CAREY, Henry (c.1580-1666)

Hunsdon inherited his barony at a pivotal point in his family’s history. His grandfather Henry Carey^†, 1st Lord Hunsdon, was Elizabeth I’s closest relative on her mother’s side, and for the duration of her reign he and his sons enjoyed the full benefits of royal favour. However, with the queen’s death, the Careys lost much of their status at court, and Hunsdon’s father spent his declining years primarily on his country estates. The family’s local standing and connections remained strong enough for Hunsdon to sit twice in the Commons as a knight of the shire prior to entering the Lords, but when his father died in 1617 it remained doubtful whether that loss of national prestige would be reversed.29 R. Clutterbuck, Herts. iii. 181; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 432. For the next two years the baron struggled to make any impact at court, and it was probably something of a surprise when he was granted the honour of carrying a banner at Anne of Denmark’s funeral in May 1619.30 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 472-3, 542. However, by January 1620 Hunsdon had entered the circle of the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, and from this point on his prospects began to improve, notwithstanding occasional displays of independent-mindedness uncharacteristic of the marquess’ followers. In particular, that November Hunsdon declined to contribute to the benevolence for relief of the Palatinate. Explaining that he had recently donated to the collection organized by Baron Dohna, the king of Bohemia’s agent, he assured the Privy Council that he would instead be happy to give more ‘in the ordinary course, wherein this land doth always extend her true affections to the sovereign’. In other words, he was prepared to contribute only through parliamentary taxation, not arbitrary levies.31 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 282; SP14/117/108. Despite this stance Hunsdon, who spoke French fluently, was much in demand at court only a month later during a visit by the French ambassador, the marquis de Cadenet.32 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 67; Richard Cholmley’s Memorandum Book 1602-23 (N. Yorks. CRO publications, no. 44), 212.

The 1621 Parliament

In the elections to the 1621 Parliament, Hunsdon presumably backed the return of his kinsman, Henry Carey^‡, 1st Viscount Falkland [S] as senior knight for Hertfordshire; the latter certainly requested his support.33 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 176-7. Hunsdon took his seat in the Lords for the state opening on 30 Jan., and missed just 12 sittings prior to the dissolution. The recipient of 45 nominations, he made 20 speeches. Appointed on 5 Feb. to the newly established committee for privileges, he backed calls three days later for a delay to the committee’s preliminary report, pending further consultations on legal issues. Subsequently, he was named to the subcommittee for privileges, with a brief to examine records, and nominated to check the entries in the clerk’s Journal, a task which he is known to have fulfilled. He also helped to report to the Lords on the judges’ refusal to advise the committee for privileges on the question of whether peers should testify in court on their honour, rather than under oath.34 LJ, iii. 10b, 17b, 21a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 1, 4; ‘Hastings 1621’, pp. 9, 21; Add. 40086, f. 79. Hunsdon’s handling of such issues evidently impressed his colleagues, for he attracted a number of other appointments relating to the management of the Lords’ business, despite being a novice Member. Named to assess the value of ten public bills drafted by the courtier Walter Morrall, he was also nominated in late May to consider the backlog of petitions submitted to the upper House. On 18 Apr. he proposed that, at the end of each morning sitting, the clerk should read out the names of the committees meeting that afternoon. Hunsdon was also included in the joint subcommittee of both Houses set up to resolve the dispute over the Edward Floyd affair, in which the Commons had trespassed on the Lords’ privilege of judicature.35 LJ, iii. 73b, 78a, 116b, 141b. That being said, he was capable of rash decisions. Apparently one of the ringleaders behind the petition from predominantly junior peers complaining about the social precedence afforded to Englishmen with Scottish or Irish titles, Hunsdon produced the offending document in the Lords on 20 Feb. and was summoned before the king later that day to be admonished for his behaviour.36 A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 10; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 348. Fortunately for him James’s anger was short lived, and the baron was invited to accompany the king when he visited St Paul’s Cathedral on 26 March.37 Harl. 5176, f. 241.

A stickler for correct procedure, Hunsdon complained on 3 Mar. when a number of peers went off prematurely to attend the conference about detaining the patentee Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, successfully calling for them to be brought back until the whole committee was ready to leave. Named himself to this conference, he was also appointed to help draft the warrant for Mompesson’s arrest. Predictably, he agreed on 12 Mar. that the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St. Alban, and the lord treasurer, Henry Montagu^*, Viscount Mandeville (later 1st earl of Manchester), had breached protocol by defending themselves during a conference about monopolies, without having the Lords’ permission to speak. However, when his patron Buckingham committed a very similar offence during a conference on 13 Mar., Hunsdon loyally argued that he had merely acted out of ignorance of the rules.38 LJ, iii. 34a-5a, 42b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 20, 22.

Appointed to the committee to investigate Mompesson’s patent for gold and silver thread manufacture, Hunsdon took his duties very seriously, twice urging the Lords to detain one of Mompesson’s associates, Matthias Fowle, for fear that he too would abscond.39 LJ, iii. 47a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 29; LD 1621, p. 131. He also took a hard line over the actions of the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, in enforcing assorted monopolies, and reminded the House on 18 Apr. that the lawyer had brought many prosecutions in connection with Mompesson’s patent for inns. When Yelverton pleaded illness on 28 Apr. to avoid appearing before the Lords, Hunsdon recommended sending some peers to assess his condition, and was duly selected for this task. As a member of the subcommittee for privileges, the baron was appointed to draft the text of Yelverton’s submission to the king. On 18 May he persuaded the House to encourage the payment of debts owed by the gold and silver patentees to assorted poor tradesmen. However, he was absent eight days later when the committee for privileges delivered in the approved text of the Lords’ judgement against Mompesson.40 LD 1621, p. 5; Add. 40085, f. 76v; LJ, iii. 96b, 128b-9a, 135a.

Alongside these inquiries, the upper House found itself investigating allegations of corruption again Lord Chancellor St. Alban. Again named to one of the committees which gathered evidence, Hunsdon was appointed to assist in collating all of the charges generated by this process. Once St. Alban made a satisfactory confession, Hunsdon was nominated to help ascertain whether the chancellor would stand by his admission of guilt, and was then chosen to attend Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) when the king was formally requested to sequester the great seal. On 3 May he proffered some possible precedents for an appropriate punishment, though the details are unclear.41 LJ, iii. 58b, 80a, 101a; LD 1621, p. 62. Hunsdon was further named on 2 May to help examine bribery charges against the ecclesiastical judge Sir John Bennet^‡, but ostensibly played little part in that inquiry.42 LJ, iii. 104b.

Hunsdon was twice appointed to conferences about the joint petition of both Houses against recusants. The Lords had some reservations about the text, and on 16 Feb. he agreed that any actions arising from the petition should be left to the king’s discretion, contrary to the specific measures proposed by the Commons. Named to the committee for the bill to amend existing recusancy laws, he was also nominated to the legislative committee concerning Sabbath abuses, and a subsequent conference on this measure.43 Ibid. 17a, 18b, 39b, 101a, 130b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 7. Appointed to the committee for the bill against informers, Hunsdon evidently took a close interest in this business, since on 5 May he urged the House to appoint a new meeting time for the committee. Other bills which presumably drew his attention were those relating to the property of his uncle, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, and his kinsman Sir Philip Carey^‡. The position of another uncle, Sir Robert Carey^* (later 1st earl of Monmouth), as chamberlain to Prince Charles may explain why Hunsdon was included on the bill committee concerned with duchy of Cornwall leases.44 LJ, iii. 21b, 26b, 75b, 110b; LD 1621, p. 65. Predictably, he was nominated to consider Buckingham’s proposal for an academy to educate the sons of peers. He was also appointed to the committee for the bills to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable, and to ban exports of ordnance. In his capacity as a member of the subcommittee for privileges, he was named on 31 May to help search for precedents for adjourning a session rather than proroguing it. On the last day before the summer recess, he was nominated to settle the wages owed to the scholars who had researched the Lords’ privileges in the preceding months.45 LJ, iii. 13a, 37a, 150a, 158a.

On 23 June 1621 the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain reported a rumour that Hunsdon was about to be appointed a privy councillor. Nothing came of this, but two weeks later Hunsdon was created Viscount Rochford, a title once held by his ancestor Thomas Boleyn^† (later earl of Wiltshire), the father of Henry VIII’s ill-fated second wife. Ostensibly a reward ‘for service done or to be done’, this promotion was in reality the work of Buckingham, by whom Rochford was now ‘much favoured’. Indeed, in September the viscount persuaded Buckingham to support the appointment of his kinsman Valentine Carey^* (reputedly the illegitimate son of the 1st Lord Hunsdon) as bishop of Exeter.46 Chamberlain Letters, i. 486; ii. 384, 387; CP, iv. 445; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 275.

Rochford was formally reintroduced to the Lords in his new capacity on 20 Nov. 1621, his supporters being Francis Manners^*, 6th earl of Rutland, and George Carew^*, Lord Carew (later earl of Totness); the former was Buckingham’s father-in-law, while the latter was one of the duke’s most loyal clients. The new viscount was soon caught up in the scandal which had developed around peers’ letters of protection during the long parliamentary recess. On 30 Nov. the Lords summoned Con Conner, who stood accused of forging Rochford’s signature on one such letter. Though nothing further was heard of this matter after Conner appeared on 3 Dec. and denied the allegations, Rochford took the issue seriously, and on 8 and 12 Dec. he criticized dubious protection letters said to have been issued by Edward Stafford^*, 4th Lord Stafford. He also successfully moved on 14 Dec. for the subcommittee for privileges to complete its draft guidelines on the extent to which parliamentary privilege covered peers’ servants.47 LJ, iii. 162b, 176a, 179a; LD 1621, pp. 111, 118, 121. On 11 Dec. Rochford twice intervened when the Lords examined allegations of misconduct against the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York) made by Sir John Bourchier^‡. After urging a speedy resolution to this business, and hearing the evidence, he concluded that Williams was in the clear. Rochford’s only appointment during this sitting was to a conference on the bill against informers.48 LD 1621, pp. 113, 116; LJ, iii. 177b.

The Spanish Match, 1621-4, and the 1624 Parliament

Rochford’s principal strategy for retaining Buckingham’s favour was apparently to contrast his own absolute loyalty with the threats posed to the marquess by his rivals at court. In December 1621 he wrote fawningly to his patron: ‘ever since I had the happiness to be as one of yours, my cares have watched day and night to find the best way of doing you true and faithful service’. Then, drawing on episodes from medieval history, he urged Buckingham to trust no one who had ever stood against him; while it was a Christian virtue to forgive one’s enemies, it was also Christian ‘policy’ to crush evil-doers before they could cause trouble.49 SP14/124/75. In the short term at least, such arguments had the desired effect, and there was no surprise when, barely a year later, Rochford was one of the first courtiers selected to follow Prince Charles and Buckingham to Spain. He returned to England in June to brief the king on the progress of negotiations in Madrid, but disappointed those who had assumed he was bringing news of the prince’s marriage date.50 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 482, 500, 503-4; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 168; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 596, 615; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 178. Shortly afterwards, he wrote to Buckingham, assuring the now duke that James was delighted to hear of the favourite’s ‘extraordinary care’ of Charles. However, there were also signs of strain in his own relationship with his patron, Rochford lamenting both that he had been excluded from the key discussions in Madrid, and that the duke seemed to undervalue his intense loyalty. His melodramatic declaration that he ‘would willingly wade in blood’ for Buckingham betrayed a hint of desperation, as did his claim in a subsequent letter that he had ‘suffered much already’ for his ‘too manifest defiance’ of the duke’s ‘counterfeit friends’. While Rochford remained firmly attached to the favourite, he seems thereafter to have gradually drifted out of his inner circle.51 Harl. 1581, ff. 379r-v, 381.

During the 1624 Parliament, Rochford was again almost omnipresent, missing only seven sittings; these all fell on days when the Lords sat twice, and only on 19 May did he fail to attend at all. Even so, his profile in the Lords was somewhat lower than it had been in the previous session. He was again appointed to the committee for privileges and its subcommittee, and also to the standing committee for petitions, but received only 17 other nominations.52 LJ, iii. 215a-b, 253a. Rochford chaired the bill committees concerned with the estates of Sir James Poyntz in western Essex, some 13 miles from Hunsdon, and the manufacture of cutlery in Yorkshire, reporting each of them as fit to pass without amendment. The latter appointment suggests awareness in the Lords that the viscount owned ironworks in that county. The topics of his seven other legislative committees included recusancy, usury and drunkenness.53 Ibid. 252b, 274b, 325a, 393a, 400b, 406b, 410b; CSP Dom. 1637, p. 89. For Poyntz’s estates, see HP Commons, 1558-1603, iii. 100. Rochford claimed privilege on 8 May for one of his servants who was then being sued, but the outcome of this case is unclear.54 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 55.

Of Rochford’s 15 other speeches during this session, five were made in debates on the breach with Spain. On 28 Feb. he helped to launch a fresh discussion of foreign affairs, encouraging his fellow peers to break off the Spanish treaties and prepare for war. Two weeks later, he reminded the Lords to complete the process of vindicating the duke, who had been accused by the Spanish ambassadors of publicly insulting Philip IV, and on 24 Mar. he moved for the formal report of his patron’s justification to be delivered. On 3 Apr. he backed Buckingham’s proposal for the fleet to be funded in the short term by borrowing funds secured against the subsidies promised by the Commons.55 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 10, 12, 48, 50; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 20v; Add. 40087, f. 86v. However, on 23 Mar. Rochford failed to support the attack on Buckingham’s enemy, Lord Keeper Williams, even calling for a search of the chambers of a lawyer who had drafted several petitions against him.56 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 44-5.

Rochford took a more active role when corruption charges were levelled by the Commons against another of the duke’s enemies, the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, the leading opponent of war with Spain. When Middlesex complained that he was the victim of a conspiracy, Rochford demanded a thorough investigation to establish whether this claim was justified. Three days later he criticized the lord treasurer for replying to the Commons’ charges without first seeking the Lords’ permission. Thereafter, Rochford was named to committees to consider three connected petitions, from Sir Thomas Monson^‡, Sir Thomas Dallison and the officers of the Ordnance Office, all alleging malpractice by Middlesex.57 Ibid. 61, 65; LJ, iii. 316a, 317b, 320b. Rochford was also nominated to three committees to consider requests by the lord treasurer for delays in his prosecution, and other concessions. Furthermore, he was required to help deal with a petition from his kinsman, Sir Philip Carey, concerning the latter’s purchase from Middlesex of the office of surveyor general of the customs. On 10 May Rochford moved for the lord treasurer to answer Carey’s complaints, but with time now running short the Lords declined to make this a priority.58 LJ, iii. 323b, 325b, 327a-b; Add. 40088, f. 71v; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 61v. Three days later, with Middlesex now found guilty, the viscount argued that, as part of his sentence, the former lord treasurer should be forced to make restitution to those he had defrauded. His fellow peers decided that this was a separate issue from the formal judgement, but on 20 May Rochford was appointed to a committee to assess the damages due, reporting five days later with a draft order covering all four cases which he had investigated.59 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 91; LJ, iii. 396a, 406b; Add. 40088, f. 131.

A stalled court career, 1625-6

In February 1625 it was briefly rumoured that Rochford would be the next lord deputy of Ireland, in succession to his kinsman Viscount Falkland, but nothing came of this. He was in London when James I died, and signed the proclamation announcing Charles’s accession to the throne.60 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 600-1; APC, 1625-6, p. 5. Present for all but five sittings of the 1625 Parliament while it met in Westminster, having already attended the prorogation meetings on 17 and 31 May, Rochford acted as a supporter when William Fiennes^* was introduced to the Lords as 1st Viscount Saye and Sele on 22 June. However, he made no speeches and received only four nominations. These were to the bill committees concerned with the kingdom’s military readiness, tippling in alehouses, and the estates of Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset; he was also added to the committee which considered a petition from the prisoners in the Fleet requesting temporary release on account of the plague. When the Parliament resumed in Oxford on 1 Aug., Rochford’s absence was excused by Lord Keeper Williams, and he missed the remainder of the session.61 Procs. 1625, pp. 39, 72, 88, 112, 125.

By now the viscount was apparently spending more time on his estates (in October 1625 he sent up to London a man who had refused to take the oath of allegiance). Nevertheless, he was back in the capital in the following February for Charles’s coronation, and took part in the procession through the streets.62 APC, 1625-6, p. 222; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 138; SP16/20/8. Rochford’s attendance of the Lords was back to its usual high level during the 1626 Parliament. Despite being formally excused on 24 Mar. and 24 May, he was present for five-sixths of the session.63 Procs. 1626, i. 210, 545. Nonetheless, he continued to play a relatively minor role in proceedings. In mid May he was added to the standing committee for petitions, which was trying to clear a backlog of business, but otherwise he received just six other nominations, all to bill committees, concerning issues such as the patent of the New River Company, scandalous clergy, wool exports and, as in 1625, the country’s military preparedness. He barely contributed to the debates surrounding Buckingham’s impeachment, presumably an indication of his growing distance from the favourite, merely confirming on 15 May that he had not heard Sir Dudley Digges^‡ say anything treasonable while delivering the Commons’ charges against the duke. On 15 June Rochford was appointed a commissioner for the dissolution, but he did not attend the Lords that day.64 Ibid. 53, 231, 267, 483, 496, 634.

Earl of Dover, 1627-8

While no longer a significant figure at court, Rochford remained loyal to the government. A commissioner for the Forced Loan in Hertfordshire, he personally contributed £100, and in early 1628 the Privy Council instructed him to rally support, both there and in Essex, for the government’s latest attempt to raise emergency funds for the war with France and Spain. His reward was a fresh peerage; as the Tuscan ambassador Salvetti observed, he was one of three ‘warm partisans’ of Buckingham elevated to the rank of earl on 8 March. All three gave ‘large sums’ in return.65 E401/1913 (26 Jan. 1627); APC, 1627-8, pp. 284-5; HMC Skrine, 142. The other two recipients were William Cavendish^*, earl (later 1st duke) of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and John Mordaunt^*, 1st earl of Peterborough.

During the 1628 session of Parliament, Rochford, now earl of Dover, maintained his customary attendance rate of around five-sixths of the sittings, despite being excused four times.66 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 350, 382, 686, 689. He was formally reintroduced to the Lords as an earl on 20 Mar., supported by the Buckingham ally Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland and Oliver St. John^*, 1st earl of Bolingbroke, whose daughter was about to marry Dover’s son John Carey^†, Viscount Rochford (later 2nd earl of Dover). The earl was named to both the committee for privileges and the committee for petitions. He chaired the committee for the bill concerning the estates of William Morgan, which he reported on 31 May as fit to pass. However, he attracted only five other nominations, all to bill committees. The business covered by these appointments included the estates of the 4th earl of Dorset and Dutton Gerard^*, 3rd Lord Gerard, and, predictably, the need to improve the kingdom’s military readiness.67 Ibid. 73, 75, 79, 88, 189, 554, 565, 572; Her. and Gen. iv. 41. His only other speech, on 3 Apr., was a minor procedural motion. In response to two petitions from Sir Francis Coningsby, whose Hertfordshire seat of North Mymms lay 12 miles from Hunsdon, the earl was appointed by the Lords as a trustee of two of this gentleman’s estates.68 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 148, 571, 689.

Dover’s son John sat in the Commons during the 1629 parliamentary session, after winning a by-election at Hertford.69 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 179. The earl himself attended every sitting of this short session, the only peer to do so other than Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu. However, he received only three nominations, to the standing committees for privileges and petitions, and a select committee to look for precedents on whether peers who had sent proxies in 1628 also needed to do so for this session.70 LJ, iv. 6a-b.

The Personal Rule, 1629-39

It is difficult to judge whether Buckingham’s assassination in August 1628 made much difference to Dover’s subsequent career. The earl continued to appear intermittently at court during the next decade, even helping with preparations for the annual Garter feasts, but he was clearly not at the centre of affairs. In August 1629 he was instructed to attend the signing of the peace treaty with France, while in January 1633 he was again summoned to London, in anticipation of an expected visit by Charles’s sister, the queen of Bohemia. Although that event never materialized, in December 1635 he accompanied the latter’s son, the Elector Palatine, on a visit to Lambeth Palace. He clearly still had some useful contacts at court, for in March 1635 he was rated for Ship Money at only £30.71 LC5/132, p. 137; Add. 29974 (pt. 1), f. 197; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 600; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 77.

Dover sought to boost his income through investments in trade and industry. By April 1635 he was actively involved with the new Fisheries Association, though he later fell into arrears with his subscription.72 CSP Dom. 1635, p. 46; PC2/50, f. 69v; CUL, MS Dd.xi.71, ff. 30v, 33v, 35. The earl also owned ironworks in Yorkshire, lead mines in Derbyshire, and a coal mine in Warwickshire, all of which brought him into conflict with rival owners or local residents in the course of the 1630s, and generated appeals to the king or Privy Council.73 CSP Dom. 1635, p. 87; 1635-6, p. 62; 1637, pp. 89, 130; 1637-8, p. 63; 1638-9, p. 202; PC2/47, f. 86v; 2/49, f. 176. Dover caused further controversy in March 1639, when the High Court of Chivalry found for him in a defamation suit brought against a London merchant. The latter had merely mocked the livery worn by one of the earl’s watermen, but the heavy fine imposed by the court, at Dover’s request, was later raised in the Short Parliament as a grievance. Ironically, the earl was by now married to the widow of another City merchant, Sir William Cockayne.74 Cases in the High Ct. of Chivalry 1634-40 ed. R.P. Cust and A. Hopper (Harl. Soc. n.s. xviii), 74-5; Cust, 148.

Later life, 1639-66

In January 1639 Dover was summoned to join the king at York that spring, ahead of the abortive First Bishops’ War. It is unclear whether he actually went, but he did travel north the following year to attend the Great Council of Peers.75 SO1/3, ff. 114v-15; SP16/466/42, p. 38. A staunch royalist during the Civil War, Dover fought at Edgehill as a volunteer in the king’s life guards, presumably aware that his son John was serving in the parliamentarian army. He attended the Oxford Parliament in 1644, and probably remained in the city until its surrender.76 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, ii. 356; J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, v. 573. Imprisoned after the war, and facing financial ruin during the Interregnum, he was obliged in 1653 to sell Hunsdon House to William Willoughby^†, later 5th Lord Willoughby of Parham. Restored to the Lords after the Restoration, Dover died in 1666, and was buried at Hunsdon. His earldom descended to his son John.77 CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 340; VCH Herts. iii. 328; Her. and Gen. iv. 47.