TUCHET, Mervyn (c.1588-1631)

In early life Tuchet, who frequently used the surname Audley prior to his ennoblement, divided his time between his ancestral seat of Stalbridge and Ireland, where his father, the 11th Lord Audley, had recently acquired substantial estates.15 Hutchins, Dorset, iii. 671; LC4/37/222; Herrup, 11. In 1611 he was granted 2,000 acres at Omagh, County Tyrone, as part of the plantation of Ulster. However, around this time he offended the lord deputy, Sir Arthur Chichester, by demanding precedence in Dublin society over Irish privy councillors who were not peers. Snubbed by Chichester, he returned to London and appealed to the commissioners for the office of earl marshal, who confirmed that as a baron’s eldest son he was indeed entitled to this privilege, though it did not extend to his younger brothers.16 CSP Ire. 1611-14, pp. 186-7, 201; SP14/71/39.

Tuchet’s first wife was sister-in-law to Francis Bacon^*, Lord Verulam (later Viscount St Alban), who probably encouraged Tuchet to stand as a knight of the shire for Dorset in 1614. Bacon also came to his aid when questions were raised about the appointment of the vicar of Stalbridge, Allen Bishop, whom Tuchet had presented to the living in about 1609. Through Bacon’s mediation, Bishop was reinstituted by the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley). However, in May 1616 the crown presented a rival incumbent, Caleb Morley, whereupon Tuchet, viewing this as a direct attack on his rights as patron of the parish, prevented Morley from taking up the post. A legal battle ensued, which reached Star Chamber in early 1617. In the interim, Tuchet’s father had become earl of Castlehaven, and accordingly Tuchet began to style himself Lord Audley. Nevertheless, presumably in a bid to delay proceedings, he obtained formal permission to be referred to in Star Chamber as Lord Tuchet, which necessitated the alteration of the bill submitted by Morley. Ironically, shortly before this concession was granted in March 1617, Tuchet succeeded his father as Baron Audley and earl of Castlehaven.17 C54/2495/25; SP14/124/62; STAC 8/210/6; 8/277/7; ‘Camden Diary’, 24.

In December 1618, rumours circulated that Ireland’s current lord deputy, Sir Oliver St John^* (later Lord Tregoz), was about to be recalled. Castlehaven reportedly offered £4,000 to the mother of George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, if she used her influence to get him the post, but in fact the vacancy failed to materialize.18 HMC Ancaster, 393; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 193. In the meantime, Morley was proving an unexpectedly tenacious adversary. In December 1617, and again in 1619, he appealed to James I, but the king referred the dispute to the Privy Council, which sided with Castlehaven on both occasions. In 1620 Morley reneged on an undertaking to abide by the judgement of George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, whereupon the Council again backed Castlehaven, threatening Morley with imprisonment.19 APC, 1616-17, p. 416; 1619-21, pp. 65-6, 68, 72-3, 228; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 143. Nevertheless, this saga took its toll on the earl who, by 1619, was also in conflict with some of his Stalbridge tenants who opposed his local enclosure plans. Despite having only recently rebuilt his mansion house at Stalbridge, in 1620 he purchased from his brother-in-law Sir Henry Mervyn^‡ the Wiltshire seat of Fonthill Gifford, which became his principal home. This transaction, which cost him £25,000, stretched his finances to the limit. In December 1620 he claimed to be £20,000 in debt, and asked on that basis to be excused from contributing towards the defence of the Palatinate.20 C2/Jas. I/C26/36; Herrup, pp. xi, 12; SP14/118/58.

Ownership of Fonthill brought with it electoral influence at the nearby borough of Hindon, which Castlehaven immediately exploited, nominating his brother-in-law Sir John Davies^‡ and his servant John Anketill^‡ for seats in the 1621 Parliament. In the event Davies opted for Newcastle-under-Lyme instead, whereupon Castlehaven brought in Sir Henry Mervyn at the ensuing by-election.21 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 442. The earl himself entered the Lords for the first time, appearing under his English title of Lord Audley. He arrived promptly for the opening of the session, attending the first seven sittings without a break, and taking the oath of allegiance on 5 February. However, Lord Chancellor St Alban excused his absence on grounds of sickness on 14 Feb., and thereafter Castlehaven attended only intermittently, finally withdrawing altogether after 22 February. He was formally licensed in March to be absent, giving his proxy to William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, a fellow Wiltshire peer. Unsurprisingly, given this record, he received no appointments. More significantly, he failed to sign the ‘Humble Petition of the Nobility’, a protest against the social precedence claimed by Englishmen with Irish or Scottish peerages, presumably because he himself fell into that offending category. Castlehaven was subsequently recorded as present on 2 June and 17 Dec., but these dates are so isolated that clerical error may reasonably be suspected.22 LJ, iii. 4b, 10b, 17a; SO3/7, unfol. Meanwhile, the indefatigable Morley renewed his fight for recognition, bringing a bill into the Lords and petitioning both Houses. By now, though, his case was well known, and he was rebuffed on all fronts. On 1 Dec. the Commons even ordered his detention on the motion of Sir John Strangways^‡, who had sat for Dorset with Castlehaven in 1614. The earl, sensing victory at last, presented a new vicar to Stalbridge four days later, and this time prevailed.23 LJ, iii. 204b; SP14/124/62; CJ, i. 655a; CD 1621, ii. 486; v. 21, 228, 411; vi. 219-20, 278; IND1/17001, p. 45.

While Castlehaven may genuinely have fallen ill during the 1621 session, his subsequent decision to stay away from Parliament illustrated a general reluctance to participate in public life which became more pronounced during the next few years. One significant factor behind this behaviour was religion. Around the time of his move to Fonthill, he and his family dabbled in Catholicism. Although Castlehaven probably never fully embraced this proscribed faith, his sons were all enthusiastic converts, which left the earl himself open to suspicion.24 Herrup, 15, 17, 113. This became obvious during the 1624 Parliament, when Castlehaven secured one of the Hindon seats for Matthew Davies^‡, nephew of Sir John Davies, but again stayed away himself. Obtaining leave of absence from the outset, he assigned his proxy to the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln. With Parliament paving the way for war with Spain, a clampdown on Catholics was inevitable. On 20 May the Commons petitioned the Lords to have Castlehaven stripped of his local offices, noting that he was ‘suspected to be ill-affected in religion; and that some of his family either are or lately were recusants’.25 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 443; SO3/7, unfol.; LJ, iii. 214b, 394b. Unsurprisingly, the earl failed to attend the next Parliament, in 1625. Once again he gave his proxy to Lord Keeper Williams and, as usual, he exercised his electoral patronage at Hindon, this time in favour of his kinsman Thomas Lambert^‡.26 Procs. 1625, pp. 47, 590; HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 443.

In the autumn of 1625, with the war against Spain going badly, the government finally clamped down on aristocratic recusants. On 30 Oct. the Privy Council ordered the confiscation of any arms kept by Castlehaven at Fonthill or Sudeley Castle, a property which had recently come into his possession through his second marriage.27 APC, 1625-6, p. 229; Rudder, 717-18. It took the earl around two months to surrender his weapons, and he protested vigorously about his treatment, solemnly assuring Godfrey Goodman^*, bishop of Gloucester on 23 Dec. that he had always conformed to Anglican doctrine, never absented himself from public worship, and never refused the oaths of supremacy and allegiance.28 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 170, 182, 217; SP16/12/40.

Clearly now anxious to redeem his reputation, he seized the opportunity offered by the summoning of a fresh Parliament. Having once again provided a seat at Hindon for Lambert, he resumed his place in the Lords, publicly taking the oath of allegiance on 9 February. Despite his long absence from the House, he was nominated on 15 Feb. to the important committee to assess petitions, and received two appointments to bill committees, one relating to the New River project in the London suburbs, the other to the Atlantic fisheries.29 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 443; Procs. 1626, i. 38, 48, 53, 128. In his only speech, on 25 Feb., he backed Buckingham’s unsuccessful bid to prevent a cap from being imposed on the number of proxies that could be held by an individual peer. During the opening weeks of this session, Castlehaven missed just three days, but after 13 Mar. he again stopped attending, and was excused without explanation two days later.30 Procs. 1626, i. 72, 157.

Whatever it was that triggered his withdrawal from Parliament, Castlehaven was now increasingly at odds with the government. In mid April 1626 he asked to borrow William Higford’s^‡ copy of ‘Parsons’ Doleman’, almost certainly a famous tract by the Elizabethan Jesuit Robert Persons which questioned the Stuart dynasty’s right to the English throne.31 C115/38/2358. Meanwhile, doubtless because of his suspected recusancy, he was stripped of his remaining local offices, a move which presumably served to alienate him still further. By February 1627 he was back in Ireland where, later that year, he was appointed to a commission in County Cork.32 Lismore Pprs. (ser. 1) ed. A.B. Grosart, ii. 207. Castlehaven remained in Ireland for at least another two years, and therefore missed the whole of the 1628-9 Parliament. For the first session at least, he gave his proxy to his wife’s brother-in-law, John Egerton^*, 1st earl of Bridgwater.33 SO3/9, unfol. (Apr. 1628); Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87; LJ, iv. 25a. It was perhaps the latter who alerted the countess when her kinsman James Stanley^*, later 7th earl of Derby, took his place in the Lords under the title of Lord Strange. Anne Tuchet, as coheir to the 5th earl of Derby, also possessed a claim to the ancient barony of Strange. In response to her protests, the Lords on 7 June 1628 ruled that Stanley’s summons under that title did not prejudice her own rights. There is no evidence that Castlehaven intervened in this dispute on his wife’s behalf.34 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 595.

Castlehaven’s extended sojourn in Ireland failed to insulate him from further trouble. In August 1628 the crown began investigating whether he had fulfilled the conditions attached to his land grants in the Ulster plantation. Like many undertakers, the earl had neglected to develop his Irish estates, and in September 1630 most of his property in County Tyrone and County Armagh was confiscated. The beneficiary was the instigator of this inquiry, Sir Piers Crosby, a courtier who had married Castlehaven’s stepmother.35 CSP Ire. 1625-32, pp. 381, 493-4; SO3/9, unfol. (Aug. 1628); Herrup, 23. This betrayal by such close relatives must have hit the earl hard, but there was much worse to follow. In October 1630 his eldest son, James Tuchet^*, Lord Audley complained to the Privy Council that Castlehaven was trying to disinherit him, and had encouraged his servants to commit adultery with Audley’s wife. Writing on 1 Nov., Audley roundly accused his father of favouring his retainers at the expense of his own children, and of being ‘a prisoner to bestial affections and lusts’.36 Herrup, 38; SP16/175/2. The young man probably expected the crown merely to reprimand his father and arrange mediation, but Charles I apparently saw Castlehaven’s behaviour as undermining his efforts to reform the image of the court and aristocracy as models of virtuous conduct. Accordingly, a commission led by the earl marshal, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, was appointed to investigate Audley’s allegations in detail. On 5 Dec. Castlehaven was arrested, and the government took steps to secure his property until such a time as he was condemned or exonerated.37 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 415; APC, 1630-1, p. 150; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 92-3.

The extraordinarily lurid story that now emerged utterly scandalized contemporary society. While Audley’s assertion that he risked losing his patrimony was evidently an exaggeration, Castlehaven certainly had been remarkably generous towards some of his servants, notably John Anketill, who had married the earl’s daughter, and Henry Skipwith, his particular favourite, to whom he allegedly allowed £500 a year. However, these indulgences were more than just financial. Skipwith had indeed been allowed to sleep with Audley’s wife, who was also Castlehaven’s stepdaughter by his second marriage. Lady Audley in turn claimed that the earl was conducting a homosexual relationship with his Irish footman, Florence Fitzpatrick. According to other testimonies, Castlehaven had instructed Skipwith, Anketill and a third servant, Giles Broadway, to rape the countess, though only Broadway had fully complied. In short, there had been a complete breakdown of social and moral conventions within Castlehaven’s household, with servants replacing close kin in the earl’s affections, the legitimacy of the Tuchet line put at risk, and abusive sexual relationships openly pursued.38 Herrup, 40-6, 74.

By mid December, newsletter writers such as Joseph Mead were spreading the word of Castlehaven’s ‘most foul and abominable misdemeanours’ and ‘never-heard-of villainies’. A deeply shocked Charles was reportedly insisting that the earl must die; ‘but whether the judges can find law enough for it, it is not yet resolved’.39 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 85-6; Cust, 94. Certainly, the government’s investigation rapidly focused on building a case against Castlehaven, while the undisputed adultery between Skipwith and Lady Audley was allowed to go unpunished. Nevertheless, both rape and sodomy were notoriously difficult charges to prove in court. Indeed, the earl himself acted as though he expected to be exonerated, successfully demanding a regular allowance from his confiscated estates, and furnishing his quarters in the Tower with luxury goods such as tapestries and a bed hung with crimson taffeta.40 Herrup, 30-1, 40; APC, 1630-1, pp. 160, 165, 171, 178; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 24.

Not until April 1631 was Castlehaven finally indicted at Salisbury, being ordered to face trial by his fellow peers in Westminster Hall on one count of assisting a rape and two of buggery.41 State Trials (1793) ed. F. Hargrave, i. 434; Birch, ii. 100. However, doubts about the whole process continued to surface. The king had problems finding the full complement of 27 peers that he had decreed should sit in judgement. Bridgwater and William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury were both excused on account of their kinship with the countess, while four others stayed away from London or pleaded illness. One nobleman, ‘my lord of D.’, was reported as saying that he would find Castlehaven not guilty regardless of the evidence.42 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 19; Birch, ii. 106-7. Even the crown’s lawyers were uncertain how to conduct the first trial of this kind for 15 years, and three days beforehand, Attorney General Heath felt obliged to consult the judiciary on the procedural weapons available to the earl.43 State Trials, i. 434-5.

Finally, on 25 Apr., the trial went ahead, with the prosecution carefully distinguishing between the honourable status of the defendant and the highly dishonourable nature of his crimes, which were outlined graphically and at considerable length. Although he claimed to lack legal knowledge, Castlehaven defended himself vigorously, alleging that his family had conspired against him, and asserting that the testimony of his own servants should be inadmissible. More tellingly, he also argued that he was not guilty by the strict letter of the law, for while he did not deny the rape or the homosexual acts, it was accepted in court that no physical penetration had occurred on any of these occasions. Castlehaven’s juridical interpretations were widely held at the time, but the court overruled them, and he was convicted on all counts, albeit not unanimously. While the assembled peers were agreed on the rape charge, he was found guilty of sodomy by a majority of just three.44 Ibid. 435-41.

Notwithstanding the inevitable death sentence, it was widely assumed that Castlehaven would be reprieved, as all guilty peers had been since 1601. Several of his relatives, possibly including Lord Audley, petitioned the king on his behalf, and even the lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, 1st Lord Weston (later 1st earl of Portland), reportedly spoke up for him.45 HMC Portland, ii. 121-2; HMC Gawdy, 135; Birch, ii. 111; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 26, 39. However, there was no hope of pardon unless Castlehaven admitted his guilt, and this he steadfastly refused to do. Moreover, Charles probably feared that a display of clemency would discredit his efforts to achieve greater morality at court. Accordingly the king merely commuted his sentence from hanging to beheading, a swifter and more noble death, and on 14 May he went to the scaffold on Tower Hill. Having wavered in his final weeks between Rome and the Church of England, he finally reaffirmed his allegiance to the latter, but never conceded the justice of his sentence. His corpse was buried in an unmarked grave in the chapel of St Peter-ad-Vincula within the Tower.46 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 35; Birch, ii. 111, 118, 120-2; HMC Portland, ii. 121-2; Herrup, 94; Cust, 94; B.A. Harrison, Tower of London Prisoner Bk. 296. Following his execution his English estates were formally confiscated by the crown, and his heir, now 3rd earl of Castlehaven, recovered neither the Audley title nor any of his lands until 1633. By then Fonthill had been granted to Francis Cottington^†, 1st Lord Cottington, while Stalbridge passed to the 1st earl of Cork.47 APC, 1630-1, p. 340; Herrup, 103; C66/2600/5; Hutchins, iii. 671.