to his wife’s grandmother, the dowager countess of Leicester (widow of Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester and Walter Devereux^†, 1st earl of Essex).36 Sidneiana ed. S. Butler (Roxburghe Club), 105-6; R.E. Schreiber, The First Carlisle (Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. lxxiv), 140.

The Parliament of 1628-9

Sidney was 30 when he inherited the earldom of Leicester in July 1626. Initially at least, his situation was unenviable. Although his landed estate was worth around £3,200 p.a.,37 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 554. his father had died deeply in debt, the result of serious mismanagement. Rather than lay the blame for this state of affairs where it belonged, Leicester directed his anger at the family’s servant Thomas Nevitt, whom he dismissed, despite his long service.38 Sidneiana, 105-6. At around the same time he sought from the king, Charles I, the arrears due on his father’s pension, amounting to £1,200.39 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 135. However, following the 1626 Parliament the Exchequer was bare, and although the king subsequently raised the Forced Loan, this fresh supply was spent entirely on the wars with Spain and France.

Leicester was appointed a commissioner for the Forced Loan for his native Kent in November 1626. He evidently discharged the responsibilities of this office without demur, and contributed his share of the charge. However, he evidently admired one of the leading Loan refusers, Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick. In the first three months of 1628 Warwick, who shared Leicester’s religious outlook, frequently dined at Essex House. Indeed, on one occasion (16 Jan.) Warwick was actually Leicester’s sole guest at supper.40 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U1475/A28/1, unfol.

Leicester and Warwick may have been united by more than resentment at the Forced Loan. In 1626 Warwick had supported the impeachment of the king’s chief minister and royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, for which offence he had been dismissed from his principal local office. Leicester, too, like his cousin the earl of Pembroke, seems to have held Buckingham in low regard. According to Sir Allen Apsley, one of the duke’s allies, Leicester was responsible for arranging for his brother-in-law Henry Percy^† (later Lord Percy of Alnwick) to be returned for Marlborough at a by election in March 1628, though this seat was actually controlled by William Seymour^*, 2nd earl of Hertford. Apsley claimed that Leicester assumed that Percy ‘would run the same way as they did that hated the duke’.41 Procs. 1628, p. 123. (Apsley’s son Peter may have been the Mr Apsley who was a guest at two of Leicester’s dinner parties in March 1628.) Further evidence that Leicester disliked Buckingham is suggested by the fact that another of his regular dining companions in 1628 was the Herefordshire squire Sir William Croft^‡, who, as one of the Members for Malmesbury in 1626, had supported Buckingham’s impeachment, for which offence he had been deprived of his court office.42 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U1475/A28/1, unfol. On the other hand, both Leicester and Croft had attended the same Oxford college, and they remained friends even after the assassination of Buckingham.43 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 391.

Leicester made his debut in the House of Lords when the third Caroline Parliament opened on 17 Mar. 1628. Despite being a novice in the upper chamber, Leicester was not formally introduced to the Lords, as this was a practice reserved for newly created peers rather than for those who owed their seats to right of inheritance. However, unusually for a newcomer, he was appointed to the committee for privileges, in acknowledgement, perhaps, that he had previously sat four times in the Commons.

Five days into the meeting, on 22 Mar., Leicester gave the first public indication that he was opposed to Buckingham. Along with Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, he formally introduced to the House John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol.44 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 86. The latter was one of Buckingham’s bitterest enemies, while Essex had opposed both the duke and the Forced Loan, for which offences he had been dismissed as lord lieutenant of Staffordshire. Although Leicester never seems to have befriended Bristol, he evidently warmed to Essex, who, that same evening was one of his guests at supper. It may have been at this gathering that Essex was persuaded to use his influence with his brother-in-law the earl of Hertford to return Henry Percy (his cousin) for Marlborough. The other diners that evening included Essex’s fellow Loan refuser, the earl of Warwick, and Spencer Compton^*, 1st Lord Compton (later 2nd earl of Northampton), who was related by marriage to Buckingham. The latter’s inclusion indicates that Leicester’s dinner parties were not exclusively anti-Buckingham affairs, as does the fact that the duke’s stalwart Sir George Goring^* (later Lord Goring and 1st earl of Norwich) was occasionally also a guest.45 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U1475/U77.

Although he publicly signalled his opposition to Buckingham by helping to introduce Bristol to the Lords, Leicester took little recorded part in the 1628 session, which was dominated not by the duke but by the Commons’ attempt to obtain binding guarantees in respect of the liberties of the subject. Nevertheless, on 3 Apr. he was appointed to assist those peers assigned to report on the forthcoming conference with the Commons to discuss the liberties of the subject. Whether he kept notes, as he had in his first Parliament in 1614, is unknown. However, he subsequently obtained a fair copy of a parliamentary ‘separate’ which recorded the conference, entitled ‘The Arguments Argued in Parliament, with all the Records and Precedents concerning the liberty of the subject, with Mr Attorney’s objections, Serjeant Ashley seconding Mr Ashley’.46 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 157; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U1475/U77.

Leicester is recorded as having been appointed to just four committees during the course of the session. The first - the privileges committee – has already been mentioned. The second, on 21 Mar., was to confer with the Commons about petitioning the king to hold a national day of fasting. His third appointment, on 17 Apr., concerned the estate bill of his fellow Kent peer, Henry Neville^*, 9th (or 2nd) Lord Abergavenny. His final appointment, on 18 Apr., was to consider a bill to make the Medway navigable between Maidstone and his seat at Penshurst.47 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 82, 258, 264. It seems likely that Leicester himself was one of the sponsors of this latter measure as, four years earlier, a London projector named Michael Cole had entered into a provisional agreement with Leicester’s father and several other landowners in the Medway valley to open up the Medway between Maidstone and Penshurst in return for a monopoly of the local river transport.48 P. Clark, Eng. Provincial Soc. 348-9. In addition to these four appointments, Leicester attended the committee for petitions, although there is no record that he was ever named to its ranks. Indeed, it was at this committee on 24 June that he made his only recorded speech of the session. He proposed that, in a dispute involving some property, the House should act as mediators between the town of Leicester and the king.49 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 695. For a list of the cttee’s named members, see ibid. 79. Leicester was initially appointed to a further committee, on 29 Mar., concerning the bill to enfranchise the copyholders of the Denbighshire lordships of Bromfield and Yale. These properties fell within the jurisdiction of the council in the Marches of Wales, whose lord president was William Compton^*, 1st earl of Northampton. Since the latter’s son Spencer, Lord Compton, had been his dinner guest one week earlier, Leicester may have been included for social reasons. However, he was subsequently removed from the committee list.50 Ibid. 125n.

Leicester attended the Lords regularly during the first six weeks of the session. Indeed, before the end of April he is recorded as having missed only three sittings (on 19 and 24 Mar., and 26 April). Thereafter, however, his absences were more frequent. They were particularly pronounced after 26 May, when the Lords finally decided to endorse without alteration the Petition of Right, which condemned, among things, unparliamentary levies such as the Forced Loan. Whether this suggests that Leicester had now developed cold feet is unclear. Although he was granted leave of absence on three separate occasions, his excuses to the House have gone unrecorded.51 Ibid. 570, 629, 678.

Leicester failed to attend the opening of the second session on 20 Jan. 1629, and so was appointed to the privileges committee in absentia. He also missed the second day of sitting two days later. These absences are perhaps surprising, given that on 18 Jan. he was at his seat in Kent, Penshurst Place, which lay less than a day’s ride from Westminster.52 LJ, iv. 6a; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 327. Following his arrival, however, he played little part in proceedings. He made no recorded speeches, and, aside from the privileges committee, was appointed to only one committee, to survey munitions. However, on 29 Jan. he complained to the House that he had been ignored by the commissioners appointed to examine a dispute between himself and the heirs of Sir Robert Dudley over the ownership of various lands in Warwickshire. He had warned them not to begin their investigation while Parliament was sitting, but they had proceeded anyway, publishing and distributing a decree issued by Chancery some years earlier, in defiance of parliamentary privilege. Three weeks later, the House ruled that the chief commissioner, William Wise, was guilty of contempt and ordered him to be confined to the Fleet prison, where he remained for the next four days.53 LJ, iv. 16a, 16b, 34a, 37b, 39a; PA, HL/JO/10/1/38 (19 Feb. 1629). On Sir Robert Dudley, see ROBERT SIDNEY, 1ST EARL OF LEICESTER.

Embassy to Denmark, 1632

By the autumn of 1630, if not sooner, Leicester had decided that he and his wife should no longer continue living in Essex House whenever they were in London.54 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 366. His brother-in-law Carlisle had gravitated towards the pro-Spanish faction at court, and Leicester, a francophile, may have found the existing arrangement awkward. As early as December 1629 he obtained a royal licence to alienate his Kent estate to the earl of Pembroke’s former secretary Sir Edward Leech^‡ and the lawyer Ralph Whitfield^‡, from whom he frequently borrowed money.55 Coventry Docquets, 596; HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 761. This enabled him to mortgage his principal properties and thereby raise the money needed to build his own town house in Westminster. By 1631 he had identified a suitable spot in the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields, a four acre site known as Swan Close. However, the parishioners objected to his planned development, claiming that the field was actually common land. After an investigation by the Privy Council over the summer, these complaints were largely brushed aside, and in August the king granted Leicester permission to proceed. However, Leicester was required to pay the parishioners £3 p.a. in perpetuity by way of compensation. The new building, known as Leicester House, took at least six years to complete and reportedly cost £8,000. Its architect is unknown, but it may have been designed by Leicester himself.56 APC, 1630-1, p. 394; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 132; S. West, ‘Penshurst Place and Leicester House’, Ashgate Companion to the Sidneys, 1500-1700, pp. 286-9; [William, duke of Manchester], Court and Soc., Eliz. to Anne, i. 333. The upper rooms were being finished in April 1637: Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 489.

By the late 1620s Leicester, now in his mid thirties, was ambitious for high office. In October 1629 he approached his cousin Pembroke, now lord steward, for help to become lord deputy of Ireland. This office had once been held by Leicester’s paternal grandfather, Sir Henry Sidney^‡, and the current incumbent, Henry Carey^‡, 1st Viscount Falkland [S], having recently received orders of dismissal. However, Leicester was told that the king had already promised this office to Henry Danvers^*, 1st earl of Danby.57 Add. 15914, f. 84. This was not necessarily disheartening news, as Danby had jeopardized his chances of appointment by failing to go on a special embassy to France. However, Leicester’s hopes were soon dashed, as the king decided that Ireland should be governed in the short term governed by two lords justices. When, in January 1632, Charles appointed Falkland’s replacement, he chose not Leicester but a rising star at court, Thomas Wentworth^*, Viscount Wentworth (later 1st earl of Strafford).

Not until April 1632 did the king find meaningful employment for Leicester. Despite having no previous diplomatic experience, the earl was appointed ambassador extraordinary to Denmark. Charles’s maternal grandmother, Sophia of Mecklenburg, had recently died, and Leicester, aside from offering Charles’s condolences, was instructed to demand payment of a large inheritance, for at her death Sophia was extremely wealthy, and by Danish law a fifth of her estate, worth nearly two million dollars, was due to Charles.58 J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae ed. J. Jacobs, 288. Leicester was also ordered to press the Danes to enter into a military alliance for the recovery of the Palatinate, which territory had formerly been ruled by Charles’s brother-in-law before being overrun by the Catholic Habsburgs. Recently part of this principality, the Lower Palatinate, had been conquered by Sweden’s Protestant king, Gustavus Adolphus. Although Charles had provided Gustavus with limited military support in the form of 6,000 troops under James Hamilton^*, 3rd marquess of Hamilton [S] (2nd earl of Cambridge in the English peerage), he did not trust the Swedes to restore the Lower Palatinate to its rightful owners unless compelled to do so by the threat of an Anglo-Danish alliance with the Habsburgs. Finally, Leicester was to ask the Danes to help restore free trade with the free town of Hamburg. The Danes had recently imposed heavy tolls on ships trading with Hamburg, and unless these duties were lifted England would soon have to look to north America to buy important maritime wares.59 R. Cant, ‘Embassy of the Earl of Leicester to Denmark in 1632’, EHR, liv. 253-6.

Leicester left England on 15 Sept. and landed three days later. After a week’s delay, he was received by the Danish king, Christian IV, at Rendsburg, accompanied by nearly 100 fellow mourners, at which meeting he presented Charles’s proposals for a military alliance. However, Christian was reluctant to commit his country to war, having only recently suffered a series of crushing military defeats. He was equally unwilling to allow payment of the money due from the late queen dowager’s estate, as Charles had previously failed to honour promises of generous financial support during Denmark’s recent war with the Habsburgs, and loans advanced to Charles’s father, James I, had not been repaid. Until these debts were settled, he declared, he would withhold the legacy demanded. Leicester responded by pointing out, as instructed, that the promised military subsidies had been renegotiated at The Hague in 1625, and that, if anything, Charles had paid more to the Danes than was due to them by treaty. However, Christian remained unmoved, and in December Leicester returned home, having first refused to accept the present customarily given to an ambassador on his departure. His only achievement was to persuade Christian to lift the tolls on English ships leaving Hamburg.60 Ibid. 257-61; Howell, 294, 301, 303-4; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 60.

Leicester must have been disappointed by the outcome of his embassy, the cost of which he was obliged to subsidize himself. His attempts to obtain payment of the sums he had laid out from his own purse initially met with a slow response, but in 1634 he persuaded the lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, 1st earl of Portland, to assign him £1,000 upon the farm of the greenwax. However, the farmers, led by the 1st earl of Berkshire (Thomas Howard^*), refused to pay this money, it having already been assigned to another purpose.61 Howell, 307, 322 (letter mis-dated 1635); CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 51, 64 (but note, the calendar mistakenly refers to ‘Greenwich’ rather than ‘greenwax’). Not until May 1635 was Leicester granted a fresh warrant.62 T56/1, f. 23.

Embassy to France, 1636-9

Although Leicester had returned from Denmark with little to show for his efforts, his reputation was greatly enhanced. In December 1635 one well informed observer remarked that, being ‘a lord of extraordinary good parts’, he was being considered for appointment as governor to the king’s eldest son, Prince Charles (Charles Stuart^†, duke of Cornwall and the future Charles II).63 Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 490. In the event, the king decided to employ Leicester in a diplomatic capacity once again.

Leicester was appointed ambassador extraordinary to France in February 1636. His instructions, issued in April, were to seek French assistance to recover the Palatinate, the lower part of which France now controlled (the Swedes having departed following their defeat at Nördlingen in September 1634). France, now at war with both Spain and the Holy Roman empire, was to be pressed to surrender to the emperor the duchy of Lorraine, which she had overrun in April 1634. The emperor had declared that he would not make peace until the duke of Lorraine had been reinstated, and therefore an exchange of Lorraine for the Palatinate, the upper part of which was controlled by the duke of Bavaria, seemed an obvious solution. Leicester was also instructed to tell the French that Thomas Howard^*, 21st/14th earl of Arundel had been dispatched to the emperor to require the Palatinate’s restoration. Unless the emperor agreed to this demand, Leicester was to threaten that Charles would take up arms against the Habsburgs.64 K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 85, 525.

The main reason Leicester was chosen for this delicate diplomatic task was his well known sympathy for France and his hatred of Spain. Like his brother-in-law Algernon Percy^*, 4th earl of Northumberland, he was one of the Calvinist followers of Charles’s French queen, Henrietta Maria, the leading advocate at court of a French alliance.65 M. Smuts, ‘Puritan Followers of Queen Henrietta Maria’, EHR, xciii. 27. Leicester was devoted to the queen, describing himself in one letter as her ‘slave’, as her ‘most obedient creature’ in another.66 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 387, 573. His loyalty to Henrietta Maria was matched only by his enthusiasm for war with the Habsburgs. ‘Nothing’, he told Secretary of State Sir John Coke^‡, ‘can be more glorious, nor more religious in the sight of God’, than war with Spain.67 I. Atherton, Ambition and Failure in Stuart Eng.: the Career of John, First Visct. Scudamore,193. Little wonder that his selection as ambassador extraordinary pleased the French king’s chief minister, Cardinal Richelieu.68 CSP Ven. 1636-9, pp. 18-19, 83; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 249.

Leicester left for France in May 1636, one month after the departure of Arundel, having first put his capable wife in charge of his estate.69 CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 562; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 554. As the French claimed to be keen to secure an alliance, his mission was expected to last no more than three months.70 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 598. However, it soon became apparent that Leicester faced an uphill task and would require more time. One reason for this was that France had already made it clear that she had no intention of relinquishing control of Lorraine, whose duke had previously harboured Louis XIII’s rebel brother.71 CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 543; Sharpe, 82. Moreover, despite their protestations to the contrary, the French did not share England’s enthusiasm for restoring the Palatinate to its Calvinist rulers, who had long backed France’s troublesome Huguenots.72 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 412. See also the perceptive analysis of Lord Deputy Wentworth: Strafforde Letters, ii. 77. On the contrary, they secretly supported the duke of Bavaria, who had been declared Elector Palatine by the emperor. To complicate matters further, the French suspected that the real purpose of Leicester’s embassy was not to forge an alliance but to strengthen the bargaining position of Arundel by putting pressure on Spain and the emperor.73 Sharpe, 525-6. There was more than a grain of truth in this, but the French themselves were no less duplicitous, as they realized that, by threatening to ally with England, they too might get better terms from the emperor.74 CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 34; Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 451.

French enthusiasm for the proposed alliance only materialized following the invasion of France by Spanish forces in July 1636, and the loss in August, of the strategically important fortress of Corbie, which threatened Paris. For a while Leicester found himself besieged with demands for assistance.75 Sharpe, 526; Atherton, 192; CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 403-4. However, Leicester’s hopes of obtaining favourable terms soon evaporated, as the French staged a recovery and it quickly became clear that Charles, unwilling to summon a Parliament to vote the necessary funds, was not prepared to go to war. By December Leicester was treated so coldly that he saw little point in remaining in Paris.76 CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 89, 122-3; Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 453.

Leicester’s diplomatic difficulties were compounded by two other serious problems. The first was the hostile attitude of England’s ordinary ambassador, 1st Viscount Scudamore [I] (Sir John Scudamore^‡), whose failure to secure a French alliance had necessitated Leicester’s dispatch to France. Scudamore was incensed that Leicester was not required to involve him in his negotiations, and, three days after the earl’s arrival, he fired off a letter of complaint, demanding to be recalled unless he was included. As a result, the king ordered Leicester and Scudamore to join forces. Leicester was aghast, as he, like his French hosts, had already formed a low opinion of his fellow ambassador, whom he described as pedantic, self-important, ‘simple’ and indiscreet. Rather than work with Scudamore, he had secretly hoped to replace him, but despite remonstrating with Secretary Coke, he failed to alter the king’s mind.77 Atherton, 187, 189; Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 386-8, 490 (misdated). Over the course of the next three years, Leicester repeatedly irritated Scudamore, with whom he had little or nothing in common, and tried to bypass him wherever possible. Through his wife and her family at court, he also undermined his standing.78 Atherton, 193; Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 440-1, 494.

Leicester’s second major problem was financial. As early as 9 July the earl protested that his official allowance of £6 a day was far too little to meet his necessary expenses, particularly in Paris, ‘the most chargeable place in Christendom’. Forced to borrow heavily to stay afloat, his constant complaints soon led the king to increase his monthly allowance from £180 to £400.79 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 390, 392, 429. However, even this addition proved inadequate, and in December the king, now reconciled to a long embassy, ordered that Leicester receive £7,700 rather than £4,800 for his first year in post.80 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 59; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 225. These increases were undoubtedly welcome to Leicester, but in the short term they were academic, as the Exchequer, desperately short of cash, played for time by throwing up procedural problems.81 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 429. By the autumn Leicester was owed £3,800 and complaining that his finances were growing ‘worse and worse’.82 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 61, 68. In January 1637 an impatient king ordered the lord treasurer, William Juxon^†, bishop of London, to pay him nearly £3,000. However, despite issuing the necessary warrant, Juxon subsequently failed to fix upon a revenue source to settle the debt.83 Strafforde Letters, ii. 46; T56/3, f. 138. Leicester’s wife was incensed, and indignantly contrasted the handsome rewards reaped in Ireland by Wentworth with the niggardly treatment accorded to her husband.84 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 90.

Just as Leicester’s financial situation reached crisis point, the French negotiations took an unexpected turn for the better. In January 1637 Arundel returned from Ratisbon, empty handed and accusing the Austrians of leading him up the garden path. Charles shared the anger of his earl marshal, and declared that he would wage a naval war against the emperor’s chief ally, Spain.85 THOMAS HOWARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL. He also offered to join the French and the Dutch in assaulting Flanders.86 Sharpe, 528-9. The French were delighted, and quickly abandoned their previous demand that England declare war on the emperor.87 CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 146. By early February it was widely expected that Leicester’s negotiations, for so long stalled, would finally bear fruit.88 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 463.

Although Leicester drew up preliminary articles of agreement, which were signed by both sides, French enthusiasm soon gave way to dissatisfaction that the English had not promised troops as well as ships. In April Richelieu declared that he expected the English to commit about 8,000 men to the campaign in Germany.89 Ibid. 473; CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 192. Leicester tried his utmost to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion, and received promises from the French that all outstanding matters would soon be resolved. However, in early May, with the campaigning season now underway, he confessed to Coke that ‘it is hard to conclude with them, that play at fast and loose, and now do show but little diligence in assuring themselves of that whereof the hope only, heretofore, did give them great contentment’.90 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 492-3; Corresp. of Eliz. Stuart, Q. of Bohemia ed. N. Akkerman, ii. 593; Sharpe, 533-4. Under these circumstances, the general applause Leicester had recently earned in England quickly turned to criticism. For a short while even the king shared in the belief that Leicester had been blinded to reality by his French sympathies.91 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 489. Leicester responded by straining his instructions to the utmost, in an attempt to secure agreement with the French, thereby drawing down upon his head sharp criticism from Secretary Coke, who accused him of having exceeded his authority. The earl hotly denied this, and claimed that, in negotiating with the French, he had actually quoted from instructions given to him by Coke himself. He was perfectly well aware, he declared, that it was his job ‘to follow, not to lead; to obey, not to direct’. Writing to his ally the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich^*), he complained that Coke was guilty of changing his instructions.92 Ibid. 433, 448-9, 453; Atherton, 189-90.

Although the treaty negotiations continued for the rest of the year, they were dealt a major blow in July 1637 by the outbreak of the Prayer Book disturbances in Scotland. The English were now too preoccupied with the Scots to contemplate a naval war with Spain, and suspected that the Covenanters were secretly receiving support from the French.93 Sharpe, 525, 827. This setback augured badly for Leicester, who had cherished the hope that a successful embassy would provide him with a stepping stone to greater things. During his lengthy absence from England, his interests at court had been promoted by his wife and her family. In January 1637 the countess tried to obtain for Leicester the lord deputyship of Ireland. It was widely expected that Viscount Wentworth would soon be recalled, and she hoped that, by befriending Archbishop Laud, who was in high favour, she might be able to smooth Leicester’s path. In fact, the rumour of Wentworth’s imminent return to England was premature. Moreover, Laud, though outwardly cordial, secretly hated Leicester for his low church views and for his scornful treatment of Scudamore. Unable to make headway, the countess, aided by the queen and her brother Henry Percy, attempted over the autumn to engineer the replacement of the aged Sir John Coke as secretary of state with Leicester. However, the king declined to be manipulated.94 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 446, 456, 516; M. Young, Servility and Service: the Life and Work of Sir John Coke, 254.

In the aftermath of this affair, Leicester was informed by Henry Percy that the king held him in high regard. Nevertheless, he was not recalled, but remained in Paris, where, following the virtual collapse of the treaty negotiations, he was given little to do, aside from proposing to the French a marriage alliance between the Elector Palatine’s brother, Prince Rupert, and a daughter of the late duc de Rohan (in which scheme Richelieu refused to become involved).95 Atherton, 201. However, his finances were no longer desperate, as he had recently inherited lands in Norfolk worth £900 a year from a distant kinsman.96 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 554. In November 1638 the diplomatic credentials of his fellow ambassador, Scudamore, were revoked as the latter was eager to return to England for domestic reasons. Leicester himself was no less anxious to quit his charge, having been absent for nearly three years, and in February 1639 he too asked to be permitted to return to England, though only for three weeks or a month. The king initially proved reluctant to grant this request, as it meant leaving the Paris embassy without an accredited ambassador, but he relented after Northumberland explained that it was normal for ambassadors to return home occasionally to attend to their private affairs.97 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 523, 553, 577, 597, 598.

On reaching England in March 1639, Leicester learned that the king had journeyed to York, where he was gathering forces with which to confront the Scots. Leicester followed him, and on his arrival he pleaded with Charles to seek a negotiated settlement with the Covenanters rather than make war, in which ‘nothing was to be gained and much might be lost’.98 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 554-5. However, his counsel fell on deaf ears. He returned to France in August, rather later than intended, with instructions to keep the negotiations with France going until such times as the king was free of his Scottish troubles.99 Ibid. 171, 173; HMC 3rd Rep. 74 (misdated); Oxford DNB, l, 573. Before he left he was admitted to membership of the Privy Council.

Later life, 1639-77

Three months after Leicester resumed his duties in Paris, the queen tried once more to have him appointed as Coke’s replacement. However, Charles flatly refused. This was partly, perhaps, because he did not consider it suitable for the secretaryship to be held by a senior peer, but it was also because Archbishop Laud depicted Leicester as a puritan and an enemy of monarchical government.100 Young, 262; Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 623, 629, 664-5; Sydney Pprs. 262. Not until Laud fell from power in 1641 was Leicester permitted to return to England.

Following the execution of Wentworth in May 1641, Leicester was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, so realizing an ambition he had harboured since 1629. However, he never crossed the Irish Sea, but was summoned instead to Oxford by the king soon after the outbreak of civil war. During the ensuing conflict he refused to support Charles who, in November 1643, forced him to resign as Ireland’s viceroy. He subsequently retired to Penshurst, which escaped sequestration, where he spent much of the rest of his life. He died in November 1677.