SEYMOUR, William (1587-1660)

Seymour was the great-grandson of Edward VI’s protector, Edward Seymour^†, 1st duke of Somerset, and grandson of Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford. At his birth in 1587, the prospect of inheriting the earldom, let alone the dukedom (which had been forfeited in 1552), must have seemed remote. Not only was he a younger son, but the queen, Elizabeth I, had also refused to accept the legality of Herford’s first marriage, to Lady Katharine Grey, thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy of their children, including Seymour’s father. Elizabeth was furious that someone so closely connected with the succession – Katharine was the sister of Lady Jane Grey, and the granddaughter of Henry VIII’s sister Mary and her husband Charles Brandon^†, 1st duke of Suffolk) - had married without her knowledge.39 T. Lewis, Lives of the Friends and Contemporaries of Lord Chan. Clarendon, ii. 283, 344-5, 358.

The early Jacobean period, 1603-20

After the accession of James I in 1603, Hertford tried to have the validity of his first marriage confirmed. However, he was unsuccessful, probably because Henry VIII’s will had placed the Brandon line before that of the Stuarts in the succession, so making Katharine Grey’s descendants potential challengers to the English crown. Nevertheless, in February 1608, James agreed that Seymour’s father would become earl of Hertford and Lord Beauchamp on the death of the 1st earl. Patents to that effect, including remainders to the eldest surviving son, passed the great seal the following May. However, James made it clear that he regarded these as new creations. Consequently, the new earl of Hertford would only enjoy precedence over earls created after May 1608 rather than after 1559, the date of his grandfather’s patent.40 Ibid. 374-86; SO3.3, unfol. (28 Feb. 1608); 47th DKR, 101.

In 1610 Seymour continued the family tradition of wedding potential pretenders to the English crown by secretly marrying James I’s cousin, Arbella Stuart. He was subsequently sent to the Tower, but escaped the following year and fled abroad. However, after Arbella died childless in 1615, ending the possibility of uniting her claim to the throne with that of the Seymours’, he was allowed to return to England. During his time abroad, Seymour was received into the Catholic Church. However, his apparent conversion was evidently motivated by opportunism rather than by religious conviction; indeed, a Jesuit who questioned him about his theological views reported that they tended toward the atheistic and that he was sceptical even about such basic Christian doctrines as the immortality of the soul. Nevertheless, after his return to England, Seymour seems to have developed into a genuine, but moderate, supporter of the Church of the England, though without any inclination to Laudianism. He helped sustain worship in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer when proscribed during the Interregnum and supported episcopacy, although without ‘any great inclination to the person of any churchman’ or support for claims that the rule of bishops was divinely ordained.41 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 938-9; B. Fitzgibbon, ‘Conversion of William Seymour’ Recusant Hist. i. 118-19; Clarendon, i. 563-4; B. Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs (1854), i. 379; D.L. Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, 273; HP Lords, 1660-1715, iv. 422.

In March 1617 Seymour remarried, choosing as his wife the sister of Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex. He thereby created a connection which was to play an important part in his political life until the outbreak of the Civil War. In July 1629, for instance, he told Essex that the two of them were ‘nearly linked in friendship and alliance’. However, it is not clear how far Essex influenced his political ideology. Like his younger brother, Sir Francis^† (subsequently 1st Lord Seymour), Seymour probably did not share Essex’s enthusiasm for intervention on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years’ War.42 Add. 46188, f. 114; HP Commons, 1604-1629, vi. 286.

Following the death of his elder brother without surviving children in 1618, Seymour, whose father had died in 1612, became the potential beneficiary of the 1608 patent. However, despite James’s insistence that this instrument created a new title, Seymour maintained that he was heir to his grandfather’s earldom, meaning that he believed he was entitled to be regarded as 2nd earl of Hertford on the latter’s death. He accordingly adopted the courtesy title of Lord Beauchamp, as his elder brother and father had done before him. James’s support was nevertheless imperative, and by 1620 the situation had become urgent, as it was increasingly clear that the 1st earl of Hertford had not long to live. Seymour and Hertford therefore entered into negotiations with the king. Matters were complicated by Hertford’s estranged third wife, Frances, who feared that, on the death of her husband, the Seymours would try to deny her rights to her jointure. Believing that ‘nothing but hope or fear will make them compound or bargain with me’, she lobbied the king’s favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, to dissuade James from granting the Seymours their wish until she was satisfied.43 Harl. 1581, f. 346r-v.

Hertford and Seymour sought a writ of acceleration to summon Seymour to sit in the 1621 Parliament as Lord Beauchamp.44 Ibid. Such a summons would imply that Seymour was heir to his grandfather’s titles, as writs of acceleration were only issued to the heirs of earls. However, although he granted the writ,45 Nicholas, Procs. 1621, i. 26. James had no intention of abandoning the agreement reached with the Seymours in 1608, and may only have agreed to issue the writ on condition that Seymour, now Lord Beauchamp by right rather than by courtesy, did not take his seat. That way, were Hertford to die while Parliament was sitting, there was no danger that Beauchamp would persuade the Lords to seat him in his grandfather’s place before James had a chance to intervene. Beauchamp was thus obliged to grant his proxy to Essex.46 LJ, iii. 4b, 39a. Hertford had also secured a place for Beauchamp in the Commons (for Marlborough), presumably to ensure that Beauchamp would have a seat in Parliament whether or not the writ of acceleration was granted, but Beauchamp’s summons to the upper House now precluded him from membership of the lower.

The later Jacobean period, 1621-5: 1st or 2nd earl of Hertford?

Hertford finally died on 6 Apr. 1621, during the Easter recess. However, Beauchamp, the new earl of Hertford, was not sent a writ of summons. On 26 Apr. his brother-in-law Essex drew attention to this in the House of Lords, which thereupon ordered the clerk of the crown in Chancery to issue the writ. However, the clerk’s superior, Lord Chancellor St Alban (Francis Bacon^*), announced that he had received ‘an absolute commandment’ from James not to issue the writ until further notice. On 18 May, Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, who had recently campaigned with Essex in the Palatinate, again raised the matter, whereupon a committee was dispatched to the king. Six days later, the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*, reported that James was only willing to issue a writ on condition that Hertford took his place in the Lords in accordance with the 1608 patent. This condition evidently proved unacceptable to Hertford, as he continued to stay away from Parliament.47 Ibid. 90a, 98a, 129a, 130b; Add. 40085, f. 159v. One practical consideration which may have influenced Hertford was that the 1559 precedence placed him next to his brother-in-law, Essex, in the House of Lords’ seating.

Shortly after Parliament rose for the summer, Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, was arrested. The newsletter-writer Joseph Mead thought that Southampton had offended the king by investigating the lawfulness of the 1st earl of Hertford’s marriage to Katharine Grey, and claimed that there was a proposal to have the children of the marriage declared legitimate in Parliament. However, this story is not corroborated by other sources. Southampton’s detention was primarily due to his repeated criticism of Buckingham in Parliament; Hertford does not feature in surviving accounts of Southampton’s interrogation.48 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 263-4; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. app. unpag.

Over the course of the summer, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York) and newly appointed lord keeper, tried to broker a settlement, sending Hertford a proposition which, unfortunately, does not survive. A response drafted by Sir Robert Phelips^‡, a prominent Member of the Commons who had served the 1st earl of Hertford as deputy lieutenant in Somerset, argued that Hertford could not accept Williams’ proposal without ‘evident and infallible wrong and prejudice to the honour and right of my descendants’. This suggests that Williams’ proposition entailed accepting the 1608 patent, a course of action which Hertford, or at least Phelips, considered dishonourable. Consequently, Hertford continued to avoid Westminster when the session reconvened in November 1621. This may not have displeased James and Buckingham, as they would not have wished Hertford to emulate his younger brother, Sir Francis Seymour, then sitting in the Commons, whose attacks on the monopolists during the 1621 Parliament incurred the favourite’s ire.49 Som. RO, DD/PH221/19; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 285.

When the 1624 Parliament was summoned, Lord Keeper Williams retained Hertford’s writ of summons ‘because there was some difference about his precedency’.50 D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 176. Hertford responded by drawing up a petition. Though now lost, this evidently stated that he was willing to take his seat in accordance with the 1608 patent, so long as he had permission to make a ‘protestation to sue for his grandfather’s [place] according to his Majesty’s laws, when the king shall give him leave’. This proposal was considered ‘modest and submissive’ by the Privy Council and by Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales), who asked Buckingham, now a duke, to persuade James accept it, but without success.51 Cabala (1691), i. 274. Consequently, on 21 Feb., Chamberlain reported that Hertford had either not been summoned or had received only a writ ‘pro forma’, with instructions to stay away from Westminster.52 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 546. The latter appears to have been the case, for when the House was called on 23 Feb., it was recorded that Hertford had been excused and had, once again, given his proxy to Essex.53 LJ, iii. 214b. The Journal records him as attending on 25 Feb., but not the manuscript minutes. In the elections to the Commons, Hertford secured the return of his brother for Marlborough, and two of his servants, Edward Kirton^‡ and Hugh Compton^‡ for Ludgershall and Great Bedwyn respectively. He also probably gave his support to Phelips’ election for Somerset.54 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 346, 440, 443, 447.

Hertford had particular reason to attend the 1624 Parliament as he wished to promote an estate bill. The avowed purpose of the bill was to enable him to settle some debts by selling part of his lands. According to the text, his grandfather had left him liabilities which exceeded the value of the 1st earl’s personal estate. Moreover, two thirds of the lands which Hertford had inherited were tied up in jointures for the widows of his grandfather and elder brother. However, Hertford may have allowed the bill to give an exaggerated impression of his financial problems to justify its passage. His grandfather had certainly become heavily indebted, largely because of his embassy to the Spanish Netherlands in 1605, but the Seymour estates, concentrated in Wiltshire and Somerset, were extensive and there is no evidence that the debt burden had become unsustainable. It is noticeable that the lands to be sold were mostly located in Lincolnshire. They were part of the former Brandon estates granted to the 1st earl of Hertford in 1609. As these properties were distant from the core of the Seymour lands they added little to Hertford’s local powerbase in the west and were presumably expensive to manage. However, because these properties had been entailed, they could not be sold without legislation. It undoubtedly made economic sense for Hertford to settle his grandfather’s debts by selling peripheral properties, but this should probably not to be taken as evidence of deep-seated financial weakness.55 PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1623/21J1n39; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 461-2; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 410; HMC Bath, iv. 378; S.J. Gunn, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, c. 1484-1545, p. 173. The other properties to be sold were a manor in Warwickshire, which had also been part of the Brandon estates, and a manor in Middlesex.

The bill also contained provisions to enable Hertford’s younger brother, Sir Francis Seymour, to sell some lands. Seymour was then sitting in the Commons and, probably as a consequence, the bill was first introduced in the lower House, where it received a first reading on 6 March. The measure was read for a second time four days later, when Sir John Eliot^‡, vice admiral of Devon, protested on behalf of the Devonshire branch of the Seymour family, who stood to inherit the entailed lands if the Wiltshire line failed. Eliot was answered by John Wightwick^‡, a barrister closely connected to the Kirton family, traditional servants of the earls of Hertford. Wightwick pointed out that the bill assigned lands of equal value to replace those which were to be sold in the entail. Nevertheless, Eliot and a significant Devon contingent were named to the committee, including John Drake^‡ (sitting for Devon), Drake’s son Sir John^‡ and Sir Edward Giles^‡ (sitting for Totnes). They were balanced by Hertford’s two servants, Kirton and Crompton, plus Wightwick and two members closely connected to Essex, his steward William Wingfield^‡ and Sir Walter Pye^‡. Both Wingfield and Pye were trustees for the countess of Hertford’s jointure, and it was Pye who reported the bill, on 23 March.56 CJ, i. 681a, 730a, 747b; ‘Spring 1624’, p. 97; PROB 11/136, ff. 277-80; Wilts. and Swindon Hist. Centre, 9/4/33.

The bill seems to have received a smoother passage in the Lords, although Essex’s nomination to the committee after the second reading was rejected, presumably because he was felt to be too close to Hertford. Nevertheless, it was successfully reported by Essex’s first cousin, Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick, the following day.57 LJ, iii. 302a, 304a; Add. 40088, f. 36; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 17v. The bill subsequently passed all the relevant parliamentary stages, but, when James I gave his assent to the measure, he ordered that a memorial should be entered ‘both in the Parliament book, and on the back of the bill itself’, that it was not his ‘intent … to weaken the sentence given in the time of the late Queen Elizabeth, concerning the pretended marriage of Edward, late earl of Hertford’.58 LJ, iii. 422b. See also the dorse of the original act. PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1623/21J1n39. Despite the bill, Hertford remained significantly in debt; on the eve of the Civil War his liabilities may have totalled £22,000, and an indenture drawn up in 1652 itemized debts totalling £19,100. Nevertheless, his gross rental in the early 1640s has been estimated at more than £13,000 a year, making him one of England’s wealthiest peers.59 Stone, 761, 779; PROB 11/302, f. 353v.

The accession of Charles in 1625 gave Hertford a fresh opportunity to press his case. The summoning of a new Parliament enabled the earl to use his electoral patronage for the benefit of two Buckingham clients, Sir John Brooke^‡ at Great Bedwyn and Sir Robert Pye^‡ at Ludgershall. It is possible that he agreed to nominate these candidates because they were known to him: Brooke had accompanied Hertford’s grandfather to the Spanish Netherlands in 1605 and Pye was the brother of Sir Walter, who had reported the Seymour estate bill in 1624. In addition, Hertford and William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, Wiltshire’s other great aristocratic magnate, combined to ensure the election of Hertford’s brother, Sir Francis, and Sir Henry Ley^* (subsequently 2nd earl of Marlborough) for that county. This was probably also pleasing to Buckingham because Ley was the son of the lord treasurer, James Ley^*, Lord Ley (subsequently 1st earl of Marlborough). Edward Kirton was again elected at Hertford’s nomination, this time for Marlborough, and Hertford’s friend, Phelips, was re-elected for Somerset.60 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 430, 440, 444, 447; iii. 334; Procs. 1626, iv. 396-7 (1625 addenda material).

Hertford was in London in April 1625 and it was presumably at this time that he opened negotiations with Buckingham. However, he received the disappointing response that, if he would ‘renounce the king’s favour’ and the 1608 patent, he would be allowed to make his case in the law courts. This would be a very risky strategy for Hertford, for if he failed to prove that his grandparents had been legally married he would be left without title. Consequently, on 3 May he rejected the duke’s proposal. Although he ostensibly expressed his willingness to forgo the 1608 patent, he argued that it had been James I’s disfavour that had prevented his grandfather from securing a judgement upholding the marriage, and that only Charles’s support could reverse that situation. Consequently, he could not forgo the king’s favour. He complained that ‘at this time’, meaning the king’s recent accession, ‘when all honest hearts have such cause of rejoicing’, he was ‘forced to hide myself’, indicating that he was unwilling to appear in public on formal occasions until his precedence had been settled. He asked to be able to ‘plead mine own right’ with the king’s ‘good liking’, or to be given a grant of his grandfather’s precedence ‘by his [Charles’s] special favour (which I rather desire)’.61 Procs. 1626, iv. 396-7; SP16/2/14.

Hertford’s plea to be allowed his grandfather’s precedence was unavailing and therefore he again failed to attend the Lords when the first Caroline Parliament met. At the call of the House on 23 June 1625 it was announced that he intended to send a proxy, but whether he did so is unknown. Essex, who had previously been the recipient of his proxy, was still serving with the English forces in the Netherlands, although he returned to England in time to attend the Lords for the Oxford sitting. Hertford himself was in Oxford on 4 Aug., the first day on which Essex attended the Lords, when Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu, encountered him in company with the king and Buckingham, no doubt pressing his case to be granted his grandfather’s precedence.62 Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 136. Towards the end of the Parliament, Hertford’s brother, Sir Francis Seymour, launched a thinly veiled attack on Buckingham, for which offence he was subsequently pricked as sheriff to ensure he could not be re-elected to the Commons in 1626.

Hertford takes his seat, 1626

Hertford was no longer willing to use his patronage on Buckingham’s behalf in the elections to the second Caroline Parliament. Indeed, he may have secured the return of the jurist John Selden^‡ at Great Bedwyn in the hope that the anti-Buckingham Selden would continue Sir Francis Seymour’s attack on the duke in the new assembly. Hertford also ensured that Kirton was re-elected for Marlborough, and was almost certainly responsible for the election of Sir William Walter^‡, a friend of Essex’s steward, Wingfield, at Ludgershall. Sir Robert Phelips, who had also been pricked as sheriff, secured the ultimately superfluous return of Selden and Kirton at Ilchester, presumably at Hertford’s behest, suggesting that the earl was particular keen to see them in the Commons.63 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 354, 440, 444, 446; vi. 667-8.

Hertford stayed away from the coronation on 2 Feb. 1626, as once again he was ranked in accordance with the 1608 precedence.64 SP16/20/8. However, Buckingham’s desire to shore up his position in the forthcoming Parliament, which assembled four days later, resulted in a sudden reversal of policy. According to an anonymous account, Buckingham, ‘thinking to have worked him [Hertford] on his side’, instructed the lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry^* (subsequently 1st Lord Coventry), to inform Hertford that he would be granted his grandfather’s precedence after all.65 Procs. 1626, iv. 344. Consequently, Hertford finally took his place in the House of Lords when the Parliament opened on 6 February. Hertford subsequently stayed away until 15 Feb., but thereafter was a regular attender. He was excused on 17 Mar., but returned to the House the following day. In total, he was recorded as present at 89 per cent of the sittings.66 Ibid. i. 49, 172.

Herford made eight recorded speeches but was named to only nine of the 49 committees appointed by the Lords in 1626. On 15 Feb. he was appointed to the committee and subcommittee for privileges.67 Ibid. 48. Privilege was clearly important to Hertford and, on 24 Apr., he called for a serjeant-at-arms to be punished ‘for saying he cared not for it’.68 Ibid. 310. It became a highly contentious issue during the 1626 Parliament as Buckingham’s longstanding enemy, John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, had been denied a writ of summons, while another of the duke’s antagonists, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th earl) of Arundel, was sent to the Tower, ostensibly for the unauthorized marriage of his son to a royal kinswoman. Hertford may have particularly sympathized with the latter, given his own history and the fact that his own brother had been deliberately excluded from the Commons.

Hertford twice reported from the committee for privileges, which has led to the suggestion that he chaired that body.69 C. Russell, PEP, 285. However, reports were also made by Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester, and John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare. The first report, on 30 Mar., concerned Bristol’s case. Hertford declared that the committee, finding no precedent for denying a peer a writ, recommended that the king be pressed to summon Bristol to attend Parliament. In response, Buckingham informed the House that a writ had now been sent to the earl.70 Procs. 1626, i. 225.

Six days later Hertford again reported from the committee, this time about Arundel. Proceedings in this case had been suspended by order of the House on 15 Mar., but an inquiry by the privileges committee into which absent lords had failed to send proxies had evidently been used by Arundel’s supporters to reopen case. With the earl imprisoned, the five peers who had entrusted their votes to Arundel had been disenfranchised. As a result, following a report from Clare about the proxies of the absent lords, Hertford informed the House that the committee could find no clear precedent for the commitment of a peer while Parliament was sitting without a trial or judgement of the upper House. The circumvention of the order of the 15 Mar. brought protests but the subcommittee for privileges was authorized to continue consideration of the case.71 Ibid. 256-7.

During the 1626 Parliament the attack on Buckingham which Sir Francis Seymour had helped to initiate in 1625 developed into full-blown impeachment proceedings. When the Buckingham supporter, William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (later archbishop of Canterbury), tried to assess the likely votes of the members of the upper House in early May, he classified Hertford in an intermediary group of lords who were neither firmly committed to opposing or supporting the duke. Laud probably hoped that Hertford’s gratitude to Buckingham for granting him his grandfather’s precedence would cause him to refrain from casting his vote with the duke’s opponents, but he must also have known that the earl’s nominees in the Commons supported the impeachment proceedings: Kirton and Selden played a major part in compiling the charges; Selden helped deliver the articles of impeachment to the Lords on 8 May; and Sir William Walter attacked Buckingham in a widely publicized speech in which he called on the king to take the advice of ‘noblemen from among all the people, not upstarts of a night’s growth’. Hertford must, of course, have made his electoral nominations before being granted his grandfather’s precedence, but it presumably would not been difficult to restrain the activities of his servant, Kirton, at least had he wished to do so. Instead, Kirton was much more active in the 1626 Parliament than in previous assemblies, mostly in the anti-Buckingham cause.72 E. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 169; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 30; vi. 267, 270, 667-8; Procs. 1626, ii. 324. Nevertheless, Hertford himself is known to have spoken on the subject only once, on 15 May, when he was one of the peers who made the protestation that Sir Dudley Digges^‡, arrested for his introductory speech at the delivery of the charges to the upper House, had not used any words dishonourable to the king.73 Procs. 1626, i. 484.

On 2 Mar. Hertford successfully moved for Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey) to be allowed counsel to assist him in claiming the earldom of Oxford. Willoughby had been appointed to the Lords committee for the 1624 Seymour estate bill, so it is possible that this motion stemmed from gratitude.74 Ibid. 94; LJ, iii. 302a. A fortnight later, Hertford spoke in support of Bishop Williams, who had fallen out with Buckingham and been removed from the lord keepership, after one Timothy Pinkney petitioned the Lords complaining that Williams had failed to obey an order of the upper House, issued in 1624 on Pinkney’s behalf. However, Hertford, who apparently had his sons educated in Williams’ household, moved for the bishop ‘to be forgiven’.75 Procs. 1626, i. 168; J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), ii. 36.

On 1 Apr. Hertford was named to the committee for the bill to punish Edmund Nicholson, the projector of the pretermitted customs, a controversial additional levy on cloth exports. He may have chaired its meetings, for on 22 Apr. it was he who reported that the bill was fit to sleep.76 Procs. 1626, i. 239, 300. Hertford’s other committees included bills to increase trade, regulate apparel and punish scandalous ministers. In addition, on 17 May he was added to the committee for petitions.77 Ibid. 104, 248, 265, 267, 496. On 15 June, the last day of the Parliament, he joined with Theophilus Howard^*, 2nd earl of Suffolk, in moving for members of the House to pay fees to the gentleman usher.78 Ibid. 636.

Prior to 1626 the uncertainty over his precedence meant that Hertford was not a justice of the peace for Wiltshire; ranking him on the bench would have been just too difficult. Consequently, when the 1st earl of Hertford stepped down as custos rotulorum of Wiltshire in the early 1610s he was replaced by his youngest grandson, Sir Francis Seymour. Not until the summer of 1626, by which time the question of precedence had been settled, did Hertford become a magistrate. He also became custos rotulorum, as Sir Francis Seymour, now out of favour, was purged from the bench. However, this did not necessarily mean that the earl had been reconciled with Buckingham. Indeed, he was presumably unhappy at his brother’s disgrace. Buckingham may have promoted Hertford to check the local power of Wiltshire’s lord lieutenant, Pembroke, who had been one of the architects of the impeachment proceedings against the duke. Although Buckingham and Pembroke were reconciled in the aftermath of the Parliament, the duke probably had no wish to enhance his rival’s local power base.79 SP14/33, f. 66; C66/1988; Harl. 286, f. 297; Sainty, Lords Lieutenants 1585-1642, p. 36; C. Russell, PEP, 326.

The Forced Loan and the 1628-9 Parliament

At the end of August 1626 Charles appealed directly to Hertford for a contribution to the benevolence the king was seeking to levy to compensate him for Parliament’s failure to vote subsidies. Charles expected a positive response, ‘particularly from yourself’, presumably in gratitude for being granted the right to date the creation of his earldom to 1559.80 Som. RO, DD/PH/219/36. However, there is no evidence that Hertford replied. When Charles initiated a Forced Loan instead the following autumn, it was initially reported that Hertford was one of the peers who refused to contribute. However, he soon fell into line, paying his assessment by November,81 Procs. 1626, iv. 348; E401/1386, rot. 36. perhaps fearing that he might otherwise lose his newly acquired position as head of the Wiltshire bench to his local rival, Pembroke. Nevertheless, in February 1628, he signed a letter from the Wiltshire bench rejecting the crown’s demand for Ship Money. In the event, this letter was never dispatched as the proposal was abandoned shortly before Charles summoned a new Parliament.82 HMC Var. iv. 172; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 84. In the ensuing elections for the Commons, Sir Francis Seymour was returned for Wiltshire, Kirton for Great Bedwyn and Selden for Ludgershall. Seymour was also returned for Marlborough, but plumped for the county seat, being replaced by Henry Percy^† (subsequently Lord Percy of Alnwick). Hertford was presumably prompted to nominate Percy by Essex, Percy’s cousin, at the request of Robert Sidney^*, 2nd earl of Leicester, who wanted to secure Percy’s membership of the Commons.83 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 431, 440, 443, 447.

At the start of the 1628 session, Hertford’s appearance in the upper House was still sufficiently novel to warrant remark by letter-writers.84 Letters from Redgrave Hall ed. D. MacCulloch (Suff. Rec. Soc. l), 121. In fact, he was an assiduous attender, being recorded as present at 80 of the 94 sittings (85 per cent of the total). His first absence was on 10 Apr., when he was excused. He returned for the next sitting but was missing on a further two occasions that month. Thereafter he attended consistently until June, the last month of the sitting, when he absented himself three times before 17 June. Although he returned for the sittings on the 17th and 18th he stayed away for the remainder of the session.

Hertford was named to eight of the 52 committees named by the upper House and made 13 recorded speeches. He was reappointed to the committee of privileges on 20 Mar., and to the subcommittee for privileges and the committee for petitions the following day. He no longer made reports from the privileges committee but continued to take an interest in peers’ privileges. At a meeting of the committee on 21 Apr. he voted against granting privilege to the estranged wife of Buckingham’s brother, John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck, and on 6 May he defended the right of lords to answer on their honour in courts of law as the word of a peer was ‘equal to an oath’. He argued that instances of peers answering on oath were irrelevant to the general principle, because a lord could voluntarily make an answer on oath without impairing the right of the nobility.85 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 384, 387; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33 (31 Mar. 1628), no. 12. On 26 May he successfully moved for privilege for Essex’s chaplain, who had been served with a subpoena.86 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 535.

On 21 Mar. Hertford was appointed to attend a conference with the Commons about a proposed petition to the king concerning a fast. Five days later, after William Cavendish^*, 2nd earl of Devonshire, reported from committee a draft petition against recusancy, Hertford persuaded the House to seek another conference to secure the support of the Commons for the new petition, which the committee for the fast petition was ordered to attend.87 Ibid. 78, 106.

The principal issue which dominated the 1628 session was the Commons’ insistence that the liberties of the subject be secured in the wake of the Forced Loan. Not only had money been demanded without parliamentary consent, but many of those who had refused to lend had been imprisoned by the Privy Council. On 7 Apr. Hertford was one of the lords appointed by the upper House to report back from the conference that was to be held later that day, when the Commons made their case. Hertford was assigned to relay the statutory precedents which Edward Littleton^† (later Lord Lyttelton) presented. As these constituted ‘12 sides close written’, Hertford was unsurprisingly reluctant to report back until he had obtained Littleton’s notes. He had evidently received these by 9 Apr. when, presenting Littleton’s arguments, he apologized for reading his report and for his deficiencies as a reader.88 Ibid. 157, 168, 184, 186. Hertford was instructed to report a further conference on 16 Apr., but the conference was left unfinished. The following day he successfully moved for the report to be deferred until after the conference was completed. On 19 Apr., he reported the precedents which had been marshalled by the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, against the case presented by the Commons.89 Ibid. 244, 257, 305.

On 20 Apr. it was rumoured that Buckingham had ‘wrought’ with Hertford and his other critics in the upper House ‘to be still and to believe he is their friend … and they are so foolish [as] to believe it’.90 Procs. 1628, p. 208. In fact, Hertford seems to have been generally sympathetic to the case put by the lower House. On 21 Apr. he joined with William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, in defending the Commons, arguing that they had not questioned the king’s right to commit, only his right to commit without showing cause.91 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 313. It is true that after the Commons presented the proposed Petition of Right to the Lords, Hertford initially supported calls for a saving clause to be inserted for the sake of the king’s prerogative; on 17 May, he moved for the Lords to insist upon the proposal made by Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston (later 1st earl of Portland), to that effect. However, he evidently soon changed his mind, as three days later he argued that a saving clause was unnecessary because the prerogative was not ‘touched’ by the Petition. He also moved for a further conference with the Commons, before anything was concluded.92 Ibid. 484. On 7 June, during the crisis which followed Charles’s initial, conditional answer to the Petition, Hertford supported moves for a fresh conference with the Commons and, subsequently, in the same debate called for a new ‘parliamentary and satisfactory answer’ from the king.93 Ibid. 598, 601.

Hertford was absent from the first two sittings of the 1629 session, on 20 and 21 Jan., although he was not excused until the latter date. He was reappointed, in his absence, to the committee and subcommittee for privileges and the committee for petitions. He took his seat on 22 Jan., and then attended the House regularly until 14 Feb., when he was again excused, during which time he received one committee appointment, on 10 Feb., to draft a petition to the king about the precedence of Englishmen who had purchased Irish or Scottish titles. After 14 Feb. he attended the Lords on only three further occasions: on the 19th of that month and on the two final days of the session, 2 and 10 March. In total, he attended 60 per cent of the sittings. He left no other trace on the records of this poorly documented session.94 LJ, iv. 6a-b, 7b, 27n, 30b.

The Personal Rule, and final years, 1629-60

In 1631 Hertford was initially one of the peers selected to try Mervyn Tuchet^*, 2nd earl of Castlehaven [I] (12th Lord Audley in the English peerage), but he was subsequently excused.95 SP16/189/19. The following year he visited the earl of Bristol, in company with Essex and Francis Russell^*, 4th earl of Bedford, ‘and many other lords’, to celebrate the recent marriage of Bristol’s eldest son, George Digby^†, Lord Digby (later 2nd earl of Bristol) and Bedford’s daughter.96 William Whiteway of Dorchester: His Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 125.

In May 1636 Hertford fought a duel with William Uvedale, son of the courtier, Sir William Uvedale^‡, although it was broken up before either party was injured. The duel arose from a dispute between one of Hertford’s gentlemen and Uvedale, during which the latter insulted the earl. It probably had its origins in the recent collapse of Essex’s second marriage after Uvedale had been found in the countess of Essex’s bedroom at night. Essex himself acted as one of Hertford’s seconds, alongside George Digby’s half-brother, Sir Lewis Dyve^‡. The sympathies of the public and the king seem to have been entirely on Hertford’s side, who, consequently, suffered no adverse repercussions.97 HMC Var. vii. 414-15; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 531-2; SP63/255/128; Letters and Pprs. of the Verney Fam. ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lvi), 168-9.

By the late 1630s, Hertford was considered a weather-vane for English political opinion, one who could not be counted on either to support or oppose the court. When Charles summoned the nobility to attend him at York, in January 1639, to fight the Scottish Covenanters it was reported that ‘many eyes’ were on Hertford to see what he would do, ‘and his example, it is conceived, will either keep out, or draw in many with him’.98 Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 592-3. In the event, he initially announced his willingness to attend the king in person, but subsequently agreed to pay £1,000 instead.99 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 486, 621. By way of reward he was appointed joint lord lieutenant of Somerset, a position his grandfather had previously held alone.

In August 1640 Hertford signed the petition of the Twelve Peers calling on Charles to summon Parliament. However, in the Long Parliament he drew increasingly close to the king. He opposed the impeachment of Charles’s trusted minister, Thomas Wentworth^*, 1st earl of Strafford, in 1641, and in the same year was appointed to the Privy Council and instructed to take care of the future Charles II. He was also created a marquess. When the Civil War broke out in 1642 he became the leader of the royalists in the West Country until he was replaced by Prince Maurice in 1644. After the war the parliamentarians fined him £8,375 as composition for his estate.100 Ibid. 1640, p. 640; Clarendon, i. 563; CCC, 1329.

Hertford survived to see the Restoration, when he himself was ‘restored’, as 2nd duke of Somerset. He died, on 24 Oct. 1660, at Essex House in the Strand. His body was embalmed, wrapped in lead, and taken to Great Bedwyn church in Wiltshire, where he was buried on 1 November.101 Coll. of Arms, I.8, f. 80; Life, Diary and Corresp. of Sir William Dugdale ed. W. Hemper, 107. His will, dated 15 Aug. 1657, with a codicil and a nuncupative addition, dated 4 Oct. 1660, was proved on 20 November.102 PROB 11/302, ff. 355v-6. Four of his five sons having died in his lifetime, Somerset was succeeded by his grandson, William, who died before he came of age in 1671, when his titles passed to Somerset’s only surviving son, John.