POULETT, John (1586-1649)

Descended from a Somerset gentry line dating back to the thirteenth century, Poulett was distantly related to the Paulet marquesses of Winchester, and through his mother could also claim kinship with the barons Norreys. His grandfather, Sir Amias Paulet^‡, was listed by the government in 1588 among the ‘knights of great possessions’ suitable to be created barons.37 Winn, 14; Vis. Som. 83; Lansd. 104, f. 51. Poulett inherited his patrimony, comprising property in Somerset, Dorset and Devon, in 1600, and further enhanced his fortune through marriage to a wealthy heiress, Elizabeth Kenn.38 C142/260/143; Guise Fam. Mems. ed. G. Davies (Cam. Soc. 3rd ser. xxviii), 111. He first entered Parliament in 1610 as a knight of the shire for Somerset, and retained his seat four years later, but only after a bitter contest with Sir Robert Phelips^‡ which resulted in a protracted feud between the two men.39 M.A. Kishlansky, Parlty. Selection, 85-101.

‘A very accomplished gentleman of quick and clear parts, a bountiful housekeeper’, and a keen sportsman, Poulett rode high in royal favour at the start of Charles I’s reign.40 T. Fuller, Worthies, iii. 112; William Whiteway of Dorchester (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 125. In the autumn of 1625 he entertained the king at Hinton, his principal seat. Shortly afterwards he was instructed to play host to the duc de Soubise, a prominent Huguenot refugee. Although the Frenchman was kept under virtual house arrest, he and Poulett parted on sufficiently good terms a year later that Soubise voluntarily visited Hinton on at least two other occasions.41 Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 86; C115/108/8632; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 54; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 121, 423; 1629-31, p. 18; Corresp. of Smyth Fam. 117. In connection with his custodial duties, Poulett began writing to the principal secretary of state, Edward Conway^*, Lord Conway (later 1st Viscount Conway), and soon became the government’s main informant on Somerset affairs, using these contacts to advance his own interests at the expense of his rival Phelips. Presenting himself as the county’s strongest advocate of the government’s arbitrary taxes, the 1626 Benevolence and Forced Loan of 1626-7, he assiduously reported all signs of opposition by Sir Robert and his allies, helping to secure their dismissal from local office.42 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 238, 309, 357; 1627-8, p. 53; Barnes, 37, 89, 289; SP16/36/46; 16/37/5; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 204-5, 210-11.

Poulett’s conspicuously loyal service was doubtless a major factor in his elevation to the peerage in June 1627, reportedly by the procurement of Soubise. It was a measure of his new-found dominance in Somerset that at the 1628 parliamentary elections he was able to obtain a seat for his son-in-law Thomas Smyth^‡ at Bridgwater, where he had never previously exercised patronage.43 Procs. 1628, p. 125; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 352. Poulett himself took his place in the Lords, staying for the duration at his house in Petty France, a few streets from the Palace of Westminster.44 Corresp. of Smyth Fam. 88. Initially assiduous in attendance, he missed just three days in the session’s first two months. Although he took his seat on the opening day, he was not formally introduced to the House until 20 Mar., when he was escorted by Dudley North^*, 3rd Lord North and Edward Noel^*, 1st Lord Noel. That same day he was nominated to the prestigious committee for privileges. On 21 Mar. he was appointed to confer with the Commons about the proposed joint petition to the king for a general fast.45 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 72-4, 78.

Much of Poulett’s initial business related to the ongoing war with Spain, and he was named both to scrutinize the bill to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable, and to consider proposals by the lord admiral, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, to increase shipping. In his only speech, on 2 Apr., Poulett waded into the vexed issue of the billeting of soldiers between campaigns, insisting that reports of rioting in Banbury, Oxfordshire had been exaggerated.46 Ibid. 88, 140, 142, 146. Of his five remaining committee appointments, three reflected his experience of local government and his role as chief steward to the bishop of Bath and Wells, the bills in question dealing with procedure at assize trials, the maintenance of almshouses, and episcopal leases.47 Ibid. 133, 151, 389. Poulett’s absence was excused on 12 May, and he was missing for the rest of the month, all but one day. No explanation was offered, but he was most likely ill. A martyr to incapacitating gout, he was also frequently subject to fevers and other ailments. Upon his return to the House he attracted just one more nomination, to the committee for the bill against recusancy.48 Ibid. 409, 627; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 279; 1629-31, p. 332; Corresp. of Smyth Fam. 136.

During the 1629 session, Poulett apparently did not contribute to debate, but he was again named to the committee for privileges, and received five other nominations. His legislative committees this time were concerned with the financing of parish clergy, the boosting of trade, clothing regulations and, once again, the upkeep of almshouses. Poulett’s final appointment, on 14 Feb., was to help draft two bills, on the upkeep of churches, and curates’ stipends. Having attended all but one day in the opening month, he may again have fallen ill in late February, when he missed five consecutive days, though he was present for the controversial adjournment and dissolution of Parliament in early March.49 LJ, iv. 6a, 8a, 10b, 19b, 31a. A few weeks later, at the height of a dispute over precedence between English and Irish peers, he was challenged to a duel by the 1st Viscount Monson [I], who accused him of questioning the legitimacy of his title, and challenging the royal prerogative. An aggrieved Poulett reported this incident to the king, whereupon the earl marshal, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, intervened to keep the peace.50 R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 111.

In the following decade Poulett proved less successful in winning royal approval. Initially he enjoyed a direct route to the heart of government, as his kinsman Dudley Carleton^*, Viscount Dorchester served as secretary of state from 1628 until his death in 1632. Poulett bombarded him with requests for favours, and relentlessly presented himself as the king’s trusty instrument in the perpetual struggle against local insubordination.51 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 530, 532, 557; 1629-31, p. 115, 277. However, while Charles sympathetically sent medicines when Poulett was taken ill in 1630, he declined further invitations to visit Hinton House, notwithstanding the redecoration of the main reception suite around this time.52 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 535; 1629-31, p. 332; VCH Som. iv. 42; N. Pevsner, S. and W. Som. (Buildings of Eng.), 198. In the final reckoning, such endorsements were withheld because Poulett could never quite bring himself to pursue the crown’s interests at the expense of his own. As keeper of Roche forest, he objected to the government’s programme of disafforestation, and at least covertly encouraged local opposition, despite several reprimands from the king.53 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 290; 1628-9, pp. 150, 444, 456, 567; 1629-31, p. 18. Appointed a Somerset commissioner for knighthood composition, he protested vigorously when instructed to compound himself in 1631.54 PC2/41, f. 141v; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 254. He also irritated the Privy Council by agreeing to donate towards the restoration of St Paul’s Cathedral, and to subscribe to the government-sponsored Fishery Society, only to default on his payments.55 PC2/42, f. 117r-v; 2/47, f. 111; 2/48, ff. 199, 316v; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 544; 1635-6, p. 532; 1637-8, p. 197; SP16/231/15.

Without consistent royal backing, Poulett also struggled to maintain his authority in Somerset. On the face of things he was well-suited to local leadership. Conservative and conventional in his social and religious outlook, he instinctively upheld the established order, winning the approval of his fellow magistrates for a workhouse at Crewkerne, Somerset in 1631, and openly criticizing the ‘alterations in religion’ promoted by Arminians. At the same time he was no puritan, and in April 1631 sent his sick daughter to London to be healed by the king’s touch.56 Q. Sess. Recs. 1625-39 ed. E.H.B. Harbin (Som. Rec. Soc. xxiv), 139; SP16/143/21; 16/153/23; 16/188/39; 16/195/12. These character traits, combined with his exalted status, undoubtedly served Poulett well in county politics. His principal powerbase was the lieutenancy, where for much of the 1630s he filled the vacuum left by the absentee lord lieutenant, Philip Herbert^*, 4th earl of Pembroke. However, the dominant figure on the Somerset bench during these years was his enemy Phelips, now restored to local office, whose superior political skills regularly enabled him to outmanoeuvre Poulett.57 Barnes, 99, 282-3. In 1633 the government overturned the longstanding ban on Somerset church-ales. Many of the local magistrates frowned upon these revels, which they believed encouraged disorder, and Poulett unsurprisingly led the county’s calls for the ban to be reinstated. By contrast, Phelips recognized that power in London now lay with the archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud^*, who approved of church-ales, and accordingly sided strongly with the new policy. Far from strengthening his position on the Somerset bench, Poulett found himself rebuked by the government, while Phelips’ reputation was enhanced.58 T.G. Barnes, ‘County Pols. and a Puritan Cause Célèbre: Som. Churchales, 1633’, TRHS, 5th ser. ix, 110-21. Poulett again overreached himself in 1635, when he unsuccessfully tried to force local magistrates to assist the lieutenancy, enabling Sir Robert to pose as the bench’s champion. In the following year, Phelips himself went on the attack, accusing Poulett of breaching regulations for militia musters, and almost securing his dismissal from the lieutenancy. Not until Phelips’ death in 1638 could Poulett feel entirely secure.59 Barnes, Som. 1625-40, pp. 283, 298.

Presumably seeking to restore his reputation with the crown, Poulett volunteered in 1635 for the first Ship Money fleet. Given command of the Constant Reformation, he saw service in the English Channel for nearly four months, earning the epithet ‘brave old blade’ from the fleet’s vice admiral, Sir William Monson^‡. However, illness once again got the better of him, and he had to abandon his commission in September, receiving a knighthood from the admiral, Robert Bertie^*, 1st earl of Lindsey shortly before he disembarked.60 CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 94, 373-4, 381-2; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 291; Corresp. of Smyth Fam. 122-4; Naval Tracts of Sir William Monson III ed. M. Oppenheim (Navy Recs. Soc. xliii), 367. In early 1639 Poulett played an active role in mustering soldiers to fight the Scots, and, despite continuing health concerns, travelled to York, where he strongly endorsed the king’s introduction of a new oath of allegiance.61 Corresp. of Smyth Fam. 141-5; HMC Rutland, i. 504, 507-8. Charles evidently appreciated this show of loyalty, for in the following November he sent Poulett to greet a newly arrived Dutch ambassador.62 Finet Notebks. ed. A.J. Loomie, 267.

Poulett attended the Great Council of Peers in the autumn of 1640, and was one of the commissioners appointed to negotiate the treaty of Ripon with the Scots.63 Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1776) ed. Hardwicke, 233; HMC Var. vii. 425. During the Civil War, he served in the West Country under the royalist commander William Seymour^*, 1st marquess of Hertford. For this he later incurred a £2,742 composition fine and other lesser penalties, though he benefited from the intervention of Sir Thomas Fairfax^†, who had married his daughter-in-law’s sister. Despite these losses, he bequeathed £3,000 each to his two unmarried daughters. Poulett died in March 1649, and was succeeded by his son John^†, 2nd Lord Poulett.64 D. Underdown, Som. in the Civil War and Interregnum, 11; CCC, 1052-3; PROB 11/207, ff. 335v-7.