TALBOT, Gilbert (1552-1616)

The Talbots came to England with the Conqueror and settled in Essex, but had moved to south Herefordshire by the accession of Henry II. They remained a minor landowning family until Gilbert Talbot^† (1276-1346) came to prominence as part of the opposition to Edward II’s favourites in the early fourteenth century. Appointed chamberlain of the household on the accession of Edward III, Gilbert was summoned to Parliament as Lord Talbot in 1332. Shrewd marriages extended the family’s landholdings in the counties bordering Wales in the late fourteenth century, especially in Shropshire, and in the early fifteenth century further estates were acquired in south Yorkshire and the north Midlands, including Sheffield Castle, Worksop manor in Nottinghamshire and extensive properties in north Derbyshire. By 1436 John Talbot^†, 7th Lord Talbot, was among the 12 wealthiest peers in the kingdom. In 1442 he was rewarded for his services on the battlefield with an earldom. As Shropshire was his native county, and lay at the centre of the Talbot estates, he took ‘Salop’ as his title. However, he and his successors were always known as earls of Shrewsbury. Following his death in 1453, the Talbot family’s centre of gravity shifted, as successive earls built up the family estates around Sheffield and in Derbyshire. In the early Tudor period their principal seat was Sheffield Castle, although they increasingly preferred to live at nearby Sheffield Lodge, a house rebuilt and extended by the fourth and fifth earls. The fourth earl also built a ‘fair lodge’ at Worksop and at the Dissolution of the Monasteries acquired Rufford Abbey in Nottinghamshire, with almost all of its estates.43 A.J. Pollard, ‘Fam. of Talbot, Lords Talbot and Earls of Shrewsbury in the Fifteenth Century’ (Bristol Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1968), 1, 3, 5-8, 13. 19, 65, 412; Oxford DNB online sub Talbot, Gilbert, 1st Lord Talbot (Jan. 2008), sub Talbot, John, 1st earl of Shrewsbury (Oct. 2008); G.W. Bernard, Power of the Early Tudor Nobility, 139-42.

A paper drawn up in 1586 provides a snapshot of the Talbot estates four years before Gilbert Talbot, 7th earl of Shrewsbury (the subject of this biography) inherited the title. Gilbert and his two brothers wished their father, George Talbot^†, 6th earl of Shrewsbury, to transfer to them the bulk of the Talbot estates, apart from Sheffield and some adjacent properties. In turn they proposed to pay him £10,070 a year in rent. As they presumably had no intention of losing by the deal, this indicates that the total profits from the lands were substantially larger than this sum. The property in Yorkshire was valued at £3,000 a year (excluding those lands reserved for their father), while those in Derbyshire were put at £2,000, the lands in Shropshire at £2,000, and those in Nottinghamshire £1,500. There were additional, less valuable estates in Staffordshire, Herefordshire, Oxfordshire and Nottinghamshire; and also properties in Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire and London, including a town house in Broad Street, which were apparently not considered worth mentioning. The 6th earl appears to have rejected the proposal, perhaps suggesting that he thought that his sons had undervalued his estates. Undoubtedly one of the wealthiest of Elizabethan peers, the sixth earl was certainly one of the most entrepreneurial, with extensive interests in mining and metal working. He exported lead to the Continent, using his own ships, and imported wine, or on one occasion, weapons in exchange.44 Cal. of Talbot Pprs. pp. xvi-xvii, 136; Cal. of Shrewsbury Pprs. p. x.

Jestingly addressed by Thomas Erskine, Viscount Fentoun [S], as ‘quarrelling and brangling lord’, Gilbert Talbot inherited the first earl of Shrewsbury’s argumentative nature.45 LPL, ms 3202, f. 79. After succeeding his father in late 1590, he fell out with his formidable stepmother, Bess of Hardwick (who was also his mother-in-law) and his brother, Edward^* (subsequently 8th earl of Shrewsbury).46 G.R. Batho, ‘Gilbert Talbot, 7th Earl of Shrewsbury (1553-1616): the “Great and Glorious Earl”?’, Derbys. Arch. Jnl. xciii. 26. In addition, he became embroiled in a feud with the prominent Nottinghamshire knight, Sir Thomas Stanhope^‡, and the latter’s supporters (including Sir John Holles^*, later 1st earl of Clare), whom Shrewsbury blamed for blocking his succession to his father’s office of lord lieutenant of Nottinghamshire. That county was not the centre of the Talbot estates, but it had been Shrewsbury’s home before he succeeded, and, although he now made Sheffield Lodge his principal residence, he continued to regard Nottinghamshire as his home county, spending significant amounts of time at Rufford and Worksop. In 1593 Shrewsbury’s adherents destroyed a weir at Shelford on the river Trent belonging to Stanhope, which led to the earl’s brief confinement.47 W.T. MacCaffrey, ‘Talbot and Stanhope: an Episode in Elizabethan Pols.’, BIHR, xxxiii.80-3; Cal. of Talbot Pprs. pp. xlv, 108, 152, 155, 170, 191, 210, 213; Batho, 26.

Contemporaries generally had a low view of Shrewsbury’s intellect, and it was widely believed that he was dominated by his Catholic wife, Mary Cavendish, a view apparently shared by Queen Elizabeth.48 HMC Hatfield, iv. 113; Cal. of Talbot Pprs. 172. He seems to have remained a Protestant, albeit vehemently anti-puritan, but showed no interest in enforcing the laws against recusants, and his wife’s beliefs, which were widely known, undermined his public standing.49 Batho, 27; Cal. of Talbot Pprs. pp. xv, 227, 234, 280, 286. He was nevertheless popularly known as the ‘great and glorious earl’, due to the magnificence of his lifestyle, which strained even the resources of the Talbot estates.50 Batho, 30; Cal. of Talbot Pprs. p. xvii.

For all his faults, Shrewsbury was impossible to ignore, as his was a vast inheritance. As one observer remarked shortly after the 6th earl’s death, he was ‘prince (alone in effect) in two countries in the heart of England’.51 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, ii. 430. His subsidy assessment, which valued his lands at £1,000 a year in 1610-11, massively underestimated his wealth, but was the largest of any peer at that time.52 E179/70/125-6. Appointed lord lieutenant of Derbyshire in 1591, he became a member of the Garter, England’s elite order of knighthood, the following year. In 1596 he was sent on a ceremonial mission to France to present the Garter to Henri IV and, in 1601he was made a privy councillor. However, this last appointment may have been an attempt by Elizabeth to shore up her support among the traditional nobility in the wake of the Essex rising, rather than a reflection of her faith in his abilities. According to Lord Henry Howard^*, subsequently earl of Northampton, Shrewsbury soon became discontented that the queen neither asked his advice nor trusted him with anything important.53 Secret Corresp. of Sir Robert Cecil with James VI ed. D. Dalymple (1766), 15.

In his correspondence with the secretary of state, Robert Cecil^* (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury), Shrewsbury liked to present himself as a simple country justice of the peace who spent his days hunting and hawking when the weather was fine, and warming himself by his fire when it was inclement.54 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 327, 336, 383. In fact, he was avidly interested in news from London and abroad, employing a wide range of contacts, servants and clients to supply him with a constant stream of newsletters until late in his life. There was also a more sinister aspect to his interest in the news. He was alarmed by the growing influence of Bess of Hardwick and her favourite son, William Cavendish^* (later 1st earl of Devonshire), who between them were building up a large estate in Derbyshire. Shrewsbury expected his clients at court to spy on their activities, to intercept their correspondence and eavesdrop on conversations.55 Cal. of Shrewsbury Pprs. pp. xiii, 105; Cal. of Talbot Pprs. 170, 185; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 146, 233.

The accession of James I and the 1604 session

Shrewsbury was at court when Elizabeth died on 23 Mar. 1603, as he signed the proclamation announcing the accession of James I on the 24th.56 Manningham Diary ed. R.P. Sorlien, 207; Stuart Royal Proclamations I: Jas. I ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, 3. He promptly wrote to the new monarch offering his hospitality on the king’s journey south. James accepted his invitation at the end of the month, by which time Shrewsbury was already making preparations to entertain the king at Worksop, gathering together as much of his following as he could. By the time James arrived in Nottinghamshire in late April, Shrewsbury, who had already met the king in Yorkshire, had organized a suitably impressive entertainment, including hunting, which ‘very much delighted’ the king, an ‘abundance of all provision and delicacy’ and ‘most excellent soul-ravishing music’. The entertainment, and particularly the gathering of his adherents, was presumably intended to display Shrewsbury’s regional power as well as to ingratiate himself with the new king. This was particularly necessary, because Henry Howard had previously tried to make James suspect that the earl had wanted to secure the succession for his wife’s niece, Arbella Stuart.57 HMC 6th Rep. 456; Hunter, 12; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 84-88; HMC Rutland, i. 390; Secret Corresp. of Sir Robert Cecil with James VI, 14-15, 23. Three months after the king’s visit, Shrewsbury also received Anne of Denmark and Prince Henry at Worksop.58 HMC 8th Rep. pt. 1 (1881), 441.

Although he was reappointed to the Privy Council, there was never any prospect that Shrewsbury would be offered high office under James. A briefing drawn up in the summer of 1603 for the Spanish delegation sent to negotiate peace with England disparaged Shrewsbury’s abilities, describing him as an obedient follower of Cecil, lacking any real understanding of affairs of state.59 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics ed. A.J. Loomie (Cath. Rec. Soc. lxiv), 5-6. By the middle of September Shrewsbury had retired to Sheffield, where he placed himself in the hands of a Cambridge physician to cure ‘my infirmity of the sharpness in my urine’. He wrote that ‘if a Parliament fetch us not up, I hope we shall inhabit here a good while’.60 Lansd. 88, f. 155. The following month he was summoned to Winchester to help sit in judgement on the Main and Bye plotters. This matter was of particular importance to him, as the Main plotters had aimed to place Arbella on the throne.61 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 60. In the event he excused himself, on the grounds that his health was still poor and he had ‘entered into a course of diet and physic’.62 Lansd. 88, f. 162r-v.

Shrewsbury tried to secure for himself the lord lieutenancy of Nottinghamshire in late 1603, but without success, although he was appointed justice in eyre north of the Trent.63 Cal. of Shrewsbury Pprs. 166. Another attempt to gain from James’s accession was subsequently made by his wife. Through her husband’s servants, the countess opened negotiations with various courtiers given grants of crown lands, no doubt hoping to pick up a bargain. In so doing, however, she and her husband learned that Bess of Hardwick and William Cavendish had entered into negotiations with the Scottish courtier, Sir George Home, to acquire the manor of Hartington in Derbyshire in a similar way.64 LPL, ms 706 ff. 76-7; 708, f. 137; 3203, f. 183. This infuriated Shrewsbury, who not only leased Hartington from the crown but also claimed that it had been promised to his father. In early January he complained bitterly to Cecil ‘what discredit it will be to me, besides encouragement to some of my adversaries’ to remain a crown tenant ‘when almost every man’s hand is filled with the plenty of his Majesty’s bounty’.65 Cal. of Talbot Pprs. 233-4, 268; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 32n. Perhaps as a result of this protest, it was agreed that Shrewsbury would purchase Hartington from Home for £12,000. However, the deal evidently fell through, as Home subsequently returned the manor to the crown.66 Cal. of Shrewsbury Pprs. 94; . CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 218. Shrewsbury was left with a very cynical attitude towards the Scottish courtiers, as he later described Anne of Denmark’s secretary, William Fowler, as unique among his fellow countrymen in failing to enrich himself by the king’s favour.67 SP14/37/12.

On 23 Dec. 1603 Cecil informed Shrewsbury that the first Jacobean Parliament would meet the following March, and that anyone who absented themselves would be considered an opponent of the Union. He also wanted the earl to ‘forget me not for a burgess-ship’. There is no evidence, however, that Shrewsbury attempted to exercise electoral patronage on Cecil’s behalf. The only borough election he is known to have tried to influence was that at Nottingham, where he failed to secure the return of his wife’s nephew, Robert Pierrepont^* (subsequently 1st earl of Kingston-upon-Hull). It was a different story with respect to the shire elections. He was almost certainly responsible for the return of Sir John Harpur^‡ for Derbyshire, and probably also the election of Sir Percival Willoughby^‡ for Nottinghamshire. In Yorkshire he supported the successful efforts of the lord president of the north, Edmund Sheffield^*, 3rd Lord Sheffield (subsequently 1st earl of Mulgrave), to elect Francis Clifford^* (later 4th earl of Cumberland) and Sir John Savile^* (later 1st Lord Savile). In the aftermath of the fiercely disputed Worcestershire election, Shrewsbury’s cousin, the Catholic John Talbot^‡ of Grafton (father of George Talbot^*, subsequently 9th earl of Shrewsbury), who had supported the losing side, appealed to the earl for his support, but with no apparent effect.68 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 82-3; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 85, 307, 315, 457, 467; Cal. of Shrewsbury Pprs. 165.

Shrewsbury probably set out for London on 13th or 14th Feb., and reached his house in Broad Street by the 24th. As Broad Street lies in the City of London he had also taken care, ‘the infirmities of my body considered’, to secure for himself lodgings in Whitehall, although his stated concern was to attend the king rather than Parliament.69 LPL, ms 3203, f. 177; Add. 12506, f. 211. Rather improbably, Shrewsbury received an appeal for support from the puritan minister, Thomas Wilcox, to support the godly when Parliament met.70 Cal. of Talbot Pprs. 272.

Shrewsbury was marked as present in the Journal at 62 of the 71 sittings of the 1604 session. This may understate his true record of attendance, as he reported a bill on 14 June, when the Journal fails to record his presence. At the start of the meeting he secured permission for Henry Grey^*, 6th earl of Kent, to be absent from Parliament. Kent, whose nephew, Henry Grey^* (later 8th earl of Kent), had married Shrewsbury’s daughter, gave Shrewsbury his proxy.71 LJ, ii. 263a; Cal. of Talbot Pprs. 270. On 12 May Edward Talbot reported to Bess of Hardwick that he had been informed by a servant in London that Shrewsbury was doing nothing in Parliament. In fact, Shrewsbury was named to 26 of the 70 committees appointed by the upper House in the 1604 session and made seven reported speeches.72 Hunter, 121. In addition, Shrewsbury was appointed by the king to the largely nominal position of trier of petitions from Gascony and England’s overseas territories.73 LJ, ii. 264a.

As a privy councillor, Shrewsbury was regularly named to confer with the Commons on issues such as wardship, the Union and religion.74 Ibid. 266b, 277b, 282b. His known speeches were all on legislative matters, but that may be due to the very formal nature of the records of the upper House. He reported four bills, the first of which concerned the case of Sir Thomas Shirley^‡, a member of the lower House arrested for debt. As the Commons wished to order Shirley’s release, a bill was needed to protect his gaoler, the warden of the Fleet, from prosecution by Shirley’s creditors. Shrewsbury was named to the committee on 26 Apr., and reported the measure later the same day.75 Ibid. 284b, 285a. The second bill reported by Shrewsbury concerned the haunting of alehouses. On 12 June Shrewsbury took custody of the bill, which he reported on the 28th with an additional proviso. As the Lords decided to recommit the proviso for further consideration, Shrewsbury made a further report two days later, offering some amendments, which were approved on 2 July.76 Ibid. 319a, 332b, 335a, 337a. The third bill he reported, on 14 June, sought to regulate hunting, a measure that had been committed earlier that day. The bill was sponsored by the king and Shrewsbury and his colleagues dutifully approved it without amendments.77 Ibid. 320a-b; HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 10. His final report of the session was delivered on 3 July, on the bill concerning the estate of Edward Neville^*, 8th or 1st Lord Abergavenny, a measure he had been named to consider the day before.78 LJ, ii. 337a, 339a.

On 29 Mar. Shrewsbury was appointed to consider a bill against witchcraft, which was subsequently redrafted and committed to the same lords on 11 Apr., when the text was delivered to him. The following day Shrewsbury successfully moved for the meeting of the committee to be deferred because some of the members, possibly himself included, were required to attend the king, who had agreed to receive a delegation from the Commons that afternoon to thank him for his decision resolving the Buckinghamshire election dispute. The bill was reported on 7 May, but by Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland, not Shrewsbury.79 Ibid. 269a, 275a, 276a, 293a; CJ, i. 169. Shrewsbury was named to consider the bill against seditious, popish and immoral books on 3 May. Like the witchcraft bill, this measure was also found to be faulty and had to be redrafted. The committee was instructed on 19 May to consider the new measure, but as Shrewsbury himself was not recorded as present he may not have known of this. Amendments to the bill were read five days later, when the bill was again recommitted, and, on 26 May, Shrewsbury reported these changes ‘with a little addition or alteration’, whereupon the bill was ordered to be engrossed.80 LJ, ii. 290a, 301b, 305a, 306a. The text of the bill to regulate the tanning industry was given to Shrewsbury on 4 June, when he was named to consider the measure. However, he does not appear to have attended the committee, and the bill was reported by Northumberland ten days later.81 Ibid. 312b, 320b; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/3, f. 17.

Shrewsbury seems to have spent most of the summer of 1604 at court. When Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) visited Worksop in August, the earl was absent, with the result that John Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy, acted as host instead.82 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 227. Curiously, after the 1604 session Shrewsbury was given responsibility for levying the privy seal loan in Warwickshire, although he had virtually no connection with that county, whose lord lieutenant was William Compton^*, 2nd Lord Compton (later 1st earl of Northampton). Perhaps as a result the collections did not go smoothly; Shrewsbury expressed disappointment at the yield in September 1604, and was rebuked by his colleagues on the Council for low receipts the following June.83 FSL, X.c.86(2-3); Cal. of Talbot Pprs. 322.

Shrewsbury returned to Sheffield Lodge in the autumn of 1604, from where he wrote dutifully to Cecil, by now Viscount Cranborne, in support of the work of the Union commissioners.84 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 327, 332, 336, 359-60, 382. He was perhaps more interested in learning when Parliament would reconvene, as he appears to have been in no hurry to make the journey back to Westminster. On 4 Dec. Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester, informed him that the next session would probably start as scheduled in February. However, 20 days later he learned from the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset, that it had been postponed to the following autumn and that therefore he could ‘forbear your speedy coming to court’. Shrewsbury was subsequently appointed a commissioner for proroguing Parliament, but failed to attend the prorogation meeting in February 1605. Dorset assumed that, as a Garter knight, Shrewsbury would attend the St George’s day feast, but by April the earl was suffering a severe attack of gout and was forced to seek leave of absence.85 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 111; LPL, ms 3201, f. 249; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 141.

The 1605-6 and 1606-7 sessions

Shrewsbury continued to suffer from poor health until at least the summer of 1605 and did not return to London until the end of October, in preparation for the second session which was due to start on 5 November. Before setting out, he reminded Cranborne, now earl of Salisbury, to ensure that the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, provided him with lodgings at Whitehall.86 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 330, 451, 465. He attended court on 1 Nov., but that night suffered a recurrence of gout, which kept him away from Parliament when the Gunpowder Plot was discovered.87 HMC Rutland, i. 398. Thanks presumably to his wife’s Catholicism, an unfounded rumour circulated that he had been forewarned of the Plot and that his gout was a convenient excuse.88 Cal. of Talbot Pprs. 283.

Shrewsbury did not attend the upper House until the session was reconvened in January 1606. In all he was recorded as attending 67 of the session’s 85 sittings, 79 per cent of the total. He was appointed to 35 out of 72 committees named by the upper House and made five recorded speeches. He again held the earl of Kent’s proxy, and also that of Lord Darcy.89 LJ, ii. 355a-b. On 21 Jan. Shrewsbury, after informing the House that Kent and Darcy had been licensed to be absent, was appointed to confer with the Commons about strengthening the laws against Catholicism.90 Ibid. 361a, 367b. On 12 Feb. Shrewsbury wrote to his client, the diplomat, Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡, reporting that the Commons were ‘much more temperate’ than in the previous session and that they were spending their time ‘in devising laws tending to his Majesty’s safety, and suppressing of the dangerous members of this state’. He identified the principal business of Parliament as Catholic sedition, the subsidy, the Union (about which ‘no word’ had yet been said) and the creation of a royal entail.91 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 51-2.

The entail was of concern to the earl of Kent, who was seeking to secure a grant of certain crown lands that had belonged to his ancestors. As holder of Kent’s proxy, Shrewsbury sounded out Dorset on Kent’s behalf, but found the lord treasurer opposed to relinquishing these properties so as not to contravene the proposed entail. On 17 Feb. Kent wrote to Shrewsbury with the suggestion that ‘a general proviso for saving of rights’ should be included in the bill, which was given a first reading on 1 April. Ten days later, Kent again wrote to Shrewsbury, this time asking him to retain counsel to represent him when the bill was committed, an event that occurred the following day. Shrewsbury was named to the committee and evidently kept Kent informed of the proceedings; on 29 Apr. the latter thanked his proxy for ‘speedy and timely intelligence of the state of that business’. The committee had evidently decided not to proceed with the bill, and Kent wrote that ‘if it shall sleep all the summer and all the winter too it shall have my goodwill, neither shall it be awaked [sic] by me’; it was not reported the Lords. Kent believed he was not the only person whose interests were threatened by the bill, and for this reason Shrewsbury’s role in sabotaging the measure may have been limited.92 LPL, ms 3202, ff. 40, 47, 49; LJ, ii. 405a, 413a.

Shrewsbury took custody of four bills during the second session. The first, on 22 Feb., was to enable the trustees (including Salisbury) of Sir Jonathan Trelawny^‡, a deceased Cornishman, to sell lands. He reported it unchanged two days later, when it was given a third reading.93 LJ, ii. 379a, 380b. He also successfully steered through the upper House the bill to reform the lower branches of the legal profession; it was delivered to him when it was committed on 25 Feb., and he reported it with amendments on 8 Mar., when it was ordered to be engrossed.94 Ibid. 382a, 390b.

One issue on which Shrewsbury disagreed with his wife was his preference for Oxford University, which he had attended in his youth, over Cambridge.95 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 387. On 3 Mar. he was given custody of the bill to confirm letters patent which James I had granted to Oxford. However, by 25 Mar. he had passed the measure over to Dorset, who never reported it. On 29 Apr. Shrewsbury took custody of the bill for the maintenance of Chepstow bridge, but it was reported on 3 May, by Worcester rather than Shrewsbury, who was absent.96 LJ, ii. 386b, 399b, 421a, 424a.

In March Sir Fulke Greville^* (subsequently 1st Lord Brooke of Beauchamps Court), clerk of the council in the Marches of Wales, complained to Shrewsbury that the Commons had passed a bill to exempt the English counties bordering Wales from the council’s jurisdiction, thereby threatening Greville’s livelihood. Shrewsbury was appointed to consider the measure on 3 Apr., but it was never reported.97 Ibid. 406b; LPL, ms 3203, f. 500. On 5 Apr. Shrewsbury complained that a servant of his son-in-law, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, had been arrested by a London tailor, whereupon the Lords ordered the release of the servant and summoned the tailor. Five days later, on Shrewsbury’s report that the parties had come to an agreement, the tailor was released.98 LJ, ii. 407b, 411b.

Shortly after the session ended in May 1606, Shrewsbury’s daughter, Aletheia, married Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, prompting the Spanish ambassador to report that Shrewsbury was a member of the Howard faction opposed to Salisbury. However, there is no other evidence to suggest that relations between Shrewsbury and Salisbury had cooled. On the contrary, Shrewsbury and his wife wrote to Salisbury in the warmest of terms in late August.99 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, 86; HMC Hatfield, xviii. 256-7.

Shrewsbury returned to Sheffield in September, but in October informed Salisbury that he was looking forward to returning to London for the opening of the third session, as he was keen to see his renovated lodgings at Whitehall and enjoy ‘that most honourable company that will be conversant in that grave assembly’. Moreover, a new doctor had treated his gout, apparently successfully.100 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 182; HMC Hatfield, xviii. 325. Shrewsbury was indeed recorded as being in attendance at the opening of the third session on 18 Nov., and also sat the following day. However, he apparently missed the following 11 sittings. He was marked as attending the upper House on 80 of 106 possible occasions, three quarters of the total, and was again entrusted with the proxies of Kent and Darcy.101 LJ, ii. 449b. He made five speeches and was named to 25 out of 41 committees. The Journal lists him among those appointed to confer with the Commons about the Union on 24 Nov., but he was absent on that date and was not actually added to the committee until 11 December.102 Ibid. 432b, 464a.

Shrewsbury reported five bills during the session. The first concerned a ruling in the Court of Requests against William Cardinall, a deceased Suffolk merchant. The earl reported the bill on 23 Mar., with amendments and a proviso, but though subsequently passed by the upper House it was defeated in the Commons.103 Ibid. 461a, 494a-b; CSP Dom. Addenda 1580-1625, p. 346; HMC Hatfield, xxiv. 42-3; CJ, i. 1041a. More successful was the bill to enable John Evelyn of Godstone, Surrey, to sell lands, which Shrewsbury was appointed to consider on 11 Dec., and reported unchanged the following day with a ‘signification’ that it would not prejudice Evelyn’s sons. The measure was subsequently enacted.104 LJ, ii. 463b, 464b. On 25 June 1607 Shrewsbury reported a private bill concerning the master of the rolls, Edward, 1st Lord Bruce of Kinloss [S], whose daughter was later to marry Lord Cavendish’s son. This too was subsequently enacted.105 Ibid. 527b.

Shrewsbury also reported two bills relating to the leather industry. The first, which originated in the Lords, was to prevent the use of leather made from the hides of horses and pigs. He reported it on 29 June, despite not having been recorded as present when the committee was appointed seven days earlier. The second, which came from the Commons, was intended to relieve poor London curriers. Both bills were passed by the Lords but neither was enacted. The first was defeated in the Commons on 4 July, while the second, though recommitted on 2 July and reported the following day, progressed no further. Shrewsbury’s interest in these measures is unknown, as Sheffield was notable for metal working rather than the leather industry.106 Ibid. 528b, 532a, 534b; CJ, i. 352, 390; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 261.

Throughout the session Shrewsbury evidently regarded it as his duty to keep the earl of Kent informed ‘how we proceed in our Parliament business, as I can find any convenient messenger’. However, only one such report seems to have survived, from 2 June. His parliamentary news was exclusively concerned with the Union. He correctly predicted that the Commons would soon send up the bill to abolish the hostile laws against Scots in England, but mistakenly believed that it would have a smooth passage through the Lords, lasting no longer than ‘2 or 3 days and nights’. He was unsure whether Parliament would then proceed ‘with the next point touching commerce or not’ but thought there was not enough time. He predicted the session would be prorogued before the end of the term (24 June), but in fact it lasted until 4 July.107 Lansd. 90, f. 46.

After the session was prorogued Shrewsbury visited his daughter and son-in-law at Arundel Castle before returning to Sheffield, where he was afflicted by another attack of gout, leaving him ‘neither fit for counsel or execution’.108 HMC Hatfield, xix, 227, 248, 254. He spent most of the interval between the third and fourth sessions of the 1604-10 Parliament in Yorkshire or Nottinghamshire, and therefore sought to be excused from attending the St George’s feast in 1608, telling Salisbury that he would ‘do his Majesty no other service by my coming’ than to march up and down ‘in a purple robe’.109 Ibid. xx. 118. Consistently appointed a commissioner for proroguing Parliament thereafter, he invariably failed to attend the ensuing meetings.110 LJ, ii. 540a-5a.

The 1610 sessions

In October 1609 Shrewsbury informed Salisbury that he intended to spend Christmas at court, unless his gout prevented him.111 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 552. He was keen to secure his ‘old lodging[s] in the garden’ at Whitehall, which he seems to have regarded as important to his status, without which he would be ‘quite out of countenance’.112 Lansd. 91, f. 59; SP14/49/32. In fact, he lingered in Sheffield until at least 17 Dec., when he informed his friend, Sir Michael Hicks^‡, a Member of the Commons, that he hoped they would meet within 20 days.113 Lansd. 91, f. 68. He may still have been on the road when the fourth session opened on 9 Feb., as he was recorded as absent. However, he took his seat at the next sitting five days later. In total was recorded as attending 84 of the 95 sittings of the upper House, 88 per cent of the total, though he was formally excused only once, on 19 Apr., having already missed the sitting the day before, but returned to the House on the 10th.114 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 209. He was again entrusted with Kent’s proxy, a responsibility he took very seriously. In the vote on whether to commit the bill for episcopal leases on 29 June, Shrewsbury cast his own vote in favour, but Kent’s against.115 LJ, ii. 548b; Procs. 1610, i. 121.

Shrewsbury received 25 committee appointments (out of a possible 58) but, although the debates for this session are much better documented than those for the earlier ones of the Parliament, he seems to have given only four recorded speeches. Three of these took the form of reports from committee, and were all delivered towards the end of the session. The first, on 2 June, concerned the bill to avoid double payment of debts, a measure he had been required to consider the previous day.116 LJ, ii. 605a, 606b. The subject of the second was a private measure for Sir John Byron^‡, a member of his Nottinghamshire affinity, which was subsequently enacted.117 Ibid. 606b, 612a; Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 2-6. On 3 July he reported the bill for the regulation of the woollen industries, without amendments, whereupon it was given a third reading.118 LJ, ii. 624b, 634a. He made his final speech on 6 July, when he announced that Pembroke and Pembroke’s brother, Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (later 4th earl of Pembroke), were absent because they had been ordered to attend the king.119 Ibid. 637a. During the ceremony at which Prince Henry was created prince of Wales, on 4 June, Shrewsbury carried the cap of state.120 Procs. 1610, ii. 96.

Shrewsbury left London briefly after the session was prorogued on 23 July, but was back at his house in Broad Street by 19 Aug., where he was evidently still in residence when the fifth session began in October.121 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 628; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 233; Cal. of Shrewsbury Pprs. 4. Recorded as attending 19 of the 21 sittings, 90 per cent of the total, he may actually have been present on at least one further occasion, for on 22 Oct. he was named to consider the bill for preservation of timber, even though he was not recorded as attending in the Journal.122 LJ, ii. 669a. Once again he was entrusted with the proxies of Lord Darcy and the earl of Kent, excusing the former on 16 October.123 Ibid. 667a. The only other occasion when he is recorded as having spoken was on 22 November. While the clerk was reading the bill to enable Prince Henry to administer his estates, Shrewsbury whispered in the ear of the lord chancellor, prompting the latter to bring proceedings to a halt and defer the reading until the following Saturday, when a proviso was included. In all likelihood Shrewsbury, who had been appointed on 12 Nov. to consider the bill in committee, intervened because he noticed that this proviso was missing.124 HMC Hastings, iv. 228; Procs. 1610, i. 254-5; LJ, ii. 677a. In total, Shrewsbury received seven committee appointments during the session. He was also a commissioner for proroguing Parliament on 6 Dec., and for dissolving it on 9 Feb. 1611, attending on both occasions.125 LJ, ii. 683b, 684a.

On 10 Dec. 1610 Shrewsbury and his wife wrote to their old friend Sir John Scudamore^‡, who had retired from court life on the death of Elizabeth I. Although they did not explicitly criticize the king, they looked back longingly at the previous reign. The changes that had occurred over the last seven years were enormous: ‘we never lived in so changeable a time as this is’. The ‘worst’ alteration was the deterioration in the crown’s finances, and Parliament’s failure to find a solution. As a result, James ‘will be forced to fall upon all courses … whereby money may be raised’, which ‘will be no less unpleasing to his Majesty in his own benign nature to do than for the people to suffer’. Shrewsbury and his wife had their own money troubles, however, ‘and therefore all that can be gotten honestly must be had’.126 C115/107/8519.

Arbella Stuart and the 1614 Parliament

In early 1611 Shrewsbury was incapacitated by another attack of gout, which possibly caused him to remain in the capital for longer than he originally intended.127 HMC Rutland, i. 427, 430; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 299. Five months later, his life was unexpectedly turned upside down. In May his wife obtained permission to visit Arbella Stuart, who had been confined for entering into a clandestine marriage with William Seymour^* (subsequently 2nd duke of Somerset) the previous year.128 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 153. However, Arbella escaped the following month, only to be recaptured and imprisoned in the Tower. The countess was believed to have assisted her niece, and was also imprisoned in the Tower. Although the evidence against her was largely circumstantial, she refused to answer the Council’s questions, ‘crying out that all is but tricks and gigs; and she will answer nothing in private, and if she have [sic] offended the law, she will answer it in public’. Faced with this defiance the king and Council appear to have resolved to keep her imprisoned until she submitted.129 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 41; CSP Ven. 1610-13, pp. 166, 172; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 281.

It is possible that Shrewsbury was initially confined to his house. If so, he was apparently soon exonerated of his wife’s fault. On 28 June it was reported that he had stopped attending the Council, but (if true) his withdrawal must have been short-lived, as he signed a Council letter two days later.130 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 282; HMC Downshire, iii. 99; CSP Ire. 1611-14, p. 77. Nevertheless, he was forced to suffer the indignity of having his house at Rufford, suspected of being used by Catholic priests, searched by his enemy, Sir John Holles, although little was found beyond a tract against the oath of allegiance.131 HMC Portland, ix. 47-9. Shrewsbury remained in London attempting to help his wife; in July the Venetian ambassador reported that the earl had appealed to the king, but had ‘received a very sharp answer’.132 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 183.

The fears surrounding Arbella’s escape seem to have gradually subsided. In February 1612 Chamberlain reported that the countess remained in confinement only because she still refused to answer the Council’s questions.133 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 334. However, in May Shrewsbury lost his principal ally, Salisbury; during that month Shrewsbury wrote at least nine anxious letters to Sir Michael Hicks, who was with Salisbury at Bath during the latter’s final illness, the last dated the 24th, the day of Salisbury’s death.134 Lansd. 92, ff. 165, 169-79, 183-5. In late June the countess of Shrewsbury was called before the Council, judges and king’s counsel, but she still refused to answer, citing her privilege as a noblewoman and ‘a rash vow she could not violate’; consequently, she was returned to the Tower.135 Chamberlain Letters, i. 364. Nevertheless, the conditions of her imprisonment were eased and she was allowed out temporarily at Christmas when Shrewsbury was in poor health. These privileges were curtailed in the early part of 1613 but were reinstated in July, and she was again allowed to spend Christmas with her husband. She returned to the Tower in January 1614.136 Ibid. 410, 443; Harl. 7002, f. 241; APC, 1613-14, pp. 125, 300; HMC Cowper, i. 80-1.

The decline in his prestige as a result of his wife’s imprisonment may account for Shrewsbury’s lack of influence in the Derbyshire election to the 1614 Parliament, at which Lord Cavendish’s son, Sir William Cavendish^* (subsequently 2nd of earl Devonshire) was elected for the junior seat. Nevertheless, he was probably responsible for the election of Sir Gilbert Knyveton^‡ for Derby and Sir Gervase Clifton^‡ for Nottinghamshire, both men being part of his affinity. He certainly secured the election of Sir William Cavendish^* (later 1st duke of Newcastle), the under-age son of his brother-in-law and close friend, Sir Charles Cavendish^‡, at East Retford, where he had become high steward.137 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 85, 87, 308, 311.

Shrewsbury carried the cap of state at the opening of the Parliament on 5 April.138 Procs. 1614 (Commons), 4. He again enjoyed possession of the earl of Kent’s proxy and was recorded as attending 24 of the 29 sittings, 83 per cent of the total.139 LJ, ii. 686a. Again appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony, he was named to five of the nine committees appointed by the Lords, one of which was to confer with the Commons about the bill to settle the succession following the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the elector Palatine. His appointments also included another bill for the preservation of timber. He made only one recorded speech, in the debate on whether to confer with the Commons about impositions, when he moved for the question to be put. On 7 June he was one of the commissioners appointed to dissolve the assembly.140 Ibid. 692a, 697b, 717a; HMC Hastings, iv. 255.

In the aftermath of the Addled Parliament, Shrewsbury contributed £162 11s. 6d., plus more than 100 ounces of gilt plate, towards the benevolence levied by James. However, he may have covertly encouraged non-payment in Nottinghamshire in the hope of convincing the king that the county needed a lord lieutenant (himself) to strengthen royal control. If so he was unsuccessful.141 E351/1950; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 308. The king’s visit to Rufford in the summer of 1614 forced the earl to return to his estates; on 24 Aug. he wrote to his wife that, as a result of the royal progress, he was moving from house to house in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and south Yorkshire in a ‘circle’.142 Add. 6668, f. 216r-v. He was still in Nottinghamshire in the autumn, but evidently returned to London for the winter.143 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 258.

The countess was again allowed to join Shrewsbury, then in London, for Christmas in 1614, but was required to return to the Tower each night.144 APC, 1613-14, p. 666. She was still considered the dominant force in the marriage. When, in January 1615, the attorney general, Sir Francis Bacon^* (subsequently Viscount St Alban) informed the king of an attempt to secure the grant of ‘the greatest forest of England’, for a fraction of its value, by ‘a great person’, he identified the buyer as ‘my lord of Shrewsbury; or rather, as I think, a greater than he, which is my Lady Shrewsbury’.145 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, v. 110-11.

The countess was finally released in December 1615, possibly due to the role she and her husband played that summer in uncovering the murder of another prisoner in the Tower, Sir Thomas Overbury. According to a later account, it was the countess who informed Secretary of State Sir Ralph Winwood^‡ that the lieutenant of the Tower, Sir Gervase Elwes, had revealed the crime to her. Certainly Elwes acknowledged that he was induced to provide Winwood with evidence of murder by the earl of Shrewsbury, who must have learned what had happened from his wife. It was generally believed that Winwood was subsequently responsible for procuring the countess’ release.146 Secret Hist. of Ct. of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, i. 403; A. Bellany, Pols. of Ct. Scandal in Early Modern Eng. 72; Chamberlain Letters, i. 618. The death of Arbella Stuart in September 1615 may have enabled him to broker a deal, whereby the countess agreed to answer the Privy Council’s questions, but the Council refrained from asking any. Certainly in December she made a formal submission before the Council, which ordered her release on the 24th without any further proceedings.147 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 38; APC, 1615-16, pp. 350-1, 357.

On 27 Apr., following an interview with the king, Shrewsbury, who had no surviving sons, made ‘a declaration in writing’ concerning the settlement of his estates, in which he confirmed assignments he had previously made of property to his three daughters and their husbands. He requested James ‘to take notice of this my declaration and recommend the same to his royal protection’, presumably for fear that the provisions he had made would be overturned after his death by his brother, Edward.148 M.F.S. Hervey, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, 93; C78/458/2. In March 1616 Shrewsbury, by now in his final sickness, again appealed to the king to prevent his brother from disrupting the settlement of his estates.149 HMC 10th Rep. I, 109.

On 1 May 1616 Shrewsbury conveyed a significant part of his lands to Winwood and Sir Charles Cavendish’s son, Sir William, in trust to perform his will and pay his debts and funeral expenses, although some of the properties had already been settled on his daughters.150 Notts. Archives, DD/4P/46/10. Shrewsbury made his will three days later, in which he appointed Winwood and Sir William Cavendish as his executors, but made no mention of his settlements on his daughters. In his will he bequeathed, ‘all and singular the manors, lands … whereof I myself am seized of any estate of inheritance in fee simple’, with certain specified exceptions, to his executors who, after paying his debts and bequests were to use the remainder to found an almshouse in Sheffield. In addition, on the same day, he made a deed of gift of his personal estate to the lord chief justice, Sir Edward Coke^‡, in trust for the performance of his will.151 Hunter, 101; Nottingham UL, Pw 1/580.

Shrewsbury died four days after making his will, whereupon the inheritance of his estate became the subject of a four-cornered dispute between his daughters, his brother, his executors and his widow, from which Cavendish emerged with a viscountcy. The earl’s creditors, probably fearing that a protracted dispute would make it very difficult for them to secure payment, threatened to seize his corpse to prevent it from being conveyed to Sheffield church, where he had requested burial beside his ancestors ‘in such sort as befits my rank and calling’. Not until Winwood paid £800 of Shrewsbury’s debts out of his own pocket did the funeral go ahead at Sheffield in August. George Carew^*, Lord Carew (subsequently earl of Totness) observed that Shrewsbury was ‘buried with the greatest pomp and solemnity that ever I heard of any subject in this kingdom’. Seven thousand mourners attended, the banqueting lasted a fortnight and mourning clothing was distributed to between 3,000 and 4,000 people.152 WILLIAM CAVENDISH, EARL OF NEWCASTLE; C2/Jas.I/S39/56; Hunter, 101; Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 41; HMC Downshire, v. 585; CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 318.

Following Shrewsbury’s death, Winwood claimed during the course of a lawsuit in Chancery that the charges on the earl’s estate totalled about £72,000, which figure was moderated to £60,000 in a subsequent Chancery order. However, these sums give an inflated impression of Shrewsbury’s indebtedness at his death, as they included his bequests and legacies. Moreover, Winwood may have exaggerated the estate’s liabilities in order to strength his case for control over the late earl’s property. A calculation in Cavendish’s papers, which probably dates from the 1620s, put Shrewsbury’s debts (excluding legacies, bequests and sums due to his sons-in-law) at barely more than £8,000, although by then some of the obligations may have been paid. Set against his liabilities, Shrewsbury left extensive properties, which his brother Edward, who succeeded as 8th earl, estimated as being worth at least £20,000 a year. However, as Edward outlived his brother by less than two years and left no children, it was the 7th earl’s daughters who secured the Talbot estates.153 C2/Jas.I/S39/56; C33/133, [f. 3]; Nottingham UL, Pw 1/572; Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 97.