CAVENDISH, William (c.1589-1628)

Thomas Hobbes, who served Cavendish for 20 years, first as his tutor and later as his secretary, characterized his former employer as a ‘most able man, for soundness of advice and clear expression of himself’ and paid tribute to the earl’s ‘wisdom and ability to benefit his country: to which also he applied himself with zeal, but such as took no fire either from faction or ambition’.30 Eng. Works of Thomas Hobbes ed. W. Molesworth, viii. p. iv. Elected six times to the Commons, he was described by Thomas Pomfret, his wife’s biographer, as ‘a great speaker; and much beloved and admired in both houses of Parliament’.31 T. Pomfret, Life of the Right Honourable and Religious Lady Christian Late Countess Dowager of Devonshire (1685), 31.

Lord Cavendish, 1618-26

It was Cavendish’s father, William Cavendish^*, 1st earl of Devonshire, who thrust the Cavendish family into the ranks of the nobility, by building up a large estate centred on Derbyshire and purchasing first a barony, then an earldom. Nevertheless, it was Cavendish himself, the subject of this biography, who first brought them to political prominence. By the time he was in his late twenties, he may have been considered a more forceful figure than his elderly father. In 1617 it was he, rather than his father, who was made custos rotulorum of Derbyshire, and in the following year he was appointed joint lord lieutenant of the county, alongside the first earl.32 WILLIAM CAVENDISH, 1ST EARL OF DEVONSHIRE. However, Cavendish was also notoriously extravagant; Pomfret commented on his ‘noble disdain to be limited to the expense of so many thousands [of pounds] only’ which led him to ‘contracting a very great debt: … by an excess of gallantry’.33 Pomfret, 24. As early as 1610 Cavendish’s father had been obliged to agree to pay £2,000 to settle his son’s debts, and the first earl’s accounts record numerous similar payments in subsequent years.34 Chatsworth, Hardwick 29, pp. 165, 221-2, 415, 467, 641, 557.

Cavendish himself blamed his father for his indebtedness, claiming that he had been forced to borrow money at interest because of the ‘shortness of my allowance’. By the summer of 1624 he had been obliged to turn to his friends and relatives including his cousin, William Cavendish^*, Viscount Mansfield (subsequently 1st duke of Newcastle) to underwrite his debts. In June of that year Cavendish gave Mansfield a deed to indemnify the latter from any liability for Cavendish’s debts. This was almost certainly one of a number of such deeds issued at that time by Cavendish in order to persuade his friends to stand as sureties. It is a testimony to the strength of Cavendish’s court connections that this particular deed was witnessed by Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) and the lord steward, James Hamilton^*, 2nd marquess of Hamilton [S] (1st earl of Cambridge in the English peerage). The prince was requested to supply ‘what force it [the deed] wanteth in strict point of law’.35 Notts. Archives, DD/4P/35/5.

Some of Cavendish’s views may be discerned from a work entitled Horae Subsecivae, published anonymously in 1620. It consisted of 12 ‘observations’ and four longer ‘discourses’ on a variety of subjects. Although this volume has been attributed to several authors, the ‘observations’, and at least one of the ‘discourses’, were almost certainly written by Cavendish. (A statistical analysis of the language has been used to attribute the other three ‘discourses’ to Hobbes, though this has been questioned.) A significant part of one of the three ‘discourses’, entitled ‘of laws’, consists of translations from an unpublished Latin work by Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, with whom Cavendish was closely connected.36 N. Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes, 6-7, 78-9; A. Huxley, ‘Aphorismi and A Discourse of Laws: Bacon, Cavendish, and Hobbes 1615-60’, HJ, xlviii. 407; F.D. Sanders, ‘Critical Edn. of the Essays in the Horae Subsecivae (1620) by William Cavendish 2nd Earl of Devonshire’ (N. Carolina Univ. Ph.D. thesis 1963), p. xxvii.

Much of Horae Subsecivae was directed at issues facing ‘men of great quality, and estates’. These matters were undoubtedly uppermost in Cavendish’s mind, as he expected to inherit and his family was still relatively new to the peerage.37 [W. Cavendish] Horae Subsecivae, 135; Sanders, pp. lxix, clxxxiii. Although Cavendish could not claim to be part of the ancient nobility, he attacked those ‘so puffed up’ that they thought ‘there could be no greater disparagement than not to observe the distance’ between themselves and those of a lower rank. He was similarly critical of those who lorded it over their neighbours.38 [Cavendish], 5, 140-1. Nevertheless, his observations on country life show the importance Cavendish attached to the role of great nobility in provincial England. He argued that they were responsible for maintaining hospitality, keeping the peace among the gentry and those lower down the social hierarchy, providing leadership in local administration and in arbitrating disputes. As a result, he thought the nobility should spend most of their time in the country, without becoming strangers to the court and London. There was no necessary contradiction here, as a nobleman inevitably had business which would bring him to the capital, allowing him to play his proper role in the politics of the nation.39 Ibid. 139, 142-3, 145, 147, 164-6, 168-9, 172-5.

Cavendish’s observations on religion suggest that he was a conventional supporter of the established Church. He disparaged the ‘blind zeal’ of Catholics, but appears to have had no sympathy with puritans, arguing that ‘the several rites, gestures and ceremonies of the Church’ were part of the ‘true service of God’. He suspected that calls for religious change could be a ‘pretence’ for ‘seditious and conspiring actions’. Although he acknowledged that religious belief could not be compelled, he thought that the state should require outward obedience to the established Church, ‘otherwise inevitable confusion would follow, and religion grow into contempt’.40 Ibid. 178, 180, 189-90, 192.

Inheriting the earldom and the second Caroline Parliament, 1626

When Cavendish succeeded to his father’s title on 3 Mar. 1626, he was a Member of the Commons, and already associated with the rising tide of criticism directed against George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham. Sir James Bagg^‡, a client of Buckingham’s, identified him as a supporter of the lord chamberlain, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke (who had secured privilege for a servant of the 1st earl of Devonshire on 23 Feb.) in stirring up trouble against the duke in the lower House.41 HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 466; Procs. 1626, i. 65. However, as Devonshire had no position at court, he could be much freer in opposing Buckingham than Pembroke. When William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (subsequently archbishop of Canterbury), surveyed the opinions of the upper House in early May he categorized Devonshire among those 16 lords who were most strongly opposed to the duke.42 SP16/20/36; E.S. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 165-6.

It is not known when the writ summoning Devonshire to the Lords in his father’s place was issued, nor is there any record of him being formally introduced to the upper House. He is first recorded as having attended on 28 Mar., and thereafter he was marked as present at a further 41 sittings (equivalent to 52 per cent of the sittings of the Parliament, or 86 per cent if the sittings before he took his place are excluded). The six sittings when his attendance was not noted after 28 Mar. includes the afternoon of 8 June, when he is recorded as having spoken, and the morning of 31 Mar., when he received two committee appointments.43 Procs. 1626, i. 231-2, 589.

Devonshire made 33 recorded speeches during the session, and was appointed to 15 of the 49 committees established by the upper House. On 31 Mar. he was added to the committee for the defence of the kingdom and instructed to consider the bill against the export of wool, which he reported as fit to pass on 20 April. Curiously, he was again named to the committee for defence on 20 May.44 Ibid. 231-2, 292, 537. His legislative appointments included five bill committees. The measure that most interested him appears to have been the bill against Edmund Nicholson, the projector of the pretermitted customs. Although not appointed to consider this bill after its second reading on 1 Apr., he moved on 22 Apr. for the committee to meet, whereupon he himself was added to that body. However, the measure was promptly reported by William Seymour^*, 2nd earl of Hertford, as fit to sleep.45 Ibid. 239, 300, 302.

Devonshire showed a keen interest in the work of the committee for privileges, of which he was not at first a member. On 24 Apr., he seconded the motion of Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland, for the committee to consider absent Members who had failed to send in their proxies, and proposed that the full committee meet that afternoon.46 Ibid. 310. However, he was willing to take a flexible attitude to privilege when he thought the circumstances warranted it. On 15 May he successfully supported the petition of a Derbyshire knight, Sir Francis Leak^‡, who was seeking permission to sue his son, Francis Leak^*, Lord Deincourt (later 1st earl of Scarsdale). On this occasion he may have been motivated by personal support for Sir Francis, who had been on good terms with Devonshire’s father. Indeed the 1st earl of Devonshire had been godfather to Deincourt’s stepbrother, William, whose inheritance was a major source of tension between Sir Francis Leak and his son. Moreover, the Cavendishes were in conflict with Deincourt over the latter’s collection of the tithe of lead ore in the Peak district.47 Ibid. 478; Household Accts. of William Cavendish, Ld Cavendish of Hardwick ed. P. Riden (Derbys. Rec. Soc. xlii), 285; J.R. Dias, ‘Lead, Soc. and Pols. in Derbys. Before the Civil War’, Midland Hist. vi. 46; FRANCIS LEAK.

One of the most important matters of privilege to come before the House in 1626 concerned Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, who had been sent to the Tower in the early stages of the Parliament, ostensibly because his eldest son had married into the royal family without the king’s permission. In his first recorded speech in the Lords, on 5 Apr., Devonshire defended the privileges committee for continuing to consider whether Arundel’s imprisonment was a breach of parliamentary privilege, despite a resolution of the House on 15 Mar. to suspend further proceedings. He was unsuccessful on the narrow technical point, as the Lords agreed that the committee should not have continued its deliberations without a further order. However, Devonshire was thereupon added to both the committee for privileges and its subcommittee, the latter being ordered to search for precedents concerning the commitment of peers.48 Procs. 1626, i. 257, 260-1.

Thirteen days later Devonshire successfully moved for the precedents to be entered in the Journal and for a remonstrance against the imprisonment of lords during Parliament to be drawn up for presentation to the king.49 Ibid. 282. On 11 May, Devonshire seconded the motion of William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, to send a committee to the king to request an answer concerning Arundel. He asserted that the precedents presented by the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, to justify the arrest had ‘proved to be none. But this, if not granted, will be a main precedent against us’.50 Ibid. 402. On 17 May he was named to a committee to draft a fresh petition to the king for the restoration of Arundel to the House.51 Ibid. 495.

Although Devonshire was active in his support of Arundel, his principal interest in the 1626 Parliament was probably the case of John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol. Bristol had fallen out with Buckingham and Prince Charles during their sojourn in Spain, during which time the earl had been ambassador extraordinary to Madrid, charged with negotiating the Spanish Match. Since his return, Bristol had been placed under virtual house arrest. In 1626 he was initially denied the right to attend Parliament, but under protests from the Lords a writ was issued on 31 Mar., along with a letter from the lord keeper (Thomas Coventry^*, later 1st Lord Coventry) instructing him, nevertheless, to stay away from Westminster.52 Ibid. 284-5. It is notable that it was to Devonshire that Bristol entrusted his proxy, although no previous connection between the two men is known.53 Ibid. iv. 11.

On 21 Apr. Charles, now king, informed the Lords that he intended to lay charges against Bristol and requested that the House summon the earl as a delinquent. As a consequence, Bristol was ordered to appear before them in the custody of the gentleman usher.54 Ibid. i. 295-6. However, eight days later, Devonshire tried to persuade the House to allow Bristol to take his seat as an ordinary member, arguing that the previous order could be changed ‘if made suddenly and upon no ground’.55 Ibid. 322. He was unsuccessful, and consequently, on 1 May, Devonshire moved that Bristol be formally charged the following day. Three days later, he reported from the subcommittee of privileges that the committee had found a fifteenth-century precedent ‘which gave them full satisfaction touching the trial of a peer in Parliament’.56 Ibid. 341, 351. Nevertheless, later the same day he argued that, before the earl was indicted, it should first be established whether the king’s accusations against Bristol amounted to a charge of treason. Speaking at least three times after the House went into committee, he invoked an order made at the end of the 1624 Parliament to argue that Bristol should be allowed counsel and the right to produce his own witnesses.57 Ibid. 351, 353-4; LJ, iii. 418a.

On 6 May, Devonshire moved for Pembroke to confirm Bristol’s assertion that Buckingham had tried to have him arrested shortly after his return from Spain. In the event Pembroke could only give a second-hand account of what he had been told by the marquess of Hamilton, who had since died.58 Procs. 1626, i. 372. Two days later, Devonshire again moved for Bristol to be allowed counsel, despite a message from the king urging the contrary, arguing that it was ‘not against the fundamental law for it appears not yet whether he shall be tried for treason’.59 Ibid. 383. The following day, he proposed that a query raised by Bristol - whether the king could appear as a witness - should be referred to the House’s judicial assistants, and he was nominated, although not appointed, to draw up questions to be put to the judges.60 Ibid. 392-3. On 15 May, Devonshire again argued that Bristol should be allowed counsel, asserting correctly that Charles had been present when the 1624 order had been made.61 Ibid. 484; LJ, iii. 413b, 418a.

According to a newsletter-writer, Devonshire, in ‘a speech full of resolution, which carried the whole House’, secured permission on 19 May for Bristol to take the air.62 Procs. 1626, iv. 286. Three days later he persuaded the House to order Heath to inform the House when he would be ready to substantiate the king’s allegations against Bristol. He was also appointed to the committee to examine the evidence in the case.63 Ibid. i. 540-2. Bristol appeared before the House on 8 June, when he made wide-ranging accusations against Buckingham. However, Devonshire appears to have feared that the Lords would become side-tracked as he moved that only Bristol’s ‘particular requests’ should be considered.64 Ibid. 589.

Devonshire was among those appointed, on 8 May, to report the charges of the Commons against Buckingham, which were delivered at a conference between both Houses that afternoon.65 Ibid. 380. He subsequently reported the speech of Christopher Sherland^‡ concerning Buckingham’s role in the sale of honours and judicial offices. When Buckingham, dissatisfied with the accuracy of some of the conference reports, moved for the reporters to deliver their notes to the House, Devonshire protested that his were ‘so short that you can make no judgement out of them’. Nevertheless, he asserted later the same day that they were sufficiently full for him to state that Sir Dudley Digges’^‡ speech at the opening of the conference had contained ‘nothing that can touch the king’s honour’. He argued that Digges had not intended to reflect poorly upon either Charles I or James I, and that the Lords should judge ‘what he intended’ by his speech, and not just the words by themselves. Not surprisingly he was happy to take the protestation that Digges had not impugned the king’s honour.66 Ibid. 477-9, 481-3. Devonshire’s last contribution to the proceedings against Buckingham was on 24 May, when, responding to the duke’s request to retain all three of the king’s serjeants as his counsel despite their role as assistants to the upper House, he mischievously moved ‘to be resolved whether the House may call any others to assist’ it in its proceedings.67 Ibid. 547.

On 15 June, following the lord keeper’s announcement that he had received the king’s commission to dissolve the Parliament, Devonshire seconded the motion of Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu, to move Charles to reconsider his decision. At Devonshire’s suggestion a committee was established, of which he was a member, to draw up a message to the king, which he reported later that day. However, before it could be delivered, the lord president of the Council, Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester, reported that the king was determined to end the Parliament.68 Ibid. 633, 635.

The Forced Loan and the liberties of the subject, 1626-8

Once back in Derbyshire, the earl hosted a meeting of the county bench at Chatsworth, his principal residence in that county, on 17 Aug., to report back on their attempts to collect the benevolence, levied by Charles I, to compensate for the failure of the 1626 Parliament to grant supply. Devonshire and his colleagues informed the Privy Council that they had raised only a paltry sum, and in some hundreds the inhabitants had refused to pay outright ‘otherwise than by way of Parliament’.69 SP16/22/131, 131i. The Council evidently believed that Devonshire and his fellow justices were at least partly responsible for the opposition they had reported, and forced them to justify themselves the following month.70 SP16/35/90.

It was widely reported that Devonshire refused to subscribe to the Forced Loan initiated after the failure of the benevolence, but, in fact, he paid his £600 assessment on 13 Nov., possibly because his ally Pembroke had by now been reconciled to the duke.71 Procs. 1626, iv. 348; SP 16/54/82i; E401/1386, rot. 25. The rumour that he would purchase a marquessate proved unfounded, but he subsequently helped implement the Loan in Derbyshire in 1627.72 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 338; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 273. Devonshire’s newly formed ties with Buckingham were no doubt strengthened by his cousin Mansfield, a supporter of the duke, who toured the Peak district with Devonshire in the summer of 1627.73 N. Malcolm, Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years’ War, 10. Nevertheless, in February 1628, he refused to pay a further £600 towards a privy seal loan, by which date the king had decided to call another Parliament.74 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 727; Holles Letters, 376.

By 1628 Devonshire’s financial problems were becoming acute. Despite his previous assertions that his debts were due to the inadequate allowance his father had given him, his level of indebtedness had increased rather than diminished since he inherited the family estates due to ‘the magnificence of his living both in town, and in the country, (his house appearing rather like a prince’s court than a subject’s)’.75 Pomfret, 25. His financial difficulties were exacerbated by his purchase of a ‘largely and sumptuously builded’ house in Bishopsgate, previously called Fisher’s Folly and owned by Devonshire’s friend Hamilton, his father’s town-house in Aldersgate having been assigned to Devonshire’s stepmother as part of her jointure.76 P. Riden and D. Fowkes, Hardwick, 43; SP16/98/100; J. Stow, Survey of London ed. J. Strype, i. bk. 2, p. 96; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 604.

In the indemnity which he had given his friends and relations for his debts in 1624, Devonshire had included the possibility of securing a private act of Parliament to break the entail on part of the Cavendish lands to allow them to be sold to satisfy his creditors. As the king, while prince of Wales, had already signed a document spelling this out, it is likely that Devonshire could rely on the Royal Assent.77 Notts. Archives, DD/4P/35/5. The third Caroline Parliament, which convened in March 1628, provided Devonshire with the opportunity to secure such an act. Introduced in the Lords on 24 Mar., the bill was steered through the House by Pembroke, who moved for its commitment two days later. As well as Pembroke himself, the committee included Devonshire’s friend Francis Russell^*, 4th earl of Bedford, one of the trustees appointed by Devonshire to sell the lands included in the bill.78 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 96, 104, 107; PROB 11/154, ff. 38-9v. On 9 Apr. Pembroke reported the measure, which received a third reading a week later, when it was approved, although Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland, dissented.79 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 179, 243, 245. The bill experienced further opposition in the Commons, particularly from Sir Edward Coke^‡, who saw it as an attack on the rights of Devonshire’s under-age eldest son. It was also opposed by counsel representing Devonshire’s cousin, Robert Pierrepont^*, Viscount Newark (later 1st earl of Kingston-upon-Hull), who had a remainder in the entail.80 CD 1628, iii. 10, 12-13; ROBERT PIERREPONT.

Devonshire experienced considerable difficulty in getting his bill through the Commons, and may therefore have to come to regret the fact that he had used his influence in the recent parliamentary election for Derbyshire on behalf of Pembroke’s client Sir Edward Leech^‡ rather than on his own account. At any rate, on 29 May Leech complained that Devonshire ‘used him not well at the committee’ for the bill. As Leech’s remark indicates, the earl personally attended the committee. At a further meeting of the committee, held that afternoon, it was reported that Devonshire ‘fully cleared … all doubts’. Nevertheless the bill did not finally pass the lower House until 10 June.81 HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 85-7; CD 1628, iv. 14, 18-19, 220.

By the time his bill passed, Devonshire was no longer regularly attending the Lords and was probably in poor health. He was initially reasonably assiduous in his attendance, but was excused between 1st and 3rd Apr. inclusive. He subsequently missed the sittings of 26 Apr., when the Journal states that he was excused (although other sources claim that leave of absence was granted to Henry Carey^*, 1st earl of Dover instead), and 1 May. Again excused on 13 May, he was not recorded as present again until 22 May. The assistant clerk’s manuscript minutes record him as speaking on 14 May, but this is not confirmed by any other source. He attended both the morning and afternoon sittings on 23 May, but not subsequently. On 18 June Samuel Harsnett^*, bishop of Norwich (later archbishop of York), delivered a report ‘in the absence and sickness’ of Devonshire. In total, Devonshire is recorded as having attended 44 out of 94 sittings (47 per cent).82 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 349-51, 435-6, 665.

Devonshire spoke on 60 recorded occasions during the 1628 session but was named to only 14 out of 52 committees. At the start of the session the king appointed him a trier of petitions for Gascony, a mark of his newly won favour. He was named to the privileges committee three days later, when he also assisted in the introduction of Mansfield, who had been created earl of Newcastle.83 Ibid. 62, 73, 74. The following day he was appointed to the subcommittee for privileges which, among other things, was charged with checking the draft Journal, a duty he performed on at least three occasions.84 Ibid. 79 & n.10, 113 n.4, 364 n.2.

As in 1626, Devonshire kept the privileges of his fellow peers uppermost in his mind, although at the privilege committee, on 28 Apr. he voted not to extend privilege to the estranged wife of Buckingham’s brother, John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck.85 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33 (31 Mar. 1628), no. 12. On 28 Mar. he seconded the motion of Viscount Saye and Sele, who moved that the privileges committee should canvass the opinions of those peers who had been affected by the patent creating William Knollys^*, earl of Banbury an earl. Although this patent had not been issued until August 1626, it granted its holder precedence over those who had been created earls at Charles’s coronation six months earlier.86 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 116. Three days later he moved for those peers who were interested in the matter to be given notice to attend the committee that afternoon, and joined Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset, in successfully opposing moves to delay the meeting. That same day Devonshire also seconded Dorset’s motion for a bill to be drafted to enforce parliamentary privilege when the House was not sitting, although this came to nothing.87 Ibid. 128, 130. On 6 May Devonshire supported the earl of Hertford, who argued that it was sufficient for peers to answer in a court of law on their honour rather than under oath. Devonshire claimed that precedents which showed that peers sometimes answered under oath were irrelevant, as privileges were not lost if individual peers chose not to use them.88 Ibid. 384.

As well as being vocal in defence of peers’ privileges, Devonshire seems to have been an active member of the committee for petitions, to which he was appointed on 21 March. On 26 Mar. he reported a petition from the constable of Banbury complaining that soldiers billeted there had committed ‘divers outrages’ and threatened to set fire to the town. The House agreed to swear witnesses and ordered the committee to continue examining the case.89 Ibid. 103. According to the notes taken by the clerk of the Parliament’s son, Devonshire supported Harsnett on 31 Mar., when the bishop questioned whether the petitions committee should consider a petition from Meredith Mady, a deprived minister. However, it may in fact have been Dorset who spoke on this occasion, as the speaker concerned stated that a similar petition, from Mady to the lower House, had been rejected when he had chaired the Commons’ committee for grievances. Devonshire is not recorded as ever having filled this position, whereas Dorset had chaired the committee for the courts of justice in 1621. Moreover, in the clerk’s record of this same debate, it is Dorset who is recorded as speaking after Harsnett, and who affirmed that the Commons had rejected the petition. Both the clerk and his son agree, however, that Devonshire spoke later in the debate, to confirm that the petition was scheduled to be heard at the committee and to ask the House to trust that it would be dealt with appropriately.90 Ibid. 129-31.

Another matter in which Devonshire took an interest as a member of the petitions committee was the petition of Anthony Lamplugh against the former lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York). On 16 Apr., following the report made on the case by John Egerton^*, 1st earl of Bridgwater, Devonshire successfully moved to censure Lamplugh for criticizing Williams.91 Ibid. 246. On 3 May, Devonshire himself reported from the committee, this time in connection with the petition of Robert Lane concerning a decree in Chancery. After he communicated the committee’s recommendation that the cause should be heard at the bar, the House promptly ordered the parties to be sent for.92 Ibid. 373. He again reported from the committee four days later, when he stated that Sir Henry Shirley had declined to appear before the committee to answer a petition from Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, as he was due to attend the court of High Commission. The House was unimpressed with this excuse and ordered Shirley to attend the committee regardless.93 Ibid. 390-1. Curiously, on 18 June Devonshire was expected to make a report concerning the Muscovy Company, despite being one of that corporation’s creditors (his father having invested in the company), but his poor health intervened.94 Ibid. 665, 671; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 376.

On 21 Mar. Devonshire was named to attend the conference with the Commons about a proposed petition for a fast. He spoke at the subsequent debate when the Lords returned to their chamber, but his words went unrecorded.95 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 78, 82. Three days later, he seconded the motion of Lord Montagu to petition the king to execute the laws against Catholics, successfully moving for a drafting committee to be named, to which he himself was appointed.96 Ibid. 97-8. He reported the resulting draft petition on 26 Mar., which was approved, and moved for a conference with the Commons to gain their assent, to which he was also appointed. Three days later, in the debate following this conference, he spoke in favour of additions proposed by the Commons, which were approved, and called for the petition to be voted on and for arrangements to be made to present it to the king. Subsequently, in the same debate, he opposed Richard Neile^*, bishop of Winchester (subsequently archbishop of York), who proposed minor amendments, arguing that this would require a further conference with the Commons.97 Ibid. 103, 106, 122, 124.

Following complaints on 28 Mar. that the laws concerning poverty and vagrancy were not being properly enforced in London, Devonshire moved the House to recommend their execution to the lord chief justice, the lord mayor and the recorder of London.98 Ibid. 114, 116. However, he evidently thought that the motions of Manchester and Edward Cecil^*, Viscount Wimbledon, for the establishment of workhouses, made at the second reading of the bill for the better maintenance of hospitals on 4 Apr., were beside the point, as he argued that they would ‘work us to a new bill’. He was subsequently appointed to consider the existing bill.99 Ibid. 151, 153. As a lord lieutenant, he obviously had an interest in the proposal of his former brother-in-law, William Maynard^*, 1st Lord Maynard, to place militia rates on a statutory footing. However, he argued that they should only proceed ‘to draw the heads’ before consulting the lower House, possibly fearing that to proceed any further in an issue concerning taxation would be seen as intruding on the privileges of the Commons.100 Ibid. 159.

On 7 Apr. Devonshire was named as one of the reporters for the conference with the Commons concerning the liberties of the subject.101 Ibid. 157. He was assigned to cover John Selden’s^‡ speech concerning habeas corpus, which he subsequently described as ‘long and weighty’. The following day, when Arundel called for the reports to be made that afternoon, Devonshire protested that it was ‘impossible to be ready so soon’ because he was waiting for Selden’s notes, which the latter had told him would not be ready until that evening. Devonshire made his report the day after, which he was allowed to deliver seated, presumably because of its length. Indeed, the copy he handed to the king’s counsel came to 60 closely written pages.102 Ibid. 161, 167-8, 173, 186.

Although Devonshire had paid his contribution to the Loan, it was clear that he was sympathetic to the case made by the Commons, that the crown’s use of the prerogative to enforce the Loan had infringed the liberties of the subject. In the subsequent debate, Devonshire tried to shorten the time given to the king’s counsel and judges to formulate their response to the case put forward by the Commons, citing the king’s request that they proceed speedily. He also felt it unnecessary for the crown’s lawyers to have the full documentation supplied by the Commons in support of their arguments, as he asserted that ‘if anything [had] not [been] spoken of for the king’s rights’ the king’s counsel ‘will bring it out’.103 Ibid. 186. After the attorney general presented his answers to the Commons on Saturday 12 Apr., Devonshire tried to have further debate deferred until the following Monday. When this failed, he seconded Saye, who moved for the House to go into committee. The Lords agreed to go into committee and in the ensuing debate Devonshire urged his fellow peers not to reject the idea of a further conference with the Commons out of hand. He wanted the Lords instead to hear the opinion of the judges ‘touching the law in this point in few words’ and to receive the attorney general’s case in writing. Only then should the House decide whether to confer.104 Ibid. 204-7, 210.

On 14 Apr. Devonshire expressed impatience with the reluctance of the lord chief justice of King’s Bench to give an account of the Five Knights’ Case without the king’s consent. The knights had been incarcerated for refusing to pay the Loan and had sued for their release, but the judges had failed to give judgement one way or another in respect of the king’s right to imprison without cause being shown. Instead, they had merely remanded the prisoners in custody pending a further hearing. Stating that he ‘doubts not but the king will be contented’, Devonshire wondered why the House’s order should not be obeyed, for if a private individual made a complaint the judges had to justify their actions. Besides, the Lords had the power to review any judgement in ‘matter of fact’.105 Ibid. 218, 224.

Devonshire may have hoped that, by urging his fellow lords to compromise with the lower House, the former would be gradually brought round to the latter’s point of view. On 15 Apr. he called for ‘an accommodation’ with the Commons, arguing that ‘the king intends a union with his people’, and moved for a fresh conference with the lower House after ‘we have advised’. He urged the Lords to debate the issues fully at their next sitting, with the judges in attendance to assist ‘in point of law’.106 Ibid. 232-3, 235. The following day, after the House had transformed itself into a committee at his suggestion, he proposed that a conference be held at which the Commons would be informed of the opinions of the judges and the attorney general. This would allow them to ‘make answers if need be’. He thereby declined to uphold the opinions of the House’s legal assistants, so demonstrating that he viewed it as the role of the House not to uphold the rights of the crown but to facilitate a compromise between the king and the Commons. The Lords agreed to seek the suggested conference, and Devonshire was among those appointed to report its proceedings to the upper House.107 Ibid. 244, 247-8.

At the conference held later that day, Devonshire was unhappy with the way the attorney general made his case, feeling that he had omitted certain points that he had made in the Lords. Consequently, during the conference itself, he urged Heath to make good the deficiency, though he had not been given explicit permission by the Lords to speak. His concerns led to a further conference the following day, but only after he was forced to defend his conduct in the upper House. He argued that he had been entitled to intervene as the meeting had been ‘a free conference and any there may speak’. Moreover, he claimed that he had not ‘pressed’ Heath but only ‘put him in mind of such things as he had omitted’. His explanation appears to have satisfied the House, and, on 19 Apr., he reported to the Lords on the arguments made at the second conference by Heath and Sir Francis Ashley^‡, one of the king’s serjeants.108 Ibid. 250, 258, 272-3.

Devonshire’s underlying sympathy with the case put forward by the Commons became apparent as the Lords continued to debate the liberties of the subject, although he ostensibly continued to argue for some form of compromise. On 21 Apr. he conceded the case for acknowledging the right of the king and Council to commit for a just cause, but argued that this should follow agreement ‘upon the proposition of the Commons’.109 Ibid. 314. The following day, he argued that the Council should ‘not be judges of the cause’ of commitment and stated that it was ‘proved’ that ‘a free man ought not to be committed’ except by the law of the land. He called for yet another conference with the Commons to ‘seek a way to avoid a dis-union’ and, on 23 Apr., was appointed to help prepare for this meeting.110 Ibid. 324, 329, 333. On 9 May, following yet another conference held the previous day at which the Commons had presented the Petition of Right, Devonshire argued unsuccessfully that the committees appointed by the Lords to consider the Petition should be given specific instructions as to how to proceed. Three days later, following the receipt of a letter from the king about the Petition, he successfully moved the Lords to confer with the lower House once again.111 Ibid. 401, 410.

On 14 May the assistant clerk’s manuscript minutes record that Devonshire argued that prerogative and civil law were as much part of the law of the land as the common law. However, this speech may actually have been made by another peer, as it is not only improbable that Devonshire would have said such a thing but he was also not recorded as being present, having been excused the day before. It seems likely that he had again been confused with Dorset.112 Ibid. 435-6. On 23 May, the final day he attended the upper House, Devonshire once more urged the House to reach an accommodation with the Commons, either by amending the Petition of Right or by some other way.113 Ibid. 513.

Devonshire made his will on 17 June, and added a codicil two days later. One of the witnesses was Samuel Turner^‡, who, in the 1626 Parliament, had brought accusations against Buckingham on the basis of ‘common fame’. One of the will’s beneficiaries was Dr John Craig, who was left £50. He had testified in the same Parliament concerning the application of the plaster to James I. Devonshire also gave £50 to Philp Mainwaring^‡, a client of Arundel’s who had been appointed to the lower House’s committee for Devonshire’s estate bill. The overseers included lord keeper Coventry; the earls of Bedford and Newcastle; the chancellor of the exchequer, Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston (later 1st earl of Portland), and the groom of the stole, Sir James Fullerton^‡, whose wife was Devonshire’s mother-in-law. Devonshire appointed his wife as his executrix. He ordered his correspondence and other private papers to be disposed of in accordance with oral instructions he had given to Hobbes. It is possible that Hobbes had been ordered to destroy them, as very few of his letters survive.114 PROB 11/154, ff. 37v-40; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 331-2; v. 216; vi. 583; CD 1628, iii. 73-4.

Devonshire died at his house in Bishopsgate on 20 June, six days before the 1628 session was prorogued. His bowels were buried the following night in the church of St Botolph Bishopsgate, having probably been removed preparatory to partial embalmment. The rest of his body was buried, in accordance with his wishes, in the vault of his grandmother, the famous Bess of Hardwick, in the church of All Saints Derby. He was succeeded by his eldest son, William Cavendish^†, 3rd earl of Devonshire, who, being a minor, was unable to sit in the upper House until 1640. Thanks to the good management of his widow and the act he had secured, his descendants were saved from the consequences of his extravagance, and so left free to continue the tradition of political activism that he had initiated.115 Stow, i. bk. 2, p. 92; PROB 11/154, f. 37v; J.C. Cox and W.H. St John Hope, Chrons. of Collegiate Church or Free Chapel of All Saints, Derby, 127.