GREVILLE, Fulke (1554-1628)

Greville was born into a Warwickshire gentry family with significant aristocratic connections. From his paternal grandmother he inherited a claim to the barony of Willoughby de Broke, then in abeyance, while through his mother he was grandson to Ralph Neville^†, 4th earl of Westmorland.59 Vis. Warws. 9. From childhood Greville was the intimate friend of Sir Philip Sidney^‡, whose father Sir Henry^‡ effectively launched his career by obtaining for him the reversion to lucrative offices in the council of the Welsh Marches. It was probably Philip’s uncle, Robert Dudley^†, 1st earl of Leicester, who first brought him into Parliament in 1581.60 Rebholz, 8, 20, 30-1; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, i. 355; HP Commons, 1558-1603, i. 171. Greville prospered at court, finding favour with Elizabeth I, and becoming treasurer of the Navy in 1598. However, his close association around that time with Leicester’s stepson, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, resulted in a strained relationship with the latter’s political rival, Robert Cecil^*, later 1st earl of Salisbury.61 Rebholz, 47; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 221; HMC Hatfield, viii. 347-8.

Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1614-21

During the first decade of Stuart rule, with Salisbury the dominant political force, Greville’s public career stalled. After losing his office in the Navy, he went into frustrated semi-retirement and directed his energies elsewhere, writing his famous Life of Sir Philip Sidney. He also acquired Warwick Castle, which he converted into a stately home, and took on the recordership of the neighbouring borough.62 G. Tyack, Warws. Country Houses, 203; Rebholz, 205-6. Not until Salisbury was dead did Greville seriously renew his pursuit of power, finally becoming chancellor of the Exchequer in 1614. He survived the fall of the lord treasurer, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk four years later, and indeed was widely expected to secure the treasurership himself.63 HMC Portland, ix. 39; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 109; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 170, 251, 272. In the event he was outbid in late 1620 by Henry Montagu^*, Viscount Mandeville (later 1st earl of Manchester), but as compensation he was promised a peerage. Greville reportedly requested two baronies, namely the title of Willoughby de Broke, and a new honour, ‘so as to leave two heirs’. However, he had to settle for the barony of Brooke, which by special limitation was entailed on his cousin Robert Brooke^*, whom he had adopted nearly a decade earlier to compensate for his own lack of children.64 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 191, 197; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 334-5. While these arrangements were being finalized, Greville was elected to serve for Warwickshire in the forthcoming Parliament. As he was still chancellor of the Exchequer, he was required by the king to sit in the Commons. Consequently his patent did not formally pass the great seal until July 1621. However, he was allowed to date his elevation from 29 January that year. He stood down as chancellor in the following November, just in time to take his seat in the Lords as Parliament resumed after its long summer recess.65 OR; Rebholz, 256; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 387.

Brooke was formally introduced on 20 Nov., the first day of the second sitting, with Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey) and Edmund Sheffield^*, 3rd Lord Sheffield (later 1st earl of Mulgrave) acting as his supporters.66 LJ, iii. 162b-3a. Having finally secured a seat in the upper House, Brooke attended very regularly, missing just one day of this sitting, and receiving 13 appointments. Having been added to three bill committees originally appointed before the summer recess, on the topics of monopolies, concealment of crown lands, and the limitation of lawsuits, he was also named to a select committee to prepare heads for a proposed new bill on monopolies.67 Ibid. 165b, 172b, 174b, 177b. Unsurprisingly, the Lords were keen to take advantage of his expertise in financial and administrative matters, and his nine remaining legislative committees were mostly concerned with such issues as intrusions into royal lands, relief of crown tenants, debts owing from attainted estates, and licences of alienation.68 Ibid. 181a, 182b. One bill at least was of personal interest to Brooke, namely the legislation to confirm Prince Charles’s purchase of Kenilworth Castle, Warwickshire, for his brother-in-law, Sir Richard Verney^‡, had a financial stake in this property.69 Ibid. 173b; Vis. Warws. 9; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 627. In total, Brooke was named to all but one of this sitting’s newly-established committees, and presumably had plenty to say at their meetings, but he made just one speech in the House, on 14 December. Following a report by John Digby^*, Lord Digby (later 1st earl of Bristol), on the Palatinate crisis and the urgent need for money, and with the Lords uncertain how best to communicate this news to the Commons, Brooke urged ‘a conference by way of narration’, though he warned that this approach would be ‘unpleasing unless a new matter be shown’. In the event, no meeting was arranged before the Parliament’s premature end, which he helped to bring about since he served as one of the commissioners for its adjournment on 19 December.70 LD 1621, p. 123; LJ, iii. 200b.

Minor offices, and the 1624 Parliament

Although Brooke had lost his principal government post, there were few immediate signs that he was contemplating retirement. In October 1621 he had been made a gentleman of the Bedchamber, while in the following year he was kept busy with a variety of tasks, from holding discussions with Dutch ambassadors and investigating the Virginia Company, to administering the crown jewels. Nevertheless, his appearances at the Privy Council gradually became less frequent, and it was probably around this time that he once more turned his attention to literary projects, such as his treatises on ‘Human Learning’ and ‘Religion’.71 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 303, 414; APC, 1621-3, p. 290; Add. 72254, f. 76; Rebholz, 337-8. In 1623 the Spanish Match negotiations spurred him into life again. Once Prince Charles left for Madrid, Brooke became a regular presence at Council meetings again, and took a prominent role in organizing the fleet sent out to Spain. While careful to demonstrate his support for the absent royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, Brooke’s ingrained hostility to Catholicism must have rendered the proposed marriage distasteful to him. Fortuitously, he was ill in July when other privy councillors took an oath to implement the controversial concessions to recusants demanded by Philip IV. He presumably welcomed the subsequent collapse of negotiations.72 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 512, 547, 560; Harl. 1580, ff. 295v, 302v; 1581, ff. 270, 284; Rebholz, 7; Add. 72255, f. 63.

At the elections for the 1624 Parliament, Brooke as usual exploited his influence as recorder of Warwick, securing one of the borough’s seats for his kinsman Sir Edward Conway^* (later 2nd Viscount Conway).73 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 94-5. He himself was again summoned to the Lords, paying a 50s. fee, presumably for his writ.74 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 55v. In contrast to the previous session, Brooke attended the House only intermittently, making around 30 appearances in the first ten weeks, although he still received at least 24 appointments, the first of which was to the committee for privileges.75 LJ, iii. 215a. As a privy councillor he was inevitably drawn into the Parliament’s main business, the preparations for war with Spain. On 27 Feb. he twice spoke in favour of breaking off the current negotiations: ‘by treaty we have lost our armies in Germany, by treaty we have lost many opportunities, by treaty if we take not heed … [we] shall lose this spring’.76 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 8; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 19v. The next day he was named to a select committee to find precedents for terminating this diplomacy. He was also appointed on 1 Mar. to help consider England’s military preparedness, and on 2 Mar. to attend a conference with the Commons to agree on the advice to be offered to the king.77 LJ, iii. 236b, 237b, 242b.

Brooke may have been nominated on 11 Mar. to confer with the lower House about the financial implications of war.78 His name appears in the ms minutes, but not in other sources: PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 33v. He was certainly named the next day to another conference on the same topic. The same list of peers was resurrected for four subsequent items of business, namely two more conferences on the breaching of the treaties, a third to consider proposals from the lord admiral, the duke of Buckingham, on funding for the Navy, and an audience with the king at which Parliament’s propositions for a breach were presented. Brooke was also nominated on 7 Apr. to help scrutinize a bill on improving the country’s weaponry.79 LJ, iii. 258b, 273b, 275a, 285a, 293a, 312a.

The drive to war was accompanied by a clampdown on Catholics, and on 3 Apr. Brooke was appointed to a meeting at which the Commons presented a draft petition against recusancy. Two days later he concurred with the general view in the Lords that the petition’s preamble was likely to offend the king with its ‘over-earnestness of words’, and called for it to be amended. He was duly named to the redrafting committee, and probably also to the conference at which the revised text was revealed to the Commons. On 14 Apr. he was among the peers selected to present the finished petition to James. He was also nominated on 12 Mar. to help consider how to prevent the export of gold coin, following reports that Catholics were trying to ship it abroad.80 Ibid. 258a, 287b, 289a, 291b, 304a; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 55.

On 10 Mar. Brooke was named to the committee for the revived Kenilworth Castle bill. He was also appointed to scrutinize legislation for the partial repeal of the Tudor ordinances on the government of Wales. The latter measure was the subject of two conferences; Brooke was certainly nominated to the second of these, and probably also to the first.81 LJ, iii. 254b, 273a, 304b, 314b. Meanwhile, an inquiry was underway into allegations of corruption recently levelled at the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex. On 14 Apr. Brooke was added to the subcommittee investigating these claims. Two days later, the Commons having now brought formal impeachment charges against Middlesex, he was also appointed to help examine these articles. This last committee proceeded to question the key witnesses, and he signed five depositions taken between 19 and 22 April. He was himself cited in one statement as being able to supply evidence about Middlesex’s mismanagement of the wardrobe.82 Ibid. 303b, 311a, 346b, 353a-b, 354b, 356a, 358a.

On 1 May Brooke was nominated to consider Middlesex’s preliminary response to the charges against him, but he was missing from the House that day, and failed to attend the remainder of the session. Presumably ill, he gave his proxy to William Fiennes^*, 8th Lord Saye and Sele.83 Ibid. 205b, 329a. Meanwhile, in mid April Brooke had been nominated to the new council of war, and as such his name was included in the subsidy bill drafted by the Commons. Before this could be ratified in the Lords, a row broke out over the order of precedence among the councillors, as an Irish peer, Oliver St John^*, Viscount Grandison (later Lord Tregoz in the English peerage), was initially placed ahead of Brooke and George Carew^*, 1st Lord Carew. As the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain reported on 13 May, this was ‘overruled for the English barons, because they will take no notice of foreign dignities, and withall it was said the weight of an English baron was £10,000 whereas an Irish viscount was valued and might be had for £1,500’.84 CJ, i. 774b; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 559.

Declining influence and death, 1625-8

Following the fall of Middlesex, rumours circulated that Brooke might replace him as lord treasurer, but these were wide of the mark. In reality, although he was now on the council of war, and was kept fully briefed on foreign affairs in general, Brooke rarely attended the Privy Council in the closing months of James’s reign, and seemed more preoccupied with private business.85 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 213, 295-6, 388-9, 393, 446; APC, 1623-5, p. 440. Nevertheless, upon his accession Charles I demonstrated clearly that Brooke’s experience and judgement were still valued. Not only was he confirmed as a councillor of war and privy councillor, but the king appointed him as a special adviser on foreign and military business.86 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 7; APC, 1625-6, p. 3.

Ahead of the 1625 Parliament, Brooke was asked to provide a seat at Warwick for Sir Edward Conway again, but he had already given his nomination to another relative, Sir Francis Leigh^*, later 1st Lord Dunsmore, who was duly elected.87 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 94-5; PROB 11/154, ff. 286-90; OR. Brooke himself was apparently battling illness during the Westminster sitting. He was recorded as present in the Lords only on 18 and 20 June, and thereafter was formally excused five times.88 Procs. 1625, pp. 47, 53, 60, 88, 96. He also missed the whole of the Oxford sitting, Saye and Sele explaining on 4 Aug. that he was absent ‘for want of health’.89 Ibid. 135.

By the latter part of 1625, Brooke’s complaints about illness and old age were becoming more frequent. Aware that he was increasingly peripheral to government business, he took to spending more time in the country.90 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 125, 133; HMC Cowper, i. 237. Although he still regarded Buckingham as his patron, he was critical of the management of the war with Spain, and disapproved of the decision to loan ships to France which were then used against the Protestants of La Rochelle. Conversely, the duke had grown weary of Brooke’s cautious handling of public affairs, and dismissively described him that October as ‘naturally full of delay’.91 HMC Cowper, i. 217, 237; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 128, 133; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 292.

At the 1626 parliamentary elections Brooke again handed a seat at Warwick to Sir Francis Leigh. His own performance in the Lords was only marginally better than in the previous session. He attended on just five occasions in February, began sending in his excuses towards the end of that month, and made his final appearances in the House on 2 and 3 March.92 Excuses were also received on 1, 6, 7, 8, 28, 30 and 31 Mar., and 17 Apr.: Procs. 1626, i. 75, 83, 111, 119, 127, 216, 225, 231, 270. Although again nominated to the committee for privileges, he unsurprisingly attracted only three other appointments. These were all for bill committees, the issues under discussion being the crown’s revenues, forgery of the seals used by the central courts, and the estates of John Wrenham^‡.93 Ibid. 43, 46, 48, 79.

Whatever Brooke’s actual ailments, it was suspected this time that he had succumbed to a diplomatic illness. In the Commons, Members were hunting for evidence that Buckingham had mismanaged the war effort, and sought to question the councillors of war. They, however, were also under pressure from the king and the duke not to cooperate. When Brooke appeared in the lower House on 3 Mar., he ‘excuseth himself, by the king’s dispensing with him, upon the parting with his places, and by his age, being 72’. Four days later, some of the councillors returned to the Commons, but Brooke, pleading illness, stayed away. When he took the same line on 9 Mar., a committee was dispatched to examine him at home, but it reported back after two days with a written message that was no more helpful. Brooke had consulted Charles, who had ruled that the councillors might reveal what tax revenues had been spent on the war, but not the confidential advice governing military strategy.94 Procs. 1626, ii. 186-7, 190, 239-40, 256, 258, 263. Faced with this stonewalling, the Commons tried alternative lines of attack, including allegations that Buckingham had arranged the sale of peerages. On 24 Mar., Sir John Eliot^‡ reported that Brooke had acted as a go-between when Richard Robartes^* acquired his barony in 1625. However, this detail was not included in the impeachment charges brought against the duke.95 Procs. 1626, i. 469-70; ii. 359.

Despite Brooke’s role in protecting Buckingham from the Commons, an anecdote preserved by his family suggests that his support was now qualified:

When…at a Parliament, held in the beginning of the reign of…King Charles, by reason of old age and natural weakness, he did not go to the House; a noble lady came to him, and desired his vote for her dear friend (a great peer of the kingdom) to strengthen his party, who was like to be sore shaken for his delinquency. But his lordship having granted before, the disposing of his vote, to…William (Herbert^*, 3rd) earl of Pembroke, said unto her, madam, I fear none of them; I stand upon mine own legs.96 ‘Genealogie, Life and Death of…Robert Lorde Brooke’ ed. P. Styles, Dugdale Soc. xxxi. 170.

As Brooke is not known to have supplied a proxy in 1626, this story more likely indicates his private sentiments than his public actions. Open alignment at this juncture with Buckingham’s arch-rival Pembroke would inevitably have caused a breach with the duke. In fact, Buckingham still considered him an ally, for in May 1626 Brooke was appointed to a new council of war. Moreover, while Brooke had by now effectively dropped out of the Privy Council, he continued intermittently to fulfil his duties at local level, in January 1627 holding a meeting at Warwick to promote collection of the Forced Loan.97 A. Hughes, Pols., Soc. and Civil War in Warws. 95, 98; APC, 1627, p. 74. Nevertheless, this did not necessarily amount to a wholehearted endorsement of the crown’s policies. A Cambridge history lectureship which he founded in 1627 was almost immediately plunged into controversy when the first lecturer, Isaac Dorislaus, expounded that December on the evils of arbitrary government. The king promptly banned Dorislaus from public speaking, but Brooke, who had specified the broad scope of his lectures, continued to pay him. As his own political writings make clear, Brooke himself believed that monarchical rule functioned properly only when the power of the ruler was balanced by the liberties of the subject. While he cautiously withheld these opinions from publication during his lifetime, it is not impossible that the Cambridge lectures were intended as a covert means of promoting that philosophy. Such ambivalence towards the government was certainly in tune with the views of Brooke’s closest political confidante and sometime protégé, secretary of state Sir John Coke^‡, who had advised him on the establishment of the lectureship.98 K. Sharpe, ‘Foundation of the Chairs of History at Oxford and Cambridge’, Hist. of Univs. ii. 138-44; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 609-10.

When Parliament was again summoned in 1628, Brooke opted to give his heir Robert Greville a taste of the Commons, though in the event the Warwick election was overturned due to a franchise dispute, and Greville was unable to sit.99 CD 1628, iv. 38. Brooke was also absent from Westminster, with the king’s permission, and, sometime after mid April, he awarded his proxy to the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry.100 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 74, 87.

On 18 Feb. 1628 Brooke made his will, repeating at length the provisions of an indenture drawn up three days earlier, under which almost all his property was placed in trust until his heir, Robert Greville, reached the age of 24. The trustees included Coke, Sir Francis Leigh, and Basil Feilding^*, later 2nd earl of Denbigh. Brooke also provided a £2,000 dowry for Robert’s sister Dorothy, a year’s wages for all his household servants, and £100 for the poor of Warwick.101 PROB 11/154, ff. 285-94. While visiting London at the start of September, he was stabbed by a disaffected servant who then committed suicide. Brooke’s wounds turned gangrenous, and he died at the end of the month. His body was taken back to Warwick and interred in the elaborate tomb that he had prepared for himself in St Mary’s church. Robert Greville inherited the Brooke barony, but not the claim to the Willoughby de Broke title, which devolved on Brooke’s sister Margaret.102 HMC Cowper, i. 365-6; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 344; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 293; HMC Rutland, i. 487.