DENNY, Edward (1569-1637)

The owner of a substantial estate on the Essex/Hertfordshire border, Denny was still a minor when he entered the orbit of the Cecils, whose seat lay at nearby Theobalds. Sir Thomas Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Exeter) purchased his wardship in 1577; and the latter’s father, the lord treasurer William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley, acted as his patron while he studied at Cambridge during the mid 1580s.16 WARD 9/221, f. 50; Lansd. 51, f. 25. Denny attained his majority in 1590, and soon thereafter married Mary Cecil, one of the daughters of his former guardian. Mary bore him a single child, a daughter named Honora, who stood to inherit the whole of his estate, worth an estimated £4,000 a year.17 Barrington Letters ed. A. Searle (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xxviii), 234-5.

Denny first came to the attention of James I in May 1603, when he voluntarily supplied the king, newly arrived from Scotland, with 150 uniformed men to escort him to Theobalds.18 G.P.V. Akrigg, Jacobean Pageant, 19. His substantial landed estate, and its highly eligible heiress, soon attracted the notice of one of James’s most flamboyant young Scottish courtiers, Sir James Hay^* (later 1st earl of Carlisle). In the summer of 1604, Hay offered to marry Honora Denny, a proposal warmly welcomed by the king, whose desire to unite his two principal kingdoms predisposed him to approve of Anglo-Scottish marriages. However, Hay was a landless Scot, with little to recommend him beyond his influence with the king. To overcome this obstacle, James offered to provide the young couple with lands worth £1,000 a year, write off a £3,000 debt owing to the crown by Denny, and elevate Denny to the rank of baron.19 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 62; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 186. A deal was evidently struck, for in September lands in Yorkshire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, worth £1,030 p.a., were bestowed by James on Hay and his prospective bride.20 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 149, 364. Moreover, on 27 Oct. James ordered that a writ be drafted summoning Denny to the House of Lords, which he intended to present to Denny the following day. In the event, the writ seems not to have been completed until the 29th. It nevertheless bore the same date as the warrant authorizing its creation.21 HEHL, EL1445, 2598; C218/1/17; CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, p. 167; LJ, ii. 350b; Letters of Philip Gawdy ed. I.H. Jeayes, 152.

Although he had accepted the terms offered by the king, Denny did not immediately allow his daughter to marry Hay. In fact, not until January 1607 did the couple wed (in the Chapel Royal).22 Old Cheque-Bk., or Bk. of Remembrance of the Chapel Royal ed. E.F. Rimbault (Cam. Soc. n.s. iii), 161. This lengthy interval has been interpreted to mean that Denny had not yet, in fact, agreed to accept Hay as his son-in-law, and that further persuasion was needed.23 Schreiber, 9-10. It is certainly true that, during the interval, the king transformed Hay into a more attractive prospect, bestowing on him both the office of keeper of the king’s robes and an English peerage. However, undoubtedly the main reason the marriage was not celebrated until 1607 was that Honora was no more than 13 in 1604, when the bargain was struck.

The first Jacobean Parliament, 1605-10

Denny was no stranger to Parliament, having spent the 1604 session as a knight of the shire for Essex. Formally introduced to the Lords on 7 Feb. 1605, at a prorogation meeting of Parliament, the new Lord Denny of Waltham was led in by two fellow barons, Edward La Zouche, 11th Lord Zouche, and Robert Sidney, 1st Lord Sydney (later 1st earl of Leicester).24 LJ, ii. 349b. His father-in-law, Thomas Cecil, now 2nd Lord Burghley, was also present and might have been expected to help introduce Denny himself. The omission hints at marital discord, as does the fact that, five years earlier, Lady Denny expressed dismay that her husband had accused her of refusing to pay the funeral costs of his uncle, Sir Edward Denny^‡ the elder.25 HMC Hatfield, x. 80.

Aside from a further prorogation meeting held in October, Parliament did not reconvene until 5 Nov. 1605. Absent when Parliament reassembled, Denny assigned his proxy to Lord Zouche. However, he appeared four days later, when the session was adjourned until the New Year. Once Parliament resumed, he attended somewhat fitfully, missing three consecutive days of business in the fourth week of February and four consecutive days in mid March (the latter absence perhaps being attributable to the Essex assizes). His longest period of absence – covering five consecutive sittings - occurred at the end of April and beginning of May. So far as can be established from the meagre sources, Denny’s contribution to the work of the upper House was as thin as his attendance, as he was appointed to just nine committees out of a total of 72. These included a conference concerned with three of the most pressing issues of the session: purveyance, free trade and the Union. They also included legislative committees on bills to create a royal entail - a measure introduced by the crown’s chief ministers to protect the king from himself – and impose an oath on those travelling to the Continent. Personal interest, as a local landowner, may explain why, in addition, Denny was appointed to consider a controversial measure to bring fresh water to London from Middlesex and Hertfordshire. Denny was appointed to two committees in his absence. One was on a bill to allow free trade with Spain and France, a measure designed to destroy the monopoly of the newly re-established Spanish Company. The other was on a bill to confirm letters patent issued to Cambridge University, his alma mater, for the maintenance of two lecturers in divinity. He probably did not attend first meeting of this latter committee on 13 Mar., as he was recorded as absent in the Journal on that day.26 LJ, ii. 355b, 383a, 386b, 388a, 389b, 399b, 413a, 413b, 427a, 441a.

Following the arrival of the king of Denmark in July 1606, Denny was among those peers who were summoned to court.27 Add. 11402, f. 113. When Parliament reconvened in November, Denny attended only sporadically. Appointed to attend the first conference of the session, on the Union, he was subsequently named to committees on bills to allow the sale of lands of the late Sir Francis Gawdy^‡, to explain the recently enacted bill to allow free trade with Spain and France, and to consider a measure to restrict the number of new buildings in London and Westminster.28 LJ, ii. 456b 460b, 464b. The latter bill may have held a personal interest for Denny, for although he himself lacked a London townhouse, he lived at Exeter House in the Strand, the London residence of his father-in-law, the earl of Exeter, whenever he stayed in the capital.

Following the Christmas recess (during which time his daughter married Lord Hay) Denny’s attendance of the Lords was so irregular that he was appointed to just three further legislative committees, out of the 31 established by the House. The first concerned a measure to confirm the lands of the London livery companies; the second sought to incorporate a grammar school at Northleach, in Gloucestershire; and the third was to consider the bill to abolish the hostile laws that governed relations between England and Scotland. Named to the latter committee on 8 June, he evidently played no part in deliberating this important measure, as he was absent for the remainder of the session.29 Ibid. 453a, 479a, 518a, 520b.

Denny played an equally insignificant part in the final two sessions of the first Jacobean Parliament, both of which met in 1610. His attendance of the first was again marked by long periods of absence. For example, he missed seven sittings in a row between 28 June and 6 July, and a further seven consecutive sittings between 14 and 21 July. Not surprisingly, therefore, he secured only two committee appointments, both to conferences with the Commons. The first concerned the state of the royal finances, while the second was to discuss Dr John Cowell’s controversial legal dictionary, The Interpreter. His contribution to the second session of 1610 was even thinner. His only appointments were to a conference held on the afternoon of 25 Oct., at which the lord treasurer, the 1st earl of Salisbury (Robert Cecil^*) implored the Commons to decide whether to accept the Great Contract, and to a committee for a bill to avoid lawsuits over lands bequeathed by testators.30 Ibid. 551a, 557b, 671a, 675a.

The parliaments of 1614 and 1621

Together with his son-in-law Lord Hay, Denny was among the handful of mourners of aristocratic rank who attended Salisbury’s funeral in June 1612.31 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 374. Five months later, he also participated in the funeral of the king’s eldest son, Prince Henry.32 Harl. 5176, f. 208. When a fresh Parliament assembled in 1614, Denny attended all but six sittings of the upper House, in stark contrast to his earlier poor record. However, once again he played only a marginal role in the affairs of the Lords. His sole committee appointments were to consider the (reintroduced) bill to prevent lawsuits over wills of land and the bill to preserve timber.33 LJ, ii. 694a, 697b. In the immediate aftermath of the Parliament, which failed to vote supply, Denny contributed £100 towards the benevolence raised by the king.34 E351/1950, unfol.

Denny’s daughter was killed in August 1614 as the result of a violent night-time robbery.35 HMC 10th Rep. IV, 84. This traumatic event did not, however, weaken the bonds that now existed between Denny and Lord Hay, as two years earlier Hay had been blessed with a son, James Hay^† (later 2nd earl of Carlisle), who stood to inherit Denny’s estate. On the contrary, Denny accompanied Hay on a diplomatic mission to France in 1616. Four years later Hay, now Viscount Doncaster, began paying off Denny’s debts, which reputedly stood at around £8,000, in fulfilment of a promise made shortly before his marriage.36 Harl. 1581, ff. 335v, 336. Denny’s own attempt to sort out his finances had proved unsuccessful, as a 31-year lease of certain heriots and reliefs, granted to him in 1617 by the king, had failed to yield him a single penny in profit.37 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 443; LR9/102, unfol. bk. of warrants, 10 Apr. 1620. He was now so hard up that he had to be pressed to pay his contribution to the benevolence raised for the defence of the Palatinate in 1620.38 SP14/118/42.

Denny was a mourner at the funeral of Anne of Denmark in May 1619.39 Harl. 5176, f. 235v. A fresh Parliament assembled at the end of January 1621, and shortly thereafter Denny was appointed to the newly established committee for privileges, despite being recorded as absent.40 LJ, iii. 10b. His recorded level of attendance before the summer recess was good, as he missed only 13 or 14 of the morning sittings, was never absent for more than two sittings in a row, and attended Parliament rather than the Essex and Hertfordshire assizes on 12 and 16 March.41 Cal. Essex Indictments, Jas. I, 243; Cal. Herts. Indictments, Jas. I, 237. On 5 May his absence was formally excused – the first time he is recorded as having observed this courtesy. He was again excused on 24 May, although the Journal states, probably incorrectly, that he was present that day.42 LJ, iii. 110a, 130a.

Like most other English peers of baronial rank, Denny signed the ‘Humble Petition of the Nobility’ early in the Parliament.43 A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187. This document sought to deny to purchasers of Scottish and Irish viscountcies precedence over English barons on local commissions. Drafted outside the House, it was brought into the Lords on 20 Feb., whereupon Denny urged that it be presented to the king.44 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 11. However, James declined to receive the petition, which threatened to undermine the sale of Scottish and Irish titles, from which the royal favourite George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham was a chief beneficiary. Buckingham was shaken by the strength of support for the petition, and attempted to regain the good opinion of the House by proposing the creation of an academy for the education of the sons of the nobility. Denny, like his fellow peers, seems to have been delighted with this suggestion, as he was appointed to the committee established for its consideration.45 LJ, iii. 37a.

During 1621, Denny took an interest in one of the major grievances before Parliament, that of patents of monopoly. When one of the chief monopolists, Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, absconded from custody, Denny was among those named to confer with the Commons about apprehending him. He was also appointed to help investigate the grievances associated with Mompesson’s grant of a patent for concealed lands, which inquiry subsequently uncovered evidence of Mompesson’s guilt.46 Ibid. 34a, 47a, 70b. In addition, Denny took an interest in the charges of bribery levelled at the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St. Alban, participating in the debate which followed the reading of the petition submitted by Edward Egerton, one of the key complainants in the case. Unfortunately, however, his words have gone unrecorded. Moreover, after Bacon was condemned, it was Denny who proposed that a committee be established to ask the king to sequester the great seal.47 LD 1621, pp. 21, 133. Denny was also named to help investigate charges of bribery brought against the ecclesiastical court judge Sir John Bennet^‡.48 LJ, iii. 104b.

Denny steered a middle course on 12 May, when the House debated speeches made by the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, accusing Buckingham of oppression and of behaving like Hugh, Lord Le Despenser^†, the hated favourite of Edward II. Many in the House were outraged at the association of Buckingham with Despenser, as it necessarily cast James in the unflattering role of a weak, tyrannical king. However, Denny dismissed this unfortunate comparison as irrelevant. He was more concerned that Yelverton, despite having admitted that his removal from office was merited, had complained of suffering unjustly. The House, he urged, should look into this question, and ‘not of any other, touching that of Hugh Spencer, etc.’ Three days later, after the former law officer was permitted to explain himself, Denny declared that Yelverton should be censured for indiscretion.49 LD 1621, pp. 77, 86.

Denny joined in the chorus of condemnation after Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel cast aspersions on the lineage of Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer. On 17 May he declared that because Spencer was descended from the earls of Winchester and Gloucester, the wrong done to him by Arundel was ‘the more’.50 Add. 40085, f. 150. He also shared in the widespread revulsion at the news that the Catholic barrister Edward Floyd had disparaged the king’s daughter and her husband, the Elector Palatine. He was accordingly appointed to the investigative committee.51 LJ, iii. 125b.

Despite regularly attending the House, Denny was appointed to just 27 of the 85 or so committees established by the Lords in 1621. A handful of these reflected widely held Protestant concerns, including the growth of recusancy and the prevalence of swearing and drunkenness.52 LJ, iii. 17a, 18b, 101a, 107b. This is not entirely surprising, as Denny held strong Calvinist convictions. While a student at Cambridge, he had befriended the staunchly Calvinist Thomas Playfere, who went on to become Lady Margaret professor of divinity, and in 1608 he had appointed as vicar of Waltham Joseph Hall^*, the solidly Calvinist future bishop of Exeter.53 HMC Hatfield, x. 43; N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 35; J. Hall, The Shaking of the Olive-Tree (1660), 23.

Denny played only a minor role in the session when it resumed on 20 Nov. 1621, despite missing just four days of the sitting. However, two days into the proceedings he urged the House to refer to the privileges committee the matter of letters of protection issued by peers to their servants. The Commons had already initiated an investigation into the abuses associated with this practice so far as it extended to their own Members, and Denny was eager that the Lords should do the same. His motion was ‘very well liked of’ by his fellow peers, who quickly resolved that the matter was within the purview of the committee.54 Northants. RO, Montagu 29/62, unfol.; LD 1621, p. 94. On the earlier debate in the Commons, see CJ, i. 641a; CD 1621, iii. 409-11. Five days later, after it was revealed that false letters of protection had been issued in the name of the 4th Lord Stafford (Edward Stafford^*), Denny recommended that the chief culprit be branded on the forehead as punishment. His only other recorded speech of the sitting was on 1 Dec., during the third reading debate on the monopolies bill. James Hamilton, 1st earl of Cambridge (and 2nd marquess of Hamilton [S]) argued that the bill, which originated in the Commons, should not be recommitted, as it ‘touches the king’s prerogative’. However, this latter claim was denied by Denny, who pointed out that the bill merely sought the ‘continuance and keeping of the fundamental laws of the kingdom’.55 LD 1621, p. 104.

Public humiliation, 1621-2

While Parliament was sitting, one of Denny’s near neighbours, Lady Mary Wroth, published a fictional romance, the first book of its kind to be written by an Englishwoman. Entitled The Countess of Montgomery’s Urania, Wroth’s volume described the marriage of a character named Sirelius to an only daughter, whose father was showered with honours for consenting to the match. In this tale, Sirelius soon became consumed with jealousy, suspecting his wife of conducting an affair with a young lord. The bride’s father, outraged that his family had been dishonoured, thereupon plotted to kill his daughter, only to be prevented from doing so by Sirelius, whose love for his wife had not been entirely extinguished. For contemporaries, the parallels between this story and events in the life of Denny and his family were all too obvious. The circumstances surrounding Denny’s elevation to the peerage were described, as were the extravagant banquets thrown by his son-in-law, Viscount Doncaster.56 M.P. Hannay, Mary Sidney, Lady Wroth, 235, 237; P. Salzman, ‘Contemporary References in Wroth’s Urania’, Rev. of Eng. Studs. n.s. xxix. 180. The newsletter-writer John Chamberlain was in no doubt that Urania was a satire on Denny, who was depicted as an ill-tempered and vain drunkard who had come close to murdering his daughter.57 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 427.

It is scarcely surprising that Denny was livid at being held up to public ridicule. In December 1621 Wroth, aware of the anger she had aroused, asked Buckingham to procure a warrant from the king to call in any unsold copies of the book which, she claimed, she had never authorized for publication.58 Hannay, 234. However, the damage was done, and in February 1622 Denny, unable to challenge a woman to a duel, revenged himself in kind by penning and circulating a verse in which he characterized Lady Mary as a liar and called into doubt her gender. Wroth in turn rattled off a spiteful poem of her own in which she declared that Denny’s verses proved him to be ‘the drunken beast’.59 P. Salzman, Mary Wroth’s Poetry: an Electronic Edition (http://wroth.latrobe.edu.au/hermaphrode-poems.html) Denny, who only recently had been a member of a parliamentary committee on the subject, retorted that drunkenness was ‘an odious vice ... which I utterly abhor’.60 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 161. He also complained that he had been made to look a fool before the world, ‘and especially before a wise king and prince, with all the nobility’. Despite these protests, Lady Mary continued to plead her innocence, circulating copies of her correspondence with Denny to those whom she thought might help her to recover favour with the king, among them Buckingham’s brother-in-law, William Feilding^*, 1st Viscount Feilding (later 1st earl of Denbigh).61 HMC Denbigh, v. 3-4.

Whether Denny’s character was really as unsavoury as Wroth claimed is unclear. Moreover, aside from Wroth’s insinuations, there is no evidence to suppose that Hay’s marriage to Honora Denny was unhappy. On the other hand, it is difficult to see why Lady Mary should have levelled criticisms at Denny that she knew to be groundless. It is also suspicious that Denny never sued his tormentor for libel, unless, being already heavily in debt, he was put off from doing so by the cost.

By the beginning of 1623 Denny was no longer preoccupied with Wroth but with the interests of his grandson, on whom he doted. Were he to die before the boy attained his majority, one third of his estate would be subject to wardship. Any purchaser would, in all likelihood, be more interested in obtaining a return on his investment than in paying off Denny’s debts. In order to avoid this eventuality, Denny persuaded his son-in-law, now earl of Carlisle, to use his influence with the king to obtain a knighthood for young James, on the grounds that knights were exempt from wardship.62 CSP Dom. Addenda 1580-1625, pp. 649-50. However, Carlisle was sent on a diplomatic mission to France in February 1623, leaving it to Denny himself to apply the necessary pressure at court. By the end of March the consent of the master of the Wards (Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex) had been obtained, despite the ill precedent thereby created,63 Add. 35832, f. 99; Eg. 2595, f. 183. and in May Carlisle’s son, now styled Viscount Doncaster, was dubbed by the king.

The Parliament of 1624

Shortly after the death of his father-in-law in February 1623, Denny and his wife were forced to vacate Exeter House, as the king required the temporary use of this property to house the newly arrived ambassadors from the archdukes. To the embarrassment of the 2nd earl of Exeter (William Cecil^*), Denny was forced to seek alternative lodgings in Clerkenwell.64 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 561; HMC Cowper, i. 120. It may have been from there that Denny attended the 1624 Parliament, which opened on 19 February. Despite being bitterly cold, he attended all but one of the eight sittings that month. The exception was on 26 Feb., when he was named in absentia to the committee for a bill to confirm free schools and hospitals.65 LJ, iii. 219a. This behaviour set the pattern for the remainder of the Parliament. Thereafter Denny rarely missed more than a single day at a time. Indeed, his longest period of absence lasted just three days (24-26 May inclusive).

At the start of the Parliament, Denny was not only reappointed to the committee for privileges but also named to the subcommittee of privileges.66 Ibid. 215a, 215b. He was a perfect choice, as he made a point of interesting himself in the arrest of peers’ servants. On 1 Mar. he drew the House’s attention to the imprisonment of a servant to the earl of Holdernesse (John Ramsay^*) by the under-bailiff of Westminster, and on 8 May he announced that one of the servants of Henry Carey^*, Viscount Rochford (later 1st earl of Dover), was being prosecuted at law.67 Add. 40087, f. 83; 40088, f. 59. On 16 Mar. he agreed with the bishop of Durham (Richard Neile^*, later archbishop of York), who called for punishment to be inflicted on Thomas Banks for having caused one of the servants of William Stanley^*, 6th earl of Derby to be arrested,68 Add. 40087, f. 88v. and on 21 Apr. he and John Holles^*, 1st Lord Houghton (later 1st earl of Clare), were instructed to investigate the arrest of Walter Thomas, servant of the 4th Lord Stafford. Responsibility for reporting back to the House in the Thomas case fell to Denny, who declared, three days later, that the matter was of little importance, whereupon the Lords ordered the arresting officers to be discharged.69 LJ, iii. 314b, 317a.

It seems likely that Denny enthusiastically supported the campaign led by Charles and Buckingham to persuade the king to abandon the negotiations for a marriage alliance with Spain in favour of war. Although he made no recorded speeches on the subject, Denny was named to several committees that certainly point to this conclusion. As well as being required to help investigate the state of the kingdom’s forts and arsenals, he was also asked to assist the Commons in drawing up reasons for breaking off the Spanish marriage negotiations. In addition, he was appointed to a small committee that was instructed to meet with representatives of the Commons to exonerate Buckingham, who had been denounced by the Spanish ambassadors for having supposedly traduced the king of Spain in his account of the Spanish marriage negotiations, recently delivered to Parliament. Finally, he was named to a conference committee after the Commons announced that they were ready to assist the king financially once he broke off the marriage negotiations.70 Ibid. 237b, 238a, 242b, 258b.

In backing conflict with Spain, Denny probably also supported the impeachment, for corruption, of Lord Treasurer Middlesex, the leading opponent of war in the Lords. On 12 May he apparently seconded the lord keeper, John Williams_* (bishop of Lincoln), after Williams corrected those who claimed that Middlesex had been granted a pardon freeing him from the need to keep accounts. The following day, after Middlesex had been found guilty, he called for the disgraced lord treasurer to be fined £60,000, although some other peers favoured a smaller sum. Two days later, Denny was one of 11 members chosen to request that Middlesex be deprived of his staff of office.71 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 87, 89-90; LJ, iii. 384b.

One of the consequences of the campaign for war with Spain was that many in Parliament began clamouring for harsher treatment of England’s Catholic community. Denny himself seems to have formed part of this vocal lobby. On 5 Apr. he was named to the committee to confer with the Commons about drafting a petition to the king against recusants. Two days later, during a debate on this subject, the 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton (Henry Wriothesley^*), a Catholic convert, protested that the petition should not be adopted as it stood for fear that it would be said that England had started a persecution. He was answered by Denny, who retorted that this particular charge was inevitable. Were they to heed Southampton’s advice, he declared, nothing would be done. He was promptly seconded by the lord chamberlain, the 3rd earl of Pembroke (William Herbert^*).72 LJ, iii. 287b; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 56-7.

A few weeks into the Parliament, Denny was appointed to the 12-strong committee for petitions, a standing body which suffered no shortage of business in 1624. His legislative appointments were more numerous than they had been in the first sitting of 1621 - 19 in total, as against just 12 between January and June 1621 – an increase which may reflect his growing stature in the House, as well as his more regular attendance. Those to which he was named included committees to consider the monopolies bill and the revived bill to prohibit the hunt for concealed lands. In both cases, however, his name was omitted from the committee list in the Journal.73 Add. 40087, f. 95; 40088, ff. 37v. At least one of the committees to which he was appointed held a local interest for Denny. This was to consider the bill to confirm the sale of some land to his Essex neighbour, Sir Thomas Cheke^‡ of Pyrgo, in Havering, to which another Essex-based peer – William Petre^*, 2nd Lord Petre – was also named.74 LJ, iii. 317b. Local interest may also explain Denny’s nomination to the committee for the bill concerning the purveyance of carts and carriages by the royal household. A recent agreement between the board of Greencloth and the county governors of Middlesex to compound for purveyance had resulted in an increased demand for carts and carriages from Essex and Hertfordshire and complaints in the Commons.75 Ibid. 288b; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 239. There were also a number of bill committees which perhaps interested Denny as a local magistrate. The bill to prevent writs of certiorari from being used to transfer cases from the Westminster courts to quarter sessions is a prime example. However, several of the bills which he was asked to consider, such as those to allow free trade in Welsh cloth or void Henry Heron’s patent for fish packing in the West Country, held no discernible interest for Denny.76 LJ, iii. 296a, 303b, 313a.

The parliaments of 1625 and 1626

Denny continued to attend the 1624 Parliament until it was adjourned on 29 May, when he was nominated, along with seven other peers, to help the lord keeper and judges review over the summer a legal dispute that had come before the House.77 Ibid. 421b. However, when a new Parliament assembled in 1625, Denny obtained leave of absence (although he did not do so until the interval between the Westminster and Oxford sittings). He bestowed his proxy on his wife’s first cousin, Henry Danvers^*, Lord Danvers (later 1st earl of Danby).78 Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 89; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 545. Danvers’ mother and Lady Denny’s mother were both daughters of John Nevill^†, 4th Lord Latimer.

After participating in the king’s coronation procession on 2 Feb. 1626,79 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l. Denny resumed his parliamentary duties, attending all but seven sittings of the 1626 Parliament. His longest period of absence lasted four days (28 Feb.-3 Mar. inclusive), during which time he was excused twice. Now a parliamentary veteran, he was appointed to 33 committees (23 of them legislative) out of a total of 49, far more than in previous assemblies in which he had sat. As in 1621 and 1624, he was a member of the House’s standing committee for privileges. He was also nominated once more to the standing committee for petitions, as well as to the Journals committee and the committee for the safety and defence of the kingdom.80 Procs. 1626, i. 48, 83, 92, 110.

Most of his legislative appointments had little known bearing on Denny’s local concerns. It is difficult to see, for example, what interest, if any, Denny would have had in the bill to establish the lands of the late John Starkey of Darley, Cheshire, in his eldest son Ralph, or in the bill to permit the sale of Barrington manor, in Somerset, which was owned by a royal ward named Anthony Farwell. However, there is one clear exception: the committee for the bill to confirm the letters patent of the New River Company. The New River lay close to Denny’s own property, and like many local landowners he disliked it. At the debate on the bill’s third reading, he protested that the New River drew water from the River Lea, thereby depriving local mills of their power source, and that it was prone to overflow whenever it rained, flooding highways and fields alike. However, his motion for a recommitment was rejected on the grounds that it was contrary to the orders of the House to return a bill to committee after a third reading.81 Ibid. 53, 57, 121, 137, 138.

Calvinist zeal perhaps explains Denny’s appointment to six committees on religious legislation. The measures concerned aimed to prevent scandalous behaviour among the clergy, remove the right to benefit of clergy in some cases, provide better maintenance for parish priests, prevent the abuse of the Sabbath and prevent certain clerics from becoming magistrates. They also included a bill concerning citations out of church courts.82 Ibid. 267, 292, 295, 300, 313, 327.

Like many of his fellow peers, Denny disapproved of the arrest by the king, Charles I, of the earl of Arundel in March 1626, while Parliament was sitting. Following a debate on the subject on 15 Mar. he proposed that a petition be sent to Charles. Seven weeks later, with no sign that the king was prepared release the earl marshal, he and seven other peers were appointed to draw up just such a document, which was presented to Charles on 10 May. The wording of the petition caused offence to the king, who replied that when the Lords sent him a petition worthy of subjects he would send them a reply worthy of a king.83 Ibid. 158, 389, 395, 401; HMC Skrine, 65.

Denny played little recorded part in the attempt to impeach Buckingham. Indeed, during May and June, when the impeachment proceedings were at their height, he seems to have kept a low profile. Aside from the committee for drafting a petition to release Arundel, to which he was appointed on 9 May, the only other nomination he attracted during this period was to the body for examining the charges against Buckingham’s arch-enemy John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol. Nevertheless, on 15 May he and several other peers remonstrated with Buckingham after the duke demanded that the notes compiled by those who reported the delivery of the Commons’ charges against him be produced. Notes were intended to jog the memory of the reporter rather than to serve as an accurate record of what was said, they observed. Were they to be treated as a faithful record, reporters whose notes were in anyway inaccurate could find themselves in deep trouble. At the same time, Denny also seconded William Grey^*, 1st Lord Grey of Warke, after the latter defended Sir Dudley Digges^‡, who had been sent to the Tower for allegedly impugning the honour of the king during the delivery of the charges against Buckingham.

Taken together, his support for Digges and Arundel suggests that Denny was no friend of Buckingham. This fact might have proved harmful to his interests, but in the aftermath of the Parliament Buckingham was anxious to placate his enemies, particularly as the king now sought to raise money by means of a Forced Loan. On 17 Oct., three days before he was appointed to the Essex Loan commission, Denny was raised to an earldom.84 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 576; Bodl., Firth C4, p. 257. The grant, which seems not to have been obtained by purchase, formally passed the great seal seven days later.85 47th DKR, 112; C231/4, f. 210v; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 167. CP erroneously gives the date of his creation as an earl as 14 Oct. 1626.

The Parliament of 1628-9

For reasons that are now obscure, Denny chose to be created earl of Norwich, a city with which he had no known connection. Following the opening of the third Caroline Parliament in March 1628, the new earl was formally introduced to the Lords. His sponsors were his brother-in-law the 2nd earl of Exeter and the 1st earl of Clare, a longstanding ally of his wife’s sister, Lady Hatton, with whom he had sided against Sir Edward Coke^‡, her estranged husband, more than ten years earlier.86 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 74. For Denny’s role in this episode, see Chamberlain Letters, ii. 77; HMC Bath, ii. 64-5. Denny attended all but 14 morning and three afternoon sittings of the Lords. Most of his absences were short, but he twice missed three days in a row, the first time between 29 Apr. and 1 May and the second time between 6 and 8 May inclusive. On both occasions he offered his excuses to the House.87 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 328, 365.

It is not always easy, in the surviving records of the 1628 session, to distinguish between Denny and Samuel Harsnett^*, bishop of Norwich (and later archbishop of York). A motion mentioned in the clerk’s notes for 3 Apr. regarding the House’s forthcoming fast could have been made by either man, both of whom were recorded as present in the Journal. However, it seems likely that it was actually Denny who was responsible, as Harsnett was not shown as present in the clerk’s manuscript minutes, and the following morning Denny repeated the former motion.88 Ibid. 30, 148, 152. It is less clear which man proposed, on 21 Apr., that the House turn itself into grand committee to debate imprisonment without trial.89 Ibid. 312. It is also not entirely clear which ‘Norwich’ raised, at the second reading of the fen drainage bill on 3 May, the right to build new rivers, or ‘cuts’, and who proposed that the commissioners chosen to plan the route should all be local men. On the face of it, this motion would seem to point to Denny, who had made no secret of his opposition to the New River in the past. However, it was the bishop who was named to the ensuing committee, not Denny.90 Ibid. 371-2.

At the start of the session, the new earl of Norwich held the proxy of his wife’s cousin, Henry Danvers, now earl of Danby. The latter actually took his seat on 5 May, but in the interim Norwich kept an eye out for Danby’s interests. When, on 28 Mar., the House came to consider the precedent granted to the 1st earl of Banbury (William Knollys^*) over several other earls, among them Danby, Norwich announced that Danby would be unable to attend the privileges committee, which had been appointed to hear the case. Three days later, after it was proposed that the committee should determine the matter that afternoon, Norwich called for a postponement in view of Danby’s continued absence.91 Ibid. 115, 128.

As in the last three parliaments in which he had sat, Norwich was appointed to the House’s standing committee for privileges. Aristocratic privilege was a matter that continued to exercise him, but it is not only the Banbury case which demonstrates this. On 31 Mar. he responded to the suggestion of the 2nd earl of Devonshire (William Cavendish^*) that a law be drafted in respect of those peers arrested immediately after Parliament had ended. However, his meaning, as conveyed by the clerk in his notebook, is not entirely clear. Moreover, when the 3rd Lord North (Dudley North^*) moved to grant privilege to Danby’s chaplain, who was being prosecuted in Common Pleas, it was Norwich who proposed that the privileges committee consider extending parliamentary protection to all peers’ chaplains, whether resident or not.92 Ibid. 130, 503.

Norwich was not named to a single legislative committee in 1628, an omission which perhaps suggests that he had had his fill of such business. He was also appointed to only a handful of non-legislative committees. Aside from the privileges committee, already mentioned, these included the committee and subcommittee to inspect the Journal, the committee for petitions, and the committee for reaching an accommodation with the Commons over the Petition of Right, to which he was belatedly added on 23 May. He was also named to the committee for helping the Commons draft a petition on matters of religion. At his suggestion, the two chief justices and the attorney general were also required to attend this conference, which assembled that same afternoon.93 Ibid. 78, 79, 81, 98, 99, 508.

Norwich played only a minor role in the debates on the liberties of the subject. However, when the king’s right to imprison without showing cause was discussed, Norwich argued that the Lords should consult the judges for their legal advice, ‘because the ground of all this debate is lex terrae’. Norwich clearly sympathized with the aims of the Petition of Right, as he seconded the 1st Viscount Saye and Sele (William Fiennes^*), who argued that the House should not reject the Petition if the Commons could not be persuaded to amend the text to reflect the king’s wishes in respect of his power of arbitrary imprisonment.94 Ibid. 326, 328, 430. After the king signalled his assent to the Petition on 7 June, Norwich became erratic in his attendance. Excused on 14 and 21 June,95 Ibid. 570, 641. he also missed the sittings on the 16th, 17th and 26th, the last of which saw the assembly dissolved.

Over the summer of 1628, Norwich looked on in horror as anti-Calvinist clerics tightened their grip on the church. Writing to Carlisle in September, he declared that ‘the whole Christian world is almost become Arminian, and piety may go beg in rags ... unless policy and Arminianism put on the rochet and the robe’.96 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 311. Quoted in N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 169-70 The Arminian dominance of the church became a major source of complaint when Parliament reassembled in January 1629, but, unfortunately for Norwich, debate on this subject was restricted to the Commons. The Lords were left with little to do, and although Norwich attended every day of the setting bar one (3 Feb.), he made virtually no impression on the business of the upper House, beyond being reappointed to the privileges committee, the subcommittee for privileges, and the committee for petitions. His only other appointment of the session was to the committee for surveying munitions.97 LJ, iv. 6a, 6b, 19a, 37b.

Final years, 1629-37

Following the dissolution, Norwich faded into obscurity. Following the marriage of his beloved Doncaster in 1632, he settled his entire estate upon his grandson.98 Barrington Letters, 234-5. The following year, he augmented the living of his local church at Waltham, hitherto worth only £8 annually, by £100 p.a.,99 Winters, 32; G.H. Johnson, Waltham Holy Cross, 46. a handsome gesture which suggests that he sympathized with the author of the bill to increase the livings of parish priests, a measure he had helped to consider in committee in April 1626.

Norwich drew up his will on 22 Aug. 1636. Declaring that it was better that his money should be spent on paying off his debts than on his funeral, he bequeathed the manor of Waltham to his grandson. Two codicils, containing a number of minor bequests, were added later that same year.100 PROB 11/158, ff. 158-9v. Norwich died on the evening of 24 Oct. 1637, and was interred in the east end of Waltham church. (An inquisition post mortem, conducted the following June, incorrectly states that he expired on 31 December.)101 C142/718/143. His titles were extinguished by his death.