CAVENDISH, William (1593-1676)

Equestrian, patron of the arts, amateur poet and dramatist, Cavendish was the nephew of his namesake William Cavendish^*, 1st earl of Devonshire, the founder of the Chatsworth branch of the family. His father, Sir Charles Cavendish^‡, inherited little property from his parents, the prominent Tudor courtier Sir William Cavendish^‡ and Bess of Hardwick. Nevertheless, he exercised considerable influence over his step-brother / brother-in-law, Gilbert Talbot^*, 7th earl of Shrewsbury. The latter arranged his election for Nottinghamshire in 1593, and sold him his principal properties, Welbeck Abbey, in Nottinghamshire, which became his main residence, and Bolsover Castle, across the border in Derbyshire.42 WILLIAM CAVENDISH, 1ST EARL OF DEVONSHIRE; P. Riden, ‘Sir William Cavendish’, Derbys. Arch. Jnl. cxxix. 117, 249, 256n.160; HP Commons, 1558-1603, i. 565-6; A.S. Turbeville, Hist. of Welbeck Abbey and its Owners, i. 15-16; VCH Derbys. iii. 62-3, 115; Notts. Archives, DD/P6/1/15/25; DD/4P/46/5. Sir Charles and his family lived for much of the time with Shrewsbury, even after the acquisition of Welbeck. Consequently part of Cavendish’s earliest education was in the earl’s household.

According to his second wife, Margaret Lucas, Cavendish studied at St John’s College, Cambridge, although there is no record of his enrolment; the William Cavendish^* who received an MA from Cambridge in 1608 was Cavendish’s cousin, the future 2nd earl of Devonshire. Margaret also claimed that her husband took ‘more delight in sports than in learning’ and that his tutors ‘could not persuade him to read or study much’. Sir Charles Cavendish, realizing that his son had ‘a great inclination to the art of horsemanship and weapons’, therefore sent young William to the royal mews to continue his education with Prince Henry’s riding master, Pierre Antoine Bourdon, Seigneur de St Antoine.43 WILLIAM CAVENDISH, 2ND EARL OF DEVONSHIRE; Cavendish, 104-5. After a period of foreign travel, Cavendish was nominated by Shrewsbury to serve in Parliament for East Retford in 1614.44 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 311.

The Talbot estates and the Mansfield viscountcy, 1616-20

On 4 May 1616 Shrewsbury drew up his will, in which he made Cavendish, then aged just 22, and Secretary of State Sir Ralph Winwood^‡ his executors, an act which would eventually propel Cavendish into the peerage. Shrewsbury died four days later and his will was duly proved on the 14th by Cavendish and Winwood.

On the face of it, the will was straightforward. Cavendish and Winwood were bequeathed most of the earl’s lands (estimated to be worth more than £16,000 a year), and were instructed to settle Shrewsbury’s debts, pay for the funeral, and found an almshouse.45 PROB 11/128, ff. 307v-308; SP14/87/24; C142/444/87. However, although Shrewsbury had no surviving sons, he had three daughters, to whom he had already conveyed large parts of his estate: Mary, who was married to William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke; Aletheia, wife of Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel; and Elizabeth, spouse of Henry Grey^*, Lord Grey of Ruthin (subsequently 8th earl of Kent). Three days before making his will, Shrewsbury had conveyed a number of his properties to Winwood and Cavendish in trust to perform the will, even though these same properties had already been settled on his daughter Mary.

There were two other claimants on the estate. The first was Shrewsbury’s brother, Edward Talbot^*, who inherited the Shrewsbury earldom and claimed that he was entitled to the lands by virtue of a settlement made by his father, the 6th earl. The second was the 7th earl’s widow, Cavendish’s aunt, who claimed that Cavendish and Winwood had been appointed executors in trust for her.46 Notts. Archives, DD/4P/46/10; Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 97. Cavendish subsequently denied this, but it seems likely that the 7th earl assumed that he would act as his widow’s representative. This would certainly help explain his choice of such a young and inexperienced executor. Cavendish himself later admitted having promised his aunt that he would only act as executor with her knowledge and consent, and claimed that it was he who allowed her to take possession of the 7th earl’s personal estate and lands.47 Notts. Archives, DD/4P/46/10.

In early 1617 Winwood sued both Cavendish and the dowager countess, claiming that, because the latter had taken control of the estate, he had been forced to borrow money to pay for the 7th earl’s funeral and so was unable to pay the earl’s debts. Winwood also accused Cavendish of failing to co-operate with him in the execution of the will for fear of offending his aunt. However, these proceedings were brought to a halt when Winwood died the following October.48 C33/132, f. 735v; 33/133, ff. 3, 58; C2/Jas.I/S39/56. Shortly after Winwood’s death, James I ordered Cavendish to reject a proposal that he surrender the executorship. The author of this proposal is unclear, but it may have been the dowager countess, for on 15 Nov. she announced that she would perform the will and pay her late husband’s debts.49 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/160; HMC Portland, ii. 118. A scheme drawn up by Cavendish for executing the will in conjunction with his aunt may date from around this time, but there is no evidence that it was put into effect.50 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/552, 587.

One claimant to the estate was removed when Edward Talbot^*, 8th earl of Shrewsbury, died childless on 8 Feb. 1618. However, any hopes that the 7th earl’s widow may have had of securing control of the estate were thwarted when she was sent to the Tower the following June for failing to co-operate with the Council’s investigation into allegations that her niece, Arbella Stuart, had had a child.51 APC, 1617-19, pp. 164, 183-4. This seems finally to have stirred Cavendish into action, as he promptly petitioned the king, requesting delivery of papers concerning the Talbot estates in his aunt’s possession (probably in order to prevent these documents from falling into the hands of his aunt’s sons-in-law).52 Staffs. RO, D4038/I/33 (vi). However, Cavendish failed to secure control of the dowager countess’ interest in the Talbot estate. The latter was fined £20,000 for obstructing the Council, which sum was granted to the earls of Arundel and Pembroke, who used the collection of the fine as justification to secure control of her property in March 1619.53 HMC Downshire, vi. 556; SO3/6, unfol. (Mar. 1619).

By the spring of 1619 most of the former estates of the 7th earl of Shrewsbury were in the possession of his sons-in-law, either by virtue of the settlements made on their wives or their grant of the dowager countess’ fine. They therefore asked Cavendish to transfer to them his executorship in order to consolidate their control. Cavendish, however, was reluctant to oblige, because the executorship made him ‘safe and upright against their malice’ and ‘it makes them my friends in anything against others’. Nevertheless, he was willing to surrender control if Arundel and Pembroke agreed to indemnify him against any future legal proceedings concerning the estate and provide him with both lands and a title. (In a paper, probably written for his mother shortly before the beginning of the Easter law term in 1619, Cavendish referred to ‘the offer your ladyship made’ to Arundel and Pembroke, namely that he would relinquish the executorship in return for a viscountcy and various lands, including Mansfield, a former crown manor which had been purchased by the 7th earl of Shrewsbury.) He feared, however, that the two earls would either do nothing, assuming that their present possession of the estate and their ‘greatness’ – both men were privy councillors - would render him helpless, or that they would insist that he accept only the title.54 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/553-4; Notts. Archives, DD/4P/46/8; PROB 11/129, f. 500v; Eng. Reps. ed. A. Wood Renton et al., lxxvii. 797.

In 1619 negotiations evidently took place between Cavendish, Arundel and Pembroke at Welbeck, probably when the king visited in August of that year. However, these proved fruitless, possibly because the two earls claimed, disingenuously, that it was not in their power to obtain a viscountcy for Cavendish. The following February Arundel and Pembroke also argued that £17,000 claimed by Cavendish as due to his late father from the 7th earl of Shrewsbury had already been satisfied. This was probably true, as Cavendish’s second wife later wrote that the 7th earl had settled lands worth £2,000 a year on Sir Charles Cavendish in return for the loan.55 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/219; Cavendish, 72; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 559. Negotiations nevertheless continued, but in August Arundel and Pembroke informed Cavendish that James I could not be persuaded to bestow a viscountcy upon him. They subsequently asked Cavendish to meet them at court in late September to reach a final settlement.56 HMC Portland, ii. 119; Add. 70499, f. 19. They apparently expected Cavendish to settle for a mere barony, as his aunt, the dowager countess of Shrewsbury, urged him to reject their offer on the grounds that ‘your own birth doth give you that’. This was a reference to the Ogle barony which, on the death of Cuthbert Ogle^†, 7th Lord Ogle in 1597, had fallen into abeyance but which was nevertheless likely to be inherited by Cavendish on the deaths of his mother and her sister (the widow of the 8th earl of Shrewsbury, who had no surviving children).57 Add. 70499, f. 82; CP, x. 36-7.

Cavendish evidently rejected his aunt’s pleas and came to terms with Arundel and Pembroke. (Lord Grey of Ruthin refused to accept the validity of the £17,000 debt and, consequently, was not a party to the deal.)58 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/236-7. As a result, Cavendish was created Viscount Mansfield on 3 November.59 The patent was never enrolled. In CP the patent is dated 29 Oct., but this is the date of the privy seal warrant. For the correct date, see C231/4, f. 114; Collins, 25; W. Dugdale, Baronage of Eng. iii. 421. Writing shortly after to the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Lord Verulam (subsequently Viscount St Alban), the favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, confirmed that the title had been conferred at the suit of Arundel. Buckingham justified the grant on the basis that it merely anticipated the Ogle barony, but conceded that, being a viscountcy, it was ‘stretched a little higher’.60 Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 149. This indicates that Cavendish’s path had been smoothed by a general acceptance that he was already heir to a peerage. Another factor in the grant of the viscountcy may have been the intercession of Buckingham’s father-in-law, Francis Manners^*, 6th earl Rutland, whom Buckingham’s wife subsequently described as Cavendish’s ‘true friend’.61 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/257. It must also have been apparent to the king that Cavendish was eminently suitable for ennoblement, as there had recently been a significant improvement in his fortune. In addition to inheriting his father’s lands in 1617, Cavendish had, during the latter part of 1618, married a wealthy heiress, bringing him between £6,000 and £7,000 in cash, land worth £2,000 outright, and a life interest in further properties which yielded £800 a year.62 Cavendish, 72.

On 4 Nov. 1620 the new viscount, still styled Cavendish, signed an agreement with Pembroke and Arundel which stated that the £17,000 debt had been satisfied. In return, Mansfield agreed to transfer his executorship to Pembroke and Arundel within three months. For their part, the two earls agreed to indemnify Mansfield against any legal proceedings in his former capacity as executor. Mansfield also agreed to assign to Pembroke and Arundel a lease of several properties which had formally belonged to the 7th earl which were held by himself, his mother and his brother. No money actually changed hands in settling the £17,000 debt. This explains why Mansfield’s second wife later claimed that her husband lost that sum as a result of his executorship and why Mansfield himself said he had received his title for ‘the quitting of an old debt’. In addition to his viscountcy, Mansfield obtained the manor of Mansfield – which explains his choice of title - as well as lands in Somerset and Gloucestershire which had formerly belonged to the late Sir William St Loe^‡, second husband of Cavendish’s grandmother, Bess of Hardwick. (The St Loe inheritance had been settled on Cavendish’s father by the 7th earl of Shrewsbury, but had presumably come into the possession of Arundel and Pembroke in 1619 because Shrewsbury’s widow had a life interest in it.) The acquisition of these properties may be the reason why Mansfield’s neighbour, John Holles^*, Lord Houghton (later 1st earl of Clare), thought that Mansfield’s viscountcy cost him £14,000 rather than £17,000.63 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/569; SP16/55/26; Cavendish, 72-3; Notts. Archives, DD/4P/46/5; CCC, 1737; Cabala (1691), 278.

The following January the agreement was amended. Instead of undertaking to transfer the executorship within three months, Mansfield promised to do so within 40 days if asked. In fact no such request appears to have been made, as he was referred to as the 7th earl’s executor as late as 1636. However, from 1621 Mansfield was obliged as executor to act in accordance with the two earls’ wishes. For instance, on 14 July 1621 Pembroke and Arundel ordered Mansfield to convey property to two of their servants who had entered into a bond to discharge one of the 7th earl of Shrewsbury’s outstanding debts.64 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/253, 567, 569.

The parliaments of the 1620s

Mansfield’s title was conferred in time for him to be summoned to the 1621 Parliament. He is recorded as having attended 20 of the 44 sittings before Easter, 45 per cent of the total. He was not recorded as present on 5 Feb., when he took the oath of allegiance after the sitting was adjourned. This may indicate that the attendance list is mistaken, or that Mansfield arrived late. He received one committee appointment, on 22 Feb., for the bill to prevent the export of bullion.65 LJ, iii. 10b, 26b. He made no recorded speeches in this, or any of the parliaments of the 1620s. He subsequently wrote that he had ‘not the abilities for public harangues’ and that, although he could ‘say “content” in the Parliament House’, he could not even recite the Lord’s Prayer in public.66 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP12/191, 238. His participation in the Parliament was cut short by his wife’s illness, causing him to make ‘humble suit’ to the king for leave of absence, which was granted on 10 March. He was last recorded as attending the upper House two days later. Thereafter he granted his proxy to Buckingham.67 Add. 70499, f. 112; LJ, iii. 4b.

During his absence from the Parliament, Mansfield contemplated bringing a lawsuit against Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, whose son, Henry Howard^‡, had been the first husband of Mansfield’s wife. However, on 5 May his friend Sir Edward Richardson advised him that any proceedings would be halted by parliamentary privilege and suggested instead that he should petition the king or the House of Lords; there is no evidence that Mansfield pursued either course. In this same letter, Richardson reported to Mansfield the sentencing of Lord Chancellor St Alban two days previously on charges of corruption, and noted that St Alban was in a ‘fair way to have lost all his honours, but keepeth them with thanks to your lordship’s absence’. This was presumably a reference to Buckingham’s deployment of his proxies to defeat the proposal to degrade Bacon from the peerage.68 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/220; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 371. Mansfield himself wrote to commiserate with Arundel after the latter was imprisoned in the Tower on 17 May for insulting Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer.69 Add. 70499, f. 114. The viscount continued to absent himself after the session resumed in November and did not attend thereafter. However, Richardson left £15 with Pembroke’s client Sir Edward Leech^‡, for Mansfield’s New Year present for the king. He also paid 2s. for an otherwise unspecified ‘search in Parliament’ for the viscount.70 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/222.

Mansfield probably spent most of the period between the 1621 and 1624 parliaments at Welbeck, during which time Richardson occasionally kept him up to date with news.71 Ibid. Pw 1/224, 226. Ahead of the 1624 Parliament, Mansfield’s brother, Sir Charles Cavendish^‡, was elected for Nottingham. The 7th earl of Shrewsbury had been high steward of the borough and consequently there may have been a surviving Talbot interest which Mansfield could wield for his brother’s benefit.72 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 317. Mansfield is recorded as having attended 37 of the 93 sittings of the 1624 Parliament, 40 per cent of the total. He would probably have attended more often, but on Good Friday (26 Mar.), while practising for the accession day tilts, his horse fell and broke its neck. Mansfield himself was left lying on the ground and was initially feared dead, but in fact he suffered no worse injury than being ‘sore bruised, especially on his left side and breast’.73 Works of Abp. Laud, ed. J. Bliss, iii. 150; Fairfax Corresp. ed. G.W. Johnson, i. p. lvii; Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe (1740) ed. S. Richardson, 250. Mansfield was nevertheless absent when the session resumed on 1 Apr., and missed five further sittings before returning to the House on 8 April. He received his only committee appointment of the Parliament five days later, when he was named to consider the private bill concerning the lands of William Seymour^‡, 2nd earl of Hertford (subsequently 2nd duke of Somerset).74 LJ, iii. 302a. In the summer the king again visited Welbeck.75 Nichols, iv. 994.

Mansfield was sufficiently wealthy to pay £1,200 in early 1625 for the manor of Norton in Nottinghamshire, part of a grant of crown lands made to Buckingham’s brother, Christopher Villiers^*, 1st earl of Anglesey.76 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 503, 507; 1625-6, p. 539. The death of James I in March 1625 automatically dissolved the last Jacobean Parliament, but Charles I soon summoned a new one. At Nottingham, the corporation rejected Sir Charles Cavendish’s candidacy in favour of two townsmen.77 HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 317. Mansfield attended the first two sittings of the 1625 Parliament, on 18 and 20 June, and also the fourth sitting on the 23rd, when he took the oath of allegiance. However, he absented himself from the rest of the session, receiving a dispensation in early July, and again gave his proxy to Buckingham.78 Procs. 1625, pp. 46, 591; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 543.

A letter written to him on 25 Jan. 1626 by Houghton, by now earl of Clare, indicates that at that date it was thought that Mansfield would ‘suddenly and presently [go] up’ to attend the second Caroline Parliament.79 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 319. However, Mansfield was absent from the coronation on 2 Feb., and did not attend the upper House until 5 Apr., the last sitting before the Easter recess. When the House was called on 15 Feb. it was recorded that Mansfield had leave to be absent, although a formal licence was not issued until five days later. He again gave his proxy to Buckingham. After the session resumed on 15 Apr. Mansfield was excused twice in April (on the 17th and 20th), on both occasions returning for the next sitting. He was again excused on 8 and 10 June, but returned on the 12th. In view of his infrequent attendance it is perhaps not surprising that Mansfield was appointed to only two committees. The first, on 5 Apr., was to the subcommittee for privileges, which was instructed to search for precedents concerning the commitment of lords during Parliament. This was a delicate issue for Mansfield as his friend, Arundel, had been sent to the Tower in March, having fallen out with Buckingham. His second appointment was to the committee for petitions on 17 May. On 4 May Mansfield helped introduce another Buckingham adherent, Edward Cecil^*, Viscount Wimbledon.80 Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l; Procs. 1626, i. 49, 257, 270, 292, 351, 496, 587, 602; iv. 11.

In a list of members of the upper House annotated by William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (later archbishop of Canterbury) in May 1626, Mansfield was not included among the Buckingham’s supporters. This may have been because his natural reticence had obscured his support for the duke, or because of his connection with Buckingham’s enemies, Arundel and Pembroke. However, Buckingham himself remained convinced of his loyalty, for on 22 June, a week after Parliament was dissolved, the attorney general was instructed to draw up a commission appointing Mansfield lord lieutenant of Nottinghamshire, a post vacant since 1590.81 E. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 170; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 359. This was a major promotion for a man who was not even a member of the Nottinghamshire bench (an omission remedied the day after the lieutenancy commission was issued).

Following the collapse of the Parliament, which failed to vote subsidies, the king decided to levy a benevolence. Mansfield feared this would prove difficult to collect in Nottinghamshire because its people were ‘governed by ill precedents, and … factions, the dregs of the last Parliament’. His prediction was well founded for, in September, Nottinghamshire’s magistrates certified that they had been able to collect only £70 because ‘the generality … refused to give otherwise than by Parliament’.82 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 406, 434; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 95, 159. The king subsequently abandoned the benevolence and instead initiated a Forced Loan, to which Mansfield himself contributed £300 on 22 December.83 E401/1386, rot. 43. Mansfield also played a key part in the successful collection of the levy in Nottinghamshire. In February 1627 he and the other Nottinghamshire Loan commissioners informed the Privy Council that, although the county’s taxpayers had ‘held off some while’, being ‘not a little perplexed with the height of the demand, and the manner of it, as not being moulded and concluded in Parliament’, they had nevertheless been brought round, partly by the king’s promises to repay the money and call Parliament more frequently if the levy was successful, and partly because the commissioners had shown flexibility over individual assessments and times of payment. It was perhaps a sign of Mansfield’s uncertainty over his new position in his native county that he was keen to be seen to have acted as openly as possible. To that end a copy of February’s letter to the Council was delivered to the clerk of the peace and read in open court at the Easter quarter sessions.84 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 65; Notts. County Recs. ed. H.H. Copnall, 110-1; Cust, 118. Mansfield was similarly transparent when it came to his military duties as lord lieutenant. In April 1628 he delivered accounts of money levied for the militia to the quarter sessions to ‘be published in open sessions, to the end that the country might take notice how their monies were disposed of’.85 Notts. County Recs. 93; Cavendish, 5.

In late February 1627 Mansfield was employed by Buckingham to negotiate with his cousin, Robert Pierrepont^*, for the purchase of a peerage. Pierrepont was intent on getting a good bargain, and consequently Mansfield found the task both arduous and distasteful. He was also dismayed that Pierrepont valued a viscountcy at only £5,000, whereas he himself thought it worth £7,000; ‘when I parted with him [Pierrepont] I thought myself a worse man by £2,000 than I valued myself before’. However, despite Mansfield’s initial failure, Pierrepont eventually came to terms, and was created Viscount Newark in June and earl of Kingston-upon-Hull a year later.86 SP16/55/26; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 186; ROBERT PIERREPONT.

Although he had been assiduous in collecting the Forced Loan, Mansfield wrote in January1628 to congratulate his friend Sir Thomas Wentworth^* (subsequently earl of Strafford) after the latter was released from prison for refusing to pay the Forced Loan. Declaring that ‘there is no man gladder than myself of your absolute liberty’, he added that ‘I hope now we shall not be long without a Parliament’.87 Strafforde Letters, i. 43. Parliament was indeed soon summoned, but Mansfield evidently doubted that it would last long; on 29 Feb. he wrote to Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡ of Denton in Yorkshire (recently created Lord Fairfax of Cameron in the Scottish peerage) that his length of stay in London was ‘very uncertain depending upon the Parliament’. Mansfield invited Fairfax to visit him on his return to discuss horses, and hoped he would bring his grandson, possibly the future parliamentarian general, Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡, ‘who I hear to my great contentment is much addicted to that exercise [i.e. riding]’.88 Nottingham UL, Ne C15364.

By 22 Feb. 1628 the king’s urgent need for money meant that it was rumoured that Mansfield would soon be made an earl, and indeed the king had evidently decided to promote him by 27 Feb., when Buckingham informed the attorney general that Mansfield should have precedence over Henry Carey^*, Viscount Rochford (who was to be created earl of Dover) and John Mordaunt^*, 5th Lord Mordaunt (who was to be created earl of Peterborough), in order to preserve the existing hierarchy between them.89 Holles Letters, 377; ‘Additional State Pprs. Dom. for Chas. I from the Docquets of Lord Kpr. Coventry (1625-40) in the Birmingham City Archives’ ed. J. Broadway, R. Cust and S.K. Roberts, Archives, xxxi. 149, where the relevant document (a letter from the attorney general to the lord keeper) is misdated 1627. See Coventry Docquets, 737. All three were said to have paid large sums for their titles.90 HMC Skrine, 142. Mansfield was duly created earl of Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 7 Mar., the patent having apparently been rushed through (the preliminary formal paperwork is also dated 7 Mar.), to preserve his precedence over Dover and Peterborough, whose titles were dated 8 and 9 Mar. respectively.91 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 8; 43rd DKR, 96. His choice of title anticipated the Ogle inheritance, which consisted largely of properties in Northumberland. The original patent survives and is extensively decorated, presumably at Newcastle’s cost.92 Cavendish, 72; Notts. Archives, DD/P/6/1/25/7.

Mansfield’s patent was issued ten days before the start of the third Caroline Parliament, for which his brother, Sir Charles Cavendish, was re-elected for Nottingham.93 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 317. The new earl is recorded as having attended 53 of the 94 sittings of the 1628 session, 56 per cent of the total. He was excused on 10 Apr., but returned a week later. He last attended on 10 June and consequently missed the final 15 sittings. He received the proxy of Thomas Arundell^*, 1st Lord Arundell of Wardour, possibly because Arundell was seeking the favour of Newcastle’s patron, Buckingham. Newcastle himself had no known connection with Arundell.94 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 192.

Newcastle was formally introduced to the upper House as an earl on 20 Mar., when he was assisted by his cousin, William Cavendish^*, 2nd earl of Devonshire, and the earl of Anglesey. On the same day he was appointed to the committee for privileges. He received two further appointments, to the subcommittee for privileges and committee for petitions, both on the following day.95 Ibid. 72-3, 75, 79. During the Parliament a bill was passed allowing Devonshire to break the entail on his lands in order to settle his debts. Newcastle had a remainder in the entail, but gave his support to the bill. Newcastle had an interest in enabling Devonshire to satisfy his creditors; by 1624 he was acting as security for at least £4,500 of his cousin’s debts.96 CD 1628, iii. 356; iv. 502; Notts. Archives, DD/4P/35/5. Moreover, he may have wished to acquire some of Devonshire’s property for himself; indeed, he subsequently took advantage of the new act to purchase additional properties near Bolsover.97 P. Riden and D. Fowkes, Bolsover, 55-6. Devonshire died during the session and, as Devonshire’s son, William Cavendish^†, 3rd earl of Devonshire, was under age, Newcastle was appointed to succeed the 2nd earl as lord lieutenant of Derbyshire during the 3rd earl’s minority.98 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 203.

Newcastle did not attend the 1629 session. As Buckingham had been assassinated the previous August, he gave his proxy to the lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston (subsequently 1st earl of Portland). Despite his absence, Newcastle was reappointed to the committee and subcommittee for privileges, and the committee for petitions.99 LJ, iv. 3b, 6a-b. Why Newcastle did not attend is unclear. The letter he wrote to Wentworth on 2 Jan., 18 days before Parliament reopened, does not suggest that he was in poor health.100 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP12/48. It is possible that his mother was ill; she died at Bothal, the Ogle seat in Northumberland, on 18 Apr., and Newcastle may have attended her sickbed.101 Ogle, app. p. xxvi. The previous December Charles I had issued a patent acknowledging Newcastle’s mother as Baroness Ogle and allowing the title to pass to her heirs. Newcastle himself was naturally never known by that title, but it was evidently important to him. On being made a duke in 1665 he secured the subsidiary title earl of Ogle, which became his eldest son’s courtesy title.102 Sainty, Creations, 8. On his mother’s death Newcastle inherited the Ogle estates which his second wife estimated were worth £3,000 a year.103 Cavendish, 72.

The Personal Rule and quest for office, 1630-8

In 1630 Newcastle threw himself into the task of collecting the compositions for knighthood in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. He had no illusions that the levy would be popular. However, he was confident that he could crush any local opposition, having ‘had my hands in blood before’, an allusion, no doubt, to his earlier role in collecting the Forced Loan. His confidence was not misplaced for, in October, he boasted that he had collected the equivalent of five subsidies in the two counties. Nevertheless, when a fresh commission was issued for collecting compositions the following year, he decided not to press forward so vigorously but to leave the work instead to his fellow commissioners, on the grounds that the local inhabitants had ‘bled so lately and so plentifully’. This new found moderation was only tactical, though, intended to ‘make them gentler and easier to be handled against the next project of riding them’. Moreover, he repeatedly pressed for those who refused to pay the levy to be ‘soundly punished’. He evidently saw the role of local governors like himself as vital in making Charles I’s rule work, especially now that the king had resolved not to summon any further parliaments. However, he worried that his unpopularity among his neighbours might cost him dear if the king decided, after all, to call another meeting with his subjects. In July 1631 he wrote to Wentworth that he hoped ‘that we are not in a parliamentary way’, as he feared a Parliament might have ‘damned me’.104 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP12/130, 151, 165, 195, 290, 238.

It is evident from his correspondence with Wentworth that by 1630 Newcastle’s ambitions stretched further than his own locality.105 Ibid. WWM/StrP12/116. However, precisely what position Newcastle wanted for himself is unknown. It is clear only that he was not prepared to settle for anything less, for in February 1631 he told Wentworth that he ‘should hold it the greatest misfortune in this world to have anything else than what I seek for’. It was certainly not a seat on the Council that he desired, as he confessed that the prospect of being a privy councillor ‘kills me’, being unable to make speeches in Star Chamber.106 Ibid. WWM/StrP12/191, 238. Nor does it seem likely, despite his love of equestrian pursuits, that he wished to become master of the horse, which position he was inaccurately reported to have purchased for £20,000 in 1633. This is because the mastership inevitably meant a place on the Council. Another possibility, also mooted at the time, is that Newcastle hoped to become lord president of the council in the North in succession to Wentworth, who was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1632, although the presidency would also require public speaking. The most likely answer is that Newcastle wanted to become a gentleman of the bedchamber, for in 1632 it was reported (falsely) that he had actually purchased this office for £2,000.107 CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 87; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 205; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 187. Whatever the truth of the matter, Newcastle lacked the courtly skills needed to lobby indirectly. Moreover, when, in October 1632, he attempted to press his suit directly he was advised by Lord Treasurer Weston to refrain from doing so.108 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP12/304.

In the early 1630s the socially awkward Newcastle seems to have found himself caught between the worlds of the court and the country. In October 1631 he complained that, ‘to a countryman’, going to London was ‘more difficult than an East India voyage for some merchants’. Attendance at court was frustrating, and in London he sometimes had ‘sweet dreams of the country’. Equally, however, he found the duties of hospitality in Nottinghamshire troublesome. At Welbeck in August 1630 he complained he was ‘overlaid with company … even choked with it’. He wished Wentworth to ‘save me from being devoured by my country’ and protested that ‘being a host is the most ridiculous thing I know and the most contemptible’.109 Ibid. WWM/StrP12/116, 119, 267.

In 1632 the chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Cottington (Francis Cottington^†), informed Newcastle that he had been nominated to attend the king when Charles visited Scotland the following year. Cottington thought this would enable Newcastle to bring matters to a head and secure the prize he wished for.110 HMC Portland, ii. 123. On the king’s journey north in May 1633 Newcastle richly entertained the monarch at Welbeck, laying on a feast and providing an entertainment by Ben Jonson. He subsequently travelled with the royal party to Scotland as directed, but then amazed the court by leaving early because his wife was about to give birth.111 K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 779; HMC Gawdy, 143; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 303 (misdated letter from Algernon Percy^*, 4th earl of Northumberland to William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury). On his return, Newcastle admitted to Wentworth that he had ‘hurt my estate much’ by the lavishness with which he had entertained the king - his second wife later put the cost at between £4,000 and £5,000 - without securing any reward. He added that he intended to abandon his ‘court business’ and live economically in the country.112 Strafforde Letters, i. 101-2.

However, the king again visited Newcastle the following year, this time accompanied by Henrietta Maria, when the earl was obliged to give over Welbeck to accommodate the court for six days. He also put on another entertainment, again written by Ben Jonson, this time at Bolsover. Contemporary estimates of the costs incurred by Newcastle do not match the figure of between £14,000 and £15,000 given by his second wife, but one source put the amount spent at over £10,000.113 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP14/86; Cavendish, 103; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 97-8; C115/106/8428, 8460. This might have been a worthwhile investment had Newcastle paid heed to Wentworth, who advised him to ‘gently renew’ his motion to the king two or three days after the court’s departure from Welbeck. However, Newcastle confessed to his friend that ‘I did not speak to the king about anything in the world that looked like a suit or business for I was loth to bring him in a bill of charges’. Newcastle remained confident that the king favoured him, but understandably his ambitions remained unfulfilled.114 Strafforde Letters, i. 275; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP14/179.

In February 1636 Clare wrote that Newcastle might at last receive ‘the reward of his feasting’, as he was in the running for appointment as governor of the future Charles II (Charles Stuart^†, duke of Cornwall, later prince of Wales).115 Holles Letters, 477. Newcastle may have been considered particularly suitable for this role because of his diverse cultural and intellectual interests. As well as being an important patron of writers (such as Ben Jonson) and musicians, he was an amateur musician and wrote poetry and plays himself. His earliest known dramatic work was written for performance at court in the mid 1630s, but may never have been performed. However, two of his plays were staged at the Blackfriars theatre in the late 1630s and early 1640s. (He apparently made no attempt to disguise his authorship of these works.) Newcastle was also one of the most accomplished horsemen in western Europe, and a patron of the philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. His architectural interests are evident in the building of Bolsover Castle, which had been started by his father but which he himself decorated and furnished, and the riding school at Welbeck, which was designed by John Smythson.116 Oxford DNB online sub Cavendish, William, 1st duke of Newcastle (Jan. 2011); G.E. Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Stage, iii. 142-51. However, though few men were more suitable for the governorship of the young prince than Newcastle, the 2nd earl of Devonshire’s widow, one of Newcastle’s advocates at court, thought he would not be satisfied with the position; ‘I know your expectation will not be fulfilled with little or half favours’. She suggested instead that he should aim for the post of groom of the stole, which, she reported, James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, intended to relinquish. She added that it was rumoured that he had refused to pay Ship Money. If this was true he would stand alone because ‘all our bold barons come in’. In fact it is extremely unlikely that Newcastle, who had previously been so active in collecting unparliamentary taxation, opposed the levy.117 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/63-4. Unfortunately, like most of the countess of Devonshire’s letters to Newcastle, these documents are undated.

Newcastle’s appointment in March 1636 as guardian to the young George Villiers^†, 2nd duke of Buckingham, who was brought up alongside Prince Charles, was perhaps a hopeful sign that the earl would soon take charge of the latter.118 CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 342; HP Lords, 1660-1715, iv. 791. By 8 Apr. Newcastle had come to London to press his case, but found that he was ‘monstrous weary already of this place’. He complained that although the king and queen treated him very well, he was subject to a ‘great deal of venom’ from other courtiers; ‘there is nothing I either say or do or hear but it is [construed as] a crime’. He added that these same courtiers ‘say absolutely another shall be for the prince’, although the king denied that any decision had been made. As was his habit, Newcastle refused to broach the matter directly and complained that he knew less about his prospects than he had done in the country. After grumbling again about the slanders circulating at court - ‘all the devils in hell could not belch out such villainy’ - he returned home the following month, empty-handed, the king having decided that his son, who was not yet six years old, did not need his own establishment.119 Add. 70499, ff. 196, 198r-v; Arundel Castle, Autograph Letters, no. 362.

Newcastle never identified his court critics, but it is likely they were Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland, and his supporters, many of whom were employed in the household of Henrietta Maria, whom Holland served as steward. If this is the case it would help to explain the contempt for Frenchified courtiers Newcastle expressed in the plays he wrote in the 1630s. Holland was certainly the courtier closest to the critics of the prerogative levies, such as the Forced Loan and knighthood compositions, that Newcastle had played such an important role in collecting, and Newcastle may have felt that Holland was undermining his efforts to make the Personal Rule work in the provinces.120 M. Butler, Theatre and Crisis, 196-7.

One accusation levelled against Newcastle by his opponents was that he was ‘of no religion, neither feared God nor the devil, [nor] believed [in] heaven or hell’.121 Add. 70499, f. 198v. Advice he was subsequently to draft for Prince Charles would at first sight appear to confirm Newcastle’s lack of piety. He warned the prince to ‘beware of too much devotion …, for one may be a good man, but a bad king’ and he pointed out the political advantages and pitfalls of religion. However, the secular tone of his advice may simply derive from his belief that his duty lay in instructing the prince ‘so far as concerns reason and your advantage’. For instruction in matters of faith, Newcastle referred the prince to his tutor, Brian Duppa^†, bishop of Chichester (subsequently bishop of Winchester). The fact that Newcastle saw theology as the province of the clergy suggests that his view of religion was conservative, but it is not necessarily an indication of lack of piety. Indeed his religious poetry, including meditations on receiving the sacrament, suggests the contrary.122 Trease, 56, 73. He warned the prince that ‘if you be not religious (and not only seem so, but be so), God will not prosper you’.123 Cavendish, 185.

In the late 1630s the papal agent in England reported that Newcastle was opposed to puritanism. However, although the earl had good personal relations with several Catholics, including Tobie Matthew^‡, an attempt by the Catholics to convert him was unsuccessful.124 C.M. Hibbard, Chas. I and the Popish Plot, 51; Add. 70499, f. 158; R. Hutton, Chas. II, 4. Newcastle subsequently wrote that ‘popery and presbytery, though they look divers ways … yet they are tied together …, carrying the same firebrand of covetousness and ambition, to put all into a combustion’. Newcastle praised the established Church as ‘possessed of an ecclesiastical government, instituted by the apostles, received and approved by the primitive Christians’ and ‘established by the princes, and parliaments of our own kingdom’.125 Ideology and Pols. on the Eve of Restoration ed. T.P. Slaughter, 13-14. This view evidently commended him to Laud, who left him a diamond ring worth £140.126 Works of Abp. Laud, iv. 443.

In March 1638 Newcastle was named as the prince’s sole gentleman of the bedchamber, and was summoned to court to take up the post.127 SP Clarendon ed. R. Scrope, ii. 7-8. The following June letters patent were issued giving Newcastle ‘the principal charge and custody’ of the prince and ‘oversight of all his household’.128 Collins, 26-7. One newsletter writer thought that the new establishment was ‘not very pleasing’ to Newcastle because the household was small and most of the places were directly appointed by the king. In fact, the earl was allowed to nominate two of the four gentlemen of the privy chamber, and Laud wrote that Newcastle ‘gains very great contentment’ from his post. One reason for his pleasure was that Newcastle now found that he had ‘the honour and means’ to serve Wentworth, for his new position gave him regular contact with the king.129 Strafforde Letters, ii. 167-8; Works of Abp. Laud, vii. 442; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP18/57. However, by the end of the year Newcastle’s behaviour had made him an object of ridicule at court. On complaining to the queen in January 1639, Henrietta Maria merely laughed at him.130 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 155-7.

Later life, 1639-76

That same month the king summoned the English nobility to attend him at York to oppose the Scottish Covenanters. Newcastle, who offered to provide 12 cavalrymen and a further eight if necessary, was subsequently commissioned to command a troop of horse named in honour of Prince Charles and bearing the prince’s colours.131 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 508; HMC Portland, ii. 132. On 8 Apr. he reported from the town of Newcastle to Secretary of State, Sir John Coke^‡, that ‘we are all very merry here’, for although there was ‘discourse of the Scots, and whether we be right or no, it is no great matter [as] by that time dinner is done’.132 Add. 64919, f. 25. However, Newcastle clashed with Holland, who commanded the cavalry, after the latter ordered Newcastle’s troop to ride at the rear, an instruction which Newcastle construed as derogatory to their dignity as Prince Charles’ troop. He took down the prince’s colours and, after negotiations had commenced with the Scots, was only narrowly prevented from fighting a duel with Holland.133 HMC Rutland, i. 512; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 174. This episode seems not to have lessened his favour with the king, who appointed him to the Privy Council in late November. Newcastle accepted this honour without demur, suggesting that he had finally overcome his aversion to speech-making.134 Nottingham UL, Pw 1/277.

Newcastle resigned his position in Prince Charles’ household in 1641 after being implicated in the First Army Plot. Following the outbreak of civil war, he commanded the royalist forces in the north (for which service he was created a marquess in 1643) until their defeat at Marston Moor in July 1644, whereupon he went into exile. Refused permission to compound for his estates, he remained abroad until the Restoration. Thereafter he devoted his energies to repairing his depleted estates, playing little role in national politics. He was made a duke in 1665. Newcastle died on Christmas day in 1676 and was buried, in accordance with the instructions in his will made on 4 Oct. 1676, in Westminster Abbey (22 Jan. 1677). He was succeeded by his only surviving son, Henry^†, but his titles became extinct on Henry’s death in 1691, except for the barony of Ogle, which fell into abeyance.135 Oxford DNB online sub Cavendish, William, 1st duke of Newcastle upon Tyne (Jan. 2011); HP Lords 1660-1715, ii. 489-92; Regs. Westminster Abbey ed. J.L. Chester, 190; PROB 11/353, ff. 173-4; CP, ix. 528.