WESTON, Richard (1577-1635)

Weston was the grandson and namesake of a barrister who was returned to the Commons for four different boroughs in the 1550s and who purchased an estate in Essex.72 HP Commons, 1509-58, iii. 588-9. He came to prominence when his patron, Lionel Cranfield^*, Lord Cranfield (later 1st earl of Middlesex), secured his appointment as chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1621, and survived Middlesex’s fall in 1624 thanks to the support of James I. Although regarded with suspicion by both Prince Charles^* (Stuart, prince of Wales) and George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham in 1624, he retained his post after Charles’s accession the following year and staunchly defended Buckingham against impeachment proceedings in the Commons in 1626, which undoubtedly endeared him to the king and the duke.73 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 728-30; Add. 72276, f. 23v; Cabala (1691), i. 276-7. Nevertheless, in October 1627 the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Sir Humphrey May^‡, felt it necessary to assure Buckingham that Weston was ‘a flame of fire in anything that concerns you’, suggesting that there were still doubts about the latter’s loyalty to the duke.74 SP16/80/60.

Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon later wrote that Weston, as a Member of the Commons, ‘carried himself so luckily in Parliament that he did his master much service, and preserved himself in the good opinion and acceptation of the [lower] House’.75 Clarendon, i. 60. However, Weston’s close connections with the Catholic community aroused widespread suspicions about his religion. His wife was a notorious recusant and Weston allowed her to bring up their daughters (although not their sons) in the Catholic faith. As well as having numerous Catholic friends, Weston acted as a channel of communication between the pro-Jesuit faction and the crown.76 Add. 72253, f. 124; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 306; Newsletters from the Caroline Ct. ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. ser. 5. xxvi), 66, 68, 71, 74; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 348.

Although Weston was probably always a Catholic at heart he was evidently never willing to let his faith stand in the way of his advancement. Before becoming lord treasurer he was at pains ‘to please some very much and to displease none, in which art he excelled’. However, James I reportedly said that ‘no man need fear damnation if Sir Richard Weston went to heaven’, as the latter had ‘a tongue that spoke ill of all men’, suggesting that Weston had a reputation for spreading poisonous gossip behind people’s backs.77 Clarendon, i. 61; Oglander Mems. W. H. Long, 124.

The 1628-9 Parliament and lord treasurer

On 9 Feb. 1628 the Catholic peer Thomas Darcy^*, 1st Earl Rivers announced his intention of supporting Weston in the Essex election for the new Parliament due to meet the following month, ‘if he [i.e. Weston] stand for it’.78 Procs 1628, p. 146. However, there is no further evidence that Weston sought election, and anyway, by then it was being reported that he would be raised to the peerage, apparently without payment.79 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 324; Strafforde Letters, i. 44. Nevertheless, Weston did exercise influence on some elections to the lower House in 1628, largely thanks to his friendship with Antony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu. At Midhurst, which he had represented in the first Jacobean Parliament, he helped secure the return of Edward Savage^‡, cousin of Rivers’ Catholic son-in-law, Thomas Savage^*, 1st Viscount Savage. In addition, his son Jerome^†, later 2nd earl of Portland, was returned for Gatton by the recusant William Copley, who was connected with Montagu. However, the Gatton return was disallowed by the Commons. Consequently, Jerome had to wait until the summer before finding another seat, at Lewes, which by-election was precipitated by the ennoblement of the courtier George Goring^*, Lord Goring (later 1st earl of Norwich).80 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 395, 414, 416; ANTHONY MARIA BROWNE; THOMAS SAVAGE.

Despite the rumours that he was about to be made a peer, Weston was not in fact made a baron until 13 April. Prior to that date he attended the Lords as an assistant.81 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 146. Weston probably owed his ennoblement to the debates on the liberty of the subject, which dominated proceedings in the Lords in April 1628. Several new peers were created at this time in order to help defend the royal prerogative in the upper House, including Goring, John Mohun^*, 1st Lord Mohun, and Edward Howard^*, 1st Lord Howard of Escrick. However, Weston was presumably put in the Lords not merely to provide lobby fodder, but to defend the powers of the crown in debate.

Weston was introduced to the Lords on 14 Apr. by Dudley North^*, 3rd Lord North, and Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu. He subsequently attended 89 per cent of the remaining sittings of the 1628 session (64 of 72). His longest absence, from 19 to 23 June inclusive, was due to poor health, for which he was excused on 21 June.82 Ibid. 686. He received two proxies, from the Viscount Montagu and another Catholic peer, Henry Neville^*, 9th or 2nd Lord Abergavenny.83 Ibid. 27. He took the oath of allegiance on 7 May, but was nevertheless presented as a recusant officeholder by the Commons on 14 June because of his wife’s failure to attend church.84 Ibid. 390; CD 1628, iv. 324.

Weston made 18 recorded speeches and was appointed to 18 of the 33 committees established by the Lords between his introduction on 14 Apr. and the end of the session. Among the topics covered by his legislative appointments were the observation of the Sabbath, the repressing of recusants and confirmation of Henrietta Maria’s jointure. They also included private measures for Abergavenny and his friend Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel.85 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 256, 421, 482, 626, 641; Alexander, 17. His first recorded speech was made on 17 Apr., when he tried to end the controversy which had arisen the previous day concerning comments made by the 2nd earl of Devonshire (William Cavendish^*) at a conference with the Commons concerning the liberties of the subject. Weston stated that at the time he had ‘conceived that Devonshire spoke against the order of the House’ but ‘he now perceives he mistook’ and moved that ‘no disorders [be] spoken of’.86 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 258.

Three days later Weston made his first substantial contribution to the debates concerning the liberties of the subject, which had crystalized around the issue of whether the crown could imprison without showing legal ground for commitment. He argued that it was ‘clear, [that] the king and his Council may commit upon a just cause’; the only question which had to be resolved was whether the cause needed to be stated.87 Ibid. 313. The following day he urged the House to defend the king’s power to imprison for reasons of state. Arguing that they were all agreed that the king had to be allowed some ‘latitude’, he asserted that the law, as it stood, ‘preserves the prerogative and the subject’s liberty’. However, he claimed that this balance would be destroyed if Parliament legislated against arbitrary imprisonment, because the king had the right to suspend any statute he chose, and if he exercised that right in this case ‘then the subjects [will] lose all’. He concluded that ‘as these things stand we cannot join with the Commons’. He nevertheless joined Devonshire in calling for an ‘accommodation’, but unlike Devonshire he wanted this accommodation to be on the king’s terms. He perceived that fear of absolutism was preventing the Commons from accepting the king’s assurances that he would uphold the rights of the subject, but asserted that these ‘fears cannot be satisfied’. For this reason it was better ‘to forget’ the argument that if the prerogative were not restrained ‘we then hold our lands and lives at will’.88 Ibid. 324, 325, 327, 329.

Weston participated in the debate on 6 May concerning the right of peers to answer in the courts on their honour rather than on oath. He stated that he had been present in Star Chamber in February 1627 when, following the refusal of Theophilus Clinton^*, 4th earl of Lincoln, to answer proceedings against him except on his honour, the judges had cited ‘many precedents that the nobility ought to take their oaths’.89 Ibid. 384, 387; Eng. Reps. ed. A. Wood Renton et al., lxxix. 659.

On 9 May Weston was among those instructed to consider the Petition of Right, which the Commons had by now presented to the Lords.90 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 400. Three days later, the Lords resolved to ask the Commons to amend the Petition after Charles declared that he was unable to surrender his power to imprison without cause as this would lead to the ‘overthrow of [his] sovereignty’. Prior to the resulting conference on 14 May, Weston, fearing that the lower House might have reacted badly to Charles’s letter, tried to strike a conciliatory note, suggesting that they should tell the Commons ‘that we come not to conclude their right nor [to] exclude the king’s’. He argued that Charles’s letter needed to be ‘interpreted’ and that only the last section, in which Charles had promised not to imprison for refusal to lend to the crown ‘or for any other cause which … does not concern the state’, was ‘to be spoken of’. He was subsequently appointed to draft ‘reasons to move the Commons to amend the Petition’ to make it compatible with the king’s letter.91 Ibid. 412-13, 421, 424; CD 1628, iii. 372-3.

Later that day Weston attended the conference with the Commons about the king’s letter, which was briefly broken off in order to allow Members of the Commons to return to their chamber. During the interval, Weston observed that he ‘supposes there was a mistaking in some of the Commons’ over whether they had formally voted for the Petition.92 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 426. The conference was subsequently resumed but the Commons refused to consider the king’s letter. After the Lords returned to their chamber, Weston agreed with William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, that, even if a compromise could not be reached with the Commons over arbitrary imprisonment, the Lords should continue to consider the Petition of Right.93 Ibid. 430.

Following the refusal of the lower House to amend the Petition in accordance with the king’s letter, Weston shifted his focus to ensure that the Petition safeguarded the king’s powers in general. On 17 May he argued that a saving clause for the prerogative should be inserted, because a ‘power which is not known and confessed cannot be obeyed’, and because it was necessary to acknowledge ‘the just power’ with which the king ‘is trusted for the government and safety of the kingdom’. His proposal was accepted by the House. He further moved that, if the Commons refused to accept the Lords’ amendments they were ‘to show the reasons why’.94 Ibid. 453, 454-5, 457.

Weston defended his proposed clause two days later, arguing that he had not intended that it ‘should reflect upon any point of the Petition, but [serve as] a narration only’. He also moved, unsuccessfully, for a committee to consider the clause in the Petition concerning unlawful oaths, which he seems to have regarded as ambiguous.95 Ibid. 463, 465. The following day, in order to ‘prevent ill rumours’, he again defended his proposed additional clause, which he denied was intended to ‘diminish the least part’ of the Petition.96 Ibid. 480, 481. He was still anxious about how his clause would be interpreted by the Commons on 21 May, when he moved that a committee should ‘think of the reasons for maintaining the proposition’. However, his advice was not taken, though his fears proved well founded, as the Commons rejected his amendment.97 Ibid. 490, 493. Perhaps not surprisingly, Weston seems not to have contributed to the subsequent debates on the Petition. Although it was reported on 20 June that he had ‘given out … that the king by Tuesday would send away the Commons with as ample satisfaction as they could wish’, this seems unlikely as he was ill at this time.98 Procs. 1628, pp. 185-6. On 26 June, the last day of the session, Weston intervened to remind the Speaker of the Commons to present the subsidy bill.99 CD 1628, iv. 482.

In the aftermath of the session Charles initially decided to publish an answer to the Remonstrance which the Commons had presented to him on 17 June. William Laud^*, bishop of Bath and Wells (later archbishop of Canterbury), drafted the answer and Weston was instructed to provide a preface. In the event, however, the king decided not to respond. Weston’s preface, if it was ever completed, has not survived.100 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 185-6.

Following the prorogation, Weston was appointed lord treasurer. His promotion owed as much to Buckingham’s desire to make peace with Spain as it did to the infirmity and inability of his predecessor, the 1st earl of Marlborough (James Ley^*). Weston had always been sceptical about the wisdom of waging war against Spain and had links with the Spanish Netherlands dating back to his embassy there in 1622.101 L.J. Reeve, Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule, 42-5, 54-5. The new lord treasurer was reportedly obliged to pay £10,000 for his office to Marlborough, and a further £6,000 to Marlborough’s wife, a kinswoman of Buckingham’s.102 Add 35331, f. 23v. Weston took the opportunity provided by his advancement to engineer an accord between Buckingham and his old friend and fellow advocate of peace with Spain, Sir Thomas Wentworth^*, later 1st earl of Strafford, who was raised to the peerage at around the same time.103 Reeve, 34-5; P. Zagorin, ‘Sir Edward Stanhope’s Advice to Thomas Wentworth’, HJ, vii. 314.

Having demonstrated his commitment to reducing government expenditure by cutting Marlborough’s payoff from the crown by a third, Weston drew up a report on the royal finances, which he sent to Buckingham on 13 Aug., emphasizing the urgent need for economy.104 HMC 4th Rep. 290; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 254. However, the biggest obstacle to retrenchment was not so much the war with Spain but the parallel conflict with France, which Buckingham was determined to continue. Five days after sending him his report, Weston wrote to Buckingham, then preparing to lead an expedition to La Rochelle, that ‘I long also to see you at home again with honour, in a quiet and settled court, studying his Majesty’s affairs here, which require two contrary things to cure them: rest and vigilancy’.105 SP16/113/14. Weston’s advocacy of a pacific foreign policy was almost certainly unwelcome to the duke. Indeed, Clarendon later recalled that Buckingham became quickly disillusioned with Weston and intended to replace him.106 Clarendon, i. 59.

Weston was saved from dismissal by the assassination of Buckingham, which occurred just five days after he wrote his letter. He subsequently emerged as one of the principal beneficiaries of the shift in power which resulted from the duke’s death; as early as 1 Sept. observers were remarking on his intimacy with the king.107 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 310; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 293. On 1 Nov. it was reported that he was ‘dominus factotum, unto whom, the residue, they say, are but ciphers’.108 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 419. See also CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 294-5; Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 310; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 404; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 391. Weston himself seems to have regarded the assassination of Buckingham as a chance for a fresh start; on 8 Sept. he wrote to Wentworth stating ‘there is none now to impute our faults unto’ and that he hoped that ‘our affairs may be settled in the ancient way, without raking over the ashes of the dead’.109 Strafforde Letters, i. 47. When, on 20 Sept., Charles appointed a commission to administer the admiralty in Buckingham’s stead, Weston, as lord treasurer, headed the list.

In November the Venetian ambassador reported that Weston had little interest in foreign affairs and wanted to revive the pacific Jacobean foreign policy. He also claimed that the lord treasurer’s crypto-Catholicism made him opposed to the recall of Parliament. As a result, Weston had embarked on an economy drive to obviate the necessity of obtaining a grant of supply from the Commons.110 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 394. It is certainly true that in September Weston had embarked on drastic austerities. He disbanded most of the forces which returned from La Rochelle and suspended the payment of all pensions.111 F.C. Dietz, English Public Finance 1558-1641 (1964), 251; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 581; SO3/9 unfol. (Sept. 1628); CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 326, 359. He also managed to persuade Charles not to hold a sumptuous funeral or erect a monument for Buckingham.112 Birch, Chas. I, i. 419. Moreover, he acted quickly to ensure that diplomatic contacts established with Spain before the duke’s death were kept alive, and to assure the Spanish of his commitment to peace.113 Reeve, 44, 55. He also did his best to promote political allies who favoured peace with Spain such as Arundel, who was restored to the Privy Council on 26 Oct., and Sir Francis Cottington^†, subsequently Lord Cottington, appointed to the Council the following month and who later became chancellor of the Exchequer.114 APC, 1628-9, pp. 205, 228; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 293; CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 394, 432; Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 310.

Contrary to the Venetian ambassador’s report, however, there is little evidence that Weston was opposed to a new session of Parliament. In September he told Wentworth that ‘good agreement between the king and his people’ was necessary, both in principle and for his personal ‘profit and safety’.115 Strafforde Letters, i. 47. His view that the assassination of Buckingham had removed a major stumbling block to good relations between the crown and the Commons may have been coupled with a belief that he retained sufficient goodwill in the lower House to manage the Commons successfully.

Weston’s chief concern was to ensure that the customs duties known as tunnage and poundage were placed on a statutory footing, for, ever since 1625, they had been collected without parliamentary approval. He had no wish to dwell on the king’s right to levy these duties without reference to Parliament, but instead ‘did wholly refer that [matter] to the Parliament, where, he made no doubt, that there would be a perfect agreement between the king and subject’. Secretary of State Sir John Coke^‡ had no doubt that Weston’s ‘wisdom and moderation’ would help ensure the success of the forthcoming session.116 SP92/14, f. 145v. This was a trifle optimistic, however, as Weston’s religious sympathies were a continued source of concern. On 28 Nov. it was reported that his wife had finally agreed to conform to the Church of England, presumably in the hope of easing Weston’s relations with the Commons.117 Birch, Chas. I, i. 438-9, 440. However, in December one well placed observer thought that Weston was unlikely to succeed in his policy of trying to appease potential critics in Parliament because of continued suspicions of his Catholicism.118 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 410-11. Moreover, there were other reasons for thinking that he would not be a successful parliamentary manager. His suspension of the payment of pensions had presumably antagonized many courtiers. Moreover, on becoming lord treasurer, Weston had abandoned his previous care to offend no-one and so gained a reputation for brusqueness and arrogance.119 Clarendon, i. 61; Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 375; CSP Ven. 1632-7, p. 367.

The 1629 session of the third Caroline Parliament convened on 20 Jan. and, in total, Weston was recorded as attending 13 of the 23 sittings of the upper House. It is possible that official business prevented him from attending more often; on 20 Feb., when he was not marked as present, he wrote to the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, from Whitehall.120 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 477. Entrusted with the proxies of his wife’s cousin, William Petre^*, 2nd Lord Petre, and William Cavendish^*, 1st earl (subsequently 1st duke) of Newcastle, he was appointed to eight of the 19 committees established by the Lords, including those on privileges and petitions.121 LJ, iv. 3a-b, 6a-b. He was among those instructed to draft a petition concerning the precedence of Englishmen who had purchased Irish or Scottish titles and to survey munitions. He is only recorded as having spoken once during the session, on 27 Jan., when he reported the king’s response to the petition for a fast.122 Ibid. 14a. 27b, 37b.

On 29 Jan. Sir John Eliot^‡, who may have been angered that Weston had singled out Wentworth for advancement rather than himself, launched a thinly veiled attack on the lord treasurer in the Commons.123 CD 1629, p. 24; J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), ii. 82. Nevertheless, the following month Weston appears to have taken part in last-ditch negotiations with Eliot and other prominent members of the Commons in order to salvage the session. These foundered on the king’s refusal, possibly on Weston’s advice, to allow officials who had collected unparliamentary customs to be prosecuted.124 Hacket, ii. 83; CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 579-80; Reeve, 85. On the tumultuous last day of the session Eliot launched a full scale assault on Weston, ‘in whose person all evil is contracted’. Describing the lord treasurer as the reincarnated spirit of Buckingham and the ‘head of the papists and Jesuits’, he threatened Weston with impeachment.125 CD 1629, pp. 102-3, 170-2, 241-2, 259-60. The Venetian ambassador reported that in the Privy Council debates which followed, Weston was one of the principal advocates of a dissolution.126 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 580.

The Personal Rule

According to the Venetian ambassador, there was widespread hatred against Weston after the third Caroline Parliament ended.127 Ibid. 589. In June 1629 it was further reported that his financial stringency had made the lord treasurer as unpopular at court ‘as ever was any’ and that Londoners thought that he would soon be replaced by Wentworth.128 Birch, Chas. I, ii. 20. Weston certainly had powerful enemies at court, mostly centred around the queen, who disliked him partly, because he had constrained expenditure on her household and partly because of his support for peace with Spain.129 CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 142. The most prominent member of her faction was Henry Rich*, 1st earl of Holland, whom Rubens reported in July as seeking to ruin Weston.130 Letters of Peter Paul Rubens ed. R.S Magurn, 313. However, their attempts to unseat Weston proved unavailing because Charles remained firmly committed to him.131 CSP Ven. 1629-32, pp. 510, 527.

In October 1629 it was rumoured that Weston would be created earl of Romford, then a small town in south-west Essex some distance from the lands he had inherited. The following month it was said that he would be made master of the Court of Wards and receive the order of the Garter.132 Birch, Chas. I, ii. 33, 36; Morant, Essex, ii. 71. In fact, the only one of these predictions which proved accurate was the last, as Weston was elected to the Garter the following April. That same month, Charles nominated Weston to succeed Pembroke as chancellor of Oxford University, but his letter arrived too late and Laud was elected instead.133 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 233; Birch, Chas. I, ii. 74. Nevertheless, during the early 1630s commentators made frequent reference to Weston’s power at court and his influence with the king.134 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 367, 382-2; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 369; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 294; C115/107/8547. Indeed, in November 1632 Sir Tobie Matthew^‡ argued that a court conspiracy against the lord treasurer had only strengthened his power.135 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 437.

In July 1630 Laud described Weston as ‘very noble to the Church’.136 Works of Abp. Laud, iii. ed. J. Bliss, 214. However, by the following year the two men had fallen out over a generous grant of royal timber which the former had procured for building works at his old college, St John’s, Oxford.137 Ibid. vi. 273. Moreover, Weston also turned against his old ally, Wentworth, whom he began to regard as a rival for the office of lord treasurer, for by the following October he was seeking to have him appointed Ireland’s lord deputy in order to remove him from the English court. However, Wentworth continued to regard Weston as his friend, and accepted the office in early 1632.138 Zagorin, 301; THOMAS WENTWORTH, VISCOUNT WENTWORTH. The following May it was again reported that Weston would be created an earl, this time of Chelmsford, which borough lay close to the property his grandfather had purchased in Essex. However, by now Weston was seeking to establish himself in Hampshire, where he had been appointed lord lieutenant in 1631. Consequently, the title of his earldom, conferred in February 1633, had no connection with Essex. Quite why he settled on Portland in Dorset, with which place he had no known connection, is unclear though.139 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 340; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 633.

During the early 1630s, Weston restored a certain degree of solvency to the English state, repaying almost £100,000 of the crown’s debts in 1630-1. The improved financial situation was largely the result of peace, which boosted customs revenues and reduced expenditure, but Weston also increased income from a number of minor sources and imposed greater control over expenditure. However, his most significant contribution to increasing the crown’s ordinary income was to revise the customs duties, which project did not bear fruit until after his death.140 Dietz, 259-60, 268-9; Reeve, 204-5. He was perhaps also responsible for the most significant source of extraordinary revenue in the early 1630s, knighthood composition. Although moves to levy fines from landowners who failed to be knighted at the coronation had begun before Weston became lord treasurer, the establishment of county commissions in 1630, during Weston’s treasurership, massively increased receipts.141 H.H. Leonard, ‘Distraint of Knighthood: the Last Phase, 1625-41’, History, lxiii. 23-6, 35.

Weston’s success in improving the crown’s revenues came with a price, however, as the lord treasurer was widely blamed for the projects of the 1630s, in particular the soap monopoly.142 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix) 105. After his death, Laud alleged that Weston received £2,000 a year from the patentees.143 Works of Abp. Laud, vii. 141. His role in the introduction of Ship Money, the most significant fiscal innovation of the early 1630s, was probably limited. The scheme may have had its origins in a proposal put by Portland to the Spanish ambassador in January 1634, for deploying an English naval squadron in the Channel, paid for by the Spanish, in order to put pressure on the Dutch to agree to negotiate peace with Spain. It quickly became apparent to the English that the financially hard-pressed Spanish would find it difficult to pay any money promptly, obliging the English to find ways of bridging the gap. However, in the summer of 1634 Portland seems to have been cautious about proceeding with ‘the great business’, apparently preferring to make the sailing of the squadron conditional on the receipt of money from Spain. Portland may have been worried that a new unparliamentary levy would generate dangerous levels of opposition and, if successful, might tempt Charles I into an anti-Spanish foreign policy. Moreover, Ship Money was not paid into the Exchequer, for one of the purposes of this levy was to free the Navy from its financial dependence on the treasury.144 Oxford DNB online sub Weston, Richard, 1st earl of Portland (Jan. 2008); A.J. Loomie, ‘Spanish Faction at the Court of Chas. I, 1630-8’, BIHR, lix. 40-1; A.A.M. Gill, ‘Ship Money During the Personal Rule of Chas. I’ (Sheffield Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1990), 33-4; State Papers collected by Edward Earl of Clarendon ed. R. Scrope (1767), i. 94-5; A. Thrush, ‘Naval Finance and the Origins and Development of Ship Money’, War and Govt. in Britain ed. M.C. Fissel, 151-3.

Weston played an important diplomatic role in the early years of the Personal Rule, although Rubens, who went to London as an unofficial envoy of the king of Spain in the summer of 1629, described him as ‘cold and ponderous in his negotiations, and completely reliant on Cottington’.145 Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, 304. There was undoubtedly some truth in this – he certainly secured the appointment of Cottington as an extraordinary ambassador to Spain to negotiate a peace treaty, against the advice of a majority of the Council – but he nevertheless handled many of the discussions with Rubens himself.146 Ibid. 300, 307, 310, 352; HMC Cowper, i. 387; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 148; Weston, probably to appease his royal master, initially seems to have wanted to make the peace conditional on the restoration of the Palatinate, but, once Cottington was in Spain, he abandoned this condition.147 Strafforde Letters, i. 51; Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, 352; Original Unpublished Pprs. Illustrative of the Life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens ed. W.N. Sainsbury, 143-4. In 1631, after the treaty was concluded, he received £2,500 in Spanish silver.148 Loomie, 38.

In 1630 Weston secured the appointment of his client, Sir Henry Vane^‡, as extraordinary ambassador to the United Provinces in an attempt to negotiate a settlement between that republic and Spain. The following year he may also have played an important part in ensuring that Charles did not ally himself with the Swedish king, Gustavus Adolphus in the latter’s war against the Habsburgs.149 Reeve, 261, 276, 279, 282, 284, 286. Nevertheless, his hispanophile tendencies should not be exaggerated; although he was willing to express support for the Habsburg cause, his objective seems to have been to extract a subsidy from Spain for the Caroline regime while doing as little as possible to compromise English neutrality.150 Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, 345.

In 1632, following secret negotiations between Weston, Cottington and the Spanish ambassador in London, Cottington put forward a proposal, probably with Weston’s assent, for Spain to pay for English garrisons on the Flanders coastline. However, this idea was rejected in Madrid because there was no commitment to hostile action against Spain’s enemies. The lord treasurer himself proposed a military alliance with the Habsburgs in early 1634, but only on condition that the Elector Palatine was restored before any treaty was negotiated, giving the English plenty of scope to sabotage the proposed alliance. Unsurprisingly, nothing more was heard of this idea. The Spanish responded more favourably to Portland’s alternative proposition, that of funding an English naval squadron. However, Portland declined to commit his royal master to breaking off relations with the Dutch should they refuse to come to terms with Spain. The Spanish were understandably reluctant simply to subsidize the English fleet, and the negotiations were not concluded when Portland died in 1635; indeed, they ultimately failed. After his death the Spanish ambassador to England, while praising his ‘great merits and abilities’, complained that Portland had been ‘too irresolute and long … in my business’. However, Portland’s apparent irresolution may have been intended to disguise his reluctance to provide any practical aid for Spain.151 Loomie, 39, 40-2.

Weston had no wish to let the Spanish draw England into war with France, and consequently established contacts with Richelieu in 1629-30.152 Reeve, 264. These links were strengthened after Henrietta Maria turned against Richelieu, as the queen had now become the common enemy of both ministers. In early 1633 the lord treasurer’s son Jerome returned to England from a diplomatic mission with a letter he had intercepted in Paris from Holland which enclosed a missive from Henrietta Maria interceding on behalf of Richelieu’s enemies in France. Holland was so offended that he challenged Jerome to a duel, for which the former suffered a period of house arrest and a dressing down by the Privy Council, presumably to the satisfaction of Weston, now earl of Portland. Portland’s position was further strengthened when Richelieu sent him correspondence which the Cardinal had seized from the queen’s allies in France revealing her intrigues against the lord treasurer.153 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. vii. 217-19; HENRY RICH; K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 176.

Although Catholic commentators generally believed that Weston was too fearful of attack in the Commons to support the summons of a Parliament, this view was not universally shared.154 Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, 313; CSP Ven. 1629-32, pp. 177, 227, 592. In December 1631 it was widely reported that Weston had told Francis Russell^*, 4th earl of Bedford, ‘that for certain we should have a Parliament out of hand’.155 Barrington Letters ed. A. Searle (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xxviii), 222; W.S. Powell, John Pory, microfiche supplement, 184. In January 1634 Sir Thomas Roe^‡ was informed that Portland was not opposed to a new Parliament.156 CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 417. However, the lord treasurer may have spread reports that he was not opposed to Parliament in order to appear moderate and conciliatory, while confident that there was little chance that the king would summon one. Whether Portland feared impeachment is unclear; during the course of the 1629 session the focus of Eliot’s ire had shifted from one figure to another and the latter’s attack on the lord treasurer had not developed sufficiently to show how much support it had in the Commons.157 N. Millstone, Ms Circulation and the Invention of Pols. in Early Stuart Eng. 230. Consequently, it was by no means certain that Portland would have faced impeachment had Parliament met in the early 1630s. However, the experience of the 1629 session may have made the lord treasurer sceptical of his ability to manage the lower House.

By early 1634 Portland was in increasingly poor health. He had been suffering from kidney stones for several years and, on 9 Jan., Wentworth was informed that he was ‘sick often in the stomach’.158 C115/107/8561; Strafforde Letters, i. 177. In March his poor health forced him to retire to his house at Roehampton.159 CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 488. In May it was reported that ‘his stomach hath been gone a long time, so that he eats little, but pours in all kind of drinks, and that in a great quantity, which makes him sick, and forceth him to much vomiting’.160 Strafforde Letters, i. 243. In July he went to Tunbridge Wells to take the waters, but complained that they did him little good.161 C115/106/8426; CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 164.

By this time Wentworth and Laud, now archbishop of Canterbury, had become firmly opposed to Portland, designating him ‘Lady Mora [delay]’ in their correspondence.162 Strafforde Letters, i. 331. In May 1634 Laud, together with the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry, accused Portland of corruption over the sale of some royal lands. Charles made a public show of support for his lord treasurer but, on 15 Aug., it was reported that Portland’s servants where ‘whispering’ that their master would resign in favour of Cottington.163 CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 220-3; C115/106/8439. In October Portland complained that Laud ‘doth him all the ill offices that may be with the king’.164 Strafforde Letters, i. 331; C115/109/8851. However, by December, Portland had recovered sufficiently to make an elegant speech in Star Chamber and, the following January, Laud reported that Charles still had ‘a great opinion’ of Portland, who consequently remained ‘potent at court’.165 C115/106/8474; Works of Abp. Laud, vii. 102, 108.

On 13 Feb. 1635 the newsletter-writer Edmund Rossingham reported that Portland was again very unwell. At the beginning of March Wentworth was informed that ‘his stomach is clean gone’ and ‘he is much fallen away in his body, … his legs much fail him; besides he is always cold’.166 C115/106/8449; Strafforde Letters, i. 374. He was well enough to attend the Privy Council on 22 Feb., but ‘his infirmities … multiplied upon him’ and he died on 13 Mar. ‘in great pain’.167 PC2/44, p. 415; Strafforde Letters, i. 387, 389. It was widely reported that he was finally received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed and received extreme unction. He was buried in Winchester Cathedral on 24 March.168 Strafforde Letters, i. 389-90; Birch, Chas. I, ii. 331-2; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton, 105; HMC Hastings, ii. 78-9; Waters, 99.

Shortly before his death Portland was reportedly visited by the attorney general, Sir John Bankes^‡, who drew up his will. However, this document was never proved and has not survived.169 Strafforde Letters, i. 388. According to Clarendon ‘his expenses were so prodigiously great’ due to ‘his outward opulency’ and building works that he failed to accumulate a large landed estate and died heavily in debt.170 Clarendon, i. 63, 67. Indeed, Wentworth was informed that he left less than £6,000 a year in land, charged with between £25,000 and £30,000 of debt.171 Strafforde Letters, i. 387-9. He was succeeded as 2nd earl of Portland by his son Jerome.