EGERTON, John (1579-1649)

The younger of the two sons of one of the leading lawyers of his age, Sir Thomas Egerton^* (later 1st Viscount Brackley), lord keeper during the final years of Elizabeth’s reign and lord chancellor under James, Egerton served his parliamentary apprenticeship in 1597 at the age of 18, sitting in the Commons for the Cornish borough of Callington. On the death of his elder brother in Ireland two years later, he was appointed baron of the Exchequer of Chester, presumably at the behest of his father, whose many offices included that of chamberlain of the county palatine of Chester. This provided Egerton with an independent source of income rather than the beginnings of a legal career, however, as he immediately appointed a deputy to perform the duties of his new office.34 HMC Hatfield, xxiv. 46.

Middle years, 1600-17

In October 1600 it was rumoured that the 21-year-old Egerton was about to be married.35 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 111; Memorials and Letters of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 219. His father, who had recently become a widower for a second time, had taken as his third wife Alice Stanley, dowager countess of Derby, and it was suggested that the union between the Egerton and Stanley families would be strengthened if Egerton married Frances, one of Alice’s three daughters, who stood to inherit a considerable part of her family’s estates. However, though Egerton and Frances were keen to proceed, it proved difficult for the lord keeper and his new wife to reach agreement. In exasperation, in January 1603the couple went ahead without their parents’ knowledge.36 Chamberlain Letters, i. 190. Alice, at least, was displeased at their presumption, and subsequently prevaricated over payment of her daughter’s dowry, the size of which had probably been the chief stumbling block in the negotiations between her and her husband. Indeed, she only paid out after Egerton’s father agreed to contribute £5,000 himself.37 HEHL, EL213.

By the time the lord keeper found out that his son had married, his mind was probably focussed on his position following the accession of the new king, James VI of Scotland. Having played a leading role in the prosecution of James’s mother, Mary, queen of Scots, the lord keeper was understandably nervous. On hearing that James had been informed that he was of a haughty disposition, he therefore dispatched his son to Berwick to greet the new king. Egerton, however, fell ill en route, whereupon the lord keeper turned instead for assistance to Lord Henry Howard^* (later earl of Northampton), who had also travelled north. Although Egerton finally caught up with the king, he was so unwell that he was forced to keep to his bed.38 Egerton Pprs. ed. J.P. Collier (Cam. Soc. xii), 362, 365. In the event, however, the lord keeper’s fears proved to be unfounded, as James not only retained his services but also promoted him to lord chancellor. Egerton, too, benefited from James’s generosity, for on the day following his father’s promotion he was created a knight of the Bath. However, matters were not all plain sailing. In October 1603 the new lord chancellor was forced to surrender his office of chamberlain of the county palatine of Chester to his wife’s former brother-in-law, William Stanley^*, 6th earl of Derby. For the time being, Egerton himself remained in post as baron of the Chester Exchequer, but in February 1605 he too relinquished his position.

Marriage to one of the coheirs of Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby inevitably involved Egerton in conflict with the 6th earl over the Stanley estate. In August 1604, Egerton petitioned the king, and was granted permission to have the matter heard ‘according to your own desire’.39 Ibid. 393. See also HEHL, EL152. However, no settlement was reached before 1607, when a bill detailing the division of the estate was laid before Parliament. This piece of legislation was enormously long and complex, and though it was enacted at the end of the session it needed so many amendments that it was twice redrafted, once by the Lords and once by the Commons.40 LJ, ii. 475b, 479b-80a, 492a, 493a, 507a, 508b, 531a; CJ, i. 375b, 378a; Bowyer Diary, 349-50; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1606/4J1n16. An annotated copy, complete apart from the final pages, survives among the Egerton family papers.41 Northants. RO, E(B), 53. Less than two years after the passage of this bill, Egerton received a further windfall as a result of his marriage, as his wife’s family had a claim to the estate of the Brandon dukes of Suffolk. He and four other claimants shared between them the sum of £16,600.42 SO3/4, unfol. (Mar. 1609). See also CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 410.

Following the issues of writs of summon in 1614, Egerton’s father, now ennobled as Lord Ellesmere, was so unwell that he surrendered his right to exercise electoral influence in the Northamptonshire borough of Brackley to Egerton. The latter proceeded to nominate his friend Arthur Tyringham^‡ for one seat, and agreed to endorse the borough’s decision to elect William Spencer^* (later 2nd Lord Spencer), son of the 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*), for the other. However, so far as the Spencer interest was concerned, he warned the corporation not to ‘admit ... of any continued prescription in such election, wherein I purpose not to give way to equal any man’s interest with my own’.43 Northants. RO, E(B)574. Egerton may also have been responsible for the return as one of the Members for Lichfield of his kinsman and namesake, Sir John Egerton^‡ of Wrinehall, Staffordshire, as in about 1606 he had been appointed recorder of Lichfield in succession to his father.

Egerton may have travelled to The Hague at the beginning of 1615. His papers include a letter written from there in his hand, in which it was reported that it was widely felt in the Low Countries that James should rattle his sabre in order to ensure the observance of the terms of the treaty of Xanten (1614).44 HEHL, EL1662. He had presumably returned to England by January 1616, when it was widely believed that another Parliament would meet shortly. Egerton naturally expected to continue nominating the Members for Brackley, but the townsmen resented his influence, and decided to choose one of the burgesses themselves. On learning of this, Egerton was furious, and appealed to his father, who responded by issuing a writ of quo warranto challenging the right of Brackley – a borough by prescription - to return Members to Westminster. Faced with the threat of losing the franchise, the borough rapidly capitulated, apologizing to Egerton in June. Thereafter, until 1625, Brackley seems to have accepted Egerton’s nominees without demur.45 Northants. RO, E(B)576; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 290.

By the beginning of 1617 it was clear that Ellesmere, who became Viscount Brackley in November 1616, had not long to live. Before he died, however, the aged lord chancellor was determined acquire an important office for his son, who was now in his late thirties. Since he himself owned extensive property on the Welsh border, his choice settled on the presidency of the council in the Marches, which was held by the 3rd Lord Eure (Ralph Eure^*) who, like Brackley himself, was near to death. Brackley was hopeful of success, perhaps in part because Eure was godfather to Egerton’s daughter Alice.46 HEHL, EL1001. However, though Brackley made ‘great means to settle his son’, Eure decided instead to bestow his office on the 1st Lord Gerard (Thomas Gerard^*).47 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 59; HMC Downshire, vi. 129.

During his final illness, Brackley received the offer of an earldom from the king, who hoped that this gesture might cause the lord chancellor to rally his strength. However, Brackley died shortly thereafter, whereupon Egerton, who inherited his father’s title, petitioned the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, earl of Buckingham, in the hope that James would confer the promised earldom on him instead. Buckingham was only too willing to oblige, being grateful to the late lord chancellor, who had surrendered to him the lord lieutenancy of Buckinghamshire. After securing the king’s signature to the necessary warrant, he presented James, on 23 Mar., with a patent advancing Egerton, now Viscount Brackley, to the dignity of earl of Bridgwater. However, James, who was then on his way to Scotland, declined to append his signature, as Brackley, laid up in bed with chronic gout, had not only asked to dispense with the customary ceremonial investiture but also with the need to receive his patent of ennoblement from the king in person.48 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 65; HEHL, EL6455.

On learning of James’s refusal to sign his patent, Brackley was aghast. It was widely known that the king had signed his initial warrant of creation, and now it would look to the world as though he had suddenly fallen into disfavour. He subsequently told Buckingham that he was vexed ‘to hear how upon this unexpected stay he is censured and his name tossed and bandied in the mouths of all as well my loving friends as others’.49 HEHL, EL6456, 6463. Buckingham therefore tried again, but James continued to insist that no creation was valid unless the monarch himself had delivered the patent into the recipient’s hands. Moreover, he expressed concern that if he agreed to Brackley’s request, it would set an ill precedent, ‘making that dignity as easy as pulling out a sword to make a man a knight’, so diminishing the esteem in which it was held.50 HEHL, EL6457; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, v. 168.

Though instinctively opposed to the manner in which Brackley desired to be created an earl, James nevertheless sought a legal opinion from the new lord keeper, Sir Francis Bacon^* (later Viscount St Alban). Bacon, like James, was concerned not to invite criticism from the existing nobility for dispensing with the customary investiture ceremony, but he could not ignore the fact that in recent years the usual solemnities had been dispensed with three times: firstly, in 1613, when Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S], was created earl of Richmond; again in 1615, when James Hay^* was created Lord Hay of Sawley; and a third time as recently as 23 Mar. 1617, when Sir Edward Noel^* bought himself a barony. On the other hand, it was clear that in all three cases the peers concerned had received their patents directly from the hand of the monarch. As Bacon observed on 8 May, these precedents ‘do rather come near the case than match it’.51 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, v. 167, 194; A. Wagner and J.C. Sainty, ‘Origins of the Introduction of Peers in the House of Lords’, Archaeologia, ci. 130. It took all of Buckingham’s powers of persuasion to change the king’s mind. On 14 May he informed Brackley that he had finally obtained the signature of the king, who had relented ‘out of his love to him that is gone’, and had persuaded himself that his absence in Scotland justified such an extraordinary arrangement.52 HEHL, EL6465; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, v. 196. As a result, Brackley’s patent passed the great seal less than two weeks later.

Brackley’s patent was the first to include a non obstante clause that made the creation valid despite the lack of ceremonies. It also formed part of a trend that helps to explain why, in 1621, the House of Lords, guided by the earl marshal, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, decided to institute a ceremonial form of introduction for all new peers.53 Wagner and Sainty, 131-34; THOMAS HOWARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL. See also the perceptive remark on the subject by John Chamberlain: Chamberlain Letters, ii. 79. How much the newly created earl of Bridgwater paid for his title is unknown. His was the first earldom to be sold, and it was rumoured that the asking price was £20,000, twice as much as the going rate for an English barony. However, in addition to the purchase price, he incurred lobbying costs, most notably £2,000 which he promised Buckingham’s mother, Lady Compton, in return for her support.54 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 65; HEHL, EL6459.

Bridgwater could well afford to lay out money on this scale. He later claimed that his inheritance was no more than competent to sustain a man of his social status, but he was probably one of the wealthiest peers in England, with an annual rental income of around £47,000.55 HMC 6th Rep. 16; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 761. In December 1618 he paid about £3,000 to the 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (Robert Bertie^*, later 1st earl of Lindsey) for the latter’s house in the Barbican, thereby providing himself with a residence in the capital, and in November 1620 he contributed £500 to the benevolence raised for the defence of the Palatinate.56 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 193; SP14/117/2.

The 1621 Parliament

The illness that had afflicted Bridgwater in March 1617, and which had caused him to seek his earldom without the need for personal attendance upon the king, lasted several months. Indeed, in mid August Bridgwater claimed that, since his father’s death, he had managed to walk unaided for the equivalent of just two weeks.57 HEHL, EL6468. A further bout of the same ailment probably explains why Bridgwater missed the opening of his first Parliament as a peer on 30 Jan. 1621. He evidently attended four days later, as on 5 Feb. he took the oath of allegiance, but must have retired early to his house in the Barbican, as he subsequently received a letter from his mother’s kinsman, William Ravenscroft^‡, the Member for Flint Boroughs, detailing the events of that day in the Commons.58 LJ, iii. 10b; HEHL, EL6470. Over the next few weeks Bridgwater’s attendance remained patchy, but he evidently made a full recovery, for after 10 Mar. he is not recorded as having missed a single day before Parliament rose for the summer on 4 June. During that time he acted as a judge at the accession day tilt, which was held on 24 March.59 Harl. 5176, f. 242v. Bridgwater’s score card is among his papers – a remarkable survival: HEHL, EL7973.

Bridgwater’s first appointments of the session were to two conferences with the Commons, both of which were concerned with presenting the king with a petition to deal more severely with recusants.60 LJ, ii. 17a, 18b. It seems likely that Bridgwater approved of this petition as, like his father before him, his Protestant faith was characterized by a strong streak of anti-Catholicism. Indeed, in November 1620 he had had his medieval chapel at his house in the Barbican re-consecrated on the grounds that it had once been polluted by the saying of mass.61 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 63.

A novice in the upper House, Bridgwater made only a limited impact on the Lords’ proceedings in 1621. Nevertheless, he occasionally contributed to debate. On 13 Mar., following a heated argument between Buckingham on the one hand and the 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton (Henry Wriothesley^*) and the 3rd Lord Sheffield (Edmund Sheffield^*, later 1st earl of Mulgrave) on the other over the latter’s interruption of the former at a conference with the Commons, he seconded Bacon, now lord chancellor, who observed that the cause of the disagreement lay in the fact that Buckingham, having been absent from the House at a crucial moment, had not known that he was not entitled to speak at the meeting. This intervention demonstrates that Bridgwater saw himself as one of Buckingham’s allies. So too does the fact that, ten days later, he joined Buckingham and three other peers in opposing the House’s decision to examine a man who admitted having given Bacon a bribe. During the preceding debate he apparently asked a question, but the clerk or his assistant managed only to capture the words ‘what if the’.62 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 23, 37, 39.

Bridgwater certainly participated in the discussions concerning the activities of corrupt monopolists. On the morning of 27 Apr., during a debate on the abuses perpetrated in the dyeing of silk, he asked whether it was actually necessary to dye gold and silver thread at all. Moreover, that afternoon he announced that it was inconceivable that the monopolist Sir Francis Michell should not be proceeded against, it having been suggested by some that it was necessary to forgo such a prosecution in order to make use of Michell’s testimony against another man.63 LD 1621, pp. 34, 38. Bridgwater also took a close interest in the case of the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, who was accused of furthering the silk thread monopoly despite knowing it to be illegal, and of having imprisoned various craftsmen who had refused to be licensed by the patentees. Following Yelverton’s appearance at the bar of the House on 18 Apr., Bridgwater asked the clerk of the parliaments, Henry Elsyng, to supply him with a copy of the charges against Yelverton, together with the latter’s replies.64 LJ, iii. 77b, 78a; HEHL, EL7931. Two weeks later, after Yelverton angrily denounced Buckingham in the chamber, Bridgwater was one of several peers who proposed that the king be asked to leave censure of the former attorney general to the House.65 LD 1621, p. 58.

Bridgwater made six other recorded speeches before Parliament rose for the summer. The first, on 27 Mar., took the form of a point of procedure as the House was about to rise for Easter. The second, on 24 Apr., was a request to allow the House’s legal assistants to dispute among themselves ahead of a conference with the Commons. His third recorded intervention was on 25 Apr., when he agreed with Sheffield, who complained that the answer received from Bacon, who had been charged by both Houses with corruption, was unsatisfactory.66 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 48; Add. 40085, f. 35; LD 1621, p. 21. Bridgwater’s remaining three speeches of the sitting took the form of reports from committee. The first concerned an estate bill introduced on behalf of the 3rd earl of Bedford (Edward Russell^*), who was absent, while the second dealt with a measure concerning the copyhold tenants in Stepney and Hackney of another fellow peer, the 4th Lord Wentworth (Thomas Wentworth^*, later earl of Cleveland). His final report of the sitting was from the committee for petitions, which was established, somewhat belatedly, on 29 May.67 LJ, iii. 127b, 155a, 157a.

During the course of the sitting, Bridgwater was appointed to seven legislative committees. Their subjects included not only the lands and tenants of the earl of Bedford and Lord Wentworth, previously mentioned, but also the abuse of the Sabbath, abuses associated with the issue of writs of certiorari, Welsh cloth, drunkenness and grants made by corporations. His inclusion on the committees regarding Sabbath abuses and drunkenness, taken alongside his eldest daughter’s strong puritan convictions, suggests an interest in godly reformation, while his membership of the committee for the Welsh cloth bill points to a local interest, as he owned extensive property in Wales. Bridgwater was also required to help confer with the Commons over the Sabbath and certiorari bills.68 Ibid. 39b, 101b, 107b, 114b, 117b, 130b. On his eldest daughter’s puritan convictions, see HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 720. In the immediate aftermath of the adjournment on 4 June, Bridgwater corresponded with Elsyng regarding petitions which the Lords had not yet had time to consider.69 HEHL, EL6920.

One month before Parliament was adjourned for the summer, Bridgwater’s wife gave birth to a son. This was an event of great importance for Bridgwater, as his eldest boy, James, had died aged only four in December the previous year, and his other ten children were all girls. The christening was thus a matter of great celebration, and was attended by Buckingham, whom Bridgwater persuaded to act as godfather.70 HEHL, EL6846; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 379. On his daughters, see HMC Downshire, vi. 18; HEHL, EL6469a.

Bridgwater resumed his seat when Parliament reassembled on 20 November. Thereafter, until the adjournment on 19 Dec., he was marked as present on every day bar one (24 November.) His recorded activity was nevertheless sparse. On 27 Nov. he was added to the committee for the bill concerning the government of Wales, and the following day he was appointed to the committee for a bill to confirm the sale to Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) of Kenilworth Castle, in Warwickshire.71 LJ, iii. 172b, 173b. As chairman of the committee for petitions, he continued to be active behind the scenes, receiving from Elsyng on 30 Nov. a calendar of the petitions that remained outstanding. The following day, he annotated this document to remind himself to ask Elsyng to supply him with ‘a note of the committee and the orders concerning the stand’.72 HEHL, EL6921. His intended meaning is unclear, but he presumably wanted a summary of the state of each petition. On 3 Dec. he asked the House to assign some of its legal officials to act as attendants to the committee, which request was granted. Two days later, he was appointed to the committee for the bill regarding licences of alienation.73 LJ, iii. 179a, 182b. His only recorded speech of the sitting, aside from his request for attendants, was made on 11 Dec., when he was one of a number of peers to question whether Sir John Bourchier^‡, who had complained that he had not been given a fair hearing in Chancery by the lord keeper (John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln), had been properly treated.74 LD 1621, p. 117.

The parliaments of 1624 and 1625

Following the 1621 Parliament, Bridgwater married his eldest daughter Frances to Sir John Hobart^‡, son and heir of the lord chief justice of Commons Pleas, Sir Henry Hobart^‡. The settlement was costly, as Bridgwater provided not only £4,500 by way of a portion but also lands worth £800 p.a. However, this was merely the beginning of the inroads that would soon be made on his substantial wealth by his family. Bridgwater had ten more daughters, all of whom would need to be provided for if they reached marriageable age. Next in line was the second daughter, Arbella, who, in May 1623, wed Oliver St John^† (later Lord St John), son and heir apparent of Oliver St John^*, 4th Lord St John of Bletso (later 1st earl of Bolingbroke).75 HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 717, 720; vi. 145.

Following the secretive departure for Spain of Charles and Buckingham in February 1623, Bridgwater wrote to the royal favourite in order to convey his ‘unfeigned affection and service’, and to ask Buckingham to ‘settle me in the prince’s highness his good opinion’. He also intimated that he would dearly like to be admitted to some office or other, for ‘I am … as your lordship knoweth, a kind of privado and out of employment’.76 Stowe 743, i. f. 54. However, Buckingham declined to take the hint. At around the same time Bridgwater’s infant son and heir died. This was the second time that the earl had experienced such a tragedy in less than three years. However, Bridgwater’s hope that his line and titles would survive was revived in late May, when his wife gave birth to another boy. This baby grew to adulthood (John Egerton^*, later 2nd earl of Bridgwater), as did his younger brother Thomas, who was born in June 1625.

Bridgwater attended the opening of the 1624 Parliament. Thereafter, aside from a bout of illness in mid May which kept him from the chamber for three days, he missed only the occasional sitting. Appointed on 23 Feb. to the committee and the subcommittee for privileges, he may have chaired the latter body, as on 27 Apr. he reported its findings to the House on whether to allow counsel to the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, who had been accused of corruption. On 9 Mar. Bridgwater was reappointed to the committee for petitions, which body he had chaired in the previous assembly. He continued to perform this function in 1624.77 LJ, iii. 215a, 215b, 253a, 296a, 296b, 323b; Add. 40088, ff. 95, 133, 136v, 139-40.

Apart from delivering reports from committee, Bridgwater is recorded as having spoken only three times in 1624. The first occasion was to support Buckingham (now a duke) after the latter proposed sending a message to the Commons immediately on the subject of supply. The second was during the debate on Caleb Morley, who was accused of spreading a libel against both Lord Keeper Williams and Star Chamber. The matter was complicated by the fact that Morley had already delivered his libel, in the form of a petition to Sir Peter Heyman^‡, a Member of the Commons. Bridgwater, the son of a lord chancellor, was concerned that, if the petition were allowed to stand, it would ‘much dishearten the chief office of justice’. However, he was equally well aware that if the Lords assumed control of the affair themselves they risked incurring the anger of the Commons, who might argue that their privileges had been infringed. He therefore urged the House to maintain ‘correspondency’ with the lower House while at the same time remaining ‘sensible of the wrong’ done to their own members. Bridgwater’s third and final recorded speech of the session was in the debate on punishing the disgraced lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex. He asked for clarification concerning Middlesex’s exemption from the need to provide accounts in his capacity as master of the wardrobe, and was answered by Buckingham, who explained that the apparent exemption applied only to the surplus on Middlesex’s accounts.78 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 27, 36, 76.

Bridgwater was named to 11 legislative committees during the session. In one case he was evidently appointed in his absence. This was on 9 Apr., to the committee for the bill concerning writs of certiorari, a measure he had been required to consider in1621. Perhaps the two most important bill committees to which he was named concerned monopolies and the practice of hunting for concealed lands. Most of the remainder, like the bill to cancel Henry Heron’s West Country fish-packing patent, probably held little direct interest for Bridgwater.79 LJ, iii. 267b, 296a, 304a, 313a. The exception was the bill to allow his fellow Hertfordshire landowner Sir Charles Caesar^‡ to settle a dispute over land with his father-in-law, Sir Peter Vanlore.80 Ibid. 363a; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 383. On two occasions, Bridgwater was appointed to a committee only to have his named removed from the list. The first concerned a bill to confirm the 18th earl of Oxford (Henry de Vere^*) in possession of property whose ownership was disputed by Magdalene College, Cambridge; the second sought to prevent the removal of lawsuits from inferior courts.81 Add. 40087, f. 65; 40088, f. 118.

Ahead of the 1625 Parliament, Bridgwater suffered an electoral reverse at Brackley. Although one member of the corporation was confident that both the earl’s nominees, Edward Spencer^‡ and Sir Richard Anderson, would be returned, the latter was in fact defeated.82 Northants. RO, E(B)585; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 290. Bridgwater subsequently attended both the prorogation meeting on 17 May and the formal opening of Parliament on 18 June. However, the capital was rife with plague, and he failed to attend the remainder of the Westminster sitting, being excused on 23 June on grounds of ill health. He did not attend at all when Parliament reconvened at Oxford, but again sent his excuses.83 Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 127.

The 1626 Parliament

Bridgwater formed part of the procession at the king’s coronation in early February 1626.84 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l. A few days later, a fresh Parliament assembled. Bridgwater proved far more assiduous in his attendance of this body than he had its predecessor. Indeed, he may have been absent only twice, on 15 Mar. and 20 Apr., for although the Journal indicates that he was not present on 25 Feb. and 24 Mar., he contributed to debate on the former occasion and delivered two reports from committee on the latter. Bridgwater even attended the House on 21 Apr., on which day his fourth daughter, Cecily, was buried.85 J.J. Baddeley, An Acct. of the Church and Par. of St Giles without Cripplegate, 139.

The reason for Bridgwater’s exemplary attendance probably lies in the attempted impeachment of his patron, Buckingham, which dominated the business of both Houses. He certainly demonstrated a willingness to defend the duke where possible. When Buckingham, the holder of 13 proxy votes, opposed a proposal to limit each peer to a maximum of two proxies he was supported by Bridgwater, who urged that the existing arrangement should continue. Bridgwater also seconded Buckingham after the duke suggested that the proposed change should not take effect until the next session of Parliament. Bridgwater continued to support Buckingham after the duke had the earl of Arundel arrested. The official reason for Arundel’s imprisonment was that the earl marshal had allowed his son to marry a minor member of the royal family without permission, but in reality Buckingham suspected that Arundel was behind the motion to limit the number of proxies held by any one peer. Consequently, when John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, demanded an explanation for Arundel’s arrest, Bridgwater loyally announced that the reason had nothing to do with Arundel’s conduct in Parliament.86 Procs. 1626, i. 72, 151, 206-7, 209.

At the beginning of the Parliament, Bridgwater was appointed by the crown a trier of petitions from England’s overseas territories, including Gascony, a largely honorific office but one that reflected his favour with Buckingham. He was also reappointed to the committee for privileges and the committee for petitions. Although his name appeared in fifth place on the committee list, Bridgwater continued to chair the latter body. Not only did he report its findings and recommendations, he also badgered the House to assign legal attendants to support the work of the committee. Following the delivery of one such report from committee, on the subject of nearly 2,000 mariners held kept in north Africa by Barbary pirates, Bridgwater ‘showed the great ransoms demanded’ and proposed that a message be sent to the king ‘to deal for their easier ransoms’. This concern for the plight of the captives subsequently led Bridgwater to be appointed to a committee to decide how best to raise the necessary sums.87 Ibid. 22, 48, 55, 66, 191, 195. For his remaining cttee reports, see ibid. 301-2, 368, 390, 626.

His chairmanship of the committee for petitions demonstrated that Bridgwater was an able reporter, a skill he probably acquired from his late father. It may have been for this reason that, on 8 May, he was chosen to be one of eight reporters charged with relaying to the House the Commons’ impeachment charges against Buckingham. Bridgwater performed this duty on 11 May, when he reported in minute detail the charges presented by John Glanville^‡. In order to discharge this function accurately, he was obliged to rely upon his notes, taken at the conference, having first obtained permission to make use of them.88 Ibid. 380, 385, 402-3, 419, 438-9, 441. However, not everyone seems to have been satisfied with the quality of his note-taking. On 15 May he complained that ‘some aspersion’ had been cast upon him ‘touching the restraint of the gentleman that made the prologue’. This was a reference to Sir Dudley Digges^‡, who had been arrested four days earlier for having implied, during the delivery of the Commons’ charges, that the king had been complicit in the (supposed) murder of James I. Bridgwater was understandably puzzled by the complaint that his notes had contributed to the arrest of Digges, as his report had included no mention of Digges’s introduction. He therefore proposed that his notes be examined, along with those made by his fellow reporters. Buckingham, too, was unhappy with some of the reporting of the Commons’ charges, and called for the reporters’ notes to be compared. Bridgwater was only too willing to oblige, and subsequently read out his notes to the House.89 Ibid. 480, 481.

Many of Buckingham’s friends and clients in the Lords were outraged on 2 May, when they discovered that John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, had presented a list of charges against the duke to the Commons, having already laid them before the upper House. The 4th earl of Dorset (Edward Sackville^*), for instance, fulminated that to go to the Commons ‘is to accuse of not [being] competent judges’. Bridgwater, however, was rather more sanguine about the affair, and thought little would be accomplished if they picked a quarrel with the Commons. After all, the offenders concerned were not the Commons but one of the Lords’ own members (‘And this done by one of this House. The Commons have done us no wrong’). He therefore recommended that they ‘proceed to the business of the day’, namely the king’s own charges against Bristol. In so doing, Bridgwater closely reflected the view of Buckingham himself, who subsequently remarked that Bristol should not be asked to explain himself until he had responded to the king’s charges against him, ‘lest it disturb him in his answers’.90 Ibid. 346-7. It is a coincidence which suggests that Bridgwater, unlike Dorset, had spoken to the duke on the subject before the debate began.

It was not only Buckingham with whom Bridgwater was careful to express agreement. On 8 May the House debated whether to allow Bristol counsel. The elderly lord treasurer, James Ley^*, 1st earl of Marlborough, observed that ‘in other courts, counsel is allowed at trials in point of law but not further’, whereas the lord president, Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester, remarked that ‘it is against the law for the party accused at the bar to have his counsel’. Bridgwater came down on the side of Marlborough.91 Ibid. 382-3. The two men knew one another socially – in April 1625 Bridgwater had invited Marlborough to supper92 E404/234, unnumbered item, 20 Apr. 1625, Robert Long to Sir Robert Pye. – and Bridgwater may have had his eyes on the treasurer’s staff. Following the June dissolution it was certainly rumoured that Marlborough would shortly be replaced by Bridgwater.93 Cal. Wynn Pprs. 228.

Bridgwater was appointed to seven legislative committees during the course of the 1626 Parliament. Once concerned a bill to establish the tenants of Bromfield and Yale, in Denbighshire, of which crown manor Bridgwater himself may have been steward. Another dealt with a bill to confirm the foundation of the Charterhouse hospital, which lay close to his house in the Barbican. Bridgwater’s puritan concerns were reflected in his membership of the committee for the bill against scandalous ministers. His remaining appointments concerned bills to confirm the letters patent of the New River Company, enable the sale of lands belonging to a Berkshire gentleman named Sir Richard Lydall, prevent the issue of citations out of church courts and allow Dutton Gerard^*, 3rd Lord Gerard, to make a jointure.94 Procs. 1626, i. 53, 119, 128, 267, 268, 313, 327.

The Forced Loan, 1626-7 and the 1628-9 Parliament

Shortly after Parliament was dissolved, Bridgwater was rewarded for his loyalty to Buckingham by being admitted to membership of the Privy Council. However, rumours that he would shortly also be appointed lord treasurer or lord warden of the Cinque Ports, or be made a gentleman of the bedchamber, came to nothing.95 Diary of Walter Yonge ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xlvi), 95; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 132. His admission to the Council was timely, for in the autumn of 1626 the king announced that he intended to raise a Forced Loan to help pay for the war with Spain. Individual councillors were required to promote the Loan in their own or neighbouring counties. Accordingly, Bridgwater was assigned to visit Buckinghamshire, which lay close to his house at Ashridge, and also Northamptonshire, where he owned extensive property.96 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 32, 33; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 315. However, he proved unable to discharge this duty, as once again he fell ill of gout.97 HMC Hastings, ii. 73-4 (letter miscalendared ?1632/3). Nevertheless, 18 years later William Laud^*, then archbishop of Canterbury, claimed that Bridgwater was instrumental in causing the arrest of the Norfolk Loan refuser Sir John Corbet^‡, who went on to achieve notoriety in the Five Knights’ Case.98 Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iv. 103. Laud also stated that Corbet, in protest at the Loan, read aloud at the local quarter sessions the Petition of Right, which was not formulated until May/June 1628.

His closeness to Buckingham saw Bridgwater appointed, in December 1626, to the commission of inquiry established in the wake of the failure of the fleet under Lord Willoughby de Eresby, recently created earl of Lindsey, to make it as far as Spain. The commission began sitting on 13 Dec., and Bridgwater was initially assiduous in his attendance.99 SP16/45, ff. 10, 12, 13, 17, 23, 28, 29. However, illness meant that he did not return to the naval inquiry until March 1627, when the vexed question of how to measure the tonnage of ships accurately - a matter of some importance, as the king paid freight for hired merchant ships on the basis of their tonnage – was referred to him. He subsequently held a series of meetings with various shipwrights and other experts at his house in the Barbican.100 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 82, 131, 479. However, not long afterwards the naval inquiry ran out of steam, as Buckingham, its architect, was soon preoccupied with making preparations for a joint military/naval expedition to France.

When a fresh Parliament assembled in March 1628, Bridgwater was once again diligent in his attendance. He apparently missed only 15 sittings, most of them in the final month of the session, though he obtained formal leave of absence only twice, on 8 May and 19 June.101 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 359, 394. His longest period of absence was between 27 and 31 May inclusive, during which time Buckingham spirited the king away to a nearby, unspecified country house to discuss the Petition of Right.102 CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 126-7. Bridgwater’s own house at Harefield, in Middlesex, would have been an ideal location. It seems likely that Bridgwater accompanied the duke, as at least three other Buckingham loyalists – the 1st earl of Anglesey (Christopher Villiers^*), the 2nd earl of Salisbury (William Cecil^*) and the 1st Lord Goring (George Goring^*) – were also absent at around the same time.

Throughout the session, Bridgwater kept notes of the Lords’ proceedings, the only peer known to have done so. Whether this was a novel departure from his accustomed practice is unknown. It is also unclear whether the notes that survive among Bridgwater’s own papers represent the sum of what was recorded or merely a fraction. We certainly have no notes for many of the days on which Bridgwater was present. So far as is known, most of the notes kept by Bridgwater were his own unique record. However, his jottings of a meeting of the committee of the whole House on 19 May are almost identical to portions of the clerk’s notes, indicating that they had been copied.103 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 469 (cf. pp. 462-3). See also ibid. 508. Bridgwater certainly sought out copies of some of the speeches being made in the Commons. On 3 June William Ravenscroft, once again sitting for Flint Boroughs, asked him to return his text of a speech recently delivered by Sir Henry Marten^‡, ‘which I shall have use for this morning, and if your lordship have not yet copied it, I shall return it to you tomorrow, with somewhat else’.104 Northants. RO, E(B)629. Marten’s speech was probably the one he delivered at a conference with the Lords on 23 May: HP Commons 1604-29, v. 264.

When taking notes in the Lords, Bridgwater made no attempt to create a full record. For example, on 20 Mar., on which day the notes begin, 11 peers were formally introduced to the House, yet Bridgwater recorded the names of only four. The following day, he noted down the fact that the earl of Bristol took his seat, but omitted to record any of the speeches delivered aside from one, a motion made by the 4th earl of Bedford (Francis Russell^*) on behalf of the dowager countess of Dorset. He also failed to note the reading of two bills.105 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 76, 92. Clearly, Bridgwater chose not to record everything. What he included, and what he excluded, says much about what he thought was important. He was particularly interested in the debates on the king’s right to imprison men without showing cause, a subject which largely dominated the session. He not only recorded the arguments used, but also the legal precedents cited (which he could presumably check at his leisure in his late father’s law books). On one occasion, on 7 Apr., he even took detailed notes during a conference between the two Houses, though he himself had not been appointed a reporter by the Lords. On another, on 21 Apr., he evidently arrived late, as his notes for that morning commence halfway through a debate on the liberties of the subject.106 Ibid. 165, 316. One other subject which found its way into Bridgwater’s notes was that of procedure. On 26 Mar. Bridgwater recorded that the 1st Viscount Saye and Sele (William Fiennes^*) spoke for a second time in debate without being granted leave to do so. He also observed that on 9 Apr. the 2nd earl of Devonshire (William Cavendish^*) was permitted to sit while delivering his report rather than stand, as was customary.107 Ibid. 108, 161.

Aside from assuming the mantle of diarist, Bridgwater seems to have played only a minor role in the session. He made only a handful of speeches, most of them during the debates on the Petition of Right, when he helped defend the crown’s interests. Judging from comments made by him on 14 May, he welcomed the letter sent to the House two days earlier by the king, in which Charles declared that he could not allow the Petition to pass if it deprived him of the right to imprison men without showing cause. Seven days later, Bridgwater supported Buckingham, who argued that it was essential to add a saving clause to the Petition in order to preserve the king’s authority. He also concurred after the duke suggested that the saving clause be reworded, so that ‘sovereignty’ was replaced with ‘prerogative’. Indeed, he pointed out that the word ‘prerogative’ was to be found in an early version of Magna Carta. On 17 May Bridgwater was one of four peers who protested that they had never believed that commitment without cause shown could be permanent.108 Ibid. 429, 452, 490.

As in 1626, Bridgwater was appointed not only a trier of petitions, but also a member of the committee for privileges and the committee for petitions.109 Ibid. 62, 73, 79. It seems likely that he continued to chair the latter body. On 16 Apr. he delivered one of its reports, and on 10 Apr. he upbraided the Muscovy Company after its governors failed to observe a ruling made by the House in 1626 on the recommendation of the petitions committee.110 Ibid. 193, 245; Procs. 1626, i. 301-2, 320, 323. Bridgwater was appointed to only three legislative committees during the course of the session. The first, on 29 Mar., concerned the tenants of Bromfield and Yale, the 1626 bill having been reintroduced. Bridgwater chaired the committee and delivered its report on 1 April. His second appointment was to consider a bill for the better maintenance of hospitals and almshouses. His final legislative committee, which he chaired, concerned the 3rd Lord Gerard, whose bill he had already helped to consider in 1626. He delivered the committee’s findings to the House on 24 April. The only other committee to which Bridgwater was nominated was established on 3 Apr. in response to proposals, laid before the House by Buckingham, for increasing trade and shipping.111 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 120, 133, 146, 151, 189, 339.

On 8 June, 18 days before the session was prorogued, Bridgwater and his fellow privy councillors each agreed to lend the king £500.112 APC, 1627-8, p. 487. In August Bridgwater’s patron, Buckingham, was murdered. When Parliament reassembled in January the following year, Bridgwater pleaded illness and was excused. Although reappointed to the committee for privileges and the committee for petitions,113 LJ, iv. 6a, 6b, 25b. he never took his seat.

Lord presidency of the council in the Marches, 1631-40

Some during the later 1620s, Bridgwater married his third daughter, Elizabeth, to David Cecil^* (later 3rd earl of Exeter), the nephew of William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Exeter. The expense involved was significant, as the dowry alone amounted to £5,000.114 HEHL, EL6315. On the face of it, this outlay might help to explain why, in June 1629, Bridgwater delayed paying £100 due to the crown for his livery, and why, too, he enquired of his lawyer whether he was obliged to pay respite of homage, having done homage to the king in person at Charles’ coronation in 1626. (He was told that he was). In fact, Bridgwater was still very far from being hard up, for at around the same time as he was quibbling over these minor feudal duties he bought a property known as Maresley Park from the king for £2,000.115 HEHL, EL6477.

Bridgwater was one of only two members of the Privy Council not to be summoned to serve on the jury which tried the 2nd earl of Castlehaven [I] (Mervyn Audley^*, 12th Lord Audley) on charges of rape, incest and sodomy in April 1631. His exclusion was undoubtedly due to the fact that he was Castlehaven’s brother-in-law (the two men having married sisters).116 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 106. Earlier that same month, Bridgwater learned that he was to be appointed lord president of the council of the marches of Wales, the position that his father had sought for him in 1617, in succession to William Compton^*, 1st earl of Northampton, who had died the previous year.117 C115/104/8078. However, for reasons that are unclear, the formal appointment was not made until 26 June.118 HMC 13th Rep. IV, 278.

In view of his extensive landholdings in Wales and on the Welsh border, Bridgwater was a natural choice as lord president, although he had never held high office before, and was now in his early fifties. However, he continued to be plagued by crippling bouts of gout, one of which prevented him from visiting Ludlow, the seat of the council’s administration, in the summer of 1633.119 HEHL, EL6350; J. Milton, Comus: A Mask Presented at Ludlow Castle, 1634, Before the Earl of Bridgwater (1798) ed. H.J. Todd, 22. Not until the summer of 1634 was he able to journey to Ludlow, where he remained until mid October.120 HEHL, EL6675; CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 145; Staffs. RO, D1287/18/2, P399/115, 117. Bridgwater nevertheless discharged his duties diligently and effectively, primarily from his house in the Barbican. His chief concern was to increase the standing of the council, whose membership he greatly increased in 1633.121 C.A.J. Skeel, Council in the Marches of Wales, 151, 155, 156. Soon after taking office, in July 1631, he promised the justices of the marches that he would ‘endeavour to prevent as much as I may’ the Westminster law courts from issuing writs of prohibition. These writs had the effect of transferring business from Ludlow to Westminster, and were a longstanding grievance. He also asked the justices to ‘observe what counsellors or attorneys they be that draw or prefer such bills as may occasion this unbefitting clashing of his Majesty’s courts’.122 NLW, 339F, p. 209. Printed, without date, by Todd in Milton, 23. On the judicial side, Bridgwater presided over an average of 1,200 cases a year and personally maintained the court’s casebooks. Moreover, as was demonstrated by the case of Marjorie Evans, who protested after a JP failed to prosecute her assailant for rape, he was not afraid to overrule the local gentry.123 Oxford DNB, xvii. 996-7.

As lord president, Bridgwater was responsible for overseeing the collection of money raised by the crown in the areas under his control. In general, Wales was a poor country, and therefore Bridgwater was surprised in 1635 that it proved relatively easy to collect Ship Money there.124 HMC Cowper, ii. 76. Not until 1638 did receipts from this source begin to falter.125 M.D. Gordon, ‘Collection of Ship-Money in the Reign of Chas. I’, TRHS (ser. 3), iv. 162. However, Bridgwater encountered greater difficulty two years later when he tried to raise money for the repair of St Paul’ Cathedral.126HEHL, EL7410. Kevin Sharpe mistakenly thought this letter related to Ship Money: K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 326.

Bridgwater again fell ill in 1635. Over the summer he took the waters at Tunbridge, in Kent, but by late December he was so unwell that he was temporarily housebound.127 HEHL, EL6844; HMC Cowper, ii. 205-6. The following March he suffered the loss of his wife, whom he loved dearly (‘a wife worthy [of] such a husband’, as he described her on her funeral monument).128 Milton, 25; Coult, 114. He was probably less upset at the death in January 1637 of his stepmother, who had tried to deprive him of part of his inheritance on the death of his father nearly 20 years earlier. Her demise meant that two important Shropshire manors now reverted to him. Their revenues undoubtedly provided a welcome addition to his income, for by the beginning of 1636 Bridgwater had racked up debts of more than £28,000.129 D. Lysons, An Historical Acct. of those Parishes in the Co. of Mdx. which are not described in the Environs of London, 122; E. Hopkins, ‘Re-leasing of the Ellesmere Estates, 1637-42’, Agricultural Hist. Rev. x. 15. Some of these were presumably incurred as a result of his service as lord president, but the need to provide for so many daughters must also have been a contributory factor.

Bridgwater expressed disappointment in February 1639 that his continued infirmity prevented him from serving the king in person to fight the Scottish Covenanters. Charged with providing 12 horsemen for six months for the forthcoming campaign, he proposed instead to pay £1,000 due to the difficulty in finding horses and arms.130 HEHL, EL6958. His offer was initially spurned, as being agreeable neither to the king’s honour nor his. Consequently he prepared both the men and the horses required.131 HEHL, EL6600. However, in mid March the king decided that he would accept cash after all. Bridgwater naturally protested that this was now impossible, as he had spent the money in preparing his quota of cavalry.132 HMC Cowper, ii. 216. However, far from eliciting a sympathetic response, he was told to sell his horses, and to provide specie as instructed. He evidently complied with these instructions.133 HEHL, EL6605, 6609; M. Fissel, Bishops’ Wars, 126n.

Bridgwater was subsequently heavily involved in raising troops for the royal army in his capacity as lord lieutenant of Wales and the marches. However, following the Pacification of Berwick the troops he had prepared were stood down.134 Cal. Wynn Pprs. 257, 258; NLW, 6285E, ff. 49, 56. By the beginning of 1640 it was clear that hostilities with the Covenanters would soon resume. As the king was desperately short of cash, Bridgwater was pressured into offering to lend the crown £5,000.135 CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 302. Secretary of State Windebank (Sir Francis Windebank^‡) complained that this sum was only half of what was required, but Bridgwater encountered so many problems that he feared he would not be able to furnish more than £2,500.136 Ibid. 309, 391, 400, 416, 443. In the event, he managed to raise the sum he had originally offered, which was paid into the Exchequer on 21 February.137 Fissel, 126.

Bridgwater attended both the Short Parliament and the Great Council of Peers, which met at York in September 1640. Impeached by the Long Parliament in 1641 for removing a judge, he escaped serious censure. Following the outbreak of the First Civil War he was appointed a commissioner of array by the king, but was imprisoned by the Parliament in the Gatehouse. Subsequently released, he played no active part in the conflict, but was kept house-bound by chronic gout.138 HMC 6th Rep. 16. He died at Ashridge in December 1649, having incurred crippling debts, including £51,700 owed in connection with a disastrous voyage to the East Indies.139 C. Hamilton, ‘Bridgewater Debts’, HLQ, xlii. 217.