SPENCER, Robert (1567-1627)

According to Arthur Wilson, Spencer was one of the supporters of ‘the old English honour’ who ‘aimed at the public liberty more than their own interest’. He was also an archetypal country peer, who ‘made the country a virtuous court’, and in Parliament was ‘vigilant to keep the people’s liberties from being a prey to the encroaching power of the monarchy’.24 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 161-3. This image is not entirely accurate, however, for although Spencer never held any household or central government office he was closely connected with the court. When he first entered the Lords he had strong links with the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley), who was married to Spencer’s aunt, Alice. He subsequently gravitated to the circle around Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, the leading anti-court peer of the Jacobean period, whose daughter married Spencer’s eldest surviving son, William^* (subsequently 2nd Lord Spencer) in 1614. Like Southampton, Spencer allied himself in 1624 to Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) and George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham. Spencer remained a supporter of Buckingham after Southampton died in late 1624, pouring scorn on the attacks on the duke in the 1626 Parliament.

Ancestry and elevation to the peerage, 1504-1603

In 1595 a herald concocted a fictitious pedigree for Spencer’s father, tracing his ancestry to a collateral branch of the Despensers, a medieval baronial family that included Hugh Le Despenser^†, Lord Le Despenser and earl of Winchester (1261-1326). Previously the Spencers had been content to trace their origins back only to Sir John Spencer (d.1522), who came from a family of south Warwickshire graziers. Sir John was granted a coat of arms in 1504, which bore no relation to that of the Despensers, and purchased the manors of Wormleighton in Warwickshire in 1506, and Althorp in Northamptonshire in 1508. These properties became centres for a giant sheep farming industry directly managed by the Spencers and was the foundation of a fortune which became legendary. Sir Robert Spencer (Sir John’s great-great-grandson, and the subject of this biography), who succeeded to the estate on the death of his father in January 1600, was reportedly ‘the greatest moneyed man in England’. In fact his annual income, which has been estimated at between £6,500 and £8,000, was not the largest in the kingdom, although he may well have had more ready money at his disposal than some of his contemporaries with greater assets.25 J.H. Round, Studies. in Peerage and Fam. Hist. 289-90, 292-4, 301-2; M.E. Finch, Wealth of Five Northants. Fams. (Northants. Rec. Soc. xix), 38-41, 63; D. Lloyd, Memoires of the Lives (1669), 431.

Spencer’s maternal grandfather and godparent, the judge Sir Robert Catlin, made a small bequest to Spencer’s schoolmaster when he drew up his will in 1574, but other details of Spencer’s education are obscure. Oxford was described as ‘his mother university’ in his funeral sermon, but there is no record of his admission nor any indication which college he attended. His membership of Lincoln’s Inn was purely honorary, being procured for him by Ellesmere.

When the recusant, Sir Thomas Tresham, hurried to Northampton to proclaim James I king on 25 Mar. 1603, Spencer advised a day’s delay until formal notification had arrived from London.26 HMC Var. iii. 122. The new monarch was evidently not displeased by Spencer’s caution. In June, Anne of Denmark and Prince Henry were entertained at Althorp with a masque by Ben Jonson, although Spencer himself was absent.27 ‘Entertainment at Althorp’ ed. J. Knowles, Camb. Edn. of the Works of Ben Jonson ed. D. Bevington, M. Butler, I, Donaldson, ii. 395-412; L. Barroll, Anna of Denmark, 62. The following month Spencer was raised to the peerage at James’s coronation, being ranked last among the creations. He subsequently received a demand from Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl Worcester, and earl marshal for the day, for £10 or his best horse, being the fee due to his office; Spencer paid the money.28 HMC 2nd Rep. 19.

Although he now lived mostly at Althorp, Spencer took as his territorial suffix Wormleighton, the seat where he lived in the early years of his married life, and where his eldest son had been born, although he only occasionally visited it after he inherited his title.29 Add. 75326, f. 2; SP14/45/132; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 412. He may have chosen Wormleighton in recognition of his recent, genuine ancestors, it having been the family home in the early sixteenth century. It was also the more economically significant sector of the family estates.30 Finch, 39, 41. Spencer, who was known for ‘his skill in antiquities, arms, [and] alliances’, apparently accepted the spurious Despenser lineage, it being entered in the 1617-18 Northamptonshire herald’s visitation. However, he may not have attached much importance to it. He described his wife as ‘of honourable parentage but her virtues surpassed all’, suggesting that, although breeding was important to Spencer, he attached a higher significance to morality.31 Round, 293; Parr, 24; Add. 75326, f. 2. In 1623 he told William Camden that his studies had led him to realize the mutability of fortune, as there were ‘many [families] now base and poor that were great and ancient’. He quoted an old saying, that it took a 100 years to rise ‘from the plough to the spear’ [i.e. from a farmer to a knight] and a further 100 to go back down again.32 Harl. 7000, f. 111. Whatever his distant ancestry may have been, Spencer clearly regarded his great-great-grandfather’s purchase of Wormleighton as the foundation of his fortune.

It was subsequently reported that Spencer owed his elevation to his great wealth.33 Lloyd, 431. There is no evidence that he paid for his title, but it is possible that he received his barony in return for agreeing to undertake an extraordinary embassy to Württemberg to invest the duke with the Garter, to which order the duke had been elected six years previously.34 Shaw, Knights of Eng. i. 29. This purely ceremonial mission was bound to be expensive for the ambassador and there may have been some reluctance to undertake it. Spencer left Dover on 8 Oct. 1603 and returned to England on 9 December.35 HMC 2nd Rep. 20. He subsequently received over £900 for his expenses but calculated that his charges for the ‘voyage’ were nearly twice as great.36 F. Devon, Issues of the Exch. 11; Add. 75303, unfol.

The early Jacobean parliaments, 1604-14

Shortly after the accession of James I, Spencer agreed with Sir Edward Montagu^* (subsequently 1st Lord Montagu) that they should stand together as knights of the shire for Northamptonshire when the king called his first Parliament. However, by the time this assembly was summoned at the end of 1603, Spencer was no longer eligible to sit in the Commons. Consequently he endorsed the candidacy of his kinsman and neighbour, Sir Valentine Knightley^‡, who was elected with Montagu.37 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 286-7; HMC Buccleuch, i. 237; Baker, i. 109.

Spencer was recorded as attending 59 of the 71 sittings in the 1604 session, 83 per cent of the total. His attendance was patchy in the early part of the session, as he missed eight sittings in March and April, but he was absent on only four subsequent occasions before the prorogation in July. As a new member of the upper House, Spencer was named to just 13 of its 70 committees, although he spoke at least once, on 31 May, when, on his motion, the committee for the bill against the export of artillery, to which he had not been appointed, was ordered to meet the following Tuesday.38 LJ, ii. 310a. His first nomination, on 29 Mar., was to consider the bill concerning witchcraft. On 11 Apr. the same members were instructed to consider a new bill on that subject, but Spencer did not receive another committee appointment until 3 May, when he was nominated to confer with the Commons about purveyance.39 Ibid. 269a, 275a, 290b. He appears to have attended a meeting of the committee for the bill for regulating the tanning of leather, to which he was appointed on 4 June.40Ibid. 312b; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/3, f. 17. While in London, Spencer tried to cultivate the favour of the ten year-old Prince Henry. On 24 Apr. he sent the prince a copy of The History of Philip de Comines, a translation of a work by a fifteenth-century French diplomat notable for its pragmatic analysis of politics. Spencer underlined certain passages ‘that your highness may the more readily read them without the tedious perusing the whole chapter’.41 T. Birch, Life of Henry Prince of Wales, 40-1.

Spencer’s accounts indicate that, during the 1604 session, he rented accommodation from Sir Leonard Halliday, a London alderman, presumably Halliday’s house in St Michael Bassishaw. Several payments indicate that he was in close touch with his aunt Alice, dowager countess of Derby, and her husband the lord chancellor, Lord Ellesmere. On the first day of the session (19 Mar.) he paid a waterman for taking him from Parliament to the countess’ house. There are also entries for boat hire for a visit to Ellesmere, and a payment to the lord chancellor’s bargemen, on 21 April. About a month later further payments are recorded for ‘boat hire to my lord chancellor’s and back again’ about fetching ‘a writing from the Parliament’. Shortly after this entry there is another for carrying a deed to Sir Francis Fane^* (then a member of the Commons, subsequently 1st earl of Westmorland). In neither case is the document specified. Fane had married the heir of a prominent Northamptonshire landowner and his brother, Sir George, would later marry one of Spencer’s daughters.42 Add. 75332, unfol., ‘French’s reckonings at London when I did lie at Mr Alderman Halliday’s 1603 and 1604’; St Mary Magdalen Milk Street and St Michael Bassishaw (Harl. Soc. Reg. lxxii), 167, 169, 172, 175.

Fane’s mother was one of the claimants to the disputed Abergavenny barony. Spencer’s connection to the Fanes may explain why he was named, on 21 May, to attend the king with the Lords’ proposed solution to the dispute, namely conferring the barony of Le Despenser on Fane’s mother. Five days later he was appointed to check the relevant entry in the Journal. On 2 July, he was among those instructed to consider the estate bill for Fane’s kinsman, Edward Neville^*, to whom the Lords had awarded the Abergavenny barony. It is possible that Spencer thought he was distantly related to Mary Fane and Edward Neville, who were actually descended from the Despensers.43 LJ, ii. 303b, 307a, 337a.

Spencer made several payments in 1604 to Robert Bowyer^‡, secretary to the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset, possibly regarding procuring payment for his ambassadorial services. He also paid the bailiffs of Westminster ‘for watching Sir Thomas Tresham at Parliament door’. It is possible that Spencer had become suspicious while observing a prominent recusant like Tresham in the vicinity of Parliament. However, Tresham’s presence may have been entirely innocent, and concerned with lobbying on the subject of assart lands. These were lands formerly part of the royal forests, for which the owners were being pressed to compound, a significant issue for Northamptonshire landowners. Shortly before the Parliament started, Spencer had promised Tresham that he would support a petition on the subject. Further payments made during the Parliament suggest that Spencer was trying to improve his knowledge of the law, as he had purchased copies of Littleton’s Tenures and St Germain’s Doctor and Student. He also bought ‘my Lord Essex his book’ (possibly An Apologie of the Earle of Essex) and, on 20 May, gave 20s. to the antiquarian John Stowe.44 Add. 75332, unfol., ‘French’s reckonings at London when I did lie at Mr Alderman Hallidays 1603 and 1604’; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 76-7.

On 22 July, after the prorogation, Henry Grey^*, 1st Lord Grey of Groby, who missed the latter stages of the 1604 session, wrote to thank Spencer for ‘staying the preferment of the bill to the Parliament House’. Unfortunately, he did not specify the measure to which he was referring.45 Add. 25079, f. 62. In October, after Spencer demanded payment of a debt, Tresham asserted that his family was the more ancient and distinguished, both locally and nationally, and that Spencer’s peerage had been obtained ‘by moyens [means] … and that dearly’. He sarcastically wished Spencer ‘happy enjoying of your late obtained honour’. Despite the Despenser pedigree, the Spencers were clearly regarded in some circles as upstarts.46 HMC Var. iv. 136-8; Add. 39829, f. 153.

Spencer was marked as present in the upper House at the start of the second session on 5 Nov. 1605, when the Gunpowder Plot was discovered. After the session was adjourned on 9 Nov., he remained in London until the 29th. He subsequently wrote to Prince Henry from Althorp offering him a sword and shield as ‘instruments fit to be about you in these treacherous times’.47 Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. Nov. 1605; Birch, 65-6. He returned to London on 19 Jan. 1606, in time for the resumption of the session two days later. He stayed in the capital until 7 Apr., but was not recorded as attending Parliament after 4 Mar., but instead gave his proxy to Ellesmere. Three days later the earl of Worcester explained to the House that Spencer was in poor health. A payment recorded in his accounts to the secretary of the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, made on about 5 Apr., may have been associated with securing permission for him to return home. In all, Spencer attended only 22 of the 85 sittings, 26 per cent of the total,48 Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 19 Jan.-7 Apr. 1606; LJ, ii. 355b, 389b. and was appointed to just 12 committees out of a possible 72. The subjects of his nominations included bills about seditious speeches, the attainder of the Gunpowder plotters and the lands of Sir Christopher Hatton^‡, which included extensive properties in Northamptonshire. According to the Journal, Spencer was absent on 3 Mar., when this committee was appointed, but this may be an error.49 LJ, ii. 367a, 386a, 401a. He made no recorded speeches.

On 6 Feb. a bill to confirm land sales made by Spencer and his parents received a first reading in the Commons. The measure related to property which had come to the Spencer family from Sir Robert Catlin. Part of this property had since been sold, but one of the purchasers, Sir George Somers^‡ (then a member of the Commons), was worried about the security of his title as Catlin had entailed his lands on Spencer’s mother and her heirs. Consequently he promoted the bill, with Spencer’s consent, to confirm the sales. The committee, appointed the following day, included Spencer’s uncle and cousin, Sir Richard^‡ and Thomas Spencer^‡. Nevertheless, it was Sir Robert Napper^‡, like Somers a Dorset man, who reported it on the 24th. The bill was brought up to the Lords on 6 Mar., the day before Spencer was granted leave of absence, and it subsequently passed smoothly through the upper House, without being committed, and was enacted.50 CJ, ii. 264-5, 273; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1605/3J1n34; LJ, ii. 388a, 389a, 390b, 391b.

Spencer gave no indication that he remained in poor health when he wrote to his stepfather, Sir Thomas Fowler, from Althorp on 19 Sept. 1606. Nevertheless, he was absent from the Lords when the third session started in November. Indeed, his accounts indicate that he only arrived in London on 23 Jan. 1607. Consequently, he did not take his seat until the session reconvened on 10 February. A payment of £50 to Halliday on 2 Mar. suggests that he again rented the alderman’s house. He attended 20 of the 33 sittings from 10 Feb. to 27 Mar. inclusive, but thereafter was recorded as present only once, on the afternoon of 1 July. In the interim he returned to Northamptonshire, where a serious outbreak of disorder against enclosures had occurred. On 8 June the county’s lord lieutenant, Thomas Cecil^*, 1st earl of Exeter, ordered him to arm as many of his dependants as he could to help put down the Midlands rising. However, Spencer announced instead his intention to retire to his Warwickshire estates, ostensibly for his ‘private occasions’, for which he was rebuked by Exeter. In total, Spencer was recorded as attending 20 per cent of the sittings, and during his absence he again appointed Ellesmere as his proxy. He received seven committee appointments (out of the 41 appointed by the Lords during the session), including a bill concerning the estates of his aunt Alice’s first husband, Ferdinando Stanley^‡, 5th earl of Derby.51 Add. 42081, f. 42; Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 23 Jan.-c.Mar. 1607; Add. 25079, f. 66; PRO30/26/56/1; LJ, ii. 449b, 480a.

In July 1608 Chamberlain reported that Spencer intended to visit his daughter, Elizabeth, who was living in Kent, in order to avoid the king’s progress through Northamptonshire.52 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 260. On 20 May 1609 he was summoned to London to contribute to the aid for knighting Prince Henry. In response, Spencer protested to the lord treasurer, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, that he had already compounded for his estates in the country. Nevertheless, he was obliged to pay a further £3 in addition to the £17 he had already contributed.53 SP14/45/132; Add 75306, unfol.

In March 1609 Spencer sent Salisbury ‘a very dangerous pamphlet or catechism’.54 SP14/44/3. This was probably a manuscript treatise advocating separatism from the Church of England which survives among Salisbury’s papers, and is endorsed as ‘a book sent up by the Lord Spencer’.55 Hatfield House, CP144/229. Spencer was strongly committed to the established Church, although his precise theological allegiance is unclear. His funeral sermon paid tribute to his piety, support of the clergy and ‘building, beautifying and adorning the houses of God where he lived’, while the Calvinist divine, Immanuel Bourne, acknowledged Spencer’s encouragement of himself and the clergy in general.56 Parr, 22; I. Bourne, Rainebow (1617), sig. A3v; N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 259. He was also a supporter of the anti-Calvinist, Thomas Jackson, whom he appointed to tutor his younger sons, Edward^‡ and Richard^‡, when they were sent to Oxford.57 Lloyd, 71; T. Jackson, Works (1844), iii. 4; S.M. Towers, Control of Religious Printing in Early Stuart Eng. 55. Spencer’s ‘liberality towards the houses of learning’ may have been intended to foster the next generation of clergy. He was one of the earliest donors to the Bodleian library, giving £100, and was also a patron of the grammar school at Northampton.58 Parr, 22; J. Newman, ‘Architectural Setting’, Hist. of Univ. of Oxf. iv. ed. N. Tyacke, 140; S. Wastell, True Christians Daily Delight (1623), sig. A2.

Spencer arrived in London on 22 Jan. 1610, in preparation for the fourth session of Parliament, which began on 9 Feb., and once again rented accommodation from Halliday.59 Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 22 Jan.-c.July 1610. He was marked as attending 62 of the 95 sittings, 65 per cent of the total. Last recorded as present on 12 July, he missed the final 15 sittings, when he again gave his proxy to Ellesmere, and was appointed to seven of the 58 committees established by the House, including two on bills concerning Lord Abergavenny. He made no recorded speeches.60 LJ, ii. 548b, 595b, 608b, 631b.

On 7 June Spencer wrote to Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡, England’s ambassador in Paris, requesting that he keep an eye on his two eldest sons, John and William^*, who were then travelling in France. However, two months later John died at Blois, having contracted a fever, leaving William as Spencer’s heir.61 Stowe 171, f. 237; HMC Downshire, ii. 350. Spencer returned to London on 15 Oct. for the fifth session of Parliament, which commenced the following day, and rented a house in Westminster from Sir Robert Meller^‡. He was recorded as attending 17 of the 21 sittings before the prorogation on 6 Dec., 81 per cent of the total, but was absent when Parliament was dissolved on 9 Feb. 1611, despite being still in London. He was appointed to five of the seven committees created by the Lords. Named to consider four bills, including a measure concerning the administration of the recently constituted estates of Prince Henry, he was also instructed to confer with the Commons about the Great Contract.62 Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 15 Oct. 1610-9 June 1611; LJ, ii. 671a, 677a.

In the summer of 1611 Spencer corresponded with William Camden about the newly created order of baronets. He was clearly concerned that the novel honour would disrupt the traditional hierarchy of precedence and wanted the holders to be ranked in an official publication to avoid disputes. At that date Spencer ranked himself among the ‘country men’, whom he said were concerned mostly with the weather and agricultural prices. Nevertheless, in November he bought a town house in Clerkenwell. The following April he attended the hearings before the king and Privy Council about baronets’ precedence. Having three surviving sons, Spencer was no doubt pleased when James ruled that the younger sons of barons would be ranked above members of the new order.63 Harl. 7002, f. 135; Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 1 Nov. 1611-22 May 1612; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 86-8.

When a fresh Parliament was called in 1614, Spencer secured the election of his son, William, for Brackley (which Spencer himself had represented in 1597) with the support of his cousin’s husband, John Egerton^* (subsequently 1st earl of Bridgwater).64 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 289-90. Spencer’s accounts indicate that he arrived in Parliament on 28 Mar., in good time for the opening of the Parliament on 5 April. Except for 7 Apr., when no attendances were recorded, he was marked at present at all but three of the 29 sittings of the upper House, 86 per cent of the total. Payments to doctors, apothecaries and surgeons indicate that his sons, William and Edward, were both unwell by the early part of May. Spencer himself evidently did not escape illness as he was excused on 14 May, ‘being not well and in physic’. He also missed the following two sittings, but returned to the upper House on the 21st.65 Add. 75333, unfol. London accts. 28 Mar.-13 July 1614; HMC Hastings, iv. 248.

Spencer made three recorded speeches in the 1614 Parliament. On 23 May he attacked Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (subsequently archbishop of York), who had argued that if the Lords agreed to meet with the Commons about impositions they would hear only sedition. Spencer argued that it was ‘contrary to the rule of charity to condemn men before we hear them’ and that there was no reason to think ‘the lower House will wrong the king’. He also criticized the proposal that the lords should first hear the judges, of which Ellesmere was the leading proponent. Spencer argued that to do so would be to ‘submit’ the opinion of the upper House to that of their assistants, making a ‘precedent’ that would be ‘dangerous in future ages, that such a thing cannot be resolved betwixt the two houses, but we must hear the judges’ opinion first’.66 HMC Hastings, iv. 254; W. Petyt, Jus Parliamentarium, 343.

The following day Spencer argued that the Parliament would not prove to be ‘a Parliament of love’, as James had hoped, unless the Lords agreed to meet the Commons.67 HMC Hastings, iv. 258. On the last day of the month, following protests by the Commons against Neile’s speech, Spencer seconded the motion of Lord Admiral Nottingham (Charles Howard^*) for the bishop to explain himself.68 Ibid. 274. Spencer was named to five of the nine committees named by the upper House during the Parliament, including the committee for the Sabbath bill, on which subject he was instructed to confer with the Commons on 31 May.69 LJ, ii. 708b, 713b.

During the Parliament Spencer negotiated a match between his heir, William, and Lady Penelope Wriothesley, the daughter of the earl of Southampton, the leading advocate of a meeting between the Lords and the Commons about impositions in the upper House. Although the marriage did not take place until November, matters were sufficiently advanced by 2 June for Spencer to pay his lawyer, Thomas Crewe^‡, to peruse a draft settlement. Following the dissolution, on 7 July, Spencer paid £100 towards the benevolence levied by James.70 Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 28 Mar.-13 July 1614.

The last Jacobean parliaments, 1621 and 1624

Spencer sold his Clerkenwell house to William Cecil^*, Lord Burghley (subsequently 2nd earl of Exeter) in May 1615.71 Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 29 Apr.-29 May 1615. He evidently calculated that he now had little need for this building, possibly because the king was in no hurry to summon another Parliament. In the later 1610s he certainly spent less time in London than before. Nevertheless, he led delegations representing the interests of sheep farmers to lobby the Privy Council about the regulation of the wool trade in 1616 and in 1620, and attended Prince Charles’s creation as prince of Wales in November 1616, and the funeral of Anne of Denmark in April 1619.72 APC, 1615-16, p. 564; 1619-21, pp. 207-8; Add. 75333, unfol., London accts. 29 Oct. 1616-c.8 Nov. 1616; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 536. In 1618 it was rumoured that Spencer would be one of the buyers after the king decided to sell some earldoms to fund that year’s progress. However, one newsletter-writer claimed that he was ‘diverted’ from doing so by Southampton. Consequently the Spencers did not become earls until the Civil War.73 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 209; HMC Bath, ii. 68.

Like Southampton, Spencer seems to have been a supporter of James I’s son-in-law, Frederick V, elected king of Bohemia in 1619. In 1620 Spencer paid £100 in his own name, and a further £50 in the name of his son, William, towards the expedition under Sir Horace Vere^* (subsequently Lord Vere of Tilbury) sent to defend the lower Palatinate, which formed part of Frederick’s hereditary lands. However, when the king levied a benevolence for that purpose in the autumn of that year, Spencer, not wishing to give James cause not to call a Parliament perhaps, refused to contribute, arguing that ‘prices are fallen of all things in the country that money should be made of’.74 SP14/117/110.

The threat to the Palatinate forced James in November 1620 to summon Parliament. Spencer secured the election of his eldest son for Northamptonshire and his two younger sons for Brackley and Northampton respectively.75 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 287, 290, 292. On 3 Jan. 1621 Edward, the youngest son, sent his father a proclamation, probably the one issued on 28 Dec. postponing the opening of the Parliament from 16 Jan. to the 23rd.76 Add. 75308, unfol., Edward Spencer to Lord Spencer, 3 Jan. [1621]; Stuart Royal Proclamations I: Jas. I ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, 497. Forewarned, Spencer did not arrive in London until 19 Jan., although in the event the opening was again delayed, as the third Jacobean Parliament did not start until the 30th.77 Add. 75337, unfol., London acct. 19 Jan.-11 June 1621.

Spencer was recorded as attending 37 of the 44 sittings before Easter, 84 per cent of the total. However, this may understate his actual attendance. On 5 Mar. he was named to a committee, despite not being recorded as absent, and despite not being excused until the following day. Ten days later the clerk again failed to record his presence, even though he was named to a committee and addressed the House. However, it is possible that he was absent on 27 Mar., despite being named to another committee.78 LJ, iii. 37a, 38a, 49b, 74b.

Spencer was appointed to 18 committees (out of a possible 28) and made 11 speeches before Easter. His legislative appointments included a bill to confirm a grant to Sir Philip Carey^‡, a friend of his cousin, Thomas Spencer (17 February).79 Ibid. 21b.; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 438-9. On 14 Feb. he was named to the conference with the Commons about the proposed petition for enforcing the laws against recusancy. Two days later he spoke in favour of the petition. No doubt thinking of events in Germany, he demanded to know how, ‘if we dare not defend our religion at home’, should those abroad ‘look for help from us?’80 LJ, iii. 17a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 6.

Spencer was named to the privileges committee on 5 Feb., and was a leading advocate of the petition drafted outside the chamber against continuing to allow Englishmen who had purchased Irish or Scottish viscountcies to take precedence on local commissions over English barons, like himself. This was despite the fact that none of his Northamptonshire neighbours had bought such a title. Indeed, on 20 Feb., he moved for this document to be read in the upper House and for it to be signed by other peers.81 LJ, iii. 10b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 10. According to Camden, James’s anger over the petition was particularly directed against Spencer, who was concerned more widely about questions of status within the English peerage. On 12 Mar. he protested after William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, used the term ‘great lords’, arguing that, as peers, they were all equal.82 ‘Camden Diary’, 71; LJ, iii. 42b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 20. On 16 Feb. he corroborated the account of Emanuel Scrope^*, 11th Lord Scrope’s (later earl of Sunderland), of the latter’s scuffle with Francis Norris^*, earl of Berkshire, at the door of the upper House, which arose over the question of precedence between an earl and a baron.83 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 8.

On 12 Mar. Spencer was named to the committee for receiving evidence from the Commons against various monopolists. Two days later, he persuaded the House to summon two additional patentees, Sir Allen Apsley, and Henry Tweedy. He was also named to consider the inns patent.84 LJ, ii. 42b, 46b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 24. On 22 Mar. he proposed that Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, the most notorious monopolist, be indicted, but his colleagues concluded that a formal indictment was unnecessary. Four days later he queried whether Mompesson was guilty of ‘praemunire, felony or treason’ for creating a new court or office ‘without warrant’, a query he reiterated that afternoon, when he also seconded Pembroke, who wished to give consideration to precedents relating to the proceedings against Empson and Dudley, the notorious ministers of Henry VII.85 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 33, 41-3; LD 1621, p. 134. Spencer kept a copy of the Lords’ judgement against Mompesson, indicating the significance he attached to the proceedings against the monopolists and the concomitant revival of impeachment.86 Add. 75301, unfol.

According to the Journal, Spencer attended 33 of the 43 sittings between the Easter and summer recesses, 77 per cent of the total. He was excused on 17 Apr., when the session resumed, but took his seat two days later. He was also excused in the morning of 4 May, but attended in the afternoon. Excused again on the afternoon of 2 June, having been missing since 30 May, he returned to attend the final sitting before the summer break, on 4 June.87 LJ, iii. 75a, 107a, 142a. In all, Spencer made 14 speeches and was named to 16 of the 46 or 47 committees of the upper House during this period. His appointments included the committee instructed, on 19 Apr., to draw up the charge against the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban. On 24 Apr. he argued that Bacon should come to the House to answer the charge personally and the following day he moved to deprive him of the great seal.88 Ibid. 80a; LD 1621, pp. 14, 20. When the House debated on 3 May the punishment to be inflicted on Bacon, Spencer opposed death or banishment, but reminded his colleagues that the king wished the sentence to be a ‘precedent to posterity’. Interestingly, he argued that it was possible to be attainted without losing all one’s honours, and cited the case of his putative kinsman, Thomas Le Despenser^†, 2nd or 5th Lord Despenser and earl of Gloucester, who, in 1399, had been deprived of his earldom and part of his estates by Parliament, yet retained his barony until his execution for treason the following year.89 LD 1621, pp. 62-3; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, pp. 90-1.

Spencer continued to interest himself in the pursuit of the patentees. On 26 Apr. he observed that Matthias Fowle had not been speaking under oath when he defended himself, and, on 4 May, he argued that Sir Francis Michell, like Mompesson, should lose his knighthood. He was named to the committee for the bill against monopolies on 28 May.90 LD 1621, p. 32, 65; LJ, iii. 137a. After the Commons presented corruption charges against the ecclesiastical judge, Sir John Bennet^‡, Spencer argued, on 25 Apr., that Bennet should not be imprisoned until he made his answer. On 2 May he was named to the committee established to examine the charges against Bennet.91 LD 1621, p. 22; LJ, iii. 104b.

Like Southampton, Spencer was keenly interested in the case of Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, the disgraced former attorney general. Indeed it may have been Spencer who induced the earl to take up the case. Yelverton was a Northamptonshire resident and recorder of Northampton, and Spencer had borrowed money from him earlier in the reign, apparently interest-free.92 Oxford DNB, online sub Spencer, Robert, first Baron (2004); Add. 75332, unfol. James I had referred Yelverton to the Lords for punishment for his complicity in the monopoly patents, but Yelverton alleged that he had acted under pressure from the king’s favourite, George Villiers, marquess of Buckingham, whom he compared to Spencer’s alleged kinsmen, Hugh, Lord Le Despenser, Edward II’s favourite. James interpreted this as a personal attack, and took Yelverton back into custody. In the ensuing debate on 2 May, Spencer criticized those who had informed the king of the House’s proceedings without its authority. He chose to believe that James had been misinformed and argued that the upper House should ‘appeal from Caesar male informato [badly informed] to Caesar bene informatum’ [well informed].93 LD 1621, pp. 56, 60.

In view of this criticism, James subsequently agreed to refer Yelverton to the Lords for punishment. Accordingly, on 8 May Spencer twice moved for the former attorney general to be summoned to answer the king’s charges. However, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, argued that Yelverton had already been heard in his own defence and that no further hearing was necessary. At this Spencer expressed surprise, as two of Arundel’s ancestors, the 3rd duke of Norfolk (Thomas Howard^†) and his son, the earl of Surrey, had been attainted in Parliament in the final days of the Henry VIII’s reign without a hearing. Arundel, thinking he had been slighted, retorted that his ancestors had suffered ‘for doing the king and country good service’ when Spencer’s had ‘kept sheep’. At this affront, Spencer ‘made a modest reply and desired to be righted by the House’.94 Ibid. 73; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 36; M.A.R. Graves, House of Lords in the Parls. of Edward VI and Mary I, 14-15; SP14/121/46.

Arundel’s words caused uproar. Further consideration was deferred on Prince Charles’ motion, but the earl’s ‘words were not suffered to die, only they slept for a while’.95 LD 1621, p. 74; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 375; CD 1621, vi. 395. Meanwhile, Spencer made a final contribution to the debates about Yelverton on 12 May, when, possibly as a delaying tactic, he moved for the question about Yelverton’s guilt ‘to be agreed on and put in writing and then put to the question whether that shall be the question’.96 PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 112.

On 17 May, the day after Yelverton had been sentenced by the upper House, Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, whose father had been Southampton’s great friend, revived the matter of the dispute between Arundel and Spencer. Arundel explained that he had interpreted Spencer’s speech ‘in a worse meaning than he spake’ but, nevertheless, maintained that ‘his lordship’s speech was somewhat harsh’. Spencer replied that he would ‘make no apology, but leave it to your lordships’. The two peers then left the chamber and went into separate rooms. In the ensuing debate Edward Denny^*, Lord Denny (subsequently earl of Norwich) attempted to magnify Arundel’s offence by exaggerating Spencer’s Despenser lineage, asserting that the baron was descended from the earls of Winchester and Gloucester, a claim even the fictitious pedigree of 1595 did not make. The Lords agreed that Arundel had been given no cause for offence, but the earl refused to apologize and was consequently sent to the Tower.97 LD 1621, p. 91; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39, p. 36; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 257.

On 2 June the king pressed the Lords to order Arundel’s release, the earl having finally agreed to submit to the House, and promised that the prince would reconcile Spencer and Arundel. That afternoon, the Lords, perhaps symbolically, appointed Arundel and Spencer to the same committee, although neither man was then in the chamber.98 Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39, p. 39; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 381; LJ, iii. 155a. It was subsequently reported that Arundel gave ‘satisfaction’ privately to Spencer in the presence of the prince.99 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 67; Add. 72254, f. 35; CD 1621, vi. 403-4.

Spencer left London on 11 June and returned to Althorp.100 Add, 75337, unfol.; HEHL, HA12540. He evidently attended the Lords when the session resumed on 20 Nov., as he helped introduce his fellow Northamptonshire resident Sir Edward Montagu, who had been raised to the peerage as Lord Montagu during the recess.101 LJ, iii. 162b. He received the proxy of Southampton, who had been persuaded to stay away from Parliament following his arrest shortly after the summer adjournment.102 Ibid. 4b. Spencer himself was excused on 26 Nov. and did not attend again until 7 December. Excused again on the 8th, he returned on the 13th only to miss the following day’s sitting. He attended the next three sittings, but missed the last day of the session, on 19 December. In total he attended nine of the 24 sittings, 38 per cent of the total.103 Ibid. 170a, 186b.

Spencer was named to four of the 11 committees appointed by the Lords after the session was resumed, all of them legislative. Their subjects included improving the navigation of the Thames from Oxford to Burcot, which he was appointed to consider in absentia, possibly because he had been named to a previous Thames navigation bill on 19 February.104 Ibid. 22b, 171a. The other bills concerned levying fines without consent, Welsh butter and tobacco.105 Ibid. 185a, 194a. He made no further recorded speeches before the Parliament was dissolved.

In the summer of 1623 Spencer became involved in a dispute over the wardship of Sir William Spencer bt., the son of his cousin Thomas, who had died the previous year. Spencer, along with the lord president of the Council, Henry Montagu^*, Viscount Mandeville (subsequently 1st earl of Manchester), had helped purchase the wardship against the opposition of the ward’s mother, Margaret, who complained to the king that Spencer had forcibly removed the child from her custody. Margaret appears to have been Catholic as she recruited the support of the Spanish ambassador. The complaint was forwarded to the master of the Court of Wards, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, but there is no evidence that the wardship was altered.106 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 3; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 398.

Following the elevation of Sir Edward Montagu to the peerage in 1621, Richard Knightley^‡, nephew and heir of Sir Valentine Knightley^‡, was elected in his place to serve for Northamptonshire alongside Spencer’s heir, Sir William Spencer. When the 1624 Parliament was called, Spencer proposed that Sir William and Knightley be re-elected. However, Sir Lewis Watson^† (later 1st Lord Rockingham), a client of Buckingham’s and Montagu’s kinsman and neighbour, wanted a seat. He was supported by Montagu, who argued that Watson’s election, alongside Sir William Spencer, would conform to the established custom of electing one Member from each side of the county. This proposal was rejected by Spencer, who replied that the custom had been breached in the past and that Watson, whom he seems to have thought too sympathetic to Catholics, was entirely unsuited to the role of county representative. A contest was only averted after Watson found a seat elsewhere. At around the same time, Edward and Richard Spencer were re-elected for Brackley and Northampton respectively.107 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 287, 290, 293; HMC Buccleuch, i. 258; HMC Montagu, 105-6.

Spencer attended the prorogation meeting on 12 Feb. 1624, and possibly 66 of the 93 sittings of the Parliament, 70 per cent of the total (including that of 11 Mar., when he spoke twice but was not recorded as present).108 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 25, 27. He was excused on 1 Mar. by the diocesan for Wormleighton, Thomas Morton^*, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (later bishop of Durham), but returned to the House five days later. On 20 Mar. he was granted leave of absence until after Easter, but he was still absent when the session resumed on 1 Apr., and did not return until the 10th.109 LJ, iii. 237a, 271b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, ff. 21, 40; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 37. Spencer made 13 recorded speeches and was appointed to 32 of the 105 committees established by the Lords during the Parliament. He also helped introduce three new barons: Henry West^*, 4th Lord De La Warr; Robert Carey^*, Lord Carey of Leppington (subsequently 1st earl of Monmouth); and William Grey^*, Lord Grey of Warke.110 LJ, iii. 217b; Add. 40087, f. 21.

At the start of the Parliament, James invited the assembly to advise him whether to continue negotiations with Spain for a marriage for the prince and for the recovery of the Palatinate. Speaking on 28 Feb., Spencer, who described the two treaties as ‘twins’, moved that they should ‘give the k[ing] counsel not to trust to any treaty’. He argued that James should follow the example of Henry VII in 1491-2, who, after long negotiations, had consulted Parliament, obtained supply and raised an army ‘and had his own condition[s]’. Spencer was subsequently appointed to the committee to search for suitable precedents about treaties and supply.111 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 10; LJ, iii. 236b; P. Cavill, Eng. Parls. of Henry VII, 67. On 11 Mar., following the report on the crown’s finances made by the lord treasurer, Middlesex, Spencer queried how a war ‘may be feasible’, only to be followed by Prince Charles, who argued that war would be possible if Parliament voted taxation.112 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 25.

It is unlikely that Spencer genuinely intended to impede the progress towards war. In all likelihood he was acting in concert with the prince and Buckingham, who wished to make the case for taxation. A committee was appointed, of which Spencer was a member, to draft a message to the Commons, who had received a similar report on the crown’s finances, requesting a conference to clear up any ‘mistaking’. At this, Middlesex asked ‘to know wherein he mistook’, whereupon the prince replied ‘that he mistook not, but Spencer doubted’, a claim which Spencer endorsed. However, to avoid any confusion, the word ‘mistaking’ was changed to ‘doubt’. Spencer was named to attend the ensuing conference.113 Add. 40087, f. 72; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 27-8; LJ, iii. 256a.

On 16 Apr. Spencer was named to the committee to consider the charges that by now had been brought against Middlesex. On 1 May he was also appointed to consider the lord treasurer’s response.114 LJ, iii. 310b. Spencer clearly approved of the assault on Middlesex, which was orchestrated by Charles and Buckingham, for on 12 May he reminded the Lords of Sir Philip Carey’s petition concerning the office of surveyor of the customs, which Carey had purchased from Middlesex.115 Add. 40088, f. 85. Moreover, later that day, when the House debated Middlesex’s management of the great wardrobe, Spencer argued that the lord treasurer was at fault for not rendering accounts.116 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 74. Spencer continued his attack on Middlesex when the charge of receiving bribes from the customs farmers was considered that afternoon. He argued that it would have been lawful for Middlesex to have received a Christmas present of food and drink, but the lord treasurer ‘refused the wine and received the money’. He described Middlesex as ‘the first treasurer who did barter’, and went on to make a ‘simile of a servant trusted to make a lease of 100 acres, and reserves 40 acres to himself’. In respect of the composition for purveyance of groceries imposed on the city of Bristol, Spencer queried whether Middlesex was guilty of ‘assuming regal authority’ and sought ‘to be satisfied’.117 Ibid. 74, 79, 81.

Middlesex was subsequently found guilty of abusing his position and stripped of office. On 13 May Spencer moved for his fine to be assigned to the defence of Ireland, which country would be particularly vulnerable in a war with Spain, but his colleagues thought that such a decision should be left to the king.118 Ibid. 89. The following day Spencer moved for a bill to make Middlesex’s lands liable for his debts, to ensure that the fine imposed on the former lord treasurer was paid, and to see that all those who had been wronged by the earl, including Sir Philip Carey, were compensated. The Lords ordered the attorney general to draft the bill, and Spencer was named to the committee on the 15th. He was also appointed on 20 May to the committee to assess the compensation that Middlesex was ordered to pay to his victims.119 Ibid. 93; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 76v; LJ, iii. 386a, 396a.

On 14 May Spencer was named to attend the conference with the Commons about their charges against the anti-Calvinist bishop of Norwich, Samuel Harsnett^* (later archbishop of York). The lower House presented six accusations against Harsnett and, on 19 May, Spencer moved the Lords to examine all six themselves. However, the upper House instead referred the charges to the court of High Commission.120 LJ, iii. 384b, 390a; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 96.

The parliaments of 1625 and 1626

When the first Caroline Parliament was held in 1625, Sir William Spencer and Richard Knightley were re-elected for Northamptonshire, as were Edward Spencer for Brackley and Richard Spencer for Northampton.121 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 287, 290-1. Spencer himself held the proxy of John Mordaunt^*, 5th Lord Mordaunt (subsequently created earl of Peterborough), a Northamptonshire peer who was subsequently to convert to Protestantism but was still Catholic at this date.122 Procs. 1625, p. 591. Spencer was recorded as attending 17 of the 31 sittings of the upper House, 55 per cent of the total. Present when the session started on 18 June, he attended until the afternoon sitting on 4 July, but thereafter was absent until after Parliament adjourned to Oxford. He returned to the House when the session resumed on 1 Aug., and then attended until the 6th. However, he missed the last five sittings.

Spencer was appointed to nine of the 25 committees established by the upper House. These included the committee for privileges, and committees to consider bills to enforce the Sabbath and arm the militia.123 Ibid. 45, 72. On 23 June he was named to attend the conference with the Commons about the petition for a fast. Five days later, he was appointed to record attendances at the fast.124 Ibid. 43, 68. He made no recorded speeches, but may have made Mordaunt’s excuses when the House was called on 23 June.125 Ibid. 47.

When the second Caroline Parliament was summoned, in late 1625, all three of Spencer’s sons were again returned, though Sir William initially disclaimed any interest in representing Northamptonshire. Richard was again returned for Northampton, while Edward was elected for Middlesex, where his new wife’s property lay, meaning that two of Spencer’s sons sat as knights of the shire in 1626.126 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 240, 288-9, 291. Spencer himself was recorded as attending 45 of the 82 sittings of the 1626 Parliament, 56 per cent of the total. This figure may not be entirely accurate, as Spencer made speeches on three days when he was not recorded as present (1, 2 and 4 May).127 Procs. 1626, i. 340, 346, 352. He was excused six times during the Parliament, and though he took an extended Easter break he was not usually absent for long.128 Ibid. 43, 167 231, 251, 494, 558.

Spencer made seven recorded speeches and was named to 29 of the 49 committees appointed by the upper House during the Parliament. Having attended the coronation of Charles I on 2 Feb., Spencer argued a week later that it was particularly important for ‘all the lords of the House’ to take the oath of allegiance because ‘the king having been so lately crowned’ it was necessary for them to make a symbolic pledge of their loyalty.129 SP16/20/8; Procs. 1626, i. 39. Spencer also had a more personal reason for reinforcing the obligation to take the oath. Edward Vaux^*, 4th Lord Vaux, was seeking parliamentary privilege in order to halt a Star Chamber prosecution over an affray which had taken place the previous October, when the Northamptonshire deputy lieutenants, including Spencer’s son, Sir William, had searched Vaux’s house. As Vaux was a staunch Catholic, who had previously refused to take the oath, Spencer may have hoped that Vaux would prefer to stay away rather than be sworn, and that this could be used as an excuse to deny Vaux privilege. However, if so, Spencer miscalculated, as Vaux took the oath and was granted privilege. Nevertheless, on 15 Feb. the Lords resolved to take the oath at the start of every Parliament.130 EDWARD VAUX; Procs. 1626, i. 49-50.

Spencer was again appointed to the privileges committee. During the Parliament he twice intervened in the privilege case concerning his friend Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon (whose wife was Spencer’s cousin). Huntingdon, then absent, accused two attorneys of forging protections in his name.131 Procs. 1626, i. 193, 352. Spencer also complained, on 6 Mar., that the Lords’ privileges had been infringed by the king in respect of the dispute over the succession to the earldom of Oxford. Charles had only asked the Lords to advise him, keeping the final determination in his own hands, but Spencer argued that this restriction was ‘a great diminution of the power of the House’ and ‘abridg[ed] them of their liberties’. However, he was answered by Pembroke, who pointed out that the claimants had petitioned the king to settle the dispute, and that it was only thanks to Charles’ favour that it had come before the Lords at all.132 Ibid. 48, 111, 115.

On 20 Feb. Spencer was added to the petitions committee.133 Ibid. i. 61. Following the report made by the earl of Bridgwater on the petition of captives of the Sallee (Salé) pirates of Morocco on 22 Mar., Spencer stated that the committee had been informed that 140 ships had been taken within two years and argued that ‘the fault must be in somebody’. However, he did not explicitly blame the lord admiral, the duke of Buckingham. He was subsequently appointed to the committee concerning the captives.134 Ibid. 191, 195.

Spencer did not support the attacks on Buckingham, which dominated the Parliament. Although he had once enjoyed friendly relations with John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol – in 1610 he had spent £15 on a christening cup for one of Digby’s daughters - 135 Add. 75333, unfol. he ridiculed the earl’s accusations against Buckingham and his client Secretary Conway (Edward Conway^*, 1st Viscount Conway). On 1 May, he complained that the House had ‘expected great matters’ only to find that ‘montes parturire et nascitur ridiculus mus’ [the mountains labour and a silly mouse is born].136 Procs. 1626, i. 340. The following day, many peers were angered to hear that Bristol’s accusations had been communicated to the Commons, whereupon Edmund Sheffield^*, 1st earl of Mulgrave, tried to forestall an attack on Bristol by querying whether the Lords were entitled to take notice of this fact, which had not been formally communicated to them by the lower House. However, Spencer cleverly argued that the upper House could take notice of proceedings in the lower ‘by common fame’, this being the basis on which Buckingham’s enemies had proceeded against the duke.137 Ibid. 346. The newsletter-writers assumed that Buckingham had bought Spencer’s support with ‘some favour’. Indeed, one reported that his second son, Richard, had been sworn a member of the king’s bedchamber. However, there is no evidence to support these claims.138 Ibid. iv. 287; NLW, 9061E/1414. Perhaps Spencer, like his son Richard, was influenced by Buckingham’s refusal to condemn Arminianism at the York House Conference in February.139 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 393.

Final months, 1626-7

Following the dissolution, the king levied a Forced Loan. Spencer did not pay his contribution until March 1627, which may explain why he was identified as a Loan refuser in a manuscript tract written to oppose the levy. Moreover, although he was appointed a Loan commissioner for Northamptonshire, he apparently played no role in enforcing collection of the Loan, though this may have been because of declining health rather than political disapproval.140 SP16/54/82i; E401/1386, rot. 67; R. Cust, Forced Loan and English Pols. 241. When the queen, Henrietta Maria, visited Wellingborough in Northamptonshire in the summer, Sir William Spencer was obliged to inform James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, that Spencer was suffering from ‘such a sickness of the palsy that he is not able to perform that duty which he oweth to her Majesty … he being now under the physician’s hands and not able to stir out of his own doors’. Indeed, Spencer was so unwell that he was unable to write to Carlisle himself.141 Add. 75308, unfol., Sir William Spencer to Carlisle, 1627; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 297.

Spencer’s final illness was initially ‘clouded’ with ‘sadness and dejection of spirit’, but ‘towards the end’ the peer ‘seemed far more comfortable’. At the beginning of October 1627 he decided ‘to visit the place which gave him the honourable title of a baron’. From there he summoned Richard Parr, the minister of a neighbouring Warwickshire parish, to attend him because his own chaplain was at Althorp. He died in his sleep on 25 Oct., four days after his arrival at Wormleighton. (His inquisition post mortem incorrectly records his date of death as the 26th.)142 Parr, 27, 28-9; C142/441/8.

Spencer’s bowels were buried at Wormleighton, but, in accordance with his wishes, the rest of his body was interred at Brington, the parish church for Althorp, where he had constructed a monument for his wife, who had died 30 years before. According to Parr, who preached the sermon, his funeral was conducted without ‘the pompous train of heralds, and glorious ensigns, nor … dumb ceremonies, and superfluous shows’. In his will of February 1625, Spencer left bequests to the poor of Northampton, Brington and other parishes in Northamptonshire, who were instructed ‘to pray for my children and friends that be living’. He appointed as his executor his son William, who inherited his title, and required him to enter into a bond with the earl of Bridgwater, Henry Grey^*, Lord Grey of Groby (subsequently 1st earl of Stamford), Sir Alexander Denton^‡ and Thomas Spencer to ensure payment of his bequests. He appointed the earl of Huntingdon and William’s brother-in-law, Thomas Wriothesley^*, 4th earl of Southampton, as overseers.143 W. Dugdale, Warws. (1730), 517; Baker, i. 98, 109; Parr, unpag. ‘The Preface’; PROB 11/152, ff. 418-19.