CAREW, George (1555-1629)

Carew came from Devon gentry stock, but, as was proudly stated on his funeral monument, shared a common ancestor with an aristocratic English family, the barons Windsor, as well as the Irish earls of Kildare. Indeed, although his father was merely a middle-ranking cleric, sometime dean of Exeter and archdeacon of Totnes, Devon, his immediate family had achieved prominence at court under Henry VIII. One of his uncles, Sir Gawain Carew^‡, had even married a sister of Charles Brandon^†, 1st duke of Suffolk, the king’s brother-in-law.54 Dugdale, 686; Vivian, 133, 135.

Early life, c.1580-1605

While still in his late twenties Carew acquired a minor role at court, as a gentleman pensioner, but it was as a soldier and administrator, particularly in Ireland, that he made a name for himself. A veteran of the 1596 Cadiz expedition, he played a significant part in the defeat of Tyrone’s rebellion while serving as lord president of Munster in the closing years of Elizabeth’s reign. His Irish record won him favour with the queen, and he formed a strong and friendly relationship with her powerful secretary of state, Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury).55 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 95, 104; Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir George Carew ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxxviii), 115-16, 140. Carew was already on his way home when Elizabeth died, and he adjusted smoothly to life in England under James I, resuming his duties as lieutenant of the Ordnance Office, and becoming vice chamberlain and receiver general to Anne of Denmark. In 1604 he was returned to the Commons for Hastings, on the nomination of Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, but his principal patron at court remained Cecil, whose secretary, Levinus Munck^‡, described Carew in 1605 as a ‘great favourite’ of his master. In May that year, Cecil was advanced to the earldom of Salisbury. On the same day Carew was created Lord Carew of Clopton, the suffix taken from his country estate in Warwickshire.56 Chamberlain Letters, i. 193; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 522; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, ii. 59.

Parliament and administration, 1605-10

Carew’s elevation necessitated a switch from the Commons to the Lords when Parliament resumed in late 1605. However, he missed the first two sittings of the new session, not appearing in the Lords until the afternoon of 9 Nov., when Parliament was adjourned until after Christmas to allow time for an urgent investigation into the Gunpowder Plot. Carew himself examined one of his own Warwickshire tenants who had leased a house to the conspirator Ambrose Rookwood. Consequently, he did not finally present his writ of summons until 23 Jan. 1606. Rarely managing to attend more than two consecutive sittings thereafter, he was present for just over two-fifths of the session in total.57 LJ, ii. 362a; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 243. Despite this poor record, Carew received 29 appointments. Parliament’s immediate priority was to address the concerns raised by the plot. Named to help review the laws for preserving Church and State, he was also nominated to confer with the Commons to determine what new measures were required. In addition, he was appointed to the committees for both versions of the bill to attaint the surviving plotters, and for the general bill against sedition.58 LJ, ii. 360b, 367a-b, 401a. With Catholics once again perceived as a threat to national security, a tightening of the recusancy laws was high on Parliament’s agenda, and Carew was nominated to scrutinize two bills drafted to that end. He was also named to committees for both bills against blasphemous swearing, to another concerned with Sabbath observance, and to a conference on various ecclesiastical grievances.59 Ibid. 365a, 381a, 384a, 411a, 419b.

The issue of treason arose again with legislation brought in to confirm the attainders of Henry Brooke^†, 11th Lord Cobham and his brother George over the Main and Bye plots of 1603. Carew was named to the committees for all three versions of this bill. Other government business included bills to entail certain properties and jewels on the crown, and to confirm James’s foundation of a new divinity chair at Oxford University, while Carew was also appointed to confer with the Commons about the proposed Anglo-Scottish Union, purveyance reform, and a free trade bill.60 Ibid. 379a, 386b, 395b, 403a, 413b; Bowyer Diary, 116-17. Named to examine the bill against unnecessary delays of execution, he was again nominated when the measure was recommitted. In addition, he was selected for bill committees concerned with reforming the Marshalsea court, and probate disputes.61 LJ, ii. 364a, 371a, 372b, 437a. Other legislation which he was appointed to consider and which is likely to have interested him included a bill relating to the estates of the late master of the Ordnance, Charles Blount^*, earl of Devonshire, and two West Country measures, concerning the transporting of timber in Devon and the lands of the Trelawny family of Cornwall.62 Ibid. 379b, 397b, 433b.

Following Devonshire’s death in April 1606, Carew found himself in competition with the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, for the mastership of the Ordnance. However, in the short term the office remained unfilled, with Carew effectively left in charge as lieutenant. It was a role to which he was well suited, given his considerable experience, both in administration and on the field of battle, although the long years of peace under James meant that his talents were scarcely put to the test for the best part of two decades.63 Chamberlain Letters, i. 226; R.W. Stewart, Eng. Ordnance Office 1585-1625, pp. 10-11. In the meantime, his detailed knowledge of Irish affairs made him useful to the government, which regularly referred to him disputes and petitions relating to Ireland. He also remained on intimate terms with Salisbury.64 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 188, 203, 343.

Carew attended just over half the sittings of the 1606-7 session, a slight improvement on his previous performance. His only extended absence was in the closing stages, when he missed ten consecutive sittings. He received 18 nominations, the first of which was to confer with the Commons about the Union, an issue which he described in the following April as ‘the greatest cause, and fullest of difficulty’ that he had ever known to be handled in Parliament. He was also named to the committee for the bill to abolish laws hostile towards Scotland. Other government business during this session included legislation to confirm grants made by commissions for amending defective titles. Appointed to help examine both bills for this purpose, he was also selected to scrutinize the bill to settle crown grants of copyhold lands.65 LJ, ii. 453a, 471b, 494a, 520a, 524b; Add. 39853, f. 81v. As in the previous session, Carew was nominated to a bill committee relating to the Trelawny family’s estates, the earlier act having proved defective. Closer to home, he was named to help scrutinize bills to restrict new buildings in the London suburbs, and to amend Tudor legislation on the administration of Southwark, just across the Thames from the Savoy, where he had permanent lodgings. Appointed to consider two bills to conserve the country’s timber supply, his remaining legislative nominations covered such diverse topics as cloth manufacture, free trade with France, Spain and Portugal, and the levying of fines in the Westminster courts.66 LJ, ii. 452b, 460b, 464b, 473b, 489a, 513b, 514b, 528b; W. J. Loftie, Memorials of the Savoy, 131.

By 1607 Carew was high in favour with Anne of Denmark, who, in January, presented him with a set of chairs. It was widely assumed that he would soon be promoted to the mastership of the Ordnance, though Suffolk had apparently not yet abandoned hope of obtaining that office for himself. Carew was not finally appointed master until June 1608, it being subsequently reported that his grant was sealed without the knowledge of Suffolk’s uncle, the earl of Northampton, who, as lord privy seal, would have been in a position to obstruct it. As master, Carew introduced some minor reforms, but in practice he left the day-to-day running of the office to his new deputy, Sir Roger Dallison^‡. In the longer term, the latter proved to be seriously corrupt, but if Carew was aware of this he did nothing to intervene, and was certainly never held responsible.67 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 267-8; xix. 22, 62; xxi. 19; Chamberlain Letters, i. 261; Stewart, 52, 56.

Even by his standards, Carew’s attendance during the first parliamentary session of 1610 was poor. During the first three months, he never managed more than three consecutive sittings, and at the end of April he fell ill, on which grounds he was formally excused on 1 May. He probably missed all the remaining sittings; a solitary appearance in the Lords recorded on 4 June was most likely a clerical error. During this extended absence he awarded his proxy to the earl of Salisbury.68 LJ, ii. 548b, 585a. Not surprisingly, Carew barely attracted any business. Appointed to the conference at which the Great Contract was first broached, he was also nominated to confer with the Commons about Dr Cowell’s controversial book, The Interpreter. However, as he was recorded as absent on the latter occasion, he presumably missed that second conference.69 Ibid. 551a, 557b.

In March 1610 Carew became governor of Guernsey. Once the parliamentary session had ended, he conducted a tour of inspection of the island, reporting back to Salisbury in July that it was governed very differently from England, particularly with regard to religion, the ministers operating outside the normal Anglican framework, and exerting considerable influence over the secular authorities.70 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 136; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 175, 227. This was an issue which would continue to generate conflicts during Carew’s period in charge, though like most governors he conducted business from England, and never revisited the island.71 APC, 1613-14, pp. 253-5.

When Parliament resumed in the autumn of 1610, Carew attended the Lords just three times, on 6 and 15 Nov., and 6 December. He was naturally nominated to the committee for the bill against exports of iron ordnance, but as this appointment occurred on 23 Oct., he is unlikely to have contributed to its deliberations.72 LJ, ii. 670a.

Courtier and newsletter-writer, 1611-20

In May 1611 rumours circulated that Carew was about to become a privy councillor, and that he would exchange offices with Edward Wotton^*, 1st Lord Wotton, becoming comptroller of the household instead of master of the Ordnance. In the event, negotiations with Wotton fell through, and instead of joining the Council, Carew was sent back to Ireland by the king.73 Stowe 172, f. 28r-v; HMC Hatfield, xx. 291 (miscalendared as 1608). Given a sweeping brief to introduce major economies in the Irish government, assess the progress of the new plantation in Ulster, and lay the groundwork for a long-overdue meeting of the Dublin Parliament, Carew spent nearly three months in the country, personally touring the northern province, and reducing the military establishment by half. However, he urged caution in the summoning of Parliament, presciently arguing that until the Protestant membership of the Irish Commons was boosted by the establishment of new corporations in Ulster, the lower House was likely to prove unmanageable.74 CSP Carew, 1603-24, pp. 68-9, 75-9, 131-4, 218-19; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 304-6; Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 309.

By the time Carew returned to England in November, Salisbury’s health was starting to fail. In February 1612 it was reported that the lord treasurer planned to offload much of his official business on his old friend. In the event, Salisbury opted to share his burden with other, more senior government figures, a decision which apparently caused a rift with Carew prior to the earl’s death in May, as he was conspicuously absent from Salisbury’s funeral. The loss of his long-term patron must have affected Carew, but for the time being he busied himself around the queen’s household, where he remained much in demand.75 Chamberlain Letters, i. 336, 377-8; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 173; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, i. 52.

The 1614 Parliament saw a significant improvement in Carew’s attendance. Even allowing for the session’s brevity, he was present for all but eight sittings. Nevertheless, he made little impact on proceedings. Named to legislative committees concerned with lawsuits over bequests of property, and wasteful consumption of gold and silver, an issue with which he must have been familiar as a member of the queen’s household, he received only one other appointment, to a conference on the bill to include the king’s Palatine grandchildren in the English line of succession.76 LJ, ii. 691a, 692b, 694a.

By 1615 Carew had begun compiling elaborate digests of domestic and international news, which formed the basis for immensely long letters sent out to his friend Sir Thomas Roe^‡, ambassador at the court of the grand mogul. While both informative and broadly accurate (apart from Carew’s relaxed attitude to the dating of events), these newsletters conveyed little sense of their writer’s personal opinions, as Carew was concerned about the post being intercepted, and therefore normally restricted himself to straightforward reporting.77 Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 27 et seq., especially 122.

In the course of these missives, Carew naturally recorded the steady rise of a new royal favourite, George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham), though without revealing to Roe that he was personally cultivating the young courtier. When Villiers was created a baron in August 1616, it was Carew who carried his robes.78 Ibid. 9-10; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 22. Indeed, Carew’s admission to the Privy Council a month earlier, at the queen’s insistence, may well have been intended by Anne to strengthen Villiers’ position at court, as she was one of the young man’s principal backers. That being said, Carew’s promotion had been predicted for the previous twelve months, so other factors could also have been at work.79 HMC Downshire, v. 291; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 17-18; APC, 1615-16, p. 686. The new alliance with Villiers no doubt helped to protect Carew when the scale of Dallison’s corruption at the Ordnance Office was finally exposed in 1616, for his own performance as master was never called into question. Indeed, he did not experience the king’s wrath until the following year, and then the trouble stemmed from an entirely separate issue. Back in 1609, Carew had proposed that the Ordnance Office should take responsibility for manufacturing the carriages needed for transporting the royal households, as an alternative to the deeply unpopular practice of purveyance of carts. This arrangement apparently worked well until 1617, when a large number of vehicles were commissioned at very short notice for James’s progress to Scotland. Although the carts were constructed in time, many of them proved defective during the journey, obliging Carew to defend his record of management, and prompting him to recommend a full audit of the Ordnance stores, to prevent a recurrence of such problems.80 Stewart, 53; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 19; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 454, 457-8, 496. This episode seems to have generated wider concerns about Carew’s capacity, and in June that year there was even talk of him being relieved of some of his duties in the queen’s household.81 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 171.

In June 1618 Carew again found himself in conflict with the king, this time over the treatment of Sir Walter Ralegh^‡, one of the baron’s oldest friends. In disgrace almost from the start of the reign, Ralegh had revived the enmity of the Spanish government with his recent expedition to Guiana, and James was now minded to comply with Madrid’s demands for the old seadog’s head. Aware of the king’s view, Carew pleaded at length with James on his knees, speaking ‘very roundly’ on Ralegh’s behalf, and ‘brought himself into some trouble’ as a result.82 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 579; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 78; HMC Downshire, vi. 505. This brave intervention proved fruitless, and Ralegh went to the scaffold in the following October, using his final speech to deny allegations that Carew had advised him to seek sanctuary in France upon his return from South America.83 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 176; SP14/103/61; HMC Downshire, vi. 568. The now elderly baron suffered a further blow in 1619, when the death of Anne of Denmark deprived him of a loyal friend and two lucrative offices. He responded by redoubling his efforts to retain the favour of Villiers, now marquess of Buckingham, ingratiating himself with the latter’s mother, and in 1620 obtaining a licence for the production of saltpetre and gunpowder, in partnership with Buckingham and another rising star at court, Lionel Cranfield^*, the future lord treasurer and 1st earl of Middlesex. Execution of this grant was entrusted the next year to a deputy, John Evelyn^‡, an experienced manufacturer of gunpowder.84 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 60, 65-6, 179, 248; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 257.

The drift to war, 1621-4

Carew attended almost exactly two-thirds of the 1621 Parliament. He missed seven sittings in the first month through illness, on which grounds he was twice formally excused, but had few other extended absences.85 LJ, iii. 18a, 27b. Despite this, he attracted comparatively little business. Appointed at the start of the session as one of the prestigious triers of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, he received only 18 other nominations. A member of the Lords’ newly established committee for privileges, he was also named to consider ten public bills offered to the upper House by the courtier Walter Morrall.86 Ibid. 7a, 10b, 25b. An obvious choice to scrutinize bills against exports of ordnance, and for improving the country’s store of weapons, his close association with Buckingham helps to explain his appointment to consider the favourite’s proposal for an academy to educate the sons of peers and wealthy gentlemen. His remaining seven legislative committee nominations prior to the summer recess concerned such issues as bullion exports, the management of the duchy of Cornwall estates of Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales), the foundation of Sutton’s Hospital on the outskirts of London and the dubious activities of informers.87 Ibid. 13a, 26b, 32b, 37a, 75b. Named to confer with the Commons about how to apprehend the fugitive monopolist Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, Carew twice on 26 Mar. attacked the implementation of the latter’s patent for making gold and silver thread, insisting that his deputies had exceeded their legal powers. He intervened only once during the debates on the charges of corruption levelled at the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, 1st Viscount St. Alban, on 25 Apr. denying the claim that one of Richard II’s ministers had been accused of treason. On 4 June Carew served as a commissioner for adjourning Parliament.88 Ibid. 34a, 158b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 40-1; LD 1621, p. 20.

The Lords having resumed in November, after the long summer recess, Carey acted as a supporter when Cranfield and Henry Carey^*, 1st Viscount Rochford (later 1st earl of Dover) were formally introduced in the upper House. Appointed to a conference on the bill against informers, his five legislative committees were concerned with monopolies, licences of alienation, the restoration of the right of free trade to merchants of the Staple, tobacco imports, and a proposal to make the estates of attainted persons liable for their debts.89 LJ, iii. 162b-3a, 172b, 177b, 182b, 184a, 194a. When the session ended suddenly and acrimoniously on 19 Dec., Carew acted as a commissioner for adjournment, and subsequently for the Parliament’s dissolution.90 Ibid. 200b, 202a.

Writing to Roe in 1622, Carew expressed concern that, given the rapidly deteriorating military situation on the Continent, ‘this sunshine wherein we live will shortly be over-clouded’. The king remained committed to recovering the Palatinate for his daughter and son-in-law by diplomacy, but Carew evidently had major reservations about the principal strategy, a marriage between Prince Charles and a Spanish infanta. Alluding to this proposal, he commented cryptically: ‘if I had better intelligence [ie. information], I would forbear to touch on that string, ne forte, I might burn my fingers’.91 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe (1740) ed. S. Richardson, 92-3. Nevertheless, as master of the Ordnance, Carew was obliged to help equip the ships sent out to Spain during Charles’ visit to Madrid in 1623, and as a privy councillor he swore in July that year to uphold the marriage treaty.92 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 511-12; APC, 1623-5, p. 70; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 185. His nervousness about the turn of events was only increased by his patron Buckingham’s absence in Spain, and he responded rapturously when the duke took the time to write to him, assuring the latter of his unstinting devotion. Carew welcomed the prince’s return that autumn, as well as the subsequent indications that the match might after all not be concluded. Again writing to Roe in December 1623, he observed that a new Parliament was now imminent: ‘by it you may judge … what the success will be of the Spanish affair’.93 Harl. 1581, f. 294; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 204.

Carew attended nearly three-quarters of the 1624 Parliament, never missing more than four consecutive sittings. He was excused just once, on 26 April. Again appointed a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, and named to the committee for privileges, he attracted 18 other nominations.94 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 35v; LJ, iii. 208a, 215a. With much of this session devoted to preparations for war, he was inevitably more in the spotlight, though he contributed only rarely to debates. Appointed to help search for appropriate precedents for breaking off negotiations with Spain and providing financial support to the king, he was also selected for the joint committee with the Commons, set up to finalise Parliament’s advice to James concerning the Spanish treaties. Named on 1 Mar. to the committee to review the country’s supply of munitions, and the state of coastal defences in England and Ireland, he undertook to provide details of the Ordnance Office’s stores. In early April he was nominated to the committee for the bill to make the nation’s weaponry more serviceable.95 LJ, iii. 236b, 237b, 242b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 14; Add. 40088, f. 20v. As the drive to war gathered momentum, he was also appointed to the conference held to clear Buckingham of the charge that he had slandered Philip IV while briefing Parliament on the Spanish Match negotiations, and to legislative committees concerned with English Catholics and the receipt of foreign pensions.96 LJ, iii. 238a, 410b; Add. 40087, f. 62v. On the basis of his appointment as a councillor of war on 14 Apr., Carew was included by name in the subsidy bill, as one of the men accountable for the expenditure of future tax revenues. However, this exercise provoked an argument in the Commons over the order in which the councillors were listed, Carew finally being awarded precedence as an English baron over the former lord deputy, Oliver St John^* (later Lord Tregoz), then the holder of an Irish viscountcy.97 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 214; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 558-9.

One unplanned consequence of this warmongering was the emergence in Parliament of complaints about the financing and supplying of the Ordnance Office by Lord Treasurer Middlesex. There is no evidence that Carew himself encouraged this development, and he seems to have been embarrassed by such scrutiny, doing his best to stay out of the spotlight. Nevertheless, on 11 May the Lords heard a lengthy report on the deficiencies of the 1621 contract for gunpowder manufacture, illustrated by several items of correspondence from or to Carew himself. At length, when Middlesex was accused of misusing money intended to buy ordnance supplies by reassigning it to the officers’ wages, Carew interrupted to confirm that this allegation misrepresented the customary funding practices. However, he then fell silent again, and did nothing more to defend the lord treasurer.98 Add. 40088, ff. 76, 79v; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 64r-v; LJ, iii. 374a.

Carew was nominated to the conference on the bill to repeal or continue expiring statutes. His remaining appointments were all to bill committees, the topics ranging from monopolies and wool exports, to duchy of Cornwall leases, the naturalization of several Scottish courtiers, and the abolition of trial by battle.99 LJ, iii. 248b, 263b, 265b, 267b, 400b, 403b; PA, HL/PO/CO/2/3, f. 28. Carew acted as a commissioner for proroguing Parliament that November, but the session was automatically dissolved by the king’s death in the following spring.100 LJ, iii. 426b.

War and incapacity, 1624-6

In July 1624 Carew’s patent for gunpowder production was renewed, so that Middlesex’s involvement could be terminated. As master of the Ordnance he was naturally a key figure in the preparations for war with Spain, though his insistence on the correct bureaucratic procedures occasionally delayed progress, and he opposed proposals for the East India Company to become a rival manufacturer of gunpowder.101 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 286, 300, 316, 320, 463, 489, 504. Carew was genuinely saddened by James’s death in March 1625. He signed the proclamation marking the accession of Charles I, who reappointed him to the Privy Council, but he suffered a stroke while attending James’s funeral, and was left incapacitated for months afterwards.102 Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, 371; APC, 1625-6, pp. 3, 5; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 447.

Understandably, Carew never attended the 1625 Parliament, despite as usual being nominated as a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland when the session opened. On 23 June the Lords were informed that he was ‘in town but sick’. Consequently, the Commons were unable to examine him about how subsidy money had been spent on the war effort, though it was confirmed in the lower House on 12 Aug. that he had been consulted about military preparations. Buckingham also mentioned him as a councillor of war while briefing both Houses four days earlier.103 Procs. 1625, pp. 31, 45, 162, 284, 480, 717; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 54. Around late summer, Carew sought treatment at Bath, but returned to London weaker than when he left. Accordingly, he retired to Nonsuch for the next few months, attending neither court nor the Privy Council until early 1626, though he continued to conduct some business by letter.104 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 171, 182, 214, 447.

On 7 Feb. 1626, the day after the state opening of the second Caroline Parliament, Carew was created earl of Totness in the imposing new banqueting house at Whitehall Palace. However, he was not formally reintroduced to the Lords until 18 Feb., as he had missed almost every sitting between these two events, probably because of his continuing poor health. During this session he was excused attendance 11 times; although he was only once described as being ‘in physic’, on 20 Apr., a combination of illness and medical treatment was the most likely explanation for the majority of his absences. Despite these frequent interruptions, Totness was actually present for two-thirds of the sittings, but the unpredictable nature of his attendance no doubt restricted his performance in the Lords. While he was as usual appointed a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, he received just seven other nominations.105 C231/4, f. 195; Procs. 1626, i. 22, 25, 46, 57, 75, 110, 131, 137, 267, 270, 273, 292, 357, 593. The date of his creation is incorrectly recorded as 5 Feb. in CP.

Unsurprisingly, most of Totness’ business related to military matters. Named to the committee for the latest bill to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable, he was also appointed to help consider a range of issues relating to national defence, particularly munitions. The latter committee on 1 Apr. established a subcommittee to fix prices for the sale of weapons; Totness’ involvement was considered so vital that his own house was initially designated as the meeting-place, though the venue was subsequently switched to the Painted Chamber. Subsequently, he was named to a legislative committee concerning saltpetre supplies.106 Procs. 1626, i. 53, 110, 239, 248, 319. However, the earl said next to nothing about these issues in the upper House. On 17 Mar. he recommended that the munitions committee hold a brief meeting to prepare for a debate with representatives from the Commons, but was overruled. At the conference on 30 Mar., when Buckingham clarified the demand for supply made by the king the previous day, Totness was given leave to speak as well, but chose not to do so.107 Ibid. 174, 227.

Meanwhile the Commons were once again attempting to establish whether the blame for recent military failures lay with the councillors of war, or could be ascribed to Buckingham’s influence. On 7 Mar. Totness appeared before the lower House, but only to help deliver a written statement that the councillors were not prepared to discuss anything apart from how the subsidy revenues had been spent. The key issue of the advice offered by the councillors to the king was strictly confidential. This message was not well received by Members, but was emphatically endorsed by Charles himself when the earl attended him the next day. Concerned that a stand-off between the councillors and the Commons might damage relations between Members and the king, and delay the granting of much-needed taxation, Totness offered to take the blame personally for this stonewalling, even if it led to him being imprisoned by the Commons. However, Charles insisted that the councillors were obeying his own wishes, and affirmed that he would stand by them. Accordingly, Totness and his colleagues returned to the lower House the next day, and declined to shift from their existing position. The earl himself justified his behaviour on the grounds of his ‘many infirmities’, citing old age, poor hearing, weak speech and, ‘worst of all’, his failing memory; he was, all things considered, ‘a very unfit man to come abroad’. Recognizing that they were wasting their time, the Members abandoned this line of inquiry, while on 3 May the king confirmed his approval of Totness’ actions by reappointing him a councillor of war.108 Procs. 1626, ii. 220, 239, 243; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 274-5, 328.

The earl received only three other appointments. Two related to bill committees, namely those for free fishing off the American coast, and for restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh^‡, son of his old friend Sir Walter. The third was to a committee to distribute the money collected for plague victims in London and Westminster. Totness managed to attend the final sitting of this acrimonious session on 15 June, when he served as a commissioner for its dissolution.109 Procs. 1626, i. 60, 128, 258, 634.

Final years, 1626-9

Despite his health problems, Totness remained actively involved in government, and when Queen Henrietta Maria’s household was purged of her French servants in July 1626, he was brought in as her receiver general. Somewhat revived by a summer break in the country, but disinclined to overburden himself, he resumed the direction of the Ordnance Office by correspondence.110 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 140; SP16/37/25; WO55/454, ff. 8v, 25, 38r-v. This detached approach to management did nothing to improve operational efficiency. Nevertheless, with no let-up in the war, it was now becoming painfully apparent that the Office was not able to meet the demands being placed on it. In late 1626, with Buckingham’s help, Totness secured additional funds, but with requests for ordnance and munitions coming in from all directions, the stores rapidly became depleted again.111 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 497; 1627-8, pp. 37, 53, 83; A. Thrush, ‘Ordnance Office and the Navy, 1625-40’, Mariner’s Mirror, lxxvii. 344. In April 1627 Buckingham warned him to speed up operations, but with supplies of saltpetre now dangerously low, and money also running short, gunpowder production slowly ground to a halt. As Totness explained to the king in October, ‘in the memory of man [the Ordnance Office] was never so weak in munitions as at this present’, and there was no immediate remedy in sight. By January 1628, the earl was warning Buckingham that it was simply impossible for him to equip the naval expedition now being planned, though such protests were probably designed in part to deflect from his own shortcomings.112 Add. 37817, f. 75; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 182, 251, 263-4, 310, 368, 452, 511; SP16/80/17.

By the time that Parliament met in March 1628, Totness’ health was once again in serious decline. Although his absence from the Lords was excused just six times during this session, he actually attended a mere 27 sittings.113 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 149, 189, 261, 320, 355, 613. His only appointment was to the committee for the bill to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable. Otherwise, aside from taking the oath of allegiance on 7 May, he featured in proceedings only in relation to the dispute over the precedence claimed in the upper House by William Knollys^*, who, having been created earl of Banbury shortly after Totness’ own elevation to an earldom, had been granted special permission to occupy a more senior position on the earls’ bench, contrary to custom. This issue was referred on 31 Mar. to the committee for privileges, with Totness instructed to attend. On 7 Apr. he sent word by John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, that he would consent to Banbury’s precedence, provided that this privilege lasted only during the latter’s own life, and did not apply to his heirs as well, a compromise agreed with the king.114 Ibid. 88, 128, 158, 390.

As the spring of 1628 turned into summer, and the struggle over munitions supplies continued, Totness’ communications with Buckingham became more fractious. Clearly keen to be rid of these problems, he increasingly referred the duke to the junior Ordnance officials, and in April expressed relief that he was not included in a Privy Council committee set up to review the gunpowder trade. It is not known how he reacted to Buckingham’s assassination in August, but as the war still dragged on, the favourite’s demise made little practical difference to the earl’s problems.115 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 42, 82, 87, 195, 277.

During the brief parliamentary session in early 1629, Totness attended the Lords just three times, the cold weather deterring him from venturing up the Thames from the Savoy to Westminster. His only appointment was to the select committee to survey munitions.116 LJ, iv. 37b; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 458. Assertive to the end, on 23 Mar. he rebuked the secretary of state, Sir John Coke^‡, after his right of appointment to a minor post within the purview of the Ordnance was challenged. Four days later, the earl was dead.117 HMC Cowper, i. 383.

Totness had made his will on 30 Nov. 1625, bequeathing to his wife all his property in Warwickshire, Essex, Devon and Cornwall, and at the Savoy and Drury Lane, in the London suburbs. His only legitimate child having died young, his titles expired with him, but he directed that his Warwickshire lands should ultimately descend to a great-nephew, Peter Apsley. However, he assigned a £500 pension, the reversion of the Essex and West Country lands, and all his books and manuscripts, to his illegitimate son Sir Thomas Stafford^‡, who had for some time been deputizing for him at the Ordnance Office.118 PROB 11/155, f. 284; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 507. In honour of his long association with the office, a salute was fired from Tower Wharf on the day of Totness’ funeral. Reports that the earl left his widow ‘wonderfully rich’ are borne out by his lavish funeral monument at Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, where he lies in effigy, dressed in armour and a coronet, and surrounded by carvings of cannons, pikes, muskets, swords, and barrels of gunpowder.119 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 507, 534; Dugdale, 687.