RUSSELL, William (c.1553-1613)

The youngest son of Francis Russell^†, 2nd earl of Bedford, Russell received a very thorough education, including a spell at Oxford University, membership of the Commons while still under-age, and several years’ foreign travel, from which he returned ‘not only furnished with the tongues, but also beautified with the best fashions, … and marvellously fitted for the service of his prince and country’. Although provided with a place at court and a comfortable patrimony, comprising eight manors in Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire, he opted for a military career, fighting for the Huguenot cause in France during the 1570s, and earning his knighthood in 1581 through ‘valiant and ready service’ in Ireland.27 Walker, 43; WARD 7/49/55; Trim, 132-3; CSP Ire. 1574-85, p. 302. A veteran of the battle of Zutphen in 1586, he succeeded Sir Philip Sidney^‡ as governor of Flushing, though he left this post after two years, disillusioned with the conduct of the Dutch war.28 CSP For. 1586-7, p. 165; 1589, pp. 55, 225; Wiffen, ii. 3; HMC Bath, v. 215. For a time Russell retired to his country seat at Thornhaugh, in Northamptonshire, drawing on his experience of the Low Countries to promote new schemes for fen drainage.29 Recs. of the Commrs. of Sewers in Holland 1547-1603 ed. A.E.B. Owen (Lincoln Rec. Soc. lxxi), 112; Thomson, 161-3, 168-71. However, he soon craved a more active life again and so, after lobbying Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, was appointed lord deputy of Ireland in 1594.30 HMC Hatfield, iv. 162, 499. While noted for his vigorous pursuit of Irish rebels, Russell found his scope for action seriously restricted by inadequate funding. He was also undermined by his second-in-command, Sir John Norris^‡, who favoured a more conciliatory approach towards the native population. Russell was finally recalled after three years of limited progress, but with his personal reputation largely intact.31 Walker, 45; Wiffen, ii. 24, 26, 30, 32-3; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 188; APC, 1596-7, p. 421; CSP Ire. 1596-7, pp. 296, 321; Chamberlain Letters, i. 30. In 1599 he was given responsibility for coordinating militia regiments along the south coast of England, in the face of an expected Spanish invasion.32 HMC Foljambe, 103; CSP Dom. 1598-1601, p. 297. He remained on good terms with Essex, who reportedly planned to make him captain of the gentlemen pensioners, the queen’s official bodyguards, had his 1601 attempted coup proved successful. However, Russell took no part in this rebellion, and remained in favour with Elizabeth I, who visited his home at Chiswick, Middlesex in the following year.33 CSP Dom. 1601-3, p. 2; HMC Hatfield, xi. 51; Chamberlain Letters, i. 160.

Shortly after James I’s accession in March 1603, Russell and his nephew, Edward Russell^*, 3rd earl of Bedford, wrote to the new king, assuring him of their loyalty and service. James, who was well-disposed towards Essex’s former associates, responded in the following July by elevating Russell to the peerage, as Lord Russell of Thornhaugh. The new baron attended the coronation four days later, but rarely appeared at court thereafter.34 Eg. 2877, f. 80; Diaries of Lady Anne Clifford ed. D.J.H. Clifford, 25; Wiffen, ii. 89. Now aged around 50, Russell was finally beginning to appreciate country life, and seems to have spent much of his final decade at Northaw, in Hertfordshire, a property which he inherited in 1604 from his sister Anne, the dowager countess of Warwick.35 Letters and Memorials of State, i. 43-4. Northaw was otherwise known as Northall, an ambiguity which accounts for the inaccurate claim that Russell lived at Northall, Bucks.: HP Commons, 1558-1603, ii. 310.

Russell took his seat in the Lords in March 1604. Despite an extended absence during May and early June, when he was granted leave to seek a health cure at Bath, he attended just over half of the session, and received 14 nominations.36 LJ, ii. 284a. A noted puritan, he was appointed to committees on bills to repress recusancy, adultery and blasphemy, and to preserve episcopal estates. Named to confer with the Commons about ecclesiastical matters, he was also nominated to scrutinize both versions of the bill against witchcraft.37 Walker, 46-7; LJ, ii. 269a, 272a, 275a, 279a, 282b, 324b, 340a. Russell’s administrative experience helps to explain his appointment to conferences about wardship, the proposed Anglo-Scottish Union, the tunnage and poundage bill, and the bill to entail certain properties on the crown.38 LJ, ii. 266b, 278a, 284a, 323a, 341b. His remaining legislative committees were concerned with pawnbroking and the relief of Thomas Lovell.39 Ibid. 275a, 280a.

When Parliament resumed in 1605, Russell missed the first two sittings, not appearing in the Lords until the afternoon of 9 November. He also failed to attend three sittings in early March 1606 through illness, and was absent for most of May, presumably for the same reason.40 Ibid. 389b. Nevertheless, the fact that he attended just 37 sittings out of 85 did not diminish his reputation in the House, as he attracted 22 nominations during this session. Early proceedings were overshadowed by the Gunpowder Plot. Russell was named in January 1606 to the select committee to review the existing statutory provision for protecting Church and State, and later to a conference with the Commons about these issues. He was also named to the bill committees for the attainder of the surviving plotters. With Catholics once more seen as a serious threat, the staunchly Protestant Russell was an obvious choice for the legislative committee concerned with recusancy, while he was similarly appointed to confer with the Commons about religious grievances in general. During this session, two bills were introduced against blasphemous swearing, and he was appointed to both committees.41 Ibid. 360b, 365a, 367a-b, 381b, 401a, 411a, 419b. Nominated to a conference concerning free trade, the Union, and the purveyance bill, Russell was also named to consider new bills to entail property on the crown, and to regulate brokers, the latter two measures echoing his business during the 1604 session. Having been appointed to the committee for the bill to avoid delays of execution, he was also chosen when the same bill was subsequently recommitted. Russell’s remaining nominations included four private estate bill committees; it would be interesting to know how closely he scrutinized the measure to confirm the settlement reached between Gray Brydges^*, 5th Lord Chandos and the latter’s female cousins, one of whom would marry Russell’s son Francis (Russell^*, later 4th earl of Bedford) three years later.42 Bowyer Diary, 116-17; LJ, ii. 364a, 371a, 383a, 386a, 413b.

By now, trouble was brewing between Russell and his nephew, the earl of Bedford. As the latter was childless, Russell stood to inherit his property under the terms of an elaborate family entail. However, the extravagant and impecunious earl was heavily in debt, and saw land sales as the most effective way of easing his problems. Russell, determined to protect his inheritance, had already forced Bedford in 1603 to promise not to sell any of the entailed properties, on pain of a £20,000 penalty. Despite this, the earl restructured the entail provisions in early 1606, giving himself new powers to make long leases, a move which could reduce the future profitability of the estates. Worse still, Bedford began to explore his options for actually selling off entailed lands. As the crown held the ultimate reversion of these specific properties, a consideration which might deter potential buyers, the earl persuaded the king in December 1606 to grant him the royal stake in a small proportion of his estate.43 C142/211/183; LC4/27/19; Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-3; SP14/24/35; 14/26/34. Russell, who had not been consulted, responded furiously, and in February 1607 imposed a new bond on his nephew, with a £40,000 penalty if the entail was further tampered with. He then petitioned James, warning that the earldom of Bedford would be seriously diminished if the earl was permitted to dispose of the entailed properties. The king, impressed by this argument, promptly conceded that no crown remainders would be granted to Bedford without Russell’s agreement.44 Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-2, 14.

While this dispute was played out, both uncle and nephew resumed their seats in the Lords for the 1606-7 parliamentary session. Russell apparently remained in good health this time, and attended almost two-thirds of its sittings, albeit with regular brief absences. Surprisingly, he attracted only 11 appointments. Named in November 1606 to attend a conference on the revived Union proposals, he was also nominated in June 1607 to the committee for the bill to abolish laws hostile to Scotland. Assuming that Russell’s fellow peers were aware of the ongoing arguments about his family’s estates, it may be no coincidence that four of his other appointments were to bill committees concerning grants of land by the crown, the levying of fines in the Westminster courts, and proposed property sales by two private individuals. His other nominations included legislative committees relating to the country’s timber supplies, and an exchange of lands between the crown and the archdiocese of Canterbury.45 LJ, ii. 452b-3a, 461b, 463b, 473b, 504a, 520b, 524b.

Shortly after the end of this session, discussions resumed between Russell and Bedford. While the earl now accepted that he could not sell any of his entailed estates, he still needed to address his debts, and therefore requested that Russell agree to the sale of some of his other properties and the making of additional leases. Following arbitration by the lord treasurer (Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset) and Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, Russell conceded these points, while dragging his heels over their implementation. At his suggestion, Bedford sold one manor to their kinsman Oliver St John^*, 3rd Lord St John, so that the land remained within their extended family. However, the property earmarked for disposal formed part of the countess of Bedford’s jointure. Russell was invited to nominate some other portions of the earl’s estates to make up the shortfall, but as late as March 1608 Dorset and Salisbury were still pressing him for a decision. Given that one of the manors which Bedford wished to offload was not sold until after Russell’s death, it seems probable that virtual stalemate had been reached.46 Hatfield House, CP 75/89; Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-7, 10; HMC Hatfield, xx. 103; SP14/26/33; VCH Hunts. iii. 39.

The importance of preserving the integrity of the family estates was brought home in February 1610, when Russell’s son, Sir Francis, entered the Commons via a by-election at Lyme Regis, the most likely explanation for his success being the scale of Bedford’s local property, which he stood to inherit in due course.47 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 114-15; WARD 7/76/172. Russell himself attended nearly four-fifths of the first 1610 session of Parliament, rarely absenting himself until its final weeks, and received 19 nominations. Having been named in mid February to confer with the Commons about supply, he was automatically reappointed to all the subsequent conferences on the Great Contract. He was also twice nominated to attend the king, first to establish James’s views on the Commons’ proposals for reforming wardship, and then for the presentation of Parliament’s proposals for improving his safety in the aftermath of Henri IV’s assassination. In June he took the oath of allegiance, to affirm his own loyalty. Russell was appointed to one other conference, when the two Houses discussed Dr Cowell’s controversial book, The Interpreter. He was also named to the committee for the bill to degrade Sir Stephen Proctor, after the Commons assembled evidence that the latter had abused his powers as a patentee.48 LJ, ii. 551a, 557b, 578b, 603a, 615a, 647b.

Russell made his only recorded speech in the Lords on 30 Apr., when he defended the bill to reform the practices of clerical non-residence and pluralism. Having dismissed claims that this measure would impact adversely on university funding, he was named to the committee. He was subsequently appointed to legislative committees concerned with blasphemous swearing, scandalous clergy, and the disuniting of two Hampshire parishes.49 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 73, 226; LJ, ii. 584a, 595b, 629a, 641b. As a long-standing commissioner for sewers in the Fenland region, Russell will have brought considerable experience to bear on the bill to drain marshes in Norfolk and Suffolk. He was also nominated to consider several bills emanating from the West Country, whose topics included a weir near Exeter, Devon, agricultural improvements in the same county, and the estates of the Arundell family of Cornwall.50 LJ, ii. 593b, 619a, 623b, 639a.

Russell attended the creation of Prince Henry as prince of Wales on 4 June. While in London for this session, he was invited to a meeting with ambassadors from the United Provinces, along with other veterans of the Dutch wars such as Sir Edward Conway^* (later 1st Viscount Conway) and Robert Sidney^*, Viscount Lisle (later 1st earl of Leicester). He was also observed on 22 Apr. by the Commons’ diarist, Sir Richard Paulet^‡, attending a sermon at St Peter-le-Poer, in Old Broad Street, with his sister, the dowager countess of Cumberland, and his cousin Lord St. John.51 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 335; HMC Downshire, ii. 290; ‘Paulet 1610’, f. 7v.

When Parliament reassembled in the autumn, Russell attended all but five sittings in this brief session, and received three nominations. Appointed to a conference about the now doomed Great Contract, he was also named to the committees for bills to prevent the export of ordnance, and to reduce the number of lawsuits arising from bequests of land.52 LJ, ii. 670a, 671a, 675a.

Russell never completely withdrew from court. In August 1612 he was appointed a trustee for a property transaction between the king’s Scottish cousins, the 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (Ludovic Stuart^*, later 1st duke of Richmond) and his brother, the 7th Lord D’Aubigny (Esmé Stuart^*, later 1st earl of March), while four months later he participated in Prince Henry’s funeral procession.53 C54/2140/23; Nichols, ii. 497. However, as he grew older his religious convictions became more pronounced, and he devoted increasing amounts of time to public worship and private prayer.54 Walker, 46-7.

Russell drew up his will on 16 Oct. 1612, confident that he was one of God’s elect, and requesting burial at Thornhaugh, his funeral to be conducted with ‘as small pomp as may be’. With his lands already settled, he made only small personal bequests. To his errant nephew Bedford he left his best horse and sword, to his cousin Lord St. John a gilt bowl, to his daughter-in-law Katherine Russell his ‘diamond buttons enamelled with black’. He bequeathed £30 in total to the poor of Thornhaugh, Northaw and Chiswick, and generously assigned his household servants three years’ wages.55 PROB 11/122, ff. 161v-2v. Russell died at Northaw in August 1613. His tomb at Thornhaugh, which he commissioned, includes effigies not only of himself but also of his three brothers, who died prematurely, and his sisters, who became countesses of Warwick, Bath and Cumberland. His peerage descended to his son, Francis.56 Ibid. f. 162; WARD 7/49/55; VCH Northants. i. 419-20.