RICH, Henry (1590-1649)

The younger son of Robert Rich^*, 1st earl of Warwick, a wealthy puritan Essex magnate with valuable property in London, Rich married the daughter and heir of Sir Walter Cope^‡, master of the Court of Wards. Cope built up a large estate in Middlesex, including a substantial mansion in Kensington subsequently known as Holland House but, on his death in 1614, was found to be in debt to the tune of £26,000 or £27,000. Rich managed to salvage the estate by abandoning his early ambitions to become a soldier and pursuing instead a career at court, which he did by capitalizing on his good looks and pleasing manner. However, this entailed spending vast sums on himself and his household, which helps to explain why he became one of the most importunate courtiers of his generation.75 ROBERT RICH, 1ST EARL OF WARWICK; Chamberlain Letters, i. 560-1, 575-6, 580-1; B. Donagan, ‘Courtier’s Progress’, HJ, xix. 322; Clarendon, i. 78-9; A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 76-7, 162.

Buckingham’s favour and the parliaments of the 1620s

Rich sat twice in the Commons for Leicester, in 1610 and again in 1614, and secured the captaincy of the yeoman guard in 1617. By the early 1620s he was firmly established in the favour of George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. In January 1623 John Chamberlain reported a rumour that Rich would soon be created Viscount Kensington. He did, indeed, receive the title of Kensington two months later, but as a baron rather than as a viscount.76 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 473. In April 1623 he and Sir George Goring^* (later 1st earl of Norwich) were sent to join Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) and Buckingham in Spain, where the latter were attempting to bring the negotiations for the Spanish Match to a successful conclusion. During the latter part of that month a rumour circulated that they had been killed in France, whereupon one commentator described them as ‘the two blazing stars of this court’. However, on 2 May it was reported that they were ‘alive again’.77 Add. 72276, ff. 29, 33; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 164.

Writing to Sir Edward Conway^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Conway) from Madrid on 27 May, Kensington was effusive in his praise of Buckingham and the prince but evidently had anxieties concerning the Match, about which he seems to have been unable to make direct reference. He lauded Buckingham, newly made a duke, for his stubbornness in negotiations ‘for which … carriage he hath lost the hearts of those great and powerful persons here that would have pressed unfit and unlooked for conditions upon us’. His further statement, that Buckingham could not mention the king ‘without tears to be from him’, may reflect Kensington’s own desire to return to Whitehall.78 SP14/145/39.

Kensington evidently impressed Charles and Buckingham as, after the Spanish Match ran into serious difficulties, he was selected in December 1623 to go to France ‘to sound what may be done for a wife to the prince’.79 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 185. The godson of Henri IV, Rich was already closely connected with the French court; indeed, he had been entertained by Louis XIII at Fontainebleau on his way to Spain. However, he was not given formal ambassadorial credentials for his mission and seems to have publically stated that he was merely going to hunt with Louis, in accordance with a promise he had made earlier that year. Nevertheless, the true reason for his mission was widely known, or at least widely speculated upon.80 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 184, 200; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 134; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 535; HMC Hastings, ii. 63; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 30.

Before setting out, Kensington received instructions from James, which he found confusing and vague, possibly because James was still committed to the Spanish negotiations and was sceptical about the prospects of a French Match. However, Kensington probably received clearer guidance from Charles and Buckingham.81 Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 195. He arrived in Paris on 15 Feb. 1624, four days before the English Parliament met. Unable to attend this assembly, he granted his proxy to Buckingham. (The assistant clerk’s listing of the ‘E[arl] of Kensington’ as present in the upper House on 25 Feb. was a clerical mistake.)82 LJ, iii. 212a; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 12v. The day after his arrival, Kensington wrote to the duke that he had been received warmly by the king and the queen mother and described Charles’s prospective bride, Henrietta Maria, as ‘a lovely sweet young creature’.83 SP78/72, f. 31v; Cabala (1691), 290.

Kensington was so optimistic about the prospects for a French Match that he was soon urging his superiors to send him formal authority to negotiate. Towards the end of March a joint commission was therefore drafted appointing Kensington and James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, as extraordinary ambassadors to conclude the Match.84 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 199, 203. However, Carlisle did not leave England until 18 May.85 Bell, 107. Their negotiations soon encountered a major stumbling block concerning religion. Like the Spanish the previous year, the French insisted that all Catholics in England be granted full toleration, contrary to an assurance that Charles had given in Parliament that toleration would be solely restricted to his future bride and her household. Negotiations were on the point of collapse when, on 20 June, Kensington suddenly dashed back to England with news that the French were willing to make concessions.86 SP14/168/40.

Kensington returned to France at the end of July, at which time it was rumoured that he would be made an earl. Initially it was thought that his title would be earl of Holland, but Kensington may have objected to this as Holland, a district of Lincolnshire, was not a county name and he had no significant property there. (This would explain why it was reported that he would be granted a valuable manor in Holland to accompany his elevation.) However, his preferred alternative, that of Gloucester, was reserved for members of the royal family.87 Add. 72276, ff. 111, 113v; SP14/171/49.

On Kensington’s arrival in Paris the negotiations were thrown into confusion by political changes in Paris, which led the French government, now headed by Cardinal Richelieu, once again to insist on a formal commitment to toleration for English Catholics.88 SP78/73, ff. 5-10. This provoked anger in London: on 13 Aug. the prince of Wales wrote to Kensington, whom he addressed as ‘Captain Coxcomb’, that the French had ‘played you so scurvy a trick’, that he now mistrusted them, and, that ‘if they insist upon these new grounds let them go hang themselves’.89 SP Clarendon ed. R. Scrope, ii. app. p. x. However, Kensington remained optimistic and the negotiations continued, although he fell out with the less sanguine Carlisle, and Goring had to be sent to France to reconcile them.90 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 325, 334.

Kensington was made earl of Holland on 24 Sept., but it was not until November, after James and Charles had committed themselves to Catholic toleration, that the Match was finally agreed. Holland and Carlisle signed the treaty on the 20th, and James and Charles did the same the following month. However, as the French still required a dispensation from the pope, the marriage was not celebrated until 1 May 1625. The ambassadors returned to England early the following month, their attempts to negotiate a substantive military alliance with the French for the recovery of the Palatinate (which territory belonged to the king’s daughter and her husband) having proved unsuccessful.91 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. v. 270-1, 277, 325; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 623; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 200.

Holland was back in England in time to attend the opening of the 1625 Parliament on 18 June, when he was appointed by the king a trier of petitions from Gascony and England’s overseas territories.92 Procs. 1625, p. 31. His absence was excused at the call of the House on 23 June, and, in total, he attended only six of the 34 sittings.93 Ibid. 48. He received no committee appointments and made no recorded speeches.

On 31 July, just as Parliament was about to reconvene at Oxford, Holland was sworn a member of the Privy Council.94 APC, 1625-6, p. 124. The following month he tried to assuage the anger of his cousin, Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, over not being offered a post suitable to his rank in the forthcoming expedition to Cadiz. Holland assured Essex that Buckingham ‘pays you all the respect and affection that is possible’ but ‘in this action, since all things are already resolved’, the king ‘desired not to be put into a change in it’.95 FSL, X.c.132 (BL, mic. M2275), f. 174. However, not until a month later, after being appointed vice admiral of the fleet, did Essex reluctantly agree to take part in the expedition.96 V.F. Snow, Essex the Rebel, 129. This is an early example of Holland acting as an intermediary between the court on the one hand and prominent ‘country’ peers like Essex on the other.

In late September William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, observed that ‘Holland now governs’ Buckingham, ‘and so the king’. The following month this account was corroborated by the Scottish courtier, the earl of Kellie, who reported that only Holland and Carlisle were ‘great’ with Buckingham.97 Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 361; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 235. In October Holland accompanied the duke as joint ambassador to the congress of anti-Spanish powers at The Hague, which resulted in a triple alliance between England, the United Provinces and Denmark.98 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 58; Gardiner, vi. 34-6. He returned to England in December but, later that month, was appointed to another extraordinary embassy, this time with Sir Dudley Carleton^* (subsequently Viscount Dorchester), to France. They were sent to obtain the release of recently seized English shipping, the return of naval vessels lent to the French and, more significantly, to mediate a peace between Louis XIII and his Huguenot subjects in the hope of bringing France into the anti-Habsburg alliance.99 Procs. 1626, iv. 305; Gardiner, vi. 39. Shortly before his departure, Holland wrote to Essex assuring him that the king did not blame the latter for the failure at Cadiz ‘for I hear him wish you had had the chief command’.100 FSL, X.c.132 (BL, mic. M2275), f. 170.

Before leaving England, Holland persuaded Buckingham to nominate his brother-in-law, Sir John Smythe^‡ of Sutton-at-Hone, Kent, at Rochester for election to the forthcoming second Caroline Parliament. However, Smythe was defeated.101 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 206; vi. 361. The new mission to France ensured that Holland missed the early stages of the 1626 Parliament, although he was again appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony on 6 February.102 Procs. 1626, i. 23. Nine days later, his absence was excused at a call of the House as he was in the king’s service abroad.103 Ibid. 49. There is no evidence that he appointed a proxy. On the contrary, he himself was the recipient of the proxy of William Eure^*, 4th Lord Eure, which was presumably bestowed after Holland returned to England. Eure had originally appointed Buckingham as his representative, but the duke divested himself of most of his proxies after the Lords agreed, on 25 Feb., that in future no lord should have more than two. Eure undoubtedly chose Holland because of the latter’s closeness to the duke.104 Ibid. iv. 11.

While the Parliament was sitting, Holland and Carleton succeeded in patching up an agreement between the king of France and the Huguenots. However, they were rebuked by Charles for failing to secure sufficient guarantees for the future security of French Protestantism. In early March, Holland warned Charles that the French ambassador in London was intriguing with Buckingham’s opponents in Parliament and the Council.105 Gardiner, vi. 51, 53; Cabala (1691), 231.

Holland left Paris on 28 Mar. and took his seat in Parliament on 5 Apr., just before the Easter recess. His presence was subsequently recorded at every sitting bar two, those of 25 May and the morning of 14 June. In total, he attended the upper House 37 times out of 81 possible occasions. The clerk’s scribbled book (but not the Journal) records that he was among those added, on 5 Apr., to the subcommittee for privileges when that body was ordered to search for precedents concerning the commitment of peers during a Parliament. The search for precedents had been prompted by the arrest of one of Buckingham’s leading opponents, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, ostensibly for his eldest son’s unauthorized marriage into the royal family.106 Gardiner, 89; Procs. 1626, i. 257, 261.

Holland made his only recorded speech of the Parliament in the debate held on 15 May on the words spoken by Sir Dudley Digges^‡ at the presentation of the articles of impeachment against Buckingham. Holland argued that Digges’s words were ‘fit to be explained’ and that he ought to be questioned about them.107 Procs. 1626, i. 478. He apparently tried to speak again, on 25 May, following the message from the king promising to give ‘satisfaction’ with ‘all possible speed’ concerning Arundel. However, the House refused to hear him, resolving to cease all business until Arundel was released.108 Birch, i. 106. On 3 June it was reported that Holland had been sent to Arundel ‘offering conditions of peace’ from Charles and Buckingham, but these were rejected.109 C115/109/8844. A week later, Holland was among the proposed additions to the committee appointed to take examinations concerning the king’s charges against John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, although, in the event, the Lords agreed to leave the original committee unaltered.110 Procs. 1626, i. 605. On the last day of the session (15 June), he was one of four peers dispatched to inform the king that the upper House wished to petition him to keep the Parliament in being. However, Charles answered that he was determined to dissolve the assembly.111 Ibid. 635. The following day he apparently consulted privately with Buckingham and, possibly, Charles.112 Birch, i. 110.

During the summer of 1626, Holland was rewarded with a place in Charles’ bedchamber and the stewardship of Henrietta Maria’s household. He received a visit from Buckingham at his house in Kensington in July, and the following September it was incorrectly reported that he had succeeded the duke as master of the horse.113 Add. 12528, f. 30v; William Whiteway of Dorchester: his Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 84. However, his close connection with Buckingham was rendering him increasingly unpopular with the wider political nation.114 Warws. RO, CR136/B108. It may also have placed a strain on his relations with his brother Warwick, who had fallen out with Buckingham after the latter had supported the anti-Calvinists at the York House Conference in February 1626. However, Warwick had significant maritime interests and so was wary of openly opposing Buckingham, who was lord admiral. Warwick may therefore have welcomed the fact that, thanks to Holland, he still had a connection with the duke.115 ROBERT RICH, 2ND EARL OF WARWICK.

In October it was reported that Holland had fallen out with Buckingham and that he was briefly confined over a promise he had made while ambassador in France, possibly concerning the queen’s household, which the duke had repudiated. However, the king quickly reconciled them.116 Birch, i. 163. There seems to have been no lasting damage done to Holland’s relations with Buckingham, for in late November the earl was described as ‘the only privado [favourite] to the duke’.117 Somerset RO, DD/PH/219/67.

After the 1626 Parliament Charles decided to dispense with parliaments for the time being and to raise money instead by means of a Forced Loan. Publicly at least, Holland supported the Loan. In January 1627 he accompanied the duke to Buckinghamshire to enforce the Loan, and, the following month, he was one of the privy councillors who examined Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston^‡, a Suffolk Loan refuser.118 CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 114; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 66. However, in April he preferred the petition of another refuser, Sir Francis Barrington^‡, who was closely connected with Holland’s brother, Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick, one of the Loan’s leading opponents.119 Procs. 1628, p. 110. Although Warwick was now an avowed enemy of the duke, Holland remained on good terms with him, for in May he gave his bond as security for letters of marque to be issued to Warwick, who was about to embark on a privateering venture.120 APC, 1627, p. 282. Nevertheless, Holland, unlike Warwick, believed that, with regard to the Loan, the king’s necessity had to take priority over the rights of the subject. Indeed, he told Nathaniel Tomkins^‡ that ‘the king’s honour was really at the stake’ in the Loan, whereas it was merely a matter of opinion whether the liberties of the people were at risk.121 Somerset RO, DD/PH/219/67.

Over the summer of 1627 Holland found himself dragged into the war against France. Buckingham, with a small army, had been laying siege to the citadel of St Martin, on the Îde Ré, for two months and was now desperately short of supplies. In late August Holland was appointed to lead a relief expedition. He himself was not optimistic about the likely outcome. Indeed, writing to Essex, he confessed that ‘what the success will be God only knows, yet I dare promise you we will not return so quietly as some others have done’.122 FSL, X.c.132 (BL, mic. M2275), f. 177. However, a chronic shortage of funds meant that his departure was delayed. On 29 Oct., against the advice of the seamen and despite the absence of four ships that remained wind-bound at the Isle of Wight, he set sail from Plymouth. That night his fleet was caught up in a violent storm, and was so severely damaged that the following day it was beaten back to port. He tried again on 6 Nov., this time with a fair wind, but by now it was too late, as Buckingham and his army quit the island in disarray two days later.123 Life and Works of Sir Henry Mainwaring ed. G.E. Manwaring (Navy Recs. Soc. liv), 180; Donagan, 323-4.

By the beginning of 1628 Holland was unhappy with the polarization of English politics. In a letter to his cousin the earl of Essex, he expressed relief that ‘we are now upon the moulding and framing of our affairs for Parliament’, and declared that he was ‘happy that those thoughts and affections that have been so long shut by accidents have now their natural motions and expressions’. Typically over-optimistic, he expressed the hope that the Parliament would prosper because ‘I see our master’s heart [is] desirous to move in the true way of religion and honour’.124 FSL, X.c.132 (BL, mic. M2275), ff. 176-7, 193.

Having been appointed recorder of Colchester 1627, Holland presumably played a part in securing the election of both of his brother Warwick’s nominees to the Commons in 1628.125 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 127. The Parliament, which met in March, was the first in which Holland attended the Lords reasonably assiduously. His absence was twice excused, the first time, on 22 Mar., being due to illness, which kept him away until the 26th. No reason was recorded on the second occasion (3 Apr.), and he returned to the chamber the following day.126 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 87, 146. In addition, on 1 May it was reported that he had been sent to Portsmouth following reports of the approach of a Spanish fleet, which may explain why he was not marked as present between 30 Apr. and 3 May inclusive.127 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/CB100, Richard Heath to Middlesex, 1 May 1628. In all he was recorded as attending 64 out of the 94 sittings of the upper House (68 per cent of the total). During the 1628 session he received the proxies of William Paulet^*, 4th marquess of Winchester, and Winchester’s son, John Paulet^*, who had been summoned to the Lords in his father’s barony as Lord St John of Basing. The Paulets presumably selected Holland because he was related to Lord St John’s wife.128 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 26; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 463.

Holland received only two committee appointments in the 1628 session and made no recorded speeches. His first appointment was on 28 May, when he and several other peers were sent to the king to arrange for the delivery of the petition of both Houses for a satisfactory answer to the Petition of Right.129 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 546. On 14 June he was instructed to consider the bill to confirm Henrietta Maria’s jointure.130 Ibid. 641. Following a motion made by the lord treasurer, James Ley^*, 1st earl of Marlborough, Holland went, on 26 May, with Buckingham to request that the king ‘receive into favour’ those lords who had ‘been into disfavour and confined’, whereupon several peers, including Warwick and Essex, were admitted to kiss the king’s hand.131 Birch, i. 358-9. On 11 June he accompanied Buckingham, Conway and Carleton to inform the Dutch ambassadors of the king’s agreement to the Petition of Right.132 Procs. 1628, p. 202.

During the 1628 session Holland was the subject of complaints in the Commons over his billeting of soldiers in Devon on his own authority.133 CD 1628, ii. 264. In addition, on 17 May, a petition was read from the London Goldsmiths’ Company against Holland’s patent as royal exchanger.134 Ibid. iii. 446. This office had been granted to him in May 1627 despite complaints from the Goldsmiths’ and officers of the Mint. It gave Holland a monopoly on exchanging coins and bullion into English currency.135 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 76-7, 168, 198, 201; APC, 1627, pp. 174-5; CD 1628, iv. 442-3; Birch, i. 238-9. On 13 June the Commons established a select committee to examine the complaints against Holland’s patent.136 CD 1628, iv. 303. Ten days later, Sir William Fleetwood^‡ reported back to the Commons from the committee, whereupon Holland was defended by his kinsman Sir Nathaniel Rich^‡, who was closely involved in his financial affairs. Nevertheless, the patent was voted a grievance in creation and execution.137 Ibid. 425-7; Duke of Manchester, Ct. and Soc. from Eliz. to Anne, i. 330-1.

On 23 Aug. Buckingham was assassinated at Portsmouth after having breakfasted with Holland.138 Rous Diary ed. M.A. Everett Green (Cam. Soc. lxvi), 25. The following day the earl wrote to Charles asking whether he could succeed his late patron as constable of Windsor or as keeper of Hampton Court.139 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 267. It was quickly reported that Holland was seeking to become the king’s new favourite but, although he temporarily exercised the functions of the master of the horse, the only significant post he obtained was the chancellorship of Cambridge University. When John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York) tried to appoint Holland as high steward of Westminster in succession to the duke in his capacity as dean of Westminster, he was reprimanded and Holland was forced to relinquish the post to Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (subsequently 4th earl of Pembroke).140 Ibid. 276-7, 310, 315, 330-1; Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 292-3, 294; Birch, i. 395. On 20 Sept. it was reported that he had left the court ‘in a pet’ but had returned when sent for.141 Birch, i. 398.

In the 1629 session Holland attended 14 of the 23 sittings and again received the proxy of Lord St John, who became 5th marquess of Winchester on 4 February. However, he was appointed to no committees nor did he make any recorded speeches.142 LJ, iv. 3b. The following April Charles decided to send Holland back to France as special ambassador to ratify the peace treaty between the two nations, but the earl was so heavily indebted as a result of his lavish spending at court that he could not afford to fit himself out, and consequently was forced to decline the office.143 CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 37. The king’s generosity subsequently ensured that Holland was able to maintain his lifestyle and so retain his standing at court. (In the summer of 1629 it was reported that Holland and Carlisle, ‘by their fine table, maintain their following and their position among the nobility’). However, the resulting financial necessity compromised Holland’s political independence. In late 1629 the Venetian ambassador reported that Holland’s dependence on royal largesse made him reluctant to press Charles openly to call another Parliament.144 Letters of Peter Paul Rubens ed. R.S Magurn, 314; Donagan, 331-6; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 205.

The Personal Rule and later life

In July 1629, the Flemish painter Rubens, then in England acting as an unofficial envoy of the king of Spain, described Holland as ‘a popular person’, ‘head of the puritans’ and ‘hostile to Spain’. He reported that Holland was trying to use the French ambassador to lobby Charles to summon another Parliament, in the hope of bringing down the lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston (subsequently 1st earl of Portland), who had been much more successful than Holland in inheriting Buckingham’s power. However, Rubens also observed that, although ‘intimate’ with Holland, Charles had excluded the earl from the negotiations with Spain.145 Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, 312-13. Holland had clearly failed to translate the king’s affection into real political influence, a failure which would dog him for the remainder of the Personal Rule. In 1635 Charles informed his Secretary of State, Sir Francis Windebank^‡, that he had only allowed Holland to read those dispatches from Spain ‘of the smallest importance … to keep jealousies out of his head’.146 SP Clarendon, i. 302.

It was not only Rubens who described Holland as leader of the puritans; so too, in the early 1640s, did Edward Conway^†, 2nd Viscount Conway and the Venetian ambassador (although 20 years earlier the French ambassador had reported that he was a moderate Protestant).147 CSP Dom. 1640, p. 278; CSP Ven. 1640-2, p. 247; PRO31/3/55. Nevertheless, the evidence for Holland’s personal faith is ambiguous. On the one hand his succession of duels and romantic affairs do not sit well with the puritan stereotype. On the other, as Bulstrode Whitelocke^‡ observed, he was ‘a very great friend to the old puritans, and protected them’, much like his father and elder brother, both patrons of puritan clergy. As well as sheltering several puritan ministers in the 1630s, Holland employed godly preachers, such as John Everard, as his private chaplains. However, one of his chaplains, Edward Finch, brother of John Finch^†, Lord Finch, was notoriously dissolute, being described by the Commons in 1641 as ‘a man of profane life, scandalous in his doctrine and conversation, and a hinderer of preaching’. Holland, though, may have employed Finch as a favour to Lord Finch, with whom he worked closely in the 1630s, rather than because he approved of Edward Finch’s conduct.148 Donagan, 340-1; B. Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs (1854), ii. 548; K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 742; C58/34, m. 19; Oxford DNB, xix. 557-8; CJ, ii. 139.

Whatever his personal faith may have been, Holland clearly provided an important point of contact between the court and prominent puritans. From 1630 he was governor of the Providence Island Company, an anti-Spanish colonizing and privateering venture founded by Holland’s brother, Warwick, and involving other puritan peers such as William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele.149 R.M. Smuts, ‘Puritan Followers of Henrietta Maria in the 1630s’, EHR, ccclxvi. 32-3. He also continued to act as a channel of communication between the king and peers alienated from the court such as Essex, William Seymour^*, 2nd earl of Hertford, and Francis Russell^*, 4th earl of Bedford.150 CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 71-2; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 165; FSL, X.c.132 (BL, mic. M2275), ff. 178, 184, 205.

From 1629 Holland hoped to use the emergence of Henrietta Maria as a significant political force as a means of political advancement. She was strongly opposed to Weston because she regarded the lord treasurer as pro-Spanish and because he tried to limit expenditure on her household.151 Smuts, 28-9. Despite his religious views, Holland was a firm francophile, had been acquainted with the queen since 1624 and served her as her high steward. Moreover, his wife was a lady of the queen’s bedchamber.152 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 612; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 264; Smuts, 30-1. In December 1629 it was reported that the queen was lobbying for Holland to be appointed lord admiral to replace the commission which had run the Navy since Buckingham’s death.153 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 346. Writing to Essex, Holland himself dismissed the reports of his imminent preferment as a ‘town rumour’.154 FSL, X.c.132 (BL, mic. M2275), f. 201-v. However, according to the Venetian ambassador, the following January Holland openly admitted to his ‘pretensions’ to the office, although he had not intended ‘to forestall his majesty's wishes’.155 CSP Ven. 1629-32, pp. 276-7. There were continued reports that Holland would be made lord admiral in 1630 and in the first half of 1631, but these may have been encouraged by the king in order to obtain an improvement in the quality of naval administration. By June 1631 the king was so impressed by the reforms hurriedly implemented by the commissioners that no appointment was made.156 C115/105/8180; Birch, ii 100, 123; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 410; A. Thrush, ‘Navy under Charles I: 1625-40’ (London Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1990), 35-6.

Although disappointed by his failure to secure the admiralty, Holland remained in high favour with the king. However, his alliance with Henrietta Maria led Holland to become caught up in her intrigues against Richelieu, which can hardly have helped any hopes he may have had of securing an alliance between England and France against the Spanish, and precipitated a significant crisis in the earl’s career.157 CSP Col. E.I. 1630-4, p. 282; HMC Var. vii. 401; Smuts, 34; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 100. In early 1633 Weston’s son, Jerome^* (subsequently 2nd earl of Portland), returning from a diplomatic mission to Italy, was passing through Paris when he discovered an unauthorized letter from Holland to a French minister which, when opened, contained a further letter from Henrietta Maria that demonstrated that the queen was seeking to mediate in favour of a French courtier accused of plotting against Richelieu. Although this correspondence had no direct bearing on English politics, Jerome’s decision to open it implied that it had been potentially treasonable. Consequently, Holland felt compelled to vindicate his honour publicly. When Jerome returned to England he challenged him to a duel, thereby enraging the king, who at the end of March placed Holland under house arrest and contemplated prosecuting him in Star Chamber.158 J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae (1650), 196; CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 3; Newsletters from the Caroline Ct. ed. M. C. Questier (Cam. Soc. ser. 5. xxvi), 168; PC2/42, p. 565; Gardiner, vii. 217-19. During his detention Holland was visited by large numbers of people, much to the king’s displeasure, including Viscount Saye and Sele and other puritan peers.159 Smuts, 35; CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 4; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 448.

Holland begged for mercy before the king at a meeting of the Privy Council on 13 April.160 PC2/46, pp. 565-7; CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 14-15; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 274. His humiliation can only have been aggravated by a speech delivered by Lord Keeper Coventry (Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry), which strongly criticized his conduct. In addition, the lord deputy of Ireland, Thomas Wentworth^*, Viscount Wentworth (later 1st earl of Strafford), reputedly declared that Holland deserved to be executed for his conduct, which comment initiated a bitter feud between the two men. Nevertheless, Holland faced no further proceedings and, by 19 Apr., had been allowed to return to court. He retained his offices and membership of the Council and reports that he was ‘nothing so much as he was in the k[ing’s] favour’ appear to have been unfounded.161 CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 16; Clarendon, i. 197; Newsletters from the Caroline Ct. 172, 178. His continued intimacy with Charles was demonstrated in late August when he was one of only three courtiers who accompanied the king when the latter, hearing that Henrietta Maria had fallen ill, rushed back from Woodstock to London to be by her side.162 CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 196.

Although Holland had returned to Charles’ favour he had still lacked real political power, and it may have been in the hope of securing the latter that he turned his attention to the royal forests. As chief justice in eyre south for southern England since 1631, Holland was empowered to hold ‘justice seats’ in the forests under his jurisdiction to enforce the forest laws. Moves to improve the enforcement of the forest laws had been initiated in 1632, but it was in 1634 that a major innovation was made when the future Lord Finch, who was acting as the crown counsel for a justice seat for the forest of Dean, produced evidence purporting to show that, legally speaking, the forest was much larger than previously thought. Finch, with Holland’s support, subsequently made similar claims for the other forests in southern England. This evidence had the potential to create significant extra revenue for the crown, as large numbers of landowners could be prosecuted for encroaching on the forests. By sponsoring this process Holland probably hoped to demonstrate to Charles that he was a royal administrator of substance.163 G. Hammersley, ‘Revival of the Forest Laws under Chas. I’, History, xlv. 86, 89, 94-5, 100-1.

In late 1634 Holland appeared to be securing his objective. Sir Thomas Roe^‡ reported that Holland’s services in ‘the redemption of our forests’ had elevated Holland ‘a degree higher’, so that he no longer just had the king’s affection, but also ‘his opinion, and value of his ability’.164 Corresp. of Eliz. Stuart, Q. of Bohemia ed. N. Akkerman, ii. 307. However, although the fines amounted to very large sums, reportedly £100,000 from the forest of Dean alone, they aroused considerable opposition, making Holland complicit with the extension of the prerogative in the 1630s. They also brought Holland into conflict with largescale landowners, including his own brother Warwick and prominent courtiers such as William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury. As a result, many of the fines were mitigated. Writing in 1637, the 2nd Viscount Conway, stated that ‘this business of the forests hath gained many enemies to him, and the profit will not be great to the king’.165 CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 182; 1633-4, pp. 227-8; Strafforde Letters, ii. 124.

Weston died in 1635 and in the same year changes in European politics made a French alliance much more attractive to Charles. Both of these factors suggested that Holland might finally occupy a position of power.166 Sharpe, 538. In May 1636 Holland entertained the royal family with a banquet at Kensington and was appointed groom of the stole.167 HMC Var. vii. 412. However, his continued attempts to secure the admiralty were unsuccessful and his inability to disguise his chagrin when Algernon Percy^*, 4th earl of Northumberland, was appointed in 1638 made him the subject of ridicule at court.168 Strafforde Letters, i. 479, 502; ii. 156. Left in a position of weakness, his only advantage lay in his personal relationship with the king and his connections at court and in the country. This led him to overuse whatever information he could pick up from diplomats such as Robert Sidney^*, 2nd earl of Leicester, in ‘foolish discourses with the king’. It also gave him a reputation for indiscretion, as he was too eager to spread what he did know among his allies.169 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 456, 495. Holland’s principal problem was that, since the death of Buckingham, the king had detached his personal affection from policy making. Consequently, no amount of royal favour would make him powerful. Although in 1639 the Venetian ambassador described Holland as someone ‘whose consideration ranks highest at court’, there is no evidence that the latter ever had any real influence on the policies of the Personal Rule.170 CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 598.

During the second half of the 1630s, Wentworth succeeded Portland as the primary object of Holland’s enmity. The feud had been initiated by Wentworth’s reaction to Holland’s abortive duel with Weston, but was sustained and intensified by the fact that Wentworth was a significant rival to Holland for high office and the leading opponent of English intervention in the Thirty Years’ War on the side of France. In 1636 Holland supported Sir Piers Crosby, who accused Wentworth of beating a prisoner to death. In September of that year Holland launched a broader assault on the lord deputy’s administration of Ireland, arguing that it risked provoking a rebellion. When Wentworth sued Crosby in Star Chamber, Holland initially refused to give evidence and cast aspersions on the viscount’s mental health.171 THOMAS WENTWORTH, VISCOUNT WENTWORTH; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J Bliss, viii. 277; Strafforde Letters, ii. 22, 33, 250, 286, 307.

One of the central policies of the Personal Rule was Ship Money. Outwardly at least Holland endorsed the necessity of the levy, just as he had publicly supported the Forced Loan. Nevertheless, he privately thought that the 1638 judgement confirming its legality would prove counterproductive as people believed that only the dissenting judges had voted according to their conscience and that it would therefore become much more difficult to collect.172 C. Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 11-12.

Thanks to Henrietta Maria, Holland was appointed commander of the cavalry in the first Bishops’ War in 1639. However, this antagonized his friend Essex, who also coveted the post.173 Strafforde Letters, ii, 276. Moreover, Holland was a reluctant warrior, openly expressing his support for accommodation.174 HMC Rutland, i. 508; P. Donald, Uncounselled King, 143-4. When Holland came face to face with the Scottish forces at Kelso, he was deceived into thinking that the opposing force was much larger than it was and he ordered a hasty retreat without firing a shot.175 M.C. Fissel, Bishops’ Wars, 26-8. Possibly the closest he came to fighting in 1639 was with his subordinate, William Cavendish^*, 1st earl of Newcastle. The two men fell out after Holland ordered Newcastle, who commanded the prince of Wales’ troop, to ride at the rear. In August, following the end of active hostilities, Holland and Newcastle left the English camp to fight a duel, but they were soon missed and forestalled.176 HMC Rutland, i. 512; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 174. In late 1639 Holland found himself relieved of his command and excluded from the Privy Council’s committee for Scottish affairs.177 Fissel, 39; HEHL, EL7810.

The widening gulf between Charles and his puritan critics rendered Holland’s role as intermediary between the two increasingly redundant, and when the Civil War broke out the earl initially sided with Parliament. After the collapse of peace negotiations in the summer of 1643 he defected to the royalists, returning to London the following November after Charles concluded a ceasefire with the Irish confederates. However, unable to resume his seat in the Lords, Holland finally threw in his lot with the king during the Second Civil War, for which he was executed on 9 Mar. 1649.178 Donagan, 347-51. He was buried the following day in the family vault in Kensington parish church.179 Lysons, iii. 177. His will, dated 28 Feb. 1648, was proved on 23 Feb. 1650.180 PROB 11/211, ff. 143v-4, 146. His son, Robert^†, succeeded as 2nd earl of Holland, and became 5th earl of Warwick on the death of his cousin in 1673.