DIGBY, John (1581-1653)

A younger son of a wealthy and well-connected Warwickshire family, Digby entered royal service in his mid twenties early in the reign of James I. In 1609 he married a wealthy widow, and shortly thereafter, having served a brief spell in the Commons, he rose from the relatively lowly position of carver in the king’s household to that of ambassador to Spain. An unusual choice for such an important foreign posting, having no previous diplomatic experience, he was nevertheless both educated and highly intelligent, and had strong Catholic connections, which made him acceptable to the government in Madrid.

The Spanish Match, 1618-20

From the summer of 1614, Digby’s principal task as ambassador was to seek a Spanish marriage for the heir apparent Prince Charles (Stuart^*, duke of Cornwall and subsequently prince of Wales). Aside from confirming England’s status as a major European power, the chief attraction of such an alliance for the king was financial. James was chronically indebted, and pinned his hope for relief not on a Parliament, which had recently declined to vote him funds unless he surrendered impositions, but on a large Spanish dowry. However, following Digby’s return to England in May 1618, the marriage negotiations almost collapsed, as Philip III of Spain would proceed only if James granted toleration to those of his subjects who were Catholic, something far easier said than done. Unwilling to admit defeat, James responded by focussing on the marriage articles that Digby had succeeded in negotiating, telling the Spanish ambassador, Count Gondomar, that ‘the affair was in very good train’.26 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. ci), 146. However, two months later, Gondomar returned to Spain empty-handed. At around the same time, the chief supporter of the Spanish Match at court, the lord treasurer, Thomas Howard*, 1st earl of Suffolk, was dismissed for corruption.

These events seemed to spell the end of Digby’s diplomatic career. Two years earlier, Digby had exchanged his position as resident ambassador to Spain for that of vice chamberlain of the royal household, and although he had subsequently returned to Madrid he had done so as ambassador extraordinary, an office more prestigious than that of resident, but far more precarious. Unless the king was willing to persist with the Spanish negotiations, Digby would be reduced to discharging the functions of his household office. Under these circumstances, Digby not surprisingly joined the competition to succeed the beleaguered Sir Thomas Lake^‡ as secretary of state,27 HMC Bath, ii. 67. an office far more important than Digby’s household post, and one which gave its holder considerable influence over foreign affairs.

In the short term, James responded to the apparent collapse of the Spanish Match by retrenching his finances. However, it soon became clear that even the most stringent economies would not restore the Exchequer to health: in late September the chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Julius Caesar^‡, calculated that in six months time the current debt of £900,000 would rise to more than £1,153,000.28 Lansd. 165, f. 276. It was therefore not surprising that in October James told Digby to be ready to leave again for Spain at a month’s notice.29 Add. 34727, f. 35. The following month, he created him Baron Digby, in recognition of his services.

Digby fell ill of a peritonsillar abscess in December 1618, but had recovered by the New Year,30 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 115; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 194. when the anticipated mission to Madrid was put on hold. James remained in a state of indecision, torn between financial need on the one hand and a desire to please his Protestant subjects on the other.31 H.G.R. Reade, Sidelights on the Thirty Years’ War, ii. 223. Moreover, news reached England in February of a large Spanish naval build-up, fuelling rumours of an impending invasion of Ireland. These reports, though they proved to be unfounded, left Digby looking ‘extraordinarily sad and melancholy’.32 Ibid. 220; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas.I, ii. 176-7; Wilts. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Mag. ii. 190. However, his dejection was short-lived, as a few months later the king, believing himself to be dying, singled out Digby for praise, and exonerated him from the widely held belief that he was personally responsible for the unpopular Spanish negotiations. Digby, he told the Privy Council, was guilty of nothing more than carrying out his orders. This publicly expressed royal approbation did wonders for Digby’s official standing, for in mid April it was reported that he was now ‘much courted, and that by many great ones’.33 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 227; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 33; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 153. It was also clear that James had finally dispelled his remaining doubts about the wisdom of reviving the marriage negotiations. Indeed, in mid May Digby was instructed to prepare to depart for Madrid.34 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 164; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 51; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 249.

Over the summer, Digby made strenuous efforts to leave, extracting £3,000 from a hard-pressed Exchequer to help pay his costs. However, his mission was contingent upon the return of Gondomar who, though widely expected, did not in fact did not reach London until March 1620. To make matters worse, in September 1619 news reached England that the king’s son-in-law, the Elector Palatine Frederick V, had accepted the crown of Bohemia, thereby provoking war with the Holy Roman emperor and his ally, the king of Spain. Many members of the Privy Council urged James to take up arms on Frederick’s behalf, which course of action, if adopted, would certainly have put an end to the Spanish Match. Digby, who had sold his house in Charing Cross in anticipation of his imminent departure, was left in a state of limbo, despite receiving an additional £4,000 from the Exchequer towards his costs.35 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 188, 190, 191; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 264, 266, 269, 272; Add. 72275, f. 93v; F. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer, 233.

While he remained in suspense, Digby continued to perform his duties as a privy councillor. At a meeting of the Council in February 1620, he opposed an intended expedition to settle the Amazon basin led by Capt. Roger North, on the grounds that it was prejudicial to Spanish interests. This provoked fury from North’s kinsman, the 3rd Lord North (Dudley North^*), who remarked ‘that he took the Lord Digby for the king of England’s ambassador in Spain, but it seemed that he is rather the king of Spain’s ambassador in England’.36 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 291-2. This jibe, which reflected a popular view, was unfair, for in private Digby had recently advised the king to allow the Palatine ambassador to raise funds in England for the defence of the Palatinate. He had also suggested that the Elector Palatine apply to James’s brother-in-law, the king of Denmark, for a loan. However, few were aware of this, least of all Lord North, as Digby wished that his advice be concealed for fear of undermining his standing in Spain. His willingness to allow himself to be sacrificed on the altar of public opinion greatly impressed James, who realized that he had no more faithful servant than Digby.37 HMC 8th Rep. I, 214; Procs. 1626, i. 505-6. However, not until Gondomar reached England in March 1620 did James agree to suspend the patent authorizing Roger North to establish his intended plantation.38 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 306; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 145.

The Palatine crisis and Digby’s missions to Brussels and Vienna, 1620-1

Digby had expected Gondomar’s arrival to serve as the signal for his departure for Spain; James certainly hoped that Gondomar had brought with him a final resolution on the marriage treaty. However, Philip III remained immoveable in his demand for toleration for England’s Catholics, and accused the English, through Gondomar, of negotiating in bad faith.39 R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, p. 14; Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 152. Despite this unpromising news, the king instructed Digby to make ready to leave for Madrid,40 HMC 10th Rep. IV, 384; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 313. and conveyed to him lands in Warwickshire worth £13,000 in order to help pay for his embassy.41 C66/2220/20; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 173. However, over the summer Spanish forces under Ambrosio Spinola invaded the lower, or Rhenish, Palatinate, where they proceeded to conquer territory at an alarming rate. That October, Frederick’s forces in Bohemia suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of a combined Spanish-Bavarian army at the battle of White Mountain, thereby paving the way for the conquest of the upper Palatinate. All thoughts of a further mission to conclude the Spanish Match now vanished. Through the resident ambassador in Madrid, Sir Walter Aston, Digby instead turned his attention to pressing Philip III to use his influence with the emperor to obtain peace and restore Frederick to his lands.42 R. Zaller, ‘“Interest of State”: Jas. I and the Palatinate’, Albion, vi. 150.

The invasion of the Palatinate inevitably compelled James to summon a Parliament, which met on 30 Jan. 1621. On the day of the state opening, in which he carried the royal train, Digby was appointed one of the triers of petitions from Gascony, a largely honorific position but one which signified the favour of the king.43 Zaller, Parl. of 1621, p. 31; LJ, iii. 7a. Over the course of the following week, Digby sat regularly, but did not play a major part in Parliament’s proceedings. His services were now needed at Brussels, as the Spanish forces which had invaded the Palatinate were mainly drawn from the army of Flanders.44 LJ, iii. 167b. On 6 Feb. he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the archdukes Albert and Isabella, and ordered to demand Frederick’s restoration to the Palatinate. He was also instructed to enlist the support of the archdukes in seeking a wider peace, between Frederick on the one hand and Spain and the emperor on the other. So as to avoid any delay, which might result in the loss of yet more territory, James gave Digby considerable freedom of manoeuvre. If an opportunity arose to arrange a truce he should take it, without sending to England for further instructions.45 Add. 36445, ff. 53-4.

Digby set out for Brussels on 25 Feb., having attended the House of Lords only sporadically in the two-and-a-half weeks since his appointment as ambassador. Before departing, he gave his proxy to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later duke) of Buckingham and was granted formal leave of absence.46 SO3/7, unfol. (March 1621); LJ, iii. 4b. On 7 Mar. he reached Brussels, where he was given the warmest of welcomes, being lodged, despite his private wishes, in a house provided for him by his hosts.47 Beaumont Pprs. ed. W.D. Macray (Roxburghe Club), 48; Add. 72285, ff. 7, 9. His arrival could scarcely have come at a more opportune moment. The archdukes were eager to arrange a cessation of hostilities in the Palatinate, as the Twelve Years’ Truce between Spain and the Dutch republic was shortly due to expire, and the troops now in the Palatine would soon be needed to defend their own territory.48 Reade, i. 448-55. This was music to the ears of Digby, who, it was widely believed, had been sent on a fool’s errand.49 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 350. See also Add. 72254, f. 21v. On returning to London in April, he announced not only a six week armistice in the Palatinate but also declared this truce to be the prelude to a general peace. James was overjoyed, convinced that the restoration of the Palatinate was now only a matter of time, and conferred upon Digby an annual pension of £2,000 for 21 years. He apparently also gave orders to draft a patent creating Digby earl of Bristol (which title reflected the diocese in which Digby’s seat of Sherborne, in Dorset, was situated), and announced that he would soon send Digby on a whirlwind tour of Brussels, Vienna and Madrid, in order to bring about a final peace settlement.50 C66/2258; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 28; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 360, 364-5; Add. 72285, f. 19v.

In the immediate aftermath of his triumphant return, Digby resumed his seat in the House of Lords. (The Journal indicates, erroneously, that he had previously sat on 15 and 27 March.) However, he played little recorded part in its proceedings. At some point before Parliament adjourned for the summer he seems to have quarrelled so violently with Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, who had recently commanded 300 English volunteers in the lower Palatinate, that, had it not been for the presence of Prince Charles, he and Essex would probably have come to blows.51 HENRY WRIOTHESLEY.However, whether this disagreement occurred on the floor of the House or behind the scenes is unclear. Otherwise Digby is known to have spoken only twice. On the first occasion he proposed that the House put in writing questions for the monopolist Sir Francis Michell. On the second, during a debate on the lower House’s claim to be entitled to punish the Catholic barrister Edward Floyd for disparaging the Elector Palatine and his wife, he advised his fellow peers not to invite the Commons to say any more on the subject, but to grant them a further hearing if requested. He also asked to know whether they should continue to contest the Commons’ reasons for their claim.52 LD 1621, pp. 39, 74, 75. In addition to these interventions, Digby was appointed to six committees, the last of which was established on 28 May, by which time he had already left for the continent.53 LJ, iii. 75b, 101a, 114b, 116b, 126b, 139b. He also laid before the Lords a bill to confirm his ownership of his estate at Sherborne, which property had been granted to him five years earlier by the king and was now threatened with recovery by Carew Ralegh, the eldest son of Sir Walter Ralegh^‡, a former owner. This measure subsequently received three readings, but was lost at the dissolution later that year.54 Ibid. 130b, 132b, 140b; Procs. 1628, p. 210.

Digby’s new mission was to broker a peace settlement with the emperor, Ferdinand II, who was to be told that Frederick would renounce his claim to the crown of Bohemia in return for restoration to his patrimony. In the event of a refusal, Digby was instructed to threaten Ferdinand with war. After treating with the emperor, Digby was also ordered to travel to Madrid to demand the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Rhenish Palatinate and, once this was agreed, to reopen negotiations for the Spanish Match.55 Zaller, ‘“Interest of State”’, 160. See also Add. 72286, f. 25.

According to the Venetian ambassador, Digby departed under a heavy cloud. James addressed him ‘in a warning and threatening manner’, telling him that so far he had accomplished nothing, at great expense, and that now was the time for deeds rather than words. Digby was reportedly so taken aback by this rebuke that he left his audience with the king in ‘discontent and confusion’.56 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 64. How far this account is accurate, and how far it was merely wishful thinking on the part of the Venetian ambassador, is unclear. However, by early May at the earliest it must have been apparent to James that Digby had overstated his achievements. The Elector Palatine’s chief allies, the Protestant princes of the Evangelical Union, had by now thrown in the towel, leaving only a force of English volunteers to defend Frederick’s territories. Although Frederick was allied with the Dutch, the latter had their hands full as the Twelve Years’ Truce had recently ended.57 C.V. Wedgwood, Thirty Years War, 135, 137. To James, whose earlier promise to create Digby earl of Bristol had now been forgotten, it was clear that unless peace terms were agreed soon, the truce arranged by Digby would soon expire and Spain and Bavaria would overrun Frederick’s remaining dominions.

On his journey to Vienna, Digby passed through Brussels, where he negotiated a month-long extension to the existing truce. From there he visited the Rhenish Palatinate, including both Heidelberg, the capital, and Frankenthal, which was garrisoned by English volunteers under Sir Horace Vere^* (later Lord Vere).58 CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 79, 84; Zaller, ‘“Interest of State’”, 160-1. He arrived at Vienna in early July, by which time news of the Protestation recently issued by the House of Commons may have reached him. Translated into several languages and distributed abroad, this document sought to strengthen Digby’s hand in the forthcoming negotiations with the emperor,59 Add. 72332, f.42; HP Commons 1604-29, v. 654. as it declared that the Commons were ready to ‘adventure the lives and estates of all that belong unto us ... for the maintenance of the cause of God, and of his Majesty’s royal issue’.

Such bellicose language may have been helpful to Digby, for at his first interview with the emperor, held the day after his arrival, he discovered that Ferdinand was feeling beleaguered, Frederick V having rekindled the war for Bohemia through his lieutenants, Count Ernst von Mansfeld and the margrave of Jӓgerndorf, both of whom had separate armies in the field.60 S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. iv. 203; W.B. Patterson, James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom, 308. Far from rejecting Digby’s demands out of hand, therefore, Ferdinand expressed an eagerness to cooperate. However, his freedom of manoeuvre was limited, for in order to pay for the war, he had been obliged to borrow large sums from the duke of Bavaria, who wanted both Frederick’s electoral title and the upper Palatinate for himself. Moreover, Ferdinand could hardly agree to peace if Mansfeld and Jӓgerndorf continued their campaign.61 Zaller, ‘“Interest of State’”, 162-3; CCSP, i. 21. These difficulties threw into doubt Digby’s ability to reach a settlement before the truce he had negotiated for the Palatinate expired at the end of July. However, at the eleventh hour (26 July), Digby announced that he had, ‘with much ado’, obtained a letter from the emperor requiring Spinola to desist from resuming military operations in the Palatinate. Shortly thereafter, Ferdinand announced he was ready to discuss precise terms, even though the duke of Bavaria, fearful that Frederick was about to be restored, had used ‘high language’ with him.62 Add. 72286, ff. 33, 35, 39v; CCSP, i. 22.

Digby’s sense of triumph proved to be short-lived. Writing to the king on 12 Aug., he complained that the continued operations of Mansfeld and Jӓgerndorf had overthrown ‘all I have in hand’. To make matters worse, Frederick had not only refused to submit to the emperor – an essential condition for peace – but had also taken the field against Spain. The final straw, however, was the resumption of hostilities in the Rhenish Palatinate. In order to save his men from starvation, Sir Horace Vere had obtained permission from the prince-bishop of Speyer to billet some of his men on the bishop’s lands. On meeting with local resistance, Vere’s troops went on the rampage, leading to Spanish retaliation and the collapse of Digby’s carefully engineered truce.63 Gardiner, iv. 214-15; Reade, i. 473; Zaller, ‘“Interest of State”’, 167. See also Add. 72285, f. 28r-v for the emperor’s angry reaction.

Digby was bitterly disappointed at this turn of events. He had little doubt where the blame for his failure lay. Writing to Secretary of State Sir George Calvert^‡ at the beginning of September, he condemned Frederick’s commanders as aggressors, and declared that the only interest of the Elector Palatine’s servants was to drag England into the war. In a separate letter to Prince Charles, he also complained that ‘things have been so carried as if the chief care and study had been to overthrow the treaty I had in hand, and to renew the war’. By contrast, Digby continued to view the emperor favourably. As late as 3 Sept. he reported that Ferdinand had promised to recommend a truce to the imperial diet if Frederick disowned Jӓgerndorf.64 Gardiner, iv. 215-17; CCSP, i. 23. See also Add. 72286, f. 41. He received further evidence of Ferdinand’s goodwill when he took his leave of the emperor a few days later, when, after being presented with a gold basin and ewer, Digby was advised to visit Spinola on his return journey to England, ‘to win his favour’.65 Loseley Mss ed. A.J. Kempe, 465.

Digby’s instructions required him to travel to Madrid after treating with the emperor, but with the collapse of the truce he was summoned to Heidelberg to help provide for the city’s defence. However, he first travelled via Ratisbon (Regensburg), where he spoke with Count Mansfeld, having heard that the latter had been promised a large sum of money by the Bavarians if he would either disband his army or transfer it to their service. Mansfeld was on the verge of taking up this offer, but was denounced to his face by Digby, who declared that it was because Mansfeld had attacked Bohemia that the war had resumed. Were Mansfeld to forsake his oath of loyalty to Frederick and abandon the Palatinate for mere money he would become ‘the most vile and infamous’ soldier in Christendom. Mansfeld was clearly shocked by the ferocity of these criticisms - Digby later reported that he had never seen a man ‘so disturbed or distracted’ - but explained that he needed the Bavarians’ money to pay his troops. However, he relented after Digby promised him money and supplies. Following this angry encounter, Digby continued his journey to Heidelberg, where he found the garrison on the verge of mutiny for lack of pay. He averted disaster by lending £10,000 of his own money to the city authorities, melting down his plate and borrowing from the bankers of Nuremberg.66 Gardiner, iv. 218-19, 222-3; CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 145, 150, 152.

Shortly after this episode, Digby was ordered to return to England. By mid October, having spent a few days with Spinola at Wesel,67 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 157. he had reached Brussels, where he received a cold welcome, in contrast to the warmth with which he had been greeted the previous March. This was because, as a result of his meeting with Mansfeld at Ratisbon, the Spanish siege of Frankenthal had been raised.68 Zaller, ‘“Interest of State’”, 170; Gardiner, iv. 224. An angry imperial agent told Digby bluntly that he deserved to lose his head for his false dealings.69 Gardiner, iv. 189, 223-4; Reade, i. 474. However, Digby was astonished by the charge that he was guilty of double-dealing. Viewed from his perspective, it was not he who had behaved dishonourably but the emperor. Despite the goodwill shown towards him in Vienna, he now learned that it was on Ferdinand’s instructions that the war in the lower and upper Palatinates had been resumed.70 Zaller, ‘“Interest of State”’, 170; LJ, iii. 168a. Furious at having been deceived, he wrote to the king apologizing for his credulity.71 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 161. Even before he reached England, Digby was determined to create ‘such a storm’ that the emperor would ‘wish he had better requited his Majesty’s most sincere and worthy proceedings towards him’.72 Zaller, Parl. of 1621, p. 143. See also CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 146.

The winter sitting of the 1621 Parliament

Following his arrival at court on 31 Oct.,73 SP14/123/84. Digby did his utmost to whip up the promised maelstrom. During several meetings with the king and Buckingham, and before the Privy Council, he passionately denounced both the emperor and the duke of Bavaria, and claimed that, had he not come to the rescue, the Palatinate would certainly have fallen. However, he also argued that the military situation had now improved, for not only had Mansfeld’s 16,000 men joined Sir Horace Vere’s 5,000 troops, but also other forces, from Germany and the Low Countries, were flocking to the Elector Palatine’s colours. Soon Frederick would have ‘a very large and powerful army’ with which to recover both halves of his dominions. As a result of this encouraging news, the Privy Council ordered that £40,000 be sent to the Palatinate immediately. They also agreed that Parliament, which had recently been postponed until February 1622, should reassemble in a few weeks’ time in order to vote additional funds for the defence of the Palatinate.74 B. Pursell, ‘War or Peace? Jacobean Pols. and the Parl. of 1621’, PPE 1604-48 ed. C.R. Kyle (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xvii), 158-60; HMC Exeter, 109.

Prior to his return, Digby had been widely regarded as a lackey of Spain, but his fervent denunciation of the emperor and the duke of Bavaria made him the hero of the hour.75 Gardiner, iv. 229; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 161. Those who had long pressed the king to take up arms to defend the Palatinate now praised Digby for his role in lifting the siege of Frankenthal, and rejoiced at his conversion to their cause. Having long been ‘whispered and held for a pensionary of Spain and a declared enemy of the Palatinate’, Digby was naturally delighted at his new found popularity. However, not everyone at court shared in his pleasure. Gondomar, hitherto one of Digby’s closest allies, pointedly asked the king where he would put all the idols the puritans intended to make of Digby, whose words he described as ‘venom’. Buckingham too, jealous at having been upstaged, complained that ‘Digby wanted to make himself immortal with the people and the puritans as the restorer of the Palatinate and of the Protestant religion in Germany’.76 Pursell, ‘War or Peace?’, 159-60; B. Pursell, ‘Jas I, Gondomar and the Dissolution of the Parl. of 1621’, History, lxxxv, 435. On Buckingham’s reaction, see also F. von Raumer, Hist. of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ii. 262.

Digby was alarmed at Gondomar’s hostile reaction to the report of his negotiations he had presented. He was well aware that the king had lost none of his enthusiasm for the Spanish Match, and unless he mended his fences with the Spaniard, both the marriage negotiations, and his own part in them, might be seriously compromised. Consequently, on 2 Nov. Digby explained to Gondomar that he had never been more enthusiastic for the Spanish Match, and pointed out that, far from condemning the new Spanish king, Philip IV, he had actually praised him. He also observed that he had refrained from publicly criticizing Spain’s ministers, even though they had told him that the Palatinate would only be restored if James arranged for the rebellious Dutch provinces to return to Spanish rule. It had been necessary, Digby added, to throw the blame for the failure of his negotiations on the emperor and the duke of Bavaria in order to prevent the common people, whose sympathies lay firmly with the Elector Palatine, from hanging him on his return.77 Pursell, ‘War or Peace?’, 163.

Gondomar was not mollified by these explanations, and took comfort in the belief, encouraged by James, that Digby had incurred the king’s severe displeasure by intervening so effectively in the affairs of the Palatinate. Digby, he informed the Archduchess Isabella (now widowed), had not only forced James to recall Parliament against his wishes, but had also increased the likelihood of war with Spain, which course of action James had been desperate to avoid. This was because Parliament, when it met, would withhold the supply needed to defend the Palatinate unless James first declared war on Spain. He added that Digby himself realized as much, and feared that James would be so angry that he would end his days in the Tower.78 Ibid. 162, 165.

It may have been because he was so worried that he would soon be made to suffer for his part in bringing about the forthcoming war that Digby ‘spake not with that confidence that was expected from a man of so great employment’ when, at the king’s behest, he addressed Parliament on 21 November.79 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 410. In this speech, Digby rehearsed both his embassy to Brussels and his mission to the emperor, and urged the Commons to vote subsidies to pay for war, the cost of which he put at £900,000 a year. In the process, he sought to throw most of the blame for the renewal of hostilities on the duke of Bavaria, whose determination to control the Palatinate and secure for himself the electoral title was placed at centre-stage. He made no mention at all of Frederick V’s repeated attempts, through his lieutenants Mansfeld and Jӓgerndorf, to sabotage the peace process, nor was criticism of any kind directed at Spain or the late Archduke Albert, whom Digby ‘much commended’.80 LJ, iii. 167b-168; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 187; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 410; Diary of Walter Yonge ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 47. Even the emperor, the king of Spain’s cousin, escaped serious censure. It was, by any measure, an extraordinarily selective account, designed as much to pacify both James and Gondomar as it was to persuade the Commons to loosen their purse-strings.

Digby urged the Commons to give so generously that the king would need to curb their enthusiasm. However, despite Members’ promise made five months earlier ‘to adventure the lives and estates of all that belong unto us’ in the cause of the Palatinate, the lower House proved reluctant even to debate supply, let alone vote the necessary funds. In part this was perhaps because, earlier in the session, they had already voted two subsidies, worth £160,000. It may also have been because they baulked at the estimated cost put forward by Digby. However, the main reason, no doubt, was that many Members refused to believe Digby when he said that Bavaria alone bore responsibility for the resumption of the war. One of the chief sceptics was Sir Robert Phelips^‡, who observed that Bavaria posed no threat without Spain, and that it was ‘the great wheel’ of Spain which controlled ‘the little wheel of Germany’.81 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 412; CJ, i. 645b. This belief, that the real enemy was Spain rather than Bavaria, was unquestionably correct, as Bavarian control of the Rhenish Palatinate would give Spain, still involved in attempting to subdue the rebellious Dutch provinces, improved lines of communications between the Netherlands and the Alps.82 G. Parker, Thirty Years’ War, 65. It was because the Commons saw through Digby that on 28 Nov. they agreed to vote only a single subsidy for the relief of the Palatinate.

The vote of such a paltry sum alarmed the royal favourite, Buckingham. On the following day one of his clients Sir George Goring^* (later 1st earl of Norwich) moved the Commons to petition the king to threaten Spain with war unless she persuaded the emperor to order a general truce, presumably in the hope of paving the way for more generous supply. However, for many Members of the Commons this suggestion did not go far enough, for how could James threaten war with Spain on the one hand while negotiating with her for a marriage on the other? Consequently, when the petition was finally drafted it included an additional clause, calling on James to abandon the Spanish Match and marry his son to a Protestant. This was highly provocative, since the king alone had the right to determine the marriage of his children, and not surprisingly it precipitated a furious argument between James and the Commons over the latter’s right to free speech.

It was against this backdrop that on 14 Dec. Digby, described somewhat unjustly by Gondomar as the fatal instrument of all these confusions’,83 Pursell, ‘War or peace?’, 177. mounted a belated attempt to focus attention once more on the needs of the Palatinate. He informed the Lords that he had learned ‘of the great and present danger the Palatinate is likely to be in’. Mansfeld, he announced, was finding it difficult to subsist on the land, and needed money to pay his troops. Moreover, the duke of Bavaria had again offered to buy off Mansfeld, who so far had resisted only because he continued to hope to be supplied from England. Following these revelations, the Lords agreed to seek a conference with the Commons so as to allow Digby to explain to the lower House the current situation in the Palatinate.84 LJ, iii. 195b, 197a; LD 1621, pp. 121-4. However, before this conference could convene the king angrily adjourned the Parliament, which was dissolved shortly thereafter without voting war funds.

Aside from his attempts to obtain subsidies for the defence of the Palatinate, Digby played almost no other recorded role in the winter sitting of the 1621 assembly. However, he spoke three times in connection with the complaint brought against the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), by Sir John Bourchier^‡, who was aggrieved at having lost a case in Chancery. On the first occasion, Digby moved the House to decide whether the complaint was a petition or an appeal. The distinction was significant: a petition would mean that the Lords could not order Chancery to reverse its earlier ruling, whereas an appeal necessarily required the House to give a binding legal judgement. His second intervention was to move the House to decide whether Williams had acted hastily, as Bourchier claimed. His third and final speech on the subject was made after the House cleared Williams of any wrongdoing. He moved that Bourchier be censured for making a false complaint.85 LD 1621, pp. 109, 117, 118.

Embassy to Madrid, 1622-3

The care taken by Digby during the winter sitting of the 1621 Parliament to avoid blaming Spain for the invasion of the Palatinate did much to repair his damaged relations with the king. Even before the Parliament was dissolved, James decided to send Digby to Madrid in the New Year to breathe new life into the Spanish Match.86 HMC 4th Rep. 285; Tixall Letters ed. A. Clifford, i. 42. James also resolved to raise an army of 9,600 men for the defence of the Palatinate.87 Add. 72254, f. 70. As Parliament had failed to vote subsidies, he proposed to pay for this modest force from the proceeds of a fresh benevolence, to which Digby contributed £50,88 SP14/119/14. and by an increase in the duties on wine. The sums involved were, of course, wholly inadequate to this task, as Buckingham soon pointed out to the king.89 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 267. However, Digby not only approved of James’s strategy but also claimed, in a letter to Viscount Doncaster (James Hay^*, later 1st earl of Carlisle) that ‘his Majesty will be sufficiently enabled to proceed and maintain these his resolutions ... in a more plentiful manner than if the subsidies had been paid him’.90 Eg. 2595, f. 30.

Although Digby expected to leave at the end of January, he did not in fact set sail from Plymouth until 16 April.91 Add. 72286, f. 77. This delay was occasioned, in part, by an unseemly quarrel with the lord treasurer, Lord Cranfield (Lionel Cranfield^*, later 1st earl of Middlesex), over the amount of money needed to pay for his embassy. The two men exchanged harsh words, and were only reconciled after the king intervened.92 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 300; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 426. Another reason for the delay, perhaps, was that Digby did not receive his instructions until 14 March. In these orders, which have not survived, Digby was told to discover whether the new king of Spain, Philip IV, shared his late father’s enthusiasm for a marriage.93 Add. 48166, f. 55. Digby was also apparently instructed not to make the restoration of the Palatinate a condition of the Spanish Match.94 Procs. 1626, i. 56; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 279. This was because the task of negotiating the restoration of the Palatinate now fell not to Digby but to Sir Richard Weston^* (later Lord Weston and 1st earl of Portland), who was dispatched to Brussels as ambassador extraordinary for this purpose.

Digby reached Madrid in late May, and quickly established that Philip IV was ‘much more affected to the Match than ever his father was’.95 Add. 48166, f. 55. However, he was unable to commence detailed negotiations until the autumn. This was partly because the Spanish government decided to recall Gondomar from London, and partly because, following the outbreak of plague among his household servants, Digby fell seriously ill.96 Ibid. ff. 68, 69r-v; G. Redworth, Prince and the Infanta, 47; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 496; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 401. Nevertheless, in July Digby announced that Philip IV was awaiting the arrival of a papal dispensation.97 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas.I, ii. 252. By late August he thought it likely that Prince Charles’s intended bride, the Infanta Donna Maria, would be able to travel to England the following spring. James was so delighted at this news that in mid September he created Digby (once again prostrate with sickness) earl of Bristol, having set the wheels in motion as early as June, apparently at the behest of Gondomar, with whom Digby was now on far better terms.98 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621-5 ed. M. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxxiv), 176 n.254; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 442; Redworth, 45. For this second bout of illness, see Add. 41866, f. 87.

It seemed as though Digby was on the verge of accomplishing a major diplomatic triumph. However, over the summer the military situation in the Palatinate deteriorated sharply, as Mansfeld, tired of Frederick’s service, withdrew temporarily from the fray.99 Wedgwood, 156. Digby, ordered to focus mainly on the Spanish Match, seems to have been unaware of the gravity of the situation and put his trust in Spanish promises of restoring the Palatinate, to the frustration of Sir Richard Weston, who complained bitterly to Cranfield that Digby ‘tells you the Palatinate shall be restored’ but ‘I see it by piecemeal taken away’.100 Kent Hist. and Lib. Centre, U269/1/OE108, 20 Aug. 1622, Buckingham to Cranfield; Add. 72286, f. 83; HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 724. The emptiness of Spain’s promises to Bristol was only fully revealed, however, in September 1622. Four days before the patent creating Digby earl of Bristol was sealed, Heidelberg fell to the Bavarians after a short siege. When news of this disaster reached London on 21 Sept.,101 Reade, ii. 91; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 331. it provoked outrage and led to calls for another Parliament. James, fearing that the negotiations in Madrid had merely been a distraction to keep him from intervening decisively in the Palatinate, dispatched one of his gentlemen of the bedchamber, Endymion Porter^‡, to the newly created earl of Bristol to agree a deadline by which the marriage treaty should be concluded. He also instructed Bristol to threaten to quit Madrid unless Heidelberg was immediately returned to the Elector and a 70-day truce established. However, James remained as unwilling to summon a Parliament and embark upon a war as he was to abandon his hopes of financial relief from a Spanish dowry. Privately, therefore, he told Bristol to remain, whatever happened, unless he received further instructions to the contrary.102 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 451; CCSP, i. 24; Add. 72286, f. 89v.

Following the arrival in Madrid of Gondomar in October, Bristol began a concerted campaign to bring the marriage negotiations to a successful conclusion.103 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 183; Patterson, 319. His efforts were well received, probably because, like him, the Spanish were well aware that if Prince Charles died unmarried the thrones of England and Scotland would eventually fall to the Elector Palatine and his wife, with potentially disastrous consequences for Spain’s control of the Rhenish Palatinate.104 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 201. Bristol not only assured James I that the Spanish were genuine in their desire for the Match to proceed (‘deeper oaths and protestations of sincerity cannot be made’),105 Add. 48166, f. 101. he also persuaded Philip IV to write to his commanders in the Palatinate ordering them to protect the English forces there. Although this letter arrived too late to prevent the fall of Mannheim, the only remaining stronghold apart from Frankenthal still held by the English, the Spanish subsequently agreed to arrange for this town to be handed over to the forces of the Archduchess Isabella.106 Misc. State Pprs., i. 496-7; Reade, ii. 94. By late November, Bristol had convinced James that once the Spanish Match had been concluded, Spain would, if necessary, use her armies to restore the Elector Palatine by force. The following month the Spanish council of state declared that the marriage would be celebrated after the papal dispensation arrived in the spring.107 HMC 8th Rep. I, 214; R. Davies, Greatest House at Chelsey, 121-2; B. Pursell, ‘End of the Spanish Match’, HJ, xlv. 703; Add. 72286, f. 93. When news of this diplomatic breakthrough reached London in early January 1623, James was overjoyed. He quickly signed the articles of religion sent to him by Bristol, including one guaranteeing not to persecute England’s Catholics, and sent them back to Madrid.108 CCSP, i. 25-7; Procs. 1626, i. 510. Although the Palatinate had still not been restored, he told an anxious Bristol that ‘I know not what you could have done more than you have done already’.109 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 471; Procs. 1626, i. 507. No less pleased than the king was Prince Charles, who wrote to the ambassador that the efforts Bristol had taken had ‘increased the good opinion I had of you’.110 Misc. State Pprs. i. 502.

At the beginning of February 1623, it seemed to Bristol that only a few loose ends remained to be tied up, although he admitted that getting Spain to agree to restore the Palatinate remained problematic, as Philip IV was unwilling to oppose his fellow Habsburgs.111 Add. 72286, ff. 99-100. However, his expectation that he and England’s resident ambassador, Sir Walter Aston, would be left alone to complete the negotiations was shattered on the evening of 7 Mar., when, to his astonishment, Prince Charles and Buckingham arrived unannounced at his door. This journey, carried out in the utmost secret, had been undertaken at the behest of the prince who, believing himself to be in love with the infanta, intended to marry his bride in person rather than by proxy, and to carry her home himself. For the next nine days, Bristol had little choice but to accommodate Charles and Buckingham in his own house while the Spanish, also taken by surprise, made hasty preparations to lodge their newly arrived guests in the king’s palace.112 Life and Letters of Sir Lewis Dyve 1599-1669 ed. H.G. Tibbutt (Beds. Hist. Rec. Soc. xxvii), 2-3; J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae, 217-18.

Bristol was far from pleased at this unexpected turn of events, and secretly wished that Charles had not come.113 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 157; Add. 72286, f. 103. His chief difficulty, aside from the fact that he was forced to extend his own credit to the tune of £5,600 to bankroll the prince,114 PRO31/8/190, f. 171. who had arrived ill-provided with money, was that the king had granted Buckingham seniority in the marriage negotiations. Before long, Bristol found himself reduced to little more than an interpreter for Charles.115 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 488; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 163, 166, 167, 174; Cal. Wynn Pprs. 179. Perhaps the most humiliating episode occurred in mid May, when Bristol was ordered out of his coach by Buckingham, now a duke, in order to allow Charles and Buckingham to converse privately with the king of Spain’s chief minister, the Count-Duke Olivares. Bristol protested that he too was a commissioner in the marriage negotiations and so ‘must have the commandment from some other man than your lordship’. However, far from prompting the prince to rebuke the favourite, his objection merely led Charles to instruct Bristol to take to his horse. Thereafter, Bristol was required to leave the negotiations entirely to Buckingham.116 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 170; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 399. Not surprisingly, Bristol quickly grew to hate the favourite, who reciprocated his ill-feeling in kind.117 Howell, 229; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 180.

It was perfectly clear to Bristol that he had been shunted aside in order to allow Buckingham to claim the credit for the marriage negotiations. Since he supposed that his presence was no longer needed, he asked in April to be allowed to accompany the prince when the latter decided to return home. However, Charles realized that the marriage negotiations were not as advanced as he had been led to believe and that he might have to return to England before they were completed. There was also the restoration of the Palatinate to consider, and there was no knowing how long the negotiations for that would take. Not surprisingly, therefore, Bristol’s request was refused.118 Harl. 6987, f. 75; HMC 8th Rep. I, 215.

Charles’s fear that he would be obliged to return to England before the negotiations were wound up proved to be well-founded. Although agreement on the main terms of the marriage was finally reached on 7 July, the prince made little headway over the restoration of the Palatinate by the time he and Buckingham left for home in late August, as the Spanish now declared that they would help to restore the Elector Palatinate to his lands and titles only if the latter agreed to allow his eldest son to be raised at the imperial court.119 Misc. State Pprs. i. 477. Nevertheless, Bristol remained so confident that the marriage - with a proxy standing in for Prince Charles - would soon take place that he had 30 velvet liveries made for the occasion, at great expense.120 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 320-1; Howell, 250. See also Add. 72286, f. 107. This was despite the fact that Charles instructed him to withhold the letter of proxy unless the Spanish gave a firm assurance that the infanta would not become a nun.121 Misc. State Pprs. i. 481-2.

Shortly after returning to England, however, Charles began to doubt the wisdom of proceeding with the marriage without first obtaining from Spain a concrete commitment to help restore the Elector Palatine. On 8 Oct., with the king’s approval, he wrote to Bristol accordingly, deferring a decision until Christmas, while at the same time assuring the ambassador that his intention was ‘in no way to break the marriage’.122 HMC 8th Rep. I, 215. A bewildered Bristol responded by reminding the king that ‘my instructions under your Majesty’s hand were, to insist upon the restoring of the prince Palatine, but not so as to annex it to the treaty of the match, as that thereby the match should be hazarded’. He did not doubt that if the match proceeded Spain would move heaven and earth to restore the palsgrave because, as Olivares had frequently observed, the marriage was useless to Spain if war ensued three months later. Were matters to be delayed until after Christmas, as Charles now demanded, the proxy would expire, the Spanish would complain that the English had broken their agreement (which required the marriage to take place within ten days of the arrival of the papal dispensation), and the infanta would be dishonoured. He therefore not only urged James to reconsider but also decided, after conferring with Sir Walter Aston, to disregard the letter he had received from Charles. On 23 Nov. he and Aston wrote to James saying that they hoped soon to be able to inform the latter’s daughter ‘of the near expiring of her great troubles and sufferings, as unto the prince your son the congratulation of being married to a most excellent princess’.123 Misc. State Pprs. i. 484-7; Howell, 229; Procs. 1626, i. 508.

Bristol must have suspected that Charles’s doubts were encouraged by Buckingham, whose conduct had greatly irritated his Spanish hosts and who now opposed the Spanish Match. He certainly wrote to James complaining of the favourite. Through his secretary, Walsingham Gresley, he waged a campaign to discredit Buckingham at court which, for a while, proved highly successful.124 Procs. 1626, i. 365; N. Millstone, Manuscript Circulation and the Invention of Pols. in Early Stuart Eng. 138-9. However, these attacks did no more than harden Charles’s resolve. On 15 Nov. the prince instructed Bristol to press Philip IV for an unequivocal answer regarding the Palatinate. If none were forthcoming within 20 days, he was instructed to break off the marriage treaty.125 HMC 8th Rep. I, 216. This message, and several others like them (presumably from the king), arrived on 26 Nov., shortly after the Spanish set up a terrace decked out with tapestries for the wedding ceremony, which was scheduled to take place in just three days time. A doubtless embarrassed Bristol immediately informed King Philip that he had been instructed not to hand over the marriage proxy until he had received full satisfaction in respect of the Palatinate. Philip replied that the Palatinate was not his to give, for although his troops held several of towns they did so only in the name of the emperor. However, he offered to use the wealth of the Indies to raise an army for the palsgrave.126 Howell, 250-2; Misc. State Pprs. i. 489. This was, of course, little more than an empty promise, and therefore Bristol subsequently presented the king with a paper in which he formally made the marriage conditional upon the restoration of the Palatinate.127 Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty, 266. By then, though, Olivares and the council of state were in uproar at England’s demands, which they dismissed as unreasonable.128 Pursell, ‘End of the Spanish Match’, 723; Misc. State Pprs. i. 490.

By the end of December at the latest, the Spanish Match lay in tatters. Bristol, all reason for remaining in Madrid now gone, promised to return home speedily, although he was not formally recalled until January 1624.129 Misc. State Pprs. i. 489; Add 72286, f. 121. It had already come to his attention that in England he was the subject of widespread criticism. In a widely circulated manuscript written by Francis Phelips entitled Tell Truth and Shame the Spaniard, he was depicted once again as a Spanish stooge. Phelips also claimed that Spain had never intended the marriage, and that Bristol had been duped.130 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 18; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 534; Millstone, 140. Both charges undoubtedly owed much to Buckingham, who, still smarting from Gresley’s attempts to discredit him at court, tried to persuade three of his fellow leading courtiers to confine Bristol to the Tower on his return to England.131 Procs. 1626, i. 365. See also Chamberlain Letters, ii. 530-1. However, Buckingham was not alone in considering Bristol to be at fault, as Prince Charles let it be known that in Spain he had concealed his doubts about the marriage because he suspected that Bristol would try to hinder his departure if he revealed them.132 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 187. Bristol was so alarmed at having incurred the enmity of the prince that he wrote to James justifying his actions.133 Misc. State Pprs. i. 489-90.

News of Bristol’s unpopularity back in England led Olivares, in mid January 1624, to offer the now embattled ambassador lands and titles in Spain if he decided not to return home. Bristol was appalled, for were he to accept it would confirm his enemies in their belief that he had been in Spanish pay all along. Spain, he replied, owed him not so much as a piece of paper, and he would prefer to ‘offer himself to the slaughter in England than ... live as duke de Infantado in Spain’.134 PRO31/8/198, f. 189; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 199. Nevertheless, Olivares’ offer was repeated by Philip IV, who, on his departure, gave Bristol not only a sideboard full of plate worth 20,000 crowns, but also a ring, which he took from his own finger and bade him wear ‘in memory of him who would ever be his friend’. This gesture, regarded even at the time as astonishing, exceeded the customary formalities accorded to departing ambassadors. Just as Gondomar had wormed his way into the affections of James I, so too Bristol had, perhaps unwittingly, succeeded in winning the love and admiration of Philip IV.135 Howell, 253-4 (letter mis-dated 16/26 Aug. 1623); ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, p. iii.

The Parliament of 1624 and the questioning of Bristol

Although the Exchequer owed him £6,000, Bristol was forced to pawn his valuables, including, perhaps, the plate given to him by the Spanish king, in order to raise the £4,000 needed to pay for his passage home.136 ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, pp. iii-iv; SP94/30, f. 190. After travelling overland to Bordeaux, where he put his wife and entourage aboard ship, he continued his journey alone through France, reaching Calais by 23 April. There he waited for one of the king’s ships to fetch him. However, none came. By 2 May Bristol had lost patience, and, after hiring a vessel that he described as no more than ‘a boat with six oars’, he crossed the Channel without further ado.137 SP94/130, ff. 193, 246; Corresp. of Eliz. of Bohemia ed. N. Akkerman, i. 455; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 230; Procs. 1626, i. 365.

It seems likely that Bristol was kept waiting deliberately. In February, at the insistence of Charles and Buckingham, Parliament had assembled and been told that the Spanish marriage negotiations were a deception designed to prevent England from intervening effectively in the Palatinate. Considerable efforts were also made to discredit Bristol, who was accused of having allowed the king to be duped.138 NLW, 9059E/1194; Millstone, 141. Bristol, of course, viewed matters very differently. Were he to reach England before the Parliament rose he would doubtless seek to challenge this version of events. Charles and Buckingham realized this, and Buckingham, as head of the Navy, was well placed to arrange for Bristol’s departure from Calais to be delayed.

It was not only Parliament from which Charles and Buckingham were anxious to keep Bristol away. They feared that if Bristol were admitted into the king’s presence, he would try to persuade James to revive the marriage negotiations, which had now been broken off at the behest of Parliament. On landing at Dover, therefore, Bristol was commanded to avoid the court and await further instruction.139 SP14/163/44; Add. 72255, f.144. Bristol, noticing that this order was not signed by the king, protested in writing to James, who ‘sent him kind messages’. However, his appeal was in vain, as it was Charles and Buckingham, not James, who now sat at the helm of State.

Although Bristol was now under house arrest, and in the custody of the knight marshal,140 Diary of Walter Yonge ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 74. this did not prevent the Spanish diplomats in London from asking to see him. Under normal circumstances this request would have presented no difficulty, as it was customary for a returning ambassador to be visited by the diplomatic representatives of the country from which he had just come. However, like Bristol, the Spaniards were being hindered from seeing the king by Charles and Buckingham, who feared that they would persuade James to revive the Spanish Match. Moreover, like Bristol, Spain’s representatives were incensed against Buckingham, whom they accused of having impugned the honour of Spain and her king in Parliament. In the event, Charles and Buckingham were powerless to prevent this meeting between the duke’s enemies, as Bristol took care to obtain James’s permission before receiving the Spaniards.141 SP94/30, ff. 236, 238, 240; SP14/164/35. At this interview the Spaniards complained bitterly of Buckingham to Bristol, who was, of course, entirely sympathetic to their grievances. He replied that he himself had information so damaging to Buckingham that, if he were permitted to see James, the favourite would lose his head. Even if he himself were the one to be sentenced to death, he would still ruin Buckingham by denouncing him on the scaffold.142 PRO31/12/29, Inojosa to Philip IV, 21/31 May 1624. However, Bristol was not so foolish as to relay these comments to Buckingham’s client, Secretary of State Conway (Edward Conway,^* later 1st Viscount Conway). On the contrary, he told Conway that he had rebuffed the Spaniards.143 SP94/30, f. 242.

Despite this dissimulation, it was perfectly clear to Prince Charles that Bristol was planning on ruining his friend Buckingham. In order to prevent this, Charles threatened to bring charges against the earl, accusing him of misconduct. However, he also offered to desist if Bristol agreed to retire to his seat in Dorset without seeing the king.144 PRO31/12/29 Inojosa to Philip IV, 21/31 May 1624; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 205; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 269-70. Unfortunately for him, however, Bristol was convinced of the strength of his case, and demanded an immediate trial by Parliament.145 ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, p. vii. Charles was horrified, not least because by now Buckingham had fallen gravely ill. He feared that if Bristol were tried without the benefit of the duke’s testimony, the earl would ‘escape with too light a censure’.146 Orig. Letters of State ed. H. Ellis (3rd ser.), i. 167. No less appalled was James, who realized that Bristol might be harmed if he appeared at Westminster, as the earl had once again assumed the form of Spanish agent in the minds of the populace. (In August the Globe theatre staged Thomas Middleton’s A Game at Chess, which featured a white pawn wearing a black doublet underneath his coat ‘signifying a Spanish heart’.)147 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 289. See also Add. 28640, f. 149v. However, perhaps James’s chief concern was to prevent Bristol from embarrassing the prince in Parliament.148 Procs. 1626, i. 366; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 558. Consequently, although recorded in the Journal as having been present in the Lords on 22 Mar. (when in fact he was still travelling through France), Bristol was never permitted to attend the 1624 assembly. Nevertheless, on learning of a bill to restore in blood Carew Ralegh, who had taken advantage of his discomfiture to try to regain possession of Sherborne, he proposed that a proviso excluding Sherborne be added to the measure.149 SP14/163/5; Add. 40088, f.106v; LJ, iii. 386b.

Three weeks before Parliament was prorogued, Bristol petitioned to be allowed to visit his terminally ill mother, Lady Abigail Digby. However, as Lady Abigail lived in Westminster, such a visit would almost certainly bring Bristol into contact with members of both Houses. On 12 May Bristol was therefore ordered to delay, presumably to allow time for Parliament to complete its business. Bristol subsequently learned that Buckingham had no intention of allowing him to visit his mother at all. Aided by some of the duke’s enemies in the king’s bedchamber, he accordingly informed James, who, declaring Buckingham’s prohibition to be ‘barbarous’, ordered Conway to give Bristol the permission he sought.150 SP94/30, f. 242; ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, p. xi; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 243, 281. For Lady Abigail’s will and burial record, see WCA, Camden ff. 30-1; Memorials of St Margaret’s, Westminster ed. A.M. Burke, 531.

Although he had thereby scored a minor victory over Buckingham, Bristol was determined not to rest until he had succeeded in clearing his name. Confident of the justice of his case, he petitioned the king in early June asking to be put on trial immediately.151 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 563; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 205. Helped by the earl marshal, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, he may even have spoken to the king at a secret meeting held at Arundel’s house in Highgate.152 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 344; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 563. However, he was told that his case would be considered by commissioners especially appointed for the task, and that he would be required to answer a series of questions in relation to his dealings as an ambassador.153 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 269-70, 271; SP14/167/37.i, 38. This was as astonishing as it was revealing, as it suggested that Charles and Buckingham had insufficient evidence with which to charge him, and were therefore looking to find more. Bristol was naturally outraged at being thus treated, but he was even more annoyed when the promised questions proved slow to materialize. On 16 June he protested to Conway that ‘I am sure it never was since his Majesty’s gracious reign that a councillor should be imprisoned two months and never heard, nor question asked him’.154 SP15/43/66. Outside Whitehall, the crown’s delay in questioning Bristol raised doubts for the first time that the former ambassador might not be as black as he had been painted.155 Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 21.

In the event, Bristol did not receive the crown’s questions until the morning of 1 July. Although they arrived unsigned and undated, he immediately set about drafting answers to all 20, which covered not only his recent embassy to Spain but also his earlier diplomatic missions to Brussels and Vienna. He was quizzed not only on Spain’s sincerity in her dealings with him, but also about his own opinions, such as how he felt when Prince Charles arrived unheralded arrival in Madrid and whether he thought that the prince should embrace the Catholic faith. This latter question was particularly pointed, because, following Charles’s arrival in Madrid, Bristol had allegedly observed to the prince in private that conversion would please the Spanish, who had put pressure on the prince to abjure his Protestant faith.156 CHARLES STUART. Bristol was also required to explain his behaviour following the departure of Charles and Buckingham for England. In particular, he was asked why he had accepted the papal dispensation when it arrived ‘without standing upon the just exceptions’, for by doing so he had allowed Spain to ‘cast colour of fault upon his Majesty and the prince’ for the breach of the marriage treaty. To each of these questions Bristol provided a compelling answer. To the charge that he had wished Charles to convert to Rome, for instance, he suggested that the king should consult both his own chaplains in Spain and those of the prince, Matthew Wren^† (a future bishop of Ely) and Leonard Mawe^* (later bishop of Bath and Wells). In response to the claim that he had allowed Spain to blame James for breaking the terms of the marriage treaty, he pointed out that he had no authority to take issue with the dispensation, ‘for it was an article agreed that his Majesty should have nothing to do with the dispensation ... it being only for the satisfaction of the king of Spain’.157 Misc. State Pprs. i. 494-522.

Throughout the course of these answers, which were sent to James on 10 July, Bristol took great care not to blame Buckingham for any of the matters for which he was questioned. His earlier desire to be revenged on the duke seems by now to have been overtaken by the realization that to pursue the favourite would mean that, at the very least, his imprisonment would be of long duration. Writing to Conway on 3 July, he promised not to blame others ‘unless by their criminating or charging of me I shall be forced unto it for mine own defence’.158 SP15/43/69. However, his answers, though they satisfied the king, failed to impress Buckingham, who could not afford to allow Bristol to exonerate himself. England was now preparing for war with Spain, and if it appeared that Bristol had not in fact allowed himself to be misled by Spain, or that Spain had actually been negotiating in good faith, the justness of her cause would be considerably weakened. At his insistence, therefore, James ordered Bristol to answer some additional questions.159 Procs. 1626, i. 366.

Bristol was understandably taken aback by this further delay. His financial affairs were now in some disarray, his estate manager having recently died, and needed his personal attention. Unless the investigation into his conduct ended soon, the king would go on his summer progress, causing the inquiry to drag on into the autumn. In desperation therefore, he renewed his earlier plea to be admitted to James’s presence to settle any outstanding questions and doubts the king might have.160 PRO31/8/198, f. 204; SP14/170/6; SP15/43/74. However, the only satisfaction he received was to be granted permission to spend the rest of the summer on his Dorset estate to sort out his finances.161 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 309

Before he left for Sherborne in late July, Bristol learned that the threat of additional questions was little more than an attempt to force him to reach a private accommodation with Buckingham, who also wished him to surrender his household office.162 PRO31/8/198, f. 206; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 311. This could only mean that Buckingham feared that the commissioners appointed by James, who had so far not been permitted to meet, would find for the former ambassador. Keen to demonstrate the strength of his position, Bristol thereupon showed the duke’s client Edward Clarke^‡ the evidence he had amassed against Buckingham. This was, perhaps, ill advised, for when Buckingham learned of the implied threat he demanded a ‘retraction’ from Bristol, who, refusing to oblige, subsequently wrote to his friends at court that the duke was mad.163 Procs. 1626, i. 366; Holles Letters, 294.

Over the summer, Bristol pinned his hopes for public exoneration on the 1624 Parliament, which was due to reassemble on 2 November.164 Add. 72276, f.113v. It seems not to have occurred to him, as it had to Lord Houghton (John Holles^*, later 1st earl of Clare), that Buckingham might use Parliament to destroy him in the same way he had destroyed Lord Treasurer Middlesex.165 Holles Letters, 294. However, the question of a parliamentary trial soon became academic, for in early October the 1624 assembly was prorogued until 16 Feb. 1625, and in fact it never met again. For the time being Bristol was largely forgotten, as James, Charles and Buckingham were now busy negotiating a French marriage for the prince. Bristol, too, seems to have been content to let matters rest for a while. Over the autumn the only request he made of the king was for permission to buy a house in the city of Bristol.166 HMC 8th Rep. I, 216; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 363, 371.

The accession of Charles I and trial by Parliament, 1626

Early in the New Year, Bristol resumed his campaign for political rehabilitation. He began by approaching Buckingham, who promised to assist him recover the favour of both the king and the prince in return for an acknowledgement that he had erred and a request for pardon. The duke also required Bristol to admit that Buckingham, in presenting his account of the Spanish marriage negotiations to the 1624 Parliament, had spoken ‘without any malicious intent’ against him. Although these demands must have seemed outrageous to him, Bristol promised to give Buckingham prompt satisfaction.167 PRO31/8/198, ff. 216, 218; ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, pp. xix-xx. As a result, it was rumoured that the two men were on the verge of becoming reconciled.168 Add. 72276, f. 141v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 603; Holles Letters, 299. However, in February Bristol learned that he was to be allowed no discretion in admitting fault, but would instead be required to sign a paper sent to him by the duke. Bristol protested that it was unreasonable ‘to have it enjoined to a gentleman to acknowledge faults he is no way guilty of’, a view shared by the king, who urged him not to submit out of any sense of compulsion. Buckingham, however, told Bristol that James, who was dying, expected him to sign.169 ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, pp. xxii-xxiii; Procs. 1626, i. 366-7.

Following the accession of Charles I, Bristol sent his congratulations to the new king and asked to be admitted into his presence.170 PRO31/8/198, f. 220 However, Charles responded by depriving Bristol of his membership of the Privy Council and pressing him to resign his household office.171 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 607, 609; HMC Hastings, ii. 67. Shortly thereafter, Bristol, perhaps as a result of the emotional strain upon him, fell seriously ill. Despite his sickness, in May he sent his nephew, Sir Kenelm Digby, to speak to the king. At this meeting, Charles described Bristol as honest and denied harbouring feelings of personal animosity towards him. Bristol’s offence, he said, was that he had ‘trusted more to the Spanish ministers and their promises than was fitting’ and shown ill will towards Buckingham. Were he to admit these faults, he would be allowed to kiss hands without further ado. Bristol’s reply is wanting but its contents can be surmised, for on 10 June Charles ordered the earl to remain at Sherborne under restraint. Moreover, the following day, Charles prohibited Bristol from attending Parliament, which had been summoned to meet later that month. Clearly he was angry, for had he been more kindly disposed he might have licensed Bristol to be absent instead.172 ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, pp. xxv, xxvii, xxviii; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 42, 540; Procs. 1626, i. 367.

Although barred from taking his seat at Westminster, Bristol was not forbidden from appointing a proxy. He duly nominated one of Buckingham’s leading opponents, the lord chamberlain, William Herbert, 3rd earl of Pembroke.173 Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 590. This was highly provocative, for in August some of the lord chamberlain’s clients in the Commons participated in a fierce attack on the duke, who was accused of mismanaging the war with Spain, which had now broken out. Buckingham suspected that Bristol had fomented some of this criticism, and on 9 Aug. he issued a thinly veiled threat, reminding his listeners in the House of Lords that pursuing the interests of Spain rather than England was so serious a charge that, were there to be a trial, it would ‘prove a lion to devour’ Bristol.174 Ibid. 165. The latter subsequently denied having provoked Buckingham, of course, but in September, following the dissolution of Parliament, he entertained Pembroke and his brother the earl of Montgomery (Philip Herbert^*, later 4th ear of Pembroke) at Sherborne.175 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 398; SP16/524/95; Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 360, 364. An angry king retaliated by stopping Bristol’s pension and dismissing him from his office of vice chamberlain of the household.176 J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), ii. 136; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 192. The last known payment of Bristol’s pension was made in June 1625: PRO31/8/198, f. 225.

The king was still furious in January 1626, when Bristol wrote to Charles asking him to clarify the terms of his restraint and grant him permission to attend the forthcoming coronation. Indeed, this latest letter caused the king to explode with rage. In his reply, drafted and corrected in his own hand, Charles expressed astonishment that Bristol was asking for favour, when he knew that in Spain he had secretly encouraged him to convert to Catholicism, thereby setting a ‘vile price’ on the kingdom. He also accused Bristol of delaying his return to England and of approving Spain’s demand that Charles’s nephew should be raised at the imperial court.177 CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, pp. 98-9.This bitterly worded response greatly shocked Bristol, who later described it as ‘the greatest heart-breaking unto me of all the crosses that have befallen me’. It can have left him in little doubt that, by now, the king himself was just as much his enemy as Buckingham. However, it soon became clear that Charles’s letter, which was written in the immediate aftermath of the unsuccessful Cadiz expedition, was not intended merely to wound him. On the king’s instructions copies were widely distributed, suggesting that its chief objective was to divert criticism from Buckingham by focussing attention on Bristol instead.178 SP16/524/95; Procs. 1626, i. 367; Millstone, 152. For one such copy, see C115/102/7752.

Following this very public rejection, Bristol felt utterly despondent. His misery was compounded by the fact that, although another Parliament had now been called, he had not received a writ of summons, a punishment normally meted out only to those peers, like the earl of Middlesex, who had been convicted of serious offences. Writing to Sir Kenelm Digby on 6 Feb., the day on which the new Parliament opened, he declared that he had done ‘all I can think of by way of humiliation’ and ‘must now attend with patience God’s will and his Majesty’s’.179 Goodman, ii. 397-8. However, the king’s decision to prevent him from attending the 1626 Parliament meant that he was not on hand when the bill to restore Carew Ralegh in blood, which had failed to complete its passage in 1624, was resubmitted to the Lords on 11 February. This measure, which appeared to threaten Bristol’s continued ownership of Sherborne, was placed in committee nine days later.180 Procs. 1626, i. 44, 60. Despite being absent from Westminster, Bristol soon learned of Ralegh’s bill, probably from his stepson Sir Lewis Dyve^‡, whom he had recently helped to a parliamentary seat at Bridport.181 Ibid. iv. 231. On 1 Mar. he wrote to the committee’s chairman, Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester, asking for proceedings in respect of the bill to be stayed until such time as he had obtained the king’s permission to be present.182 HMC Buccleuch, i. 263. Although Manchester was unable to countenance this request, the bill was referred to the consideration of the judges, who reported that Bristol’s rights were protected by the proviso added in 1624. As a result, the measure was sent to the Commons on 17 March. It subsequently received three readings, but was lost at the dissolution in June.183 Procs. 1626, i. 167, 173; ii. 356, 367.

Shortly after he appealed to Manchester, Bristol wrote to Secretary Conway asking for the right to ‘enjoy the liberty of a free subject, and the privileges of a peer of the kingdom’. If the king still wished to put him on trial, he demanded a writ of summons so that he could be heard in his own defence. However, the king insisted that he should first waive his right to immunity from prosecution, which he was entitled to plead by virtue of the general pardon enacted at the end of the 1624 Parliament. Bristol, although eager to be brought to trial, naturally declined to issue such a waiver. Before he received Conway’s latest missive on this subject,184 Goodman, ii. 399-402; Cabala (1691), 378. though, he evidently learned of the recent arrest of the earl of Arundel, who had recently emerged as one of Buckingham’s most vocal opponents. Carried out on the orders of the king, Arundel’s arrest provoked uproar among Buckingham’s enemies in the Lords, who considered it to be an infringement of their privileges. Realizing that those who sympathized with Arundel were also likely to look favourably on his own cause, Bristol sent a petition to the Lords, which was read to the House on 22 March. After complaining that he had not only been deprived of his liberty for two years without trial but also denied his writ of summons, he asked the House to mediate with the king on his behalf.185 Procs. 1626, i. 192.

Bristol’s petition was referred to the committee for privileges, which quickly established that there were no precedents for withholding a writ of summons from a peer who was not disqualified from sitting. In view of this finding, the king had little choice but to announce, through Buckingham, that Bristol would now be sent his writ. However, Buckingham went on to state that the writ would be accompanied by a letter instructing Bristol not to attend. He also read to the House the angry letter written by the king two months earlier, in which Bristol was accused of trying to subvert the religion of England by causing Charles to convert to Rome, and of putting the interests of Spain ahead of those of the Elector Palatine and his children.186 Ibid. 225-7. Charles and Buckingham presumably hoped that this letter would incense the Lords against Bristol. Buckingham was now facing impeachment, and any means of throwing the dogs off the scent must have seemed worth trying. However, the Lords not only refused to take the bait, but were also, according to the Venetian ambassador, disgusted by this tactic.187 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 386.

On receiving his writ of summons, Bristol, still at Sherborne, decided to stay away from Parliament as instructed, and appointed as his proxy the 2nd earl of Devonshire (William Cavendish^*).188 SP16/524/95; Procs. 1626, i. 10. However, on learning that he had once again been traduced by Buckingham he went onto the offensive. Through his secretary, Walsingham Gresley, he told Edward Kirton^‡, one of the Members for Marlborough and an opponent of the war with Spain, that he would prove, if given a hearing, that the failure to recover the Palatinate by diplomatic means was attributable to Buckingham. Kirton was only too eager to undermine the duke, and thereupon informed the Commons, who ordered Gresley to put this claim in writing.189 Procs. 1626, iii. 25, 26; C. Russell, PEP, 302. Bristol also petitioned the Lords, pointing out that he had received two contradictory instructions: on the one hand he was required to attend the House while on the other he was instructed to stay away. He also complained that for the past two years he had been ‘wronged’, both in respect of his liberty and his honour, as ‘many sinister aspersions’ had been cast upon him. He had been unable to answer these accusations because of ‘the industry and power of the duke of Buckingham’, who had silenced him to prevent him from revealing the duke’s ‘many crimes’. He now offered to appear before the Lords, and ‘make it appear how infinitely the said duke has abused their Majesties, the State and both the Houses of Parliament’.190 Procs. 1626, i. 284. This petition was read out to the Lords not once but twice, and was listened to with the utmost attention.191 HMC Skrine, 59. Bristol also paved the way for his return to London, as he wrote to Secretary Conway explaining that he needed no special permission to come up as the terms of his restraint did not bar him from entering the capital. Besides, it was urgent that he should do so, both for his health and to protect his estate, the Ralegh restitution bill having now completed its passage through the Commons.192 ‘Earl of Bristol’s Defence’, pp. xxvii, xxxviii. On the Ralegh bill, see Procs. 1626, ii. 320, 356, 367.

It was now the turn of the king to express outrage. On 21 Apr., two days after Bristol’s petition to the Lords was read out, the king sent a message to the upper House declaring that Bristol’s appeal was ‘so void of duty and respect to his Majesty’ that he had ‘great cause to punish it’. He ordered the House to summon Bristol to answer for his misconduct as an ambassador and for scandalizing Buckingham directly, and himself indirectly. The Lords thereupon instructed the gentleman usher to fetch Bristol, who now enjoyed ‘general sympathy’, and place him in custody.193 Procs. 1626, i. 295-6; HMC Skrine, 60.

Following his arrival in London in late April, Bristol remained a prisoner but was permitted by the Lords to dwell in his own house in St Giles-in-the-Fields.194 Procs. 1626, i. 315, 317; HMC Skrine, 61. In the upper House several peers, among them Buckingham’s ally, the 4th earl of Dorset (Edward Sackville^*), argued that Bristol should be allowed to take his seat, on the grounds that a writ of summons automatically lifted his restraint. However, they failed to persuade their colleagues to pass the necessary resolution. Instead, the Lords ordered that Bristol be brought before them on 1 May.195 Procs. 1626, i. 321-3.

Bristol arrived at the House at the appointed time in a coach pulled by eight richly adorned horses. On the way, he had been greeted with shouts from bystanders no longer convinced that he was the villain of the piece: ‘God bless you sir, God speed you well, God send you good luck’. On being brought to the bar he was required to kneel until ordered to stand by the lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry^* (later 1st Lord Coventry).196 Birch, Ct and Times of Chas. I, i. 100; Millstone, 153; H. Elsyng, Judicature in Parl. ed. E.R. Foster, 32. Thereupon the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, began to read aloud the king’s charges. However, Bristol immediately interrupted, protesting that he was a free man, a peer of the realm, who had ‘something to say of great consequence for his Majesty’s service’. On being granted leave to speak, he protested that he had exhibited his petition to the House in order to accuse Buckingham of treason rather than to be charged with the same offence himself. He added that he had told the late King James ‘of the unfaithful service of the ... duke’, for which Buckingham had tried to imprison him in the Tower, and complained that he had never been given a hearing, despite James’s promise. He then tendered to the House written articles against both Buckingham and Conway, with a demand that they should not be rendered invalid by the king’s own charges against him. Thereupon he was withdrawn from the chamber, but not before he was ‘very violent and earnest with the House’ to consider its privileges, which had been damaged by the earlier withholding of his writ of summons, and before warning the bishops that ‘the duke would have altered all the course of religion’.197 Procs. 1626, i. 328-9, 342; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 99; Gonville and Caius, ms 143/193, p. 156.

Following this extraordinary scene, the House debated at some length which charges to consider first, the king’s or Bristol’s. Charles naturally insisted that his charges be given precedence,198 M.F.S. Hervey, Life, Corresp. and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, 349. but, at Buckingham’s suggestion, it was decided to consider both sets in tandem for the time being. First to be read out were the king’s, which consisted of 11 articles. Bristol was accused, inter alia, of deceiving the late King James over the sincerity of Spanish and imperial promises to restore the Palatinate, and of using the Spanish marriage negotiations to impose the Catholic religion on England. In particular, he was said to have ‘cunningly, falsely and traitorously moved and persuaded’ the then Prince Charles to abjure the Protestant faith, and of saying that ‘the State of England did never any great thing but when they were under the obedience of the pope of Rome’. Bristol was further charged with having ‘offended in a high and contemptuous manner’ by preferring a ‘scandalous petition’ to the Lords. This not only cast the late King James in a dishonourable light but also accused the current king of lying to Parliament, for the account of the Spanish Match delivered to both Houses by Buckingham in February 1624 had been supported and seconded by Charles himself.199 Procs. 1626, i. 338, 358-63.

As soon as the attorney general had finished the clerk read out the 12 articles presented by Bristol. In these it was Buckingham who was depicted as trying to subvert the Protestant religion. According to Bristol, in the summer of 1622 Buckingham had conspired with Gondomar to carry Charles off to Spain the following year so that the prince could be converted to Rome. He also alleged that he had been in communication with the pope for the same purpose. Bristol further accused Buckingham of seeking to break off the Spanish Match because he was offended that the Spanish disapproved of his scandalous behaviour. Moreover, he claimed that Buckingham had abused Parliament ‘by his sinister relation of affairs’, and was mainly responsible for the ruin of the affairs of the Elector Palatine. In the last of his 12 articles, Bristol implied that Buckingham had played some part in the death of James I. Shortly before his demise, James had sent Bristol word that he would hear him out, but Buckingham had learned of this ‘and not long after his sacred Majesty sickened and died, having been in the interim much vexed and pressed by the said duke’. Following the presentation of Bristol’s 12 articles, the clerk read out a further 11 articles directed against Secretary Conway, whom Bristol described as a creature of the duke’s and the sole author of his lengthy confinement. He accused Conway of acting without proper authority and of frequently misinforming the late king. Indeed, he was ‘the cause of all’ Bristol’s troubles ‘by his dubious and entrapping dispatches’, which inferred that the earl had failed in his instructions when he had done no such thing.200 Ibid. 329-34.

The Lords were profoundly unimpressed by Bristol’s articles, some of which were little more than unsubstantiated allegations or innuendo. The 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*) probably spoke for many when he observed the House had ‘expected great matters’ but that the mountain, having laboured, had brought forth only a mouse. The 1st Lord Montagu (Edward Montagu*), too, thought that of the 12 charges directed against Buckingham, there were ‘not above two of any moment’, while he described all the articles laid against Conway as ‘very poor’. Not surprisingly, therefore, when Bristol was brought back to the bar he was told that he would remain in the custody of the gentleman usher, in whose house he would now be confined. On hearing this, Bristol flew into a rage, for having accused Buckingham of treason he had expected at the very least that the duke would also be deprived of his liberty. However, his remonstrations went unheeded.201 Ibid. 335, 343.

Bristol may not have been entirely surprised by the Lords’ lukewarm reception of his articles, as Buckingham enjoyed a narrow majority in the upper chamber. For this reason, perhaps, he had taken the precaution of sending his 13-year old son, Lord Digby (George Digby, later 2nd earl of Bristol) that same morning to the House of Commons armed with a petition, which was presented to the lower House by Bristol’s stepson, Sir Lewis Dyve. In this document the young Lord Digby complained that his father had been abused by Buckingham, and asked the Commons to grant Bristol a hearing. Annexed to his petition was a copy of his father’s articles against the duke.202 HMC Lonsdale, 11; Procs. 1626, iii. 116; Hutton Corresp. ed. J. Raine (Surtees Soc. xvii), 311 (letter mis-dated 27 March). However, this was highly provocative. When the Lords heard that the Commons had been given a copy of Bristol’s charges they were understandably angry, for only the upper House had the right of judicature. As Dorset observed, by going to the Commons, Digby and his father had effectively accused them ‘of not [being] competent judges’. This hostile reaction led Bristol, through Sir Lewis Dyve, to tell the lower House that he was well aware that his case was determinable only in the Lords. However, he defended the right of his son to petition for action to be taken ‘that he inherit not a tainted honour’.203 Procs. 1626, i. 345-6; iii. 122. This justification, while clever, was almost certainly disingenuous. The Commons were then in the final stages of preparing articles of impeachment against the duke, and Bristol, by giving a copy of his own charges to the lower House, may have hoped to strengthen their case. His decision to include an article which implied that Buckingham had contributed to the death of James I certainly appears to have been designed to reinforce the Commons’ own accusation on the same subject.

Now that the Lords had heard both the king’s charges against Bristol, and Bristol’s charges against Buckingham, they decided to proceed with the former first. However, they immediately encountered a serious procedural difficulty. The form of parliamentary trial with which the upper House was familiar was that of impeachment, but this required the Commons to present charges to the Lords for judgement. In Bristol’s case, the charges had not been drawn up by the Commons but by the king. Technically at least, therefore, Bristol’s trial was not an impeachment, although many years later Bristol would describe it as such.204 For a useful discussion, see C. Tite, Impeachment and Parliamentary Judicature, 189n, 196n. For Bristol’s own description of his trial as an impeachment, see An Apologie of John, Lord Digby, earl of Bristoll (1660), 53. To complicate matters further, a statute of 1544 required that any treason committed abroad be tried in King’s Bench, or by commissioners appointed by the king. Since several of the charges against Bristol dealt with the earl’s service as an ambassador, it was difficult to see how Parliament could claim jurisdiction. However, many members of the Lords correctly perceived that, were the case to be removed to King’s Bench, Bristol would certainly be condemned. Behind the scenes it was decided that the Henrician statute had never been intended to limit the trial of peers in time of Parliament, or to abridge Parliament of a power it already possessed.205 Elsyng, 34; HMC Skrine, 63-4. This, though, still left the problem of how to indict Bristol. On 2 May the only two peers in the House with legal experience – Manchester and the 1st earl of Marlborough (James Ley^*) – agreed that the proper course was for the attorney general to exhibit a bill in King’s Bench, which would then refer the matter to the Lords for judgement. However, after further consideration, the House decided to bypass King’s Bench entirely. In part this was because peers did not wish to infringe their own liberties, but it was also because the king could not be a witness in his own court. Moreover, they realized that Bristol, once indicted by King’s Bench, would be unable to make good his charges against Buckingham.206 Procs. 1626, i. 348, 354-5; J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, i. 267-8; ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 41. Another factor in the House’s decision was probably that the judges proved unable to agree among themselves on whether to charge Bristol with treason. This was a setback to the crown, and led to wild celebrations at Bristol’s house.207 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, 99.

On 6 May, the Lords having overcome these procedural difficulties, Bristol was brought before the House and formally charged. After Heath had finished reading out the indictment, Bristol, his voice now measured and composed, apologized for his earlier impassioned outburst, saying that an accusation of treason would anger the most honest of men. He subsequently asked for a written copy of the charges, and for access to all the dispatches he and Sir Walter Aston had written from Spain, in order to prepare his defence. In a barbed reference to Buckingham, who had lent a squadron of warships to the French king the previous year, he observed that he had expected to be charged with something substantial, like handing over the king’s ships to a foreign nation, than ‘with discourses and inferences’. He protested, too, at the inequality of his treatment, as the duke, who was also accused of treason, remained at liberty. Indeed, ‘I am made a traitor, and he a judge to vote against me’. Furthermore, he drew attention to the inconsistency of his treatment, for until recently the king had said that he was capable of availing himself of the pardon granted at the end of the 1624 Parliament, ‘and yet now my offences are made high treason’.208 Procs. 1626, i. 363-5; Goodman, ii. 407-9.

Although his charges against Buckingham had generally been considered disappointing, the calmness of Bristol’s latest performance impressed most of his listeners.209 HMC Skrine, 63; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, ii. 184. He was now permitted to return to his own house, while the gentleman usher was no longer required to be in continual attendance upon him. Bristol was also permitted the services of four distinguished lawyers of his own choosing. However, this latter decision was immediately challenged by the king, who pointed out that, by law, those accused of treason were required to defend themselves in person rather than by counsel. This view was subsequently endorsed by the House’s two lawyer-Members, Manchester and Marlborough, but was eventually overruled. This was because, in May 1624, when the king had been sitting among them as prince of Wales, the Lords had granted the earl of Middlesex the right to counsel during his trial.210 Procs. 1626, i. 372, 373, 380, 380, 382-3, 478, 484-6, 494.

While Charles tried to deprive Bristol of the right to counsel, Bristol laboured to prevent the king from testifying against him. On 8 May, just as the Commons were about to begin presenting their impeachment charges against Buckingham, the earl petitioned the Lords, protesting that Charles could not be judge in his own cause, particularly as he stood to benefit if Bristol’s estate was forfeited for treason.211 Ibid. 378-9; HMC Skrine, 64. Those who supported the king tried to shrug off this objection. The bishop of London (George Montaigne^*), for instance, argued that Bristol’s objection was irrelevant, as the House was judge in this case, not the king, Charles having referred the matter to peers, while Attorney General Heath pointed out that at the time of Bristol’s alleged misconduct Charles had been prince ‘and so a subject’. However, it was unclear, even to the normally crown-compliant earl of Manchester, ‘how far the testimony of the king for what was spoken to him as prince may be used’. It was therefore agreed that the judges should be consulted. In the event the judges were never permitted to deliver their advice in this matter, as the king forbade the judges from reaching a decision, on the grounds that cases involving the monarch were likely to vary so much that ‘it was very hard and dangerous to give a general rule’.212 Procs. 1626, i. 381, 392-3, 407.

Charles’s intervention, which was reported to the House on 13 May, put an end to Bristol’s attempt to avoid his trial. On 17 May, one day after the Lords decided not to sequester Buckingham from his seat, he asked to be allowed to submit his answers to the king’s charges that afternoon. However, as the Lords were then considering the Commons’ accusations against Buckingham, Bristol was not brought before the House until the 19th, when he was assured by the lord keeper that his failure to transfer his answers to parchment would not be held against him. After repeating his earlier complaint that he and Buckingham had received unequal treatment, Bristol was allowed to sit on a stool while his counsel, Anthony Low, read aloud his reply to the king’s charges, which task took two hours owing to the document’s great length.213 Ibid. 501-2, 532.

Bristol had failed to impress the House nearly two weeks earlier, when he had laid charges of his own against Buckingham, but this time his performance was admired. Point by point, Bristol carefully exposed the injustice in each of the king’s accusations against him. In response to the charge that he had misled the late king about the sincerity of Spanish and imperial promises in respect of the Palatinate, for example, he pointed out that he had never discounted the need for force. In July 1621, while in Vienna, he had written to the king and the Privy Council urging them not to set aside ‘the care of all fitting preparations for a war’. At the same time he had recommended that a fleet sent to deal with the pirates of Algiers should be ordered to remain off the coast of Spain ‘in case his Majesty should be ill used’, which fleet ‘will prove the best argument he can use for the restitution of the Palatinate’. Bristol reminded his listeners that it had been his timely advice to Mansfeld that had led to the relief of Frankenthal in October 1621, that it had been his willingness to lay out £10,000 of his own money had restored order in Heidelberg, and that it was he who had moved Parliament in November 1621 to vote subsidies for the defence of the Palatinate. Bristol also exposed the myth, propounded by Charles and Buckingham, that Spain had never intended to proceed with the Spanish Match, by pointing out that the marriage treaty had actually been signed and sealed by Philip IV.214 Ibid. 502-10.

Perhaps the most damning accusation against Bristol was that he had urged the king to convert to the Catholic faith. However, the earl rebutted this charge, claiming that he had merely informed Charles after the latter’s arrival in Madrid that the Spanish were expecting his conversion. At the same time he had gone down on one knee and declared that he himself would remain a Protestant. Bristol, of course, was aware that this assertion, which directly contradicted the king’s own testimony, was very far from being proof of his commitment to the Protestant faith, and therefore drew the House’s attention to the fact that he had been dangerously ill in the summer and autumn of 1622. If the Lords doubted his truthfulness, he suggested that they examine his chaplains at the time, to see whether, at moments of extremity, he had ever made a confession of faith that was not Protestant. In response to the accusation that he had advocated raising the Elector Palatine’s eldest son at the imperial court in Vienna, Bristol pointed out that this idea had actually originated with Secretary of State Calvert and the Spanish ambassadors in London, and that it had enjoyed the support of James I.215 Ibid. 519-23.

Many peers were so impressed with Bristol’s answers, which were supported by a wealth of documentary material,216 Millstone, 155-6; Gonville and Caius ms 143/193, p. 160. that they would have acquitted the earl there and then were it not for the fact that the attorney general was required to reply on behalf of the king in due course. For the time being, therefore, Bristol had to be content with being allowed to take the air in company with the gentleman usher. Shortly thereafter, the Lords appointed a 40-man committee to take witness statements, which was ordered to begin meeting on 25 May. Although a number of Buckingham loyalists, such as the 4th earl of Dorset and the 1st earl of Bridgwater (John Egerton^*), were appointed to this body, so too were several of the duke’s leading critics, including the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*, and the lord chamberlain, Pembroke.217 HMC Skrine, 68; Procs. 1626, i. 531, 540-1; C115/109/8844.

The ensuing investigation proved to be painfully slow, largely due to the quarrel between the king and the upper House over Charles’s continued detention of Arundel. On 25 May, the day on which the committee was meant to have begun its examination of the evidence against Bristol, matters reached such a pitch that the House refused to transact any further business in protest. On 2 June the attorney general was ready to give his response to Bristol’s answers, but the Lords’ continued moratorium put paid to this plan.218 HMC Skrine, 71; Procs. 1626, i. 558. Not until 9 June, the day after Arundel was permitted to resume his seat, did peers finally begin examining key witnesses. Among those who testified was one of Buckingham’s principal critics in the House of Commons, Sir Dudley Digges^‡, who claimed that Bristol had told him ten years earlier that he would rather see Charles married to a milkmaid, so long as she was Protestant, than the infanta.219 Procs. 1626, i. 593-6; HMC Lonsdale, 32.

The delay caused by the Arundel case had the effect of unsettling Bristol, who feared that if Parliament were dissolved before his case was determined he would be subjected to a further prosecution in Star Chamber. On 8 June, moments after Arundel thanked the Lords for interceding on his behalf, he asked the House to expedite his trial, ‘for that he feared no man would be of his counsel if the Parliament were once ended’. At the very least, he urged peers to declare that none of the charges against him amounted to treason. However, to his intense disappointment, the Lords declined this latter request, which amounted to a demand to prejudge the outcome of their investigation. They nevertheless tried to soften the blow by explaining that, were they to look into the matter and decide that his conduct had been treasonable, it would have the effect of severely weakening his testimony against Buckingham.220 Procs. 1626, i. 585, 587; HMC Skrine, 71; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 224-5.

It was not only the slowness of his own trial that caused Bristol to be impatient. On 9 June the earl demanded that charges now be drawn up against Buckingham, based upon his earlier complaint. The Lords thereupon ordered king’s counsel to draft the required charges for presentation on 13 June. However, this latter deadline was not observed, as it was subsequently decided that Bristol’s own lawyers should draw up the indictment, which would be submitted to the House after inspection by the king’s law officers.221 Procs. 1626, i. 594-5, 610. How close this exercise came to completion is unclear, but the question is largely academic, because on 15 June the king suddenly dissolved Parliament. Rumours abounded that the imminent presentation of Bristol’s charges against the duke was responsible.222 HMC Skrine, 73; Millstone, 160. However, the real reason for the king’s decision to end the Parliament so abruptly was that the Commons had resolved to demand the removal of Buckingham from the royal presence.

Imprisonment, partial rehabilitation and renewed opposition, 1626-8

The dissolution automatically brought an end to the parliamentary trial of Bristol. Surprisingly, the earl later forgot this, and claimed that Charles abandoned the trial mid Parliament after finding that it was unpopular with both Houses.223 An Apologie of John Digby, earl of Bristoll, 53. In fact, as late as 14 June witnesses for the king were being sworn by the Lords.224 Procs. 1626, i. 630.

During the final moments of the 1626 Parliament, the Lords declared that Bristol was now free, as ‘the dissolution dissolves the restraint’ placed upon him.225 Procs. 1626, i. 636. However, the king had other ideas, and before the end of the day Bristol was committed to the Tower.226 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 111; HMC 4th Rep. 290. Two weeks later, on 28 June, Charles ordered the examination of three former Members of the Commons – Bristol’s stepson Sir Lewis Dyve, Sir John Strangways^‡ (Dyve’s father-in-law) and Edward Kirton – on suspicion of fomenting dissatisfaction among the members of both Houses on behalf of Bristol.227 HP Commons 1604-10, v. 30-1.

As Parliament was dissolved before Bristol’s trial had ended, the king commenced a Star Chamber prosecution over the summer. The charges included not only those which had previously been presented to Parliament but also several fresh accusations.228 Elsyng, 61; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 222. None of the latter now survive, but they evidently related to Bristol’s recent conduct in Parliament and, more particularly, perhaps, to his relationship with Dyve, Kirton and Strangways.229 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 199.

Imprisonment in the Tower necessarily made it difficult for Bristol to prepare his defence. Consequently, after appealing to the king, Bristol was permitted in early August to leave the confines of the Tower by day, accompanied by a keeper, in order to consult his papers. The following month he was granted leave for six weeks to return to Sherborne for the same purpose.230 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 443-4; HMC 8th Rep. I, 217; APC, 1626, pp. 131-2, 260; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 135. Throughout this time an increasingly desperate Bristol tried to persuade the king to abandon the Star Chamber prosecution in return for a promise to live the rest of his life in quiet retirement.231 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 221-2. However, his appeal fell on deaf ears, as Charles continued to insist that he apologize in writing for his credulity in Spain, and for having cast aspersions on Buckingham.232 Millstone, 160. Not only was he struck off the commission of the peace in four counties, he was also compelled to return to the Tower in early November.233 APC, 1626, p. 349; Birch, Ct and Times of Chas. I, i. 167. The account of this period in Oxford DNB, xvi. 149, is erroneous. By then he was suffering from an ailment whose symptoms included ‘strong pimples’ and the loss of all his hair and nails.234 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 188; Diary of Walter Yonge (Cam. Soc. xli) ed. G. Roberts, 99. Some of his contemporaries conjectured that Bristol had poisoned himself, while others, no doubt recalling the gruesome fate that had befallen Sir Thomas Overbury 13 years earlier, claimed, somewhat improbably, that poison had been administered to him by his enemies. Whatever the truth may have been, it seems clear that in January 1627 Bristol narrowly escaped death.235 NLW, 9062E/1515.

At the height of his sickness, Bristol was granted permission to leave the Tower and take a house in nearby Fenchurch Street. There he somehow managed to recover some of his former strength, and the following month he was well enough to submit his written response to the charges against him. In his defence, he argued that he should not be questioned in Star Chamber for misdemeanours committed in Parliament, especially as these infractions were not deemed offences at the time by Parliament herself. This defence, essentially an appeal to parliamentary privilege, was formally considered by the judges on 4 May 1627.236 Birch, Ct and Times of Chas. I, i. 185, 199, 222. No record of their ruling has been found, but Bristol’s argument evidently prevailed, as all further talk of the Star Chamber prosecution abruptly ceased.

From the king’s point of view, the decision to add new charges of a parliamentary nature to the accusations previously laid against Bristol had clearly been a tactical mistake. There was now no judicial course open to Charles to call Bristol to account for his alleged misconduct as an ambassador. This must have come as a great relief to Bristol, but Charles, vindictive in defeat, continued to limit the movements of the earl. When, on 24 June, Bristol petitioned to be allowed to spend the summer in the country for his health, he was ignored. Not until early July, when Bristol’s wife produced medical certificates from two doctors, did Charles finally relent.237 HMC 8th Rep. I, 217; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 244. No order for Bristol’s release has been found.

Sometime over the next six months, Bristol’s political fortunes underwent a remarkable transformation. It had been rumoured as early as August 1626 that Buckingham was interested in repairing his relations with Bristol by means of a marriage between one of his relatives and the earl’s eldest son.238 W.S. Powell, John Pory, microfiche supplement, 112. See also Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 176. In the event this suggestion came to nothing. However, in late 1627, following his return from his disastrous expedition to the Île de Ré, Buckingham, fearing that another Parliament would soon meet, tried to mend his fences with his political enemies, including Bristol. The details are obscure, but sometime early in the New Year, after the earl sold the duke a silver perfuming pan for more than £367, Bristol and Buckingham patched up their differences.239 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 311; Add. 12528, f. 37. This rapprochement evidently paved the way for an improvement in Bristol’s relations with the king. When Parliament opened on 17 Mar., Bristol not only received his writ of summons but was also listed as one of the triers of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland,240 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 62, 63. a mark of favour, as triers were appointed by the crown rather than the House of Lords. Four days later Sir Francis Nethersole wrote to the queen of Bohemia that Bristol had told him that he was now ‘right again with his Majesty, and by him admitted to the court, where he hath been very much of late’.241 Corresp. of Eliz. of Bohemia, i. 740.

Bristol was too unwell to attend the first few days of the 1628 session, but instead offered his excuses and took the air in his coach.242 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 79; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 330. Consequently, he did not come to the Lords until 22 Mar., on which day ‘friendly salutations passed between the duke and him’ and he was formally introduced as an earl. Over the course of the next three months Bristol attended the Lords regularly, missing only the occasional day and taking care to excuse himself whenever he was absent.243 Letters from Redgrave Hall: the Bacon family 1340-1744 (Suffolk Rec. Soc. l) ed. D. MacCulloch, 121; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 86, 120, 138, 189.

The 1628 session was dominated by debate in both Houses over the right of the king to imprison men without showing cause. Bristol had first-hand experience of the king’s power in this area, of course, having suffered a lengthy period of imprisonment before being brought to trial. His sympathies undoubtedly lay with those who had been denied a trial after being imprisoned for refusing to pay the Forced Loan of 1626-7. Certainly, in June 1624, he had raged against the injustice of being imprisoned without so much as charges being laid against him.244 SP15/43/66. Outside Parliament, therefore, it was believed that, in the Lords, Bristol was vehement in condemning arbitrary imprisonment.245 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 347, 349. However, the truth of the matter was far more complex.

Initially at least, Bristol was in fact unwilling to jeopardize his recent political rehabilitation, and therefore tried to steer a middle course between the king’s position and that of his critics. This is apparent from his contribution to the first major debate on the subject, held on 22 Apr., when he spoke up to five times (making him the most frequent speaker next to William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele). In this he drew a distinction between the king’s legal power and his regal power, meaning the royal prerogative. He argued that the question of whether the king was entitled to imprison a man without showing cause should be settled ‘without relation to the prerogative’, and with reference only to the king legal powers. To demonstrate that it was perfectly reasonable to proceed in this way, Bristol drew the House’s attention to the fourth commandment, which forbade all work on the Sabbath. No one would think of adding to this commandment a series of exceptions, he observed, and yet reason allowed a man to set aside the prohibition against working on the Sabbath in cases of urgent necessity. Indeed, Christ himself healed on the Sabbath. By the same token, there was no need to mention the royal prerogative in relation to imprisonment without trial. By confining themselves to the strict letter of the law, the Lords could uphold the Commons’ complaint and yet still preserve the king’s prerogative, the defence of which was vital. This ingenious line of argument demonstrated Bristol’s desire to find a solution that would please all sides. However, it failed to persuade Lord Keeper Coventry, who observed that the king’s legal power ‘cannot be divided from the regal power, and that in the restraining of the one there will be a great wounding of the other’. Nevertheless, Bristol continued to favour avoiding explicit mention of the prerogative.246 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 322, 327, 329, 455.

Although Coventry had poured cold water on his proposed division of the king’s powers, Bristol remained committed to finding a solution that would satisfy both the king and his critics. He urged the Lords not to throw out the Commons’ proposition after only one debate but instead to join with the lower House, ‘that by our union we might make his Majesty great’. He suggested that they begin by breaking down the Commons’ proposition in respect of arbitrary imprisonment into its constituent parts in order to isolate those passages with which they disagreed. They should then consult the judges on points of law and afterwards seek a conference to explain to the Commons why their proposition was ‘inconvenient’. He feared a ‘distraction’ otherwise.247 Ibid. 323, 324, 329, 330.

Bristol’s unwillingness to join the clamour against arbitrary imprisonment preserved his improved relations with Charles. This was just as well, as he now needed royal assistance. Sometime before the end of April he evidently learned that Carew Ralegh intended to lay yet another bill before Parliament threatening his continued possession of Sherborne. His first thought in response to this threat was to find a place in the House of Commons for his older brother Philip by persuading the lower House, through his allies, to re-enfranchise the Somerset borough of Milborne Port. However, as the ensuing election did not take place until 26 May, Philip took his seat far too late to influence the bill’s proceedings. Bristol’s second thought was to persuade the Lords to delay the second reading of Ralegh’s bill for two days. At the same time he asked the king, through the attorney general, for permission to reintroduce the bill that he himself had laid before the Lords in May 1621 confirming his grant of Sherborne. Charles, having no reason to do otherwise, evidently signified his consent, as five days later Bristol presented this measure to the Lords, who gave it two readings. Ralegh naturally protested at this new bill, while Bristol obtained permission to be heard, through his counsel, at the committee considering Ralegh’s bill.248 Ibid. 367, 372, 373, 376, 379; Procs. 1628, p. 210.

In his desire to avoid a confrontation with Charles over the liberties of the subject by navigating a middle course between the king and his critics, Bristol had clearly earned the royal gratitude. However, his attempts to pursue a moderate course soon brought him into conflict with many of the king’s more inflexible supporters, led by Buckingham, particularly after the Commons decided to proceed by petition of right. The first sign that Bristol and Buckingham no longer saw eye to eye is to be found in the record of debate for 13 May. On the previous day the king had sent the Lords a letter declaring that he could not, ‘without the overthrow of sovereignty’, allow his power to imprison without showing cause to be impeached.249 CD 1628, iii. 373. That afternoon, Buckingham persuaded the House to turn its attention to the king’s letter, but only after several peers, thinking the House stood adjourned, had left the chamber. The following morning there were angry exchanges, as many of those who had left the previous day accused Buckingham and his allies of employing underhand tactics. Buckingham responded by demanding that the House clear him from the imputation of impropriety by voting that there had been no irregularity. However, Bristol retorted that they should instead determine whether an order to rise had in fact been given, ‘and then apply the fact unto it’.250 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 416.

On 14 May Bristol clashed with another of the king’s more extreme supporters, the bishop of Exeter, Joseph Hall^*, who declared that the Petition was ‘incompatible with the king’s prerogative’ and demanded to know whether the House intended ‘to diminish the prerogative of the king’. On hearing this, Bristol replied that ‘it was never said that the petition of the Commons is incompatible with the king’s prerogative’. The Commons, he explained, were merely demanding ‘their ancient right without addition’, while the king had promised to let them have immunities as freely as in the best of times. He had no doubt ‘that both may be reconciled’. Following this firm rebuke a chastened Hall was forced to explain himself.251 Ibid. 424.

Whereas Hall considered the Petition to be incompatible with the king’s letter, Bristol, like many others, thought that it was the king’s letter that was incompatible with the Petition. That afternoon he broke cover and declared the letter to be unsatisfactory. The following day he went further, describing the letter as ‘not parliamentary’, ‘not satisfactory’ and downright ‘contradictory’, since it was intended to ‘take the business [the Petition of Right] out of the way’. He also crossed swords again with Buckingham, who wished the House to appoint a committee to bring the Petition into conformity with the king’s letter, whereas Bristol proposed that the matter be dealt with by the whole House. In the event it was decided, at Buckingham’s suggestion, to deal with the question in grand committee. On the face of it this was a compromise solution, but in reality it was a victory for Bristol.252 Ibid. 430, 438, 726-7. See also CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 84.

Opposition to the king’s letter of 12 May once again brought Bristol into disfavour with the king. However, the prospect of having to endure another long period of royal displeasure seems to have been too much for him to bear, and on 19 May Bristol took advantage of words spoken by Buckingham – that in dealing with the Petition the House ‘should provide for the future, and not ... look back’ - to make a heartfelt request:

That being it is a time of jubilee, and such a time wherein there is no intent of looking back upon anything now complained of, that we who now stand in the king’s disfavour, originally (perhaps) for refusing the loans, might have our causes presented to his Majesty and that the cloud of his Majesty’s displeasure might be removed. For my part, I esteem the displeasure of my prince, being the debar of all promotion or employment in the state, to be fully equal to close imprisonment. And if this thing be not granted, we must in a petition of grievance, though I cannot say in a petition of right, move his Majesty on this behalf.

After he finished speaking, Bristol was seconded by six of his fellow peers, all of whom were, like him, victims of the king’s displeasure. Perhaps surprisingly, Bristol’s motion was not rejected out of hand by the government spokesmen in the House. On the contrary, both Buckingham and the lord president of the Privy Council, the earl of Manchester (a fellow moderate) offered their assistance.253 Procs. 1628, pp. 468-9.

Over the course of the next few days, Bristol worked hard to find some way of appeasing the king without undermining the Petition. On 19 May he expressed his approval of the suggestion made by Lord Weston, that a clause be added to the Petition promising ‘to leave entire this sovereign power wherewith your Majesty is trusted’. This addition, he declared, ‘concludes all the points of the Petition’. However, he was immediately contradicted by Viscount Saye and Sele, who shrewdly observed that ‘if you extend this addition to every particular in the Petition, the Petition is quite overthrown’. The following day, Bristol himself moved to remove the word ‘unlawful’ from the Petition and replace it with either ‘illegal’ or ‘not warrantable by law’. This latter formulation quickly gained approval, and that afternoon the Commons agreed to Bristol’s substitution. However, they also declined to accept Weston’s proposed addition, whereupon Bristol proposed that it be discarded and replaced with a verbal assurance, to be given to the king on the submission of the Petition, which motion was not adopted.254 Ibid. 462, 465, 480; CD 1628, iii. 506.

During the course of these debates, Bristol became rather heated. At one point, according to the earl of Bridgwater, he stood up ‘to speak for the freedom of the subject[s] of England and would not be cried [down].’ He quickly realized that he had, once again, offended Buckingham, and, on 26 May, shortly after the Lords voted to accept the Petition virtually unaltered, he tried to take the matter of his punishment out of the duke’s hands by asking the House to censure or acquit for having ‘uttered earnest speeches’. Buckingham reacted by saying that he had indeed been offended by Bristol’s words, and did not wish to hear them repeated, but he added that he was willing to forget the matter. Bristol was dissatisfied with this response, as it left the question of his guilt or innocence unresolved, but on repeating his demand the whole House agreed that the matter was best left forgotten.255 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 487, 534.

Although Buckingham had offered to draw a veil over this episode, Bristol may have suspected that he was being insincere. This is despite the fact that, two days later, he and several other dissident peers were admitted to the king’s presence and allowed to kiss hands.256 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 358-9. He also soon became aware that the Commons were furious with Buckingham, who was blamed for the king’s unsatisfactory answer of 2 June to the Petition of Right (in which Charles agreed to preserve the liberties of the subject while at the same time upholding the royal prerogative). On 5 June Sir Edward Coke^‡, one of the leading Members of the Commons, publicly denounced Buckingham as ‘a grievance of grievances’. Outwardly at least, Bristol refrained from joining in this assault. However, a close reading of the surviving parliamentary record suggests that he lent Coke his support.

At around the same time as Coke launched his attack on Buckingham, Bristol addressed the Lords. However, unlike Coke, he approached his target obliquely. He said that he had heard it rumoured that Parliament would soon be dissolved, and expressed alarm at this prospect. England was now at war with both Spain and France, he observed, and so far had prevailed against neither. On the contrary, the kingdom had done itself more harm than good. ‘The Lord’, he added, ‘has not gone forth with our armies’, a phrase strikingly similar to one used that same morning by Coke (‘God will not bless us, nor go out with our armies’). Bristol went on to complain that ‘we have been to our friends and allies as a broken reed’, having failed to restore the Elector Palatine or assist Charles’s uncle, the king of Denmark. Normally, of course, it was the business of the Privy Council ‘to lay before king the true estate of his kingdom’, but Bristol pointed out that the House of Lords also performed this function, it being ‘the great council of this kingdom’. He therefore suggested that the House appoint a small committee ‘to consider of such matters as we shall think for the happy ending of this session for the good of ourselves and friends and distracting of our enemies’. This proposal was warmly endorsed by another of the duke’s enemies, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Berkshire, who praised Bristol for having spoken with ‘much duty and loyalty to the king’. However, the House decided to postpone its decision until the following morning.257 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 587-8.

Unsurprisingly, the king did not share Berkshire’s enthusiasm for Bristol’s motion. When the House reassembled the next day (6 June), Charles politely thanked the Lords for their concern, but remarked that it was unnecessary for them to spell out to him the dangers facing the country ‘since they are apparent to all men’. However, this pointed rebuff was not well received by one of Buckingham’s leading opponents in the Lords, the 3rd earl of Essex, who belatedly seconded Bristol’s motion, even though ‘there is a kind of stop’ to it. For his part Bristol, despite his recent formal reconciliation with Charles, refused to be silenced. He knew perfectly well, he said, that Charles was aware of the perils facing the kingdom, as the king was ‘wiser than his people’. However, he added, it was not enough for the king to know something. He must also ‘know it the right way’. In other words, whether Charles liked it or not, in times of national emergency, Parliament had an important role to play. Bristol also took to task the king’s spokesman, Lord Carleton (Dudley Carleton^*, later Viscount Dorchester), for insisting that Parliament should now focus on voting supply:

... his lordship thinks we must think of nothing but the necessity of supply, [but] I will propound unto your lordships one necessity more, which is the uniting of the king and his people and removing all misunderstanding. The necessity that that lord spoke of depends upon a Parliament; the necessity I speak of depends upon a Parliament. Since things stand so, it is our duty first to be humble suitors unto his Majesty ... not ... to make a sudden end of this Parliament, and to give reasons for the continuance of it longer.

Aside from showing that he was playing for time, this speech demonstrates that Bristol’s objective was to force the king to provide a more satisfactory answer to the Petition of Right. However, not until the following morning, when he described the king’s first answer ‘to be rather a waiving of the Petition than any way satisfactory to it’, did he make this goal explicit.258 Ibid. 587-8, 591, 598. His support for the Commons soon bore fruit, for that afternoon Charles agreed to accept the Petition without reservation.

Bristol’s sympathy for the Commons during the debates on the Petition of Right can have done little to harm his private legislative interests. As has been mentioned, in early May Bristol had laid before the Lords a bill to secure his title to Sherborne, thereby crossing another measure submitted to the upper House by Carew Ralegh. However, for reasons that are now obscure, he subsequently abandoned this piece of legislation in favour of a fresh bill, which he laid before the Lords on 20 May. This new measure rapidly passed through all its stages in the upper House, and was sent to the Commons on 22 May. Despite the press of other business, the lower House gave this measure two readings the following morning and placed it in a committee whose members included Bristol’s stepson Sir Lewis Dyve. It was eventually returned to the Lords with only minor amendments, and passed into law at the end of the session. Bristol was so pleased that he sent the Commons a message of thanks. The Ralegh restitution bill also passed into law at the same time, but, since Bristol had now secured his title by statute, this was something of a hollow victory for its author.259 Ibid. 473, 485, 500-1, 504, 520, 612, 699, 707; CD 1628, iii. 557-8; HMC Cowper, i. 353.

For most of the session Bristol, aside from promoting his own measures and attempting to thwart Ralegh’s bill, seems to have played little part in the legislative business of the House. Indeed, before the end of May, he was appointed to just five bill committees. However, in June he was instructed to help consider four bills, including a measure to naturalize Balthazar Gerbier, Buckingham’s adviser on art and architecture, the preamble of which apparently said that Gerbier should be naturalized because he was Protestant. Bristol disliked this wording, observing that ‘we should not make religion a cloak and stalking horse for us to grant bills’.260 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 607. In addition to these legislative appointments, Bristol was named to several other committees, including one to consider whether to extend parliamentary privilege to the wife of Buckingham’s older brother, Viscount Purbeck (John Villiers^*). Like most other members of the committee, Bristol, voted to deny privilege to Viscountess Purbeck,261 Ibid. 167; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33 (31 Mar. 1628), no. 12. whose sexual unfaithfulness to her husband had earned her Buckingham’s enmity.

During the closing stages of the session, Bristol took part in the impeachment of the rector of St Giles-in-the-Fields, Roger Manwaring^† (later bishop of St Davids), who had not only published two sermons defending the Forced Loan in 1627 but also preached, on 4 May 1628, that the king had ‘the supreme command and dominion’ over the goods of his subjects in times of emergency. Bristol was undoubtedly familiar with Manwaring, for as recently as 1626 he had been living in St Giles-in-the-Fields himself, though he now had lodgings in Dean’s Court, Westminster. This familiarity, and perhaps a certain liking, may explain why, during Manwaring’s trial (13 June), Bristol declared that ‘the chief work’ was to burn Manwaring’s books rather than punish their author.262 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 639. For his Westminster address, see CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 103.

Final years, 1629-54

Given that he had tacitly supported the Commons’ attack on Buckingham in early June, Bristol may have expected, following the prorogation of Parliament on 26 June, to be once again cast into outer darkness by the duke. In fact, his relations with Buckingham markedly improved. As early as 23 June his pension was restored to him, and on 30 June the Venetian ambassador remarked that Bristol, now free to return to court, was often to be seen in the company of Buckingham, who was considering making peace with Spain and now relied upon his advice. Shortly thereafter, it was reported that Bristol would soon become lord chamberlain, in succession to the earl of Montgomery, who would be promoted to lord steward. In the event, this appointment never transpired, as Buckingham was assassinated in August.263 CSP Dom. 1629-9, p. 174; CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 168-9, 211; Kent Hist. and Lib. Centre, U269/1/CB105; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, ii. 203. However, even after the duke’s death Bristol continued to recover lost ground. In December 1628 he was restored to the bench in Northamptonshire and Somerset, while in March 1629 he told Sir Francis Nethersole that he was ‘now right again with his Majesty’, and so frequently at court.264 SP16/139/23.

Bristol played little recorded part in Parliament when it reassembled in January1629, apparently attending only 14 of the 23 sittings of the upper House, and making no recorded speeches. However, for the first time he was appointed to the standing committee for privileges. He was also included on the committee for petitions, to which body he had been added towards the end of the previous session. His only legislative appointment was to consider a bill for the better maintenance of church ministers.265 LJ, iv. 6a, 6b, 7b; Lords Procs. 1628, p. 550. However, he was twice named to committees concerned with a grievance, widely held among peers, namely that the English holders of Irish and Scottish viscountcies enjoyed precedence on local commissions over English barons. Bristol’s views on this subject are unknown, but among the so-called ‘foreign’ nobles was his nephew Robert Digby, Lord Digby of Geashill in the Irish peerage, who seems to have been staying with him at the time.266 LJ, iv. 25v, 27b. For the evidence that Digby of Geashill was staying with Bristol, see E.W. Bligh, Sir Kenelm Digby and his Venetia, 155. The only other committee to which Bristol was appointed before the dissolution on 10 Mar. was that for drafting a petition asking the king to bestow lands on the impoverished 19th earl of Oxford (Robert de Vere^*).267 LJ, iv. 31a.

During the Personal Rule, Bristol continued to enjoy a modicum of royal favour. In June 1631 he was paid £4,000 by the Exchequer on his account as former ambassador extraordinary to Spain. The king also authorized the resumption of payments on his pension, granted to him by James I in 1621.268 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 123; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 90. This financial assistance was undoubtedly welcome, for on his return to England in 1624 Bristol had been so heavily indebted that he had been forced to sell some of his lands. (In July 1626 he still owed his creditors more than £13,000.)269 CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, p. 140. Bristol also began to be considered for fresh diplomatic postings. In June 1631 Charles thought of appointing him as ambassador extraordinary to the emperor; and in May 1632 the admiralty secretary and Privy Council clerk Edward Nicholas^‡ reported hearing that he would soon succeed Sir Henry Vane^‡ as ambassador extraordinary to Sweden.270 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 123; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 326. However, Charles, though no longer angry with him, eventually decided not to re-employ Bristol, who consequently languished in quiet retirement at Sherborne. Over the next few years little is known of him. (Most of his surviving correspondence from this period is concerned with the payment of his daughter’s dowry.)271 Add. 29974, ff. 231, 248, 250, 252-4. However, he later recorded that he sympathized with those who felt aggrieved after the judges told the king, in February 1637, that Ship Money was legal.272 An Apologie of John Digby, earl of Bristoll, 42.

Bristol was not fully rehabilitated until 1640. During the Great Council of Peers, held at York in September, the king came to value his advice, and in February 1641 Charles readmitted him to membership of the Privy Council. As in 1628, Bristol emerged as a political moderate, for instance blaming the judges for the ruling in the John Hampden^‡ Ship Money case of 1638 rather than the king. However, he gradually distanced himself from other reformist peers, declining to vote on the attainder of Thomas Wentworth^*, 1st earl of Strafford, for which he was rewarded by appointment as a gentleman of the bedchamber. Following the outbreak of the first Civil War, Bristol sided with Charles, for despite the shortcomings of the Caroline regime he believed that violent resistance against the monarch was inherently unlawful.273 Ibid. esp. 12-13, 59-60. Mistakenly characterized as a royalist hardliner, he was driven into exile by the victorious Parliament in 1646, and spent the remainder of his life in France, from where he tried in vain to compound for his estates, which were ordered to be sold in 1651.274 Oxford DNB, xvi. 151; Nicholas Pprs. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xl) ed. G.F. Warner, 204-5; A. and O. ii. 520-45.

Bristol died in Paris in January 1653, without leaving a will. The generally accepted date of his death is 21 Jan., but supporting evidence is wanting. The nineteenth century historian John Nichols, put his date of death at five days earlier,275 CP; Nichols, iv. 474. while Sir Edward Hyde^† (later 1st earl of Clarendon) reported on 18 Jan. 1653 that he passed away peacefully ‘on Thursday morning last’, that is to say the 13th. It seems more likely, however, that Bristol actually expired on 7 Jan., as Mercurius Politicus reported on the 15th (25 Jan. new style) that Bristol had died ‘on Friday last week’ and was buried the following Sunday (the 9th). Sadly, Bristol was buried not at Charenton, among other members of his social class, but ‘in one of the meaner churchyards’ in the suburbs of Paris, as his eldest son George, Lord Digby, who succeeded him as earl of Bristol, did not wish to be put to the expense of an elaborate funeral.276 CCSP, ii. 170; Mercurius Politicus [no. 137], 2180.