RICH, Robert (1559-1619)

Owner of the largest estate in Essex, and developer of the parish of Great St Bartholomew, London,20 W. Hunt, Puritan Movement, 15, 161; Webb, ii. 293; HMC Hatfield, vii. 429. Rich inherited his lands and peerage aged 21. His marriage shortly thereafter to Penelope Devereux, sister of Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex and a goddaughter to Queen Elizabeth, was ultimately unhappy. According to Charles Blount^* (later earl of Devonshire), Rich ‘did study to torment his wife’. As a result, during the early 1590s, and following Essex’s emergence as the queen’s chief favourite, Penelope began conducting an openly adulterous affair with Blount, then 8th Lord Mountjoy, by whom she had several children. In order to retain Essex’s goodwill, Rich not only bit his tongue but also served as a volunteer on the earl’s 1597 expedition to the Azores, in which Mountjoy served as lieutenant general. However, following the execution of Essex in 1601, Rich abandoned his wife, although she remained involved in the management of his estate affairs until 1605 or 1606.21 Rickman, 116-17, 124; S. Freedman, Poor Penelope. Lady Penelope Rich, an Elizabethan Woman, 151. On Penelope’s continued assistance in the administration of his estate, see Harl. 3959, ff. 25, 26. We are grateful to Christopher Thompson for this latter reference.

Shortly after the death of Elizabeth in March 1603, Rich, who owned a London townhouse, briefly served as a member of the extended Council, the Privy Council having been automatically dissolved on the queen’s demise. In this capacity he signed the proclamation announcing the accession of James I.22 Stuart Royal Proclamations, II ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, 3; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 43. However, he neither sought nor was offered employment by the new king, and in June, possibly for reasons of health, he took himself off to Bath, where he was afforded generous hospitality on the instructions of Sir John Thynne^‡, one of the wealthiest men in England.23 Longleat, TH/VOL/VII, f. 267. His estranged wife, by contrast, became a member of the queen consort’s withdrawing chamber, and was soon a regular participant in the masques and other entertainments staged by Anne of Denmark.24 Rickman, 126; Gawdy Letters ed. I.H. Jeayes, 129; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 35. She also became a confidante of the influential countess of Suffolk, wife of the recently appointed lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, and reputed mistress of the king’s chief minister, Lord Cecil (Robert Cecil^*, later 1st earl of Salisbury).25 HMC Cowper, i. 45. Her close proximity to the heart of government enabled her, in August 1603, to obtain precedence over the wives of other barons and over the daughters of earls (which grant was given ostensibly in recognition of her daily service and her descent from the medieval Bourchier earls of Essex). Penelope thereby obtained a level of seniority denied to her husband.26 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 32; Rickman, 127.

Puritan lobbying and parliamentary service, 1604-7

One reason why Rich was so little regarded at court was that he was an enthusiastic supporter of puritan reform of the Church. The chief ecclesiastical patron in Essex, Rich controlled at least 22 livings in his native county, not including the rectory of Vange, which was in the gift of his estate steward, William Wiseman^‡. Most, if not all, of the incumbents, were godly preachers, among them Thomas Stoughton, vicar of Coggeshall and a former member of the short-lived Dedham classis, a clandestine organization which favoured the abolition of episcopacy.27 B.W. Quintrell, ‘Govt. of the County of Essex’ (Univ. of London Ph.D. thesis, 1965), 274, 279, 287. On Wiseman’s control of Vange, see R. Newcourt, Repertorium (1708), ii. 613; PROB 11/115, f. 103v. Soon after James’ accession, a ‘view of the state of the clergy’ in Essex was drawn up and presented to the king. It claimed that there were 106 scandalous ministers in the county, many of them ‘dumb’ or ‘ridiculous.’28 HMC 8th Rep. II, 27-8. The authors of this unofficial survey, which formed part of a wider petitioning campaign designed to undermine the new king’s confidence in the episcopate, preferred to remain anonymous. However, it seems likely that they included, or were at least sponsored by, Lord Rich, whose distaste for scandalous ministers was so well known that in 1605 Sir Nathaniel Bacon^‡ appealed to him to use his influence with his brother-in-law the 3rd earl of Northumberland (Henry Percy^*) to secure the dismissal, for sexual incontinence, of the latter’s chaplain, James Poynter.29 Pprs. of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey, V: 1603-7 ed. V. Morgan et al. (Norf. Rec. Soc. lxxiv), 213.

Rich’s support for puritan ministers was mirrored by his friendship with members of the puritan gentry, chief among them his Essex neighbour Sir Francis Barrington^* of Hatfield Broad Oak. In 1601 Barrington served as junior knight of the shire for Essex. When a fresh Parliament was summoned in January 1604, Rich supported Barrington’s candidacy as senior knight against Sir Edward Denny^* (subsequently earl of Norwich), who later earned the reputation of a drunkard. Indeed, he pulled out all the stops, canvassing his friends, whom he informed of the true date of the election after they were misled, and taking up inns at Chelmsford for Barrington’s supporters. He also persuaded the county’s lord lieutenant, Robert Radcliffe^*, 5th earl of Sussex, to issue a letter supporting Barrington. This document was not as fulsome as he would have wished, however, and consequently he persuaded Sussex’s officer, in his master’s name, to issue a second missive, which he himself helped to draft. This energetic canvassing on behalf of Barrington annoyed Denny and his supporters, among them the earl of Suffolk, whose principal seat outside London lay in north-west Essex. Suffolk, whose connection with Rich’s estranged wife has already been noted, persuaded his fellow privy councillors to write to the county’s sheriff and magistrates reminding them that it was illegal to canvass votes. However, his intervention failed to intimidate Rich, whose opponents were equally guilty of this offence. On the contrary, it demonstrated to him that Suffolk and Denny were no longer confident of success. He himself had little doubt that Barrington would triumph, provided that the sheriff permitted ‘fair play without slights’.30 Eg. 2644, ff. 135, 149. However, to minimize the risk of a contest he and the sheriff persuaded Barrington’s partner for the junior seat, Sir Gamaliel Capell^‡, to step aside and make way for Denny.

At the height of the election campaign, Rich travelled to Newmarket, on the Suffolk/Cambridge border, to meet his physician and visit the 1st Lord Gerard (Thomas Gerard^*) at Chippenham, in eastern Cambridgeshire. However, he did not lose touch with Barrington, encouraging the latter’s servant, Richard Hildersham, when the latter’s hopes began to fade, and arranging provisions for Barrington’s supporters. He also assured his friend that he would return to Leez Priory, his house in north Essex, three days before the election.31 Ibid. f. 151r-v. However, at the hustings on 6 Mar., Rich and Barrington achieved only mixed success, for although Barrington was returned unopposed, Denny took the senior seat after he and his rival drew lots.

While in Cambridgeshire, Rich learned that the archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift^†, had fallen gravely ill. Rich had little reason to love Whitgift, who, ten years earlier, had crushed the presbyterian movement, the aims of which Rich himself seems to have shared. Writing to Barrington on 1 Mar., he expressed the hope that this bout of illness would induce the archbishop to ‘repent him of the wrongs to God’s church and ministers he hath done’, so that ‘by this example the rest of this robe, that have been Sauls may now be converted Pauls, that before the end they may be builders and not ruiners of the decayed walls of true Jerusalem’.32 Ibid. f. 151v. In the event, this unlikely hope proved to be entirely futile, as Whitgift had actually died the previous day.

Rich attended the opening of the first Jacobean Parliament on 19 March. However, thereafter, until 19 June, he was entirely absent, during which time he assigned his proxy to Lord Knollys (William Knollys^*, later 1st earl of Banbury). The reason for this extended absence is unclear. Rich was not normally an absentee where Parliament was concerned, for in the 1597/8 assembly he had attended 29 of the Lords’ 38 sittings, and in 1601 he had been present on 22 of the session’s 27 days. One possible explanation for this departure from his usual practice is illness: his earlier visit to Bath, and the fact that he interrupted campaigning on behalf of Barrington to meet his physician, certainly points to this conclusion. However, there may be another reason for Rich’s absence. His wife’s lover, Lord Mountjoy, had attained heroic status after defeating a Spanish army at Kinsale in 1601, and on the accession of James I, he was not only appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland but also created earl of Devonshire. For Rich, who had now discarded all pretence of indifference towards his wife’s infidelity, the rewarding of his hated rival may have been too much to bear. Rather than sit in the Lords alongside the new earl of Devonshire, Rich may have exaggerated his recent illness to avoid attendance. However, this does not explain why Rich took his seat on 19 June, when he was added to the committee for the bill to execute the laws against Jesuits, seminary priests and recusants. The bill committee, when it met the following day, judged the measure to be so flawed that it drafted a new one, which was presented to the upper House on the 23rd.33 LJ, ii. 324b, 326b.

Rich attended what remained of the session only sporadically, missing four days in a row between 27 and 30 June inclusive. During this time he was appointed to three further committees. The first, on 23 June, was to confirm letters patent issued by the crown. The second, on 5 July, was to ensure the execution of a Chancery decree in a case involving two members of the East Anglian gentry. It seems unlikely that Rich attended the latter committee when it met the following morning, as its members also included Devonshire. His final appointment, also on 5 July, was to attend a conference with representatives of the Commons to consider a bill to create a royal entail.34 Ibid. 341a, 341b.

In February 1605 Rich’s eldest son, Sir Robert Rich^* (later 2nd earl of Warwick), married Frances Hatton, sole heir to the Norfolk estates of Sir Francis Gawdy^‡, one of the justices of King’s Bench, and coheir to the lands of the late lord chancellor, Sir Christopher Hatton^‡. This union was engineered in secret by Rich’s wife in order to outmanoeuvre the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset, who had planned to marry his own eldest son to Frances.35 Chamberlain Letters, i. 204. Lord Rich undoubtedly approved of the match, as it would ultimately extend his family’s holdings from Essex into Northamptonshire and Norfolk. However, Rich remained unreconciled to his wife, who, desperate to be free of him, initiated court proceedings. She pleaded that her marriage was invalid on the grounds that, at the time of her wedding, she had been contracted to marry Devonshire. This argument, which threatened to render illegitimate all her husband’s children, was rejected, and as a result Penelope was left with little choice but to demand that her husband divorce her on grounds of her own adultery.36 Miscellany of the Abbotsford Club, i. 246-7; Add. 38170, ff. 82-4; Rickman, 127-8. Rich duly obliged, and on 14 Nov. 1605 the couple were divorced by High Commission, whose principal member, the archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bancroft^*, expressed sympathy for Penelope, declaring that her sin was merely ‘error venialis’, whereas that of her husband, namely support for radical puritanism, was ‘heresy’. Dismissively, Bancroft bade Rich ‘to go live among his puritans’.37 Gawdy Letters ed. I.H. Jeayes, 164. He also subsequently proceeded to make an example of several nonconformist ministers, some of whom held their livings by virtue of Rich’s patronage. Among them were Thomas Stoughton, who was deprived in 1606 of his vicarage of Coggeshall for nonconformity; William Negus, rector of Leigh, who was displaced in 1609; and William Buckley, rector of Little Leigh, who was also deprived in 1609.38 Newcourt, ii. 160, 384, 388; Quintrell, 287.

Rich failed to attend the opening of the second session of Parliament on 5 Nov. 1605. but whether this was because of the divorce proceedings or a continued aversion to Devonshire is unknown. However, he was present on the afternoon of the 6th, presumably to learn about the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, in which conspiracy his (by now former) brother-in-law, the earl of Northumberland, was soon implicated. When Parliament reassembled in January 1606, Rich again attended, sitting almost continuously between 21 Jan. and 15 February inclusive. Clearly he was no longer unwell, and may also have felt that, with respect to Devonshire, he now had the moral advantage: in the immediate aftermath of the divorce, Devonshire had married Penelope, in defiance of canon law, which prohibited the remarriage of divorcees. In marrying Devonshire, Penelope had not only attracted the censure of the king, who described Penelope as a woman with a ‘black heart’, but also the disapproval of the queen, who dismissed her from her household.39 Secret Hist. of Ct. of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, ii. 200-1; S. Varlow, Lady Penelope, 248.

One reason Rich now decided to attend the Lords may have been to participate in the legislative process, for in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot the laws against Catholics were inevitably tightened. Although during the 1604 Essex election campaign he had enjoyed the support of his wealthy Catholic cousin, the 3rd Lord Darcy of Chiche (Thomas Darcy^*, later earl Rivers), Rich, being a puritan, was in general no friend of Catholics. In January 1606 he was among those peers appointed to consider what new laws were needed, and the following month he was required to help confer with the Commons on the same subject. He was also involved in considering how to punish the surviving plotters, and named to a committee on a bill to prevent blasphemous swearing, a bête noir of the puritan lobby.40 LJ, ii. 360b, 363a, 365a, 367a, 367b.

Religious considerations may not have been the only reason Rich now sat regularly in the Lords. For some years he had been concerned that the title to large parts of his estate was insecure. The lands involved had been bought by his grandfather, the 1st Lord Rich (Richard Rich^†), from Henry Carey^†, 1st Lord Hunsdon. Following the latter’s death in 1596, the legality of the conveyance had been called into question, and it was only by persuading his wife to use her influence with her brother, the 2nd earl of Essex, that he had escaped disaster.41 HMC Hatfield, xv. 175, 179 (documents mis-calendared 1603). However, now that Essex was dead, he once again found himself at risk, in particular from Sir Thomas Berkeley^‡ and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of the recently deceased George Carey^*, 2nd Lord Hunsdon. The Berkeleys claimed half his estate, and it was only by paying them ‘a great sum of money’ that Rich avoided litigation.42 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/3. In order to ensure there were no further difficulties, Rich decided to lay a bill before Parliament guaranteeing his title. (He may have considered doing so for some time, for in February 1604 his estate steward, William Wiseman^‡, had informed the borough of Maldon that he urgently a seat in the Commons as ‘I have some particular business in Parliament for a matter of great importance, as some of honour and of great worships in this shire do well know’.)43 HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 828. This measure received a first reading in the Lords on 12 Feb., on which day Rich himself was in the upper House. It was given a further reading six days later, when it was also committed. The smooth passage of this measure was by no means a foregone conclusion, as the bill had wider implications than was at first apparent: there was the title of a manor belonging to the king, and also the rights over the manor of Swavesey of Sir John Cutts^‡, one of the Members for Cambridgeshire, to consider.44 SP14/18/83. However, the bill was derailed following a chance meeting between Rich and Devonshire in the small chamber next to the Parliament Presence, probably on 15 February. ‘Foul words’ were exchanged, during the course of which Rich accused Devonshire of lying.45 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 61. No duel ensued, but thereafter Rich absented himself from the Lords. Consequently, when his bill was returned to the House on 1 Mar., it was decided to postpone further proceedings on this measure until his return.46 LJ, ii. 385a. In the event, Rich did not resume his seat for the rest of the session, despite the death of Devonshire on 3 Apr., but appointed a proxy instead, namely William Russell^*, 1st Lord Russell, who had once owned the Essex manor of Coggeshall, which lay adjacent to part of Rich’s own estate.47 Ibid. 355b; G.F. Beaumont, Hist. of Coggeshall, 126. We are grateful to Christopher Thompson for the latter reference. During his absence he was reappointed to several committees, including those for the prevention of blasphemous swearing and the attainder of the surviving Gunpowder plotters.48 LJ, ii. 381a, 401a.

Rich did not resume sitting until November 1606, when Parliament reassembled for its third session. Prior to the Christmas recess he was appointed to three out of the ten committees established by the House. One concerned a bill regarding certain fines levied in the Westminster courts, while another was to confer with the Commons regarding the Union, one of the two major items of business of the session. His third appointment was in respect of a bill to allow an East Anglian gentleman, Henry Jernegan, to sell a manor to pay his debts. Perhaps the measure that is most likely to have interested Rich, however, was introduced by his eldest son, Sir Robert Rich, who sought statutory authority to sell lands belonging to his late father-in-law, Sir Francis Gawdy.49 Ibid. 452b, 453a, 454b, 456b, 461b. This bill was committed on 1 Dec., but Rich himself was not included on the committee, which was chaired by the earl of Suffolk, who had supported Sir Edward Denny against Sir Francis Barrington in the 1604 Essex election. On 9 Dec. Suffolk reported the bill as unfit to proceed on the grounds that, had Lord Rich maintained his son and daughter for just three years, it should have been unnecessary to sell even a square foot of Gawdy land.50 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 434-5.

Rich was late in returning to Westminster after Parliament reassembled in February 1607, taking his seat on the 12th, two days after proceedings began. From then until 19 Mar. he attended the upper House regularly, missing only the occasional day. However he was absent on 20 Mar., and did not sit again for another seven days (though he did not attend the Chelmsford assizes, which met on the 23rd). During this period, Rich was named to eight committees, the first on 14 Feb., concerning a measure on land bequeathed in wills. His second appointment, two days later, was to consider a bill to prevent the crown and its agents from hunting for defective land titles. This practice was highly unpopular with private landowners like Rich, who were forced to compound to avoid seizure of their estates. It seems likely that Rich supported both the bill and a replacement measure which was committed on 23 March.51 LJ, ii. 470b, 471b, 494a. Certainly, the bill’s failure to achieve the status of law enabled the crown’s agent, William Tipper, to demand two years later that Rich pay more than £210 for security of title.52 Lansd. 169, f. 6. Two of Rich’s five remaining committee appointments reflected his puritan interests. One was a bill to prevent drunkenness; the other sought to allow the profits of Cutton manor and prebend, in Devon, to be employed for the maintenance of a preacher.53 LJ, ii. 489a, 489b. Rich made no attempt to reintroduce the bill he had laid before the Lords the previous year, but decided instead, with the full cooperation of the Berkeleys, to secure his title to those of his lands which had formerly belonged to the 1st Lord Hunsdon lands by means of a common recovery, which process he had actually set in train in January 1606.54 Harl. 3959, f. 24.

Following the Easter recess, Rich did not resume his seat in the Lords, but instead appointed a proxy (his cousin Thomas Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy of Chiche, later 1st earl Rivers). He was nevertheless included on the committee for the bill to abolish the hostile laws that had long characterized relations between England and Scotland.55 LJ, ii. 449b, 520b. It seems likely that the enclosure riots of May/June 1607 played some part in Rich’s decision to avoid Westminster. Although Rich himself was not directly affected by the more serious outburst of violence, his son Sir Robert owned property in Northamptonshire, one of the counties involved. Rich may also have feared that this disorder would spread to his own estates, as the previous January several rioters had broken down the embankment surrounding one of his coppices on the Essex manor of Childerditch.56 STAC 8/247/8.

The parliamentary sessions of 1610 and 1614

In July 1607, soon after the Parliament was prorogued, Rich’s former wife died. Shortly before her decease, Penelope sent a message to Rich disavowing her supposed marriage to the late earl of Devonshire, and asking for forgiveness.57 HMC Cowper, i. 63. In the following spring, Rich was instructed to settle his debts to the crown by the newly appointed lord treasurer, Robert Cecil, 1st earl of Salisbury.58 L.M. Hill, ‘Sir Julius Caesar’s Jnl. of Salisbury’s First Two Months and Twenty Days as Lord Treasurer, 1608’, BIHR, xlv. 317. How much was owed is unclear, but Rich responded by requesting more time ‘to search his evidences’.59 SP14/37/48. However, in December he paid £40 into the Exchequer, this being his belated contribution to the first of three subsidies granted by Parliament in 1597-8.60 HMC 8th Rep. II, 28.

The parlous condition of the royal finances was the primary reason that Parliament was reconvened in February 1610. Rich attended the first two days of the meeting, but thereafter was absent. On 19 Feb. his excuses were conveyed to the upper House by Lord Zouche (Edward La Zouche^*), and he subsequently appointed a proxy (the 1st Lord Russell).61 LJ, ii. 548b, 553b. It seems likely that he was kept informed of proceedings by Sir Robert Rich, who was returned to the Commons for Maldon following the death of William Wiseman. He retired to Leez where, in late April, he was visited by both Sir Robert and his distant kinsman Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon. As a result of this meeting, he agreed to allow his second son, Henry Rich^* (later 1st earl of Holland) to be returned to the Commons for the town of Leicester, where one of the borough’s Members, Sir William Skipwith^‡, was close to death.62 HENRY HASTINGS.

Parliament reassembled for a final session in October 1610. This time Rich attended fairly regularly. On 23 Oct. he was appointed to two committees, one to prevent the export of iron ordnance, the other to allow brewhouses to be erected in certain places to minimize the carriage of beer during royal progresses, the cost of which had hitherto fallen on the king’s subjects. Two days later he was also named to attend a conference with representatives of the Commons regarding the Great Contract, despite having played no part in the previous session’s debates regarding this scheme. Following the collapse of the Contract, he was appointed to a second conference committee, this time to hear Salisbury offer a ‘mini Contract’ to the Commons. His only other appointment of the session was to consider a bill to enable Prince Henry to make leases. Rich attended the meeting held on 9 Feb. 1611 at which the Parliament was formally dissolved, despite not being one of the commissioners for the dissolution.63 LJ, ii. 670a, 671a, 677a, 678a, 684b.

Rich formed part of the procession at the funeral of Prince Henry in December 1612.64 Nichols, ii. 497. When Parliament met again, in 1614, he attended regularly. His longest period of absence lasted just six days (2 – 7 May inclusive) and was occasioned by illness, for which he offered his excuses (through Oliver St John^*, 3rd Lord St John of Bletso). During the course of the short-lived assembly Rich was appointed to consider three bills of interest to puritans like himself. The first was a measure to curb the excessive use of gold and silver in gilding coaches, which was committed on 11 April. When the committee laid some amendments before the House four days later, Rich, in his first ever recorded speech, raised a minor procedural point, though he did not oppose the bill itself.65 LJ, ii. 691a, 693a; HMC Hastings, IV, 243. The second measure was a bill to punish abuses committed on the Sabbath. (On 31 May he was one of those peers appointed to confer with representatives of the Commons about this bill, despite not being recorded as present that day.)66 LJ, ii. 708b, 713b. The third measure was the bill to confirm the establishment of a grammar school, almshouse and preacher at Monmouth by the London Haberdasher William Jones.67 Ibid. 711b. For the full title of the bill, see Procs. 1614 (Commons), 187. The latter was something of a kindred spirit, as he would later leave money in his will to several radical London preachers, among them Stephen Egerton, a supporter of the Elizabethan presbyterian movement.68 I. Archer, Haberdashers’ Co. 76. Aside from these three puritan measures, Rich was also among those appointed to discuss with representatives of the Commons the bill to ensure the succession rights of the children of the Elector Palatine, and to consider a measure to settle the entry fines payable by copyholders of Winslow manor, Buckinghamshire, in line with a recent Chancery decree.69 LJ, ii. 692b, 700b.

The final stages of the 1614 Parliament were dominated by the question of impositions. On 21 May the Lords received a message from the Commons asking to confer on the subject of these unparliamentary customs duties. This request alarmed several peers, among them the bishop of Lincoln, Richard Neile^* (later archbishop of York), who, declaring it to be ‘a dangerous thing’ to confer with the Commons on this sensitive subject, came close to accusing the lower House of sedition. However, both Rich and the 3rd (and 1st earl) of Southampton (Henry Wriothesley^*) assured their colleagues that the Commons had not requested a conference, as such, but merely a meeting at which the lower House would lay out their objections.70 HMC Hastings, IV, 250. This was false, but Rich, like Southampton, was keen to ensure that the Commons were not defeated at the first hurdle. He, like Southampton, had strong links with the lower House, where his son Sir Robert and his cousin Sir Nathaniel Rich^‡ had seats. By the time the debate ended, there was general agreement that the Lords would meet the Commons rather than confer with them. However, when the House next sat, two days later, Lord Chancellor Ellesmere (Thomas Egerton^*) claimed that no formal resolution had been reached. In exasperation Rich demanded to know what reply they should send to the Commons, ‘because they will expect an answer this day’, but his irritation failed to move Ellesmere, who retorted ‘I know not what expectation the lower House hath of this day’. Later that morning Rich attempted to address his fellow peers again, but, since the House was not in committee, he was silenced by the rule that forbade peers from speaking more than once in the same debate.71 W. Petyt, Jus Parliamentarium (1739), 342, 344.

By 24 May it was clear that there was little appetite in the Lords even to hold a meeting with the Commons, let alone a conference. Once again the way was led by Neile, who, taking his cue from the lord chancellor, argued that if the Commons were unhappy with the judgement reached in Bate’s Case (1606), which had confirmed the legality of impositions, they should lay a writ of error before King’s Bench or the Exchequer. Neile also argued that it would be inappropriate to meet the Commons for fear that they would be forced to listen to seditious speeches. Once again, Rich protested, on the grounds that no one knew what the Commons intended to say.72 HMC Hastings, IV, 259. However, few in the Lords can have been in any serious doubt that a majority in the Commons believed impositions to be illegal, and it is therefore no surprise that the upper House eventually declined the lower House’s request to confer.

Rich was clearly angry at the decision not to meet the Commons’ representatives, and at Neile’s portrayal of the lower House as a hotbed of sedition. Indeed, it seems likely that he was one of the peers who privately relayed what the bishop had said to Members of the Commons, who angrily demanded that he be punished. Many in the Lords rallied to Neile’s defence, claiming that a man could not be condemned on the strength of hearsay (‘common fame’), but Rich was not among them. On the contrary, he argued that there was no cause that the upper House could not hear, it being ‘the highest court in the kingdom’.73 Ibid. 269.

Final years, 1614-19

Following the dissolution in June 1614, Rich, who was neither chairman of the county bench nor a deputy lieutenant, belatedly began to take an interest in his duties as a county governor. Ever since 1581, when he had inherited his title, he had attended the county assizes only infrequently. Indeed, since James’s accession in 1603 he had been present only twice: once in July 1607, and once again in July 1610. By contrast, he not only participated in the Chelmsford assizes in March 1615 and July 1616 but also in the Brentwood assizes in March 1616.74 Cal. Assize Recs., Essex Indictments, Jas. I, 25, 83, 141, 159, 169. However, this change in behaviour did not last, for after July 1616 Rich never attended the assizes again.

Though now in his mid fifties, Rich was keen to remarry, and in December 1616, ‘after much wooing and divers attempts in several places’, he took as his second wife a wealthy widow from Lincolnshire, Frances St Paul. In one key respect this union was perfect, as Frances, like Rich himself, was a kindred spirit, providing stipends to poorly paid puritan preachers.75 H. Peacham, Thestylis atrata: or A Funeral Elegie Upon the Death of the Right Honourable most Religious and Noble Lady, Frances, Lady Countess of Warwick, who departed this life at her house in Hackney ... (1634), unpag. We are grateful to Christopher Thompson for this reference. However, if Rich hoped to obtain control of a great part of his new wife’s estate he was in for a rude awakening. In October 1617 John Chamberlain reported that he was beside himself, having been so outmanoeuvred by Frances ‘that he is little or nothing the better by her’.76 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 101.

Although unable to lay his hands on most of his new wife’s fortune, Rich remained wealthy in his own right. By 1618 he had a landed income of more than £6,000, and was thus well able to afford to buy himself a house in Holborn, which he did in 1616, at a cost of £2,500.77 We are grateful to Christopher Thompson for his advice on the size of Rich’s annual income, and also for drawing our attention to Rich’s purchase in 1616 of Allington House (which he had previously been renting), for which see C2/Chas.I/L3/32. The crown, which was desperately short of funds, was well aware of this fact, and in 1618 it offered him the chance to buy an earldom for £10,000.78 HMC Bath, ii. 68; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 209. For Rich this was too good an opportunity to miss, there being only two other earls in Essex at the time, Suffolk and Sussex. He agreed, and asked to be known as earl of Clare. Accordingly, in July, a warrant was drafted to that effect.79 SO3/6, unfol. (July 1618). However, at the last moment, objections were raised by the Privy Council, as the earldom of Clare was deemed (incorrectly) to be identical with the earldom of Clarence, which title had previously been bestowed only on a member of the royal family.80 Nichols, iii. 1007; CP, iii. 248n. Forced to reconsider, Rich chose instead to be known as earl of Warwick,81 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 162-3. perhaps because the previous holder of this title, Ambrose Dudley^†, had been a puritan like himself.

The new earl of Warwick did not live long to enjoy his enhanced social status, but died at his house in Holborn on 24 Mar. 1619.82 Memoir of 1603 and the Diary of 1616-19: Anne Clifford ed. K.O. Acheson, 163. He was subsequently buried, in accordance with his wishes, in the recently constructed Rich family chapel of Holy Cross church, Felsted, close to his principal seat of Leez Priory, in central Essex. In his will, drawn up on 15 Sept. 1617, Rich assigned £1,000 p.a. to his wife as her jointure, and gave each of his household servants one year’s wages over and above what was due to them. He also left a dozen silver trenchers worth 40s. each to his friend and neighbour at Holborn, Sir John Croke^‡, one of the justices of King’s Bench and a former Speaker of the Commons. Responsibility for overseeing the will, which was proved in May 1620, was assigned to the lord keeper, Sir Francis Bacon^* (later Viscount St Alban) and Lord Darcy of Chiche, Rich’s cousin and fellow Essex peer. Execution of the will was placed by Rich in the hands of his eldest son Sir Robert, who succeeded him as earl of Warwick. Robert was instructed to erect within 18 months of his death ‘a comely and decent tomb’, in the chapel his father had built at Felsted.83 PROB 11/135, ff. 410v-13. However, the resulting monument commemorated not the 3rd Lord Rich but other members of the Rich family, presumably because his widow preferred to erect her own monument to him at Snarford, in Lincolnshire, the home of the St Paul family.84 Sperling, 119-20; A. Esdaile, ‘Monument of the First Lord Rich at Felsted’, TEAS, n.s. xxii. 60-1.