RUSSELL, Francis (1587-1641)

Russell was named after either his grandfather, Francis Russell^†, 2nd earl of Bedford, or his godfather, Sir Francis Walsingham^‡, Elizabeth I’s spymaster.36 J.H. Wiffen, Hist. Memoirs of the House of Russell, i. 397-8; CSP For. 1587, p. 388. Either way, his background and upbringing were solidly puritan. Little is known of his education, though he spent around three of his childhood years in Ireland, where his father was lord deputy, and he probably attended both Cambridge and Lincoln’s Inn. The commonplace books which he compiled in later life are testimony to his voracious reading and wide-ranging interests, from William Harvey’s treatise on the circulation of blood to the poems and sermons of John Donne^‡, an intellectual curiosity which stands in marked contrast to his clumsy handwriting and idiosyncratic spelling.37 Wiffen, 124; C. Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 240; S. Verweij, ‘Sermon Notes from John Donne in the Manuscripts of Francis Russell, Fourth Earl of Bedford’, English Literary Renaissance, xlvi. 278-313. Over time, Russell’s religious outlook similarly broadened. While the commonplace book entries suggest that his favourite theologian was the moderate Calvinist Joseph Hall^*, bishop of Norwich, and he evidently empathized with anti-Arminian polemicists such as Francis Rous^‡, he also collected quotations from such anti-Calvinist luminaries as Lancelot Andrewes^*, bishop of Winchester, and William Laud^*, archbishop of Canterbury, as well as the Catholic-leaning bishop of Gloucester, Godfrey Goodman^*.38 Bedford Estates Archives, HMC 11-V1, ff. 142, 439, 861; HMC 21, ff. 185, 205.

Early life, c.1603-20

By 1603, when his father became a baron, Russell must have been aware that he was also likely to inherit both the title and estates of his childless cousin Edward Russell^*, 3rd earl of Bedford. Nevertheless, this prospect remained in the balance for another decade, and Lord Russell had to go to considerable lengths to prevent the spendthrift earl from selling large swathes of his patrimony. These early anxieties may help to explain Russell’s subsequent fixation with money.39 SP14/26/34; Bedford Estates Archives, 3E-12-10, 14. Despite such worries, Russell and Bedford remained on relatively amicable terms, and it was probably through the earl’s local influence as a major West Country landowner that Russell was returned to Parliament for Lyme Regis in 1610.40 WARD 7/76/172. Three years later he succeeded to his father’s barony, and an estate which included houses at Northaw, Hertfordshire and Chiswick, Middlesex, along with eight manors in Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire. Russell reputedly disliked his father’s Northamptonshire seat of Thornhaugh, and never lived there.41 WARD 7/49/55; Thomson, 172-3.

When Parliament was summoned in 1614, Russell took his place in the Lords for the first time, and attended just over three-quarters of this brief session, with no extended absences. However, as a newcomer to the upper House, he made little impact on its proceedings. Having taken the oath of allegiance on 11 Apr., he subsequently received just two committee nominations, concerning bills to preserve timber supplies, and to avoid lawsuits over bequests of land.42 LJ, ii. 691a, 694a, 697b.

The next few years were dominated by property issues. On the one hand, Russell attempted to help his cousin, Lady Anne Clifford, wife of Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, who was in dispute with her uncle, Francis Clifford^*, 4th earl of Cumberland, over the inheritance of their family’s estates and titles. Anne resented the fact that, as an only daughter, she was not accepted as full heir to her father, George Clifford^*, the 3rd earl, and firmly resisted all attempts to make her renounce her claims. Russell was initially angered by her stubbornness, but latterly became her staunchest ally.43 Diaries of Lady Anne Clifford, 17, 29-30, 56-7; R.T. Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 65. On the other hand, he simultaneously pressured his cousin Bedford into guaranteeing him the inheritance of the great Russell estates. Under the terms of earlier family settlements, the earl could not sell property without the consent of Russell, his heir presumptive. The latter ruthlessly exploited this advantage, agreeing in March 1617 to let the cash-strapped Bedford raise £14,000 through land sales, but only in return for the formal reversion of all his remaining estates. Even after this restructuring, the earl still proved unable to manage his affairs successfully, and so, by the terms of a new settlement in January 1619, Russell took possession of his inheritance, leaving Bedford only the jointure lands assigned to his wife. How Russell induced his cousin to agree to this deal is not known, but he presumably either bought out his interest in these properties, or took over liability for some of his debts. In addition, these land transfers saddled Russell with heavy livery payments to the crown; in 1625 alone, he handed over nearly £1,700, which probably represented around a third of his rental income. He therefore placed his own finances under considerable strain in the short term, though the acquisition of these estates ultimately made him one of England’s wealthier peers. His new properties included Woburn, Bedfordshire, and several Buckinghamshire manors. It seems likely that he also began using Bedford House on the Strand at around this time. More significantly, Russell was now one of the principal landowners in Devon, and in March 1619 he replaced Bedford as the county’s custos rotulorum.44 WARD 7/76/172; Bedford Estates Archives, 4E-E4-1; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 761.

Nevertheless, Russell received few local government appointments, despite his status as a major aristocratic landowner. The crown’s relative coolness towards him was mirrored in his own reluctance to appear at court. Although he attended Anne of Denmark’s funeral in May 1619, he declined to participate in the 1618 accession day tilt, and again excused himself in the following January, pleading his ‘late large expenses’.45 Harl. 5176, f. 235v; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 473; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 9. He was probably genuinely short of money, but he was also almost certainly uncomfortable with the direction of James I’s policies. In 1620 he contributed £100 towards the Palatine benevolence, a worthy Protestant cause, but his commonplace books reveal a man who was instinctively resistant to the king’s promotion of arbitrary government, a point of view which would place him increasingly at odds with the crown in the coming decade.46 SP14/118/43, 60; 14/119/14; Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 240. In November that year he also lent a journal of parliamentary proceedings to the clerk of the parliaments, Robert Bowyer^‡. The latter, discovering that this document was the missing Lords Journal for 1536, persuaded Russell to return the volume to its rightful place among the other records of Parliament.47 Cat. of the Mss in the I. Temple Lib. ed. J. Conway Davies, ii. 613.

The 1621 Parliament

In the elections to the 1621 Parliament, the return of Sir Baptist Hicks^* (later 1st Viscount Campden) at Tavistock may be attributed to Russell, now the dominant local landowner thanks to the 1619 settlement. Hicks had been aiming to secure a seat at Tewkesbury, but faced opposition from Russell’s kinsman Gray Brydges^*, 5th Lord Chandos. In the event, Russell apparently did his cousin a favour by providing for Hicks himself, which left Chandos free to nominate at Tewkesbury.48 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 102, 144. Once Parliament met, Russell sought to increase his electoral patronage by supporting the restoration of the franchise to Amersham, where he owned the principal manor. The town had sent representatives to some of Edward I’s parliaments, but lacked a charter confirming this privilege. On 29 May Russell wrote to the antiquary Sir Robert Cotton^‡, offering to show him a recent ‘grant from the king’, the wording of which he hoped would be adequate to confirm the validity of Amersham’s pretensions. In the event, no verdict was reached until 1624.49 Ibid. 21; CJ, i. 624a-b; Cott., Julius C.III,. f. 316.

During this session as a whole, Russell attended 84 per cent of the sittings, his record being particularly strong prior to the summer recess. Although formally excused on 4 May, he was absent only eight times during these early months, compared with the winter phase when he missed ten out of 24 sittings.50 LJ, iii. 107a. Russell apparently made only one speech, but his profile was much higher than in 1614, and he was appointed to 52 committees, mostly during the long spring sitting. His own priority must have been the bill introduced on 17 Feb. to allow him and the earl of Bedford to free certain lands in Devon from rents due to the crown in order to facilitate their sale. It is not known who first introduced this measure, but it was committed three days later, whereupon it ran into trouble. A new bill finally appeared in the Lords on 4 May and, with a few amendments, completed its passage through the upper House by the end of the month, before being sent down to the Commons. It then became a casualty of the summer recess; left unfinished when Parliament adjourned, it was not revived in November, and thus failed to reach the statute roll.51 Ibid. 21b, 24a, 107b, 137b; ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 22; CJ, i. 630a. Russell seems also to have lobbied behind the scenes in support of a bill to allow large-scale enclosure in the fens. In the only known account of this episode, written decades later, Sir Edward Peyton^‡ claimed that he was offered £10,000 or a £500 annuity by ‘the earl of Bedford [and] the earl of Westmorland’ (Francis Fane^*), in return for dropping his opposition to this legislation. Since the earldom of Westmorland was not created until 1624, Peyton was evidently applying these titles retrospectively. Moreover, unlike Russell, the 3rd earl of Bedford took no interest in developing the fens. In the event, Peyton turned down this bribe, and on 7 May helped to kill off the measure in the Commons.52 Secret Hist. of Ct. of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, ii. 440; CJ, i. 611b; CD 1621, v. 148; K. Lindley, Fenland Riots, 42.

Meanwhile, up in the Lords, Russell was making himself useful. Named on 14 Feb. both to the newly established committee for privileges, and to the subcommittee for reviewing peers’ privileges, he was selected on 8 Mar. to attend the king after the subcommittee raised issues which potentially touched on the royal prerogative. In the interim, Russell signed the ‘Humble Petition of the Nobility of England’, a protest against Englishmen with Irish or Scottish peerages claiming precedence over English aristocrats with lesser titles. This document offended James, though Russell was apparently not one of the ringleaders who promoted it.53 LJ, iii. 17b, 40a; A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187. Twice appointed to peruse and correct the clerk’s book, he is known to have performed this duty several times.54 LJ, iii. 21a, 73b; LD 1621, pp. 10, 24. Evidently considered skilful in handling procedural issues, Russell was nominated on 8 May to help resolve the awkward question of how the lord chief justice, Sir James Ley^* (later 1st earl of Marlborough), should present a writ of error to himself while acting as Speaker. He was also named to the joint subcommittee of both Houses which finally resolved the dispute over the Commons’ clumsy attempt to punish a provocative Catholic, Edward Floyd. Appointed to consider ten public bills offered to the Lords by the courtier Walter Morrall, he was subsequently selected to help address the backlog of petitions to the House, to search for precedents relevant to the proposed summer adjournment, and to distribute the peers’ collection for the poor.55 LJ, iii. 25b, 114b, 116b, 141b, 150a, 158a.

Russell played a relatively active role in the parliamentary inquiries into monopolies. On 3 Mar. he was nominated to a conference with the Commons on how to apprehend the fugitive patentee Sir Giles Mompesson^‡. Nine days later he was named to a second conference at which the Lords requested the lower House to provide evidence in support of their complaints. Having been chosen to help investigate Mompesson’s patent for discovery of concealed lands, Russell helped to report his committee’s findings on 26 Mar., and was later included in the committee for the bill to reform this abuse. On 18 May he was named to the committee for compiling the Lords’ verdicts on monopolies, and eight days later he presented the clerk, Henry Elsyng, with the approved text of the judgement against Mompesson, for enrolment. Finally, on 28 May he was nominated to the committee for the monopolies bill.56 Ibid. 33b, 42b, 47a, 70b, 126b, 128b, 135a, 137a. Alongside all this business, Russell served on three committees which investigated the bribery allegations against the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, helping to compile the final set of charges. He was also appointed to examine complaints against the corrupt judge Sir John Bennet^‡.57 Ibid. 74b, 80a, 104b, 114b.

Parliament had been summoned largely because of the worsening situation in the Palatinate, and consequently it took steps to prepare for a possible war. Russell played his part, being named to scrutinize bills against exports of ordnance, and for making the kingdom’s arms more serviceable. Alongside these measures, steps were taken to clamp down on Catholics, the potential enemy within, and Russell was nominated to two conferences concerning Parliament’s petition against recusants, and to the committee for the bill to enforce existing anti-recusant measures.58 Ibid. 13a, 17a, 18b, 101a. Given his puritan reputation, it is no surprise that Russell was also appointed to help consider bills to prevent abuse of the Sabbath and blasphemous swearing.59 Ibid. 39b, 101b, 130b. Of his 18 remaining bill committee nominations, he may have taken an interest in those relating to leases granted by the duchy of Cornwall, which had implications for Devon, and to the sale of a Hertfordshire manor by Sir Charles Caesar^‡. On 5 Mar. he was named to help consider a proposal by the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, for an academy to educate the sons of peers and major gentlemen.60 Ibid. 26b, 37a, 132b.

When Parliament resumed in November 1621, Russell served as a supporter when the new lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, Lord Cranfield (later 1st earl of Middlesex), was introduced in the Lords. Appointed on 1 Dec. to confer with the Commons about the informers bill, he also attracted four legislative committee nominations, none of which were of obvious interest to him.61 LJ, iii. 163a, 171a, 173b, 174b, 177b, 194a. On 10 Dec. the Lords heard an appeal for parliamentary privilege on behalf of one of his servants who had been arrested in London. The culprit’s punishment had only just been agreed when the session was abruptly terminated.62 Ibid. 188a, 196b, 199a.

At around this time, Russell borrowed the parliamentary diary of John Pym^‡, detailing proceedings in the Commons during the 1621 session. After copying out the first few pages himself, he handed over this task to secretaries, but subsequently added marginal annotations of his own to highlight the business under discussion. He also drew attention to procedural issues and precedents, and noted striking phrases in certain speeches. However, there is little evidence in these comments of his personal opinions.63 Add. 26637, f. 2v et seq. This exercise apparently marked the beginning of Russell’s long and close association with Pym, whose principal patron hitherto was the baron’s friend, Lord Treasurer Cranfield. Pym’s detailed grasp of parliamentary business evidently impressed Russell, who drew this fervent puritan into his own circle during the next two years.64 M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 335; C. Russell, ‘Parlty. Career of John Pym’, Eng. Commonwealth 1547-1640 ed. P. Clark, A.G.T. Smith and N. Tyacke, 150-1.

Local government and Westminster politics, 1622-5

In 1622 Russell granted some of Northaw manor to the king to allow James to augment the deer park of his palatial Hertfordshire residence, Theobalds. This was the second time that James had demanded part of this property, the gradual diminution of which probably encouraged Russell to look elsewhere for a country retreat. By 1624 he was using the much larger Woburn estate, where he shortly undertook repairs to the house, the start of a process which would lead to complete reconstruction in the following decade.65 R. Clutterbuck, Herts. ii. 413; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 352; Bedford Estates Archives, 4E-E4-1; D. Duggan, ‘Woburn Abbey’, Architectural History, xlvi. 58.

In February 1623 the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York) proposed that Russell be added to the Privy Council’s committee for redressing grievances, as an associate member. Nothing seems to have come of this suggestion, but in the following July he was appointed lord lieutenant of Devon, following the death of William Bourchier^*, 3rd earl of Bath. That autumn he travelled to the south-west to make his presence felt, immediately refreshing the ranks of his deputy lieutenants. However, he normally directed operations thereafter from the home counties, by letter, and never spent much time within his jurisdiction.66 J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), 109; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 20, 92; HMC Exeter, 166-7.

The elections for the 1624 Parliament saw Russell arrange the return of John Pym, evidently now his client, at Tavistock.67 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 102. He presumably continued to support the re-enfranchisement of Amersham, which was approved by the Commons in May that year. That said, he was by then negotiating to sell his property there, and it is unclear whether he nominated either of the new Members, notwithstanding confident assertions to the contrary in the case of John Crewe^‡.68 cf. the statement in HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 21, based on a misreading of ‘Shardeloes Muniments’, Bucks. Recs. xiv. 283, 287.

Russell attended the prorogation meetings on 12 and 16 Feb., presenting his writ of summons on the first occasion. During the session itself, he was present for 84 per cent of the sittings, with no extended absences.69 Add. 40087, f. 2. Named on the opening day as a trier of petitions from Gascony and other overseas territories, he received 57 other appointments, and made six speeches. On 23 Feb. Russell was nominated to both the main committee and subcommittee for privileges, while on 9 Mar. he was named to the Lords’ own committee for petitions. He presumably made a good impression in the latter role, since he was subsequently appointed to arbitrate in a dispute involving Sir Arthur Ingram^‡, and to help resolve another case in conjunction with some Chancery judges after the end of the session.70 LJ, iii. 208a, 215a-b, 253a, 303b, 415a; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 107. Russell also demonstrated a grasp of detail on 26 Feb., when he drew the Lords’ attention to a significant loophole in the bill to revive an Elizabethan statute concerning hospitals, which had just passed its third reading. This intervention caused some procedural confusion; the flawed measure was initially allowed to sleep, but was eventually brought back to the House and sent to the Commons for amendment.71 LJ, iii. 218b-19a, 253a, 254b-5a; Add. 40087, f. 22.

Russell was again named to the committees for the bills against Sabbath abuses and recusancy, and, on 3 Apr., to a conference on the joint petition against recusants. Nine days later he was nominated to help present this document to the king. On 20 May he was selected for a further conference, this time concerning the Commons’ petition against recusant officeholders.72 LJ, iii. 249b, 252b, 287b, 304a, 393b. He illustrated his hostility towards Catholics on 3 Mar. by bringing in a petition from Sir Francis Englefield against the estate bill promoted by Anthony Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu, which was designed to reduce the latter’s liability to recusancy fines. Russell had no known connection with Englefield, and so was likely motivated by a desire to wreck the bill.73 Add. 40087, f. 48; CP, xii. pt. 2, p. 766; C. Russell, PEP, 196.

This hatred of Catholics was also evident in Russell’s backing for war with Spain. On 1 Mar. he moved to inform the Commons that Philip IV had considered detaining Prince Charles at Madrid when the previous year’s Spanish Match negotiations ran into trouble. Later that day he was appointed to help review England’s military preparedness, and immediately called for a ban on licences for exporting ordnance.74 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 13, 15; LJ, iii. 237b. The next day he was required to help confer with the Commons on how to persuade James to break off treaty negotiations with Spain. On 4 Mar. he was nominated to help draft relevant arguments and the following day to assist in presenting Parliament’s advice to the king.75 LJ, iii. 242b, 244b, 246a. With war now looming, Russell was appointed to attend five conferences concerned with how to pay for it, and on 22 Mar. was again dispatched to the king with Parliament’s financial propositions.76 Ibid. 256a, 258b, 273b, 275a, 285a. On 1 Apr. he backed a proposal by the royal favourite, Buckingham, for the Navy to be funded with short-term loans secured against future tax revenues. In late May he was nominated to the committees for the subsidy bill and another measure to improve the crown’s ordinary revenues.77 Add. 40088, f. 3; LJ, iii. 403b, 406b.

On 2 Apr. Russell was named to the subcommittee to investigate corruption charges against Lord Treasurer Middlesex. Given that he had acted as a supporter when the latter was introduced to the Lords in 1621, and was evidently on friendly terms with him, Russell’s appointment demonstrated the peers’ willingness to treat the lord treasurer fairly.78 LJ, iii. 286a; Russell, PEP, 200. Even so, the baron cannot have sympathized with Middlesex’s opposition to war, and he played an active role in this inquiry. Nominated on 12 and 16 Apr. to help draft and consider the charges against the lord treasurer, he was also named to examine three supplementary petitions of complaint about Middlesex’s dealings.79 LJ, iii. 301b, 311a, 317b, 320b, 327b. Russell examined nine witnesses to the case, and on 1 May was appointed to assess the treasurer’s preliminary response to the charges against him. Strikingly, though, he was not once recorded as speaking against Middlesex in the Lords.80 Ibid. iii. 329a, 346a-b, 348a, 354a, 358a.

Russell clearly took a close interest in the bill to amend the Henrician statute on Welsh government, since he was named to its committee, then to a conference, and finally to a subcommittee of both Houses to agree a proviso.81 Ibid. 273a, 304b, 314b. Of the remaining 22 bills which he was named to consider, few were of obvious relevance to him, except perhaps those concerning the foundation of East Grinstead college, Sussex by Robert Sackville^*, 2nd earl of Dorset (his cousin Anne Clifford’s late father-in-law), and the transfer to the crown of York House, in the Strand, not far from Bedford House.82 Ibid. 284a, 384a. Russell may have owned an incomplete copy of John Pym’s 1624 Commons diary, but there is no extant version bearing the baron’s characteristic annotations.83 Russell, ‘Parlty. Career of Pym’, 249 n. 18.

With king and Parliament now set on war with the Habsburgs, it fell to Russell as a lord lieutenant to help recruit the army. During the remainder of 1624, he passed on the Privy Council’s instructions to his deputies, who were soon complaining about the large number of men to be levied. Russell apparently responded sympathetically. Although he did not openly oppose the government’s wishes, neither did he visibly exert himself to execute them in full, rather complaining in January 1625 that the officers who were supposed to conduct the Devon detachment to its designated rendezvous had not themselves arrived in time. Despite this uncooperative behaviour, his office was renewed following the accession of Charles I in the following March. Russell was also appointed in May as a commissioner to inquire into the wool trade .84 APC, 1623-5, pp. 250, 351-2, 371-2; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 384, 436.

The parliaments of 1625 and 1626

When the first Caroline Parliament was summoned, Russell once more nominated his client John Pym at Tavistock. He presumably also arranged the election of his kinsman Sir Rowland St John^‡ at Tiverton, exerting his local influence as lord lieutenant of Devon. As in the previous year, it is unclear whether he put forward a candidate at Amersham.85 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 21, 102, 104; CP, xi. 239. On the session’s opening day at Westminster, Russell was again named a trier of petitions from overseas territories. Four days later, on 22 June, he acted as a supporter to William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, and Richard Robartes^*, 1st Lord Robartes, two noted puritans, when they were introduced in the Lords.86 Procs. 1625, pp. 31, 39. As in the previous session, Russell was appointed to both the committee and subcommittee for privileges, and also to a bill committee relating to two royal manors in Gloucestershire.87 Ibid. 45, 52, 59. However, on 27 June, after attending just four sittings, he withdrew from the House. According to Joseph Mead, who heard the news a few days later, Russell, while getting ready to go down to the Lords, ‘had his shoemaker to pull on his boots, who fell down dead of the plague in his presence; whereupon he abstains from that honourable assembly’. Understandably the baron absented himself for the remainder of the Parliament’s Westminster phase, though he wrote in early July to Lord Keeper Williams, confirming that his cousin Anne Clifford, now dowager countess of Dorset, had consented to a bill to settle the estates of Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset, which had bearing on her jointure settlement.88 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 39; Procs. 1625, pp. 98, 105.

The plague outbreak in the capital obliged Parliament to adjourn shortly afterwards. When the Lords met again at Oxford in August, Russell, by now evidently free of infection himself, attended all but the first two of the session’s remaining sittings. He was named to seven out of the eight committees appointed in Oxford, including two to help consider relief measures for plague victims in the London area. Russell was also nominated to help confer with the Commons about the latest petition against recusants, to consider the bill to enforce existing anti-Catholic measures, and help take the accounts for money raised to redeem captives in north Africa. He performed this latter duty after the session ended.89 Procs. 1625, pp. 139, 146, 174; Lords Procs. 1628, p. 216.

As in 1621, Russell had a copy made of John Pym’s diary of Commons proceedings, which he then annotated. Roughly a year must have elapsed before he undertook this exercise, since in one of his comments he describes Sir Dudley Carleton^* as Lord Carleton, a title bestowed in May 1626. He also refers to a controversial remark made by Carleton during the 1626 Parliament about the king considering ‘new counsels’. In marked contrast to the 1621 diary, Russell’s comments give a clear indication of his personal opinions. A proposal for bishops to take some of the revenues from impropriated rectories, which would have impacted significantly on his own income, elicited an emphatic ‘no’. However, in a striking reminder of his conformist religious outlook, he also objected to Sir Nathaniel Rich’s^‡ suggestion that silenced ministers should be allowed to preach ‘in all points agreeable to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England’.90 Procs. 1625, pp. 247, 248, 449. Russell questioned Sir Edward Coke’s^‡ assertion, made on 30 June, that it was a novelty for Parliament to vote grants of multiple subsidies, but agreed with Sir Francis Seymour’s^‡ complaint of 10 Aug. about the sale of honours by the crown. Another, slightly garbled note expressed his dislike of royal resources being squandered on courtiers, while a claim on 11 Aug. that Buckingham had, at Russell’s request, taken steps to combat piracy in the Channel, prompted a further sharp ‘no’. The baron concurred with remarks by Sir Richard Weston^* (later 1st earl of Portland) about the importance of the king and his people working in harmony, but, significantly, he disagreed with a statement by the Buckingham loyalist Thomas Malet^‡ that ‘parliaments never break with the king but they meet with loss’.91 Ibid. 279, 398, 400, 433, 450, 460.

Preparations for the 1625 Cadiz expedition were already underway during the first Caroline Parliament, obliging Russell to juggle his responsibilities in Devon with his attendance of the Lords. Ordered to levy troops for this campaign, he was once again quick to complain about a London postmaster who had delayed sending his instructions to his deputy lieutenants. Nevertheless, he dutifully supplied the Council with the names of potential billeting commissioners, conducted militia musters, and also helped to implement the Privy Seal Loan that autumn.92 APC, 1625-6, pp. 43-4, 55, 141-2; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 21, 149; Addenda 1625-49, p. 91. Collection proved problematic due to an outbreak of plague in Devon, but the Council was broadly satisfied with Russell’s performance, and in the following spring expressed the hope that its latest instructions would be carried out with his ‘accustomed care’.93 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 151; APC, 1625-6, p. 465.

The elections for the 1626 Parliament saw Russell achieve a clean sweep at Tavistock, which returned both John Pym and Sir John Radcliffe^‡, a close associate of the baron’s kinsman Lord Chandos.94 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 102; vi. 7-8. Russell attended all but eight sittings during this session, so although he was formally excused on 20 Apr. and 14 June, he was in practice barely ever absent.95 Procs. 1626, i. 292, 626. Nevertheless, his performance was comparatively restrained, possibly because he began the Parliament with a mark of royal displeasure. Triers of petitions were selected by the monarch, and once this distinction had been conferred, it was rarely withdrawn. However, Russell, who had now performed the role twice, was not reappointed, the only trier from 1625 to be dropped. The precise reason for this public rebuke is unclear, but Charles evidently did not entirely trust him.96 Procs. 1625, pp. 30-1; Procs. 1626, i. 22-3. At the same time, the earl’s loss of face was eased by the creation of his son William^† (later 1st duke of Bedford) as a knight of the Bath on the eve of the coronation, which suggests that the king hoped for improved relations in the longer term.97 Shaw, i. 161; Coll. of Arms, Heralds VIII, f. 54.

In practice, this mixed royal message did Russell’s standing in the Lords no harm, as he still received 40 appointments out of a possible 49, including membership of the committee and subcommittee for privileges, and the committee for petitions.98 Procs. 1626, i. 48. Even so, he was surprisingly quiet during the parliamentary attack on the duke of Buckingham. On 25 Feb. he argued in favour of limiting the number of proxies held by individual peers, a move designed to curb the royal favourite’s influence in the upper House. Again, on 15 May he denied that Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had said anything treasonable when presenting the impeachment articles against Buckingham, during a debate when peers were effectively obliged to express an opinion. He was also nominated to help prepare for a conference with the Commons about the duke’s detention of a French merchant ship, the St Peter. This was hardly surprising as the incident had caused a trade embargo which impacted significantly on Devon. These episodes aside, Russell maintained a public silence throughout the protracted drama of the impeachment process, though it should be noted that in the Commons his client Pym encouraged the investigation into the St Peter, and later helped to prepare and present the impeachment articles. The extent to which Pym can be seen as Bedford’s spokesman is unclear, but they apparently colluded in March to avert a confrontation between the two Houses, after the Commons blundered by summoning Buckingham to explain his arrest of the St Peter.99 Ibid. 72, 99, 482; Russell, ‘Parlty. Career of Pym’, 150. Similarly, in the showdown between Buckingham and John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, Russell was less visible than might have been expected, given his performance in the 1624 Parliament. On 8 May he briefly defended the Lords’ decision to allow counsel to plead on Bristol’s behalf when he came to trial, while the next day he was appointed to help draft a question to the judges, about whether vital evidence from the king himself would be admissible. Other than that, he merely participated in the examination of Sir Dudley Digges, another of the witnesses.100 Procs. 1626, i. 383, 389, 597.

There was of course much other business to attend to. Russell’s one remaining speech during this session was made on 9 Feb., when he urged a swift resolution to the question of whether Edward Vaux^*, 4th Lord Vaux should be granted parliamentary privilege. Russell may have been active behind the scenes during the confrontation between the king and the Lords over the detention of Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel. On 9 May he was nominated to draft a petition to Charles concerning this case, and then selected to help present it.101 Ibid. 39, 389-90. The baron was also appointed to a Lords’ inquiry after Sir Thomas Monson^‡ complained that he had not received the compensation promised to him in 1624 over Lord Treasurer Middlesex’s corrupt dealings. His involvement in 1625 with attempts to redeem English captives held on the Barbary Coast explains his nomination to consider a new petition on this subject. On 22 May, Russell acted as a supporter when his distant kinsman Oliver St John^*, Lord Tregoz was introduced in the Lords.102 Ibid. 179, 191, 540.

As lord lieutenant of Devon, Russell was appointed ex officio to the committee for the bill to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable. He was subsequently named to help assess England’s coastal defences and munition stores, and to consider a bill to conserve saltpetre stocks.103 Ibid. 53, 110, 319. The needs of Devon’s merchants were reflected in the subjects of several bill committees: the increase of trade, fishing off the American coast, and exports of wool and woollen cloth.104 Ibid. 104, 128, 231, 327. Once again appointed to scrutinize legislation about the estates of the earls of Dorset, his godly reputation explains his selection for six bill committees on religious affairs, from anti-Catholic measures and the enforcement of the Sabbath, to the actions of ecclesiastical courts and the desirability of senior clergy as magistrates.105 Ibid. 127, 267, 300, 313, 327, 357.

War, taxation and the 1628-9 Parliament

The collapse of the 1626 Parliament without a grant of supply made further experiments in arbitrary taxation inevitable. In August, the Devon deputy lieutenants supplied Russell with details of people they considered most able to contribute to a benevolence, but with a warning that this new levy was significantly less popular than traditional parliamentary subsidies. The tone of their message suggested that they expected Russell to react sympathetically. It is unclear whether their unease was communicated to the Privy Council, but by September the benevolence strategy had been abandoned, only to be replaced by the Forced Loan. Collection of this tax was strictly enforced by the government, and Russell himself paid £250 that November, to the surprise of John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, who had clearly expected him to resist. In the following January, he was also sent down to Devon to strengthen the hand of the local commissioners.106 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 414; E401/1913, unfol. (11 Nov. 1626); Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 339; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 99.

Russell finally succeeded his cousin as 4th earl of Bedford in May 1627. However, in material terms at least this elevation made little difference, given the family settlements of the previous decade. Moreover, the military pressure on Devon continued unabated, due to the use of Plymouth for successive naval expeditions, while Bedford was repeatedly called upon to organize further levies of soldiers within the county.107 APC, 1627, pp. 271, 386, 390; 1627-8, pp. 61-2. Conditions in the county reached crisis point in November, when the fleet returned from the Île de Ré, and the local people were instructed to provide billets for the troops for the second time in three years. Following strenuous lobbying by the earl, the Council agreed to relocate able-bodied soldiers to other counties as soon as possible, but within weeks it had become necessary to institute martial law in key areas, in the face of mounting disorder.108 APC, 1627-8, pp. 142, 147, 169. In January 1628, the king finally bowed to political pressure and agreed to summon a new Parliament. However, with money in desperately short supply, the government tried once more to fill its coffers with another privy seal loan. This time Bedford made a stand, and refused outright to cooperate. It seems likely that he and his friend William Cavendish^*, 2nd earl of Devonshire, who similarly declined to lend, were acting in conjunction with other opponents of arbitrary government. Bedford may also have encouraged opposition to the introduction of Ship Money in Devon at around this time, as another means of forcing the king’s hand. At any rate, the earl was now clearly identified as a troublemaker.109 Ibid. 284; Holles Letters, 376; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 84.

Bedford apparently made only one nomination during the 1628 parliamentary elections, ensuring as usual that his client Pym was returned at Tavistock.110 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 102. His own attendance in the Lords that year fell into two distinct parts, since he missed 20 consecutive sittings, between 20 May and 7 June inclusive, as a result of being summarily dispatched to Devon by the king. Rumours soon circulated that the earl, ‘one of the earnest ones for defence of the liberties’, had not been told the purpose of his journey, and was being deliberately kept away from the Lords. In fact, another fleet was due to dock at Plymouth, following a failed attempt by William Feilding^*, 1st earl of Denbigh to relieve La Rochelle, and the government had decided that Bedford’s presence would be conducive to maintaining order when the soldiers and mariners disembarked. In the event, the ships sailed on to Portsmouth, and the earl, finding that he was not needed, promptly requested permission to return to London.111 Birch, i. 358; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 116, 120, 125, 131-2, 146; APC, 1627-8, p. 435. Aside from this enforced interlude in his attendance, Bedford was formally excused on 4 Apr. and 19 June. Despite these interruptions, he was still present for a respectable 69 per cent of the session’s sittings, during which time he held the proxies of his cousin Edward Bourchier^*, 4th earl of Bath, and Francis Leak^*, 1st Lord Deincourt. The latter’s connection with Bedford is unclear, but during this session the earl transferred to Deincourt the lease of a house in Westminster.112 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 151, 667; Acts of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, 1609-42 ed. C.S. Knighton (Westminster Abbey Rec. Soc. v), 83, 102.

Even allowing for his enforced absence, Bedford’s performance was relatively subdued. He made seven speeches, but received only 19 appointments out of a possible fifty-two. As usual, he was named to the committee for privileges and its subcommittee, and in the latter capacity he checked the contents of the Journal at least twice. On 22 Mar. he complained that the newly summoned Henry Clifford^*, 1st Lord Clifford (later 5th earl of Cumberland) had been awarded the precedence belonging to the ancient barony of Clifford, a peerage which was also claimed by his cousin Anne, the dowager countess of Dorset. The Lords duly ruled that Clifford’s place on the barons’ bench should not prejudice the countess’s rights.113 Ibid. 73, 79, 86-7, 89, 92, 113. As a member of the committee for privileges, Bedford helped to rule on the privilege claim made by Lady Purbeck, the adulterous wife of Buckingham’s brother John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck , voting to reject her request.114 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33 (31 Mar. 1628, no. 12).Appointed to the committee for petitions on 21 Mar., Bedford twice reported from this body to the House concerning disafforestation in Leicestershire.115 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 79, 692, 704.

Bedford chaired the committee for the bill to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable, and reported the measure on 7 April. However, the Lords referred it back to the committee for amendment, and it failed to re-emerge.116 Ibid. 88, 157-8. On 29 Mar. the earl also reported from a conference on the joint petition of both Houses against recusants. The king’s initial response to this document included a reminder that Parliament had as yet made little progress on granting taxation. Bedford evidently took this remark to heart, and on 1 Apr. he observed: ‘We must not lie upon our beds and pray God to help him, and endeavour to afford him no supply’.117 Ibid. 120-1, 134. Surprisingly, he is never recorded as having spoken in the Lords during the lengthy debates on the liberties of the subject, though it is clear from comments in his commonplace books that he took a close interest in the issues, particularly the operation of martial law, and the delicate balance between individual rights and the proper workings of the royal prerogative. On 9 and 14 May the earl was named to committees to examine the Commons’ Petition of Right, and prepare arguments in favour of modifying its text in line with Charles’s undertaking on arbitrary imprisonment. According to the West Country diarist Walter Yonge^‡, it was at about this time that Bedford clashed with both Buckingham and his ally, the earl of Dorset. The latter ‘laboured that the judges might give their opinions concerning the Petition of Right. Bedford replied no, because they were parties to breach of our liberties, and withal told them that the Parliament were now judges to them’. No such exchange is known to have occurred in the House. However, if Yonge’s remarks reflect the stance adopted by Bedford in committee, then the government’s decision to dispatch him to Devon just as debates on the Petition came to a head may have been politically motivated. Following his return to Westminster, the earl was appointed to examine witnesses against Roger Manwaring^† (later bishop of St Davids), who had preached in support of the Forced Loan.118 Ibid. 400, 421, 612, 724, 727-8; Add. 35331, f. 18.

Bedford was mentioned in the bill concerning the estates of the 2nd earl of Devonshire, since he was one of this peer’s trustees. Named to the bill’s committee on 26 Mar., he apparently also communicated with the Commons about this legislation. When the measure was reported in the lower House on 10 May, it was noted that Bedford had assented to its conditions.119 Ibid. 104; CD 1628, iii. 10, 356. Predictably, Bedford was nominated to the committee to consider the, by now perennial, bill on the earl of Dorset’s estates, and no doubt also welcomed his inclusion on the legislative committee about fen drainage.120 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 371, 700.

Judging from his commonplace books, Bedford was kept well briefed on events in the Commons, since he summarized three speeches made there by Sir Benjamin Rudyard^‡, including his famous utterance on 22 Mar.: ‘This is the crisis of parliaments; by this we shall know whether parliaments will live or die’. His notes also reveal that he agreed with Sir Robert Phelips^‡ that Devon’s subsidy assessment was too high. Bedford recorded extracts from a handful of speeches in the Lords, along with some precedents and more general observations on proceedings. His attitude towards debates in the upper House is perhaps summed up by the comment: ‘The weakest and boldest speak first …. The ablest speak next; the cunningest last.’121 Ibid. 723-8.

During the autumn of 1628, moderates on the Privy Council seem to have tried to recruit more allies to their ranks, and in late November rumours spread that Bedford was about to be appointed. However, nothing came of this.122 R. Cust, ‘Was there an Alternative to the Personal Rule?’, History, xc. 345; Birch, i. 440, 447. When Parliament reconvened in January 1629, Bedford attended assiduously, missing only three sittings of this short session. As in 1628, he held the earl of Bath’s proxy.123 LJ, iv. 3b. Yet again he was named to the committee and subcommittee for privileges, and the committee for petitions. He received eight other appointments, but made no speeches. Predictably, the earl was nominated to help survey the kingdom’s defences and munition stores. He was also selected to help draft the Lords’ petition complaining about the social precedence enjoyed by Englishmen with Scottish or Irish peerages, and was chosen to attend the king when Charles was requested to augment the estate of Robert de Vere^*, 19th earl of Oxford.124 Ibid. 6a-b, 27b, 34b, 37b. In addition, Bedford was required to consider a proposal for an academy to educate the sons of peers and greater gentry, originally suggested by Buckingham in 1628, and now reintroduced by Arundel. The topics of his bill committee appointments included the maintenance of clergy and almshouses.125 Ibid. 7b, 10b, 39b. Following this session, the earl obtained a copy of the ‘True Relation’ of the Commons’ proceedings, which he carefully perused. This time he made barely any marginal annotations, but instead underlined all the passages which he considered significant, particularly the inquiry into the Petition of Right’s publication, the protracted battle over tunnage and poundage, and the Commons’ attacks on Arminianism. This manuscript was evidently prepared specially for the earl, since, in a departure from the standard text, it includes the Lords’ petition about Scottish and Irish peerages, and the supporting arguments presented to the king.126 Bedford Estates Archives, HMC 197, unfol.

Projects and provocations, 1629-39

For the first few months after the spectacular demise of the 1629 session, Bedford’s life seemingly carried on much as ever, with the usual round of lieutenancy duties. In August he was even summoned to Windsor to witness the signing of the peace treaty with France.127 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 587; 1629-31, pp. 13, 75, 80; APC, 1629-30, p. 115; LC5/132, p. 137. Then, in early November, he was suddenly arrested, along with Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset, the earl of Clare, Sir Robert Cotton and Bedford’s lawyer, Oliver St John^‡. Their crime, it emerged, was to have circulated a pamphlet among themselves which purported to offer advice on how a ruler might achieve absolute power and dispense with popular assemblies. With political tensions still running high in the country, such an act was considered seditious, and this group of friends were already viewed as opponents of the government. It quickly emerged that the offending tract actually dated from the middle of James I’s reign, and had been passed around merely as a curiosity.128 APC, 1629-30, p. 171, 177; Birch, ii. 37-40; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 233; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 345; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 96; Holles Letters ed. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 400-1; E. Foss, Judges of Eng. vi. 477. However, Charles was reluctant to admit that he had overreacted, and the prisoners were released on bail in December pending a prosecution in Star Chamber. The trial was delayed until May 1630, at which point the king dropped all charges, on the excuse that he was celebrating the recent birth of his heir, the future Charles II (Charles Stuart^†). Nevertheless, these events seemed to affect Bedford quite badly. He was palpably relieved to be freed from confinement, and in the deposition he prepared for Star Chamber, he went out of his way to profess his loyalty and support for Charles’s policies. In reality, this episode pushed him further in the opposite direction, though for the best part of the next decade he continued in public to toe the government’s line.129 Birch, ii. 37-8, 43, 57-8; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 120; State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, iii. 387, 398-9.

Further clashes followed. After complaints from the Privy Council in 1630 about the state of the roads around Covent Garden, the estate adjacent to Bedford House in Westminster, the earl initiated a wholesale redevelopment of the district, obtaining a royal licence for the project, and even allowing the king to influence the designs.130 APC, 1629-30, pp. 297-8; Coventry Docquets, 283; D. Duggan, ‘Prosecution of the Earl of Bedford’, London Topographical Rec. xxix. 5. This licence cost Bedford £2,000, but in 1635 he was again prosecuted in Star Chamber for failing to comply with building regulations, and made to pay a further £2,000 for permission to continue construction. While some aspects of the Covent Garden development were genuinely of inferior quality, it was widely believed at the time that this second licence was imposed on the earl primarily to raise money for the government. The fact that he had commissioned a church there, the layout of which deliberately ran contrary to the new Laudian requirements, cannot have helped his cause.131 E403/3040 (2 Mar. 1631); Duggan, ‘Prosecution’, 1, 3-8, 19; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 206, 263, 372; G. Parry, Arts of the Anglican Counter-Reformation, 35-6.

It was also in 1630 that Bedford launched a major undertaking to drain the Great Level in the fens, where he was one of the principal landowners. Such a project had been contemplated several times before, but the necessary degree of investment had not been forthcoming. Under the earl’s leadership, the work finally got underway, with royal consent. In January 1631, a contract was agreed whereby he and his partners would eventually receive 43,000 acres of drained lands as their recompense, with the crown taking a further 12,000 acres.132 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 311; 1631-3, p. 200; H.C. Darby, Draining of the Fens, 40-1; D. Summers, Gt. Level, 57, 62-3. Over the next six years, Bedford spent at least £93,000 of his personal wealth, and provided much of the security needed to allow his partners to take out substantial loans. In October 1637 the task was formally declared to be finished, clearing the way for the division of property among the undertakers. In reality, there remained work still to be done, but their financial reserves were all but exhausted.133 Summers, 64, 69; Darby, 58. However, in the following year, the king refused to approve the final deal, on the grounds that the draining had not been perfectly completed, whereupon the parcelling out of land was cancelled. In July 1638, Charles announced that he would finish the task himself, and take 57,000 acres for the crown. Bedford and his partners were offered 40,000 acres as compensation, which was not unduly harsh, but the manner of the king’s intervention represented a major loss of face for the earl, who was still expected to meet outstanding demands for pay from the workforce. Moreover, due to the mounting crisis in Scotland, Charles was not in fact able to proceed with his own undertaking, and over the next few years much of what Bedford had achieved was lost.134 CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 252-3; 1638-9, p. 155; Darby, 46, 59-60; PC2/49, f. 279r-v.

Another dispute between the earl and king also revolved around money. In 1632 Bedford received a significant windfall when he secured custody of his feeble-minded cousin, the 4th earl of Bath, which reportedly gave him control over an estate worth at least £10,000 a year.135 SO1/2, f. 116v; C115/106/8410, 8423; CP, ii. 18. However, in the following year the king proposed that Bath, a widower, should marry one of the queen’s ladies-in-waiting, which would have effectively ended Bedford’s influence over him. Charles tactlessly invited Bedford himself to win his kinsman round to this scheme, but instead Bath turned down the idea, explaining that he was still in mourning. This excuse looked rather less convincing when Bath, barely six months later, married a Buckinghamshire gentlewoman instead. This apparent snub angered the king, who placed the blame firmly on Bedford’s shoulders.136 CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 64, 71-2; HMC Cowper, ii. 14; Strafforde Letters, i. 165.

Outwardly at least the earl continued to cooperate with Charles, dutifully carrying out his lieutenancy responsibilities, and occasionally participating in court ceremonies. However, the king’s treatment of him, particularly over Covent Garden and the fen drainage scheme, meant that tensions remained below the surface.137 CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 561-2; 1635, pp. 132-3; PC2/43, f. 346r-v; 2/44, ff. 304v-5; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 75-7, 80. It was no great surprise that when Bedford arranged marriages for his own children, their partners included the earl of Bristol’s heir, George Digby^† (later 2nd earl of Bristol), and a daughter of the earl of Somerset, unions which strengthened his connection with other peers who were viewed with suspicion by the monarch. However, Charles actually encouraged the latter marriage, which was considered a love match, and it was Bedford who quibbled over the size of the dowry, for, as the newsletter-writer George Garrard observed: ‘my lord of Bedford loves money a little too much’.138 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 420; Strafforde Letters ed. Knowler, ii. 2, 58.

Final years, 1639-41

In January 1639, with the Covenanters gaining ground in Scotland, the king summoned his peers to attend him at York, bringing with them a complement of men and arms appropriate to their status. Bedford initially agreed to make the journey, but then offered £500 in order to be excused. Charles let him stay at home, but set £1,000 as the price.139 SO1/3, ff. 114v-15; CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 601; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 605. Given that the earl had been expected to refuse to cooperate, this was a positive outcome for the government. However, Bedford was probably less sanguine, given that he was still being pursued by creditors over the fen drainage project, and had not yet been allowed to take possession of the land allocated to him under the king’s revised terms of the previous year.140 Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 181; CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 495-6; 1639, p. 436; PC2/51, ff. 100v-1.

By 1640 the earl had broadly come round to supporting the Scottish rebels. His commonplace books include one of Charles’s declarations against them, vigorously annotated to indicate his disagreement with the royal policies.141 Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 240. During the Short Parliament, Bedford voted against giving supply precedence over redress of grievances, while in August he masterminded the Petition of the Twelve Peers, urging the end of hostilities with Scotland, the abandonment of religious innovations and arbitrary taxation, and the summoning of a new Parliament.142 Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 193; CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 639-40; Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 149-50; Clarendon State Pprs. (1773), ii. 110-12. While unhappy with the king’s preferred alternative of a Great Council of Peers, he attended this assembly, and was predictably selected to treat with the Scots at Ripon.143 Clarendon State Pprs. ii. 115; HMC 8th Rep. ii. 57. In September rumours spread that Bedford would soon be made a privy councillor. According to Edward Hyde^†, later 1st earl of Clarendon, the earl was ‘of too great and plentiful a fortune to wish a subversion of the government; and it quickly appeared that he only intended to make himself and his friends great at court, not at all to lessen the court itself’. When the Long Parliament met, Bedford was the dominant figure in the Lords, while at the same time steering events in the Commons through clients such as Pym, John Hampden^‡ and Oliver St John.144 Add. 29974 (pt. 1), f. 317; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 241, 243-7; J. Adamson, Noble Revolt, 138. The earl began to explore the possibility of reviving the crown’s finances in return for the reform of grievances, and by early 1641 he was widely expected to become lord treasurer. As a first step, he joined the Privy Council in February, but his rapprochement with the court, and his reluctance to contemplate radical Church reforms, gradually cost him influence in Parliament. He proved unable to prevent the execution of Thomas Wentworth^*, 1st earl of Strafford, and in May 1641, as events hung in the balance, he unexpectedly died of smallpox. According to Clarendon, he ultimately regretted the radical courses which Parliament was now pursuing, but it is a moot point whether he would have been able to prevent the slide towards civil war had he lived. Rather, his death ‘rescued him … from those visible misfortunes which men of all conditions have since undergone’. He was succeeded as 5th earl of Bedford by his son William.145 Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 242, 252-4; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 366; HMC Cowper, ii. 272; PC2/53, f. 44; Clarendon, i. 308, 318-19, 334-5; Wiffen, ii. 191.