BLOUNT, Charles (1563-1606)

According to some accounts, the Blount family were descended from French knights who came to England at the Norman Conquest. Certainly they were major Worcestershire landowners by the early fourteenth century. Walter Le Blount came to national prominence a few decades later as a leading client of John of Gaunt (John Plantagenet^†, 1st duke of Lancaster), even marrying a Spanish aristocrat attached to the latter’s household. Walter’s grandson, also named Walter^†, served briefly as lord treasurer to Edward IV, and was created Lord Mountjoy in 1465.45 Jones, 15-16; CP, ix. 330-5. The 4th baron, William^†, was an early favourite of Henry VIII, but life at court drove the family into debt. Blount’s father, James^†, and elder brother, William^†, the 6th and 7th barons, both tried unsuccessfully to restore their finances, and Blount himself grew up conscious of both his illustrious ancestry and his straitened circumstances. As a child he reputedly requested that his portrait be painted showing him with a trowel in his hand, and the motto ‘ad reaedificandam antiquam domum’.46 Jones, 17-18; R. Naunton, Fragmenta Regalia ed. J.S. Cerovski, 79; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 252; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-25, p. 64; F. Moryson, Itinerary, ii. 260.

Elizabethan soldier, c.1580-1603

Little is known of Blount’s education, though in later life he enjoyed a reputation as a scholar, particularly of theology.47 C. Falls, Mountjoy: Elizabethan General, 29; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 38; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 705. He first sat in the Commons in 1584, and around the same time began to attend court. His youthful good looks and noble birth attracted the attention of Elizabeth I, and within two years he was acknowledged to be a royal favourite.48 Naunton, 79-80; Jones, 22; Falls, 21-2. However, Blount also developed a taste for military adventures, and for the remainder of this reign his career alternated between court life and overseas campaigns, including periods of service in the Netherlands and France. His illicit liaison with Penelope, the estranged wife of Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich, which began around 1591, doubtless helped to draw him into the circle of her brother, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex. He served under the latter in the 1597 Islands Voyage, three years after becoming 8th Lord Mountjoy.49 CSP Dom. 1591-4, p. 357; S. Varlow, The Lady Penelope, 128; Jones, 94; Chamberlain Letters, i. 31. Nevertheless, as the factional in-fighting at court intensified at the end of that decade, he was careful to maintain good relations with Essex’s bitter rival, Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury). As lord deputy of Ireland from 1599, he was at a safe distance from London during Essex’s doomed rising against Elizabeth. Although implicated in this conspiracy, Mountjoy had already proved so successful against the Irish rebels, led by the 3rd earl of Tyrone [I], that the government thought it wise to suppress the evidence. The defeat of a Spanish force at Kinsale later in 1601 all but ended Irish resistance, and sealed Mountjoy’s reputation as an English hero. Tyrone finally surrendered just days after Elizabeth’s death in March 1603.50 Jones, 41, 96-7, 101, 140, 155; Naunton, 81; Nichols, i. 38.

Jacobean favourite, 1603-4

If anything, the change of monarch served to strengthen Mountjoy’s position. James I, with whom he had secretly corresponded a few years earlier, immediately reappointed Mountjoy as lord deputy, and also directed that he should be made an English privy councillor.51 CPR Ire. Jas. I, 5; Nichols, i. 38; Jones, 95; APC, 1601-4, p. 495. News of James’s accession sparked a Catholic rising in the south of Ireland, which Mountjoy swiftly quelled, despite a shortage of money and munitions.52 CSP Ire. 1603-6, pp. 20, 25, 32-7. However, he recognized that there was still much to be done to achieve a lasting peace, and after three years of debilitating toil, he was anxious to return to England. His promotion to lord lieutenant of Ireland in May, and the appointment of a new lord deputy, Sir George Carey^‡, cleared the way for Mountjoy’s recall, and he sailed from Dublin later that month, taking Tyrone with him.53 Ibid. 26, 37, 65; Falls, 188; HMC Hatfield, xv. 111-12.

With some justification Mountjoy could boast to Cecil that he ‘left all things in as great quiet and as likely to continue as ever they were in Ireland’.54 Hatfield House, CP 100/59. A grateful James proceeded to shower him with honours and rewards. In addition to the renewal of his existing English offices, such as the lieutenancy of Hampshire and the governorship of Portsmouth, Mountjoy was formally admitted to the Privy Council in June 1603, and created earl of Devonshire six weeks later. In July he became master of the Ordnance. As lord lieutenant of Ireland he retained two-thirds of his former salary, and within a year of his return he received lands in England and Ireland worth more than £500 a year, including the symbolically important castle of Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire, where James’s mother, Mary, queen of Scots, had been executed.55 R. Bagwell, Ire. under the Stuarts, i. 16; SO3/2, p. 40; HMC Hatfield, xv. 138; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 83; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 76.

Devonshire never set foot in Ireland again, but his influence there continued almost unabated, although he dealt more with major policy decisions than routine business. He continued to see all paperwork emanating from Dublin, receiving more detailed reports than those sent to the king. His backing was routinely sought for petitions relating to Ireland, he retained the final say over the appointment of senior officials, and he largely dictated the instructions issued in London; ‘his experience and merit in Ireland were such that his Majesty and the Council intermeddled little in most particulars’.56 CSP Ire. 1603-6, pp. 108, 457, 460; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 448; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 282; J. McCavitt, Sir Arthur Chichester, 22, 26, 54. This ensured a substantial continuity of policy in the opening years of James’s reign. Despite the ruthlessness with which he crushed Tyrone’s revolt – his wholesale destruction of crops provoked a major famine in 1602-3 – Mountjoy recognized the value of conciliation in maintaining peace. Many Irish chiefs had surrendered because they trusted his promises of pardons and restitution of property, and he was particularly careful to avoid any provocations which might drive Tyrone back into revolt, even securing a proclamation from the king in June 1603 that the earl was to be treated with respect while visiting England.57 Jones, 157-60; Bagwell, i. 32-3; HMC Hatfield, xv. 123; Stuart Royal Proclamations I: Jas. I ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, i. 27. However, Mountjoy’s related strategy of toleration for Catholics was too much at odds with English law to receive the crown’s backing, while some of his projects, such as the reform of the Irish currency in October 1603, proved counterproductive. Even so, Mountjoy was responsible for the largely successful introduction of the English legal system, a project overseen by one of his protégés, Sir John Davies^‡. Moreover, the return to a stable peace allowed the lord lieutenant to draw up plans from early 1604 to reduce military spending in Ireland dramatically, making the country less of a drain on the English Exchequer.58 Jones, 162, 168-70, 178; Bagwell, i. 13-14; CSP Ire. 1603-6, pp. 87, 93, 407, 463; SO3/2, p. 181; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 159; McCavitt, 22-3.

The reputation that Devonshire had acquired through his Irish victories brought him a certain celebrity. When the Spanish ambassador, the conde de Villa Mediana, arrived in England in September 1603, he was particularly eager to meet Devonshire, who was duly assigned to the reception party. Nevertheless, the conde’s desire to meet Devonshire did not merely reflect the earl’s military achievements and famously honourable conduct, or the pride he was said to take in his Spanish ancestry. As the French envoy, the marquis de Rosny, observed as early as July that year, Devonshire had already become one of James’s closest confidants.59 HMC Hatfield, xv. 244-5; A.J. Loomie, ‘Toleration and Diplomacy: the Religious Issue in Anglo-Spanish Relations, 1603-5’, Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. n.s. liii. 52; Nicholls, 140; ‘Jnl. of Levinus Munck’ ed. H.V. Jones, EHR, lxviii. 246. Accordingly, he participated in the ritual of the king’s anointing at the coronation shortly afterwards, and in the following months played a major role in investigating the Bye and Main plots, personally interviewing Sir Walter Ralegh^‡ and the other leading suspects.60 Falls, 211; HMC Hatfield, xv. 193, 305, 309-10, 313; Carleton to Chamberlain, 38; Add. 6177, ff. 137-8. In January 1604 Devonshire was one of the principal dancers at a masque given by Anne of Denmark. By now, he was also helping to conduct the Anglo-Spanish peace negotiations, and for several months a rumour circulated that he would be sent as ambassador to Spain, though nothing came of this.61 Carleton to Chamberlain, 56-7; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 114; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 11.

The 1604 session of Parliament

When elections were held for the first Jacobean Parliament, Devonshire used his position at Portsmouth to obtain a seat for his kinsman, Sir Oliver St John^* (later Lord Tregoz). He also secured the return of his client Sir Arthur Atye^‡ at Bere Alston, in Devon, where he was lord of the manor.62 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 91-2, 156. Largely due to his continuing involvement with the Anglo-Spanish treaty discussions, Devonshire missed around two-fifths of the sittings in this session. His prominence within the government ensured that he was appointed to the prestigious role of a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, but he attracted only 16 other appointments.63 LJ, ii. 263b. Much of this business concerned matters of direct interest to the crown. Indeed, he was appointed four times to confer with the Commons about aspects of the royal finances, namely wardship, the granting of tunnage and poundage, and the entailing of certain crown lands to James and his heirs.64 Ibid. 266b, 303a, 323a, 341b. He was also twice nominated in April to conferences on the Union, and again on 30 May to the conference at which the Commons complained about the pro-Union book penned by John Thornborough^*, bishop of Bristol. On 3 Apr. he was appointed to scrutinize a bill to naturalize two of the king’s leading Scottish courtiers, Lord Kinloss and the 2nd earl of Mar.65 Ibid. 272a-b, 277b, 284a, 309a.

As master of the Ordnance, Devonshire was naturally named to the committee for the bill to ban the export of armaments.66 Ibid. 285a As befitted a man with a strong interest in theology, he attracted several appointments relating to religion. Of his four committee nominations in this field, two concerned the suppression of recusancy, while the others dealt with church courts and episcopal estates. He was also named to a conference about ecclesiastical affairs in general.67 Ibid. 279a, 282b, 313b, 323a, 324b. On 5 July Devonshire was given charge of the bill to confirm a Chancery decree between William Le Gris and Robert Cotterell, which implied that he was intended to chair the committee. In the event, the measure was not reported back to the Lords, and he is not known to have spoken in the House during this session.68 Ibid. 341a. In early April one of Devonshire’s servants, William Trussell, was arrested at Northampton, whereupon a writ of privilege was issued on his behalf in the king’s name, reflecting the earl’s status as a royal servant. Trussell appeared before the Lords on 14 Apr., and was discharged once it was established that he had been arrested only upon mesne process.69 Ibid. 277-8b. In August, following the end of the session, Devonshire lent the king £500 on a privy seal.70 Lansd. 164, f. 516.

Rewards of service, 1604-5

By the end of the 1604 session, the treaty of London between England and Spain was nearing completion, and a round of festivities ensued. Devonshire helped to entertain the constable of Castile in London, and also received a visit at Wanstead, his country seat, from the Archduke Albert’s envoy. The latter conspired with Robert Cecil, now Lord Cecil, to arrive unannounced and catch Devonshire unawares, ‘but he had a night’s warning and so crammed their stomachs with all manner of dainties that now their mouths had no cause to envy their eyes’.71 Carleton to Chamberlain, 61-2; HMC Gawdy, 94; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 178. Around the same time, the earl entertained the queen at Wanstead. Cecil was also formally invited to the house later that year, and, as the king approvingly noted, the two crown servants were now collaborating closely in government. Even in relation to some Irish business, Devonshire periodically consulted Cecil, implicitly acknowledging the latter’s superior political status, and occasionally requesting his help. That said, when new instructions for reducing the Irish military establishment were dispatched in April 1605, it was Devonshire who dictated to Cecil how these measures should be introduced.72 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 254-5, 277, 295, 300-1, 345, 354; xvii. 159.

As James completed his second year on the English throne, Devonshire remained as much in favour as ever. In January 1605 he helped to carry the robes of state of Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) when the latter was created duke of York. A month later, Devonshire was appointed a commissioner for the office of earl marshal. He attended the king in June during a visit to inspect the lions at the Tower of London, and went on progress with him during the summer.73 Nichols, i. 472, 515, 524. With such marks of approval came further financial rewards. In June, after many months of lobbying, Devonshire secured a reversionary lease of the very lucrative customs farm of French and Rhenish wines, which he promptly sub-let to a syndicate of London merchants, thereby further protecting his investment.74 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 345; HMC Sackville, i. 285, 299; R. Ashton, The City and the Court, 22. There were also profits to be made in the aftermath of the treaty of London. According to the Venetian ambassador, the five English commissioners were presented with a gift from the archduke totalling between eight and ten thousand crowns, while Devonshire himself accepted a Spanish pension of £1,000.75 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 239; Falls, 218; Loomie, 36-7, 52, 55.

Illness, disgrace and death, 1605-6

When Parliament resumed in November 1605, the earl attended all three sittings prior to the adjournment prompted by the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. When news of the conspiracy broke, he wrote to the king urging him to strengthen his personal security: ‘although it be neither my nature nor profession to fear, yet fear is sometimes no evil counsellor; … I do know, or should know, what a few [men], well ordered, armed, and accustomed to danger, may do on the sudden to multitudes, unarmed and in confusion’. Reminding James that he possessed more military experience than any other royal adviser, he offered the king his services, and was promptly placed in charge of suppressing the Catholic uprising which was rumoured to be sweeping through the Midlands. However, when these reports turned out to be exaggerated, this appointment was quietly shelved. Instead, as the actual plotters were captured and brought back to London, Devonshire was appointed to examine them.76 Lansd. 885, f. 101; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 293, 295, 301; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 513.

The earl’s vigorous response to this sudden emergency belied the steady decline in his health during the previous year. At the end of 1604 he had been confined to Wanstead by a migraine-type headache, a recurring problem. He also stayed away from court several times during 1605, once because an old war wound left him unable to walk, and once because he was struck down by a severe fever or similarly debilitating illness. After years of heavy smoking, he was now displaying the symptoms of lung disease, and in October 1605 he recruited a specialist physician from Oxford.77 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 430; xvii. 159, 588; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 234; Varlow, 249; Jones, 26. It was apparently mounting concern about his physical state that prompted him to try to place his relationship with his mistress, Penelope Rich, on a more regular footing. Since his return from Ireland they had been living together quite openly at Wanstead, with their five children. The king was aware of the situation, but turned a blind eye. Indeed, Penelope was also a favourite at court, and had been appointed a lady of the queen’s Bedchamber. In November 1605, Penelope unexpectedly obtained a formal divorce from her husband in a church court, and on 26 Dec. she and Devonshire were quietly married at Wanstead by his chaplain, William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury).78 Varlow, 246; Jones, 180; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iii. 132.

This development brought about an immediate backlash. Strictly speaking, Penelope’s first marriage had ended in a permanent separation, rather than an absolute divorce, with both parties undertaking not to remarry unless one of them died. On that basis, Devonshire’s wedding was bigamous, and in breach both of an Act of 1604 and also the ecclesiastical canons issued the same year. In vain the earl penned a lengthy tract, arguing that Penelope was the innocent victim of her first, failed marriage, and that she should therefore be free to take a new husband. However, James could not simply ignore this flagrant breach of the law, nor the ensuing public scandal. A chastened Laud sought to distance himself from the whole affair, and Devonshire also fell out with Cecil, now earl of Salisbury. Penelope was abruptly dismissed from the queen’s bedchamber, and banished from court.79 Varlow, 246, 248, 250; SR, iv. 1028; Add. 4149, ff. 306-19v; P. Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus (1668), 57-8; Works of Abp. Laud, vii. 614-18; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 278.

Although his popular image was now seriously tarnished, Devonshire remained too useful to the crown to be completely disgraced. The trial of the Gunpowder plotters was about to open, with the earl as one of the judges. He was also in the throes of devising further reductions in the Irish army, and no one else in London could match his expertise in this area.80 Chamberlain Letters, i. 226; Nicholls, 52; CSP Ire. 1603-6, pp. 455, 461. Accordingly he continued with his public duties, including attendance at Parliament, and it was only official business that prevented him from participating in more than two-thirds of the Lords’ sittings in January and February 1606.81 CSP Ire. 1603-6, pp. 392, 412; Nicholls, 74. As in 1604, Devonshire was not recorded as speaking in the House, but he attracted seven appointments. Predictably, he was named to a select committee to consider how to tighten the legislative constraints on Catholics. He was also nominated to the conference at which the Lords and Commons compared their plans for protecting Church and state, to the select committee to consider a suitable punishment for the Gunpowder plotters, and to the committee for the bill of attainder brought against them.82 LJ, ii. 360b, 363a, 367a-b. In mid-February the earl had a furious argument at Westminster with his wife’s former husband, Lord Rich, following a chance encounter in a room adjacent to the Lords’ chamber. Rich accused him of lying, prompting speculation that a duel would ensue, but in the event nothing seems to have transpired.83 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 61. Devonshire failed to attend the Lords after 3 Mar., on which day he was appointed to a bill committee concerned with the Regius chair in divinity at Oxford University. He was formally excused a week later, on the grounds that his presence was required at court.84 LJ, ii. 386b, 392a.

Devonshire dealt with Privy Council business on 18 Mar., but was taken ill again shortly afterwards, and retired to Wanstead. Towards the end of the month he returned to London, taking up residence at the Savoy, but by 2 Apr. it was common knowledge that he had suffered a relapse, and that his life was now in danger from a ‘burning fever’.85 Add. 5752, f. 140; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 304; Chamberlain Letters, i. 222. Devonshire drew up his will that same day, requesting that his executors devise a funeral appropriate for his rank and wealth, but omitting ‘all superfluous pomp and excess’. His success in restoring his family’s fortunes meant that he now owned property in seven English counties, which had been put in trust a year earlier for the benefit of Penelope and their children. To his eldest son he now assigned an annual rent charge of £400, while the two younger boys were to receive £300 a year. He bequeathed to his daughters dowries of £5,000 and £3,000, and also left the unusually large sum of £1,000 to his household servants. Penelope was to receive whatever remained of his estate once his debts and legacies were paid. Devonshire requested the earl of Salisbury, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, and Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, to act overseers of the will. Of his six designated executors, Henry Danvers^*, Lord Danvers (later earl of Danby), Sir William Godolphin^‡ and Humphrey May^‡ all subsequently renounced the role.86 PROB 11/108, ff. 1-3; Varlow, 248.

Devonshire died of fever and ‘putrefaction of his lungs’ on 3 Apr., his public standing still damaged by his illicit marriage. As the newsletter writer John Chamberlain put it: ‘happy had he been if he had gone two or three years since, before the world was weary of him’.87 Moryson, iii. 337; Chamberlain Letters, i. 226; HMC Buccleuch, i. 63. Nevertheless, his former achievements were not forgotten. Henri IV of France sent his condolences, and Devonshire was accorded the honour of burial in Westminster Abbey. After much debate the heralds ruled that Penelope’s coat of arms should not be displayed with his at the funeral, a final public disavowal of his marriage, but his coffin was attended by six peers, including Suffolk, Southampton, and Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton.88 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 117-18; Carleton to Chamberlain, 77, 81-2; HMC 4th Rep. 179. Devonshire’s children all being illegitimate, his will was challenged by two distant kinsmen, Sir Richard Champernowne and Sir Henry Baker, but their claims were rejected by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in May 1607, while a case brought in Star Chamber was successfully contested by the earl’s executors. With his death Devonshire’s titles fell into abeyance, but his eldest son Mountjoy^* was advanced to the peerage in 1618 as Lord Mountjoy [I], and later became 1st earl of Newport.89 PROB 11/109, ff. 322-3; Jones, 184-5; CP, ix. 348.