Shakespeare’s Patron: William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke 1580–1630: Politics, Patronage and Power 9781472599575, 9781441116369

Citation preview

To my wife Elizabeth ‘the fosterer of me and my muse’

CS5_William Herbert final.indd vi

22/10/10 12:23 PM

Prologue

William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke, 1580–1630, was the ‘uomo universale’ of the early Stuart age. A prominent courtier in three reigns, Pembroke was also a good minor poet, and the most important patron of the arts of the period. He was also, almost certainly, the patron to whom Shakespeare dedicated his sonnets. And it was to the Third Earl that Heminge and Condell posthumously dedicated Shakespeare’s collected works to because he had ‘prosecuted . . . their author living with so much favor’. Pembroke was not only patron to Shakespeare but also to Ben Jonson, Inigo Jones, John Donne, and George Herbert. He was, in fact, the patron of almost every great literary and artistic figure of the period. Besides this, Pembroke was a powerful politician, and the greatest electoral manager of the period. The wealthiest nobleman in the country, Pembroke was an improving landlord, a powerful industrial entrepreneur, and an indefatigable promoter of colonial enterprises. His contemporaries were unanimous in proclaiming his greatness. Nevertheless, no study of Pembroke has yet been published. The first reason for this is that in 1648 a disastrous fire destroyed almost all of the family manuscripts. This has made the gathering of all the scattered evidence very difficult, and is the primary reason why there has been no biography. The disastrous fire of 1648 is also, I feel sure, the reason why we have so little documentary evidence about Shakespeare. The second reason is that two of the most eminent Stuart historians, the contemporary Earl of Clarendon and the nineteenth century S. R. Gardiner, were, on the whole, unfavourable in their treatment of Pembroke. This is not surprising though as Clarendon started his career under the patronage of the Duke of Buckingham, Pembroke’s chief antagonist. Gardiner’s dislike of moderates also, understandably, would not endear him to a quintessential moderate. Moreover, various Shakespearean scholars have strengthened and extended the influence of Clarendon and Gardiner. They assume that the Third Earl was a very flawed character whether or not he was the ‘Mr W. H.’ to whom Shakespeare dedicated his sonnets. In recent years, Pembroke has been given more of his rightful place in the histories of the period, thanks largely to the efforts of the late Professor Conrad Russell and other parliamentary historians. But Pembroke was much more than a powerful politician and electoral manager, and the aim of this biography is to delineate not only his political goals and principles, but also to demonstrate the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd vii

22/10/10 12:23 PM

viii

PROLO GUE

impact he had on the aesthetic, cultural and economic world of his age. The Third Earl’s great ambition, while advancing his own interests and those of his family and his friends, was to become the King’s chief advisor and help heal the growing divisions in society. In this he was not destined to succeed. Nevertheless, as Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward and Chancellor of Oxford, he made a tremendous impact on his age, and an incalculable contribution to the arts. Perhaps, if he had fully attained his political ambitions, he would not have become, ‘the greatest Maecenas to learned men of any peer of his time.’

CS5_William Herbert final.indd viii

22/10/10 12:23 PM

William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke

I do but name thee Pembroke, and I find It is an epigram on all mankind; Against the bad, but of, and to the good; Both which are ask’d, to have thee understood. Nor could the age have missed thee, in this strife Of vice and virtue; wherein all great life Almost, is exercis’d: and scarce one knows, To which, yet, of the sides himself he owes. They follow virtue, for reward, today; Tomorrow vice, if she give better pay: And are so good, and bad, just at a price, As nothing else discerns the virtue or vice. But thou, whose noblesse keeps one stature still, And one true posture, though beseig’d with ill Of what ambition, faction, price can raise; Whose life, ev’n they, that envy it, must praise; Thou art so reverenc’d, as thy coming, But in the view, doth interrupt their sin: Thou must draw more; and they that hope to see The commonwealth still safe, must study thee. Ben Jonson, ‘Epigram 102’, The Works of Benjamin Jonson, London: 1616

CS5_William Herbert final.indd ix

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd x

22/10/10 12:23 PM

1

Formative Influences, 1580–1597

The birth of William Herbert, heir to the earldom of Pembroke, was a momentous event in 1580. The record of his christening clearly shows this. In the church of St Mary’s in Wilton, Wiltshire, is a marble scroll commemorating the event. It reads: Be it remembred that at the Eight day of April 1580 . . . was born Wm, Lo Herbert of Cardiff, first child of the noble Henry Harbert, Erle of Pembroke by his most dere wyfe Mary . . . and he was Xstin’d the twenty-eighth day of the same month in the mannour of Wilton. The godmother ye mighty and most excellent Princis Elizabethe, by the grace of God Quene of England, by her deputye the most virtuous lady Anne Countice of Warwick; and the godfathers were the noble & famous Erle Ambrose, Earl of Warwick, and Rob’t Earl of Leicester, both great uncles to the infant by the mother’s side, Warwick in person, and Lycester by his deputye Phillip Sidney, Esqr., uncle, by the mother’s side, to the fore-mentioned young Lord Herbert of Cardiff, whom the Almighty and most Gracious God blesse with his mother above named with prosperous live in all happiness in the Name of God. Amen.1

The infant was the heir of Henry, Second Earl of Pembroke, and his father was overjoyed to be presented with a son. To Sir Edward Stradling he wrote: I thank you my good cousin for rejoicing with me for the blessing God hath bestowed upon me. Heartily wishing you the like son, knowing it would be unto you and my cousin your bedfellow a great joy and comfort, as it is to my wife and me.2

The young lord, the son of such a prominent aristocrat, could not fail to be affected by all that was happening to the nobility in Tudor England. Nor could he help but be strongly influenced by his father and his connections, by his mother Mary Sidney, and her brother and his godfather, Philip Sidney. These three interconnected influences helped shape Lord Herbert’s whole life from his birth until his death half a century later. Willam’s proud father, Henry Herbert, Second Earl of Pembroke, was an important figure in Elizabethan England. It was his father, the First Earl, however, who had made the fortunes of the family. Born around 1501, William Herbert quickly made his mark in Wales, but was catapulted to fame and fortune when

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 1

22/10/10 12:23 PM

2

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Henry VIII became his brother-in-law. In 1543 the King married Catherine Parr, whose sister had married William Herbert. Henry VIII was lavish in his grants to his brother-in-law. In 1554 he was given the manor of Wilton in Wiltshire, other manors in Worcester and Cheshire, and valuable lands in Glamorgan. In 1546 Baynard’s Castle in London was ceded to him, and this became the London home of the Earls of Pembroke until it burnt down in 1666. Also in 1546, William Herbert was awarded the stewardship of several large properties in the west of England, granted Cardiff Castle, and other estates in both England and Wales. On Henry VIII’s death in 1547, Sir William Herbert (he had been knighted in 1543) was left £300 in the King’s will and was nominated to the Privy Council of Edward VI.3 In Edward VI’s brief reign Sir William quickly added to his growing fortune. In 1547 he was granted additional estates in England and Wales, including fifty-one manors. Three years later he was made Lord President of Wales – the government’s chief officer there – and in the following year, he was created Earl of Pembroke. In 1553 further lands were bestowed on him by the king but, after ‘employing every weapon of self-interest, from advice to definite corruption’, to add to his power and wealth, he stood to lose much of what he had gained with the accession of the Catholic Queen Mary.4 His elastic conscience made it possible for him to survive Mary’s reign, though it was reported that he had lost much of his fortune when the monastery of Wilton was returned to the Church. John Aubrey, the Wiltshire chronicler, stated that the First Earl had to give up Wilton which was turned into a nunnery but, upon Mary’s death, he returned ‘like a tyger’ and turned out the nuns crying ‘out ye whores, to worke, to worke, to worke ye whores, goe spinne.’ Unfortunately, Aubrey is more amusing than trustworthy as an historian.5 The First Earl received a greater share of the Crown’s bounty than any other privy councillor in Edward’s reign, but he added little to his fortune in the reign of her successor. However, by the time he died in 1570, he had acquired a vast fortune; in fact he was the wealthiest nobleman in England. Also, as President of the Council of Wales, he was the dominant political influence there, had great influence in London and at Court, and was a close ally of Elizabeth’s great minister, Burghley. Pembroke was the quintessential Tudor placeman, ‘a moderate who preferred a politique path in religion as much as he did in politics.’ In fact, ‘flexibility and a calculated moderation informed his whole career.’ It could be said of him that he was ‘made of the pliable willow, not of the oak.’6 Succeeding to the title in 1570, Henry Herbert was made Lord Lieutenant of Wiltshire in the same year, and from the following year took a prominent place in the Queen’s government. He was an assiduous courtier and one of the Queen’s early advisors. The Second Earl was a central figure at the trial of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1586, but his prime importance was not his power in London and at the Court, but his wealth and his influence in Wales. The family lands were very

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 2

22/10/10 12:23 PM

F O R M AT I V E I N F L U E N C E S

3

extensive there, as were his political connections. In 1586 he was named as President of the Council of Wales and Admiral of North Wales. As President of the Council, the Second Earl spent much of his time at his official residence in Ludlow Castle, energetically performing his duties. A capable administrator, he made himself the most powerful man there. He did not, however, do as well out of his prestigious office as he had expected, nor as well as his father had done in the same position. In 1590 he complained to Burghley that he had ‘spent his fortune in the Queen’s service’, and petitioned for some recompense from her bounty. He received certain grants from the Queen, but he could not hope to obtain favours on the scale of his father. Elizabeth I was not known for her largesse. In fairness to the Queen, however, it must be noted that the Second Earl, like all of the Herberts, was adept at pleading poverty. In 1589, while bemoaning his financial position, he promised Elizabeth that he would do his share in countering the threatened attack from Spain and ‘attend your service with three hundred horse and five hundred foot at the least of my followers, armed at my own cost and with my own store.’ How many others of the Queen’s subjects could have provided her with a private army?7 The Second Earl was not only extremely wealthy, but also had very varied interests. He was a businessman involved in both domestic and foreign ventures, and enjoyed an active social life, being especially fond of tournaments and horse racing. More importantly, he was a great patron of the theatre. As early as 1575–6, he sponsored a group of players. For this troupe, known as Pembroke’s Men, Kyd’s Hamlet and Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew were written, and in 1594 Titus Andronicus belonged to them. Christopher Marlowe and, perhaps, Thomas Dekker were also attached to this group. The Third Earl of Pembroke fell heir to his father’s players in 1601, but his interest in the theatre began long before this date. As a youth, he was acquainted with his father’s players and also with the dramatic coterie that his mother patronized, from which association had come classical dramas such as Daniel’s Cleopatra, Brandon’s The Virtuous Octavia and Mary Sidney’s own translation of Garnier’s Antonie. And travelling players must have stopped many times at Wilton to perform. The young lord also must have visited the theatre on his trips to London in 1595 and 1597, and through his parents met some of the greatest playwrights and players of the period. It was almost certainly through his father that he first became acquainted with the playwright whom he later ‘prosecuted . . . with so much favor’, William Shakespeare.8 From 1592 to 1594 Shakespeare was associated with the group of players called Pembroke’s Men, a group formed out of well established actors from the Queen’s Men, led by the Dutton brothers, Richard Burbage, and others. For Pembroke’s Men, Shakespeare wrote some of his earliest plays and was one of its chief actors. By the Spring of 1594 Burbage and Shakespeare had left and the company was playing the provinces. By 1597 it was back in London and Ben Jonson and others from the Admiral’s Company joined it. Their 1597 season was, however, a very short one

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 3

22/10/10 12:23 PM

4

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

due to the imprisonment of one of the company’s leading lights in July of that year. In that year Pembroke’s Men presented a play by Thomas Nashe and Ben Jonson, The Isle of Dogs. This offended the Privy Council and on 28 July they prohibited all plays in or around London and demanded that all playhouses be pulled down. Three of Pembroke’s Men, including Jonson, were imprisoned and the rest fled to the provinces. Fortunately for the future of the theatre in England, their threat to pull down all the theatres was not carried out.9 The Third Earl’s patron–client relationship with Shakespeare may not have blossomed fully until James’ reign, when Shakespeare was working with the King’s Men and they played at Wilton, but so little is known of Shakespeare’s life that we cannot be certain when they first met. If the dedication to Shakespeare’s works can be trusted, their association was a close one. At any rate, Pembroke’s position at Court, especially on the Privy Council in 1611 and his later control of licensing as Lord Chamberlain must have brought him into close contact with the King’s Men and Shakespeare. And they had a mutual friend in Ben Jonson. There is also, of course, the probability that Pembroke was the ‘Mr W. H.’ to whom Shakespeare dedicated his sonnets. * Other links between Shakespeare and Pembroke were the musician Henry Lawes, who set both Shakespeare’s and Pembroke’s poems to music, and Shakespeare’s fellow players, Edward Alleyn and Richard Burbage. When Pembroke journeyed to Southampton for the reception of the Infanta of Spain in June 1623, he was accompanied by his old friend Inigo Jones, and also ‘Alleyn the old player went along with them’ to stage ‘shows and pageants’. Pembroke was much closer though to the other old player, Richard Burbage, than he was to Alleyn. Burbage was not only the most important actor in the King’s Men, but the most revered actor of his age. Thomas Middleton said that, to the theatre-going public, ‘Dick Burbage was their God on earth, and there was more mourning for him (in 1619) when he died than for Queen Anne who died about the same time.’ Their grief was understandable for few actors in the history of the English stage have created as many famous roles as Richard Burbage. Pembroke was very close to Burbage and, when Burbage died, the Third Earl wrote to Lord Doncaster that ‘the whole company were at play, which I, being tender hearted could not endure to see so soon after the loss of my old acquaintance Burbadg.’ The play, Pericles may also ‘have encompassed sad memories of this play’s chief author, Shakespeare, dead three years earlier’.10 Pembroke’s father not only patronized the theatre but, with his wife, Mary Sidney, began the great library at Wilton. Henry Herbert was a power in local and national politics, but in national politics, even though he was connected with the Leicester faction at Court, he was more an administrator than a politician, and as such was a quiet but staunch upholder of the status quo in church and state affairs.11 * The dedication of the sonnets will be dealt with in Chapter 3.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 4

22/10/10 12:23 PM

F O R M AT I V E I N F L U E N C E S

5

As part of his Herbert inheritance, the young Lord Herbert received his wealth, an important position in society and a tradition of service to the state. He also inherited his father’s business acumen, and his lifelong interest in the theatre. From his mother the young lord inherited his love of poetry and poets, and it was to her that he owed most of his aesthetic and intellectual development, and his strong religious feeling. Mary Sidney, had been more thoroughly educated than her husband, and was more active than he in intellectual circles. Meticulously instructed as a girl, she was proficient in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and French, made translations from the French and wrote poetry. With her brother, Philip Sidney, she worked on a metrical version of the psalms, and also served as the inspiration of his Arcadia. Mary Sidney was an important patron of poetry in the Elizabethan age and her encouragement was important to such great figures as Edmund Spenser, Samuel Daniel, Nicholas Breton, Thomas Nashe and John Davies. Her home at Wilton was one of the great literary menages of the period. As Aubrey commented, ‘in her time Wilton House was like a college, there were so many learned and ingeniose persons there.’ And Mary Sidney herself, ‘was the greatest patronesse of witt and learning of any lady of her time.’ Aubrey undoubtedly overestimated the help she could give to the literary figures who asked her for assistance and dedicated their works to her. She could, and did though, actively encourage them and offered them hospitality, and she did try and help her brother’s proteges. But the main reason for her patronage was not solely a disinterested passion for poetry but to keep herself amused and intellectually alive.12 Mary Sidney was undoubtedly a formative influence on her son, and it was she who transmitted to her son the heritage of her brother, Sir Philip Sidney. The strongest attachment in Mary Sidney’s life was to her brother, and after his death she dedicated her literary life to him and to his memory. Sidney was one of England’s greatest poets, a courtier, politician and soldier. He was, above all, a convinced and active Protestant and a dedicated nationalist. Growing out of these convictions were the two ideas which dominated his life – that England should be the leader of Protestant Europe, and that England should expand overseas to counteract the Catholic powers, especially Spain. In 1575 he became a venturer in Frobisher’s search for the Northwest Passage, and his interest in exploration was so well known that in 1582 his old friend Hakluyt dedicated his Voyages to him. The following year he gave serious thought to going on Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s expedition to Newfoundland, and in his own name received letters patent to discover new lands in America.13 Strong though Sidney’s Protestant convictions were, and he had reason to hate Catholicism – he had witnessed the St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre in Paris – his loathing was of political (i.e. Spanish Catholicism) rather than hatred of individual Catholics. He was a patron of two English Catholics, Henry Constable and John Davies of Hereford, and would always tolerate individual Catholics provided they

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 5

22/10/10 12:23 PM

6

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

were loyal subjects. In fact, he backed the recusant idea of planting a Catholic colony in the New World. Sidney’s political ideas were similar to Protestant humanists on the Continent who believed in the ultimate sovereignty of the people, the delegated authority of the king, the obligation of the king to govern under the law, and the right of the people to depose a tyrant. These ideas were taken up by the Leicester-Sidney circle in the 1570s to support the Dutch against a legitimate sovereign. But such views, at least as espoused by Sidney, were in no way democratic. He assumed that if a revolt was necessary then it would be led by the ‘superior sort’ of people.14 Political ideas such as these were anathema to Elizabeth I, and she looked askance at Sidney’s contact with such radical thinkers. Sidney may have been the ideal gentleman and courtier, but the Queen did not trust him and thus he was given no important diplomatic or military functions. Even his knighthood was bestowed on him late in life. In January 1580 he wrote a treatise against the Queen’s proposed marriage with the Catholic Duke of Anjou, and an angry Queen forced him to retire from the Court. His retirement was spent at the country home of the Second Earl of Pembroke. His sister had married the Earl in 1577 and the Earl was delighted to welcome his brother-in-law to Wilton. Here Sidney wrote his Arcadia for his sister, and he was in residence when she produced her first son, the future Third Earl. Sidney participated in the christening of his nephew and continued his literary endeavours at Wilton, but in October 1580 he was back at Court. For the next five years he busied himself with parliamentary affairs and in various colonization projects. In 1586 his uncle the Earl of Leicester, for whom he had deputized at Lord Herbert’s christening, was made Governor of Flushing. Sidney eagerly joined him, anxious to help his fellow Protestants in the Low Countries against Catholic Spain. At Zutphen on 22 September 1586 he was wounded and some days later died from his wounds. The intelligentsia of Protestant Europe mourned the death of the finest product of the English renaissance. It was perhaps with Sidney in mind that a modern writer described this ideal: As a courtier he covers the soldier’s brute strength and roughness and the scholar’s for an aloofness and awkwardness with a grace of speech and action, a mastery of himself in every situation that might arise, and interest in every aspect of life, a readiness of wit and fund of general knowledge that makes him good company. He is the ornament as well as the prop of states, and is himself the one best argument for an aristocracy.15

Mary Sidney was shattered by the news of the death of her brother. When she recovered from the shock, she resolved that her son would be her brother’s surrogate heir, as Sir Philip had died childless. Philip was the great national hero who ‘epitomised the ideals of Elizabethan chivalry and passionate Protestantism in an

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 6

22/10/10 12:23 PM

F O R M AT I V E I N F L U E N C E S

7

ineffable sense of Englishness’. He was England’s ‘shepherd knight and its greatest courtier poet.’ His reputation was though largely post mortem, a reputation assiduously promoted by a master propagandist, his uncle the Earl of Leicester. Sidney was more appreciated in Europe than he was at home. To Continental Protestants he was: a man of real stature, magnetic charisma and immense political potential, who was recognized, loved and prized in his own lifetime – the Philip Sidney to whom European Protestantism looked as its greatest hope.16

In England, Sidney was something of an enigma. As one commentator has written, even in the closest circles, Philip Sidney remained something of a riddle. Long before he died he was the subject of mythmaking, serving at once as ‘perfecte patterne of a poet,’ emblem of courtly aspiration and Protestant hero, a beloved and important figure who, in reality, appears sadly ineffectual and frustrated.

The author continues, he seems to have inspired the same kind of devoted misunderstanding in family members that he inspired in English culture at large.

When Sidney died in 1586 he was famous for neither his poetry nor his knightly success, and it was his self-proclaimed heirs, Mary Sidney, Edmund Spenser and Ben Jonson who provide us with our sense of his literary importance, all of them advancing their careers with their adulation of him.17 Mary Sidney especially was determined that her son would keep green the memory of chivalry incarnate so tragically removed in his prime. Her son would be raised and educated so that he would embody the ideals that Sidney stood for, and justly deserve the description of him as ‘thou worthy son unto a peerless mother, thou nephew to great Sidney of renown.’18 That Sir Philip Sidney should serve as a model for the young Lord Herbert was accepted without question by the Herbert and Sidney families and their dependents. In January 1594 Thomas Moffet (or Muffet), the Second Earl’s physician, presented to Lord Herbert a New Year’s gift of his Nobilis or a View of the Life and Death of a Sidney . . . It was ‘sent by way of an example to Sidney’s most honorable nephew’, and in the work Moffet emphasized the need for a university education, for service at Court, and for ‘devotion to the fatherland’. Martial life was painted in glowing colours, but at the same time the young lord was exhorted not to neglect the muses. The author was confident that his advice would be acted upon, and that Lord Herbert would add lustre to his family’s name and to the memory of

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 7

22/10/10 12:23 PM

8

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Sidney. And the best way to do both, Moffet advised Lord Herbert, was to ‘embrace, cherish, and imitate him [Sidney], your second self – unless the growing shoot deceives me – restored to his own limbs.’ Muffet continued that Lord Herbert’s tutor, Lloyd, ‘collector and steward of the graces of Sidney, also urges you warmly to follow such a course.’19 This ‘growing shoot’ was given an education worthy of his station. He was first tutored in 1586 at Wilton by Hugh Sanford, a good scholar and poet, ‘learned in all arts, sciences, knowledge human and divine.’ Lord Herbert was so carefully tutored that, at least in his tutor’s opinion, ‘he had no equal for learning among all the peers of England.’ In 1590 the poet Samuel Daniel either succeeded Sanford as Pembroke’s tutor or was hired to assist him, Sanford continuing to be an important figure in the Pembroke household. Daniel was an Oxford scholar who, though well-travelled, preferred the peaceful surroundings at Wilton. In 1591 or 1592 John Lloyd, a Welshman and a Fellow of New College, Oxford became Lord Herbert’s last private tutor. Lloyd was highly esteemed as a preacher and a scholar and, as well as collecting and editing the New College eulogies on Sidney, had edited several Greek and Latin works.20 Rather precociously, even for a nobleman’s son, Lord Herbert began his university education at the age of twelve. He became a student at New College, Oxford in March 1593. The Herberts had all been students at New College, as had been John Lloyd, and it was to be expected that Lord Herbert would follow the family tradition. As was usual with the sons of the Elizabethan aristocracy, Lord Herbert did not take a degree. In fact we do not know how long he stayed at Oxford, or what he studied there, but it was at Oxford he met his future political ally and parliamentary spokesman, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd. He and Rudyerd were at New College where they shared a common love of poetry. The years at Oxford made a deep impression on Pembroke, and he was a passionate partisan of his university. For example, when James I visited Oxford in 1605, Pembroke, describing the visit to his father-in-law, remarked that the university during the king’s visit had performed ‘beyond the envy of any Cambridge man.’ The same year he was awarded an MA.21 Leaving Oxford sometime in 1594 or 1595, Lord Herbert made his first appearance at Court in the autumn of the latter year. This journey was his father’s doing, the Second Earl wanting to introduce him to the Queen. Henry Herbert was trying to advance his own and his family’s financial interests, and at the same time pursue a possible marriage alliance. The Second Earl was also in poor health and must have been worried about the consequences should he die with a minor heir. Rowland Whyte, the busy correspondent of the Sidney family interests at Court, wrote to Sir Robert Sidney in mid-October 1595 that Lord Pembroke was a suitor for several offices. A few weeks later he wrote, that ‘[Pembroke] cannot get them [Serjeants Harris and Fleming] to move [the Queen] for L:[Lord Herbert]

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 8

22/10/10 12:23 PM

F O R M AT I V E I N F L U E N C E S

9

although he hath given them good cause.’ On 5 December, Whyte reported definitively that the Queen ‘hath not granted . . . [Lord Herbert] his suit.’ The marriage negotiations being undertaken in the name of Lord Herbert were equally fruitless.22 At fifteen Lord Herbert was too young to contemplate marriage, but it is understandable why his ailing father would want to arrange a ‘good’ match for his son. It is even more understandable why he wanted his son to make his Court debut as early as possible. Only at the seat of power and influence, the Court, could one hope to obtain the offices, grants, monopolies, reversions and pensions that were the financial and political lifeblood of the Elizabethan aristocracy. The Earls of Pembroke, like all the nobility, were well aware that the simplest and often the only way they could maintain or enhance their position was through a career at Court. As a courtier, the First Earl had made the fortunes of the family. The Second Earl, though very wealthy, had not been as successful. It was his hope that his brilliant, attractive son would be more successful than he in enhancing the family fortunes. Like all his contemporaries at Elizabeth’s court, the young Third Earl unceasingly sought to further his own financial interests. It was only later, as a mature man at the Courts of James I and Charles I, that he would find his religious and political principles standing in the way of his own best economic interests. And because he had strong religious and political principles, his rewards as a courtier, though greater than those of his father, would not be on the same scale as those of his grandfather.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 9

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 10

22/10/10 12:23 PM

2

Elizabethan Prelude, 1597–1601

Lord Herbert returned to Wilton at the end of 1595, not to pursue his Court career again until 1597. Possibly he had been given permission to go on the naval expedition of 1596–7 against Spain but, though he may have favoured the idea, his father’s ill health made it impossible. In April 1597 Rowland Whyte reported to Sir Robert Sidney that ‘. . . my Lord Herbert hath, with much ado, brought his father to consent that he may live at London, yet not before the next spring.’ This was wonderful news for Whyte who saw the young lord’s role at Court as crucial to Sidney’s interests. As he was to remark later, ‘truly I hope that, by him, you shall find a ladder to go up to that honor you are worthy of.’1 Much was expected of Lord Herbert at Court, but how realistic were his prospects in 1597? He was a handsome, cultured young man of great wealth and station, and he had, through his father, entree to the Queen. But his father lived away from Court and was not closely connected to either of the two prominent political factions at Court, the followers of Essex, or the adherents of Lord Burghley and his son, the rising Sir Robert Cecil. And the Herberts, though Earls of Pembroke, were still parvenu nobility. Lord Herbert was also hampered by his youth and by his father’s ill health. Lord Herbert’s career was to be impeded at the court of James I by his adherence to his religious and political principles, but these were not at all in evidence in 1597: the seventeen-year-old was more interested in the life of the courtier than in that of the politician or statesman. Nevertheless, if he were to succeed at Elizabeth’s Court, he would have to come to terms with the powerful political factions which surrounded the ageing Queen. He would have to steer a very careful course between the mutually hostile Essex and Cecil factions. It is a testimony to his diplomacy, and an indication of his future promise, that he was acceptable to both camps. Lord Herbert was related to the Earl of Essex, as he had married Sir Philip Sidney’s widow. The attraction Essex held for Lord Herbert was a very natural one. Essex was a young courtier, an intimate of the Queen, and one of the most influential men in the kingdom. We do not know how close they were, but the relationship must have been strained by the bitter dispute between the Second Earl and Essex over Norwood Park, which the Queen wanted her favourite to have. In December 1595, Whyte reported that ‘the unkindness continues between [Essex] and [Pembroke]’, as Pembroke will not release the bonds and covenants; ‘[the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 11

22/10/10 12:23 PM

12

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Queen] is much offended and says he shall.’ This quarrel dragged on and must have also affected the young lord’s relations with the Queen. The disagreement was aggravated by his old tutor, Sanford, Whyte reporting that ‘. . . there is some fault attributed to Sanford, who was by my Lord Pembroke employed, . . . [who was] thought to have been peremptory in his speech . . .’ to the Earl of Essex’s officers.2 At the same time Lord Herbert was in contact with the Essex faction, he formed an alliance with Robert Cecil. Though Lord Herbert represented little influence in his own right, he had much future promise. Cecil was conscious of this and was pleased to accept the new alliance. He overlooked Lord Herbert’s courting of the Essex faction, even after Essex’s abortive revolt. Cecil was a strong ally to have and Lord Herbert was aware of this. What began as a marriage of convenience later blossomed into a lifelong friendship.3 Lord Herbert had to absent himself from Court again late in 1597 because of his father’s health, and from Wilton the young lord thanked Cecil for sending him letters from the Queen, and for the many other kindnesses shown him. He stated that he would forever be in his debt and hoped the occasion would arise for him to return the favour. To his thanks were added those of his parents, who thanked Cecil profusely for his help in starting their son’s career. The favourable impression he made on the Queen’s Secretary of State was to be a very firm foundation to his Court career.4 For most of the following year Lord Herbert remained at Wilton. His father’s health was now a continual concern, and his own health was not the best. In fact it was his ill health that kept him away at home much of of the year, and his father had to tender his apologies for him to Cecil and the Queen.5 After recovering from his illness, Lord Herbert returned to Court late in 1598. Again he courted both the Essex and Cecil factions. He was strongly recommended to Essex, and on the strength of this endorsement and his previous acquaintance, he asked a favour of Essex, though not for himself. He wrote to Essex: I presume to commend to your favour this honest lieutenant, whom nothing but want of ambition has kept from better place. I do it partly for his good mind towards me which I have well tried, but more to shew that I am bold on your kindness, which I beseech you take as an assured argument that most of all men you may command me.6

Lord Herbert was certainly keeping up his ties with the Essex connection, and could not be accused of ‘want of ambition’. But he was also striking out more on his own, for relations between his father and Essex were very strained indeed. The Second Earl wrote to Cecil in June 1598 about recommendations he had made concerning some offices in Wales. These were, he said: received with scoffing laughter by my Lord of Essex, and my judgment disallowed . . .

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 12

22/10/10 12:23 PM

E L I Z A B E T H A N P R E LU D E

13

If his Lordship cannot endure that I should recommend any but them who are only devoted to him, I will recommend none at all; and if such without my consent are thrust on me, I will rather forego my commission than make any deputation unto them.7

At the time that the Second Earl and his son were pursuing divergent policies regarding Essex, both were maintaining close ties with Cecil. It would seem that by 1598 young Lord Herbert was beginning to assert his independence and also acquiring the necessary arts and artifices of a successful courtier. Returning to Court in 1599, Lord Herbert made a very favourable impression on the Queen. She wrote to his father in July, we est [eem] him more that he saw his primary duty to be with his sick father rather than be at Court even though he be full of duty and devotion to do us service. Cherish him therefore, for our sake the rather, and be assured that we shall be partakers of all contentments in that worth which his good beginnings promiseth you: to whom he hath made his principal account of attendance. He shall be right welcome back to us . . .8

Lord Herbert’s activities at Court soon came to the attention of John Chamberlain. Writing to Sir Dudley Carleton, he noted in August 1599 that ‘the young Lord Herbert, Sir Henry Carey, and Sir William Woodhouse are all in election at Court as to who shall set the best leg foremost.’ But the more knowledgeable correspondent, Rowland Whyte, knew that the life of a courtier was not sufficiently exciting for the nephew of Sir Philip Sidney. In early August 1599 Whyte reported to Sidney that Lord Herbert meant to follow Sidney’s footsteps and seek service in the Low Countries. Whyte wrote that Lord Herbert: means to follow the camp, and bids me write you that . . . he means to make bold with you, and send for Bayleigh [a horse] to serve on. And if you have any armor, or pistols, that may steed him for himself only, he desires he may have the use of them till your own return.9

Lord Herbert received the horse from Sidney, and his father sent him up two hundred horses to join the army being mustered to counter the expected Spanish invasion. For the next week, Whyte reported Lord Herbert was away from the Court, ‘swag [g] ering it amongst the men of war, and viewing the manner of the musters.’ Any military information he picked up there would have been very limited, but may have been useful later on when he was on the Council of War and had to oversee musters in the various counties of which he was Lord Lieutenant.10 Rowland Whyte was worried that Lord Herbert’s martial ambitions would interfere with his courtly duties and he wrote that, though the young lord was ‘a continual courtier, . . . [he] does not follow his business with that great care as

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 13

22/10/10 12:23 PM

14

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

is fit. He is too cold in a matter of such greatness.’ A few days later he reported to Sidney that the young lord is much blamed for his cold and weak manner of pursuing Her Majesty’s favor, having had so good steps to lead him unto it. There is want of spirit and courage laid to his charge, and that he is a melancholy young man.

By comparison, young Lord Carey was by far a more accomplished courtier. Nevertheless, Whyte was of the opinion that: it was not too late, if he [Lord Herbert] stay not too long in the country. You should . . . be here to advise and counsel him in a matter of such greatness, for, surely it would be for your good to see him a favorite.11

Lord Herbert was too attracted to the martial life, and too often away from Court due to his father’s illnesses to be the ‘continual courtier’. Whyte was much happier when Lord Herbert returned to Court, especially as the Second Earl seemed, temporarily, to be out of any immediate danger. Contact was maintained with Cecil, and the Herberts, father and son, maintained their hold on the Queen’s affection. In reply to several letters from the Queen, the Second Earl replied in September 1599, that he was: exceedingly comforted with your gracious opinion of my son which in your letters to me not long since you expressed, and with his own joyful acknowledgement of your favor. I will, with my soul’s most earnest prayers, hourly beseech God to requite it, and my son [I hope] will so behave that you shall not only not mislike the grace already done him, but hold him no less worthy than I to retain after me those small offices which I hold.12

In October 1599 Whyte reported that Lord Herbert was at Court, ‘and very discreetly follows his course of making love to the Queen’. But the young lord, if he could not be a soldier, at least intended to run at tilt. Even though he was not a continual courtier, he was, in Whyte’s opinion,‘excedingly beloved at Court of all men’, especially by Cecil and Sir John Stanhope, who protest ‘in all places that they love him.’ Whyte also noted with approval that the young lord was ‘highly favored by the Queen, for at his departure he had access unto her and was private an hour.’13 In mid-December 1599 it was reported that the Queen was very concerned about the Second Earl’s health, but it was Lord Herbert’s health that kept him from Court at the turn of the century. Just before Christmas he was ‘sick of an ague’ and this kept him in Wiltshire for Christmas. It was diagnosed as a tertian ague and, though he tried to return to Court in January, he fell sick on the way and had to return home. He complained that he had ‘a continual pain in his head and . . .

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 14

22/10/10 12:23 PM

E L I Z A B E T H A N P R E LU D E

15

found no manner of ease but by taking of tobacco.’ Whyte reported to Sidney that he could not ‘send him a more pleasing gift than excellent tobacco.’14 Lord Herbert did not return to Court until late March, and Whyte had high hopes that he would ‘prove a great man at Court. He is well beloved and truly deserves it.’ But Lord Herbert persisted with his dreams of martial glory, and by June Whyte was reporting that Lord Herbert ‘hath never a horse here, and but one in the country . . . and that cannot abide the piece or drum.’ It seems probable that the young lord intended to join the war in Flanders, but his father’s illness, and the fact that he had to be in attendance on the Queen, meant that such ambitions died aborning. His interest in military affairs was, by now, widely known. In 1598 Robert Barret dedicated his treatise, The Theorike and Practike of Moderne Warres, in two separate dedications to the Second Earl of Pembroke and his son. The book was professedly prepared for the instruction of Lord Herbert, in whom Barret had observed, ‘the martial virtues already shining.’15 Even if he did not go to war, Lord Herbert could still show off his martial skills. In the autumn of 1600 Whyte reported, ‘my Lord Herbert resolves this year to shew himself a man at arms and prepares for it: and because it is his first time of running at tilt, it were good he came in with some excellent device.’ Whyte feared that Lord Herbert’s old tutor, Sanford, would foist some ‘pedantic invention’ on him and spoil his debut. To avoid this, he suggested that Sidney advise the young lord as to what device would be appropriate. In October Lord Herbert was at Greenwich practising tilting, and Whyte pithily remarked, ‘he leaps, he dances, he sings, he gives counterbusses; he makes his horse run with more speed.’16 Always lurking in the background was the Second Earl’s illness, and in the new year it quickly entered the foreground. From Wilton on 5 January 1601, Lord Herbert wrote to Cecil that he had been told that, if he did not attend the Court the following Tuesday, he would ‘utterly lose the Queen’s favor, a sentence of little more comfort than hanging.’ But, he added: If I cannot obtain her Majesty’s favor to remain with my lord in his weakness, I shall quite overthrow my fortune. His physician tells me he cannot live out this winter, nothing now supporting his body but his mind: so fond of my presence, that one day in my absence he gave away 1,000 marks . . . You see both the shelfs I am like to suffer shipwreck on, so I commit my whole fortune unto you as the skilfullest and faithfullest pilot of my fortune.17

Two weeks later Lord Herbert informed Cecil that his father probably would not live 48 hours, and though ‘he hath dealt as kindly with me as myself could desire, yet without Her Majesty deal [ing] graciously with me, my state will prove very hard.’ Lord Herbert was desperately worried because, as he was under age, he

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 15

22/10/10 12:23 PM

16

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

would be a ward of court and the costs of his wardship would be considerable. The Herberts often pleaded poverty, but nevertheless, the Second Earl’s terminal illness could not have come at a more unfortunate time. Lord Herbert was involved in a scandal at Court which would destroy his career as a courtier and poison the Queen against him, and this when he was away from Court and in no position to defend or excuse himself.18 To Cecil he wrote that: there hath been many false and scandalous reports forged of me, which have as maliciously been delivered unto Her Majesty, to make her, if it were possible, to withdraw her former favor from me; taking this advantage of my absence when I could make no answer for myself, yet I doubt not in the end the shame will fall upon themselves. Yet they have driven me to this inconvenience, that when I should sue for a benefit I am forced to excuse a fault, two actions unfit to be coupled together, but as my state is now, not to be divided.

He then asked Cecil for: some offices now fallen into the Queen’s hands which my lord in his lifetime held, and though of small commodity yet the disgrace of not being as worthy as another to enjoy them after him will be to me exceeding great. Therefore I beseech you thus much to stand my friend, that they may be stayed till I have the happiness to speak with Her Majesty myself.

He cautiously added in a postscript, ‘If you have not a note of the offices, Rowland Whyte shall deliver one to you.’ The following day his father died, and Lord Herbert became the Third Earl of Pembroke.19 The new Earl immediately requested the Queen to grant him the offices his father had held, the same request he had previously made of Cecil. Cecil wanted him to succeed to his father’s positions, especially the most important one, the Presidency of the Council of Wales. This position the Earls of Pembroke looked upon almost as a sinecure. But Queen Elizabeth thought otherwise. Either she had had enough of semi independent magnates in the office and wanted a professional administrator there or, what is more probable, Cecil could not overcome the Queen’s prejudice concerning the Third Earl’s liason with her maid of honour, Mary Fitton. As it was, the young Earl inherited none of his father’s major positions while the Queen lived, except the minor office of serving on the Council for Wales. The scandal arising from the Mary Fitton affair ruined any chance he had of important office under Elizabeth.20 Mary Fitton, the youngest daughter of Sir Edward Fitton, had become one of the Queen’s maids of honour in 1595. She was seventeen, two years older than Lord Herbert, when they met. At this time she was in the care of Sir William Knollys,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 16

22/10/10 12:23 PM

E L I Z A B E T H A N P R E LU D E

17

who was himself enamoured of her. The impetuous young beauty, however, chose to give her affections to the young Lord Herbert, it being reported that: in that time when Mistress Fitton was in great favor, and one of her Majesty’s maids of honor, and during that time that the Earl of Pembroke favored her, she would put off her head tire and tuck up her clothes and take a large white cloak and march as though she had been a man to meet the said Earl out of the court.21

She was pregnant by the young Earl when the heartsick Sir William wrote to her sister Anne that: sweet and pleasant was the blossom of my love, so comfortable and cordial to my heart as I had therein placed all my delight. I must confess that the harvest was overlong expected . . . But the man of sin, [Pembroke] having in the night sowed tares among the good corn, both the true husbandman was beguiled and the good ground abused. How much more unhappy am I who, though with all the care and industry I can use to bring this soil to her former goodness, yet it is impossible for me to prevail, and God knows I would refuse no penance to redeem what is lost.22

By 26 January 1600, the pregnancy was known to Pembroke’s friend, Sir John Stanhope, when he wrote to Sir George Carew about ‘Mary Fitton’s afflictions’. It was not generally known around the Court until 4 February that Mary Fitton was with child, that Pembroke had ‘struck her down’, and that the ‘raindeer’ [the Queen] was ‘imbost’ (raging). Cecil confided to Sir George Carey the following day that: there is a misfortune befallen Mistress Fitton, for she is proved with child, and the Earl of Pembroke being examined confesseth a fact, but utterly renounceth all marriage. I fear they will both dwell in the Tower a while, for the Queen hath vowed to send them hither.23

For a time, the Essex uprising kept the Queen busy, and she had little time to think of chastising her godchild, but in March Pembroke was committed to the Fleet prison. Mary Fitton was kept under confinement in the keeping of Lady Hawkins, and at the end of April was allowed to return to her family where her child, a son, died at birth. At the same time a warrant was presented to the Warden of the Fleet which stated that: whereas the Earl of Pembroke was committed to the prison of the Fleet by Her Majesty’s direction, forasmuch as her Majesty is informed that through the restraint in that prison he is fallen into an ague, which is certified by his physician, and may fall into further inconvenience unless he may be removed to some other place where he may have more

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 17

22/10/10 12:23 PM

18

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

conveniency of air and to minister other things necessary for his health . . . take present order to see the said Earl conveyed to his house of Baynard’s Castle, and to charge him to remain there until her Majesty’s further pleasure be known.24

Pembroke’s reputation has suffered greatly because of this youthful indiscretion. The attack on his character began with the pen-portrait by Clarendon in his History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, and from the writers who have uncritically accepted his appraisal. The historians have either echoed Clarendon and noted that Pembroke was ‘immoderately given up to women’, or concurred with Samuel Rawson Gardiner that Pembroke ‘had no force of character to enable him to control events.’ This view is no longer the view of many parliamentary historians, but still has wide currency. Literary scholars, trying to prove or disprove the theory that Pembroke was the ‘Mr W. H.’ to whom Shakespeare dedicated his sonnets, have usually accepted Clarendon’s portrait. Clarendon generally described the Earl in glowing terms, seeing Pembroke as: being the most universally loved and esteemed of any man of that age; and, having a great office at Court, he made the Court itself better esteemed, and more reverenced in the country.

He may have eulogized Pembroke, but remarked with sedate malice that the Earl had a fatal flaw, in that he: indulged to himself the pleasures of all kinds, almost in all excesses. Whether out of his natural constitution, or for want of his domestic content and delight, (for which he was most unhappy, for he paid too dear for his wife’s fortune by taking her person into the bargain). He was immoderately given up to women . . . To these he sacrificed himself, his precious time, and much of his fortune.

There is no evidence that Pembroke ‘sacrificed’ himself, his time, or his fortune on any vices and, apart from the Fitton affair, nor is there any evidence that he was a gallant with the ladies. Moreover, Clarendon’s portrait is not consistent. If Pembroke indulged in all kinds of excesses, how could he, by his presence at Court, have ‘made the Court itself better esteemed, and more reverenced in the country’? Or, if Pembroke was of such low moral character, why would Clarendon state that ‘never was man planted in a Court, that was fitter for that soil, or brought better qualities with him to purify that air.’25 Clarendon was not a close contemporary of Pembroke’s, so he had no personal sources of information; nor is his History free of bias or error. Clarendon’s early political connections were with the Duke of Buckingham, Pembroke’s main political opponent and, as a Royalist, Clarendon would hardly favour a man whose

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 18

22/10/10 12:23 PM

E L I Z A B E T H A N P R E LU D E

19

brother and heir was a leading Parliamentarian. Philosophically also, Clarendon and the Third Earl were poles apart, and this colours Clarendon’s judgement.26 Clarendon is almost unique among seventeenth-century writers in finding any flaw in Pembroke’s character. A truer appreciation of Pembroke’s nature can be found in the writings of the bluntly honest Ben Jonson, whose positive appraisal mirrors the epigram ‘Willim Herbert, Earl of Pembroke’, which was cited earlier. The nineteenth-century historian, S. R. Gardiner, is often quoted in discussions of the Third Earl, and almost always to Pembroke’s detriment. His description of Pembroke bears repeating. On Pembroke’s death Gardiner wrote: Several times during the past years men had looked up to him as a possible leader. He was known to be averse to all rash and unpopular measures, and he had a high character for disinterestedness. His disinterestedness, however, was merely that of a wealthy man with nothing to seek for himself, and who was happy in the possession of an affable and unruffled disposition. He had no force of character to enable him to control events . . . He passed easily from hot opposition to the tamest submission. With an intelligence greater than his power of will, he was the Hamlet of Charles’ court.27

Gardiner’s appraisal is at variance with the analyses of all of Pembroke’s contemporaries, and is probably due to Gardiner’s underestimation of Buckingham’s power. As to Pembroke having ‘nothing to seek for himself ’, the facts prove conclusively otherwise. Pembroke spent his whole career seeking place and profit for himself and his associates, and in this he was usually successful. Just how successful Pembroke’s business and entrepreneurial activities were will be seen in Chapters Nine and Ten. Perhaps the real gravamen of Gardiner’s charge is that Pembroke was a moderate, and Gardiner disliked moderates. Of Pembroke’s spokesman in the House of Commons, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, Gardiner wrote that he: was of that class of men which is usually known as that of moderate men; which is to say, of men who never go to the bottom of any difficulty.28

Unfortunately, Gardiner’s opinions are still widely held by Stuart historians. Shakespearean scholars, using only the evidence of Clarendon’s portrait and their knowledge of the Mary Fitton affair, have generally been unfavourable to Pembroke. James Boaden in 1832 inaugurated the theory that Pembroke was the ‘Mr W. H.’ of the sonnets, and thought Pembroke was as lecherous as the youth of the sonnets was. Boaden’s view was generally accepted even by those who claimed that the Earl of Southampton was ‘Mr W. H.’, and when Thomas Tyler in 1884 discovered Pembroke’s affair with Mary Fitton, Clarendon’s analysis seemed confirmed.29 Clarendon’s view of Pembroke’s character is still a very common one, irrespective of what position is taken on the question of the ‘Mr W. H.’. Three well-known

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 19

22/10/10 12:23 PM

20

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

views may be cited as examples. A. L. Rowse, who favoured the claims of Lord Harvey of Southampton, called Pembroke ‘a roaring heterosexual’. J. Dover Wilson, who thought that Pembroke was ‘Mr W. H.’ echoed the views of Clarendon and thought that Pembroke was ‘given to the detestable practice of enjoying women out of mere curiosity.’ Leslie Hotson, who favoured another candidate for ‘Mr W. H.’, referred to Pembroke as a ‘practised lecher’.30 These opinions of the Third Earl’s supposed sexual mores have recently been endorsed by scholars who accuse the Third Earl of fathering two other illegitimate children. Michael G. Brennan in his Literary Patronage in the English Renaissance, accuses Pembroke later in life of having two illegitimate children by Lady Mary Wroth, the eldest daughter of his old friend Sir Robert Sidney. This he bases on what he calls a ‘family history’, Sir Thomas Herbert’s ‘Herbertorum Prosapial,’ an early copy of which he found at Wilton House. The Thomas Herbert of the ‘Herbertorum Prosapial’ is best known as the author of a strange book of travel, Some Years Travel Into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrigue, published in 1634. This book, described by a modern historian as ‘a dull book of fictitious travel’, is a farrago of tall stories by an author who wanted to deceive as much as impress. His ‘Herbertorum Prosapia’ is an equally unreliable attempt to prove his kinship to the Earls of Pembroke and curry favour with the Fourth Earl by means of a sketchy genealogy of the Herberts. And surely, if the author really knew the family history of the Earls of Pembroke, and the closeness which had existed between the Third Earl and his brother, he would not have tried to advance his cause by accusing Pembroke of fathering illegitimate children. Also, the fact that a copy of this work is found in the Wilton House archives does not make it a ‘family history,’ nor does it in any way prove that the Earls of Pembroke accepted it as accurate. And, due to the fire at Wilton in 1648, it is highly unlikely that the manuscript was collected by the family before this date.31 The author of this work on the literary patronage of the Earls of Pembroke also states that the Third Earl’s liason with Lady Mary Wroth was openly acknowledged by the family, as Lord Herbert of Cherbury addressed a poem to Lady Wroth entitled ‘A Merry Rime sent to the Lady Wroth Upon the Birth of my L. of Pembroke’s Child, Born in the Spring’. The most recent study of Lady Mary Wroth says nothing at all about such a liason, and neither does the standard work on the poems of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. In fact, the latter author points out that the ‘Merry Rime’ is undated but assumes it was written in 1621. Pembroke’s child, born in the Spring, was in all probability his very legitimate son Henry, who was born in March 1620 and died in June of the same year.32 Lady Mary Wroth, who was seven years younger than Pembroke, spent her girlhood at the Sidney family home, and made several extended visits to Pembroke’s homes at Wilton near Salisbury and Baynard’s Castle in London. She was a great favourite of Mary Sidney, obviously knew her older cousin, but whether they

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 20

22/10/10 12:23 PM

E L I Z A B E T H A N P R E LU D E

21

had an affair is open to serious question. The latest writer on the subject is of the opinion that Lady Mary Wroth and Pembroke were lovers and even exchanged private vows. He suggests even that the Second Earl’s secretary, Sanford, ‘drove a wedge between them’ and tricked them both into loveless marriages, and that after Mary Wroth’s husband died in 1614 they resumed their affair and Mary bore two illegitimate children.33 How loveless the marriages were we do not know. It does not seem to be the case for the Third Earl and probably not even for Lady Mary. Her marriage was not initially a happy one, but near the end of his life Sir Robert Wroth in his will praised his ‘deere and loving wife’ for her ‘sincere love, loyaltie, virtuous conversation and behavioure’ towards him.34 Supposedly Lady Mary Wroth’s seminal work, Pamphilia to Amphilanthus, is the story of her constant love for her unfaithful lover Pembroke, and in this work, as one writer puts it Wroth treads the fine line between expressing and suppressing, publishing and keeping writings and passions close, between revealing and concealing herself, between addressing an audience impersonally and addressing Pembroke through her persona. We are left with a paradox that belongs with early modern female authorship – a paradox of silence and speech.35

When Lady Mary was widowed in 1614 she was heavily in debt and spent the rest of her life in financial difficulties, and yet it was in this period of her life that Pembroke is supposed to have foisted two illegitimate children on her. There is absolutely no evidence at all that this was the case, and would have been totally out of character for Pembroke. Pembroke was the leading Calvinist nobleman at Court, patronized most of the major Calvinist writers of the period and was not the type of person who would leave a cousin he had known all his life bankrupt and burdened with his two illegitimate children.36 If Pembroke had acted so irresponsibly we would have heard a great deal about it from their mutual friends. The early Jacobean world was a very small one and anybody who was a somebody would have a wide, interconnected group of friends. For example, Mary was praised by many of the writers who Pembroke patronized, William Drummond, George Chapman, John Davies of Hereford, George Wyther and Joshua Sylvester. She was also well known to Sir Michael Hicks, one of Sir Robert Cecil’s close associates, and both of whom were close to Pembroke. In a gossip ridden age such as this one, scandals like this would have had a full public airing, if only by Pembroke’s enemies at Court.37 What we can extrapolate from Mary Wroth’s writings is questionable, especially as the best known writer on this Sidney family ‘romance’ admits that the work in question ‘tells us frustratingly very little’ about Pembroke’s relations with his

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 21

22/10/10 12:23 PM

22

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

cousin. We do know that Pembroke had an illegitimate child with Mary Fitton and this he openly admitted, but unless any proof to the contrary turns up we have to assume that this was the only Mary who bore him any children out of wedlock.38 The Mary Fitton affair was the only affair of Pembroke’s of which there is any evidence. And Mary Fitton, in the opinion of her biographer, ‘met him more than half way, for anything in the nature of excitement appealed to the highly-strung girl.’ She was also two years older than he was, and probably a woman ‘of experience’. Her subsequent career was, to put it charitably, a rather chequered one. In 1607 Lady Fitton wrote to her other daughter, Anne, after Mary had another illegitimate child, this time by a William Polwhele: I take no joy to hear of your sister nor of that boy. If it had pleased God when I did bear her, that she and I had been buried [together], it had saved me a great deal of sorrow and grief, and her from shame, and such shame as never had Cheshire woman, worse now than ever. Write no more to me of her.39

It is likely that the pregnancy was a marriage trap for the rising young Earl. There was a very clear precedent for such an arrangement and, as such a union would have helped clear the reputation of one of her maids of honour, the Queen would have looked upon it favourably. The Queen may not have been morally shocked, but her sense of decorum was outraged, especially as Pembroke rejected the idea of marriage. Mary Fitton was considered unsuitable as a wife for the ambitious Earl. However, the Queen considered herself as the protectress of her ladies-in-waiting, and any scandals concerning them infuriated her. It was to be expected that she would send Pembroke to prison, or at least banish him from Court.40 Lord Robert Sidney was informed by his English correspondent that the young Earl was ‘young enough and of no desperate fortune to overcome all misfortunes, if once he . . . could but indifferently recover the opinion he had in her Majesty’s conceit.’ Courtiers opposed to Pembroke also did not help. He later related that Lord Cobham, who was actively seeking the Queen’s favour, ‘was exasperating the old Queen against him’ for what he considered a ‘juvenile lapse.’ And one wonders if Pembroke’s fellow courtiers were at all shocked by his behaviour. Sir John Stanhope, for example, did not seem scandalized when he wrote ‘of the persecution which is like to befall the poor maids’ chamber in Court, and of Fitton’s afflictions . . . and the discouragement thereby of the rest.’ To me this sounds like the complaint of a gay young blade whose amorous activities were threatened by this uproar. The courtiers’ opinions notwithstanding, the Queen was angry, and her erstwhile favourite was sent to prison and then banished.41 The Third Earl refused to be pressured into an unsuitable marriage. One thing is certain though, the scandal had little effect on his marital plans. While the scandal

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 22

22/10/10 12:23 PM

E L I Z A B E T H A N P R E LU D E

23

was still breaking, Pembroke in desperation attempted to use the abortive Essex revolt to his advantage. He wrote to Cecil around 10 February 1601, rejoicing that Essex’s revolt had failed, but expressing unhappiness that, as he was absent from Court, he could not make ‘as large an offer of my life as those happy men did who were the instruments of bringing those [men I cannot call them] to their ruin.’ At about the same time that he was castigating Essex to Cecil, he was writing a friendly letter to Essex saying, ‘I am glad you have lost none of your limbs in the late conflict; if you had been maimed, a good tennis player had been spoiled.’ Essex considered Pembroke to be a close friend and thought that he would join his revolt. Pembroke’s political sense and his abhorrance of rash political gestures probably saved his career and perhaps even his life. He also may have been genuinely shocked that Essex would go so far as to rebel against the Queen. Pembroke may have been waiting on events or he did not realize the gravity of the situation, and it is true that he would do almost anything to try and retrieve his position at Court. But his duplicity, coming on top of the Fitton scandal, does little to enhance his reputation.42 Pembroke was well-educated, handsome and well-connected, the scion of one of the wealthiest families in the country. He was very much a ‘gilded youth’, pampered and fawned over. But these were Lord Herbert’s ‘salad days’ when he was young in years and green in judgment. He was only twenty and was, at this stage in his life a somewhat immature young man. It is hard to cavil at the criticism of the Third Earl made by the writer who wrote that: no comment is needed to emphasise the selfish, childish, and sulky tone of these communications. One may be pardoned for suggesting that . . . as his mother wrote no letters as an advocate for her son in this matter, [she thought that] the wisest course for a mother would undoubtedly have been to let the youth take his medicine, in spite of its distastefulness.

The writer continued, The tone of Lord Herbert’s letters, moreover, is highly suggestive of what seems to have been that young man’s nature: self-centered and calculating in spite of his cleverness and his pleasing personality.43

Another writer makes the equally telling criticism that his letters drip with self-pity and yet he never mentions his mistress or the dead child. It would seem that he wanted only to pacify Sir Edward Fitton and so regain the Queen’s favour.44 And even his duplicity concerning Essex was unavailing. Realizing that his attempts to reinstate himself at Court had failed, Pembroke asked Cecil to get him permission to return home and settle his business affairs, and for the first time he

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 23

22/10/10 12:23 PM

24

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

asked for permission to go abroad. Pembroke knew that he was finished at Court, but this was not his only concern. He also had financial troubles, and found it almost impossible to adjust to country life. But, he acquiesced gracefully, he wrote to Cecil in; the imposition you laid upon me for my wardship, though it be a very heavy burthen on my weak means, having so many great payments to make besides. Yet, since it is Her Majesty’s pleasure, I will not dispute it, but wholly submit myself to her sacred will.

He felt more strongly about his banishment from Court. He complained to Cecil: I cannot forbear telling you that yet I endure a very grievous imprisonment . . . For do you account him a free man that is restrained from coming where he most desires to be, and debarred from enjoying that comfort in respect of which all other earthly joys seem miseries, though he have a whole world else to walk in?

Assuming that Cecil would show his letter to the Queen, and making a last attempt to mollify her, he continued: In this vile case am I, whose miserable fortune it is to be banished from the sight of her, in whose favor the balance consisteth of my misery or happiness, and whose incomparable beauty was the only sun of my little world, that alone had power to give it light and heat. Now judge you whether this is bondage or no. For mine own part, I protest I think my fortune as slavish as any man’s that lives fettered in a galley. You have said you loved me, and I have often found it to be true, but a greater testimony you can never show of it than to use your sweet means to rid me of this hell, and then shall I account you the restorer of that which was far dearer unto me than my life.45

Both Cecil and the Queen may have been flattered by the sentiments expressed, and the style in which they were couched, but it was not enough to make the Queen forgive her godchild, and on 12 August 1601, the young Earl was banished to his home at Wilton. Pembroke’s exile had begun.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 24

22/10/10 12:23 PM

3

Exile, 1601–1603

Pembroke’s reaction to his banishment was an anguished one. It was also immediate. The day after he reached Wilton, he wrote to Cecil: I have not yet been a day in the country and I am as weary of it as if I had been prisoner there seven year[s]. I shall never turn good justice of the peace, therefore I pray, if the Queen determine to continue my banishment . . . that you will assist me with your best means to get leave to go into some other land, so that the change of climate may purge me of melancholy: for else I shall never be fit for any civil society.1

The Earl was overdramatizing his case, but he was acutely aware that the Fitton affair had ruined his hopes of preferment. Nevertheless, he was not so melancholic as to forget to press his suit for the Forest of Dean, telling Cecil he was sending his servant, Arthur Massinger, to deal with it. A fortnight later he was still negotiating with Cecil, and amusing his friend, while at the same time bemoaning his fate. ‘If the Queen continue her displeasure a little longer,’ he wrote: Undoubtedly I shall turn clown, for justice of [the] peace I can by no means frame unto, and one of the two a man that lives in the country must needs be. If you mean to have a gamester of me, you were best by some means to get me hence; for here there is no game known but trump; primero* is held a conjuring word. Pray, if I write idly, pardon me, for I have as little to do here as any man living.2

When he was unsuccessful in his suit, Pembroke was bitterly disappointed. The Forest of Dean had been controlled by the Earl’s father and his grandfather, and he was hurt both in his pride and in his pocket when the patent was denied him. He would have to wait until there was a new sovereign before he gained control of this or any other lucrative asset from the Crown. Early in September 1602 Pembroke wrote to Cecil: If it had pleased Her Majesty as graciously to have conceived, in this matter of the Forest of Dean, of that poor reputation I was desirous to preserve, the maintenance whereof *Primero was a card game.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 25

22/10/10 12:23 PM

26

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

might have enabled [me] to do Her Majesty more honor and service than now I am able to perform, I should have been happy . . . But since Her Majesty has, in her wisdom, thought fit to lay this disgrace on me, I accuse nothing but my own unworthiness, which since I so plainly read in my own fortunes, I will alter my hopes and teach them to propose unto themselves no other ends as they shall be sure to receive no disgrace in.3

Vowing never to be a suitor again, he continued: The hawk that is once canvassed (snared) will the next time take heed of the net; and shall I that was born a man and capable of reason, commit greater folly than birds that have nought but sense* to direct them?

Though Pembroke reiterated his vow, ‘never again to be a suitor, since in my first suit I have received such a blow,’ he nevertheless would accept some things yet in Her Majesty’s hands to dispose of which, ‘if it would please her to grace me with, might happily in some measure patch up my disgrace in the opinion of the world.’4 At the same time, Pembroke asked Cecil for permission to travel. He made a similar request of the Lord Admiral, hoping to go abroad when the Parliament of 1601 ended its session. The Queen was still angry with him, for as he told Cecil, when the Lord Admiral made the request, the Queen ‘said she would have me go keep house in the country.’ The young exile’s only hope was that the Queen would not ‘extend her anger towards me, as having herself no use of me, to confine me to a country now most hateful to me of all others, when my travel will enable me to do her service.’ In December 1601, Cecil obtained the Queen’s consent, and his young ally thanked him profusely, beseeching him, while Her Majesty is in this good disposition you will give order to Mr. Lake to draw my licence, and then you shall be delivered from an importunate suitor that ever troubled you with many idle businesses.5

Surprisingly, having gone to so much trouble to get permission to travel, Pembroke did not make his Grand Tour. Such a trip had been planned since he left Oxford in 1597 as part of his education, following Sidney’s precedent. The Tour was considered so important by his parents that, when his father was trying to arrange a marriage alliance, one of the prenuptial stipulations was that the future bride would remain with the in-laws while Lord Herbert was on his travels. The Second Earl’s terminal illness postponed the Grand Tour, and Pembroke’s Court activities further delayed it. It is highly unlikely that the young Earl travelled during his exile. A tour by such a well-known figure would hardly have gone unnoticed by his *Sense meaning instinct: See comment after footnote 4.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 26

22/10/10 12:23 PM

EXILE

27

gossipy contemporaries. Undoubtedly he, like many others, was awaiting a change of sovereign and was biding his time, laying the groundwork for his future career. One thing is certain, and that is that Pembroke could not afford to be out of the country when a new sovereign arrived and started bestowing the gifts and offices which the English nobility regarded as perquisites of their position. It is also likely that the Third Earl did not have the ready cash to finance Continental travel in 1602, even though he was one of the richest landowners in the kingdom.6 The estates of the Third Earl centred on his home county of Wiltshire, though he owned most of his land outside the county. His landholdings were especially extensive in Wales, principally in Glamorgan. He inherited over one hundred manors, nineteen towns or boroughs, including Cardiff, Newport and Neath in Wales, the borough of Wilton in Wiltshire, and six castles, including Baynard’s Castle in London. Pembroke also owned seven forests and various other parks, hundreds, farms and tenements. He also controlled valuable mines, mineral and timber rights, fishing rights, tolls and markets, and was the proprietor of a large number of advowsons. Though we are not certain what Pembroke was ‘worth’, we do know his magnificent inheritance was, temporarily, a mortgaged one. For his first few months as Earl of Pembroke, he was a ward of the Crown, actually a ward of Cecil’s. To his legal guardian he complained of the burden of his wardship, a burden that was considerable indeed. It cost Pembroke £3,200 to ‘buy’ back his wardship, even though there were only two months left of his minority. In addition to this he had to pay a fine of more than £500 for his livery. His father’s debts had to be paid, provision made for his brother Philip and, from his inheritance, pay out jewels and plate to the sum of £1,000 to his mother. The widow was also given various lands and the control of the rest of the household jewels and plate while her son was still a minor. More than £3,500 had to be found for his brother Philip, and £3,000 for his sister Anne on her eighteenth birthday, and £400 a year until then. The executors of the Second Earl’s will were given £500, and various other charitable bequests added another £493. One must remember though that, as a Herbert, he was pleading poverty. What his financial position was when he inherited his title we do not know, but it was far removed from penury. In 1600 the Second Earl, trying to marry his son Philip to a rich ward of the Queen, offered Elizabeth £5,000 in money and jewels. Nothing became of it though as the young heiress died. The young Third Earl himself in 1601 also found the necessary funds to buy ‘a jewel called a feather of diamonds’ from Sir Robert Sidney for £1,500. To have an idea of what this sum alone would represent today, a skilled craftsman in London earned between £10 to £20 a year, and a small farmer netted about £30 a year. When Pembroke gave Ben Jonson £20 a year to buy books with this was considered a princely gesture.7 Overseeing his estates did not take up all Pembroke’s time during his exile.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 27

22/10/10 12:23 PM

28

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

He decided that, if he could not avail himself of the education of a Continental tour, at least he could obtain some practical further education. A smattering of legal knowledge was useful to a major landowner, and would be indispensable to someone who intended to be an advisor to the next sovereign. On 10 August 1602, Pembroke was admitted to Gray’s Inn to begin his legal studies. He stayed there little more than six months, for Elizabeth I died in March 1603. That his time was not wasted we have Francis Bacon as a witness. Bacon reported to the King on a Star Chamber case in 1612 that ‘My Lord of Pembroke (who is . . . a stranger there) did extraordinary well, and became himself well, and had an evident applause.’ Pembroke maintained a strong connection with the Inns of Court, and was probably an honorary member of both Lincoln’s Inn and the Inner Temple.8 The young lord also led a very active social life. Sir Robert Sidney was informed that Pembroke’s household was active, and his company interesting, and when Sir John Harington kept a ‘Royal Christmas’ in Rutlandshire in 1602, the Earl of Pembroke was among his many guests. The Countess of Rutland was Sidney’s daughter and Essex’s stepdaughter, and Pembroke became an integral part of this new circle of patrons that formed around the court of Queen Anne, and included many of the former supporters of Essex. This circle was the true centre of the intellectual life of the Court. The Third Earl probably stayed with Sir John until the new year. The time Pembroke spent in exile was not wasted. In the opinion of the most recent editor of his poems, it was while the Third Earl was at the Inns of Court that he wrote most of his poetry, and it was also in this period that he began in earnest to look for a suitable wife.9 Let us first look at Pembroke’s poetry, his marriage negotiations will be detailed later. In the Third Earl’s attempt to copy Sir Philip Sidney and his mother as a poet, he used the same convention as had Sidney – love poems to an imaginary mistress – and he utilized the same poetic forms. But Pembroke did not have the genius of Philip Sidney. The Third Earl’s poetry was not ‘serious’ but leisure-time work not intended for publication. He apparently made no effort even to correct or polish his verse, or even to punctuate it. Like Sidney he wrote answer-poems and, like him, his lyrical poems were designed to be set to music. In the main, Pembroke’s poetry was dedicated to his literary mistress, his cousin the Countess of Devonshire, and it is due chiefly to her that his poems have survived. In 1660, John Donne the Younger published a volume of poems entitled Poems Written by the Right Honorable William Earl of Pembroke, Lord Steward of His Majestie’s Household, Whereof Many of Which are Answered by Way of Repartee by Sir Beniamin Ruddier Knight, and Donne as editor thanked the Countess for being ‘so careful to preserve, and now command to be published, these elegant poems.’ However, the editor also states in his ‘Epistle to the Reader’, that the poems were preserved mainly by the music masters Henry Lawes and Henry Lanier, who had previously set the poems to music. This apparent contradiction has been resolved

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 28

22/10/10 12:23 PM

EXILE

29

by showing that the first twenty-eight pages came from one source, the Countess, and the others were supplied by Lawes and Lanier.10 Lawes and Lanier, court composers and musicians patronized by Pembroke, set many of his poems to music, as they did the poems of Shakespeare, Sidney and Rudyerd. Unfortunately, when called upon to produce Pembroke’s poems, they may have forgotten which ones were his, and the editor duly notes the fact that a few spurious ones may have been included. Donne also realized that he did not have all of Pembroke’s poems, but hoped that if some showed up later he could publish them in a subsequent edition. Included in the Poems are works which have been ascribed to Dyer, Wotton, Raleigh, King, Carew, Corbett, John Grange, Sir Thomas Nevill and William Strode.11 The canon of the text is very uncertain as regards the poems collected by Lawes and Lanier, but it is possible that more of the poetry is Pembroke’s than modern commentators realize. They have assumed, basing their analyses on the poems printed by Donne, that Pembroke used only one poetic form and a single poetic theme. The general assumption is that he wrote only love poetry concerned with courtly intrigue. But in three answer poems that Pembroke wrote to his friend, Drummond of Hawthornden, the amatory theme is quite differently handled, and a poem in the National Library of Wales does not deal with love at all. Pembroke’s contributions to the answer-poems are: The doubtful fears of change so fright my mind, Though raised to the highest joy in love, As in this slippery state more grief I find Than they who never such a bliss did prove, But fed with lingering hopes of future gain Dream not what ‘tis to doubt a losers pain. Desire a safer harbor is than fear And not to rise less danger than to fall; The want of jewels we far better bear Than so possest, at once to lose them all; Unsatisfied hopes time may repair When ruin’d faith must finish in despair. Alas! ye look but up a hill on me, Which shows to you a fair and smooth ascent, The precipice behind ye can not see, On which high fortunes are too pronely bent: If there I slip what former joy or bliss Can heal the bruise of such a fall as this?12

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 29

22/10/10 12:23 PM

30

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

The poem of Pembroke’s preserved in the National Library of Wales has friendship as its theme: Of Friendship Friendship on earth we may as easily find As see the Northeast Passage that is blind, ‘Tis not unlike the imaginary stone That tatter’d chemists long have doted on: Sophisticate affection is the best this age affords, No friend abides the test: They make a glorious show, a little space But far beneath the same like copper lace Or ‘nealled in affliction but one day, They smoke and shrink and vapor quite away. We miss the fine materials choosing friends On virtue we project not, but on ends; So by degrees when we embrace so many We counted are like whores, not loved of any! Good turns ill-plac’d, that we on all men heap Are seeds of that ingratitude we reap. And he that is so sweet he none denies Was made of honey, for the nimble flies. Choose one or two companions of thy life, Then be as true to them, would’st have thy wife: Though he lives joyless that enjoys no friends Yet that hath many, pays for’t in the end.13

The manuscripts in the National Library of Wales also raise questions about the accuracy of the poems supplied by the Countess of Devonshire. It is probable that the texts which Donne received from Lawes and Lanier were much more accurate than those of the Countess, the musicians not wishing to alienate a man as powerful as Pembroke, subordinating their work to the poet’s. A definitive study of Pembroke’s poetry is not possible until all the extant texts are collected, and the problem of the text is solved. This is made more difficult by the fact that there are no clues given by the internal evidence of the poems, and none of Pembroke’s personal papers dealing with his poetry survive.14 This poem by Pembroke and the variant copy of it in the National Library of Wales is interesting not only for its provenance, but also because of its Shakespeare connection. The poem, or at least Pembroke’s contribution, opens with a verbal and thematic elaboration of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116, ‘Let not to me the marriage of true minds . . .’, and incorporates ‘love is not love’ in his ‘love is not love, but

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 30

22/10/10 12:23 PM

EXILE

31

given free’. It would be interesting to know if Pembroke borrowed from Shakespeare or if the Bard showed his appreciation of the Third Earl’s poetic prowess by using parts of one of Pembroke’s poems in one of his greatest sonnets.15 Some of the best poems in Donne’s collection can almost certainly be ascribed to the Third Earl, and his sonnets, songs and pastorals are, without a doubt, the work of a gifted poet. The sonnets usually have an amatory motif, often dealing with the infidelity or inconstancy of his beloved, and they fit the usual sonnet pattern of the period. Typical of his sonnet is this one of five stanzas, of which these are the first two: Can you suspect a change in me. And value your own constancy? O: no; you found that doubt in your own heart Where love his images but kiss’d, Not grav’d; fearing that dainty flesh would smart, And so his painful sculpture would resist; But wrought in mine without remorse; Till he of it thy perfect statue made As full of sweetness as of force; Only unkindness may the work invade, And so it may defac’d remain But never can another form regain. While we dispute our liberty I have lost mine; And which is worse, incline To love that slavery. Not the Great Charter, nor King’s Bench can free Me from the Chain, wherein my thoughts she tied: For our dull earth what care is had we see, Yet easily let our mind Into more thralldom slide. O that she were but kind: To give for that a pledge There were my law, and there my privilege.16

Pembroke’s pastorals are similar to the dominant seventeenth-century lyric mode, but not so his songs, the verses of which, in the opinion of one commentator, ‘are handled with an unmitigated grace that is not easily found duplicated in a similar number of songs by an individual poet of the period.’17 Pembroke’s best-known song is one that has often been, incorrectly, attributed to John Donne:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 31

22/10/10 12:23 PM

32

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Soul’s joy when I am gone, And you alone, Which cannot be, Since I must leave myself with thee, And carry thee with me: Oh give no way to grief, But let belief Of mutual love, This wonder to the vulgar prove, Our bodies not we move. ii Yet when unto our eyes Absence denies Each others sight, And makes to us a constant night; When oaths change to delight, But by their feet; Why should our day Over our spirits so much sway, To tie us to that way.18

Pembroke’s poetic abilities were highly praised by his contemporaries, although some of this praise came from those seeking patronage. Francis Davison, in a sonnet to Pembroke, lauded his poetic powers, and William Browne praised his patron’s works. Ben Jonson told Pembroke, ‘you know how to use yo‘r sword and yo’r pen,’ and his editor, John Donne thought his poems would be a monument to him that would ‘outlast the calculation of all astrologers.’ In fact, Donne saw himself as reviving Pembroke’s fame, which he thought had lain asleep in all the noise of drums and trumpets, when all the muses seemed to have fled, and to have left nothing behind them but a few lame Iambicks canting at the corners of our desolate streets.19

Modern estimates of Pembroke’s work vary. Sir Egerton Brydges found Pembroke’s poetry exhibiting ‘an airiness, an elegance, and an ingenuity, which could only flow from one who had, at least, touched his lips with the waters of Helicon.’ But, he continued, Pembroke ‘seeks rather for what is pretty and far-fetched, than what is natural and bold, and grand.’ Sidney Lee considered his poetry as ‘graceful, but lacks higher qualities’, and John Buxton considered his poems ‘witty and accomplished . . . though Pembroke did not have his uncle’s gifts, nor the serious and determined purpose which created the New Poetry.’20

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 32

22/10/10 12:23 PM

EXILE

33

The only two thorough analyses of Pembroke’s poetry were written by Gaby P. Onderwyzer in 1959, and Robert Krueger in 1961. Onderwyzer considers Pembroke an excellent poet, the worth of whose poems can be judged, for example, by his songs, which she considers to rank with any of the period. In fact, she argues their like cannot be duplicated by any other poet of the age. More importantly, ‘having been written before Dryden was even born, the poems in couplets are remarkable [and] their demand for full yet concise statement gets satisfied in Pembroke’s hand as limpidly as any thirty or forty years later.’ Krueger is of the opinion that Pembroke was not terribly interested in his poems, but just ‘threw them off for his own amusement.’ Pembroke did write some superior poems in the 1620s, but his earlier poems, though ‘they can stand on their own merits’ can only do so as minor verse. To Krueger, ‘they are best appreciated . . . if taken as one expression of the varied talents of a great Jacobean statesman who wrote verse at a time when even amateur and minor talent was by present standards astonishingly high, and when writing poetry was taken as a part of everyday life.21 Whatever value we place on Pembroke’s poetry, his poetic output plus his legal studies and his active social life show that his exile was not wasted. Our information about his social life is, as it was outside the Court orbit, rather scanty. We do, however, have a very full description of the second important aspect of his life in this period, that of the negotiations leading up to his marriage. The Third Earl, through his father, was involved in marriage negotiations as early as 1595, when he went up to London to meet the Queen and to ‘deal in the matter of a marriage with Sir George Carey’s daughter.’ Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sidney that London was chosen as the place most suitable ‘for the two young ones to have an interview, where, without suspicion, they may oft meet in secret.’ The interview was effected, but nothing came of the match, supposedly because of Lord Herbert’s ‘not liking’. As Mistress Carey was four years his senior and in love with someone else, his ‘not liking’ may have had little to do with it. There was also disagreement about possible financial settlements, it being reported that Sir George Carey was very annoyed that Pembroke had broken off the negotiations, and he had told the Queen ‘it was because he would not assure him [Lord Herbert] the 1,000 a year which comes to his daughter as next of kin to Queen Ann Bullen.’ And Sir George was ‘truly touched with a scorn . . . by this refusal of the intended marriage, and [is] bent to favour all that are his [Pembroke’s] adversaries.’22 Two years later Henry Herbert negotiated with Lord Burghley for a match between Lord Herbert and Bridget Vere, one of the Earl of Oxford’s daughters, and Burghley’s grand daughter. The match was of Pembroke’s parents’ making, the Countess of Pembroke writing to Burghley that ‘so far forth I find my son’s best affection and resolution to answer my desire herein,’ and the Second Earl reporting that the young lord was amenable to the match. Negotiations were carried on in depth, the Second Earl finally offering Burghley ‘a jointure proportionable to what

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 33

22/10/10 12:23 PM

34

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

you will give in marriage with your daughter.’ He denied it was his intention to enrich himself by the match, stating that ‘whatsoever you give, I am content that the young couple presently have, and will increase the same with as great a yearly allowance as my estate and course of life can spare’.23 The Earl of Oxford was delighted with the proposed match, for he wrote, ‘I am pleased that my lord and lady persevere, for Bridget’s sake. I always wished her a good husband’. He continued, ‘My Lord of Pembroke is a sickly man and therefore it is to be gathered he desireth in his lifetime to see his son bestowed to his liking, to compass methinks his offers very honourable, and his desires very reasonable.’ He could see no reason to delay the match, though Bridget was still only thirteen. And, as regards the young lord, it was his understanding that he ‘hath been well brought up, fair conditioned, and hath many good parts in him.’ The negotiations continued for several months, but by October 1597 Rowland Whyte could report to Sir Robert Sidney that they were ‘upon a sudden quite dashed, and in the opinion of the wise by great fault in [the Earl of Pembroke] who makes the occasion of breach to be a refusal of the portion offered by [Lord Burghley].’ The Second Earl insisted on ‘£3,000 in money and £500 a year in possession, else will he not bargain.’ Whyte was worried about the political implications of the rupture, and blamed the Second Earl for it. All through these various marriage negotiations, the Second Earl took a very mercenary approach. I do not, however, think this was the reason for the breakdown. The seventeen-year-old Lord Herbert would hardly be interested in a thirteen-year-old chosen by his parents, when he had already tasted life at Court and met Mary Fitton. And any marital plans at all would have interfered with his projected Grand Tour. Whatever the disagreements were they must have been largely amicable, for the breakdown did not affect the Herbert–Cecil relationship. And the amicable connection between the Earls of Oxford and Pembroke was further strengthened in 1604 when Philip Herbert, Pembroke’s heir, married Susan de Vere, another of the the Earl of Oxford’s daughters.24 In 1598 Lord Herbert’s name was linked with the rich twenty-one-year-old widow, Lady Hatton, and in 1599 he was the subject of a very complicated court intrigue, the keystone of which was to be his marrying into Lord Admiral Nottingham’s house. Rowland Whyte, trying to further Sir Robert Sidney’s interests, was in the forefront of the scheme. The match would be, in his opinion, advantageous to both Pembroke and Nottingham and, if Sydney acted as broker, both parties would be indebted to him. Sidney’s specific interest was to secure the reversionary rights of the Lord Presidency of Wales from Pembroke. To attain this end, he would need the consent of both the Queen and Pembroke, and any possible help the powerful Nottingham could give. If the match were made, Lord Herbert might also be inclined to use his influence with the Queen and with his father so that Sidney would receive the reversion. It is quite evident, however, that neither

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 34

22/10/10 12:23 PM

EXILE

35

Lord Herbert nor his parents were active in promoting this match.25 In fact, all of Lord Herbert’s matches were either made by his father, or promoted by self-seeking persons closely connected to the family. None of them were of his own making, and we do not even know if he was even interested in any of them. We may also note that, in all of these marriage negotiations, no mention was made of the Fitton affair, and nothing at all was said about Lady Mary Wroth. This may have been an exercise in tact, but the more probable reason is that the Fitton affair was considered less important to these courtiers than it had been to Queen Elizabeth, and the Wroth affair either did not exist or they had heard nothing about it. As far as one can ascertain, there were no marriage negotiations carried on involving Lord Herbert in 1600 or 1601. The illness of the Second Earl, Lord Herbert’s involvement at Court, and his affair with Mary Fitton all were contributory factors, but the most likely explanation is that the young lord was in no hurry to marry until he was free to choose for himself. As a disappointed Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sidney, when the plan to have Lord Herbert marry into Lord Admiral Nottingham’s family fell apart in 1600, ‘neither do I find any disposition in this gallant young lord to marry.’26 In 1603 Pembroke negotiated for himself for the first time, formally proposing a match with Mary Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury’s daughter. Negotiations had been going on at least since February 1602, for on the second of that month the Earl of Shrewsbury wrote to the Earl of Salisbury that ‘my Lord of Pembroke is here now, having made a posting journey hither on no other errand than only to visit us. He returns back tomorrow, unless he will be entreated to stay one day longer.’ Progress was slow, but Pembroke kept the negotiations open. By September, Thomas Crewe could write to the Countess of Shrewsbury that Sir Thomas Edmondes had informed him recently that the match had been renewed ‘by some followers of the Earl with whom he had speech, and told me that he did blame them for sticking at value of land in such a capitulation.’ Edmondes was acting as the Earl of Shrewsbury’s broker, and was of the opinion that the path should be smoothed for the match since, as he reported to Shrewsbury, ‘it is apparent that, for all considerations, it is the best election your lady can make.’27 By December Edmondes could report, ‘I found a real and determined resolution in my Lord of Pembroke to proceed to the concluding of matters between your Lordship and him, upon the conditions proposed by your Lordship.’ He assured Shrewsbury of Pembroke’s constancy, but reported that things were at a standstill because Pembroke’s broker, his old tutor Sanford, was away producing a masque at Court. Details were still left to be settled as late as January 1604, for Pembroke objected to the bride’s portion. And as late as March 1604 Lady Arbella Stuart could write to Shrewsbury, ‘I hear the marriage betwixt my Lord of Pembroke and my cousin is broken.’ However, all the difficulties were finally ironed out and on 4 November 1604, the marriage took place.28

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 35

22/10/10 12:23 PM

36

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

The Talbots, Earls of Shrewsbury, were some of the richest and most powerful allies one could find, and this was undoubtedly Pembroke’s main reason for the match. Until he died in 1618, the Earl of Shrewsbury was the richest landowner in the country, the Earls of Pembroke being the second. A marriage alliance between the heirs of these two great houses was a very shrewd coup. The marriage also was a continuation of a dynastic alliance. The First Earl of Pembroke’s second wife was a Talbot, and his only daughter married into the Talbot family. The Second Earl’s first wife was also a Talbot, thus the Third Earl was continuing a family tradition. At the same time also Pembroke was strengthening his ties with Cecil, for his wife was one of Cecil’s nieces.29 Financially as well as dynastically, Pembroke’s marriage to Mary Talbot was a ‘good match’. The bride’s jointure was £3,000 per year, and she had an inheritance of £9,000 per year. Unfortunately, this carefully conceived Herbert–Talbot alliance produced no heirs; Pembroke and his wife were not blessed with children. They did have one child, Henry, who was born, unexpectedly, very late in their marriage in 1620, but he only lived a few weeks. Even with the disappointment of having no surviving heirs, and even though the union was prompted by financial and dynastic considerations, Pembroke and his wife still, apparently, maintained a successful marriage. We have little direct evidence, but the absence of gossip in an age addicted to it leads us to conclude that they had no serious misunderstandings. At a time when about one third of the older nobility had serious marital difficulties, Pembroke and his wife were seemingly attached to each other. What evidence we have is found in several letters from Rowland Whyte to the Earl of Shrewsbury. On 4 February 1605, he wrote: Lo[rd] Pemb[roke] is well, and surely is as honorable a kind husband as any is in Great Britain. My lady much joys in it, and gives him every day more and more cause to increase it. My lady is much honored by his friends.

In a later letter he calls the Countess ‘much beloved, and much respected here.’30 Another glimpse we have of Pembroke’s marital relations comes from the pen of Ben Jonson. As a guest at their London home in 1619, Jonson was asked to adjudicate on a mock dispute between the Earl and his wife about the role of women. Reportedly, Pembroke had argued that ‘women were men’s shadows’, and his wife strongly disagreed. Jonson was called upon for his opinion and he agreed with the Earl. The Countess gave Jonson the task of proving it in verse, hence his poem, ‘That Women are but Men’s Shadows’. As far as we know, Pembroke and his wife deserved the epigram written on their marriage: In manners, personage, wit, age, estates, and in nobility, you both are mates,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 36

22/10/10 12:23 PM

EXILE

37

Yet thou deserveth a better bride than she, A better bridegroom she deserves than thee.30

Pembroke’s affection for his wife was strong and lifelong – they were still trying to produce an heir after sixteen years of marriage – and Pembroke was lying with his wife the night he died at Baynard’s Castle. However, he must have found it trying initially when she had problems adjusting to Court life. On 15 May 1605, Whyte wrote to the Earl of Shrewsbury that though his daughter was ‘a most worthy noble lady,’ yet she was ‘no good courtier.’ Nevertheless, Whyte was convinced that ‘time will teach her to tread the path which her friends have done before her here.’ An unsophisticated wife could have been a disaster to Pembroke, rebuilding his fortunes under the new monarch, but fortunately his wife quickly adapted. In 1606 Whyte could report one of her triumphs. On the evening in question, ‘no lady there did dance so well as she did . . . so she carried the glory, and it was given her by the King, Queen, and others.’31 Pembroke was also on very good terms with his father-in-law. This was no mean achievement, for the Seventh Earl of Shrewsbury was a notoriously querulous man who fought violently with his family and his tenants. Pembroke and Shrewsbury corresponded amicably and were often involved in financial transactions. That the Seventh Earl had a real affection for his daughter and his son-in-law can be seen in the provisions of the Earl’s will.32 In this somewhat extended treatment of Pembroke’s youth, I have endeavoured to analyse the influences that shaped him, his education, his early career at Court, and his marriage, and have shown how his promising career at Elizabeth’s court was destroyed by a scandal. One youthful indiscretion had ruined him in the Queen’s eyes, and had exiled him from the centre of social activity and political power. The scandal also besmirched his good name. However, with Elizabeth’s death in 1603, Pembroke’s exile came to an end. A married and more mature courtier could now attempt to recoup his fortunes at James’ Court. It is to the beginning of James’ reign we must now turn, leaving behind the Elizabethan prelude to Pembroke’s career, to consider his major role as a politician, electoral manager, patron and businessman.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 37

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 38

22/10/10 12:23 PM

4

At the Court of James the First, 1603–1612

Elizabeth I died on 24 March 1603, and with her death Pembroke’s exile came to an end. John Davies of Hereford addressed his patron: Pembroke, to Court (to which thou wert made strange) Go, do thine homage to thy sovereign, Weep, and rejoice, for this sad-joyful change; Then weep for joy, thou needs not tears to feign Sith late thine eyes did naught else entertain.1

Pembroke’s new sovereign made his descent from Scotland in April 1603, and Pembroke and the Earl of Southampton, like many expectant courtiers, rode up to meet him. On 24 April the two young lords were ushered into the royal presence and paid their homage. They were, according to the report tendered to Cecil ‘wellused’ by the king. The Plague was raging in London in 1603 so James I could not enter his new capital. Instead of going to Whitehall, the king gave Pembroke the task of entertaining him for much of the first autumn of his reign at Pembroke’s home in Wilton. Wilton, ‘the academy, as well as palace, . . . the apiarie, to which men, that were excellent in arms, and arts, did resort, and were caress’t,’ was now, temporarily, the King’s Court. This was a political godsend to the Third Earl but also an unwelcome financial burden. He had only recently married, had only just come into his patrimony, and his financial affairs were far from settled. The last thing he could afford was to underwrite the royal court, but he had to if he wanted to ensure his political future. From October until December 1603 the government of England was at Wilton: the official Court documents dating from there as if it was serving as a royal palace. When the Venetian Ambassador had his first audience with the new king, the ambassador, Piero Duodo, arrived with twenty-five carriages and the rest of his entourage. As part of the festivities Pembroke had to provide and pay for, Shakespeare performed his As You Like It or his Measure for Measure for the King and his Venetian guests. It was during this visit that Pembroke began his active friendship with Venice and its ambassadors, and it was also during this visit that he cemented his lifelong friendship with James’ queen.2

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 39

22/10/10 12:23 PM

40

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

We do not know what transpired at Wilton between Pembroke and Shakespeare, and his fellow players, but it became obvious soon afterwards that, however much Pembroke would be involved in Court life, politics or business, he would never neglect the arts, especially the theatre. Pembroke, only twenty-three when he met the King, was already: the very picture and viva effigies of nobility . . . His person was rather majestic than elegant, and his presence, whether quiet or in motion, was full of stately gravity.

Cultured and refined, possessing an easy, gentle manner combined with aristocratic grace and elegance, Pembroke made a strong impression on James I. At the coronation, an official Venetian observer commented that, when the nobility were paying homage to the king: the Earl of Pembroke, a handsome youth, who is always with the King and always joking with him, actually kissed His Majesty’s face, whereupon the King laughed and gave him a little cuff.3

Pembroke may have greatly impressed the new king, but it was his younger brother, Philip, whom James favoured more. Created Earl of Montgomery in 1605, Philip was a handsome young man, pleasant tempered, generous and honest, and an expert in handling hounds and horses. He was an avid hunter and his skill in this field endeared him to the King. Pembroke kept his influence strong at Court though by becoming the favourite of the Queen. At the same time, Pembroke kept close to the King through Philip, whom he kept well-supplied with funds. He also stayed on intimate terms with Cecil, who was involved in various commercial ventures with him, even though he had had harsh words with his ally over the cost of his wardship. His friend Robert Cecil, the future Earl of Salisbury, from 1603 until his death in 1612, was the only minister who counted at the Court of James I. After its sojourn at Wilton, the Court moved to London and the first real impact Pembroke made at Court concerned his players. Within ten days of James’ arrival in London, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men became the King’s Men and thus were placed under royal patronage. In doing this, James was most probably acting on the advice of Pembroke ‘in preferring the Lord Chamberlain’s Company before all others’, and the Third Earl ‘may already have been exercising influence behind the scenes as a prominent patron of drama.’ This gave the players a tremendous rise in social status. The King’s Men were now entitled to call themselves gentlemen. The King, however, was not particularly interested in artistic activities early in his reign, he had more pressing things to deal with. Neither was the genius of writers such as Shakespeare recognized by the aristocratic patrons of the day. One exception was the Third Earl of Pembroke. What is equally important is that Pembroke was a

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 40

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

41

powerful enough intercessor to gain for Shakespeare and the King’s Men their first patent, and determined enough that his patronage of the theatre and its playwrights and actors would continue unabated.4 Early in James’ reign, Pembroke’s premier position as a patron of the theatre can be seen when the most important dedication of poetry in history was made, almost certainly, to the Third Earl. In 1609 the stationer Thomas Thorpe dedicated Shakespeare’s Sonnets To. The. Onlie. Begetter. Of. These. Insving. Sonnets. Mr. W.H.

Various candidates have been suggested for the identity of Mr W. H. over the years, William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke, being an obvious one. Are the Sonnets all ‘one of a piece’ or are they just a collected poetic miscellany printed without authority by Thorpe? If they are the former, are they intended to be autobiographical, dealing with fictitious characters, or mere abstractions? Is the ‘Dark Lady’ Mary Fitton perhaps or an abstraction for death and evil? The ‘Friend’ a real person or an abstraction for life and goodness? We cannot be certain even when the poems were written, but if they were written in the late 1590s and had real persons as their models then they could have been written to the Earl of Pembroke. The initials fit, and Mary Fitton could suit as the Dark Lady. But what of the presumption of addressing the Third Earl as Mr? Pembroke was Master or Mr until he came into his inheritance, and any punning on his name is similar to that done by John Davies, a poet patronized by the Third Earl, who wrote: I am thine own by double interest Sith once myself I vow’d to thee and thine. O had I then but single love of you, I should be double bound to W.

John Davies of Hereford, long associated with the Herbert–Sidney connection, dedicated a work to Pembroke as early as 1602. The dedication was to Pembroke, Sir Robert Sidney and Edward Herbert of Montgomery, his ‘most honored and respected friends.’ The following year he published his best-known work and, though he dedicated it to the King, it contained two epistles to Pembroke. Five years later Davies published A Select Second Husband for Sir Thomas Overbury’s Wife and dedicated it to Pembroke. In the dedication he again puns on the Earl’s name: Wit and will (dear Lord) were late at strife, To whom this bridegroom I for grace might send

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 41

22/10/10 12:23 PM

42

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Who bride was erst the happiest husband’s wife That ere was hapless in his friend and end. Wit, with itself, and with my will did war, For will (good will) desir’d it might be you.5

Pembroke was a fellow poet, at home in the company of poets, and the relationship between the patron and his clients was a close and informal one. It would not be surprising, therefore, to find those who dedicated works to Pembroke would pun on his name, or even address him as ‘W. H.’ The translator, Josuah Sylvester, was a good friend of Jonson, Daniel and Davies, and he dedicated a work to the Third Earl as early as 1608. He dedicated another work to him six years later, and Sylvester’s collected works were dedicated to Pembroke by the publisher in 1620, probably because he had bestowed many favours on the writer when alive. It is also possible that the Third Earl exchanged poems with Sylvester for on a folio copy of Sylvester’s Du Bartas is a poem written to the author by a ‘W. H.’ The editor thinks it was written by Pembroke. It reads: Sylvester signifies a wood That’s green, that’s good, That like a spring doth bloom and bud, And like to autumn, fruit doth bear That’s ripe, that’s rare Not once alone but all the year.6

How closely connected Pembroke was to Sylvester but we do know, but we can be certain that the Third Earl was already closely connected to Shakespeare. He had been involved with the theatre all his young life, and he numbered among his friends Shakespeare’s friends and fellow actors, Jonson, Burbage and Alleyn. And one must not forget that, when the booksellers dedicated Shakespeare’s collected works to Pembroke and Montgomery in 1623, they thanked the brothers for having ‘prosecuted . . . their author living with so much favor.’ The editor of the Arden edition of the Sonnets argues persuasively that the sonnets were probably written over a twenty-year period, their publication early in James’ reign was authorized by Shakespeare, and it was in the early Jacobean period that he put the sequence into its final form. Some of the sonnets, or versions of them, were written in the early 1590s and these may have been associated with either Pembroke or Southampton, ‘But once it is accepted that the publication was authorized by Shakespeare, and it was in the Jacobean period that he put the sequence into its final form, an identification of Pembroke as the dedicatee and addressee of the Sonnets becomes overwhelmingly attractive.’7 Pembroke’s support for his players and his patronage of the theatre was, however,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 42

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

43

only of secondary importance at the new Court. His main concern was to ensure that he, his family, and his dependents gained the maximum rewards possible from the new head of the patronage system. The king presided over a functioning hierarchical system where gifts and rewards came not only from the monarch, but also from the nobility and gentry; in fact from anyone who was in a position to give, bargain or sell the lands, titles, offices, leases, grants, monopolies, pensions, positions and seats in parliament that the ambitious sought. The patronage system was the glue that held together the political, economic and social fabric of society, and thus was a strong force for stability. It strengthened the Crown but at the same time it qualified the King’s dominance. He needed men to carry out his will and thus was forced to disburse many offices and favours. But the monarch could only grant the requests that came to his notice, and this gave great power to those who had the King’s ear. It also meant that the King had to take account of the most important members of this hierarchical system of patronage and make sure that they were kept reasonably satisfied. One such important person was Pembroke. He not only controlled an impressive number of parliamentary seats and was the richest aristocrat in the country, but was also a friend of Cecil’s, and now was allied by marriage to the oldest earldom in the country – something of importance to a relatively new earldom such as that of Pembroke, which had bastard origins. The Third Earl may have had to play the part of an eager suitor at the new King’s Court, but the King was always aware of Pembroke’s potential power. If Pembroke had to make sure that he was never again exiled from Court, the King had to make sure that the Third Earl was never permanently alienated from it. Initially successful though Pembroke was, he nevertheless had to tread carefully at the Court of James I. The factions at Court and in parliament were now very different than they had been under Elizabeth, the King’s ideas on foreign policy and religion were not ‘Elizabethan’ at all, and the competition for power and influence was stronger than ever. In the early seventeenth-century Court were representatives of the ‘old’ nobility, the ‘new’ nobility, Calvinists, Catholics, country men and courtiers, educated men and dullards, Scots and English. There was also an age division, and a division between those who had been at Court under Elizabeth and those who had not. In addition there were those who went to Court to make their fortunes, and those who went to spend their patrimony. Some were men who were experienced in courtly and parliamentary ways, and others who knew only local government. A few had electoral power and tried to use and expand it; others had it and did not know how to use it, or had no idea what to use it for. Pembroke had to show great tact and diplomacy with the new King because, though he had wealth, position, and parliamentary power, he was conscious of the fact that Sidney had been ruined by being kept away from Court, and his own exile from Elizabeth’s Court had been an object lesson. He would never forget that,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 43

22/10/10 12:23 PM

44

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

though he might oppose the Crown over specific issues, if necessary clandestinely, he could never afford to be far from the levers of power and influence. He was not by nature a ‘trimmer’, but neither was he interested in making futile gestures. He had very specific ideas as to what would enhance his own power and interests, the interests of his friends and those of the Commonwealth, but at the same time had no intention of ever going into exile again. It soon became apparent, however, that Pembroke’s political ideas, especially as they related to foreign policy and religion, would win him few friends at Court. His political ideas, especially his ideas on the origins and foundations of the state, he inherited from his family and his godfather, Sir Philip Sidney. The ultimate authority of the people – though delegated to the king – the obligation of the king to govern under the law, and the right of a people to depose a tyrant were all views Sidney held. To him, the monarch was sacred so long as he ruled well, because he embodied civil authority, and this was of divine origin. But when the monarch acted as a tyrant, he was not God’s agent but the devil’s. These political ideas owe their origins to the Scottish political theorist George Buchanan and sixteenth-century French Protestant thinkers, and they were as unwelcome at James’ Court as they had been at Elizabeth’s. Buchanan had been James’ tutor and he had made his charge the best-educated monarch in Europe. He may have been an efficient taskmaster, but he was also a hard one, and James hated him for his severity. On one occasion the future king was flogged brutally by Buchanan and Lady Mar reproached him for flogging ‘the Lord’s Anointed’. Buchanan brutally retorted, ‘Madam, I have whipped his arse. You can kiss it if you like.’ Even when James I was an old man he still had nightmares about Buchanan and paled at the thought of him. The King detested both Buchanan and his ideas, and he had no intention of being, what Buchanan advocated, a constitutional monarch. The hopes of many, that James I would prove to be a Protestant humanist advocating the ideas of Buchanan, were to be rudely shattered.8 Pembroke’s echoing of these ideas would scarcely endear him to the King, and some others of Pembroke’s political ideas would also be controversial. Central to them was his belief in a ‘balanced constitution’, a harmony made possible by the mutual agreement of Crown, Lords and Commons, a harmony in which the House of Lords would act as arbitrator. The Third Earl always advocated reform not revolution, and used his influence at Court and in parliament, and his electoral power to mediate between Crown and parliament. But he would abandon his moderate position if he thought Spanish influence was growing too great, or the influence of the royal favourites too pervasive. And Pembroke could always be relied upon to come to the defence of Protestantism both at home and abroad. The moderate constitutionalism of the Third Earl would be demonstrated clearly in the debates over the Bill of Rights in 1628. He favoured the bill, yet did not want it, or any legislation, to derogate too much from the King’s prerogative. To do so would result in a

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 44

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

45

split between Crown and parliament. An open breach had to be avoided for, as his spokesman Sir Benjamin Rudyerd pointed out in the Commons, reform could only be brought about through parliament, and it was the King who called parliament. Pembroke’s basic position was summed up by Rudyerd when he spoke on the Petition of Right. ‘Moderation,’ he said: is the virtue of virtues, and wisdom of wisdoms. Let it be our masterpiece so to carry our business, as we may keep parliaments on foot; for, as long as they are frequent, there will be no irregular power; which though it cannot be broken at once, yet, in a short time, will be made weaker and moulder away. There can be no total and final loss of liberty but by loss of parliaments.9

Pembroke was a lifelong moderate in politics and in religion. He was a steadfast Protestant, liturgically an Anglican and theologically a Calvinist. The Third Earl loved the beauty of the Anglican ritual and the moderateness of its theology, and his patronage of religion covered almost the whole spectrum of orthodox Protestantism. Pembroke could tolerate almost all of his co-religionists, except the Arminians who, in his opinion, were dangerously close to Catholicism. He favoured enforcing the laws against Catholics but, like Sidney, numbered Catholics among his close friends. For example, the writer whom they both had patronized, John Davies of Hereford, the poet who had bid him Godspeed to James’ Court was a Catholic. So long as Catholics outwardly conformed to the state religion and did not plot with foreign powers, Pembroke would not persecute them. During his career, Pembroke held various posts of a religious nature, or ones which gave him power to nominate clergymen. He donated generously to the Church, delighted in Church music, and was quite conversant with the finer points of theological debate.10 Pembroke’s Calvinism had little effect on his early career, except in the area of foreign affairs. Like Sidney, he was strongly anti-Spanish, and favoured helping the French Huguenots and the Protestants in the Low Countries and Germany against the Catholic powers. Pembroke also, in forwarding his idea of expanding Protestant influence overseas, especially in the New World, was strongly opposed to any augmentation of Spanish power. He also had a very large financial stake in English expansion overseas and thus for religious, political and economic reasons, saw Spain as a meaningful threat. The Third Earl was opposed only to political Catholicism, i.e. Catholicism with imperial pretensions, yet he knew that England needed some Catholic allies and thus would, if necessary, come to an understanding with the politique French. His views of the French were known in November 1603, when the Venetian ambassador reported erroneously to the Doge that Pembroke had been named as ambassador to France. And the Third Earl was later described by the Catholic Venetian ambassador, as ‘my very good friend, and a good friend of Venice as well.’11

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 45

22/10/10 12:23 PM

46

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Pembroke’s political and religious views militated against his own best economic interests at the Court of James I but, fortunately for him, his views did not hurt his prospects in the first decade of James’ reign, so long as Cecil was the King’s right hand man. As noted before, the Earl of Pembroke was land rich and specie poor, and for the first few years at James’ Court the Third Earl had some liquidity problems. It was rumoured in London that his father had left his widow ‘as bare as he could . . . bestowing all on the young Lord, even her jewels.’ Unfortunately for the Third Earl, the rumour was a false one. And to make matters worse, as the Third Earl was still a minor he had to pay for his wardship. To his ally and now legal guardian, Robert Cecil, he had complained: I am now at last fallen into your hands against my will. In the midst of my sorrows I have taken the boldness to write unto Her Majesty whom, if it please not to deal very graciously with me, I shall prove a poorer Earl than I was before a lord.12

Pembroke had to support his younger brother and sister, and the former, Philip, was an extravagant young man. Because of these expenses, plus the fact that he needed money to make the correct impression on his new sovereign, the new Earl had to borrow money. In 1601 he owed money to Sir Michael Hicks, later also to his brother Sir Baptist Hicks, and he was not clear of these liabilities until he had achieved great office at Court. Throughout most of his career, Pembroke had to bail out his spendthrift brother. In fact as late as 1626 he was still floating loans for him at high rates of interest. In the first few years of his earldom, Pembroke sold some of his lands, most of them to Cecil. Were they the price of his wardship, or the price he had to pay to obtain access to the King?13 The offices, as well as the honours, which Pembroke hoped to obtain from the King would be very welcome to him. The monetary gifts to his brother also were, indirectly, of great financial assistance. As early as May 1603 Pembroke was entrusted with his first woodland grant, Clarendon Park and various other forests in Somerset and Wiltshire, and in Brecknock in Wales. Clarendon alone was worth £800 a year. In addition he was appointed chamberlain and chancellor of the city of Brecknock, and of the counties of Brecknock, Glamorgan and Radnor. All of these offices his father had once held. In June of the same year, the King honoured Pembroke by investing him with the Order of the Garter. Five months later the Queen favoured Pembroke by granting him the rangership of the forest of Gillingham and the stewardship of the manor there.14 Pembroke’s first major position was granted on 18 January 1604, when he was given the lifetime appointment of Steward of the Duchy of Cornwall, and made Lord Warden of the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall. The appointments in the gift of the Lord Warden, the electoral influence accruing to the post, and the fees he collected from the stannary courts made the office a very lucrative one, and gave

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 46

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

47

Pembroke control of the biggest industry in the region. Four months later Pembroke was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, and thus added administrative and political power over the region to his already extensive economic influence.15 The choicest honours and offices in the reign of James I were bestowed on outstanding courtiers, and Pembroke was a shrewd and diligent one. An expert jouster and swordsman, Pembroke was much involved with the pageantry and affairs of honour of the early Jacobean Court. He was also an adept dancer and masquer, delighting in performing in the brilliant masques produced at court. The Third Earl was also aware of the social and political importance of the Court entertainments. Pembroke had been a well-known competitor in the lists during Elizabeth’s reign, and from 1603 until 1615 he tilted on every King’s Day – 24 March – and on other special occasions. So famous were he and his brother at the tilt that Rowland Whyte reported in 1606 the following popular verse honouring them: The Herberts every cockpit day, Do carry away, The gold and glory of the day.

The same year, John Chamberlain reported of one tourney that the tilting and barriers had been generally worthless, and the ‘whole equipage was poor and penurious, excepting the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, that were both rich and dainty.’16 At Prince Henry’s creation as Prince of Wales in 1610, very elaborate festivities were held, including a tilt. On 4 June the Prince was invested, and Pembroke and Montgomery were in attendance. At the ceremonial dinner that followed, Pembroke was singled out and honoured as the Prince’s server. At the tilting two days later, Pembroke attracted special attention when he brought to the lists two horses in peach-coloured trappings, embroidered ‘all over with fair oriental pearls.’17 In 1613, at the wedding of Robert Carr, the King’s new favourite, there were two days set aside for the tilts, and Pembroke rode on the side of the bride whose side was, of course, victorious. In a previous tournament during the same year, Pembroke and Montgomery had shone in the field and their equipment had been equally magnificent. The Third Earl’s impresa, or emblem which he carried, had the motto ‘solo candore valeo . . . to allude to his own nature.’ Pembroke tilted on the King’s Day in 1614 and 1615 but he was too busy after this with affairs of state to take up his lance very often. In 1621 he did tilt again in company with his brother ‘to show the . . . French ambassador Cadnet, and divers French lords . . . that martial pastime.’ Unfortunately, both Pembroke and Montgomery on this occasion ‘had very bad success in all the courses they made.’18 There was more informal entertainment available at Court in between

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 47

22/10/10 12:23 PM

48

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

tournaments: in 1605 Pembroke was organizing cock fights with the Earls of Suffolk and Southampton at £50 a fight and was known to be a keen card player. It was while he was playing cards with Sir George Wharton that Pembroke showed that he was not immune to the failings of his short-tempered age. In September 1608 there was an argument between the Third Earl and Wharton over cards, and Wharton, showing some temper, was told by Pembroke: Sir George, I have loved you long, and desire still to do so, but by your manner in playing you lay it upon me either to leave to love you, or to leave to play with you [no?] more.

The argument continued the following day when they both hunted with the King. During the hunt, Wharton struck Pembroke’s page and when Pembroke asked why, Wharton denied striking the boy. ‘Then I am satisfied,’ replied Pembroke. ‘God’s blood,’ said Wharton, ‘I say it not to satisfy you.’ Pembroke countered, ‘who striketh my boy without cause shall give me an account of it, and therefore I tell you it was foolishly done of you.’ ‘You are a fool’, retorted Wharton; ‘You lie in your throat’, said Pembroke, and only the arrival of the rest of the hunting party prevented actual bloodshed. Later Wharton challenged the Third Earl to a duel, but the King forbade it, and though Sir George was hot-headed enough to break the King’s commandment, Pembroke was not. Shortly afterwards passions cooled and the quarrel was patched up.19 As well as being hot-tempered, Pembroke had the reputation of being averse to all foreign men and manners, and, like most of the English, was not overly fond of the Scots. One of our nursery rhymes, which dates from James I’s accession, captures quite accurately the feeling of many of the English who felt they were being ‘overrun’ by impecunious Scots ministers and aristocrats: Hark, hark, the dogs do bark, The beggars are coming to town. Some in rags, and some in jags, And some in velvet gowns.

Pembroke’s hostility to the Scots came into the open in 1610. At a supper given by Lady Hatton, the Duke of Argyll placed himself higher up the table than Pembroke, maintaining that, as all were now Britons, he had the seniority. Pembroke answered that if there were any further affront, ‘he would run him through with his rapier.’ Argyll backed down and retired, and later the King commanded him to give precedence to Pembroke. The Third Earl though would have to control his temper more and direct his energies into more rewarding channels, if he was to be successful in his quest for preferment. This is evidently why he was so prominent at the tilt and was such an avid masquer.20

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 48

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

49

Pembroke had lent his old tutor, Hugh Sanford, to the Court in 1603 to help with the Christmas festivities, and in the following year he first took part in a masque. The masque in the first four decades of the seventeenth century rose to new heights of artistic achievement, and skill at masquing was an absolute necessity for aspiring courtiers. Composed by such outstanding artists as Ben Jonson, Inigo Jones, Samuel Daniel and Thomas Campion, the masques were one of the principal focuses of Court life. One purpose of the masque was the exaltation of the Stuart kings, and thus they were its great patrons. And because of the tremendous prestige the masques enjoyed due to this royal patronage, they were more than a courtly social event.21 Foreign ambassadors at the Court insisted that masques were public functions in which one nation could be favoured over another, and that the performances, which might be seen by thousands of people, published to the whole of Europe the diplomatic significance of the Court’s least action. Masques were held in one country to help influence or counteract a masque in another, and James I himself insisted that the masque had a diplomatic function. Important ministers were of the opinion that deportment at a masque had much to do with the shaping of foreign policy, and, in fact, the masque was an integral part of foreign policy, or at least of the presentation of foreign policy positions.22 Pembroke’s participation in them was due partly to his appreciation of the artistic elements involved, and partly because his proteges, Samuel Daniel, Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones, were the presiding geniuses. The Third Earl was cognizant of both the domestic and foreign policy aspects of the masque, especially after 1611 when he was made a Privy Councillor. In 1615 the masque gained new importance for him when, as Lord Chamberlain, he became responsible for their production. On New Year’s Day in 1604 a ‘Maske brought in by a Magicien of China’ was presented, and Pembroke presented to the King a jewel worth £40,000, ostensibly to show the love the English had for their new sovereign. James I must have purchased or borrowed the jewel to impress the French ambassador; certainly Pembroke could not have afforded this princely sum. The next masque presented at Court was Samuel Daniel’s work, ‘The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses,’ which was staged on 8 January 1604 with Pembroke as one of the main dancers. In the same year, Pembroke’s brother Philip was married to Susan Vere, the Earl of Oxford’s daughter, and to celebrate the marriage a masque was performed, with Pembroke as the first masquer. Knowing Montgomery’s chronic insolvency, we can assume the Third Earl was also honoured with the major part of the expenses!23 A new era began for the masque on 6 January of the following year when Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones presented their first joint endeavour, ‘The Masque of Blackness’. This masque was a great artistic step forward, and Pembroke must have been pleased with his two proteges, an achievement for which he could take personal credit, for without his influence, Jonson and Jones would never have worked together. As patron to both, the Third Earl was instrumental in effecting a working

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 49

22/10/10 12:23 PM

50

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

arrangement between them. They collaborated fitfully together until Pembroke’s death in 1630, and then parted company, never to work together again.24 Pembroke participated in many of the Jonson–Jones productions, investing large sums of money in them and spending many hours practising his parts. But after his appointment to the Privy Council in 1611 he had less time to participate in the masque. After he was appointed Lord Chamberlain in 1615 his career as a masquer was essentially finished. However, he was to put on his mask just once more, in the year of his death, to take part in one of the last of the Jonson–Jones collaborative efforts, ‘Loves Triumph Through Callipolis.’ Although no longer a masquer after 1615, as Lord Chamberlain he was responsible for the arrangements for the masques. Thus we may note that Pembroke had helped create, had danced in or had the supervision of, the masque during the whole period when it was at its height.25 Pembroke’s masquing and tilting were important in furthering his Court career, and early their effect was noticeable. In 1604 he was honoured by being one of the Commisssioners for the Union of England and Scotland, and the following year was awarded an MA from Oxford. But he had to wait until January 1608 for his second really lucrative reward, control of the Forest of Dean. He had been angling for this office since 1601, both because it had been one of his father’s offices and because of its tremendous economic potential, which he knew how to exploit.26 During the years from 1608 to 1611, Pembroke was granted a mumber of administrative positions, the most important of these being the Governorship of Portsmouth, an appointment which the Venetian ambassador considered confirmed ‘the universal opinion of the great love His Majesty bears [him] for many of the great lords of the court were aspirants to the post.’ For a seat on the Privy Council, however, Pembroke had to wait until 1611, but from that time on he had a strong voice in national affairs, doing what he considered his duty as a representative of one of the country’s great noble families, advising the King.27 The position of Montgomery as the King’s favourite for the first five years of James’ reign, and hunting partner for the rest of it, was helpful in furthering Pembroke’s career, as was the influence of his father-in-law, Shrewsbury. However, the Third Earl knew that his alliance with Cecil, and his electoral influence was more important than either of these. Pembroke found in Cecil a kindred spirit. Both men were avid art collectors, both using the Ambassador to Venice to buy paintings for them, and both were also important patrons. Cecil employed the musicians Nicholas Lanier and Giovanni Coperario (musicians closely connected to the Pembroke circle), and he employed Pembroke’s friend, Ben Jonson, to write four entertainments for him. Cecil was the only major political figure of the latter years of Elizabeth’s reign who survived as a power to be reckoned with in James’ reign. The Earl of Salisbury was jealous of his power and had no intention of sharing it with anyone, but this did not worry Pembroke because he was quite content to

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 50

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

51

follow his friend and ally’s lead, while at the same time building up his own power base in the Commons and in the Lords.28 In parliament, as later in the Privy Council, Pembroke’s aim was to protect the state, the established Church, and the political status quo. To attain these ends he consciously used his political power in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, as he used his influence at Court and with the King. The electoral power of the first two Earls of Pembroke was centred on Wiltshire and Wales, and to these bases the Third Earl added Cornwall. In Wales the influence of the Earls of Pembroke was stronger than that of the Crown or any English magnate. With the assistance of the various branches of the Herbert family, the Third Earl controlled the parliamentary seats for Montgomeryshire and Cardiff. He also shared with other important Welsh families the seats for Monmouthshire and Glamorgan. The borough of Montgomery is a good example of the Herbert influence in Wales. The borough was a Herbert seat from the 1580s with one exception, until the Long Parliament, and they would brook no interference with their power there. For example, in 1588 Edward Herbert was challenged for the borough seat by Arthur Price. The supposedly impartial electoral official, the sheriff, solicited votes for Herbert, let his clerks act for Herbert in the election, and would not even count all the votes cast for Price. The simple fact was: in Montgomery a Herbert had to win.29 The Third Earl saw less of Wales than had his predecessors, but he kept in very close touch with politics there, as early as 1598 showing a strong interest in the constableship of Conway Castle. Around the turn of the century, when he spent so much time in Wiltshire, he became very much aware of his family’s political power in his home county too. However, it was not until he came into his patrimony in 1601 that he became actively involved in parliamentary politics, and even then, as he was in disgrace at Court, he could do little until Elizabeth’s death.30 Elizabeth’s last parliament met on 27 October 1601. Pembroke’s ubiquitous old tutor, Hugh Sanford sat as an MP for Wilton, and with him sat another Herbert nominee from Wilton, one of the Third Earl’s stewards, Edmund Morgan. The two members from Old Sarum were probably Herbert nominees as were one or both of the representatives from Downton, another Wiltshire seat. Arthur Massinger, another of the Second Earl’s stewards and the father of the playwright, sat for Shaftesbury. From Wales came even more supporters: John Herbert for Glamorgan, William Lewis for Cardiff, Edward Herbert for Montgomery, and J. Harries for Montgomeryshire. Pembroke did little, if anything, to gain parliamentary support in 1601: his suporters came to him almost as a part of his inheritance. However, for the moment he needed little influence in parliament, for his interests were being protected by Cecil.31 It is incorrect to speak of Pembroke’s ‘supporters’ in parliament. A more precise and meaningful term is the Pembroke ‘Connection’. This ‘Connection’ was

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 51

22/10/10 12:23 PM

52

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

composed of the relatives, friends and dependents of Pembroke to whom he gave his electoral patronage and who sat for constitutencies that he controlled, or who owed their election, from whatever constitutency, to his patronage. They were not a tightly organized group, nor did they consistently follow a party line, but in general they would agree with Pembroke’s political principles and, if required, effectively combine to back a specific Pembroke interest. They were always aware that their patron could always withdraw his patronage if their behaviour displeased him. The amorphous nature of parliamentary groupings must not blind us to the fact though that parliamentary patrons had their own agenda and assumed their clients would try to implement it. When Southampton was interrogated by the Privy Council he did not deny that Members of Parliament ‘ordinarilye and familiarilye’ met with him ‘to receive directions from him what to do in theyr house.’ And, he continued, he did no more than ‘everyone else did’. Prominent among the ‘everyone’ was Pembroke. And why was the Third Earl so interested in maintaining and extending his parliamentary influence? He would, of course, want to reward his supporters and show his own power and influence, but more than this he sought to advance his own interests and those of his friends. The Third Earl was also determined that his colonial ventures and fishing interests, mineral rights, and patents for himself and his brother were adequately protected in both the Commons and the Lords. These interests were often political bones of contention, so he had to be very careful in promoting them, sometimes surreptitiously or by proxies. But there can be no doubt that the Third Earl had very clear ideas as to what he wanted for himself, his family, his religion, and his country and would use any means at his disposal to further his aims. This is why he was an active courtier, an important office holder, a power in the Lords and in the Commons, and an influential voice in Wiltshire, Wales, Devon and Cornwall, the Forest of Dean and Oxford.32 Pembroke’s electoral patronage in Wales was managed by his relatives there and in his home county of Wiltshire his secretary Michael Oldisworth was in charge. Oldisworth joined the Third Earl as his secretary after leaving university and, though he did not know Wiltshire well, he was very successful in managing Pembroke’s patronage in the county.33 In the West Country, William Coryton controlled his political network. He was Pembroke’s Vice Warden of the Stannaries and Deputy Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of Cornwall. Like his patron, Coryton was: capable of pragmatism and sharp practice as well as principled dissent – not the stuff of which martyrs are made. His life was a microcosm of the early seventeenth-century political world in its troubled complexity, with tensions between establishment and dissent, politics and ideology, centre and locality, and . . . royalism and parliamentary power.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 52

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

53

And Coryton, like Pembroke, could not tolerate an all-powerful favourite nor could he accept Arminianism.34 In the first few years of James’ reign, Pembroke continued to look after his parliamentary interests, and in general further his Court career. On 19 March 1604 when James’ first parliament met, the Pembroke Connection in the House of Commons was strongly in evidence. Wiltshire returned five of the Connection, one more was sent by another English constituency, and Wales returned five more. One of the Welsh members was Pembroke’s brother, Philip, another his first spokesman in the House of Commons, Sir William Herbert.35 James I’s first parliament met in 1604, and the Connection attempted to act as a mediator between a ‘foreign’ king with strong ideas as to his power and prerogatives, and a parliament distrustful of him and equally forthright in their defence of their powers and prerogatives. The king was a Protestant in the Calvinist tradition and an advocate of closer relations among all churches, including the Catholic one. He thought the Church of England in its liturgy, polity and doctrine to be in the historic Catholic tradition of Christianity, welcomed religious discussion and worked towards an organic unity of Christendom. He was convinced that ‘a resolution of differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics was imperative if a stable community of nations was to be created and sustained.’ There can be no doubt that the King, who had spent his life trying to reconcile Christians of many persuasions, ‘was a shrewd, determined, flexible, and resourceful political leader who had a coherent plan for religious pacification.’ He wanted an ecumenical council that monarchs would convene, as emperors had previously, to work for the reunion of Christendom. These views, however, would not endear him to many in parliament and would create problems in the future. But in 1604 it was financial disagreements that soured the relations between Crown and parliament, even though the first clashes were constitutional and legal rather than financial. In the Fortescue Case there was a disagreement between the Commons and the courts about who decided disputes over membership of the House. Though a compromise was worked out, the Commons remained sceptical about the King’s intentions. The proposed union between England and Scotland, the project nearest to James I’s heart, foundered mainly due to legal problems but this, like the Fortescue Case, left the King dissatisfied with parliament and parliament apprehensive about their new sovereign. Cecil, trying to run the King’s government from his seat in the Lords, was not very effective in avoiding clashes between the King and parliament, and he came to grief when he could not get parliament to agree to the Great Contract, an agreement by which the King would give up some of his prerogative powers, i.e. powers over wardship and purveyance, in return for a fixed grant. Cecil misread the mood of parliament and of the country and, even though he knew the King’s finances were in a desperate state, he was unable to get parliament to relieve the King. He came

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 53

22/10/10 12:23 PM

54

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

close to success but could not overcome the mutual mistrust of the King and parliament, a mistrust which may have been in part due as much to divisions in the King’s Council as to Cecil’s failures and the inability of King and parliament to make the necessary compromises. The Great Contract may have foundered due to mismanagement, mutual mistrust and the Commons’ conservative dislike of new ideas of taxation, but Cecil must bear a large part of the blame. This is especially true as regards his failure to solve the wardship problem which had brought the first session of the parliament to a premature and negative end, and made it almost impossible for him and parliament to agree on the Great Contract in 1610.36 By 1610 James was losing patience with parliament, remarking that ‘no house save the house of hell’ could treat him like the House of Commons did. When it became obvious late in the same year that the Great Contract had failed, he completely lost patience with it. Cecil tried to save the parliament with a short adjournment, but the King would not be thwarted in his plans to dissolve it, especially as the Commons were expressing anti-Scots sentiments. James wrote bitingly to Cecil in December 1610: Your greatest error hath been that ye ever expected to draw honey out of gall, being a little blinded with the self-love of your own counsel in holding together of this parliament, whereof all men were despaired as I have oft told you, but yourself alone.37

James I by late 1610 detested parliament, especially the House of Commons. He was bitter about the Union with Scotland being thwarted and the Great Contract being lost. He wrote of parliament that ‘our fame and actions have been daily tossed like tennis balls amongst them’, and the House of Commons had ‘perilled and annoyed our health, wounded our reputation, emboldened all ill-natured people, encroached upon many of our privileges, and plagued our purse with their delays.’38 Fortunately for Pembroke and his Connection they were not a target of James’ vitriol. In the House of Lords, Pembroke had been more active than had been his Connection in the Commons. For example, in 1604, though he was very much involved in Court activities, he attended at least thirty-four out of the fifty-two sessions, and was appointed to eighteen committees, including the committee formed to discuss the union with Scotland. He was also privileged to be chosen for the subcommittee of six to frame the bill for the proposed union, and it was he who reported the subcommittee’s findings to the full meeting of the committee the following month.39 Pembroke was active in the Lords but was not called upon to muster any political power there, as there was as yet little strong opposition to the government. A good indicator of one’s political power in the Lords was the number of proxies one received. The proxy was given to an influential figure who would put it to good use.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 54

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

55

In the first parliament of James’ reign, despite his electoral power, Pembroke received no proxies at all, though his brother Philip received one. Evidently Philip was considered more politically useful in the Lords than his older brother in the first parliament of James I.40 The decline in Cecil’s influence over the King was a major setback for Pembroke, but by 1610 the Third Earl and his Connection knew a compromise over purveyance and wardship was unlikely. Pembroke also had much in common with some of the most vociferous of the government’s opponents in parliament. He could sympathize with their anti-Scots feelings for, as proven in his dispute with the Duke of Argyll, at this time in his career they were his own. Their antipathy to the rising new favourite, Robert Carr, was no stronger than his and, like the Commons, he believed that the Lower House was an integral part of the constitution, though not primus inter pares. The King broadened the base of his Privy Council in an attempt to improve his finances. Money was desperately needed for the Crown had inherited debts from Elizabeth I, the new king had to support the court he had brought down from Scotland with him and, unlike his predecessor, he had an expensive family to support. It did not help, of course, that James I was personally extravagant and was not a good financial manager. Pembroke was one of the new men admitted to the inner circle of the King’s advisors in 1611. The Third Earl, now that Cecil’s health was declining as quickly as was his influence over the King, had to fend for himself at Court, a Court in which he would find very few allies. And even this early Pembroke’s strongly-held religious and political views were becoming noticeable. In the House of Lords, Pembroke had shown himself to be a fervent nationalist, a staunch upholder of the Church of England and Continental Protestantism, and a champion of the rights of the House of Lords vis-à-vis both the House of Commons and the King. In the Commons, Pembroke used his Connection to promote his political views and he was more successful there than in the Lords. In both houses, his policy was one of moderation and compromise. Pembroke’s fervent nationalism was not blind chauvinism, and he did not allow his dislike of foreign men and manners to interfere with his judgment in foreign affairs. England needed allies and the politique French were England’s only possible ally if the ambitions of Spain were to be thwarted. His views on foreign affairs, however, were not well known at Court. Even though the Venetian ambassador had written in November 1603 that Pembroke was to be appointed as ambassador to France, early the following year the French ambassador was worried about ‘l’influence hostile du Comte de Pembroke’, and later in the same year the Spanish ambassador tried to woo him with presents.41 Anti-Spanish feelings were natural in a courtier who had been at Elizabeth’s Court but, unfortunately for Pembroke, James I thought that an accommodation with Spain was absolutely necessary for lasting peace in Europe. Given England’s

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 55

22/10/10 12:23 PM

56

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

financial position in the early years of the seventeenth century, the King’s policy was a wise one, but it was not one that would win to the King someone like Pembroke. And it was with great trepidation also that the Third Earl watched the rise of the King’s favourite, Robert Carr, and the Howard family, especially the latter, since many of the Howards were both pro-Spanish and pro-Catholic.42 Robert Carr was a handsome young Scot who had come to England in 1603 as one of James’ pages. In 1607, after a sojourn in France, he returned to Court and was fortunate to break a leg while tilting in the royal presence. The king recognized his former page and made certain Carr received adequate medical treatment. While he was recovering the King visited him often and during these visits he gained the King’s affections. James made him a Gentleman of the Bedchamber, improved his education, and showered him with presents. He was knighted in 1607 and in 1611 created Viscount Rochester. Fortunately, the King did not look upon him as an advisor: the colourless but efficient Cecil was left to run the government. With the failure of the Great Contract in 1610 and the dissolution of parliament the following year, Cecil’s influence with the King began to wane. His health was also breaking down. Cecil was gravely ill in the autumn of 1611, though it was reported that by December he was ‘well recovered’. The same correspondent also stated that ‘all business twixt the King and him in his absence pass by the Earl of Pembroke, who is communis terminus between them.’43 Cecil was very ill again early in 1612 and asked the King to appoint an assistant to help him as Lord Secretary. Such a position Pembroke was angling for. By May of 1612, when Cecil was at Bath trying to regain his health, his offices were temporarily distributed at Court, Pembroke being named as one of his deputies. Nevertheless, in spite of his declining influence, at least in the opinion of the perceptive Venetian ambassador, the King ‘settles nothing without the advice of Salisbury who, in spite of ill health and absence, governs everything.’44 Cecil died on 24 May 1612, having trained nobody to replace him. Henry Howard, the Earl of Northampton, who hoped to succeed Cecil, wrote to Viscount Rochester on hearing of Cecil’s death that ‘so many rejoice, and so few even seem to be sorry, except Pembroke, Hay and Cope.’ Pembroke was very upset by the loss of his friend and ally who, according to Northampton, during his terminal illness, ‘wished never to be separated from the Welsh earl [Pembroke].’ And Northampton, already jockeying for position at Court, confided to Rochester that Pembroke ‘is likely to prove an alchemist.’ The Third Earl was one of the chief mourners at Cecil’s funeral, and even wrote him an epitaph in verse, a tribute to his departed friend. The poem is in Pembroke’s own hand, and is one of his poorer works, but what it lacks in grace it makes up for in genuine emotion for the departed Lord Treasurer and Master of the Wards:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 56

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C O U R T O F J A M E S T H E F I R S T

57

You that read by passing by Robert Earl of Salisbury, Know that in so short a story Thou canst never find such glory; All state secrets on him laid, He the staff of Treasure swayed Gave his master all the gain Of the Wards, reserved the pain: Governed all with so clean hands, As most maliced silent stands, And who snarls will be soon Found dogs barking at the moon. This tomb hath his bones possessed Heaven and friends hold dear the rest.

James became his own Principal Secretary in 1612 and the Treasury was put into commission, with Northampton as the most important commissioner. Northampton had been an ally of Cecil’s since 1600, and had played an important role in the government. But like many others, including Pembroke, he had always had to play second fiddle to the all-powerful Secretary. The power vacuum created by Cecil’s death led to bitter factional strife at Court, and Pembroke would have to use all his power and influence, and whatever ‘alchemy’ he could muster, to maintain his position as one of the King’s chief advisors in the post-Cecilian period.45

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 57

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 58

22/10/10 12:23 PM

5

The Rise of the Favourites, 1612–1621

With Cecil removed, power and influence at Court and in the Privy Council devolved eventually to two factions, the pro-Spanish Howards and the anti-Spanish faction. The former, led by Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, included the Earl of Suffolk (Thomas Howard), the Earl of Nottingham (Charles Howard), the Earl of Worcester, Lord Knollys and Lord Wotton. In domestic affairs the Howards sought to exalt the role of the monarch in government, and in foreign affairs they favoured a Spanish alliance rather than a French one. Thus they were essentially a peace party, much more in tune with James I than were their opponents. The anti-Spanish faction was led by the Earls of Pembroke and Southampton, George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere. It also included Sir Julius Caesar and Sir Thomas Overbury. In domestic affairs the antiSpanish faction sought an accommodation between Crown and parliament. In foreign affairs they favoured a Protestant marriage but, as no suitable candidate was available with the dowry James I demanded, they would accept a French alliance to check the growing threat of Spain. It must be pointed out, however, that these two factions were constantly in flux, due to changing political conditions and personnel at Court. And even the Howards were not always united, with Northampton losing power and influence to Suffolk and later Carr. Moreover, all were seeking office and profit at Court and thus would only oppose the king’s will as a last resort. And all would use whatever means at their disposal to bring down their opponents. The flexibility of faction can also be observed in parliament, and here they owed their existence in part to the divisions at Court. Few of those, though, who opposed the Crown remained consistent throughout their careers. As one can imagine, factional politics in the Jacobean age was often a very sordid business, given the fact that the winners’ spoils were very large indeed. Nevertheless, self-interest was not always the only force in politics in this period. Men could, and did, still fight for their principles.1 James I, after the failure of the Great Contract, would not call parliament again unless there was no financial alternative. The king thought he would do better by a marriage alliance with the Duke of Savoy who was offering a large dowry. This worried the French, so they offered to double the dowry. Nothing happened because of Prince Henry’s sudden death. The Spanish attempted to torpedo the alliance with France and by 1613 James was losing interest in it, as were most of his advisors.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 59

22/10/10 12:23 PM

60

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

They thought, as did Pembroke, that a French alliance would strengthen the Scots at Court and revivify the Auld Alliance between France and Scotland. On religious grounds too they wanted the heir to be married to a Protestant. France by now was sliding into civil war and so the French alliance went by the board. A parliament or a Spanish match now became a possibility, especially as there were no Protestant princesses available. Of the two factions at court, the King was, understandably, inclined towards Northampton and the pro-Spanish faction. Northampton had been an ally of Cecil’s, was in favour of administrative reforms aimed at stabilizing the Crown’s finances and, as a pensioner of Spain, favoured a pro-Spanish foreign policy. Such a policy appealed to the King as it would not put any strain on the royal finances and would strengthen his position as a peacemaker. James I saw himself as a ruler who had the power to heal the divisions of Christendom. He wished to marry his daughter to a staunch Protestant Continental ruler, and hoped to marry his son to the Catholic King of Spain’s daughter and thus be acceptable to both camps. He began tentatively to move towards a pro-Spanish policy. All the pro-Spanish faction had to do now was to bring over to their side the King’s favourite, Robert Carr, and they would be almost invincible.2 The rise of Carr did not worry Pembroke at first, but when it became obvious that Carr was a serious contender for high office, the Third Earl reacted strongly against this upstart who had neither learning nor ability to recommend him. Carr’s friend, Sir Thomas Overbury, was able to reconcile Carr to Pembroke, as Pembroke and Southampton were trying to get Sir Henry Neville and Sir Ralph Winwood to be appointed to the Secretaries’ offices vacated by Cecil. Carr was unable to accomplish this and their agreement broke down completely when both Carr and Pembroke wanted the lucrative Mastership of the Horse. By 1612 the rift between them was serious and became terminal with the fall of Overbury.3 In 1613 the pro-Spanish faction, strongly backed by the influential Spanish ambassador, Diego Sarmiento de Acuna, later Count Gondomar, won the day. In that year Robert Carr married Lady Frances Howard, the Earl of Suffolk’s daughter, after the latter’s previous marriage was, with great difficulty, declared null and void. The King had to pressure the ecclesiastical commission to grant the decree, finally having to pack it to get the necessary votes. Delighted with his victory, two months later James created the new bridegroom the Earl of Somerset. Carr’s old friend, Sir Thomas Overbury, strongly disapproved of the match and his vocal disapproval, plus his anti-Spanish views, earned him the enmity of both Carr and the King. The King had been trying for a long time to remove Overbury’s influence from Carr and in 1613, to remove Overbury from Court, he was offered an ambassadorship. Pembroke and Lord Ellesmere made the formal offer to him, but he refused this dubious honour. The King took this refusal as an insult and imprisoned him. Overbury had alienated not only the King and Carr but a far more deadly enemy

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 60

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

61

than either, Lady Frances Howard. In October 1613, a few weeks later, she had him poisoned in the Tower.4 The Howards were now in the ascendant and this dominance showed clearly in the Privy Council, the arena in which the pro-and anti-Spanish factions fought their bitter battles. In 1611 Pembroke had been appointed to this compact body of the king’s advisors of about twenty councillors. But with the King’s penchant for freely bestowing offices and titles, often without regard to merit, the Council soon grew in numbers and decreased in effectiveness. To counteract this tendency, a small informal group of the Privy Council, composed of the King’s most trusted advisors, met regularly as a standing committee. This elite group, known as the ‘Cabinet Council’, assisted the king with all his important business. Pembroke was an influential member of this inner circle.5 The Third Earl had been active in the Privy Council when Cecil was alive, but his attendance at Privy Council meetings was intermittent after his ally’s death, and it was not until 1614 that he became an assiduous Privy Councillor. In the Privy Council in 1614 the pro-Spanish faction was trying to bring about closer relations with Spain, and to do this they were opposing the calling of a parliament, which they assumed would be strongly anti-Spanish. This course they had successfully maintained since James’ first parliament had been dissolved in 1610. Among the anti-Spanish faction there was no such unanimity of opinion. Pembroke strongly urged the calling of parliament, Archbishop Abbot spoke for war against Spain, and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere supported both positions. The Duke of Lennox and Viscount Doncaster favoured a French alliance to counter Spanish influence. All of the anti-Spanish faction, in fact all the King’s advisors, were agreed on one thing: the King’s finances were in a desperate state and a speedy remedy was essential.6 In 1613 the King’s debt stood at £680,000 and the annual deficit was around £200,000. Even James I was becoming convinced that it would be necessary to call parliament, hopefully to resurrect the idea of a Great Contract. From 1610 to 1614 the two greatest advocates of a parliament as a means of solving the Crown’s chronic financial problems, Sir Henry Neville and Sir Francis Bacon, had tried to interest the King in their parliamentary programmes. Neville wanted the King to make concessions to parliament in return for supplies, but Bacon wanted the King not to ‘haggle’ with parliament but let him ‘manage’ it by means of conciliation, propaganda and the ‘influencing’ of elections. Unfortunately for both Neville and Bacon, and also for the Crown, their programmes were lumped together by suspicious parliamentarians as dubious ‘undertakings’, and were denounced as such from the start.7 To the pro-Spanish faction, an impoverished King meant that England would move closer to Spain. But Suffolk was in favour of calling parliament, hoping, like Pembroke, that calling parliament could solve the king’s financial problems and at the same time prevent a French match. Northampton, opposed the calling

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 61

22/10/10 12:23 PM

62

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

of parliament unless the ground had been carefully prepared beforehand, but reluctantly acquiesced in the calling of a new parliament because he knew it was an absolute necessity. He wrote to Somerset in January 1614, commenting on his change of position. It was, he said: made clear [in the Council] to the stupefaction of somebody [Pembroke] that no man ever doubted of the good that a parliament well affected ought to yield. . . [but ] so many difficulties arise upon the contemplation of this subject as if there were possibility of repairing or supporting the King’s estate by any other means, the greater part of us hold this time worse fitted and the means less prepared than we would wish before the parliament were agreed upon.8

Pembroke favoured Neville’s plan and thought that Suffolk and the Howards also supported it. He was so mistaken as to confide to Suffolk his views as to its chances of success. ‘He could not tell,’ he confessed to Suffolk: what would come of this parliament, because he found by the consultation the last day [in the Council] that many lords had no great conceit there would be any great good affected for our master, divers of my lords having spoken with many wise parliament men, who generally decline from the undertakers.9

The writs for the new parliament were issued 21 February 1614 and Pembroke worked hard for a successful meeting of Crown and parliament, however negatively he may have assessed the chances of success. His electoral forces in 1614 were impressive. The Connection consisted of at least six members from Wiltshire, while Pembroke and Montgomery’s other English seats returned two more. It is also in this election that the Third Earl’s political power in Cornwall became evident, with the election of an MP for Lostwithiel. The Welsh branch contributed five members, bringing the minimum total strength of the Connection to fourteen members.10 Like the King, what Pembroke wanted in 1614 was an agreement between Crown and parliament along the lines of the Great Contract of 1610, and he assumed that the Howards agreed with him. Parliament, though, was more concerned with its privileges and procedures than in coming to a financial arrangement with the King. Their concern was with the continued existence of parliament as an institution rather than the more pressing matter of providing for an impoverished King. Parliament met on 5 April, and immediately there were rumours of excessive government interference in the elections. The Howards assiduously fostered these rumours, hoping to alienate the Crown from the Commons, while Pembroke and his supporters tried desperately to avoid a rupture. Given parliament’s concern about its privileges, it is not surprising that the Howards were successful, and an inquiry into the elections dominated the work of the session. During the inquiry,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 62

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

63

a Wiltshire member, Sir Henry Poole, succinctly expressed Pembroke’s position. He claimed that the rumours concerning the ‘undertakers’ were unfounded, and thought that much valuable time was being wasted discussing them, especially as the ‘Great Business’ of the session – supply – was waiting to be dealt with. Nevetheless, the Commons pressed on with their investigations.11 Pembroke’s main spokesman in the Commons, Sir William Herbert, was appointed to the committee investigating the undertakers. Herbert accused the chairman of the committee of anti-government bias, and was censured by the Commons for his violent language and behaviour. During this censure debate, Herbert was supported by another member of the Connection, Sir Simon Steward. Later on in the session another close associate of the Connection, Sir James Perrot, moved for a committee to consider the question of supply. But the House, being threatened that if it did not vote supply, parliament would be dissolved, refused to bow to the threats, and so the committee never met.12 In the House of Lords, Pembroke was very active. He was present at every meeting of the session, sat on all the important committees, and strongly advocated agreeing with the King’s request for supply. As to the legality of impositions, Pembroke took a strongly favourable stand. The Commons asked for a conference with the Lords on the subject, and the Privy Councillors and the clergy in the Lords, not wishing to be drawn into opposition to the Crown, strenuously opposed the conference. Pembroke acted as the spokesman of the Privy Councillors while the Earl of Southampton led the opposition peers.13 It was Pembroke’s contention that a meeting with the Commons would serve only to exasperate rather than satisfy them and, looking upon the Commons as encroaching on the rights of the Lords, added: But if we do [refuse to meet them] what need we care? So we send them a fair answer, and the cause for our refusal. For we are not bound to satisfy all their desires . . . further than it shall stand with the wisdom of this house.

As to impositions, Pembroke argued that they were either the King’s by right or else against the law. If the former, then it would harm the King’s cause to agree with them. Furthermore, he continued: If they be not against the law but a burthen without a wrong, then I know the King is so noble and ready to satisfy the griefs of his subjects that he, of himself, will ease them.14

The vote against having a conference with the Commons was carried, but only twelve independent lay peers would vote with the government. Parliament was dissolved after having sat for only two months. Its dissolution was a setback for the anti-Spanish faction and a great success for the Howards. It had passed no acts and

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 63

22/10/10 12:23 PM

64

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

voted no supply, and the King’s faith in the reasonableness of parliament had been shattered. Even worse, parliament was now even more concerned about its rights and privileges, and what it interpreted as the Crown’s challenges to them. But one must remember what our foremost constitutional historian has concluded about the Parliament of 1614: The conflict did not mark a struggle for sovereignty or for rival ideas, it marked a plain shortage of money. The central error of the Commons in 1614 was their inflexible determination to preserve a financial system which inflation and the ‘military revolution’ had rendered obsolete.15

The Howard triumph did not last very long, however, for Northampton died within a week and with his death the Spanish faction lost its only effective leader. On the day of his death, Northampton wrote to the Earl of Somerset requesting that neither Pembroke nor his ally, Viscount Lisle, be given any of his offices because, ‘accounting them his enemies he would not they should triumph over him when he was gone.’ He especially hoped that neither would be made Warden of the Cinque Ports for ‘as they hated me, so they will plague my people and those whom I loved.’ The close ties of patronage that Northampton had forged were respected by the King and Somerset; and the offices of Lord Privy Seal and Warden of the Cinque Ports were not officially filled, but Somerset was entrusted with their duties. Northampton had been so important in the Commission for the Treasury that James decided he had to appoint a Lord Treasurer. Suffolk was appointed Treasurer and his old position of Lord Chamberlain was given to Somerset.16 As early as January 1614 there had been rumours that Suffolk was to be made Treasurer and Lord Knollys Lord Chamberlain. If Knollys were so honoured, at least one informed contemporary thought, that this would be: too great a distaste to the Earl of Pembroke who looks duly for it when it falls, and if he should fail would think his long service and diligent waiting ill-rewarded.

By 30 June the appointment of Somerset as Lord Chamberlain was almost certain, but even this late it was thought that ‘the Queen doth pretend a promise for the Earl of Pembroke.’ When Somerset was finally given the staff of office in July, he had made a mortal enemy of the Third Earl of Pembroke.17 Relations between Somerset and Pembroke had never been very cordial. There was no room in Pembroke’s scheme of things for an all-powerful favourite, especially one who tried to monopolize the king’s patronage and was allied to the pro-Spanish Howards. As early as 1612, as noted previously, they had clashed openly over the post of the Mastership of the Horse, and they remained at loggerheads even though neither obtained the desired position. Northampton succeeded in

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 64

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

65

widening the gulf between them. It was his hope, he wrote to Somerset, ‘that your noble heart and spirit are unwilling to make any scholar mates of a Welsh juggler.’ [Pembroke] Sir Henry Neville succeeded in temporarily reconciling them in 1613, but with the failure of the Parliament of 1614 and Somerset’s appointment as Lord Chamberlain, the break became final. Pembroke by 1614 hated both the man and his principles, and in concert with the anti-Spanish faction began to plot his downfall.18 The Howards had been rendered leaderless in 1614 by Northampton’s death, and their cause was not helped by the growing arrogance of the favourite. James was tiring of Somerset and late in 1614 was presented with a new favourite, George Villiers, the impoverished son of a Leicestershire knight. Sir John Graham, the Third Earl of Montrose, was the first to broach the idea of replacing Somerset with Villiers. He enlisted the aid of Pembroke, Archbishop Abbot, Sir Thomas Lake and Secretary Winwood. Pembroke’s London home, Baynard’s Castle, was the place chosen for the meeting of the cabal. To this group were later added members of the powerful Russell and Seymour families.19 Pembroke had to give Villiers the clothes in which he made his debut, and in August 1614 Pembroke and Sir Thomas Lake presented Villiers to the King at Apthorpe. In April 1615 Villiers was made a Gentleman of the Bedchamber through the intercession of Queen Anne, and was well ensconced in the King’s affections when Somerset fell from favour late in 1615. On 15 September 1615 proof of the Overbury poisoning came to Secretary Winwood, implicating Somerset and his Countess. Both were tried and found guilty, but their lives were spared. Perhaps the King was merciful because he was not fully convinced of their guilt. Possibly he suspected that Winwood and the anti-Spanish faction were using doubtful charges to get rid of a favourite they despised. One of the people executed for the Overbury murder, Sir Gervase Elwys, the Governor of the Tower of London where Overbury had been imprisoned, may also have been, in Pembroke’s opinion, only doubtfully guilty. Perhaps this is why Pembroke, when he was given the estate of Elwys by the King, did a ‘most noble act . . . and freely bestowed it on the widow and her children [the estate] amounting to above a thousand pounds per annum.’20 With the ruin of the King’s first favourite, Somerset, in 1615, the power of the Howards continued to wane, and the stock of James’ second favourite continued to rise. In 1616 Villiers was made a viscount, in 1617 he was made Earl of Buckingham, and then in 1619 Marquess of Buckingham. Four years later he was created Duke of Buckingham, the only duke not of royal blood. As Clarendon later remarked: The Duke was indeed a very extraordinary person; and never any man, in any age, nor, I believe, in any country or nation rose, in so short a time, to so much greatness of honour, fame and fortune, upon no other advantage or recommendation than of the beauty and gracefulness of his person.21

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 65

22/10/10 12:23 PM

66

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

By 1619 all the Howards had been dismissed from office, but Gondomar’s influence was still felt, and the general pro-Spanish policy of the Court continued. The anti-Spanish faction received little reward for advancing George Villiers, with only Pembroke receiving an important office, that of Lord Chamberlain late in 1615. Pembroke had been a serious contender for this office in 1614 and was clearly disappointed when Somerset was given the position. He had to content himself with a promise of the reversion. With Somerset’s fall from power in 1615, Pembroke was the logical candidate for the office, and as early as 7 November the rumour was that the office would be his. In December the rumour proved correct, for Pembroke was named Lord Chamberlain and sworn in on 23 December.22 The promise of the reversion alone may not have been sufficient reason for the King’s appointment. It is quite possible that he was influenced in his decision by the Queen, as Pembroke was her favourite, or by the fact that the appointment of Pembroke would be a public sign that the King was anxious to call another parliament. Pembroke was known to be an opponent of a Spanish marriage alliance, and was one of the Privy Councillors anxious for an early calling of parliament. The King probably used Pembroke’s appointment as a demonstration of his intentions in both of these areas.23 Somerset’s fall thus provided Pembroke with his first important national office, the only real advancement he had had since the death of Cecil in 1612. Between 1612 and 1615 Pembroke had unsuccessfully sought the Mastership of the Horse, the Lord Chamberlainship, and the Keepership of Waltham Forest. He was named to an unimportant commission in 1613, and honoured by being named as Governor of Charterhouse the following year, but his appointment as Lord Chamberlain was his first great prize since being given control of the Forest of Dean in 1608. Pembroke’s future prospects looked excellent in 1615 with the decline of the Howards and the new favourite one of his own choosing. But Pembroke, like the rest of the anti-Spanish faction, completely underestimated George Villiers. Only Queen Anne seemed to sense the possibility that Villiers might turn against his backers, and for this reason she hesitated in recommending him to her husband. Archbishop Abbot’s entreaties finally made her give in, and she reluctantly put her required stamp of approval on the new favourite.24 The tall and beautifully-proportioned Villiers possessed great physical prowess and athletic grace. He was blessed with fine features, clear skin, dark chestnut hair, and dark blue eyes. The King, like nearly all who came into contact with Villiers, friend and foe alike, found his combination of masculine strength and feminine delicacy irresistible. When Somerset had been the favourite, he had been content to leave the governing of England in the hands of trained administrators, but in time Buckingham took personal control of both administration and policy. He has been justly characterized as being, ‘brilliant, ambitious, vain-glorious, impulsive, and passionate, with just capacity enough to go splendidly astray.’ He was to become

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 66

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

67

Pembroke’s nemesis for the rest of his career, but Pembroke could have had little inkling of such a possibility late in 1615 when he was appointed Lord Chamberlain and was being congratulated by his friend and ally George Villiers.25 Why was James I so enamoured of Villiers, as he had previously been of Robert Carr? And why did Villiers rise so quickly? Carr’s career never reached its apogee until the death of the heir apparent, Prince Henry, and Villiers’ meteoric rise only took place after the sudden death of the handsome, athletic prince. Was Villiers a substitute figure for James’ elder son? The less charitable assumption usually made is that the King’s relations with Carr and Villiers were simply homosexual affairs, and that James I was addicted to handsome young men. This is far too simple an explanation for a highly complicated psychological and physical attachment. The King had a love-starved life, was by nature overly affectionate, and Villiers especially possessed the beauty and grace which James lacked but responded naturally to. Disappointed courtiers hinted that, if the King was overly affectionate in public, no doubt what he did in private had only ever been tolerated in Sodom. But, different times, different mores! One wonders what these same commentators would make of all the kissing and cuddling that goes on on the field in modern football games!26 When James chose a favourite it was necessary, as pointed out previously, for the Queen to give her approval, and this would be unlikely if she thought her husband was taking a male lover. And the King always insisted that his favourites be married, in fact even played Cupid for them. And is it conceivable that the strait-laced heterosexual Charles I would have been as close to Buckingham if he thought Buckingham was his father’s former lover. And what of the roles of the Calvinist Earl of Pembroke and the Calvinist George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, who introduced Buckingham to the King? If the Head of the Church of England and the leading Calvinist nobleman were enthusiastically acting as procurers for their royal master, then this indeed would have been the most depraved and degenerate Court in the history of Western Christendom. And even supposing James wished to take a male lover, how could he have managed it? In the royal bedchamber there were two gentlemen assigned to the door and sixteen to the actual bedroom, plus four valets and three pages. Even the King would have been sorely pressed to find this large a number of morally and physically blind, deaf and dumb attendants. The person in overall charge of the Bedchamber, the new Lord Chamberlain, the Third Earl of Pembroke, could certainly not be so described.27 If James I had been a practising homosexual his name would also be a synonym for hypocrisy. In his Basilikon Doron he wrote that the King must impose good laws and exemplify them, with his virtuous life in his own person, and the person of his court and company; by good example alluring his subjects to the love of virtue, and the hatred of vice.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 67

22/10/10 12:23 PM

68

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

In his advice to his heir he continued, let your own life be a law book and a mirror to your people, that therein they may read the practise of their own laws, and therein they may see, by your image, what life they should lead.28

Historians would do well to ponder the words of William Blackstone, the great commentator on English law. He argued that what some accuse James I of, the felony of sodomy, was: a crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out; for, if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.29

Whatever the actual relationship of James I and Buckingham, there was no doubting the fact the favourite in 1615 stood much higher in the King’s affections than did the new Lord Chamberlain. And this even though Pembroke was an old and trusted counsellor and the King needed his advice and support, and sometimes his purse. In 1615, Pembroke’s new domain as Lord Chamberlain, the royal household, was divided into two departments, the household ‘above stairs’ or the Chamber, and the household ‘below stairs’ officially called the Household. The latter, supervised by the Lord Steward, was responsible for the physical well-being of the King and his Court, while the former, presided over by the Lord Chamberlain, was charged with the supervision of the royal expenditure relating to Court life. Over 40 per cent of all peacetime royal expenditure was spent by the household departments, and their staff numbered more than 1,800 persons. The majority of these were ‘above stairs’ and so were under the control of the Lord Chamberlain.30 As Lord Chamberlain, Pembroke’s salary was only £100 per annum, but the allowance for his diet was about £1,100. He was given £67 for his livery and had the brokerage of many minor offices. Including the pensions, annuities, and other offices directly related to the office of Lord Chamberlain, Pembroke had a minimum income from office of £4,862 per year. This gave him one of the highest incomes of any government official.31 Pembroke’s duties as Lord Chamberlain were many and varied. He controlled the King’s guard, the armoury and the ordnance. The officers of the Mint and the Wardrobe were responsible to him, and he supervised the royal chapel and appointed the King’s chaplains. The Office of Works took its orders from the Lord Chamberlain, as did the Master of the Revels, and the royal players and musicians were under his authority. It was he who was responsible for the hiring and firing of most of the King’s household servants, and the efficient operation of the whole of the royal court was ultimately his responsibility.32

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 68

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

69

The Lord Chamberlain was responsible for the distribution of the lodgings in the palace, and was in charge of the royal progresses. He also had an important role to play in the licensing of books, and a vital role in the staging of plays. It was no coincidence that in 1615 the control of staging plays at Court was taken from the Privy Council and given to the Lord Chamberlain. It was fortunate for the writers and dramatists of the early seventeenth century that the Lord Chamberlain was also the greatest patron of the arts of the period. The drama was not rigidly or efficiently censored while Pembroke was Lord Chamberlain but allowed to develop freely, and there is more than a suspicion that criticism of plays declaiming against the Court, especially of its pro-Spanish leanings, were largely ignored by the new Lord Chamberlain. But liberty was not licence and Pembroke, though a great patron of the arts, was a social conservative. He could not fail but be concerned about what he deemed to be threats to the social fabric of society brought about by, for example, licensed itinerant players and entertainers. In 1622 he wrote to all mayors, justices of the peace and sheriffs: that there are many and very great disorders and abuses daily committed by diverse and sundry companies of stage players, tumblers, vaulters, dancers on the ropes, and also by such as go about with motions and shows, and other like kind of persons, who, by virtue of their licenses: do abusively claim to themselves a kind of licentious freedom to travel as well as to show, play, and exercise . . . in the kingdom.

And these players and their ‘shows’ were, to the Lord Chamberlain: full of scandal and offence both against the Church and state.33

If it was a more pleasant duty for the Lord Chamberlain to have a significant role in the licensing of books and controlling of plays, it must have been an equally amusing task to keep from the importunate suitors, especially the handsome young gallants who attempted to replace Buckingham in the King’s favour. It must have been especially galling to the Howards that when they tried to make a comeback at Court and advance one of their clan they were thwarted by their old enemy Pembroke.34 Foreign affairs were also a constant concern of the Lord Chamberlain. It was he who ceremonially received ambassadors and others entitled to be admitted into the royal presence and, irrespective of his own views on foreign affairs, he carried out his diplomatic functions as Lord Chamberlain with fairness and tact. This of itself is a great tribute to Pembroke, for questions of ambassadorial precedency plagued the Jacobean court, and Pembroke’s concern with foreign affairs was much more than a ceremonial one.35 Pembroke’s foreign policy views were central to his programme of furthering

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 69

22/10/10 12:23 PM

70

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

English national interests and international Protestantism, and endeavouring to check the power of Catholic Spain. Pembroke favoured close ties with the United Provinces and Bohemia, the former for commercial and religious reasons, and the latter in order to support the German Protestants and the King’s son-in-law, Frederick of Bohemia. Both nations would, in his opinion, help diplomatically isolate Spain. For this reason too, Pembroke was not averse to closer ties to France, especially if the prospects of its Huguenot leaders were on the rise. The King’s daughter and son-in-law were very close to Pembroke’s heart, and when they were threatened by annihilation by the Catholic powers, the ‘noble and generous impulses of the nation’ found expression in his support. He wrote in 1618: It is true that the King will be very unwilling to be engaged in a war. And yet I am confident, when the necessity of the cause of religion, his son’s preservation, and his own honor call upon him, that he will perform whatsoever belongs to the Defender of the Faith, a kind father-in-law, and one careful of that honor which I must confess, by a kind of misfortune, hath lain long in suspense.36

As a counter to the growing influence of Spain, Pembroke advocated closer relations with France, and kept in very close contact its leading statesmen. In 1611 he was trying to persuade James’ queen to ‘hold a kinder and nearer correspondency with the Queen of France’, and the following year was building up for himself a friendship with the the Duc de Bouillon whom he considered to be ‘sincerely affected to the good of religion in general, and in particular to His Majesty’s honor and service.’ By 1615, no doubt because of his growing prominence at Court, he received letters from the Duke of Rohan and the Prince de Conde. He was very honoured by the fact that two such important noblemen had contacted him, ‘even though I know,’ he wrote, ‘the sound of my name scarce ever came to their ears’. And he promised that the honour they did him would be remembered and, ‘I will strive to make myself worthy of it by all the service which shall be in my power to perform unto them.’ Close relations with France, especially with its Huguenot leaders, were important to the Third Earl, even though he realized that religious considerations would have to play a secondary role in Anglo-French relations. For a long time he dreamt of an actual alliance with France, and later castigated Richelieu for preventing such an alliance from taking place.37 In domestic as in foreign affairs, the actual power and influence of the Lord Chamberlain was very great. He had the ear of the King and was a useful intermediary for royal favours. At the same time he was awarded many gifts and grants. However, the King not only rewarded his servants well but steadily added to their workload. Pembroke spent a good deal of his time as Lord Chamberlain as a member of various royal commissions. The Third Earl by 1615 was considered

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 70

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

71

one of the King’s ‘old’ advisors, but his appointment as Lord Chamberlain was not only a favour by the King to a close advisor, it was also, as pointed out previously, a public manifestation of the King’s desire to call parliament. Pembroke consistently advocated the calling of parliament, and as early as September 1615 the Privy Council met to discuss the royal finances and the possibility of calling a new parliament. One group in the Privy Council, headed by Lord Ellesmere, was opposed to the calling of parliament. Their argument was that the king should so manage his finances that he could ‘live on his own’. This was difficult to do, given the system of patronage that existed. Pembroke advocated calling parliament but stressed that careful preparation for its success must be made. He agreed with Coke ‘for diminucion etc. (of crown expenses), Imposicon not to be handled in parlement but prevented in parte by consulatacon of the judges.’ The Third Earl, probably with an eye to his own interests, was appointed to the subcommittees dealing with the Navy and the control of the fisheries. The upshot of the meeting was that the Privy Council came out unanimously in favour of a new parliament. Pembroke, like the rest of the Council, believed there was no other way of relieving the King’s financial problems. However, he wanted adequate preparations to be made before it was called, preparations that include ‘removing of matters offensive, and establishing of things pleasing.’ He asked that the matter of impositions be ‘maturely considered’ by the Council, and advocated paring the royal expenses ‘to an equality with the revenue’. This ‘conceit of husbandry’, he considered, ‘would be a great encouragement to the people to give.’38 The King agreed to the calling of a new parliament if he would be assured of any support from it, but he stated that he would ‘rather suffer any extremity than have another meeting with his people and take a new scorn.’ The King’s attention was diverted by the Overbury affair in October 1615, and the summoning of parliament was postponed. In 1616 and 1617 the pro-Spanish faction successfully countered all calls for a parliament, being helped in the latter year by the King’s visit to Scotland. Late in 1617 James’ son-in-law, Frederick, unwisely accepted the crown of Bohemia and helped precipitate a Europe-wide war. James was pressed to go to his son-in-law’s aid to defend his honour, his family and his religion, but the necessary monetary assistance for such a project could only come from parliament. James, still trying to maintain his pro-Spanish policy, hoped to avoid calling parliament, and it would have been very unwise for him to do so in 1618 in the midst of the Raleigh affair.39 Sir Walter Raleigh had been condemned to death in 1603 for his association with the Main Plot, a plot to replace James by Arbella Stuart, using Spanish arms. The evidence was circumstantial and Raleigh and the other Main plotters, though found guilty, were not executed but kept in prison. Pembroke interceded for his cousin Raleigh with James I in 1603. The Third Earl, like many of the nobility, was

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 71

22/10/10 12:23 PM

72

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

dabbling in dangerous political escapades at the turn of the century, and he must have felt that Raleigh was being made an example of. In October 1603 Pembroke himself had been speculating on the marital prospects of Arbella Stuart and worried about the dangers involved in it. He wrote to his father-in-law: . . . all the news here is that a great ambassador is coming from the King of Poland and his chief errant (errand) is to demand my Lady Arbella in marriage for his master. So may our princess of the blood grow a great queen and then we shall be safe from the danger of missuperscribing letters.40

From prison in 1616 Raleigh broached the idea of bringing gold back from Guiana as a means of solving the King’s financial problems. Pembroke and the anti-Spanish faction quickly saw the tremendous possibilities of the projected voyage. If successful, the King’s financial difficulties could be lessened and a break with Spain would become almost inevitable. If unsuccessful, Anglo-Spanish relations would still be ruptured. The King was persuaded by them to free Raleigh to make his voyage, Pembroke being central to the whole negotiating process, for he was close to both the King and to Raleigh. Pembroke was a relative of the latter, employed his half-brother Adrian Gilbert as housekeeper at Wilton, and one of Pembroke’s namesake cousins was a gentleman volunteer on the expedition. Pembroke himself may have partly financed the expedition and, with his brother-in-law the Earl of Arundel, pledged surety to the King that Raleigh would return.41 The expedition proved to be an abortive one, and a personal disaster for Raleigh. No gold was found, and a Spanish settlement was attacked. The failure of the expedition was also a setback for his backers. Pembroke’s sponsoring of the voyage was due in part to his genuine interest in colonization venture, and his use of Raleigh as a diplomatic ploy was not unethical. Raleigh was aware of the consequences of his failure and must have known that they were unredeemable. But the King could not afford to give Raleigh a public trial as Pembroke and the anti-Spanish faction might not be inclined to condemn their ex-champion. Nor could the King appease Spain with anything short of Raleigh’s head.42 When he appeared before James’ commissioners, Raleigh charged that, if he had formed a plot to seize the Spanish fleet, it was at the instigation of his backers on the Privy Council. Fortunately for Pembroke, his accusations had little effect on the King. The sentence of death passed on him in 1603 was carried out, Raleigh being a victim of his own mistakes and the overriding necessities of international politics. Left to his own devices, the King probably would have spared Raleigh. In 1624 Pembroke introduced Raleigh’s only son to Court, hoping to improve the Raleigh family fortunes. The King, ‘not liking his countenance, said he appeared to him like the ghost of his father; whereupon [Pembroke] advised him to travel, which he did until the death of king James.’ The Third Earl, however, maintained

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 72

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

73

his close relations with the Raleigh family, making Walter Raleigh, Carew’s son one of his personal chaplains.43 The Raleigh affair was not conducive to improving the Third Earl’s position at Court, especially as the King was now more and more openly in favour of a Spanish alliance, and Buckingham was fast becoming all powerful and also pro-Spanish. Gondomar returned to England in 1620 and quickly wooed and won the favourite for the pro-Spanish camp. By late 1620 Pembroke’s hopes of future advancement lay with two men – the King and Buckingham – whose policies were rapidly becoming antithetical to his own. The alliance that had existed between Pembroke and Buckingham by 1619 was falling apart. Unlike Somerset, Buckingham wanted to take an active role in government, and this brought him into conflict with Pembroke. There was no room in Pembroke’s ideas of government for an upstart favourite with political ambition, even though he had been of his own making. This was especially true when Buckingham openly advocated the Spanish cause. The gulf that had grown between them became public in 1619 when they clashed openly over patronage. When Sir John Digby was sworn in as Vice-Chamberlain of the Privy Council in 1616, it was rumoured that his sudden advancement may have been due to both Pembroke and Buckingham. The following year, when Secretary Winwood’s post had to be filled, it was assumed that Sir Dudley Carleton would receive the post because, as Sir Benjamin Rudyerd informed Sir Dudley: My Lord, discoursing of fit men, hath firmly pitched upon your Lordship. Considering which and the amiable correspondence . . . [which exists] now between him and my Lord of Buckingham, your Lordshjp may upon good grounds set your hopes before any competitor.44

In the years 1617 and 1618 there was a great scramble for offices and the rumours of ministerial change flew thick and fast. In February 1617 it was rumoured that the Lord Admiral would resign his office to Pembroke, Buckingham would be appointed as Lord Chamberlain and Montgomery would be the new Master of the Horse. In July 1618 Pembroke was made one of the Commissioners of the Treasury and the following week it was rumoured that he would execute the office of Lord Treasurer until a new Lord Treaurer was appointed. In August the speculation was that Lord Hay would be made Lord Chamberlain and Pembroke Lord Treasurer. By December rumour had it that Lord Doncaster would replace Pembroke as Lord Chamberlain when Pembroke was given the Treasury.45 In 1618 and 1619 Pembroke was again rumoured to be the new Lord Treasurer, and no objection from Buckingham was recorded. The Third Earl though would not change offices unless he could be guaranteed that his brother, Montgomery, would succeed him as Lord Chamberlain.46 Pembroke accompanied the King on his trip to Scotland in 1619, and was hardly

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 73

22/10/10 12:23 PM

74

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

settled back at Court when a dispute arose between Buckingham and himself over the creating of a groom porter. The King in September 1619, at Buckingham’s request, had appointed one of his supporters to the office. Pembroke protested loudly that the nomination was rightly his as Lord Chamberlain. According to Buckingham’s latest biographer, Pembroke ‘had chosen to take a stand on this issue simply to check the growth of Buckingham’s power, and to make it clear that while he was willing to accept the favourites supremacy in general – because it derived from the King’s will, which Pembroke respected – it must not be at the cost of his own position.’ Apparently both Pembroke and Buckingham had a case, although the King maintained he would uphold his first grant until Pembroke could prove his assertion. Buckingham’s nominee evidently maintained possession, even though one usually reliable source reported that Pembroke’s nominee had been installed. In this dispute the Third Earl ‘had achieved what was probably his main purpose in reminding Buckingham that, while his position as favourite made him undoubtedly primus he was primus inter pares and must respect the rights of others as jealously as he asserted his own.’47 This minor dispute quickly escalated, Buckingham largely ignoring Pembroke’s protest on principle. Buckingham expressed himself annoyed that Pembroke should ‘formalise so much, or stand so stiff in this matter, for he had obliged Pembroke in the past.’ Buckingham stated that he had not protested when, through Pembroke’s influence, Sir Humphrey May (a man he disliked) was made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Nor had he objected when Pembroke’s old friend, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd had, at Pembroke’s request, been appointed to the Court of Wards. Pembroke at the time had been very grateful and had promised to return the favours. It would seem that Pembroke was wrong in the dispute over the groom portership, but Buckingham did nothing to end the dispute. Shortly afterwards, in fact, he embittered it even more. In November 1619 Pembroke was on the point of concluding an agreement with the Earl of Nottingham for an office, and told Buckingham of the negotiations. Buckingham then came to an agreement himself with Nottingham, leaving Pembroke out of the arrangements completely.48 The squabbles between Pembroke and Buckingham over nominations continued through the early 1620s. In 1624 they clashed over a gentleman usher’s place in the Privy Chamber, Buckingham desiring it for one of his friends, Pembroke wishing to bestow it on his cousin, Sir William Herbert. Buckingham apparently was successful. Pembroke and Buckingham were also at odds over the nominations of the King’s musicians. It was later charged against Buckingham that he had totally usurped the Lord Chamberlain’s nominating power for positions in the King’s chapel, but whether this was only when the Fourth Earl was Chamberlain, or also when the Third Earl was, is unclear. The two great power brokers clashed not only at Court but also in the Privy Council and in parliament, for Pembroke

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 74

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E R I S E O F T H E F AV O U R I T E S

75

feared Buckingham’s growing influence over the King. However, a serious breach was avoided until 1621, and a total breach was never a realistic option for the Third Earl. The ‘political world’ of Court, Privy Council and parliament was too intimate and interconnected to allow a total rupture. The Third Earl could never afford to totally alienate someone as influential as Buckingham, and besides Pembroke’s brother and heir, Montgomery, was a close friend of Buckingham’s. Nevertheless, Pembroke now had to be more and more circumspect in his dealings with the all-powerful favourite so as not to alienate himself from the King.49 The King had been very generous to Pembroke in the years between 1615 and 1621, honouring him with gifts and offices of great value. Both he and Montgomery were given large monetary gifts in these years, but the offices given were of even greater value. The most important offices were the grants of the Chancellorship of Oxford in 1617, and the Lord Lieutenancies of Wiltshire and Somerset in 1621.50 The Chancellorship of Oxford Pembroke considered to be one of his greatest honours. The prestige was important to an old Oxonian like Pembroke. Besides the personal honour accorded him as Chancellor, there was the political distinction of being the King’s representative to the university. In addition to prestige, the office bestowed great political power on the incumbent, namely the Lord Chancellor’s ability to nominate the two Oxford MPs and possibly the MPs from neighbouring Woodstock. This enhanced electoral strength surfaced quickly in 1621.51 Pembroke’s first appointment as Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall had given him a dominant position in the county in 1604, and at the same time he had been given control of the Stannaries. He had to wait until 1621 to be awarded the Lieutenancies of Wiltshire and Somerset. The office of Lord Lieutenant was usually given to important Court figures who were major landowners and had great political influence in the county, such as Pembroke had in Wiltshire. He had no such position in Somerset, and though it was common to find multiple lieutenancies, it was almost unique to find non-contiguous lieutenancies such as Pembroke had, i.e. someone having control of Cornwall, Somerset and Wiltshire, but not Devon. What the Third Earl was interested in was expanding his power outside of his home county, especially as there was the possibility of gaining electoral influence there.52 The Lord Lieutenancy was an office of great trust, the most important and prestigious office in the county, in fact he was the head of his county both politically and socially. The Lord Lieutenantcy was of critical importance to the county community as it was he who was ‘the dispenser of honor and financial largesse.’As such, the office was a prize eagerly sought after. This helps explain why Pembroke had to wait until 1621 to be named Lord Lieutenant of Wiltshire. The office had many functions, most of them being carried out by deputies. For example, the Lord Lieutenant had overall responsibility for the Justices of the Peace, had control of the armed forces of the county, and was responsible for the supervision of the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 75

22/10/10 12:23 PM

76

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

county’s recusants. He was also in charge of any royal loans, voluntary or forced, raised in the county.53 The Lord Lieutenant also had jurisdictions of an economic and ecclesiastical nature, and he or his deputies could be called upon to aid any royal venture in the county. For example, in 1607 James I had imported 10,000 mulberry trees, hoping to encourage the silk trade in England. He then wrote to the Deputy Lieutenants ordering them to sell the trees at six shillings a hundred to the local landowners. Similarly, in 1615 the deputies were ordered to sell lottery tickets to aid the newlyplanted colony of Virginia. The latter got the full support of Pembroke as he was a major participant in the Virginia Company.54 The electoral possibilities of the Lord Lieutenancy were of great interest to Pembroke. He was in the process of extending his influence in both Wiltshire and Cornwall, and this was probably his main reason for wanting to be named Lord Lieutenant of Somerset. The county, however, added little to his electoral power. Still, it was a great honour to be chosen Lord Lieutenant of two counties in 1621, especially as his opposition to the favourite Buckingham was by then public knowledge. Pembroke’s influence at Court had also been weakened by the Queen’s death in 1619. Anne had been very influential with her husband, and Pembroke was one of her great favourites. But the Third Earl always had the King’s respect if not always his favour. Shortly after his wife’s death, James himself became very ill. Expecting to die, James recommended many of his old councillors to his son, particularly Pembroke. However, though the king recovered quickly, Pembroke’s fortunes did not similarly recover, even though he was appointed to the Lord Lieutenancies. His strongly held anti-Spanish views and his opposition to Buckingham spoiled his chances for further advancement, and it was even rumoured in 1621 that he had been dismisssed from his office as Lord Chamberlain.55 In the same year, financial necessity again forced the King to call parliament, and this parliament only further increased the growing rift between Pembroke, the King and his favourite. Pembroke’s extension of his parliamentary Connection, and his role and that of his Connection only widened the division between them. From 1615 until 1621 at Court, in the Privy Council and in parliament, Pembroke had tried to further himself and his friends, England and Protestantism. But he did not have enough power and influence to attain his ends. He could counsel but not cajole the King, and he could do neither to Buckingham. The favourite was quickly becoming far too powerful for any of the King’s ministers to oppose. Pembroke was enough of a politician to realize the limits of his power, and intelligent enough to realize that, once the King and his favourite had decided on a policy, it would be very difficult to change their minds. Only through parliament could Pembroke hope to persuade the King to modify his policies, and this he would have to do with great diplomacy, otherwise his own position as a King’s councillor would be undermined.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 76

22/10/10 12:23 PM

6

‘Thy Mother’s Glass’

The Third Earl, to promote himself, his family and his dependents, had been a man at arms, courtier and politician. By 1621 he had attained great status at Court, even though his principles, and the influence of Buckingham, had kept him from being the King’s closest advisor. His influence with the King was well known. He was regarded as a man who loved both his King and his country, a love ‘which made him esteemed by the former and reverenced by the latter.’ Of all the courtiers, he was the one who would least defer to favourites, even though this was the safest avenue to preferment. He was highly esteemed by the King, and so highly thought of in the country that, in Clarendon’s phrase, his advancement at Court was made ‘more for the Court’s sake than his own.’ His opposition to Spain and the favourites, the steadfastness of his religious views, and the loyalty he showed towards his friends cost him dearly, but these gained him his contemporaries’ respect and the King’s grudging admiration.1 However, as Pembroke more and more opposed the King’s foreign policy and his favourite, his position at Court again came under threat. Perhaps this thwarting of his political ambition while Buckingham was dominant was at least partially fortuitous for, from 1621 on, the Third Earl could spend more of his time away from politics. He could now pay more attention to the muses. Because of his great wealth, offices and interest in the arts, the literati of the age looked to him for support, and he, more than any other, fulfilled their expectations. To many in the early seventeenth century, and to many commentators since, Pembroke’s greatest claim to fame lay in his discerning but open-handed patronage of the arts. Whatever his fellow poets, or later writers thought of his poetry, Pembroke’s position as a patron of poets is beyond dispute. He was raised in a literary household, enjoyed the company of poets and was as discriminating a patron as his mother or Sir Philip Sidney. When he succeeded to the Earldom in 1601 he also succeeded his mother as the greatest patron of the seventeenth century. Shakespeare’s third sonnet, which begins: Thou art thy mother’s glass, and she in thee, Calls back the lovely April of her prime,

may, or may not be, a description of Pembroke, but in relation to his patronage

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 77

22/10/10 12:23 PM

78

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

of poets it is surely appropriate. A patron of the arts, simply defined as ‘a wealthy or influential person who accepted or was expected to accept an honour from a writer or artist . . . in return for support or assistance,’ in the seventeenth century especially meant the person to whom a book was dedicated, it being said that it was ‘as common to seek patrons to books, as godfathers to children.’ Dr Johnson’s pithy definition of a patron is also, with certain honourable exceptions, generally accurate: ‘commonly a wretch who supports with insolence and is paid with flattery.’ Artistic patronage in the seventeenth century, usually manifested itself in the dedication of literary works. However, it is difficult to draw a complete picture of this patronage because of the various forms literary dedications took. The reasons for the seeking of patronage are equally difficult to classify. The most important one was the patron’s protection of the author from censorship prior to printing and from criticism or prosecution afterwards. Secondarily, the patron’s approval might mean financial reward or the promise of an office. It might even mean that the patron would back his protege’s career.2 Patronage and the relationship of the patron with those he patronized was a very personal relationship. As one author has written, ‘the Jacobean aristocracy belong to a political world that still adheres to the ethic of the feudal contract. Pembroke’s faction does not subscribe to any common ideology or creed: it is united by the personal ties that bind the Earl to his followers.’ The artistic patronage of the Herbert–Sidney circle, which the Third Earl inherited in 1601 was, however, unique in the period. It was less formal in that Wilton and Penshurst were homes and congenial backgrounds to the poets, and the patron-dependent relationship was much closer and more informal than usual. Samuel Daniel and William Browne lived at Wilton, George Herbert and Ben Jonson were intimate friends. Jonson, probably employed as a tutor at Penshurst, and John Florio made him his literary executor. Poets noted the special quality of the Herbert–Sidney patronage which, as Samuel Daniel reminded the family, was ‘a glory hereditary to your house’.3 In the early seventeenth century more works were dedicated to Pembroke than to anyone else, and in the Elizabethan period only the Earl of Leicester received dedications on this scale. The reasons for the dedications are not difficult to find. The Third Earl inherited some patronage, and some poets dedicated their works to him simply because he was a poet and could appreciate their poetry. He was also a man of great wealth and influence whose support could make a fledgling poet’s career. Yet it was a tribute to Pembroke that so many works were dedicated to him. Others at times were more influential than he, and he was not always in favour at Court.4 Some writers sought nothing more than to honour him. Others desired more tangible rewards from their patron, knowing that he was in a position to influence the awarding of offices and preferment at Court. Direct financial support was not explicitly asked for, nor was it much in evidence, except in the case of Ben Jonson, to whom Pembroke sent £20 to buy books with every New Year’s Day. Pembroke’s

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 78

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ THY MOTHER’S GLASS’

79

patronage did include protection, something of vital importance to writers, especially satirical authors. When Ben Jonson dedicated his Epigrammes to Pembroke he wrote: I here offer to your Lordship, the ripest of my studies, my epigrammes; which though they carry danger in the sound, do not therefore seek your shelter; for, when I made them, I had nothing in my conscience, to expressing of which I did need a cypher. But, if I be fallen into those times, wherein, for the likeness of vice, and facts, every one thinks another’s ill deeds objected to him; and that in their ignorant and guilty mouths, the common voice is (for their security) beware the poet . . . I must expect at your Lordship’s hand, the protection of truth and liberty.

It is a moot question whether other patrons would extend the same protection. In the parliamentary debate in 1610 over Cowell’s Interpreter, dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, comments were made about the number of works dedicated to important public figures. Cecil said forty a year were dedicated to him. The general impression given in this debate was that one could hardly be responsible for books so dedicated.5 Of the authors seeking Pembroke’s patronage, some did so specifically with their dedications. Joshua Sylvester in his dedication to the Third Earl wrote: Wherein to keep decorum with my theme, And with my Fortunes (ruin’d every way) My care-clogged muse (still carried down the stream) In singing other’s, sighs her own decay In style, in state, in hap, in hope, in all: For, vines, unpropped, on the ground do crawl.

Before any ‘propping’ was done, Pembroke evidently made an inquiry into the matter that would honour his name. There is evidence that such an investigation was often made. William Fennor, in his descriptions of the Jacobean court which he dedicated to Pembroke, said of his work that Pembroke ‘knew her birth and breeding’. Samuel Hieron, when he dedicated his work to the Third Earl, remarked that he had perused it before publication ‘returning it back to me with acceptance.’6 As early as 1592 a literary work was dedicated to Pembroke, and others followed in 1594 and 1598, but the first poetry was not dedicated to him until 1602. By that year Pembroke had succeeded his mother as the patron of poets. Francis Davison, a distant relative, dedicated his poetic miscellany to Pembroke in 1602 and his work included poems by Sidney and the Countess of Pembroke. In the dedication Davison praised Pembroke’s poetry, erudition and virtue, describing him as follows:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 79

22/10/10 12:23 PM

80

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

His outward shape, though it most lovely be Doth in fair robes a fairer soul attire.

Davison’s miscellany was well received critically; thus Pembroke’s patronage of poets started auspisciously.7 Shortly afterwards followed dedications from poets more closely connected to the Herberts. Pembroke’s old tutor, Samuel Daniel, wrote his important critical treatise, A Defence of Ryme and dedicated it to the Third Earl. This work, written as a rebuttal to Thomas Campion’s Observations in the Art of English Poetry, took the form of a letter, Daniel claiming that he was only able to take up the defence because of the help given to him by Pembroke, ‘who in blood and nature is interested to take our part in this cause.’ In his Defence, Daniel spoke warmly of his association with Wilton, and thanked Pembroke for being ‘the fosterer of me and my muse’, even though it was to the Countess of Pembroke that he mainly owed his inspiration, and to whom he dedicated his later works.8 John Davies of Hereford, long associated with the Herbert–Sidney connection, dedicated a work to Pembroke as early as 1602 The dedication was to Pembroke, Sir Robert Sidney, and Edward Herbert of Montgomery, his ‘most honored and respected friends’. The following year he published his best-known work and, though he dedicated it to the King, it contained two epistles to his friend Pembroke. The latter one concluded: I am thine own by double interst Sith once myself I vowed to thee and thine O had I then but single love of you, I should be double bound to W.9

The sonnets Davies published the following year, though dedicated to Montgomery and Sir James Hay, contained a long poem to Pembroke, and his Scourge of Folly included a sonnet to him. Five years later Davies published A Select Second Husband for Sir Thomas Overbury’s Wife and dedicated it to Pembroke. His closeness to the Third Earl can be seen in the dedication when, as cited previously, he again puns on the Earl’s name. His last work, Wits Bedlam Where is had Whipping-Cheer to Cure the Mad, published in 1617, contains an epigram to Pembroke. In fact Davies received very little preferment from his patron, possibly because of his Catholicism, and when he dedicated his last work to the Third Earl he was in dire financial straits. At least he must have received little of the largesse William Browne is supposed to have received.10 William Browne, according to Anthony à Wood, around 1625 became a retainer of Pembroke’s and ‘got wealth and purchased an estate.’ He may have been in Pembroke’s service, but his ‘great wealth’ is questionable. He was comfortably

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 80

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ THY MOTHER’S GLASS’

81

placed and had Pembroke’s protection, but the main source of his income was from his offices and from his second wife’s dowry. In 1615 Browne was given the office of Pursuivant at the Court of Wards and Liveries probably through Pembroke’s influence.11 The following year he dedicated the second edition of his Britannia’s Pastorals to Pembroke in hope of patronage. One of his friends, in a commendatory sonnet to the work, delicately hoped he would be successful when he wrote: And may thy early strains affect the ear Of that rare lord, who judge and guerdon can The richer gifts which do advantage man.

Browne must have been very close to the poets surrounding Pembroke, for his work included verses to him by John Davies of Hereford, George Wyther and Ben Jonson, all of whom dedicated works to Pembroke. Browne was also a close friend of the poets Michael Drayton and Pembroke’s old friend, Benjamin Rudyerd. In the 1620s and 1630s Browne was considered ‘the official poet of the Herbert family’, and through the family influence was appointed tutor to Robert Dorner, the future Earl of Caenarvon who was a ward of Philip Herbert. This post was worth £5,000 to £6,000 to him, according to John Aubrey.12 As Aubrey is not a very reliable source we do not know how much he benefited from his connections with the Herberts, but any ‘wealth’ Browne received he amply repaid with the monument to his gratitude, his immortal epitaph on the Countess of Pembroke: Underneath this sable hearse Lies the subject of all verse: Sidney’s sister, Pembroke’s mother, Death, ere thou hast slain another, Fair and learn’d, and good as she Time shall throw a dart at thee.13

Browne’s friend, Benjamin Rudyerd exchanged answer-poems with Pembroke as did William Drummond of Hawthornden. Drummond was an early acquaintance of the Third Earl’s, and was probably patronized by him as early as the first decade of the seventeenth century. This Scottish poet had accompanied James I to England and, as Pembroke was an important figure early in James’ reign, they could hardly have failed to meet. It would seem that their poetic association must have blossomed very quickly, as their poetic exchanges are in a markedly Elizabethan form. However, it is not Drummond’s poetry that gained him immortality. His claim to fame is based on the notes he made of his conversations with his friend Ben Jonson. These notes are an invaluable source about Jonson and, incidentally, about Jonson’s relations with Pembroke.14

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 81

22/10/10 12:23 PM

82

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Ben Jonson’s association with the Herbert family was of long duration. In 1597 he was an actor and playwright in Pembroke’s Men. Young Lord Herbert’s lifelong interest in the theatre makes one assume that this early in his life he was acquainted with his father’s players and knew Ben Jonson. It is also probable that Pembroke would have met Jonson when he was a tutor at Penshurst. They were definitely acquainted before 1605. In that year Jonson was gaoled with Chapman and Marston for writing the comedy Eastward Ho, which angered the King for its attacks on the Scots. Jonson appealed to some of his noble friends for help, two of whom were the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. Writing to the former, Jonson invoked their friendship. ‘Neither am I or my cause so much unknown to your lordship,’ he wrote, and as ‘you have ever been free and noble to me . . . I doubt not [now] the same proportion of your bounties.’ Ben Jonson’s appeal was not only for himself but also for Chapman, Marston having been released earlier. He told Pembroke that ‘the King’s anger hath buried me and my friend . . . and it hath buried us quick.’ Pembroke was probably instrumental in securing Jonson’s release. At a ‘coming out’ party given by Jonson, John Leech, Pembroke’s future secretary was a guest. Pembroke may also have been responsible for the release of Chapman.15 Jonson’s epigram, quoted at the beginning of this work, was probably composed between 1608 and 1612 and is a very important statement about Jonson and his patron, Pembroke. Viewed in abstract moral terms, the poem is a memorable statement of Jonson’s deepest values; viewed from the perspective of patronage, it is also a highly complicated tactical performance, a work born from and deeply responsive to the micropolitical pressures inherent in his social position and role. And these pressures, by contributing to the complex tone and resonance of the poem, enhance its interest as a work of art.

The previous epigram, ‘Inviting a Friend to Supper’, (Epigram 101) is undoubtedly one of Jonson’s finest works. It articulates a code of hospitality and grace that is central to Jonson’s notion of civilised fellowship; and it enunciates a declaration of social principle in which courtesy, moderation, and freedom are preeminent virtues.

But Jonson was acutely aware how precarious these ideals were in his society. The ‘grave sir’ to whom ‘inviting a Friend to Dinner’ is addressed is almost unquestionably his patron the Third Earl, and the two epigrams are companion pieces. The Pembroke epigram and ‘Inviting a Friend to Dinner’ are linked by their common concern with the encroachment of virtue by vice and by their evocation of a repressive political climate. One is concerned with private, the other with public life, but both

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 82

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ THY MOTHER’S GLASS’

83

depict a society in grave danger. The living presence of Pembroke provides a measure of guarded optimism in each poem.16

Jonson’s first work formally dedicated to Pembroke was in 1611. This work, Catiline his Conspiracy, was not well received as the fourth act was too long. This play is one of the first play quartos dedicated to a particular patron, turning away from popular audiences that had poorly received it ‘to an intellectually and socially elite readership that would better value what he wrote’. Proud Ben Jonson was scornful in the appeal he made to the ‘ordinary reader’ in his preface. His dedication to the Third Earl was quite different and, as it comes from a man renowned for his blunt honesty, it is as magnificent a tribute as was his epigram. Addressing his patron as ‘the great example of honor, and virtue’, he began: My lord, in so thick and dark an ignorance, as now covers the age, I crave leave to stand by your light; and, by that, to be read. Posterity may pay your benefit the honor, and thanks; when it shall know, that you dare, in these jig-given times to countenance a legitimate poem.

Jonson singularly honoured Pembroke with this work for, as he wrote, ‘It is the first (of this race) that ever I dedicated to any person, and had I not thought it the best, it should have been taught a less ambition.’17 In 1616 Jonson dedicated his Epigrammes, ‘the ripest of my studies’, to Pembroke, and in the same year The Workes of Benjamin Jonson were also dedicated to him. The Third Earl supplied Jonson with money to buy books, honoured him with an MA from Oxford when he was Chancellor, and remained a close personal friend. Pembroke also sought his advancement at Court and acted in the masques which Jonson wrote and organized. The closeness of their relationship is almost unique in the history of patronage and says much for the good taste of both men. Jonson appreciated Pembroke’s character and tastes, Pembroke the breadth of Jonson’s genius.18 Closely connected to the Herbert family, and only marginally less important than Ben Jonson as a Jacobean literary figure, was John Donne. He was intimately associated with the Countess of Pembroke’s circle and thus known to the Third Earl. However, we do not have much evidence for their relationship. One brief comment is contained in a letter of Pembroke’s addressed to Viscount Doncaster. In it Pembroke wrote, ‘I beseech your Lordship commend my best to Mr. Dr. Donne.’ Donne was Doncaster’s chaplain at the time, and Pembroke’s greeting was a very formal salutation from patron to poet. Later, as chaplain to the King and as Dean of St Paul’s, Donne came into contact quite often with the then Lord Chamberlain. As Lord Chamberlain, Pembroke had the right to swear chaplains into the ordinary services in the Household and authorized the list of Lent

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 83

22/10/10 12:23 PM

84

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

preachers. John Donne’s fear, as quoted in Walton’s Life of Donne was that if ‘My Lord Chamberlain believe me to be dead,’ he will ‘leave me out of the roll.’ Perhaps also their poetic and political interests coincided at this point in their careers, for Pembroke would have been a useful advocate to have with the King. It must have been more than coincidence and friendship with the Fourth Earl that made John Donne the Younger collect and publish the Third Earl’s poetry.19 Though Pembroke considered his kinsman George Herbert, as he did John Donne, primarily as a man of God rather than a poet, their relationship had political and poetic overtones. Herbert started out in politics, being elected as MP for Montgomery through Pembroke’s infuence, though this was probably not the first time the Third Earl had interceded in his favour. Upon taking the cloth in 1626, Herbert was appointed canon and prebend of Leighton Ecclesia. Though the appointment was in the gift of Bishop Williams, the reason for it was the Bishop’s desire to keep Pembroke’s goodwill. Leighton Ecclesia was in financial difficulties, and to help rebuild the church Pembroke subscribed £100. Herbert’s later appointment to the rectory of Bemerton in Wiltshire in 1630 was also due to Pembroke. In fact, the whole shape of George Herbert’s life was determined by his position as a client of the Third Earl. His younger brother was made Master of the Revels through Pembroke’s influence, and his elder brother Edward as an MP was one of the Pembroke Connection.20 George Herbert as a young man may have used Pembroke’s poems as models for his poems, and for political as well as poetic reasons read all the poetry of the Herbert–Sidney coterie. His poetic indebtedness to the Third Earl can be seen in his aptly named poem ‘A Parodie’. In this work he, parodies Pembroke’s ‘Soul’s Joy, When I am Gone’. Compare the opening lines to Pembroke’s poem cited in Chapter 3: Souls Joy, when thou art gone, And I alone, Which cannot be, Because thou dost abide with me, And I depend on thee.21

Pembroke’s patronage of churchmen such as Donne and Herbert was only natural in a man with strong religious convictions. And, as his convictions were well known, Pembroke all his life received dedications from clergymen.22 Although not a ‘religious poet’, the fervently religious Benjamin Rudyerd had been closely connected to the Third Earl since they had been students together. Their relationship concerned itself as much with politics as with poetry, though it had been poetry that had first brought them together. When they left Oxford their intimacy increased when Rudyerd married a kinswoman of Pembroke’s, and in 1618 Rudyerd, through the intercession of the Third Earl, was granted the office

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 84

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ THY MOTHER’S GLASS’

85

of Surveyor of the Court of Wards, a position he held until 1646. Shortly after receiving the Surveyor’s post, Rudyerd was knighted. Rudyerd was elected MP for Portsmouth from 1620 to 1629, through the influence of Pembroke who was Captain of Portsmouth, and was Pembroke’s spokesman in the House of Commons. Sir Benjamin was also closely involved with Pembroke in his many colonization ventures. Rudyerd’s poems, in the form of a poetic exchange with Pembroke, were published with the Third Earl’s in 1660.23 Sir John Stradling was another poet with strong political ties with Pembroke. Living in Glamorganshire, he was a close neighbour of Pembroke’s estates in Cardiff and, like Rudyerd, was involved in Pembroke’s overseas ventures. Stradling was a renowned scholar, ‘courted by Camden for his learning’, and, like many of the Pembroke circle, closely connected by marriage to the Third Earl’s entourage. Michael Oldisworth, one of Pembroke’s secretaries, was married to Stradling’s daughter. Sir John first made his appeal for patronage when he dedicated his Epigrammatum to him early in 1607. Later the same year he was elected Sheriff of Glamorgan, an office he could not have attained without Pembroke’s support, and this support Stradling never lost. In 1625 he dedicated his Politike Discourse to his patron. In his dedication, after thanking Pembroke for past favours, the author wrote of his work, ‘If it dislike you, I will abandon it, and also take order it may displease none else’. Pembroke must have rejected the work for it was not published.24 Three of the great translators of the period, George Chapman, Thomas May and Josuah Sylvester, also honoured Pembroke and sought his patronage. Chapman, whom we have already mentioned in relation to Ben Jonson, praised Pembroke’s learning and virtue in the 1610 edition of his Homer when he wrote: Above all others may your honor shine; As, past all others, your ingenuous beams Exhale into your grace the form divine Of Godlike learning; Whose exiled streams run to your succor, Charg’d with all the wrack of sacred virtue.

Chapman was a translator and a humanist and a playwright, and his tribute to Pembroke is a very striking one indeed. It is also very unusual as Chapman was patronized by Pembroke’s great court rival, Somerset. Furthermore, the licensing of Chapman’s work, The Tragedy of Chabot, a political allegory favourable to Somerset, was held up by the Herberts and their appointees until 1629. Chapman may not have received any patronage from Pembroke, but had great admiration for him. The dedication to Pembroke in his Homer warns the noble lord:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 85

22/10/10 12:23 PM

86

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

You following yet our king your guard redouble, Pure are those streams, that these times cannot trouble.25

Thomas May was another translator, humanist and playwright. He was also an historian. A close friend of Ben Jonson, he was probably introduced at Court by Pembroke, and was given preferment. He amply repaid his patron when he dedicated to him Book Two of his translation of Lucan’s Pharsalia in 1627. His dedication is an eloquent, if not altogether accurate, tribute to a political moderate: To you right noble lord, I here present This second book, the deathless monument Of Brutus worth and sacred Cato’s praise As high, as rich as fame herself could raise A monument: These favor’d neither side, Nor fought for Caesar’s reign, nor Pompey’s pride, Nor came engaged by a private cause. For Rome, her state, her freedom, and her laws Their loyal virtue stood. If such a one Free from ambition, free from faction, An honest lord, a noble patriot, Our age do seek (my lord I flatter not) I think, with mine, the voice of public fame Would Pembroke name as soon as any name.26

The third translator, Josuah Sylvester, was a friend of Daniel, Davies and Jonson, and he dedicated a work to Pembroke as early as 1608. In it he frankly asked for patronage and quite probably received it. Six years later he dedicated another work, The Second Session of the Parliament of Vertues Royal, to Pembroke, Sir Thomas Coke and Lord Ellesmere. In this work he described Pembroke as: So noble a plant (no such to propagate) So grace-full, use-full both in court and state; Help-full to all, hurtful at all to none, Among those many whom your worth hath won.

The collected works of Sylvester were dedicated to Pembroke by the publisher in 1620.27 As noted previously, John Earle wrote a poetic lament in 1630, mourning the death of the popular Chancellor of Oxford. As Chancellor, Pembroke had many

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 86

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ THY MOTHER’S GLASS’

87

prose works dedicated to him, in all likelihood because of the offices he had in his gift and because of his many services to the university. Poetic works were dedicated to him for the same reasons.28 Quite different from the formal dedications to Pembroke as Chancellor of Oxford were the dedications from the satirists. And their need was more pressing. The amusing work of John Taylor, the Water Poet, called The Nipping of Snipping of Abuses: or the Woolgathering of Witte, although dedicated to the King, included in one of the satires an anagram of William Herbert: ‘my heart will bear’. Attached to this anagram was the verse: Right noble lord whose breast doth bear a heart Which is a patron unto arms and art: In spite of envy, still thy fame shines clear, For none but honor’d thoughts thy heart will bear.29

Two years later Taylor dedicated his religious work, The Booke of Martyrs, to Pembroke saying, ‘the volume’s small, my presumption great.’ His collected works he dedicated to Marquis Hamilton, Pembroke and Montgomery. The anagram to William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke in it was ‘liberaly meeke, for repute honourable,’ and the verse which followed read: What can be more than is explained here, T ‘express a worthy and well deserving peer.

One of Taylor’s many poetic victims was his fellow poet William Fennor who, like Taylor, dedicated his poetic works to Pembroke. Taylor and Fennor engaged in a long comic war, the tenor of which can be seen in Taylor’s description of Fennor as: Thou scurvy squint-eyd brazen fac’d baboon Thou Domn’d stigatical foule pantaloone, Thou taverne, alehouse, whorehouse, gig of time That for a groat wilt amongst tinkers rime.30

Taylor also published various mini books, works bound in volumes which only measured one inch by two inches, his ‘thumb books’. One of these toys for the Court was a verse summary of Scripture and another, a summary of Foxe’s Actes and Monuments, he dedicated to Pembroke and Montgomery in 1615. One does not know how Pembroke received it, nor do we know what he really thought of Taylor and Fennor, but it says much for Pembroke’s broad interests and sense of humour that he could patronize both poets. George Wyther in his Abuses Stript, and Whipt, wrote an epistle to Pembroke.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 87

22/10/10 12:23 PM

88

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

But the dedication is not to the Third Earl. It reads: To himself, G.W. Wisheth all happiness. Thou (even myself) whom next God, my Prince, and Country, I am most engaged to.

And he concluded this ‘dedication’: Thy Prince’s, thy country’s, thy friends, While reason masters affection, George Wyther.

His epistle to Pembroke deserves quotation: Thou whom respect of kin makes not unjust, True noble spirit, free from hate or guile; Thou, whom they Prince hath for thy care and trust Place’t for to keep the entrance of this ile See here th’ abuses of these wicked times, I have expos’d them open to thy view; Thy judgment is not blinded with like crimes And therefore may’st perceive that all is true. Take’t; though I seem a stranger yet I know thee, And for thy virtues Penbroke this I owe thee.31

Pembroke’s patronage was also extended to religious satirists. The Third Earl was acquainted with the popular poet-turned-parson Joseph Hall early in James’ reign. Hall’s satire, Mundus Alter et Idem, published in 1605, was publicly censured. The author probably escaped persecution through Pembroke’s intercession. Years later Pembroke aided Hall’s ecclesiastical career, and a sermon he commissioned Hall to preach at Court was later published and dedicated to him. This sermon was preached when Prince Charles was absent in Spain and people feared for the consequences of his prolonged absence. This absence put pressure on the preachers to show their commitment to the reformed religion. In the dedication Hall wrote it will be not a little useful for the times which, if ever, require quickening. Neither is it to no purpose that the world should see in what style we speak to the Court, not without acceptation.

Hall wanted to ‘quicken’ those noblemen whose support was needed to support those opposed to Spain and supported the reformed religion. Hall was temporarily

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 88

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ THY MOTHER’S GLASS’

89

imprisoned but through Pembroke’s intercession he was quickly released and his sermon published.32 John Healey’s free translation of Hall’s Mundus Alter et Idem provoked as great an outcry as the original. However, Healey received Pembroke’s protection when, through the intercession of John Florio, the Third Earl accepted the dedication. Pembroke was also honoured in 1624 when George Goodwin dedicated to him his satire on the Catholic Church. It is not known if Goodwin received any preferment.33 Though some of the best-known prose of the early seventeenth century was dedicated to Pembroke by publishers, little poetry was so dedicated. The only poetical works we can be certain of are Sylvester’s collected works and the epigrams of Pembroke’s kinsman, Sir John Harington. His dedication will serve most fittingly as a final tribute to Pembroke as a poet and patron of poets. In the Epigrams . . . the publisher wrote: Your Sidneian blood and your famed favor to now despised poetry challenge the dedication of these epigrams. Better than these none yet have put on an English habit, and therefore deserve an honorable patron. Report delivers of the renowned Sidney (whose blood you have, whose virtues you inherit) that the most unsiled [unstyled?] work the poorest hand could offer up he received with thanks, making the love of the man to supply the worth. My hope, if not belief, tells me that your lordship will do the like by me, and graciously accept of this book the love of a poor man presumes to present unto you. Read then great Lord, and reading approve the works of this no mean poet, whom it can be no dishonor to your Lord to protect.34

For the first three decades of the seventeenth century the Third Earl of Pembroke was the great patron of poets. In fact, he was the patron of all but one of the important poets of the Jacobean age, Michael Drayton*, whose patroness was Pembroke’s friend,the Countess of Bedford. Pembroke was both patron and friend to poets of unusual ability, and through his influence they were given protection and security. His patronage was also very catholic: he patronized poets who were scholars, politicians, satirists and religious writers. As a poet, he could appreciate the writings dedicated to him, and his great wealth, position and influence, enabled him to show his appreciation. He was, however, discriminating in his patronage. On brilliant poets such as Shakespeare, Jonson, Donne and Herbert, he would expend his largesse, and to family friends like Daniel, Davies and Browne, he would give great encouragement. He also actively supported the poets Stradling and Rudyerd, who were his political allies. The Third Earl could not give preferment to all his proteges, but he could, and did, extend his protection to them. Poet and patron of *Whose patroness was Pembroke’s friend, the Countess of Bedford.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 89

22/10/10 12:23 PM

90

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

poets, with an active interest in the whole corpus of poetry and all its practitioners, Pembroke was truly his ‘mother’s glass’ if not her magnified image. And if it had not been for Pembroke’s active patronage, the poetic genius of the early seventeenth century might not have blossomed as it did.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 90

22/10/10 12:23 PM

7

‘The Greatest Maecenas’

Both Pembroke and his brother had a similar interest in the theatre and it was this interest that prompted the most famous dedication in literary history. It is no exaggeration to say that this dedication is the most important single work ever committed to print in English. Two of Shakespeare’s fellow actors, John Heminge and Henry Condell, published a unique book, the first collection of plays in English in a folio format. It was a risky and an expensive venture and, as such, needed strong support. Heminge and Condell knew the Third Earl and Montgomery, and persuaded Ben Jonson to write a eulogy to his old friend Shakespeare, knowing that this would influence their common patron. It was well known that the brothers admired Shakespeare and his works, also that the brothers were famous for their support of the arts and that they were men of considerable political influence. It was to them then that Heminge and Condell made their famous dedication. In 1623 ‘the most noble and incomparable paire of brethren’, William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip, Earl of Montgomery, had dedicated to them Mr William Shakespeares Comedies Histories, & Tragedies, Published According to the True Originall Copies. In dedicating the work, Heminge and Condell thanked them both for their past favours, and in their dedication continued: When we value the places your honorable highnesses sustain we cannot but know their dignity greater than to descend to the reading of these trifles; and while we name them trifles, we have deprived ourselves of the defence of our dedication. But since your lordships have been pleas’d to think these trifles something, heretofore; and have prosecuted both them, and their author living, with so much favor; that (they outliving him, and he not having the fate, common with some, to be executor to his own writings) you will use the like indulgence toward them, you have done unto their parent. There is a great difference, whether any book choose his patrons, or find them. This hath done both. For, so much were your lordships likings of the several parts, when they were acted, as before they were published, the volume ask’d to be yours.1

This dedication alone, even posthumous, would ensure Pembroke’s place in the history of patronage. It was also a deserved dedication. Both the Herberts were great patrons of the theatre, the Third Earl patron not only to Shakespeare but also to Ben Jonson, Philip Massinger, Thomas Nashe and George Chapman. In choosing the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 91

22/10/10 12:23 PM

92

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

dedicatees for the First Folio, Shakespeare’s fellow actors were not only thanking the brothers for their past favours to the author and to Shakespeare’s company, the King’s Men, but were also looking for financial support for the present costly production. The publication of the First Folio raises as many questions as it answers in relation to Pembroke and his patronage of Shakespeare. Shakespeare had retired ten years earlier and died in 1616. We, unfortunately, know almost nothing of their relationship for the first decade of James’ reign. Pembroke was, of course, building up his position at Court and Shakespeare moving from writing to theatre management, but it is surprising and frustrating that so little evidence exists for their relationship in this critical decade. One can be fairly certain though that the relationship continued. Heminge and Condell, as Shakespeare’s fellow actors, were aware of the relationship between Shakespeare and his patron, and they would not have dedicated his works to Pembroke and Montgomery only because one was Lord Chamberlain and the other his likely successor. They must have known that Pembroke’s patronage of Shakespeare was not a distant memory but a vivid reminder of a close and lasting friendship.2 Pembroke’s patronage was not confined to Shakespeare or the theatre. It embraced the works of prose writers, emblemists, painters, architects and musicians, and Pembroke was a patron of, and participant in, many of the great Court masques and entertainments of the period. He was without a doubt the greatest of the Jacobean patrons and ‘distributed his bounty and his serious attention over many fields of activity and left the mark of his support on them all.’3 Religious prose writers very early sought his patronage. Some of these writers dedicated their works to him because his religious convictions were well known, but a much larger number did so because of the religious livings he had in his gift. The Third Earl’s position as Lord Chamberlain from 1615 to 1625, and Chancellor of Oxford from 1617 to 1630 attracted even more dedications. It must be more than coincidence that more than 80 per cent of all religious works dedicated to Pembroke were dedicated after he had assumed these posts.4 Pembroke’s staunch Protestantism was well-known and unquestioned, and Protestant writers of Calvinist and conservative persuasions sought his patronage and dedicated their works to him. The first religious works dedicated to the Third Earl were dedicated to him while he was still in his minority either from his tutors or from those seeking patronage from his family. The first work dedicated to him as Earl of Pembroke came in 1607. In that year Richard Carew dedicated his translation of Henri Estienne’s A World of Wonders to Pembroke and Montgomery. This work, so strong an attack on the Catholic church that it was publicly burnt in Paris, was dedicated to the brothers by the author who sought only to honour them for being lovers of learning and bountiful benefactors, and because Estienne had been close to Sidney. In fact Carew

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 92

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

93

saw Sidney’s virtues ‘quickened and revived again in them’, and saw in the brothers ‘the blossoms of many rare virtues putting forth so timely in this April of your age, do promise more than ordinary fruit of great good in time to come.’5 In 1616 the ex-Jesuit, Richard Sheldon, dedicated another anti-Catholic tract to Pembroke. Sheldon had converted to Protestantism in 1611 after being jailed as a Jesuit. He was first employed by the King as a controversialist, shortly afterwards being made a royal chaplain. His dedication to Pembroke was an attempt to broaden his base of support at Court, for his bitter anti-Catholicism had alienated the King when James was seeking an accommodation with Spain.6 Another anti-catholic work, by Jean Paul Perrin, was dedicated by the translator, Samson Lennard, to Pembroke in 1624. Lennard thanked Pembroke for past favours and asked him in his dedication to ‘be pleased to honor . . . my weak labors with your honorable protection.’ The translator had soldiered with Sidney in the Netherlands and reminded Pembroke of the ‘love and duty’ he, Lennard, owed Sidney. This alone would not have made him dedicate his work to Pembroke, but what did make him do so was: ‘your love to God and true religion, which hath made God love you, and the world to honor you.’7 Pembroke’s support of ‘true religion’ – Calvinism – prompted many other writers to ask Pembroke for protection and preferment. The most important of these was Thomas Adams. In 1616 Adams dedicated to Pembroke his work, A Divine Herball, and in the dedication he addressed the Third Earl as a friend as well as a patron. He praised Pembroke’s virtues and religious knowledge and promised that, as he dedicated his public devotions to Pembroke, he would never forget him in his private ones. Adams, whom the poet Robert Southey called ‘the prose Shakespeare of Puritan theologians’, was a popular preacher, scholar and satirist. Active as a preacher in London from 1612 onwards, he was helped throughout his career by Pembroke, to whom he inscribed his sermons in 1625 and his complete works in 1629.8 Joseph Hall in 1623 dedicated his Court sermon ‘The Best Bargain’ to the Third Earl and his complete works in 1625. Pembroke may have been interested in Hall as an emblemist, but it is also possible that, when Hall dedicated his ‘Best Bargain’ to Pembroke, he was ‘acting as agent, spokesman or ally for a group of courtiers centred on the Herberts.’ Like Pembroke in the 1620s, he supported the war and the Protestant cause and took a moderate but distinctly anti-Arminian stance in defence of reformed orthodoxy. He also had a strong sense of the need for a compromise between King and parliament.9 Protestant religious writers with conservative theological views, i.e. non Arminians, were the writers patronized by Pembroke. Typical of these writers were William Dickinson, Griffith Williams and Bartholemew Parsons. Dickinson was one of Pembroke’s chaplains who in 1619 dedicated to his patron his sermon, The King’s Right. The author stated that it had not been his intention to publish the sermon; he only did so when he realized that:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 93

22/10/10 12:23 PM

94

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

the inscribing of your honorable name in the forehead of it, would give some strength and beauty to it.10

Griffith Williams, the future Bishop of Oxford, was one of Montgomery’s domestic chaplains. To the brothers he dedicated his work: ‘not to beg any patronage from your greatness . . . but because I truly honor your goodness.’ Williams honoured the Third Earl and his brother as: men truly fearing God, and honored in your generation, which [sic] are special pillars of God’s truth, and singular patrons of many worthy divines.11

Three years earlier, Pembroke’s neighbour in Wiltshire, Bartholemew Parsons, dedicated one of his sermons to him. From 1605 until his death in 1642, Parsons occupied various Wiltshire livings and published a number of his sermons. The first of these he dedicated to the Third Earl, and in it he praised Pembroke for being: of our nobles the most skillful in divinity and one who hath made God’s testimonies his counsellors . . . [and] who think it a greater honor to be a member of the church than a peer of the realm.12

Many of the conservative religious writers wrote from Oxford dedicating their works to their Chancellor. One of these, who was also one of King James’ chaplains, Edward Chaloner, dedicated his first writings to Pembroke in 1623, asking the Third Earl to: make them secure under the shadow of your protection. For, to whom should they fly for patronage, but to our honorable Chancellor, under whose branches they both took root and grew up.13

In 1626 John Prideaux, Pembroke’s vice-chancellor, dedicated to the Third Earl his Orationes Novem Inaugurales de Totidem Theologicae Apicibus. Prideaux was a onetime royal chaplain and, from 1615 to 1641, was Regius Professor of Divinity. In both his ecclesiastical and academic careers, Prideaux was advanced by Pembroke. So too was another royal chaplain, Thomas Jackson. He dedicated his Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes to Pembroke on the supposition that the work would be well received, or so he had been led to believe, ‘by the report of honorable personages, and mine own late experience of your noble favors.’ Jackson’s theological works rank very high, his chief work being his Commentaries on the Apostles Creed, a part of which was a treatise dedicated to Pembroke.14 Pembroke’s zeal for religion was so well known that even booksellers dedicated posthumous works to him, and anonymous authors honoured him with their

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 94

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

95

dedications. One of the latter bears citing. It was dedicated to Pembroke for his ‘pious zeal to propagate the cause of religion’, and the author honoured the Third Earl by saying: As I intend nothing by this discourse, but the glory of God, the good of my country, the observation of princes and the seasoning of humors: so do I propose no man fitter to patronize the same than yourself.15

One religious work, published after Pembroke’s death and not dedicated to Pembroke, deserves special attention. Of the Internal and External Nature of Man in Christ, is a thirty-seven-page tract published in 1654. The British Library catalogue, relying on the manuscript notation by the seventeenth-century bibliophile George Thomason, identifies the author as the Third Earl of Pembroke. Pembroke, a devout Protestant of Calvinist persuasion, was no stranger to the fine points of theological debate, and he wrote well. This tract could not possibly be from his hand. The work in question is theologically very eclectic. It is a sermon or exhortation to the good Christian life with a surfeit of biblical quotation. As a piece of religious literature it has little value, and is of much less importance than any of the many religious works dedicated to Pembroke. This work was written by an Arminian or even a Catholic, or at the very least by a Protestant with theological views approaching these. The tract is at variance with the Third Earl’s theological position, with his whole spiritual life, and with the direction taken by his patronage of religious writers. If the tract was ‘written by the Earl of Pembroke’ as the notation states (and it does not state which Earl of Pembroke), the author must have been one of the later Earls of Pembroke and not the Third.16 Pembroke’s position as Chancellor of Oxford brought forth dedications of both a religious and a secular nature, but the number of the latter was small. In 1620 Diadochus Proclus’ work, Procli Sphaera, written in Greek and Latin, was dedicated to Pembroke, and five years later Degory Wheare dedicated his historical work, De Ratione et Methodo Legendi Historias Dissertatio to the popular Chancellor. Three years later he dedicated his Epistolarum Eucharisticarum Fasciculus to Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, appealing to Rudyerd for Pembroke’s patronage, and in the same year his Degorei Whaeri Praelec: Histor. Camden. Charisteria., which contained adulatory sketches of Pembroke’s friends and secretaries, John Thoroughgood and Michael Oldisworth. How successful his appeal for patronage was we do not know.17 Nor do we know how successful was the appeal for patronage by another Oxford academic, Nathaniel Carpenter. This writer was noted primarily as a philosopher, but he was also a poet, mathematician and geographer. Carpenter’s first work, a philosophical treatise, was printed abroad in 1621, his second, Geography Delineated Forth in Two Bookes, was dedicated to Pembroke in 1625. A great deal of Geography was concerned with Devon and Cornwall, areas in which Pembroke

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 95

22/10/10 12:23 PM

96

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

had extensive political and economic interests, and this is probably one of the reasons for his dedication. He gives his other reasons in his dedication. To the Third Earl he wrote: The general acclamation of the learned of this age, acknowledging with all thankful duty, as well your love to learning as zeal to religion, hath long since stamped me yours.18

As Chancellor, Pembroke was a great fosterer of learned men, and much involved in academic affairs; however, his academic interests were not confined to the university. He was equally involved in supporting antiquarians, genealogists and historians, as well as other men of letters. In 1603 he was a member of the Society of Antiquaries, and as early as 1604 was noted as a ‘chief countenancer and patron’ of at least one learned man. This client was probably Adrian Gilbert, the chemist and half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, who was Pembroke’s housekeeper at Wilton.19 Pembroke was honoured and well-served by the historians to whom he gave patronage. His interest in history stemmed from his childhood, for his tutor Samuel Daniel was an historian as well as a poet. Daniel’s History of England was a widely-read work, and in it Daniel showed that he was a shrewd judge of character and a lucid analyst of historical situations. The Third Earl’s consistent advancement of Daniel was due equally to his interest in Daniel’s history and in his poetry and entertainments. Other historians such as Thomas May, Thomas Godwyn, John Norden, and the aforementioned Degory Wheare dedicated works to Pembroke and sought his patronage. However, what protection or preferment they were given by the Third Earl is unknown. Probably they were given academic preferment.20 The historians Pembroke received dedications from were fellow members of the Society of Antiquaries, and it was here that he may first have met them. The Society of Antiquaries, founded in 1572, had its meetings suspended in 1604 because ‘of the jealousy of King James suspecting their loyalty and attachment to his government.’ An attempt was made in 1614 to lift this ban, but the King forbade them to meet. Many important nobles, Pembroke among them, were particularly interested in the Society, as they were very interested in resurrecting another Elizabethan idea in 1617. In that year Edmund Bolton, the Catholic antiquarian, historian and poet, suggested an academy on the lines of the one proposed by Sir Humpfrey Gilbert around 1570. Bolton’s royal academy or college was to have as its members ‘persons called out from the most able and famous lay gentlemen of England.’ Bolton was a poor kinsman of the Duke of Buckingham, and it was to the Duke he made his first appeal in 1617. In 1619 he petitioned the King, and on 5 March 1621, Buckingham spoke in favour of an ‘academ roiall’ in the House of Lords. By the following year the King was ready to back it.21 The idea of the ‘academ roiall’ in 1617, similar to various schemes in France, had its origin in the Society of Antiquaries, but its scope was much wider. The

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 96

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

97

details of the proposed academy were settled in 1624. It was to offer horsemanship and swordsmanship as well as polite learning. The articles of foundation made provision for: a smith, a saddler, a mathematician, and one that learneth languages; a fencer with his usher, a dancer with his usher, a waiter, and a porter to keep the gates.

The academy was to be a national one, open only to English and Scots, and eighty-four members were selected. Among the select were Pembroke, his secretary Michael Oldisworth, his allies Sir Benjamin Rudyerd and Sir Robert Mansell, and his clients Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones. The articles drawn up were signed by Pembroke and Montgomery, and many other noblemen, but the whole project came to naught when James I died in 1625.22 The failure of the academy project had little effect on Pembroke’s patronage, especially his general patronage at Court. He had hardly arrived at Court when the first pleas for patronage were addressed to him. In 1603 John Ford saluted Pembroke with a dedication, and the stationer and translator, Edward Blount, dedicated to Pembroke and his brother Philip his translation of Lorenco Ducci’s Ars Aulica or the Courtiers Arte. From the brothers, Blount looked for protection and patronage, but as a stationer not a translator. Inscribing the translation as a work which, ‘happening to speak English at this time . . . should seem destined to your protection,’ Blount flattered the brothers by stating that they, from their ‘own practice can clearliest judge of his art.’23 Some years later Raphe Brooke, the York herald, saluted Pembroke in his work, a genealogical work calculated to appeal to Pembroke’s interests. His appeal though was to the King and the major nobles of the Court in a general bid for favour. A bid specifically for Pembroke’s favour came from Francis Markham. The soldier and author spent his early years in the Pembroke household, but from 1582 to 1622 was engaged in military service. By 1625 he had decided to follow his brother Gervase Markham’s footsteps and become an author. In that year he wrote The Booke of Honour or Five Decads of Epistles of Honour and inscribed one of the epistles to Pembroke. In it he gave thanks for past Herbert patronage, and asked the Third Earl to: give me leave (most noble and my best lord) who am (as I suppose) at this present [time] one of the oldest servants of the house of Wilton, to uncover in this epistle the infinite zeal I have ever borne to your greatness.

Through the Third Earl he thanked the whole Herbert family, especially the Second Earl who: ‘gave me speech and learning, made me despise necessity; and clothed me with all the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 97

22/10/10 12:23 PM

98

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

knowledges fit for a gentleman.’ Markham promised always ‘to honor him and serve you.’24

Pembroke’s interest in foreign affairs was as well known as was his interest in the field of honour, and as early as 1603 works dealing with foreign affairs were dedicated to him. Sir Philip Sidney’s old friend Jean Hotman’s work on the office of the ambassador was dedicated to Pembroke by the translator. It was dedicated anonymously to the Third Earl so that: herein you may behold, the idea of those virtues, which heaven and nature have planted in you, fit for the managing of these, and the like high services, for your prince and country, whose eyes and expectations therein are fixed on you.

In 1612, W. Shute dedicated his translations of Fougasse’s, The Generall Historie of the Magnificent State of Venice to two of Venice’s best friends at court, Pembroke and Montgomery. The following year he dedicated his translation of The Triumphs of Nassau to them. Nothing at all is known of Shute, though it is quite possible he was the son of the well-known translator of French and Italian works, John Shute, who flourished in the 1560s and 1570s.25 Fynes Moryson inscribed his book of travels to Pembroke in 1617, and in it he frankly asked for patronage: because it is a thing no less commendable, gladly to receive favors from men of eminent worth, then [sic] with like choice to tender respect and service to them. I now being led by powerful custom to seek a patron for this my work . . . have taken the boldness most humbly to commend it to your honor’s protection.

For some reason, Moryson was unable to interest Pembroke in his work, and Pembroke apparently did not accept the dedication.26 Pembroke showed a great deal more interest in the works dedicated to him that dealt with colonization rather than with travel . He was much involved in colonization schemes, and this is why Robert Johnson of the Virginia ‘interest’ dedicated to him in 1601 his Essaies, or Rather Imperfect Offers. Little is known about Johnson, nor is anything known about the writer who dedicated to the Third Earl in 1615 his translation of M. de Monfart’s work, An Exact and Curious Survey of the East Indies. However, both authors may have been known to Pembroke or at least knew of his large investment in the East India Company which, at the time of his death, amounted to £4,000.27 The investments Pembroke had in the colonies of Virginia and Bermuda also brought forth dedications. Captain John Smith, the colourful soldier and colonist whose life span (1580–1631) was almost identical to Pembroke’s, dedicated to the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 98

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

99

Third Earl in 1624 his work The General History of the Bermudas. Five years later he dedicated to Pembroke and the other noble investors in the Virginia Company The True Travels, Adventures, and Observations of Captaine John Smith. In the dedication he stated that the noble lords were ‘acquainted both with my endeavors and writings,’ and did not doubt ‘but your honors will as well accept this, as of the rest, and patronize it under the shadow of your most noble virtues.’28 John Rolfe, a soldier and colonist closely connected to Smith and to Virginia, also dedicated a work to Pembroke. Smith had been saved from death by the Indian princess Pocahantas, but it was Rolfe who married her and brought her to England with him in 1616. He was trying to drum up support for Virginia when he wrote and dedicated to the Third Earl The True Relation of the State of Virginia. Pembroke was very deeply involved in the Virginia Company and very much aware of the state of affairs in the colony. Rolfe was not informing him with his dedication but only honouring him.29 In 1625 another colonial pioneer, William Vaughan, sought Pembroke’s patronage. Vaughan, who was both a pioneer and poet, dedicated three of his works to Pembroke to solicit support for his colonial ventures. One of the original founders of Newfoundland, he travelled to the colony in 1622, and upon his return in 1625 wrote his Cambrensium Caroleia to celebrate the marriage of Charles I, and dedicated the work to Pembroke. The following year he wrote his Golden Fleece, an allegory praising Newfoundland. Both works admittedly were works of propaganda, written ‘to stir up our islanders minds to assist and support this new found isle.’ The same year Vaughan dedicated his third work to Pembroke. Vaughan may have received some help from the Third Earl, but he could not persuade him to to invest in his undertaking.30 Pembroke’s extensive domestic economic interests brought forth a very unusual dedication from another Vaughan. Rowland Vaughan is remembered today largely for his Welsh verse and his translations into Welsh of manuals of devotion, but Vaughan was also a very practical businessman. He wrote his Most Approved, and Long Experienced Waterworks, in 1610 in the form of a personal letter to Pembroke, asking not only for patronage but also soliciting direct investment. Vaughan pointed out that the waterworks would be beneficial to the commonwealth, especially to Hereford, and would also be a sound financial investment. The writer stressed his family’s service to three generations of Herberts and induced John Davies of Hereford, a poet whom Pembroke patronized, to write a thirteen-page panegyric on the project. In the formal dedication, probably inspired by Davies, Vaughan wrote: Seeing that . . . lordly custom wills that great lords should patronise invention, I do most humbly beseech your lordship to do [so] you being (next unto my dear sovereign and his) heir apparent to my heart.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 99

22/10/10 12:23 PM

100

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

What came of Vaughan’s plea is not known, but perhaps at least one of the Vaughans enjoyed Pembroke’s favour.31 Who definitely did enjoy Pembroke’s favour were the emblemists who flourished in the early seventeenth century, his patronage of the graphic arts growing out of his interest in poetry and heraldry. An interest in emblems was to be expected from a poet and patron of poets, for the emblem convention was closely allied to poetry. First introduced into England during Elizabeth’s reign, emblems quickly became very fashionable for they complemented perfectly the strong Elizabethan taste for allegory. Emblem books were composed of emblematic pictures and an explanatory text and, at a time when ‘poetry was regarded as a speaking picture’, and painting as ‘dumb poetry’, the emblem convention, in which poem and picture were complementary to each other, could flourish. 32 Samuel Daniel, Pembroke’s old tutor, translated Italian and French emblem books in 1585, long before any were published in England, and to them he added verses of his own. It was not until 1608, however, that Otto Vaenius from Antwerp dedicated to Pembroke and Montgomery his Amorum Emblemata. Vaenius, a good painter in his own right, but remembered today as one of Rubens’ masters, addressed the brothers as ‘patrons of learning and chivalry’ whose fame: flying over the seas, out of your British Ile, hath left unto our spacious continent the report of your honors worthiness; and therefore in myself a desire to do your honors such service as might be worthy [of] your esteem.

It is obvious from Vaenius’ dedication that he was unknown to the Herberts, and we have no record of any subsequent contact. Probably Vaenius was aware of the brothers’ growing reputation as connoisseurs of art and collectors of paintings, and anticipated their patronage would express itself in artistic commissions.33 In 1612 Henry Peacham, later famous for his The Compleat Gentleman, sought Pembroke’s patronage when he dedicated to the Third Earl his book of emblems. Whether he was successful or not is unknown, but the following year he was made tutor to the Earl of Arundel’s sons, and with Pembroke’s brother-in-law’s patronage his career was assured. Few emblem books were dedicated to Pembroke, and we do not know if he executed any himself, but he was well aware of the convention. The Third Earl always used emblems, devices cut out of paper in the shape of shields to which mottos were attached, in the many tournaments he participated in throughout his life.34 Pembroke’s interest in painting, though connected to his interest in emblems, was much more important, for he was ‘as generous and distinguished a patron of painters as he was of poets’. The Third Earl met his great protege, Inigo Jones, in the 1590s, and at this stage in his career Jones was already well known for his landscape paintings. His reputation as a painter won him the patronage of both

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 100

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

101

Pembroke and the Earl of Arundel, and there is strong evidence that it was these two connoisseurs who financed his trip to Italy from 1602–04 to study the masters.35 In 1608 Vaenius was seeking artistic commissions from the Third Earl, and by 1612 Henry Peacham could praise Pembroke’s knowledge of painting in his Graphica. He was, by this time, well-known as a collector. Inigo Jones set out for Italy again in 1613, and on this trip he purchased paintings for both Pembroke and Arundel. In 1617 Jones was still actively searching for paintings for his patrons, Edward Sherburn complaining to Dudley Carleton about the late arrival of a shipment for which he was ‘much called upon by Mr. Inego Jones.’ They arrived later, and he was pleased to relate that Pembroke and Arundel ‘do very well approve them, and have devided [sic] them to their contentment.’ Jones did much of the buying for Pembroke, but not all of it. Around 1620 Pembroke was using his cousin, Sir Edward Herbert, as a buyer, or was at least hoping to do so. Writing to Sir Edward in France, Pembroke asked him to use all his powers to obtain a painting for him which, Pembroke stated, ‘I desire exceedingly, if it may be had for any reason.’ We do not know if he was successful in this request.36 Many individuals sold or presented pictures to Europe’s premier collector of paintings, Charles I, but only Pembroke and, to a lesser extent, Arundel exchanged pictures with the King. The most important of these transactions was the Third Earl’s exchange of the painting of St George by Raphael for a collection of sketches by Holbein of noblemen in the reign of Henry VIII, a sketchbook that once belonged to Henry VIII. Pembroke then gave the Holbein sketches to Arundel. Charles I presented Pembroke with a painting of Elizabeth I by Nicholas Hilliard in her parliamentary robes, and the King was given the Mytens portrait of Pembroke, which is today in the County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California. What prompted these exchanges we do not know. But since Charles, Pembroke and Arundel were the greatest British collectors of the period, they may have exchanged paintings among themselves in the course of building up their personal collections. One cannot discount the possibility, however, that Pembroke and Arundel were also actively seeking the King’s favour by not driving too hard a bargain in these exchanges.37 Such a well-known patron of painters attracted portrait painters to himself, and there are extant portraits of Pembroke by Van Dyke, Mytens, Van Somer and other artists of the Dutch and Flemish schools, miniatures by Isaac Oliver and P. P. Hoskins, and more than twenty engravings of him by Van Somer, Mytens and others. The best known likeness of Pembroke, though, is the bronze statue of him by Hubert Le Sueur, presented to the University of Oxford by the Seventh Earl of Pembroke in 1723 and standing outside the Bodleian Library. It was cast around the time of Pembroke’s death, supposedly after a sketch by Rubens. The best likeness of Pembroke is probably the Mytens or the Van Dyke, the Fourth Earl being the latter’s most important English patron.38 The Fourth Earl, like his brother, was a patron of Inigo Jones, whose early

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 101

22/10/10 12:23 PM

102

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

reputation as a painter was soon superseded by his fame as an architect. It was a talent that endeared him to the Herberts. Jones was closely connected to Pembroke when he worked on the Court masques and revels after 1605, and when he was appointed Surveyor of the Works in 1610 their association became even closer. When Prince Henry died, Jones lost his surveyorship and took the opportunity to visit Italy again. Returning to London in 1615, he was made Surveyor-General, the office being procured for him by Pembroke and Arundel. On 16 November 1618, a royal commission was set up to lay out the area of Lincoln’s Inn Fields with a view to improving the area, and on the commission were Pembroke, Arundel and Jones. Two years later the same three were on the commission for the renovation of St Paul’s, Jones because he was the Surveyor-General, Pembroke and Arundel because these two peers were ‘invariably associated with artistic and aesthetic causes.’39 As Lord Chamberlain from 1615 to 1626, Pembroke was officially concerned with buildings and architecture, as one of his functions was to oversee the Office of Works. And Pembroke’s interest was not only an official one. The Banqueting House burnt down in 1619, but ‘so good order [was] taken by the presence of the Lord Chamberlain’ and others of the Court nobles that there was little confusion. In 1607 the King had expressed his dislike of the design of the Banqueting House, as it had been executed by an amateur architect saying that he was ‘nothing pleased with his lord architect for that device.’ It is possible that Pembroke, as he went to so much trouble to save the Banqueting House, was the amateur architect in question. The rebuilding of the Banqueting House was entrusted to Inigo Jones, but on the commission with him were Pembroke, Arundel, the Duke of Lennox, Lord Digby and Fulke Greville.40 Inigo Jones was also employed by the Fourth Earl to build the magnificent state apartments at Wilton, but Jones must have been very dificult to work with. Philip Herbert usually referred to his architect as ‘Iniquity Jones’. The Third Earl was much closer to Jones when his protege was employed in the production of the Court masques, and Jones was a frequent visitor to Wilton. It was during one of these visits, when the King was also there, that Pembroke sent for Jones and told him that James, fascinated by neighbouring Stonehenge, wanted the architect: to produce, out of his own practice in architecture, and experience in antiquities, whatever he could possibly discover about Stonehenge.

Jones’ book about Stonehenge eventually appeared, but only three years after his death in 1652. But even the Third Earl found Jones difficult to work with. In fairness to Jones though, it must be admitted that his frequent collaborator and antagonist at Court, Ben Jonson, was equally truculent, and the yoking together of these two turbulent

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 102

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

103

spirits was a decided risk. Entertainments were, as previously noted, of great social and political importance at the Court of James I. Pembroke was intimately involved with them, and so were his proteges. His first tutor, Hugh Sanford, was employed in preparing him for the tilt in 1600, and his second tutor, Samuel Daniel, by 1603 was designing Court masques.41 From 1601 to 1602 Daniel had been employed as a tutor to the Countess of Cumberland’s daughter, and found the task a very irksome one. In 1602 he dedicated his Defence of Ryme to his former pupil and the following year joined the Pembroke circle at Court. He produced his first masque in 1603 and the following year was given control of the Children of the Revels, an extremely lucrative post. Daniel’s success must have rankled with the more talented Ben Jonson, for these two proteges of Pembroke’s had been feuding for years. The conflict began as far back as 1598, but it heated up considerably in 1601 when Daniel fiercely attacked Jonson in the dedicatory epistle of his Tethys Festival. Jonson replied in Catiline His Conspiracy, his reply being a mild one as his work was dedicated to their common patron, Pembroke. In his Tethys Festival, Daniel had pointedly praised Inigo Jones in such a way as to reflect on Jonson. Thus appears for the first time the more important artistic conflict, that between Jonson and Inigo Jones. In the Jonson–Daniel quarrel, Jonson seems to have been both the one who started it and kept it alive, even though he believed, as he later stated, that ‘Daniel was at jealousies with him.’ Jonson was probably envious of Daniel’s influence with Pembroke and sought to replace him in Pembroke’s affection. Jonson was addicted to public literary quarrels: the same year he started sniping at Daniel, he went to war with some of the greatest playwrights of the period in the famous ‘war of the theatre’ or ‘stage quarrel’. The ‘war of the theatre’ stormed along from 1598 until 1601, embroiling Jonson, Shakespeare, Marston, Dekker and Munday, but by the latter year the enmities had been forgotten.42 Daniel, though only peripherally involved in the ‘war of the theatre’, was still ‘at jealousies’ with Jonson, and it was he who brought the clash between Jonson and Inigo Jones to an open rupture. At least he was the first to publicly broadcast their differences. Since 1605 Jonson and Jones had collaborated in four masques, and they had had ample time to realize that their personalities and artistic tastes were completely incompatible. Jonson ‘was aware of his dignity as a poet and was hardly of a pacific disposition; and Inigo was certainly ambitious and proud of his Italian culture and techniques.’ Both had strong personalities and much generosity of spirit, but unfortunately both were fiercely jealous and firmly convinced of the correctness of their artistic principles and of their duty to their profession. And if either were provoked or their principles challenged, they could be utterly ruthless. Once their principles came into conflict, as they did in the masque, bitterness was inevitable.43 Jonson saw his role in the masque as that of the poet who gave the masque its

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 103

22/10/10 12:23 PM

104

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

‘soul’, while Jones gave it its ‘outward celebration’ or ‘shew’ in other words, its ‘body’. Given this attitude, conflict became inevitable, for everything depended upon whose part was to be given precedence, the poet’s or the artist’s. ‘The verbal or the visual – if the issue is forced one or the other must take precedence – and in any dispute the issues inevitably become personal.’44 In 1612 Jonson characterized Jones as a time-server, a flatterer and a buffoon and, as their feud increased in bitterness, he wrote that ‘when he wanted words to express the greatest villain in the world he would call him an ‘Inigo’. Jones did not reply in print but used his influence to have Jonson supplanted at Court. In 1630 his campaign was crowned with success. The only reason that Jones and Jonson had worked together so long was because their patron Pembroke had fostered both yet favoured neither. He was cognizant of their great talents, and his early influence on them was based on patronage and friendship; later on, as Lord Chamberlain, he used his position in the Household to keep the balance. At this period in his career, Jonson needed more support than Jones, for the latter had good Court connections and a good income from his position as Surveyor-General. Only when Pembroke died in 1630 was the balance totally destroyed and Jonson dismissed from the Court.45 Pembroke’s efforts in keeping Jones and Jonson working in tandem were not purely altruistic. The Third Earl was a devoted masquer and delighted in the fruits of their joint efforts, and later, as Lord Chamberlain, the supervision of the Court masques became one of his official duties. Pembroke performed in most of the great masques staged from 1603 to 1616 and then, as Lord Chamberlain, he was responsible for the later ones. He never outgrew his love for the masque, and though his role from 1616 to 1630 was largely an administrative one, he still occasionally did some masquing. In 1630, the year he died, Pembroke was one of the masquers in Love’s Triumph Through Callipolis, which was staged on 6 January. Fittingly enough this masque was a Jonson–Jones production.46 From 1603 until 1630 there were thirty-seven masques produced at court, twenty-four of them by Jonson. The music for eleven of the thirty-seven masques was written by Jonson’s close friend, Alphonso Ferrabosco, nine by Henry Lawes, five by Giovanni Coperario and two by Nicholas Lanier. All of these musicians were patronized by Pembroke. Surprisingly, only two books of music were formally dedicated to him, Tobias Hume’s The First Part of Ayres. French, Pollish. etc., in 1605 and Thomas Tomkins’ Songs of 3. 4. 5. and 6 Parts in 1622. Hume was a soldier. and musician who spent most of his early life in the service of Sweden. To use his own self-description, ‘my life hath been a soldier, and my idleness addicted to music.’ Hume’s second work in 1607, Captain Hume’s Musicall Humors, attracted as little patronage as did his first, and in 1629 he entered the Charterhouse as a poor brother, where he died in 1645. Tomkins was more fortunate in his quest for support: Pembroke became one of his patrons. A writer of sacred music, Tomkins

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 104

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

105

had studied under Byrd, and when he dedicated his first work to Pembroke in 1622, he was one of the organists of the royal chapel. Tomkins inscribed his work to Pembroke because he was known as a lover of music, and because of his ‘often frequenting, and favourable attention to the music in the [king’s chapel].’47 Pembroke was a very active friend of music and musicians. The musician Henry Lawes, as a young man, lived on the bounty of several patrons, Pembroke among them. Lawes, the most important and prolific English songwriter between Dowland and Purcell, was born near Wilton, and Pembroke was probably his first patron. Later Lawes was almost certainly paid by Pembroke to set his poems to music. At least one of Pembroke’s poems, ‘Canst thou love me and yet doubt’ was given by Pembroke personally to Lawes to be so arranged. The more famous musician, John Dowland, in his work The Third and Last Booke of Ayres, published in 1602/3 had earlier put to music Pembroke’s poem ‘Disdain Me Still That I May Ever Love’. Lawes was strongly influenced by the Court musicians and composers Ferrabosco, Coperario, Thomas Campion and Nicholas Lanier, and he collaborated with Lanier in setting Pembroke’s lyrics to music. Both Lawes and Lanier were given appointments in the royal household in 1625 through Pembroke’s influence.48 Ferrabosco and Coperario wrote music for masques and both were patronized by Pembroke, but Thomas Campion was not – he was backed by the Somerset faction at Court. Nicholas Lanier, from a family that had produced many fine musicians for the king’s service, in 1604 was in the service of Prince Henry. When the Prince died in 1612, he wrote to a friend that he did not know ‘which is the most dangerous attempt, to turn courtier or clown.’ He chose the former and as a Court musician wrote the music for some of Jonson’s best masques. In 1625 Lanier was made Master of the King’s Musick through Pembroke’s influence. This highly lucrative post, to which were appended other financially important offices, patents and monopolies, made the fortunes of the Lanier family as it was later to enrich the Ferraboscos.49 The Third Earl was very keen to further the interests of Nicholas Lanier and his family at Court. In 1627 he wrote to King Charles: In the time of my being Chamberlaine, I observed a decay in your musicke of windinstruments, for that theire were not any from theire childhood initiated in that kind of musicke, and that none, as your Majesty best knowes, were so fitt for instruction that way as the Laniers.

Pembroke was interested in Lanier for another reason also, namely that Lanier was one of Charles the First’s art buyers abroad. In 1628 Lanier was staying with Daniel Nys in Mantua, and from Nys Pembroke had previously made purchases. It is probable that Pembroke was using Lanier’s services to buy paintings for him.50 Pembroke’s interest in the music at Court, like his patronage of the theatre and

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 105

22/10/10 12:23 PM

106

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

its players, supported by his brother Montgomery, was obvious to everyone in James’ reign. The theatre was controlled by the King through the Privy Council, the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Revels, the Lord Treasurer and the Mayor of London. The King generally delegated his authority to the Privy Council, where Pembroke was prominent. The Third Earl also as Lord Chamberlain nominated and controlled the Master of the Revels, his relative Henry Herbert, and in general was effectively in control of the theatre in London. In 1622 the king authorized the grant of the Mastership of the Horse to William Painter without consulting Pembroke. The Third Earl objected and put forward his secretary John Thoroughgood for the post. Pembroke was ‘resentful because the grant was going to an outsider who was not part of the Earl’s patronage system.’ Even worse, Painter was probably being pushed forward by Buckingham. The King withdrew his grant and stalemate ensued. Later the reversion was given to Sir John Astley and Sir Henry Herbert was appointed as his deputy. This whole episode was a direct challenge to Pembroke’s power and he had to use the expedient of buying out Astley to restore his influence. Pembroke was attempting to keep control of the drama, protect his patronage rights against Buckingham and, in general, strengthen his position at Court. In this he was only partially successful. The Duke of Newcastle’s comment was apt when he wrote that ‘Pembroke did labor as for his life all the reign of King James . . . to be of the Bedchamber and could never obtain it.’ He had to be content with the indirect influence of Montgomery who was made a Groom of the Bedchamber early in the reign, the first Englishman granted such a favour.51 Drama was neither rigidly nor efficiently censored by the state, at least later in James’s reign, so perhaps the word ‘control’ is not quite appropriate. Companies took great risks in flouting the libel laws, the King was very tolerant, and courtiers and officials like Pembroke protected the players. The problems that Jonson, Marston and Chapman had early in James reign over libellous plays were not repeated in the 1620s.52 As Lord Chamberlain, Pembroke had direct supervision of the company under royal patronage, the King’s Men and, whether or not individual players were of this company, it was not unusual to see them, singly or in groups, extricated from difficulties with the King, the Privy Council, or the Mayor of London. Pembroke had control over the licensing of plays and made an effort to reform the licensing system, to protect the players. For example, in 1619 he tried to prevent the plays of the King’s Men from being printed in London, ‘without some of their consents’, by writing a strong letter to the Company of Printers and Stationers. Unfortunately, even he was not successful in 1619 in stopping the publication of this pirated edition of Shakespeare’s plays. In the years 1621 to 1623 his orders to the Stationers were not enough to deprive ‘those stationers who owed their copyrights to stolen and surreptitious copy of their rights in Shakespeare’s plays.’ The Lord

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 106

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

107

Chamberlain was not interested in censoring or rigidly controlling the theatre in Jacobean England, and he alone could do little to reform the chaotic publishing practices that flourished alongside it.53 Pembroke’s inability to protect the players from piratical publishers and, of course, their equally guilty fellow players, was only one of the frustrations of the Lord Chamberlain’s office. He also had to ban plays he may have agreed with. In 1624 the Third Earl had to ban A Game at Chess, a satire on the proposed Spanish Match, as it had ‘passages in it reflecting in matter of scorn and ignominy upon the King of Spain, some of his ministers and others of good note and quality.’ This play had the longest run ever on the Jacobean stage, was seen by 30,000 spectators (a good percentage of the population of London) among whose number was Pembroke’s spokesman in the Commons, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd. This play is often regarded as a satire on the Duke of Buckingham and the Spanish Match, and thus it is assumed that it was supported by Pembroke and the anti-Spanish faction. But, as one recent commentator has pointed out, ‘powerful pressures at Court led Pembroke more often than not . . . to collude rather than collide with Buckingham’, and the play could well have had the King’s, Buckingham’s and Pembroke’s support. Besides, one should not overestimate the value of a single play in the politics of the reign. The real point is that the Master of the Revels was confident enough to allow the play if he had Pembroke behind him. It is also quite possible that Massinger did not even intend his play to be seen as an attack on Buckingham and Spain for, in the opinion of one of his biographers, Massinger ‘looks at politics as a moralist, not as a politician or a partisan.’54 The warrants for all plays performed before the King at Court were granted by the Privy Council as a whole, but after 1615 Pembroke took them into his own hands. He must have delighted in presenting these plays, but unfortunately he has left little record of his activity. The records begin in 1623, but there is very little prior to 1630. However, we do know that on 2 November 1624, the Lord Chamberlain had ‘Rule a Wife and Have a Wife, for the ladies, by the King’s Company.’ Pembroke supervised the first play James I ever saw in England, a play performed at his home at Wilton on 2 December 1603, and the Third Earl maintained his interest in the drama for the rest of his life.55 Shakespeare’s friendship with Pembroke started in the 1590s as did Ben Jonson’s. Fortunately, we know a little more of his relations with Pembroke than we do of the Third Earl’s relationship with Jonson’s more famous contemporary, Shakespeare. Pembroke and Jonson may have met first when Jonson was an actor and playwright in Pembroke’s Men during 1597, for even this early Jonson was one of the foremost playwrights in the country. In 1603 both Pembroke and Jonson were members of the Antiquarian Society, a small informal group, and Jonson’s Sejanus was produced the same year. Jonson had returned to the stage in 1603 after a five-year absence, and his first offering, Sejanus, was unpopular with both the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 107

22/10/10 12:23 PM

108

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

public and with the authorities. The latter were nervous about the recent Essex conspiracy and thought the play contained some dangerous satire. Jonson was haled before the Privy Council to answer for his play, but no charges followed. Possibly he was protected by Pembroke. In 1605 Jonson was in trouble again, incarcerated, and appealed to Pembroke for help. Pembroke was to intercede often during his life for this wayward, pugnacious genius. As previously mentioned, Jonson was a friend of the Herbert family and dedicated his works to the Third Earl. In return he was treated as an equal, given an annual stipend for buying books, and awarded an MA from Oxford through Pembroke’s intervention. From 1603 until his death in 1630, Pembroke gave employment and protection at court to Jonson. The playwright ‘never esteemed of a man for the name of a lord,’ and conversely, the patron never called into question a man’s genius because he had once been a bricklayer.56 Jonson’s contemporary, Philip Massinger, Pembroke must have known as a boy at Wilton. His father Arthur Massinger was the Second Earl’s solicitor, and was an Examiner of the Council of the Welsh Marches, and sat in parliament as a Pembroke nominee for Weymouth and Shaftesbury. Entrusted by the family with many important and confidential matters, Arthur Massinger acted as broker in the abortive marriage negotiations between Pembroke and Burghley in 1598. His son Philip sought patronage from the Third Earl in 1615. In that year he wrote to Pembroke: My lord, So subject to the worser fame Are even the best that claim a poets name Especially poor they that serve the stage Though worthily in this verse halting age. These are presidents [precedents] I cite with reverence: my low intents Look not so high, yet some work I might frame That should nor wrong my duty nor your name Were but your lordship pleas’d to cast an eye Of favor on my trod down poverty.

Massinger’s appeal for patronage may have been hurt by either his religious views or his radical political ones, but this does not seem to have been a bar when he appealed to Montgomery. In 1624 he dedicated his play The Bondman to Montgomery in an apparently successful bid for patronage. The Third Earl was an even greater patron of the theatre than his brother, and had the money to support his interest, but perhaps Massinger’s ideas were more favourably received by Montgomery than by Pembroke.57 The playwright and poet George Chapman was patronized by Pembroke when

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 108

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

109

he was Lord Chamberlain, but their association began much earlier. In 1605 Chapman was imprisoned with Jonson for the anti-Scots satire Eastward Ho and, like Jonson, was apparently freed through Pembroke’s intercession. In gratitude, and as a bid for patronage, Chapman dedicated an epistle to Pembroke in the 1610 edition of his Homer Prince of Poets. We do not know if Chapman received any patronage, and if he had it would have been very unusual, for Chapman’s chief patron was the Earl of Somerset. This also shows how small and interconnected the artistic world of London was, and is a salutary reminder of how fluid and flexible were the political factions at Court. Chapman’s political allegory in favour of Somerset, The Tragedy of Chabot, though written in 1615, was not licensed until 1639. The delay was probably due to the fact that the licensing of plays was in the hands of successive Earls of Pembroke.58 Thomas Nashe’s first association with the Herberts was even more unfortunate than Chapman’s had been. In 1591 he was associated with the stationer Thomas Newman in publishing the unauthorized edition of Sidney’s Stella, and this, understandably, got him into serious difficulties with the Herberts. The estrangement proved to be a temporary one though, for by 1597 he was a writer for Pembroke’s Men. We have no evidence of any patronage from Pembroke to Nashe, but we can assume he was under the general protection Pembroke gave to many playwrights and writers of the period, especially those who wrote for Pembroke’s Men. And this protection extended as long as Pembroke lived, for though Pembroke’s Men were defunct by 1600 we have records of players called the Earl of Pembroke’s players performing in the provinces in 1625 and 1627. Nashe must have been well-known to the Third Earl not only because he was a playwright who worked for a troupe under Pembroke’s sponsorship, but also because of his association with the author John Florio, his old tutor Daniel’s brother-in-law. 59 John Florio was involved with Nashe in the unauthorized edition of Sidney’s Astropel and Stella in 1591, probably out of his virulent dislike of Hugh Sanford. The bitterness between Florio and Sanford stemmed from the latter’s appointment as tutor to the then Lord Herbert, a position Florio coveted and to which he thought he had first claim. Florio was an early client of the Herberts for his father, Michael Angelo Florio, had taught the Second Earl Italian in the 1550s and later dedicated a book of grammar rules to him. His son may have taught the Third Earl Italian, but the first definite evidence we have of their connection is in 1609. In that year Florio procured Pembroke’s patronage for John Healey’s translation of St Augustine, Of the Citie of God, which was published the following year.60 Florio was an intimate member of the literary coterie which surrounded the Third Earl, and it was through Pembroke’s influence that Florio was named a Groom of the Privy Chamber along with Pembroke’s old tutor Daniel. Florio was so close to Jonson that he called Florio ‘the ayde of his muses’, and so close to Pembroke that he left the Earl in his will:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 109

22/10/10 12:23 PM

110

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

all my Italian, French and Spanish books, as well printed as unprinted, being in number about three hundred and forty, namely my new and perfect dictionary, also my ten dialogues in Italian and English, and my unbound volumes of divers written collections and rhapsodies.

Florio asked Pembroke to keep the bequest in his library but to print his dictionary and dialogues, letting the ‘profit thereof accrue to my wife.’ Florio also left Pembroke a valuable Corvina stone, in return for which he asked the Third Earl to take care of his widow.61 The will named as executors Theophilus Field, the Bishop of Llandaff, and Richard Cluet, the vicar of Fulham. Field was connected to the Pembroke circle, and evidently Florio had nominated him to deal with the business that affected Pembroke. The executors refused to execute the will, probably because it was a very confused document and it would involve them in the acrimonious financial squabbles that were taking place between the widow and the Molinses, the sonin-law’s family, to whom Florio was in debt. It is also possible that the executors refused their burden because Pembroke would not accept the legacy and make himself responsible for printing Florio’s works. To refuse the bequest of a dead friend seems out of character for Pembroke and, if he did refuse it, it must have been due to the unpleasantness it would have engendered between the widow and her in-laws.62 Pembroke’s patronage was not confined to literary or artistic endeavours. He used it to honour and advance his friends and relatives, to keep in touch with his parliamentary supporters in England and Wales, and to aid overseas merchants. It was also used to support charitable institutions, especially St Nicholas hospital in Wilton.63 The most appealing acts of patronage by the Third Earl are his very personal acts of patronage, or should we say acts of kindness-acts in which he used his great influence to help the poor and unfortunate. Writing to Sir Julius Caesar in 1623, Pembroke said that he had been informed that Anne Whitney, a widow, was in a suit before him on a bond of £2,000 in a matter of £10 value. He implored Caesar to: do what lawful favor you can for them, for that the gentlewoman is a widow dwelling far off and had rather provide for herself and her younger children than waste her estates in suits of law.

At an earlier date Pembroke had written to Caesar: When I entreated your favor for a poor blind man’s preferment to the hospital of St. Crosers [?] which place is not in His Majesty’s gift, I should have moved you for the hospital of the Trinity. To that place therefore I heartily pray you to help him. Wherein

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 110

22/10/10 12:23 PM

‘ T H E G R E AT E S T M A E C E N A S ’

111

besides the charitable employing of His Majesty’s gift you shall make me, for my poor neighbor, not a little beholden.64

Pembroke’s very personal acts of favour, though illuminating as to his character are, nevertheless, secondary to his position as the greatest patron of the arts in the early seventeenth century. The Third Earl was the patron of writers, painters, architects, musicians, playwrights and players. He was also much involved in the great masques and Court entertainments of the period. And his patronage was a very intimate one, for he was friend and patron to many of the most brilliant artistic figures of the period. His patronage of belles lettres and beaux arts was even more widespread and had a more lasting effect than even his patronage of poetry. The contemporary commentator did not exaggerate when he described the Third Earl of Pembroke as being ‘the greatest Maecenas to learned men of any peer of his time.’65

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 111

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 112

22/10/10 12:23 PM

8

Parliament and Politics, 1621–1625

The Third Earl’s active commitment to the arts did not blind him to the fact that, central though they were to his interests, they could not be divorced from the politics of the age. Nor could Pembroke, even though his opposition to the King’s policies, the overweening power of Buckingham, and the pro-Spanish drift of the Court found him more and more opposed to government policy in the second decade of the seventeenth century. He would not, of course, give up his quest for preferment at Court, and he had not yet given up hope that James might change his policies or even grow tired of Buckingham. But by 1621 Pembroke was convinced that the King’s policies were antithetical to the best interests of England and Protestantism, at least as the Calvinist Pembroke saw those interests. By 1621 he was determined to use his extensive political influence at Court, in the Privy Council, and in parliament, to soften the impact of or even to thwart James’ designs. In between the second and the third of his parliaments, James I used various means to alleviate his chronic financial difficulties. He negotiated a loan from the City, made new grants of monopolies, sold peerages and thus alienated many of his supporters among the old nobility, and sold to the Dutch the Cautionary Towns. Most of the Privy Council in the last case backed the King’s actions, but Pembroke was vehemently opposed to it. The Cautionary Towns were the towns of Flushing, Brill and Rammekens in the Low Countries, towns held by the English since Elizabeth’s time as a pledge of repayment for money lent. Pembroke was opposed because he thought it a dishonourable way of raising funds and because he favoured keeping an English presence in the Netherlands. As far as he was concerned, the retention of the Cautionary Towns symbolized England’s commitment to the United Provinces. The support of the Dutch was central to his ideas on foreign policy. Pembroke was well known as a friend of the Dutch and the English East India Company as well as a strong supporter of Continental Protestantism.1 The royal finances were much improved by 1618, James handing them over to Lionel Cranfield. Cranfield was extremely effective, so much so that a Treasury surplus was expected from 1619 on. Also the King’s finances were strengthened in 1620 when the Privy Councillors who favoured helping the Prince Palatine strongly urged that a benevolence be given to the King. The Councillors’ urging often took very questionable forms, and Pembroke was a party to these forced loans. In Hampshire, for example, Sir Thomas Lambert, at the insistence of Pembroke and

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 113

22/10/10 12:23 PM

114

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Southampton, was ‘pricked’ as a sheriff for refusing to contribute to such a loan. The King probably would have been able to struggle along without parliament, but when the Palatinate was invaded in 1620 and the Prince Palatine was faced with the loss of his patrimony, James had little choice but to summon parliament.2 In the years 1618–19 there really was no ‘Spanish’ party as such, but with the return of Gondomar in March 1620 one quickly formed. Gondomar wooed Buckingham over to his side, and a new party formed around the favourite. Buckingham used his influence to delay the calling of parliament, surmising correctly that it would be strongly anti-Spanish and anti-Buckingham. The reason for the latter was that the Lords were outraged by Buckingham’s meteoric rise, a distinction they thought totally unmerited, and the Commons were anxious to debate the patents and monopolies held by the favourite and his relatives. Not even Buckingham’s influence was strong enough to postpone parliament indefinitely, however. On 30 January 1621, financial necessity forced the calling of the third parliament of James’ reign.3 As one of the ‘old’ nobility, Pembroke was strongly opposed to the upstart Buckingham, and feared his malevolent influence over the King. In Pembroke’s ideas of government there was no room for all-powerful favourites, and the Third Earl correctly perceived that Buckingham’s influence over the King was a threat to his, Pembroke’s, rightful position as one of the King’s chief advisors.4 The invasion of the Palatinate was a disaster for the Prince Palatine and also for his father-in-law. James I’s grand design as the major Protestant power in Europe was to balance off the Catholic powers and maintain the political and religious status quo without recourse to arms. But the King never could control his impetuous son-in-law and lacked the military means to make credible the threat against the Catholic powers. He could not even defend his own national interests when the country was in the midst of a serious economic depression. James I may have been freer from the national and religious prejudices of his age than were his fellow countrymen, but his enlightened views would gain him little support in parliament.5 Pembroke’s position was a complicated one in 1621. He was at odds with the favourite and was identified correctly as being strongly anti-Spanish and steadfast in his support of Continental Protestantism. But Pembroke knew that the King wanted peace, that the economy was in a difficult state and could not sustain a major war, and that without allies England could do little against the Hapsburgs. Foreign affairs were certain to dominate the new parliament, and there would be pressure for a naval war against Spain. Disputes in this area would almost certainly lead to acrimony between Crown and parliament, as would parliament’s expected attack on patents and monopolies. In the latter area Pembroke himself was vulnerable. His brother held various unpopular patents and monopolies and the Third Earl had managed to acquire for himself and Sir Robert Mansell the unpopular glass monopoly.6

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 114

22/10/10 12:23 PM

PA R L I A M E N T A N D P O L I T I C S

115

Pembroke strengthened his support of the Dutch and continued his support of France as a counterweight to Spain. But he was very worried by the political changes taking place in France and feared for the Huguenots. He was also worried about their self-destructive tendencies when he wrote to Ambassador Doncaster that he hoped that God would ‘bless that poor church whose ambitious and coulrous [choleric from the French colereux?] members ruin it.’7 The Third Earl’s support of the Palatinate was unequivocal. Pembroke was one of the Queen of Bohemia’s major advisors on British politics and in April 1621 Rudyerd, writing on behalf of his master, hoped that the Queen ‘being so near England, will honor this country and glad the hearts of many thousands with the favor of her presence’. He continued that he thought the Queen would do her cause much good if she came while parliament was sitting because ‘never any parliament proceeded with so mutual likings . . . nor so good corres [pondency ] . . . as this.’ The Third Earl was also willing to put his purse at the service of the Prince Palatine. In October 1620 Pembroke was one of the seven contributors to the campaign for the Palatinate who donated £2,000 each.8 Before the meeting of the new parliament, Pembroke was convinced that the King: will be very unwilling to be engaged in a war, if by any means with his honor he may avoid it. And yet I am confident when the necessity of the cause of religion, his own preservation, and his own honor calls upon him, that he will perform whatsoever belongs to the Defender of the Faith, a kind father in law, and one careful of the preservation of that honor which I must confess hath long lain in a kind of suspense.

Pembroke was further convinced that the Privy Council shared his views, and that these views would prevail even against Buckingham and those others who were ‘nourished too much with Spanish milk.’9 Pembroke, whom Gondomar considered as ‘always the mortal enemy of Spain’, was averse neither to sponsoring anti-Spanish propaganda nor building up his influence in parliament to counter the Spanish threat. The latter he did with a vengeance in 1621. The Pembroke Connection in 1621 was much larger than it had been previously, the Third Earl extending his influence in Wiltshire and Wales, and especially in Cornwall. Moreover, the Connection had a new spokesman in 1621, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd. As we have seen, his new spokesman was a fellow poet, had been a close friend since his student days and was allied to him by marriage. And it was through Pembroke’s influence that Rudyerd had been appointed to the lucrative post of Surveyor of the Court of Wards. Like his patron, Rudyerd was a lifelong moderate and a staunch Protestant.10 Pembroke’s electoral influence was strongly contested in 1621. In Wiltshire he could only nominate one of the members each for Downton and Devizes. Wilton,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 115

22/10/10 12:23 PM

116

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

however, faithfully returned his two nominees. His failure to nominate either of the two burgesses at Old Sarum provoked an angry letter to the Earl of Salisbury. ‘I cannot conceive,’ he wrote to Cecil in December 1620: how you can claim any right, the nominating of them depending only upon their own choice, and that swayed by their affection. The dwellers of that borough have ever since my memory showed their respect to my father and myself in choosing those whom we have recommended unto them . . . as they have done these three score years.

This was only a temporary check, for Old Sarum returned Connection MPs in the later parliaments of the 1620s. The flexibility of patronage can also be shown in that George Myn, one of the MPs for Old Sarum in 1621, sat as a Pembroke nominee for West Looe in 1624.11 Pembroke also spoke, unsuccessfully, to the burgesses of Retford in 1621 and tried to secure a seat for Sir Richard Wynne in Yorkshire. He was more successful elsewhere. He maintained his control in Shaftesbury and Queensborough and finally got control of Portsmouth where he had been Captain since 1609. The Third Earl’s influence in Cornwall provided him with two more MPs as did the Chancellorship of Oxford. It is also probable that neighbouring Woodstock provided the Connection with an MP as early as 1621. Montgomery was steward of the royal manors of Woodstock, the Woodstock and Oxford MPs often swapped seats, and one MP there in Charles’ reign was one of Pembroke’s many secretaries. To this group of English MPs, the Welsh branch of the Connection added seven more.12 The influence of the Third Earl increased even more markedly in the House of Lords. Indicative of his increased power and prestige were his five proxies. His voting power was also strengthened by Montgomery and by the two proxies that he held. Pembroke’s and Montgemery’s total of nine votes was equal to Buckingham’s in 1621.13 In the Lords in 1621 Pembroke sat on all the important committees and played a very active role in the vital issues of the first session – the question of the Palatinate, arguments over redress of grievances, and the examination of the monopolist Sir Giles Mompesson, that of the Catholic Edward Lloyd (Floyd, Flood), and the degradation of Francis Bacon. In all of these debates he spoke as often and as fully as any other peer. He was usually assigned to the conferences with the House of Commons, probably because of his position, his support there and his known moderation. He was appointed as the Lords’ spokesman at the most important of these conferences, the meeting with the Commons regarding their demands for redress of grievances. It was agreed by the Lords that ‘the Lord Chamberlain shall begin the said conference.’14 At the same time, however, Pembroke was a staunch supporter of the rights of the House of Lords, and would brook no attack on them from the Commons, nor

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 116

22/10/10 12:23 PM

PA R L I A M E N T A N D P O L I T I C S

117

for that matter from the Crown. In the Lloyd (Floyd, Flood) case, Pembroke: commended the concurrence between the Commons and the Lords. They, the Commons, have used to complain, the Lords to examine and judge. If this be broken, he doubts of the success. The Commons have convented Flood, examined him, and sentenced him, and entered this as an act; which may trench into our privileges. If they have, we to consider of it, and not to aggravate against them.

When Coke admitted the error of the Commons, Pembroke commented: I believe them. But that satisfies us not for our privileges. And would you have liked it that we had moved a subsidy [?].15

Pembroke’s defence of the Lords against the Crown was much more diplomatic. The King had asked the Lords to examine Sir Henry Yelverton. They had done so but then the King accused Yelverton of aggravating his fault by the words he used in the Lords. The King then wanted to bring Yelverton to task himself. The Lords considered this to be a slight on the Lords and Pembroke told the King: The Lords, knowing Your Majesty’s tenderness of the privileges of this house, and their own zeal unto your Majesty’s honor, do humbly beseech Your Majesty to continue your former resolution, otherwise this alteration may strike some fear unto us, that we are not held so tender and zealous of our dutiful affections in point of Your Majesty’s honor as we desire you should think us to be, and are most ready to yield due proof thereof.16

Pembroke was very much involved in the Lords’ examination of those patents and monopolies and corrupt practices that were considered grievances, not least of all that the accused, Mompesson, Yelverton and Bacon were clients of Buckingham. Yet Pembroke had to be careful not to frontally attack the favourite or his creatures. The moderation he showed during the impeachment of Bacon, perhaps out of deference to Bacon’s patron Buckingham, was out of tune with the temper of the House. The Commons were eager to attack Buckingham and his supporters, and were not mollified when Buckingham, to save himself, sacrificed his clients. Pembroke’s moderation was also not reciprocated by Bacon. During Bacon’s impeachment, Pembroke made a motion that, though Bacon should be subject to fine, ransom and imprisonment, and made incapable of holding public office, he should not be degraded from his title. Pembroke’s motion was carried and Bacon expressed his gratitude to the Third Earl. Later, while attempting to further curry favour with Buckingham, Bacon forgot his gratitude and described Pembroke as a man, ‘for his person, not effectual; some dependences he hath, which are drawn with him.’17 The ruffled feelings of the Lords can be seen when Pembroke reported back

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 117

22/10/10 12:23 PM

118

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

to them on the conference with the Commons on the Mompesson case. In his narration Pembroke stated that ‘two great lords’ – Lord Chancellor Bacon and the Lord Treasurer – had spoken without permission at the conference. By ‘great lords’ he had meant lords holding high office, and was being only polite in so describing them. The House would not admit that office conferred any superiority on a peer. A motion was carried, unanimously, that ‘no lords of this House are to be named great lords for they are all peers.’ The Third Earl’s respectful language and moderate temper were not even acceptable to his own supporters in the House.18 In the Commons the Connection was as active as their patron in the Lords. The English branch of the Connection, led by Rudyerd, was very much in evidence in the debates over the subsidies, and the investigations into patents and monopolies. It also took a leading role in the prosecutions of Edward Lloyd and Chancellor Bacon. Rudyerd’s staunch Protestantism quickly became apparent when he spoke against the sale of benefices and advocated an all-out war for the Palatinate. However, Rudyerd was a realist and though he strongly advocated war with Spain he did not want to make it a war for religion. He knew, or was so informed by his patron, that to make it a religious crusade would ruin any chance of a strong Continental alliance.19 Rudyerd was a fledgling parliamentarian; thus he spoke infrequently and sat on few committees. Other English members of the Connection spoke even less, though Carew Raleigh did speak against patents and monopolies. In 1621 the Welsh members of the Connection were the most active and important ones. William Ravenscroft spoke frequently and was assigned to important committees, and the MP from Glamorgan, William Price, spoke a great deal. Though Price was a moderate, he was an unwavering Protestant, vocally in sympathy with the strident Protestantism of the House. He also spoke out strongly in favour of ridding the government of many administrative and legal abuses.20 The most frequently heard Welsh voice of the Pembroke Connection, however, did not belong to Ravenscroft or Price, but to Sir William Herbert. In fact, if he had been as intimate with the Third Earl as was Rudyerd, he would have remained the spokesman for the Connection. In 1621 Herbert consistently attacked recusants, monopolists and corrupt officials, and was a strong defender of the House’s privileges. Even so, he conscientiously tried to improve relations between the two houses. Herbert and his fellow Welsh members, like their English counterparts in the Connection, carried on a vigorous opposition to Buckingham, though, like their patron, they did not carry this opposition to the point of challenging the status quo in church and state.21 The Parliament of 1621 only met for the first time on 30 January, yet as early as April Buckingham was trying to bring about its dissolution. The House of Commons, in their investigation into monopolies, were attacking abuses that not only involved Buckingham’s clients but also the Duke himself and his close

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 118

22/10/10 12:23 PM

PA R L I A M E N T A N D P O L I T I C S

119

relatives. His brother, Christopher Villiers, and his half-brother, Sir Edward Villiers were being investigated and for their, and his own protection, Buckingham wanted a dissolution. The King refused to dissolve parliament but proposed an adjournment until November. For the Connection, Rudyerd graciously but firmly replied: We are much bound to His Majesty for his grace and favor in giving us leave to touch business, and in them to go so far as to meddle with great persons (i.e. Mompesson), on whom we have passed judgment; which judgment is better far than many good laws, for laws will fall asleep, when the fright of these judgments will keep men awake to do their duties. He desireth, that we may so temper ourselves and passions as that we may part out of this House like a sweet odor.22

The first session of the Parliament of 1621, even though it had attacked the monopolists and degraded Bacon, had been basically conciliatory. It had quickly voted the King two subsidies and supported the Crown in its desire to protect the Palatinate. But after the second session opened, it quickly became apparent that foreign affairs would dominate the debates and that parliament and the King were not at all united in their views. Prince Charles played an important role in the second session, acting as a link between the King and the Privy Councillors who decided govenment strategy in the Commons. Charles tried to steer the session towards a successful conclusion, but soon realized that there were elements in the House that presented a ‘popular’ threat to the power of the monarchy, members he called ‘seditius fellus’ (seditious fellows). By the end of the session he was at one with his father’s prejudices and anxieties when it came to dealing with the Commons.23 Rudyerd, speaking for the Connection, pleaded for the necessary funds to defend the Palatinate and Protestantism when he said that: Our religion is battered abroad and moulders here at home; that he thinketh there is none that values his soul at so low a rate, as that he will not give and spend his life and goods for the defence of it: that there is now a fair and thrifty way opened to us for the defence of our religion, and the recovery of the right and inheritance of our King’s children. He desireth therefore that this House will consider of a present supply of the army in the Palatinate, that that business and the dangers which may come thereby be not wound up on delays till they break, and so our supply come too late.24

A subsidy was granted the King, but parliament showed no enthusiasm for a land war preferring a less-expensive naval war. It then launched into a wide-ranging debate over foreign affairs at the end of which Coke made a violent attack on Spain and Catholicism. The Commons then asked the King to enforce the recusancy laws, declare war on Spain, and marry the heir apparent to a Protestant. The King was

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 119

22/10/10 12:23 PM

120

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

furious and warned the House not to meddle in affairs of state. The Commons’ reaction was their famous Protestation of 18 December: that the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state, and defence of the realm, and of the Church of England . . . are proper subjects and matter of counsel and debate in parliament; and . . . every member of the house of parliament has, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same.25

Urged on by Buckingham and Gondomar, James considered dissolving parliament and called a meeting of the Privy Council to discuss it. Pembroke spoke strongly against the idea and was supported at the Council table by another of the antiSpanish faction, Marquis Hamilton. Both affirmed ‘that the day would come when this error would be imputed to the Council and not the King, and therefore they protested about it.’ Due to their protest James postponed the adjournment for a week, but at the Council meeting that finally decided upon dissolution, when the King set forth his reasons, none but Pembroke dared contradict him. The Third Earl sarcastically remarked that ‘there was no need of voting or disputing, for the King had declared his will.’ Buckingham’s taunt in reply to this was that ‘if he wished to contradict the King’s will he should do so, for he [Buckingham] in his case would do the same, although His Majesty were present.’ Pembroke ruefully had to hold his tongue and agree to the dissolution. Parliament was dissolved on 6 January, the parliamentary leaders Sir Edward Coke and Sir Robert Phelips were imprisoned, and John Pym was confined to his house. And the King, in the presence of Prince Charles and his Council, tore the Protestation out of the Journal of the House of Commons with his own hand.26 The King had to sacrifice a badly-needed subsidy but he would not allow Parliament to infringe on his prerogative. He wanted to maintain his pacific foreign policy and strengthen his understanding with Spain. There was no way parliament would push him into a war over the Palatinate. He wanted peace not war and, given England’s military capacity and the woeful state of the country’s finances, James was being much more realistic than parliament. What could realistically be done for the land-locked Palatinate surrounded by unfriendly and powerful neighbours? When James died in 1625 his peace policy died with him and his successor had to learn the hard way ‘that a pacific foreign policy was the best, if not the only feasible option for the English monarchy in the early seventeenth century.’27 Though peace was secured, with the dissolution of the Parliament of 1621, the King’s effectiveness as a ruler diminished sharply. The royal finances were in a perilous state, parliament was alienated, the problem of the Palatinate had not been solved, and the King was seen to be dominated more and more by Buckingham and

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 120

22/10/10 12:23 PM

PA R L I A M E N T A N D P O L I T I C S

121

Prince Charles. All of this was of little consolation to Pembroke: the dissolution of the Parliament of 1621 had been a severe defeat for him. His strong Connection in the House of Commons and his proxy power in the Lords had availed him little. Neither had his influence as a Privy Councillor and Lord Chamberlain. Buckingham was supreme after the dissolution and remained so until parliament met again in 1624. In the years between, without his parliamentary platform, Pembroke’s influence in national affairs waned. He received no important offices between the parliaments of 1621 and 1624, but yet was still too influential at Court and in the Privy Council to be relieved of any of his offices or to be given fewer administrative tasks. He was appointed to several important commissions during this period, and it was even rumoured that he would be sent to Ireland in late 1621 to call a parliament there. This may have been a move calculated to cut down his influence at Court by banishing him to the periphery, but more likely it was just another in the long series of rumours concerning the jockeying for offices in the latter years of James’ reign.28 As early as 1617 it was rumoured that Pembroke might be given the office of Lord Admiral in exchange for the office of Lord Chamberlain, but the rumour proved unfounded. In 1618 he was the favoured candidate for the office of Lord Treasurer. This rumour persisted throughout the year, and the office probably would have been his, in exchange for the Lord Chamberlainship, if he would have accepted it without reservations. This he would not do. He was as much concerned with his brother’s advancement as with his own, it being reported about the offer of the Lord Treasureship that he seemed ‘nothing fond of it unless he might leave his place to his brother Montgomery.’ But Pembroke lacked the power to gain the office on these terms. In 1619 the offer was repeated, and the following year, as further bait, the Mastership of the Horse was added to it. But Pembroke continued to hold out for his brother. In 1621 the Third Earl was offered the offfice of Lord Privy Seal but again refused to compound. He would never give up trying to find national office for his brother and heir, preferably in the seat of influence, the Household.29 In the years between parliaments, Pembroke kept his contacts at Court, remained an important and influential Privy Councillor, and strengthened his parliamentary contacts. His interests though, like everyone else’s, were concerned more with foreign than domestic affairs, for it was the former that dominated the years 1621 to 1624. But even his interest in foreign affairs took second place to his more personal concerns, for his health was beginning to break down. As a young man Pembroke had been very sickly, but he recovered and later pursued an active and athletic life. In 1619 he was seriously ill, and though he recovered he continued to be plagued with ill health during the 1620s. He was bothered with gallstones early in 1623 and remained in generally poor health for the rest of his life. This is why he was so insistent upon the advancement of Montgomery, for the Third Earl knew that Montgomery would be his heir, and that he might not have to wait long

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 121

22/10/10 12:23 PM

122

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

to claim his inheritance. It is also possible, at least in 1623, that Pembroke’s poor health served as a useful excuse for avoiding a very unpleasant ceremony.30 The ceremony was the swearing to the articles of the marriage treaty between England and Spain on 20 July 1623. Montgomery deputized for his brother for the occasion. Nothing had taken place which would in any way lessen his anti-Spanish feelings, and he viewed with utter disdain the alliance with Catholic Spain. The breakup of the Parliament of 1621 had left James I with an alienated parliament, a weak economy and personal financial difficulties. A marriage alliance with Spain might not only solve the problems with the Palatinate but would also help the economy by increasing Spanish trade. It would also bring the Crown a large dowry and confirm James’ position as the great peacemaker of Europe. The penal laws against the Catholics were relaxed, negotiations with Spain were intensified and both the Prince and Buckingham were actively in favour of the alliance. But the negotiations went slowly, and the impetuous Buckingham agreed with Gondomar’s suggestion that the Duke and the Prince should go in person to Spain so that Charles could claim his bride. The King totally disapproved but could do little to stop this adventure, and in February 1623 the journey to Spain took place. The trip was a total failure, Buckingham and the Prince were humiliated and, while the anti-Spanish faction and the nation at large celebrated, Buckingham and the Prince sought revenge for their humiliation. The Spanish Match may have been a disaster, but the fault was not only on Spain’s part. The Spanish were not unanimously against the match, and it was Prince Charles who abandoned the project when he realized that the Match would not guarantee the restoration of the Elector Palatine. In general, though, both sides were guilty of delay, dissimulation and deception.31 The Commissioners for Spanish Affairs – twelve leading Privy Councillors – between Christmas 1623 and New Year’s Day 1624 voted in favour of summoning parliament. In 1622 the Privy Council had advocated a parliament to solve the King’s pressing financial problems, but James would not listen. In 1623 the King conditionally consented. James wanted to bar the major opponents of the Crown’s policies in the last parliament, Sir Edward Coke, Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir Robert Phelips, and this he proposed to the Privy Councillors. Pembroke and Marquis Hamilton dissuaded the King from this, pointing out that it would cause immediate tension. Although Pembroke’s position was backed by Prince Charles, it was still a courageous stand to take, for the King was not convinced of the value of calling parliament, and Pembroke was not in favour at Court. In fact, in September 1623 it was reported that the Third Earl was ‘not settled in the King’s good opinion, as he was against the Spanish Match, and divers times it was reported that he was put forth of his place [of Lord Chamberlain] and that Bristol should be his successor.’32 On 5 January 1624, Prince Charles attempted to reconcile Pembroke and Buckingham. He probably hoped to get Pembroke’s immediate support for

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 122

22/10/10 12:23 PM

PA R L I A M E N T A N D P O L I T I C S

123

breaking off the treaties with Spain, and later his general parliamentary support. Only a few months before, the Third Earl had been asked by the King to agree to the Spanish treaties of friendship and marriage, and now he was being asked by the heir apparent to break this pledge, without even having the opportunity to discuss the decision. Pembroke baulked, and when the Privy Council voted seven to five to break off the treaties, Pembroke voted with the minority. He argued that: if the Spaniards performed the conditions agreed upon, he saw not how the King, in honor, could fall from the conclusion [of the treaties], nor himself in conscience; being sworn to see all observed in his power.33

There was surprise voiced at Pembroke’s decision, for he had always been against the Spanish treaties. It is true that he was always opposed to a treaty with Spain, but he was not so opposed as to dishonourably break a formal agreement and in so doing act against what he thought were England’s best interests. The Third Earl may have taken this stand because he knew the King was still in favour of the treaties, but it was also surmised that Pembroke’s position was partly due to his antagonism to Buckingham, resulting from the Duke’s domination now of both James and Prince Charles.34 Pembroke did not know if the treaties were being broken out of pique or out of policy, nor could he foresee what logical direction English policy would take after the break. The Third Earl’s basic position was that internal enemies had to be dealt with before foreign ones; once this was accomplished, then the treaties could be left to parliament to deal with. And by internal enemies Pembroke specifically meant Buckingham. As the Venetian Ambassador reported, Pembroke is: one of Buckingham’s greatest enemies. A worthy man, though I think his passions blind him. I remarked to him . . . that it was necessary to preserve Buckingham as the enemy of the Spaniards . . . but I found him very set in his opinions, namely that they must consider internal foes before external ones, and that they must punish those who err seriously so that everything may take place not only without detriment but to the advantage of the chief object, which means leaving to parliament the dissolution of the treaty with Spain.

It was not enough that Buckingham was momentarily pursuing a policy that Pembroke favoured. The Duke had too much power and influence over the King and Prince Charles, and his threatened use of it was dangerous. Pembroke’s fears did not prove illusory, for before the year was out Buckingham had exchanged a Spanish master for a French one. As S. R. Gardiner commented, late in 1624 Buckingham ‘comported himself more as an agent of France than as an English minister.’35 Unable to counter the hold Buckingham had over the King and Charles, Pembroke had to acquiesce regretfully in the breaking of the Spanish treaties.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 123

22/10/10 12:23 PM

124

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

However, he had no such regrets over the calling of a new parliament to discuss the breach with Spain. Buckingham and Charles were now becoming the effective rulers of the country, and commanded wide support in the country for their anti-Spanish policy. Pembroke made an uneasy truce with Buckingham for the duration of the latter’s anti-Spanish campaign, but was careful to maintain his independence of action and his political power in parliament. When the Parliament of 1624 first met on 19 February, the Pembroke Connection had been actively strengthened. His home county of Wiltshire returned eight Connection MPs, two of them from Old Sarum, thus eliminating the Cecil influence there. The Third Earl did this by both writing personally to the voters and by engaging in the buying of burgage-holdings which gave the owner the right to vote. Cornwall returned four MPs, and Queensborough and Shaftesbury each dutifully returned two Pembroke nominees. Portsmouth again elected Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, but Oxford University provided only one Connection MP, as did neighbouring Woodstock. The strength of the Connection in Wales was seven members, and the total strength of the Connection was 27 MPs. A new recruit was Sir Edward Vere from Newcastle under Lyme.36 By the time the Parliament of 1624 met, Prince Charles and Buckingham had virtually assumed power. Charles attended every session, theoretically acting for his ill father, but in fact he and Buckingham were in day-to-day control. James was kept away from parliament and parliamentary information, and Charles and Buckingham went to great lengths to neutralize the only real threats to their power in 1624, Lord Treasurer Cranfield and the ex-ambassador to Madrid, the Earl of Bristol. Cranfield was feared because he was close to James I, both because he was pro-Spanish and because he argued how disastrous to finance and trade a war with Spain would be. Cranfield had been a successful Treasurer but, like his predecessor Bacon, he had made many enemies and was not above reproach for his financial dealings. In a reversal of the Parliament of 1621, Charles invited parliament to discuss foreign policy, gave it the right to control the disbursing of the subsidies it voted, and worked with it to remove James’ great minister. An infirm and impotent King tried desperately to save his Treasurer, and upon realizing that he was unable to do so, told Buckingham: By God, Stenny [Buckingham], you are a fool, and will shortly repent this folly. You will find that, in this fit of popularity, you are making a rod, with which you will be scourged yourself.

To his short-sighted son, James remarked, prophetically, that he ‘would live to have his bellyful of parliaments.’37 The Earl of Bristol was an even more dangerous opponent. Only Bristol, who Buckingham and Charles made the scapegoat for the fiasco of their trip to Spain,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 124

22/10/10 12:23 PM

PA R L I A M E N T A N D P O L I T I C S

125

knew how foolishly they had handled the Spanish negotiations. And Bristol had no intention of taking the blame for them. The Earl was kept out of England for as long as possible, and then was put under house arrest and refused access to the King. Buckingham wanted to silence Bristol by having him put in the Tower, but Pembroke was successful in thwarting this. Bristol, however, was kept away from parliament. The programme of Charles and Buckingham, though it lacked foresight, was popular. Crown and parliament combined to break the treaties with Spain and to impeach Cranfield and also passed a new act against recusants. Pembroke and his Connection, not surprisingly, backed the government programme, but the Third Earl must have feared Buckingham’s malevolent influence over Charles and suspended judgment on the Duke’s foreign policy until he saw exactly which direction it would take. The ‘mariage de convenance’ between the Crown and parliament bore first fruit when the debate over breaking the Spanish treaties opened on March first. Rudyerd began the debate and took the position of being virtually a government spokesman. He first thanked the King for allowing the Commons to debate foreign affairs and then launched into an attack on the treaties, The treaties, he said, had done little but lose the Palatinate, increase the number of Catholics here, and in general hurt ‘true’ religion. He advocated the breaking off of the treaties, even though war would necessarily follow. And in such a war with Spain, he continued, we could expect little help from abroad. France is poor, the Protestant part of Germany divided and ruined, and the Low Countries ‘play their own game and attend their own state’ and, worse than this, ‘the rotten faction of Arminians hath like a canker much eaten into them and disunited them.’ To Pembroke’s Calvinist and nationalist spokesman, the prospects did not seem too propitious, but nevertheless he urged the King to find what allies he could on the Continent, strengthen his position at home, fortify Ireland, and not try to recover the Palatinate which was not recoverable, but rather to attack Spain through the Low Countries.38 On 11 March Rudyerd moved for the creation of a Council of War, advocated the strengthening of the ports and of Ireland, and requested that an alliance be concluded with the Low Countries. More important though than all of these was he saw this was an opportunity to bring about a permanent settlement between Crown and parliament. It was his fervent desire: to make the King in love with parliaments [so] that they may not be few, for from the scarcity of them arises all the evils to the commonwealth.

Rudyerd thought that his fellow parliamentarians were right in holding fast to their liberties, but warned that they should not ‘hug them till we stifle them’. It was his firm conviction that ‘there is more danger to blow up parliament with our breaths than with our adversaries’ powder.’39

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 125

22/10/10 12:23 PM

126

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Rudyerd was not very active in the Parliament of 1624 apart from the debates on the Spanish treaties, even though he did join in the impeachment proceedings against the Lord Treasurer. In fact, the Connection did not play a very vigorous role in general. Sir Robert Mansell was the most active, yet he sat on only seven or eight committees and rarely spoke. But when he did speak, usually on military or naval affairs, he was listened to. William Ravenscroft and Sir William Herbert were prominent in the attacks on the recusants, and Sir John Stradling and Sir William Morgan sat on important committees, but in general the members of the Connection in the Commons were not as active as was their patron in the Lords.40 The identity of interests between Pembroke and Buckingham in the Parliament of 1624 did not lessen Pembroke’s influence in the House of Lords, nor did it cause him to slacken his attention to parliamentary duties. He maintained his proxy power, regularly attended the House, and he sat on all the important committees. He was mainly concerned with defending the privileges of the Lords, advocating the breaking off of the Spanish treaties, and working to pass laws against recusants. He had always opposed Spain and Catholicism (especially Spanish Catholicism) and when the King of Spain complained to James I that Buckingham had slandered him in his report to parliament, Pembroke led a unanimous parliament in justifying his old adversary. But the Third Earl kept a wary eye on Buckingham and kept his options open. For example, in the debate over breaking the treaties with Spain, when Buckingham defended his actions in Madrid, the only member who asked him any questions was Pembroke ‘with a barbed question possibly designed to establish Buckingham’s share of responsibility for some of the policies he was now denouncing.’41 On the first day of the debate on the Spanish treaties, Pembroke spoke in favour of breaking them. It had always been his opinion, he said, that the Spanish had never been sincere. The Third Earl was later given the honour of penning the reasons of the House of Lords for the breaking off of the treaties. Pembroke knew, however, that England needed allies to fight Spain, and Catholic ones at that. He therefore spoke out strongly against making the war with Spain a Protestant crusade for, as he later admitted to Sir Dudley Carleton: I think it were better for the general cause that this war be styled by us rather a particular war for the Kingdom of Bohemia than a war for religion, though I know in the consequence these can not be severed.42

Buckingham and Pembroke were usually hostile, but their relationship must have become even more strained late in 1624 after the Spanish treaties were dissolved and Buckingham, instead of pursuing an independent foreign policy, moved England into the French camp. Later debates of this session of parliament

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 126

22/10/10 12:23 PM

PA R L I A M E N T A N D P O L I T I C S

127

concerned the impeachment of Cranfield, Pembroke involving himself in them because the Lord Treasurer was pro-Spanish, not because Buckingham wanted to remove an opponent. Even though Buckingham and Pembroke followed similar policies in parliament in 1624, their relations continued to be antagonistic. In January 1624 they argued about the Spanish Match, and Prince Charles had to reconcile them. But the following month there were again rumours of differences, but by the middle of the year these seem to have been ironed out. By August 1624 it was rumoured that Pembroke was to be made the new Lord Treasurer and Montgomery replace him as Lord Chamberlain. The rumour proved unfounded, but obviously Pembroke and Buckingham had come to terms for such a move to even be contemplated. Yet by October, Montgomery had to reconcile both men. And other courtiers did their best to point out the advantages of a Herbert–Villiers alliance. Sir George Goring wrote of a projected marriage between Montgomery’s son and Villier’s infant daughter, that the intended bridegroom, who was also Pembroke’s heir, is likely ‘to prove a good English freeholder if not the best.’ And if the great wealth of the Herberts was not enough, Buckingham was urged not to neglect ‘the overture of my Lord Chamberlain’s friendship [as] he is worthy of you in every way.’ Goring was also convinced that Montgomery was strongly in favour of a Herbert–Villiers alliance, for ‘his own brother (Pembroke) is not dearer to him, and that he never loved man better’ than he did Buckingham. The Duke was unconvinced, but Goring at least asked him to suspend judgment until he had met with the brothers.43 Buckingham must have remained unconvinced, for he excluded Pembroke from the signing of the marriage treaty between Prince Charles and Henrietta Maria of France. And the same month, in order not to advance others, primarily Pembroke, who wished to become dukes, Buckingham resigned his Irish honours. It may have been politically possible for Buckingham to reject any overtures from Pembroke, it was never feasible for Pembroke to totally break with him; the Duke had the ear of Prince Charles, the effective ruler of the country. One must also not forget that Pembroke’s brother and heir, Montgomery, did manage to stay in touch with Buckingham, and that the Third Earl never opposed Buckingham per se, only his policies and his influence on James and Charles.44 Pembroke’s uncomfortable alliance with Buckingham in the Parliament of 1624 was weakened on 27 March 1625, when James I died; it was to be terminated when Charles met his first parliament. On his deathbed, James had begged Pembroke not to leave him, and the Third Earl stayed with him to the end. The death of the King was a severe blow to the future prospects of the Third Earl. For more than twenty years Pembroke had worked with James I, Pembroke being his first and, ironically, his last favourite in England. The Third Earl may have been consistently anti-Spanish and always opposed to the favourites, but his staunch Protestantism,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 127

22/10/10 12:23 PM

128

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

his nationalism and his unswerving loyalty to the Crown gained him the King’s grudging respect and affection.45 Pembroke had first won the King’s affection as a courtier, and, for the first eight years of James’ reign, the Third Earl had left the politics largely in the hands of his ally, Cecil. With the death of Cecil, Pembroke had to act as both courtier and politician. From 1611 to 1615 Pembroke had to battle against the influence of the pro-Spanish Howards, and benefited from their fall in 1615. He then made his greatest political mistake. He sponsored the career of George Villiers. From 1615 until James’ death, in parliament, in the Court and in the Privy Council Pembroke tried to further what he thought to be the interests of England and Protestantism. But he did not have enough power and influence to put his ideas into practice. He could counsel but rarely cajole the King, and he could do neither to Buckingham. The Duke quickly became too powerful for any of the King’s other ministers to oppose. Pembroke, however, was enough of a politician to realize his limits, and intelligent enough to know that, to enhance his own position and keep close to the levers of power, he had to remain at Court and play a waiting game. James had accepted Pembroke’s independent political power in parliament, expected him to be a non-partisan voice on the Privy Council, occasionally relied on him for advice, and trusted him as a faithful councillor. It was to be very different with Charles I. The new ruler and Pembroke had never been as close as was Charles to Pembroke’s old adversary Buckingham, and Charles I was not the type to brook the opposition from Pembroke that his father had. The Third Earl may have been warmly recommended to Charles by his father, but the new king and the last remaining Elizabethan politician had little in common. Their ideas on foreign policy, religion and government were poles apart and there was little likelihood that they would ever coalesce. Charles had to work with Pembroke because of the Third Earl’s power and influence, and Pembroke had to remain on good terms with the King, if only to secure the position of his brother and heir. The King and Pembroke also had artistic and aesthetic interests in common but, though the Third Earl and his sovereign were friends, the easy relationship of mutual respect that had existed between the monarch and Pembroke died in 1625 and was never to be resurrected.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 128

22/10/10 12:23 PM

9

Improving Landlord

To be a successful politician, and the greatest Maecenas of the age, requires extraordinary wealth, and it was fortunate for the artistic life of the period that the Third Earl of Pembroke had an immense landed fortune. But Pembroke was more than just one of the largest landowners in the country, he was also one of its greatest entrepreneurs. In this chapter the Third Earl’s landholdings and land transactions will be discussed; his entrepreneurial activities require a separate chapter. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the main economic thrust of the nobility lay in fully using their lands, in exploiting minerals on their estates, utilizing the woodlands they controlled, and using whatever influence they had at Court to obtain lucrative patents and licences. Their role in providing capital for nascent industries was also vital, but the nobility in general did little to improve their primary assets, their agricultural estates. The Earls of Pembroke, especially the Third Earl, were exceptions to this rule in that they went to great pains to do exactly that. And they were important exceptions in that they were among the largest of the landowners in England. Added to his vast English holdings were the Earl of Pembroke’s Welsh estates in Monmouthshire and Glamorgan, acreage so vast that the Third Earl has been called the greatest landowner in Glamorgan history.1 The estates of the Third Earl centred on his home county of Wiltshire, though he owned more land ouside the county than in it. His landholdings were especially extensive in Wales. Overall he inherited over a hundred manors, nineteen towns or boroughs, six castles, seven forests, and various other parks, hundreds, farms and tenements, about a third of which were in Wiltshire. In the West he also had extensive holdings in Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Monmouth, and immense holdings in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. Pembroke also controlled valuable mines, fishing rights, tolls and markets, and many advowsons. Unfortunately, the disastrous fire of 1648 at Wilton destroyed nearly all the financial records, so we do not know what the Third Earl realized from his vast holdings, nor can we even be sure of Pembroke’s financial position vis-à-vis the rest of the nobility. Counting manors, towns and castles as financial indicators is of little value. One cannot compare a rich manor in Wiltshire with a poor one in Monmouthshire, the town of Cardiff with Trelleck, or Caerphilly Castle with Pembroke’s London home, Baynard’s Castle.2

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 129

22/10/10 12:23 PM

130

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

The destruction of the Herbert family manuscripts is not the only problem encountered in analysing the Third Earl’s holdings and income. Pembroke died intestate in 1630, so we can only be reasonably certain of the lands he inherited (which are specified in his father’s will of 1595), and what lands the Fourth Earl left in 1650. As to the extent of the debts the Third Earl inherited, or left to his successor, we know little. Our knowledge of the lands he bought and sold during his lifetime is also fragmentary. What follows is a financial profile of the Third Earl, with as much information as has survived about his extensive land transactions. These land transactions were in the thousands or tens of thousands of pounds. To appreciate their scale, a qualified artisan in London could expect to earn between £10 and £20 a year, and a small farmer about £30 a year. We must also bear in mind that Pembroke and his business associates had a vested interest in keeping their financial transactions private at a time when the Crown was in desperate need of money. For example, it is very common to find in the records indentures such as that between the Earl of Bedford and others in 1616, selling to Pembroke lands lying between Covent Garden and Longacre in the parish of St Martin in the Fields, ‘for a competent sum of good and lawful money of England.’ And it is not unusual to find in the same Close Rolls, indentures giving information about manors reclaimed by the Third Earl. They had been held in trust for him and his wife by a yeoman for the Earl of Shrewsbury, so that they were not sold off to pay the latter’s debts. It is very uncommon though to find an indenture like that which assigned the manor of Overton in Flintshire to Pembroke ‘for three thousand years for one grain of pepper.’ Surely the classic ‘peppercorn’ rent.3 No distinction was made between tax evasion and tax avoidance, and what one finds in the Close Roll indentures is closely paralleled in the inquisitions post mortem, another uncertain source of financial information. Inquisitions were required for each county where the deceased held land directly from the Crown, and valuations were notoriously low. Letters survive from the period in which advice was given as to ‘how to manipulate the juries which reported the particulars.’ For example, in one such letter the heir is told to get a ‘good jury’ and to make sure that ‘the land is to be found of as small value as you can prove. The charge shall be the less.’ And the valuations done by the Court of Wards were also notoriously low. The annual value of Pembroke’s lands in 1601 was, according to the Court of Wards, £1,308.4 A further problem in making sense of the Third Earl’s financial affairs is the difficulty encountered in separating Pembroke’s interests from those of his brother, his stewards and his secretaries. One commentator in 1630 was of the opinion that the Third Earl ‘left debts behind him of above four score thousand pounds, for a great part whereof divers of his servants were engaged, who had raised themselves to fair estates under him.’ The writer did grant though that Pembroke’s income amounted to £22,000 per annum and his wife also had an annual income of

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 130

22/10/10 12:23 PM

IMPROVING LANDLORD

131

£12,000. How this writer in Oxford received such information we do not know, but it may well be reasonably correct. If one looks at formally registered debts, the Third Earl and his associates had unpaid debts of £79,000 by 1627. However, though we have no record of it being paid, £25,000 of this debt, borrowed in 1617, should have been paid off within a year. The cancelled recognizances, if they existed, have not survived.5 We also do not know how much of this debt was the Third Earl’s alone, and how much was his brother’s. Many of the debts are contracted for by Pembroke alone, none by Montgomery alone, and the majority in both their names. In the majority of the cases, when both signed, the Third Earl’s name came first. Is this because he was the elder brother, or because he was the principal agent? We just do not know. Nor do we know if Pembroke’s secretaries and stewards made ‘fortunes’ at their master’s expense. They were quite often involved in transactions with him, but we do not know if they were acting for themselves or not. From 1602 until 1608, Pembroke used his old tutor, Sanford, as a co-signer for his formally enrolled recognizances of debt, usually with the Third Earl’s chief steward, Thomas Morgan. Sanford was not a wealthy man, and it does not appear that he and Morgan were liable for the debts. But some of Pembroke’s many stewards were wealthy men in their own right, and thus could have been parties to some of the Third Earl’s transactions. John Stockman, for example, one of Pembroke’s stewards, was involved in his own right in very large transactions in Glamorgan late in Elizabeth’s reign. Certainly Thomas Morgan could afford to be.6 Thomas Morgan, Pembroke’s chief steward, was definitely an important figure in his own right. As early as 1608 he was Surveyor-General of all the woods South of the Trent (a position Pembroke inherited in 1629), he was part of the Pembroke Connection in parliament, and his patron had him knighted at Wilton when James I visited there in 1623. The Third Earl also made him the Mayor of his borough of Cardiff to look after his affairs in Wales. Morgan was a co-signer of most of Pembroke’s recognizances for debt from 1602 until 1627, but only twice was he involved in major transactions, once in 1620 for a debt of £14,000 which was paid and the other time for an unpaid debt of £10,000. And even with this debt, another of Pembroke’s stewards, John Thoroughgood, was a signatory. In the latter transaction, Pembroke, Thomas Morgan and John Thoroughgood ‘servants to the said Earl of Pembroke’ were party to the arrangements when Pembroke paid £10,800 for the manor and lordship of More in Hertford. But they were there as witnesses only, as the lands specifically went to the heirs of Pembroke, and not to those of Morgan and Thoroughgood. Morgan may have abused his position of trust though. In 1634 the Fourth Earl was awarded damages against him of almost £4,000 for illegally cutting down trees on a manor leased to him by the Third Earl.7 Others of Pembroke’s stewards, Lawrence Hyde, John Lowe and William Kent, were important Wiltshire landowners, as was his secretary Edward Leech, whose

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 131

22/10/10 12:23 PM

132

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

name appears on many of his land transactions. It was another Leech, John, probably a relative, whom the Third Earl sent over to Virginia in 1621 to survey the Pembroke holdings there. Another of Pembroke’s secretaries, Michael Oldisworth, was also a wealthy man. His father, Arnold Oldisworth, had been an equal business partner of the Second Earl in the Society of Mines Royal. The overall impression one gets, reading through what has survived of Pembroke’s financial records, is that the Third Earl was a very careful financial administrator. If his associates or ‘servants’ ‘raised themselves to fair estates under him’, they did so with his knowledge and encouragement, and as partners in organized joint business ventures. But whether his stewards were acting as witnesses, guarantors, or partners in many of Pembroke’s land transactions we can never be certain.8 In Lawrence Stone’s analysis of the English nobility, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558–1641, the Earls of Pembroke are listed as having one of the five largest rent rolls prior to 1599. By 1602 they are only listed among the top sixteen, and by 1641 only among the top twenty-three. The Herberts’ income may have increased considerably, between £4,000–5,000 in 1599 to £6,600–8,700 in 1641 but, in Stone’s opinion, their wealth in relation to the aristocracy as a whole was declining. However, none of the Welsh holdings of the Earls of Pembroke are included and, due to the same lack of evidence, their purchases or sales of manors are not included.9 The income of the Earls of Pembroke from all their estates was greater than Stone’s figures would indicate, and it is more likely the Third Earl’s income from rents approximated the estimate of his Wiltshire neighbour, John Aubrey, £16,000 per year. Aubrey was also of the opinion that, if Pembroke’s income from office was added, he had a total income of £30,000 per year. Another contemporary of the Third Earl’s estimated his income to be £22,000 a year, a figure one modern economic historian accepts. It would be interesting to find out just what Pembroke’s real income was, when we are left with such fascinating scraps of information as the Fourth Earl paying his predecessor’s widow £3,000 per annum just for the use of the Herbert lands that he did not inherit. Overall though, when S. R. Gardiner considered Pembroke to be the wealthiest nobleman in England – R. H. Tawney was of the same opinion, probably Pembroke’s contemporaries were closer to the truth than Stone was. Stone is correct though in arguing that the relative financial position of the Pembrokes did decline between 1599 and 1641. Certainly the Third Earl did not receive the princely gifts bestowed upon his grandfather, nor was he the recipient of the same largesse from James I and Charles I as were his great rivals, the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham.10 If the income of the Third Earl was very great then so were the charges upon it. He had to maintain a splendid lifestyle, spend a fortune to maintain both himself and Montgomery at Court, and further his programme of fostering the muses. Pembroke also spent a great deal of time and effort trying to make England

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 132

22/10/10 12:23 PM

IMPROVING LANDLORD

133

strong abroad, and investing in various entrepreneurial activities. But whether these activities were in fact profitable or ‘charges’ on his estate we cannot be sure. Certainly to maintain his residences at Wilton, Ramsbury and Baynard’s Castle, and their attendant retinues, must have been a very costly undertaking. Wilton House, built in the 1540s by the First Earl, was one of the finest private homes in England. Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I and their courts were all entertained there. Almost destroyed by fire in 1648, it was rebuilt by Inigo Jones and is one of the masterpieces of English domestic architecture. Ramsbury, the other country home of the Earls of Pembroke, was formerly the palace of the Bishops of Salisbury. It had been rebuilt by the Second Earl at a cost of more than £2,000, and was used by the widow of the Second Earl during her lifetime. It was sold in 1676 for £30,155. The London home of the Earls of Pembroke, Baynard’s Castle, was the royal palace situated between Blackfriars and Paul’s Wharf on the Thames. Built in 1500, it became the property of the Earl of Pembroke in Henry VIII’s reign, and remained in the family until it was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666. It had some interesting rights and privileges attached to it, especially as relating to criminals. For example: if at any time a traitor were found within his soke, the Earl, as castellan of Baynard’s Castle, possessed the power to put him to death by binding him at ebb tide to a certain pillar in the Thames, near the castle wall, and leaving him there for two floods and two ebbs of the tide.11

A similar right, for common felons, existed at Wapping, the bloated corpses being known locally as ‘whoppers’. One wonders if this was known to the international chain of fast-food outlets when they gave the same name to their hamburgers! What Pembroke had available to maintain his magnificent estates we do not know, but the fragmentary evidence suggests that it was enormous. It is probable that it was even greater than Aubrey estimated. The Herbert Wiltshire estates alone in 1633 brought in almost £7,000 per year, the rents from the Sheffield estates inherited from the Earl of Shrewsbury netted the Third Earl a total of more than £11,000 between 1623 and 1630, and from Shrewsbury’s estates in Yorkshire, Nottingham and Derby almost £7,000 per annum. What Pembroke received from his estates in other counties and in Wales (a majority of his holdings) we do not know. We can assume, as Pembroke was very careful in husbanding his resources, that his income from these estates increased as significantly as did his Wiltshire ones. There was a four- or five-fold increase in rents in England generally from the mid-sixteenth to the mid-seventeenth centuries, the increase in Pembroke’s rents in Wiltshire during this period was eight-fold.12 Pembroke was also very careful of his rights and revenues, and it is obvious from the records that survive that he would do anything in his power to protect them even if the sums of money involved were trivial. The cases he involved himself in

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 133

22/10/10 12:23 PM

134

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

varied from disputes over land worth more than £3,500 to lands rented for £30 a year. A large number of Chancery cases deal with the lands he inherited from Shrewsbury, many more with other land disputes, or with arguments over entry fines or feudal rights (usually recognition money). Some cases were land disputes that he pursued jointly with his wife, or involved the presentation to a church, or the illegal cutting of timber or the quarrying of stone on Pembroke lands.13 The Third Earl not only jealously guarded his rights and revenue from his lands, but actively increased his agricultural income. He did this through increased entry fines, astute land transactions, and by leasing lands, fairs, tolls etc., and fully exploiting his mineral and timber resources. Pembroke utilized any possible sources of income, however small. For example, he rented manors from the Bishop of Salisbury for £118 per annum and sublet them for nearly £206. Pembroke was also able to augment his income by various inheritances, by actively seeking wardships, and by receiving large grants from the Crown. In all of these areas the Third Earl was as active, and as unscrupulous, as any nobleman at the Courts of James I and Charles I.14 His greatest inheritance, outside of his patrimony, was his wife’s dowry. Though the financial considerations were not the only consideration in the marriage negotiations, the income that the daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury brought to the marriage was a major source of wealth. It was reported that the bride’s jointure was £3,000 per year and that she had an inheritance of £9,000 per annum. How good the Talbots were though in paying these large sums we do not know. Nor do we know what other financial transactions Pembroke had with his in-laws. In 1610 the Countess of Shrewesbury was writing to her steward to collect as much money as possible, as she was in debt to the Earl and Countess of Pembroke for over £3,000. The following year the Earl of Shrewsbury gave instructions to sell wool and iron worth up to £1,000, as he was ‘in great need of ready money to meet a statute to which he and the Earl of Pembroke are committed.’15 The bride’s dowry was certainly neither the only nor the most important financial contribution to the Third Earl made by the Talbot family. Pembroke profited indirectly in 1616 when his father-in-law died and left his estates to his three daughters, the wives of the Earls of Pembroke, Arundel and Kent. The executor of the estate was Sir William Cavendish, to whom the Third Earl owed £17,000 at his death. Cavendish was given a viscountcy at the direct request of Pembroke and Arundel, and the two earls then settled the claims of the widow in 1620 and entrenched their hold on the Talbot estates. The Earl of Kent does not seem to have been a party to these arrangements, but in 1627 the three earls, and their wives, agreed that the estates were to be held for the use of Pembroke and Arundel.16 There was one other inheritance Pembroke and Arundel were indebted to the Talbots for, and that was the tremendous fine of £20,000 imposed on the Dowager Countess of Shrewsbury in 1618. In a Star Chamber judgment, the Countess was

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 134

22/10/10 12:23 PM

IMPROVING LANDLORD

135

fined ‘for her obstinacy and contempt’ of court, and the colossal fine imposed on her was, by letters patent, given to Pembroke and Arundel. Obviously, the Countess could never come up with such a huge sum of money, so in March 1619 a lease was issued to Pembroke and Arundel: of the manors and lands of Mary, Countess Dowager of Shrewsbury, extended for payment of a fine of £20,000 imposed upon the said Countess by the Court of Star Chamber, which said fine His Majesty hath formerly granted to the said earls. The said lands are extended at the yearly value of £1241.7.8.17

Another useful source of income the revenue derived from wardships. Wardships, or the control of the person and part of the estates of a minor during his or her minority, were one of the richest of the occasional perquisites of the courtier nobility. The Third Earl, though he had been a ward himself and knew the corruption and viciousness inherent in the system of selling wardships, was not averse to trafficking in them himself. The evidence for this is generally fragmentary, and this is accentuated in Pembroke’s case due to the destruction of his personal papers. We do know that Pembroke’s wife asked Cecil for a wardship in 1607, and that Pembroke himself, with his relatives Viscount Lisle, Lady Mary Wroth and John Wroth, bought a wardship in 1614 for £900. Three years later Pembroke was given £900 per year, out of the lands of a minor. However, this was for the use of Montgomery. Also, some time prior to 1619, Pembroke controlled the wardship of the son of Sir Nicholas Arnold. This may be a rare example of benificent wardship, for the Arnolds were Pembroke’s political allies, and the Third Earl may have been genuinely interested in the fate of the Arnold heir and wished to offer him his protection. But Pembroke was not acting out of disinterested motives in November 1629 when he accepted the lucrative wardship of the heir of Sir Henry Neville.18 The Third Earl was much more active in buying and selling lands than in pursuing wardships and, as Montgomery was James’ first favourite, the two brothers were well placed at Court to exploit the many opportunities that arose. But to finance these transactions, to maintain himself and Montgomery at Court, to act, on occasion, as a royal banker, and to underwrite his industrial and overseas ventures, the Third Earl often had to borrow money, usually at high rates of interest. One such debt, and one we have some specific information on, was a minor debt via Sir Michael Hickes, but whether it was a debt or a transaction concerned with buying land we do not know. Hickes was patronage secretary under Burghley and was close to Burghley’s son, Sir Robert Cecil, and was often involved in Cecil’s buying and selling of lands. Hickes from 1609 to 1612 was a deputy in the Alienations Office, the office that dealt with fines levied on those who wished to sell freehold land or land held in chief from the Crown.19 Was Pembroke involved in land transactions with Cecil, or was he dealing with

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 135

22/10/10 12:23 PM

136

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

the Alienations Office? We just do not know. This sum in question, which never exceeded £1,600, Pembroke paid £1,100 interest on it from 1604 to 1612. The loan was secured on the Third Earl’s manor of Knighton, and it was not until 1618 that the debt was finally cleared. Most of the money the Third Earl was indebted for was to cover his activities in two distinct periods, from 1602 to 1611, and from 1616 to 1627. Much of it was indebtedness for buying land, mostly for Montgomery’s use. In fact for most of this indebtedness Pembroke was apparently signing as a guarantor for his brother. For some of the largest borrowings in the 1620s, however, Pembroke was borrowing on his own account.20 As early as 1602, Pembroke owed via Michael Hicks another debt of £3,000, and two years later Pembroke and Montgomery owed almost £2,000 to Sir Michael Hickes’ brother, Baptist Hickes. Altogether Pembroke and Montgomery borrowed £16,600 through the Hicks brothers from 1602 to 1611, one of the largest borrowings, £6,000 in 1608, was probably connected to Montgomery’s purchase of the manor of Kyddington in Oxford, which he paid £6,000 for in that year, £3,000 in cash and £3,000 to be paid the following year. In the same period, Pembroke and Montgomery borrowed £6,000 from the financier Sir Peter Vanlore. But the monies borrowed through the Hicks and from Vanlore were much less than those owed directly to the vendors. This total was no less than £58,000, the greatest share of it, £24,000, going to Sir Edward Coke. All the above borrowings were cleared by 1612.21 From 1616 until 1627, Pembroke was even more heavily indebted, again usually as a guarantor for Montgomery. In this period, the sums borrowed were in total £139,000; £30,000 to Sir Peter Vanlore, £22,000 via the Hicks, £10,000 to Paul Bayning and £77,000 to individual landowners. Of this £139,000, £56,000 was not paid off by 1627. We do not know about the final disposition of the £25,000 borrowed from the Hickes and Sir Peter Vanlore, for the use of Montgomery, which was due to be paid in 1618. We also do not know what projects these vast sums of money were used for, though we do know what the Third Earl borrowed £10,000 for in 1627: to buy the manor of More in Herts.22 Most of the money borrowed by Pembroke and Montgomery was for land and other investments, but Montgomery was also very improvident. As late as 1626 his brother was borrowing £1,000 from Vanlore specifically to pay his brother’s debts. Montgomery had expensive tastes and habits, and a fondness for gambling. On one occasion he is reported to have won £2,400 from Lord Walden at bowls, on another he won £5 from the Dowager Countess of Dorset, giving her forty to one odds against the King of Spain turning Protestant. Obviously he was not always so fortunate.23 The Earl of Montgomery was a very wealthy man in his own right. In 1607 his landownings in seven counties and various fees gave him an income of more than £12,400 a year. As the King’s first favourite his income was even greater. When he married Susan de Vere in 1604, the king bestowed on the newlyweds lands worth

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 136

22/10/10 12:23 PM

IMPROVING LANDLORD

137

£1,500 per year. Three years later though, the Earl was in financial difficulties, and it was reported to the Earl of Shrewsbury that ‘the King is pleased to pay my Lord of Montgomery’s debts.’ Shrewsbury’s son-in-law was not so fortunate. The writer said of Pembroke that he ‘waits passing well, but will beg nothing.’ In 1607 Montgomery was also given part of the £30,000 worth of licenses given to several noblemen for the transportation of beer and cloth free of various duties, and in 1608 was given by the King a free gift of £6,000. Two years later Montgomery was given a benevolence from the King of £8,000 and it was repeated the following year. In 1615 the future Fourth Earl of Pembroke was given a grant of £3,000 a year for twenty-one years from the tobacco farm, and in 1616 £3,000 a year, plus the wardship of Lord Dormer. The following year he received a further £4,000 from the Court of Wards.24 All the gifts and grants that Montgomery received were, indirectly, of great value to Pembroke, but what the Herberts did with the vast sums of money that passed through their hands we do not know. Most of it went on land purchases or other investments, but here, as everywhere else in the financial arena, the records are sketchy. In general the Third Earl probably sold more land than he bought from 1603 to 1617, a lot of this being offset by royal grants, and for the last ten years of his life bought more than he sold. How much of this buying and selling was done to consolidate holdings, to make large investments in projects such as the Forest of Dean, or to make up marriage portions etc., we just do not know. Nor can we with any certainty know how much money changed hands in the transactions, or who it was coming from or going to. We know very little also regarding Pembroke’s associates. In most of Pembroke’s land transactions his stewards are parties, and only occasionally can we be sure they are principals and not just witnesses. Between 1601 and 1612 Robert Cecil spent £14,450 buying up land in the Dorset area, largely from the Crown and Pembroke. The Third Earl and Cecil were also active in buying and selling lands in Wiltshire, especially in the years 1608 and 1609. Pembroke was probably consolidating his Wiltshire estates when he purchased the manor of Stoke Farthing from Cecil in 1608 and also enquired of Cecil ‘upon what terms the Earl might sell some land at Wilsford, four miles north of Wilton.’ The Third Earl sold Cecil the manor of Berwick St John in 1608 and the following year sold him the manor of Doniham in Wiltshire for £3,700.25 The Third Earl made some other important land transactions in the period 1603 to 1617, and more than offset his net losses with gifts and grants from the Crown. In 1606 Pembroke and Montgomery leased the manor of Llanbaire in Monmouthshire and various lands in Devon, in the name of their mother for a nominal five shillings. The following year they sold the manor of Donyatt in Somerset for ‘a certain sum of money’, as did the Third Earl the rectory and lands of Presbury in Gloucestershire. In 1609, in an apparently straight cash transaction,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 137

22/10/10 12:23 PM

138

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Pembroke sold Devizes Park in Wiltshire to Sir Peter Vanlore for £5,000. But this transaction, between Montgomery, Pembroke and their cousin William Herbert and Vanlore may have been, like Pembroke’s ‘sale’ of the manor of Knighton to Michael Hickes, only lands put forward as guarantee for a loan. What makes this more likely is the notation that the £5,000 was ‘paid to Montgomery’.26 In 1610 Pembroke alienated 200 acres of arable land in Wiltshire to one of his stewards, Edward Leech, sold the manor of Winterbourne Bassett to him in 1613, and in the following year sold the manor of Eden Twysden in Wiltshire to Leech and another of his stewards, Thomas Morgan, for £5,300. It seems odd that Pembroke would ‘sell’ lands in his home county of Wiltshire when he had lands in so many other counties, and perhaps these transactions were not sales at all. In 1615 though Pembroke made one definite sale: he sold Donyatt House in Somerset to Sir Edward Coke for £4,200.27 In the same period that Pembroke was selling land, he was also a considerable purchaser. Besides the manor he bought from Cecil, Pembroke and his wife ‘bought’ the manors of Over Padley, Nether Padley and Clipstow Park, and a great deal of other land in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire for a nominal £200, from one of the stewards of the Talbots. These must have been lands destined for Pembroke’s wife, which had been held by a third party to avoid them being used to pay Shrewsbury’s debts. A genuine sale was the purchase of the manor of Shothull in Derbyshire in 1612 ‘in consideration of a competent sum of money.’ This manor the Fourth Earl sold in 1630 for £12,800. The future Fourth Earl the following year sold to his brother for £2,500 the manors and lordships of Pryors Alton in Wiltshire, which had been granted to him by the King in 1604.28 In 1614 the Third Earl was the recipient of more lands which had been held for him by a third party. The manors of Lanndian, Bossilly, Landimore, Webley, Reynoldstone and various other holdings in Glamorgan, lands that had been held by two of Pembroke’s stewards were ‘sold’ to the Third Earl for 5s. More straightforward was the purchase in the same year of the manor of Overton in Cheshire, ‘in consideration of a competent sum of money’, and the purchase in 1616 of lands lying between Covent Garden and Longacre in the Parish of St Martins in the Field in London. The latter was bought from the Earl of Bedford and others again for an unspecified sum. One can surmise that the £10,000 Pembroke owed the Earl of Bedford in 1624 was part of the purchase price of this property.29 Pembroke also received substantial land grants from James I. In 1604 the King granted the manor of Bradminch and the Forest of Exmoor to Pembroke, and two years later gave him the forest and park of Claringdon, Pawsnet and Buckholt in Somerset and Wiltshire. In 1607 in a very large grant, the King bestowed on Pembroke 6,000 acres of land in Wiltshire, and the following year James added to this the lands that belonged to the dissolved monastery of Shafton in Dorset. The greatest grant though was the one made in 1617 when the King gave Pembroke the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 138

22/10/10 12:23 PM

IMPROVING LANDLORD

139

manor of Kedewent, Montgomery Castle, and various villages and forests in the county of Montgomery.30 For the last ten years of his life Pembroke received no royal land grants but, nevertheless, was a net buyer rather than a seller of lands. In 1620 Pembroke purchased one of the largest estates in North Wales, Cochwillan, for £10,000. The property included the ancestral home of Lord Keeper Williams, and in 1622 the Third Earl transferred the estate to his ally at little or no profit. Perhaps Pembroke was in need of ready cash. When the King, or more precisely, Buckingham and Prince Charles, advocated a benevolence to pay for the proposed recovery of the Palatinate, the Third Earl stated: that he was far in debt . . . had undertaken for his brother Montgomery’s debts and for his cousin’s, Sir William Herbert of Red Castle, and that he had enough to do to subsist.

But subsist he did, and he was the largest individual contributor to the Palatinate campaign.31 The same year he bought Cochwillan, Pembroke ‘purchased’ the manor of Overchurch, which had previously been owned by the Earl of Shrewsbury, for a nominal £200. In November of the same year, the Third Earl ‘purchased’ some lands in Dynton in Wiltshire for £6 13s. 4d. plus other manors in Wiltshire and Kent for an unspecified sum. Also in 1621, the Third Earl bought Vernditch Walk in Cranbourne Chase. This must have been a very expensive purchase as it was the best stocked walk in the Chase, with 1,000 to 1,200 fallow deer. And it may well have been the deer, or at least the hunting, that moved Pembroke to buy Royston in Cambridgeshire in 1621. This estate had started out as an inn, and was later enlarged when James I and his Court used it as a hunting centre. It expanded to cover two inns, plus some old houses, plus the King’s lodgings and Prince Henry’s lodgings, then a further inn and other outbuildings. All in all, the property occupied a substantial part of the town.32 In 1623 Pembroke purchased the manor of Lytalabont in Glamorgan for £2,200, and in 1624 the manor of Langford in Wiltshire for £800. There is no record of any private purchases for the next two years, but in 1627 Pembroke is listed as one of the purchasers of Crown lands who had paid none or only part of the purchase price. This debt is probably for the manors of Kirkmansworth and Pinchfield, which the Third Earl rented from the Crown for £134 14s. 6d. a year, a bargain for which Pembroke had to pay an entry fine of more than £2,500. There was still more than £1,100 owing in March 1627. In the same year, Pembroke bought the manor of Flamston in Wiltshire for £1,000, and for £10,800 ‘paid in hand’, bought the manor and lordship of More in Hertfordshire from the Countess of Bedford. The Third Earl was still buying land as late as 1629, when he purchased the manor and lordship of Boosuarch and Chipping in Lancaster for £4,000, and finally paid off previous

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 139

22/10/10 12:23 PM

140

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

purchases when he gave the Duke of Newcastle £400 as the final instalment for the manor of Shaston in Staffordshire.33 In 1618 Pembroke and Arundel had made a very large grant to a Mr Goodrich and associates of lands in Herefordshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Gloucestershire. How much was paid for the lands, and whether the lands were Talbot lands is not specified. In 1622 Pembroke, Montgomery and William Herbert of Red Castle, in another ‘family’ agreement, leased the manors of Barton in Dorset, the manors of Wilye and Knighton in Wiltshire, and the manor, borough and town of Shafton in Dorset, plus the manor of Stoke Trister in Somerset to Elizabeth Craven. This lease, worth £2,500 a year, was ‘for her natural life’ and was part of a complicated arrangement for a jointure for the daughter of Elizabeth Craven, who was to marry the heir of William Herbert of Red Castle. The arrangement was concluded when Pembroke added to the jointure the manor of Hendon in Middlesex in 1624. This whole transaction is the one Pembroke was talking about when he said he had undertaken for the debts of his cousin, Sir William Herbert of Red Castle.34 The sales Pembroke made in 1624 and 1625, of the manors of Alton, Overton and Fovant in Wiltshire, and of Wenvoe in Glamorgan, were more like normal business transactions, but no sale prices were given. In the latter year, though, the Third Earl disposed of the manor of Cykering in Nottinghamshire, a sale of £2,150. The sales Pembroke made in 1627 and 1628, if sales they were, are not at all so straightforward. When Pembroke purchased the manor of More in 1627 his stewards, Thomas Morgan and John Thoroughgood, were present as witnesses to the transaction, it being specifically noted that the lands would go to the heirs and assigns of Pembroke and not to those of his stewards as well. It is much less clear what the role of Pembroke’s stewards was in the various land sales the Third Earl made in 1627 and 1628, especially as the Talbot influence was present in all of them; Pembroke’s wife being involved in half of them and his brothers-in-law in the others.35 In 1627 Pembroke, Arundel and Kent sold the manor of Sheffield to Edward Leech and John Dix, stewards of Pembroke and Arundel respectively. At the same time they sold the manor of Walsingham to John Dix and Pembroke’s other steward, John Thoroughgood. In this way the Earl of Kent agreed to pass over his wife’s inheritance to her two sisters and their husbands. At the same time, Pembroke and his wife alienated various manors and lands in Sheffield and Derby to Thoroughgood and Leech. In 1628 Pembroke and his wife sold the manor of Parkmansworth to his allies James Fullerton, Thomas Trevor and his steward, John Thoroughgood, for more than £4,500. Three months earlier Pembroke had alienated the manor of Chesterfield to Edward Leech. This last transaction typifies the problem one faces in trying to understand Pembroke’s land transactions. The Third Earl apparently alienated the manor outright to Leech, i.e. permanently

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 140

22/10/10 12:23 PM

IMPROVING LANDLORD

141

changed its ownership in 1627. Yet the year after the Third Earl’s death, the Fourth Earl alienated the same manor of Chesterfield, this time to a James Palmer.36 Pembroke’s role as a royal banker is more clear, though it is still strange that the Third Earl, who must have been often short of ready cash himself, could provide the same scarce commodity to his sovereigns. One supposes, though, that as the Crown was still the major source of patronage, the Third Earl had to make the effort. James I used Pembroke occasionally as a banker, but Charles I used him often. This implies that the Third Earl’s financial position was much stronger in the last five years of his life. Pembroke lent Charles I £10,400 to pay for jewels shortly after his coronation, and the Third Earl was not fully reimbursed until October 1627. The following year the King borrowed a further £3,000 from Pembroke and other Privy Councillors. Loans such as these as well as leases, especially the timber leases and sales which Charles I granted Pembroke, were a useful source of income for the Crown. They were, however, an even better source of income to Pembroke the aristocratic entrepreneur, and it is to the entrepreneurial aspects of Pembroke’s career that we must now turn.37

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 141

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 142

22/10/10 12:23 PM

10

Aristocratic Entrepreneur

The Third Earl of Pembroke owned extensive woodlands and significant mineral deposits and constantly tried to expand both his forest holdings and add to his mineral wealth: his exploitation of both were crucial aspects of his entrepreneurship. Grants and leases from the Crown were the usual source of his expanded holdings. An entrepreneur, such as Pembroke, someone who organizes, runs and takes the risks for business ventures, was not uncommon among the nobility in the early seventeenth century. In breadth of interests and financial involvement, Pembroke was the greatest aristocratic entrepreneur of the period. He was deeply involved in exploiting his woodlands, in mining, in glass-making, and in domestic and foreign commerce. One economic historian has argued that the importance of the entrepreneurial nobility was in ‘their willingness to encourage and finance new ventures which were regarded as risky and thus failed to secure the backing of more cautious social groups.’ He further argued that it was this part of the nobility who ‘won for Elizabethan England much of its reputation for adventure and expansion at home and abroad’. The Earl of Pembroke has scarcely been given his due as an entrepreneur though he was in this, as in many other areas, in the forefront of the nobility. And as an entrepreneur, he was also carrying on a family tradition.1 The Third Earl inherited the Forest of Groveley in Wiltshire, the forests of Sength, Tallavan and Miskyn in Glamorgan, and the forest of Maugham in Monmouth. The first woodland grant given to Pembroke was Clarendon Park in 1603 together with the forests of Burkholt, Paweret and Melshin in Wiltshire and Somerset, and the Bailiwick of Burley in the New Forest, a grant that had previously been given to his father and grandfather. The same year he was given control of the forest of Gillingham by Queen Anne, and she followed this up in 1608 with the grant of the Forest and Chase of Exmoor, which had been held by Sir Walter Raleigh. In 1604 he was granted the neighbouring Forest of Dartmoor, but the Third Earl had to wait until 1608 before he was given charge of a major Crown forest, the Forest of Dean. Pembroke had been angling for this plum since Elizabeth’s reign and it, like Clarendon, had belonged to the First and Second Earls. Later, in 1609 the Third Earl was granted Southbeare Forest when he was named Constable of Portsmouth; sometime before 1610 he was also granted the Forest of Westbeare, and in 1624 was given control of the New Forest during the minority of the Earl of

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 143

22/10/10 12:23 PM

144

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Southampton. This was his last major forest grant, though some time before 1630 he was given the walk called Inneslow Lodge and Clipson Shrogges in Sherwood Forest. Pembroke capped off his acquisitions in 1629 by being named Warden, Chief Justice and Justice Itinerant of all royal forests south of the River Trent. His father-in-law had previously held the postion for all the royal forests north of the Trent.2 It was hugely beneficial from a financial view alone to control large areas of woodlands. The warden or bailiff of a forest had control of all the offices of the forest, received various rents from the forest lands, and income from the fees of the forest courts. He was also responsible for all the timber and the game. Just how lucrative it was can be seen from the income Pembroke received from the Forest of Clarendon. Though this was not the most important forest within his administration, the income from it was £800 per year. Pembroke’s income from some of the larger woodlands must have been much greater, especially from the Forest of Dean. But with Dean, as with his other woodland holdings, his main interest in them was in providing fuel for the nascent iron industry.3 The Forest of Dean was one of the most substantial mining areas in England, second only in importance to the Pembroke-controlled Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall. Yet it’s true potential had been little exploited. To properly utilize it would require too great an outlay for most businessmen. Richard Boyle, the future Earl of Cork and one of the greatest iron-masters of the period, estimated that the cost of setting up the necessary ironworks would be around £3,000. The Crown, desperately seeking funds, wanted to exploit its Forest of Dean, which had been a major iron-making area in the Middle Ages. In the sixteenth century blast furnaces had been erected in most areas, but not the Forest of Dean, even though there were blast furnaces very near to the forest by 1600, and there had been a few during Elizabeth’s reign. Blast furnaces needed much more charcoal than primitive bloomeries, and thus a great deal of timber had to be felled. There were proposals made in 1609 and 1610 to erect blast furnaces, and in 1611 the Earl of Shrewsbury was given a contract to cut 22,000 cords (151 cubic feet a cord) of timber a year at a cost of 3s. a cord, and an additional 1,500 tons of timber at 8s. a ton. Pembroke was, somehow, able to cancel his father-in-law’s immense timber grant, and it was Pembroke rather than Shrewsbury who erected the first blast furnaces in the Forest of Dean in 1612. The Third Earl had the necessary influence with Shrewsbury, he had the capital, and was already deeply involved in the Forest of Dean.4 In 1608 Pembroke had been granted the office of Constable of the Castle of St Briavels in Dean, with the keeping of the deer and woods there, an office he had been unsuccessful in obtaining in 1601 due to the Fitton scandal. The Constable was the King’s representative in the Forest, and the post was held in turn by the first four Earls of Pembroke. In 1611 the Third Earl added to the Constableship the manor,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 144

22/10/10 12:23 PM

A R I S T O C R AT I C E N T R E P R E N E U R

145

town and castle of St Briavells, for which he paid a yearly rent of £83 18s. 4d. This grant gave him control over all the lands and minerals, but the timber rights were specifically exempted. The following year he exploited his grants to the full, when he was granted the right to erect blast furnaces in Dean and allowed the timber necessary to supply them.5 In 1612, in a large grant, Pembroke was given the right: to erect so many iron mills, furnaces, forges and bloomeries for the making and working of iron, and so many other new works of what kind and manner soever by land or water (wire mills only excepted) within the precincts of the said Forest, and to repair, pull down, remove or alter the same at his will and pleasure.

He was also given the rights to all water and watercourses, allowed timber for building houses, ironworks etc. and allowed to enclose 12 acres for each ironworks. To furnish the fuel for the ironworks, he was allowed to cut 12,000 cords of wood annually at 4s. a cord or £2,400 a year. It seems also that he was to be allowed to have a further 12,000 cords annually without charge.6 The iron trade, which had been previously centred on Sussex, Kent and Surrey, was in temporary decline in the early seventeenth century, and what industry there was migrated to Monmouth, South Staffordshire, and especially to the Forest of Dean. But the inhabitants of the Forest of Dean were not ready for this rapid expansion and reacted violently to it. The people of the Forest of Dean were naturally averse to any change in their lifestyles, fiercely jealous of their rights and privileges and, if threatened, quite willing to take the law into their own hands. Sure of his own authority though, Pembroke and his associates quickly went to work, setting up four blast furnaces and three forges in 1612, cutting down trees for fuel, and importing labour from as far away as Sussex. The furnaces produced 700 tons a year each furnace, some 1,400 tons being sent to Ireland alone.7 But Pembroke was an outsider, and the objections of the local inhabitants, supported by Pembroke’s political enemies, were loud and immediate. Cecil was convinced that influential local landowners were behind ‘the poor inhabitants and commoners’, and Northampton was pleased to report to Rochester about riots in the Forest of Dean ‘on occasion of cutting down wood for the Earl of Pembroke, who is much disliked.’ One of the most important local landowners was the sisterin-law to Buckingham, and the Villiers clan were also delighted to see Pembroke embarrassed. There is no doubt that small iron-makers already working in the region also stirred up the men of the Forest of Dean.8 Pembroke’s grant in 1612 was too widely drawn, and it affected the livelihood not only of the foresters but also the free miners of the forest. The twenty-one-year lease to the Third Earl had included the liberty to:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 145

22/10/10 12:23 PM

146

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

dig for and take within any part of the said forest, or the precincts thereof, such and so much mine ore, cinders, earth, sand, stone, breaks, moss, sea coal, and marle as should be necessary for carrying on the ironworks let to him, or which he should erect; no person or persons whatsoever other than the said Earl to be permitted during the said term to take or carry out of the said forest any wood, timber, mine ore, or cinders, without consent of the said Earl, except such timber as should be used for His Majesty’s shipping.9

Trouble broke out very quickly, and Pembroke’s workmen tried to avoid confrontations by cutting and cording his wood while the people were at church. This stratagem did not work for, as one correspondent reported, some ‘fifteen desperate knaves set it on fire . . . and dancing about the fire cried “God save the King.” They still walk the woods with weapons . . . and call their neighbours cowards for not assisting them. The Justice hath given order for their apprehension, but the country favor them’. The Privy Council called upon the Sheriff, the JPs and the Lord Lieutenant to suppress the ‘seditious rogues’, but little was done. The inhabitants of Dean also legally pursued their right to mine in the Forest and, in a compromise agreement, the miners were allowed ‘out of charity and grace, and not of right’, to dig for mine ore and cinders at the usual rates, but no new diggers were to be allowed, but only such as were inhabitants of Dean.10 The foresters of Dean were even more successful than the free miners when they preferred a bill against Pembroke charging that he ‘doth purpose to cut down all the woods within the said Forest.’ Here they were on more popular ground, for there was a general fear in the seventeenth century that the iron-masters were destroying England’s forests. In 1634, for example, the merchants and shipowners of Bristol charged that, in the previous two decades, one half of the Forest of Dean had been cut down. Echoing the strong sentiment of his age, the poet Michael Drayton complained in one of his songs: These iron times breed none that mind prosperity, Jove’s oak, the warlike ash, vein’d elm, the softer beech, Short hazel, maple plain, light aspe, the bending wych, Tough holly and smoother birch, must together burn. What should the builder serve, supplies the forger’s turn, When under public good, base private gain takes hold, And we poor woeful woods, to ruin lastly sold. This uttered they with grief.

Drayton was the only major poet of the period who was not patronized by Pembroke, so he could afford to speak his mind. But his jeremiads were premature, as the extent of deforestation in the early seventeenth century has been greatly exaggerated.11

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 146

22/10/10 12:23 PM

A R I S T O C R AT I C E N T R E P R E N E U R

147

The Third Earl could ignore Drayton, and perhaps hold out against the foresters, but he could do neither against the Crown. The King had always been careful in his grants to safeguard timber for the Navy, and in 1613 the Privy Council sent an official to report on the situation in the Forest of Dean. He was to see to it that the Forest was not ‘spoiled’ and that the Navy’s timber was protected. Pembroke’s men were accused of cutting timber destined for the fleet, and the Third Earl decided that it would be politically safer to lease his interests rather than work them himself. Late in 1612 he had leased a part of his ironworks, and in 1615 he leased the rest of them to Sir Basil Brooke. Brooke paid Pembroke in kind, 320 tons of iron per year (£800 per annum), for the lease of his works, and this bargain lasted for five years. The Third Earl re-leased the ironworks in 1621. Pembroke’s grant from the Crown was for twenty-one years though, and in May 1615 the Third Earl had to formally relinquish his 2,000 cords of wood a year and for this he received from the Exchequer £4,100 ‘for his interest in a lease for many years yet to come of certain wood and iron works in the Forest of Dean.’12 Pembroke still controlled the forest and, with the change of sovereign in 1625, he resuscitated his ironworks project in Dean, this time under the aegis of another of the enterprises he was a major stockholder in, the Mineral and Battery Works. In 1627 a new lease for the King’s ironworks was drawn up, the consortium from the Mineral and Battery Works led by Pembroke offering to pay in advance for two year’s supply of cordwood (£6,600). The offer was accepted. Again it was a twenty-one-year lease with total rights over all minerals and timber, and Pembroke was allowed 10,000 cords of timber at 6s/8p a cord (or £3,333). The Third Earl immediately sublet at a profit of a shilling per cord (£500). In 1628 Pembroke got the annual supply increased by another 2,500 cords at the same price, and the following year a further 2,400 cords at 6s/8d a cord. By 1628 then, Pembroke and his associates were paying £4,966 a year for timber in the Forest of Dean. All these grants were unsuccessfully resisted by the foresters and local landlords, and in September 1629 Pembroke won his ultimate victory when he was made Chief Justice of all the forests south of the Trent. He now had total legal as well as administrative and economic control of the forest. The Third Earl’s interest in iron-making was lifelong. From 1612 until 1630, Pembroke not only laid the groundwork for the iron industry in the forest, but was the only person who had uninterrupted possession of the ironworks there for the entire period. It is perhaps fortunate for the survival of the Forest of Dean that the Third Earl gained total control of it only six months before he died.13 The Mineral and Battery Works, for whom Pembroke had obtained his 1627 lease for the Dean ironworks, was the second of the four major mining and industrial organizations he was involved in. The third was the Society of Mines Royal, and the fourth was the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall. The two greatest industrial enterprises in Elizabethan England were the Mineral and Battery Works

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 147

22/10/10 12:23 PM

148

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

and the Society of Mines Royal, the only two manufacturing companies in the period. Both societies were closely concerned with mining, and between them were responsible for the foundation of the brass and copper industries in England and Wales. The impetus for founding both of them came from German capitalists and miners. In 1564 German entrepreneurs were granted a patent to open up certain mines in England, but the enterprise proved too costly for them alone. They were forced to share their exclusive rights with English investors, the result of this being the chartering of the Society of Mines Royal, and the Society for Mineral and Battery Works in 1568.14 The Mines Royal had sole mining rights for Wales and most of the counties of England for gold, silver, copper and other minor metals. The Mineral and Battery Works had exclusive rights to the remaining counties, plus the sole right to mine calamine, manufacture brass wire and erect battery works for the production of brass and copper sheets. The two companies were complementary enterprises rather than rivals, and they usually had overlapping shareholders. The two largest original shareholders in both companies were the Earl of Pembroke and Lord Burleigh. Both companies were highly capitalized, even though they were totally new industries and thus relatively speculative ventures. They quickly became very large industries. The Mines Royal employed 4,000 workers at their smelting works at Keswick until it was destroyed in the Civil War and all the German miners killed. The Mineral and Battery Works employed 5,000 workers at their wire works at Tintern alone. Their London works at Isleworth and Rotherhithe were also very large local employers, but the Mineral and Battery Works main plant was in Nottinghamshire. The Society in total, according to Sir John Pettus, one of the Deputy Directors of the United Societies after they had amalgamated in 1668, ‘gave employment to no less than eight thousand daily.’ This figure though includes all those who used the works as a source of raw material for their craft.15 The Second Earl of Pembroke strengthened the family interest in both companies, and the Third Earl increased it. Both companies were rechartered in 1604, their administration left in the hands of their Governors, Pembroke and his ally Sir Robert Cecil, Burghley’s son. In the Mines Royal, Pembroke was the dominant figure. Of the twelve shares in the company belonging to the English partners, which cost £850 each, Pembroke and Cecil both had two, but Pembroke’s ally, Arnold Oldisworth, the father of his secretary, Michael Oldisworth, also had two shares. Arnold Oldisworth was also involved in the Mineral and Battery Works and was part of a combine with the Second Earl of Pembroke in 1566 to make salt profitably. His son, Michael Oldisworth, like several of Pembroke’s ‘servants’ was a wealthy man in his own right, and the Oldisworths were not the only members of the Pembroke entourage, or the Third Earl’s political allies who were involved in industrial ventures with him. Cecil was Pembroke’s patron at Court, the Stradling

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 148

22/10/10 12:23 PM

A R I S T O C R AT I C E N T R E P R E N E U R

149

family was involved in the Society of Mines Royal and also leased coal-bearing land from the Third Earl, and Sir James Perrott was also a lessee of the Mines Royal.16 Both the Mines Royal and the Mineral and Battery Works were important to Stuart England’s industrial growth, but we do not know how much Pembroke invested in these companies apart from the £1,700 share cost in the Mines Royal, or how good the return was on his investment as the records of both companies are incomplete. We do know that individuals who leased mines from both companies often made fortunes, so we may assume that the major stockholders greatly profited from their investments. Both the Mines Royal and the Mineral and Battery Works for the first three decades of the seventeenth century, the decades in which Pembroke was a Governor of both companies, were profitable industrial enterprises, so we may assume the Third Earl made a profit, if not a ‘fortune’, from his involvement.17 Closely connected to the Mines Royal was the fourth major mining organization in which Pembroke was involved, the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall – the most important of the Crown lands which Pembroke controlled outside of the Forest of Dean, and the most important mining area in the country. In 1604 the Third Earl was given the lifetime appointment of Steward of the Duchy of Cornwall and made Lord Warden of the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall. Later that same year he was made Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall. These appointments gave Pembroke tremendous administrative and political power in Devon and Cornwall, and at the same time gave him control of the biggest industry in the area, the Stannaries or tin mines. The stewardship of the Stannaries was worth £100 a year, control of the manor and Forest of Dartmoor was worth a further £20 a year, as was the lordship of Torrington in Devon. The right to appoint the four Dartmouth foresters was worth £30 a year, and the four stannary bailiffs another £80 a year. All in all his income from this grant was £250 a year. But we do not know what his income was from the Stannary Courts and, unfortunately, we have no record whatsoever of how much he received from the pre-emption of tin.18 The Crown’s right to have first preference in the wholesale purchase of tin was a very lucrative right. In 1601 the Crown was making a profit of £2,000 a year from this pre-emption, and by 1628 this had risen to £12,000. In this whole period Pembroke was in charge of the Stannaries, and it would be interesting to know how much he profited from such a steep price rise. Early Stuart office holders were very efficient at siphoning off royal revenues, and one can be fairly certain that the Third Earl received some share of the proceeds of the tin monopoly. Pembroke’s position as Lord Warden of the Stannaries and Steward of the Duchy of Cornwall is also an interesting point of focus for his whole career. It is a good example of how his many interests and powers dovetailed. The Third Earl was a large landowner in Devon in his own right, he was the administrative power in the region as Lord Lieutenant of Somerset and Cornwall, and the King’s representative there. He controlled the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 149

22/10/10 12:23 PM

150

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

only industry there, the Stannaries, and he was able to use the Devon and Cornish seats for his parliamentary allies such as Trevor and Stradling, Sir John Eliot and his Vice-Warden, William Coryton. Pembroke could also use his position in the Stannaries to further another of his projects, the colony of Virginia. The Cornish tin mines were often regarded as a source of skilled labourers and craftsmen, and in 1609 the Royal Council for Virginia wrote to Plymouth Corporation: we have entreated the Right Ho[nourable] Earl of Pembroke to address his letters to his officers in the Stannaries for providing us 100 mineral and labouring men.

It was presumed that the Lord Warden would impress the necessary workers for the Virginia voyage.19 For the last three decades of his life Pembroke was involved, either directly or indirectly, in very large-scale mining and manufacturing enterprises. How lucrative they were we do not know but Montgomery, as early as 1607, made more than 10 per cent of his income from iron and coal, and his income was far less than his brother’s in this area. The Third Earl’s interest in mining and industry, like that of his woodland exploitation, was very much part of the Herbert inheritance. Coal mining was a particular family interest. Some of the most important coal mining areas in South Wales had been granted to the Earls of Pembroke by the Crown, and their potential was fully exploited by the family. Late in the sixteenth century, the Second Earl of Pembroke tried to organize all coal sales in the Borough of Neath. This was finally achieved in 1597, and the agreement was renewed by the Third Earl in 1603 and again in 1612.20 The leases granted by the Earls of Pembroke show quite clearly that they maximized the mineral wealth of their lands. The Third Earl’s leases on such lands either grant ‘power to dig coal therein’, or ‘the right to dig coal and quarry stone’, or they specify ‘mines of coal and iron etc., excepted,’ or state that the lease is granted ‘with reservation of timber, trees, mines or iron and coal, and other royalties.’ Pembroke also was involved in many lawsuits over mineral rights. A typical case in 1618, in Glamorgan, concerned one of Pembroke’s lessees who was accused of ‘cutting great trees’ which he had no right to, digging 16 or 17 new coal pits, and burning 800 cords of wood in the same coal pits, presumably to make charcoal.21 Crown lands that had been leased to the Third Earl were just as fully exploited. His interest in these leased lands can be seen in his typically careful management of the Forest of Exmoor in Devon. He had been granted the lease of Exmoor early in James’ reign, and it was renewed by Charles I in 1625. Less than two years later, Pembroke successfully petitioned the King to renew and correct the lease, ‘because the coal was omitted in the last grant.’22 The Third Earl, like his father and his grandfather before him, was also involved

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 150

22/10/10 12:23 PM

A R I S T O C R AT I C E N T R E P R E N E U R

151

in other domestic commercial ventures, enterprises as varied as salt-making, largescale fishing, and glass-making. Pembroke probably inherited his father’s share in the salt-making industry, but there is no record of his active involvement in it. Little more can be said about his participation in the fishing industry, though it was a much larger-scale enterprise. The Society of the Fishery of Great Britain and Ireland contained various subsidiary companies, one of which, some time after 1615, was Lord Pembroke’s Association (or the Lord Chamberlain’s Association). The Third Earl’s fishing fleet was usually used for herring fishing, and by his death his Association had a subscribed capital of £2,400, a quarter of which had been subscribed.23 Potentially the most lucrative of these domestic commercial ventures was glassmaking, and in 1618 the Third Earl and his ally Sir Robert Mansell were granted the patent for making glass. James Howel wrote home in March 1618 that he had been made ‘Steward of the Glass-house in Broad Street’ by Sir Robert Mansell who, with my Lord of Pembroke, and divers others of the prime lords of the Court, have got the sole patent of making all sorts of glass with pit coal, only to save those huge proportions of wood which were consumed formerly in the glass furnaces.

Pembroke seems to have done little or nothing with the glass monopoly, perhaps finding the political furore over it embarrassing, and thus found it prudent to sell out his interest to his ally Mansell, who still had the patent in 1642. Sir Robert, who, with Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, shared most of Pembroke’s commercial and colonization interests was, like Rudyerd, a key member of the Pembroke Connection. Mansell was for many years a director of the East India Company, the company in which Pembroke was a substantial investor and, like Pembroke, was a member of the Guinea Company, and an investor in the Northwest Passage Company. Like his patron, Mansell was also deeply involved in the Virginia Company, the Somers Island Company and the New England Company.24 Pembroke may have found the glass monopoly a political disadvantage, but he was not at all politically embarrassed by the other ventures he had in common with his family – foreign trade, voyages of discovery and colonization schemes. In the last two areas the Third Earl was not only following in the family’s footsteps but, as in so many other ways, trying to increase his own wealth and also forward his programme of strengthening and expanding the influence of England and Protestantism. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, one half of the English peerage invested in foreign trade; all the Earls of Pembroke were prominent investors. The First Earl invested in the Russia Company as early as 1555, and in the years 1564 to 1569 helped finance Hawkin’s voyages to Africa and America. The Second Earl was one of the most important contributors to Frobisher’s search for the Northwest Passage in 1576, and two years later was the biggest private investor

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 151

22/10/10 12:23 PM

152

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

in his third voyage. The Second Earl was also involved in ventures in the Far East from 1577 on.25 The Countess of Pembroke, ‘Sidney’s sister, Pembroke’s mother’, was an investor in her own right in various commercial and colonization ventures. In fact, she was involved in more ventures, on a smaller scale, than was her husband. Sir Philip Sidney was also an avid speculator. In the years 1576–78 Sidney contributed to the Frobisher voyages, in 1582 interested himself in Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s search for the Northwest Passsage, and the following year supported the idea of planting a colony of Catholics in the New World in an attempt to solve the recusant problem.26 Sidney’s involvement in these ventures, like that of his sister and the Earls of Pembroke, was motivated in part by the hope of monetary gain, but also by his belief that successful English trading and colonial ventures would strengthen international Protestantism. The Third Earl of Pembroke’s motives were similarly mixed. His interest in the East India Company was primarily a financial one, but the same cannot be said for his other colonial ventures. It was more than purely commercial considerations that persuaded Pembroke in 1609 to be one of the six signers of a letter to ‘His Majesty’s subjects in the Free States of the United Provinces (the future Pilgrim Fathers of the Plymouth Plantation?) offering them in an English colony in America the place of refuge they were seeking in the Netherlands.’27 The earliest of Pembroke’s overseas ventures was with the East India Company. He joined the company in 1611 with his brother Montgomery, although their initial investment was probably not very large. In 1614 Pembroke was asking the company for more time to pay his ‘adventure’ until his rents came in. At this point in his career, Pembroke had little influence in the East India Company. He recommended an acquaintance for company employment in 1614, but his suggestion was rejected out of hand. The Third Earl’s growing influence at Court was mirrored in the company’s reaction to him in the next few years. He continued to recommend friends to the company, two of whom the Governor of the company in 1617 ‘supposed they could not well be refused’, and a third, though he ‘was not thought fit for the place, yet out of desire to satisfy the request of so noble a person’, was accepted.28 Pembroke’s interest in the East India Company was a constant one. In 1625 the company wanted protection from the Dutch, and the Governor reported to the company that ‘the Lord Chamberlain told him plainly that either way or some other they should have satisfaction.’ A month later and the Governor was now asking for further support from Pembroke in the wake of the Amboyna Massacre and continuing trade problems with the Dutch. To this entreaty: my Lord Chamberlain made answer that he was verily persuaded of the one, which was that the Dutch would dispossess our people (if they could) of the Indies, but for the other, he did not believe they would go about such a matter in regard of the alteration of the present time.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 152

22/10/10 12:23 PM

A R I S T O C R AT I C E N T R E P R E N E U R

153

The company was assured that the Amboyna incident and the East Indies trade was ‘excepted out’ of the treaty that had just been conducted with the Dutch. A week later the Third Earl was assuring the company that the King ‘doth take this business so far to heart as he hath done more for the company than is yet fit for them to know.’29 In March 1626, Pembroke recommended to the company a Mr Cotton as Ambassador to Persia, and a few weeks later the company thought that the Persian Ambassador should be ‘presented with some white plate, and that the Lord Chamberlain be entreated to move the King to bestow some plate or a jewel on him.’ The Third Earl worked diligently in the company’s interests which were, of course, his own. The East India Company was probably a good source of revenue for him, though a highly speculative one. We do not know how much he gained from his investment, but we do know that the company often made huge profits. In the year 1607 alone it made a profit of 500 per cent. And the Third Earl was probably the biggest single individual investor in the company, for at his death in 1630 he had £4,000 invested in it. This amount made him the second biggest investor in the company after the immensely rich Company of Grocers. This sum of £4,000 was an immense sum. The Bank of England estimates that £1 in 1610 was worth £80.47 in May 1996.30 How much Pembroke invested in the Africa Company from 1618 on, and what influence he had in the company, we do not know. We know a lot more about his investments in the Americas, investments by which he hoped to both improve his financial position and further his expansionist ideas. The Second Earl and the Countess of Pembroke both had been enthusiastic investors in the various Northwest Passage ventures, and so had Sir Philip Sidney. The Second Earl had been the second biggest investor after Queen Elizabeth in the project, so it was to be expected that the Third Earl would back this project as one way of challenging the Catholic powers in the New World. In 1610 the explorer Henry Hudson organized another Northwest Passage venture, and the list of adventurers reads like a roll call of the anti-Spanish faction, including as it does, Pembroke, Montgomery, Archbishop Abbot, Lord Chancellor Ellesmere and Sir Robert Mansell.31 Pembroke’s investment in the North West Passage Company of 1612 was not, as far as can be ascertained, a financial success, nor was his venture in the Guiana Company of 1627. This latter venture, following in the footsteps of Raleigh’s abortive Guiana voyage of a decade earlier, was doomed from the outset. Buckingham, Pembroke and other nobles, were given sole rights for the plantation of Guiana, but little was done to further the project, and the whole undertaking perished with the death of Buckingham in August 1628. One of the few effects the project had was to elicit a dedication to Pembroke from the author Richard Thornton, who wrote of his Guiana experiences and dedicated them to the Third Earl, knowing his interest in the region. The Third Earl was more interested and financially

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 153

22/10/10 12:23 PM

154

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

involved, however, in the three interconnected American colonization ventures, the Virginia Company, the Somers Islands or Bermudas Company, and the New England Company.32 Sir Walter Raleigh had founded the first English colony on the mainland of North America in 1585, and though unsuccessful it spurred others to challenge Spain in the New World by planting English colonies. In 1606 two Virginia Companies were founded, one in London and one in Bristol. The London group was granted the rights to the southern part of the mainland, Virginia, while the Bristol group was given the northern part (renamed New England in 1620). In 1606 the first expedition was sent out, and this was followed by two more in 1608 and 1609. They were not very successful, and in February 1609 the Virginia Company wrote to Pembroke as Lord Warden of the Stannaries asking him to send 100 ‘mineral and laboring men’ to Virginia. The same year the southern company was restructured as a joint stock company, and among its 18 peers and 96 knights, 56 city companies and 659 individuals were the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, Sir Robert Mansell and Sir Charles Morgan. Pembroke was elected as a Member of the Council for Virginia, as were Montgomery and Mansell, and the Third Earl soon became one of the largest investors and most influential members of the new company.33 The largest single investor was Lord De la Warr with £500 invested; and Pembroke was the second with £400. Montgomery put up £40, and Mansell £97 10s. Some other major investors were the Company of Grocers with £487 10s., the Earl of Southampton with £350, and Sir Edwin Sandys with £212 10s. The subscribers were entitled to 100 acres of land in Virginia for each £2 10s. share they owned, and by 1620 Pembroke had built up his holdings to £3,750, entitling him to 30,000 acres. The Third Earl must have built up his large holding fairly quickly, for very soon he was prominent in the company’s affairs. The instructions, orders and constitutions sent out by the company to Lord De la Warr in 1609/1610 were signed by the Earls of Pembroke, Montgomery, Southampton and Sir Robert Mansell, and when the Virginia Company was rechartered in 1612, Pembroke’s wife and mother-in-law were also investors.34 Pembroke, an active member of the Virginia Company, invested heaviIy in it, and attracted literary dedications from Virginia pioneers. As early as 1601 Robert Johnson of the Virginia ‘interest’ dedicated to the Third Earl his Essaies, John Rolfe in 1616 dedicated his work, The True Relation of . . . Virginia, to his fellow investor, and Captain John Smith dedicated his now famous works, The General History of the Bermudas and The True Travels of Captaine John Smith, to Adventures, and Observations one who was ‘acquainted both with my endeavors and writings.’35 From 1617 on, subsidiary associations, operating almost as independent colonies under the umbrella of the Virginia Company, became common, the idea being that these ‘colonies’ or ‘hundreds’ would help stimulate the growth of the Virginia colony. Between 1619 and 1623, 44 patents for ‘hundreds’ were issued by the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 154

22/10/10 12:23 PM

A R I S T O C R AT I C E N T R E P R E N E U R

155

Virginia Company, the earliest and most important of which was Smith’s Hundred in 1617. It contained 80,000 acres north of the James River, and Pembroke was one of the major shareholders. More than 300 colonists were eventually settled there, and it was estimated that by 1635 the venture had cost £6,000. But even this substantial investment was much less than Pembroke had planned. In July 1621, the Virginia Company informed the Governor and Council of State in Virginia that: the Earl of Pembroke with divers his associates have undertaken to plant thirty thousand acres of land in Virginia. We therefore entreat you to make choice of the best seat on that river that is not yet inhabited. And herein to take the advice of Mr. Leech (Pembroke’s secretary) who now goes over to view the country and be employed in that plantation.

The Council of State wrote back in January 1622 that: it is no small encouragement unto us, that the right honorable the Earl of Pembroke hath vouchsafed to cast a favorable eye upon the southern colony, who shall command from us our best endeavors in choosing out for his Lordship, and his associates, the most commodious seat that may be.

Pembroke and his associates had undertaken ‘to transport great multitudes of people and cattle’ to Virginia, and the Third Earl was so highly regarded that one of the great rivers north of the James River, now called the Rappahannock, was originally named after him. But by the early 1620s the plans of the adventurers, and the thriving colony itself, were coming under increasing attack in England.36 With the large number of investors in the Virgina Company from the city companies and the aristocracy – about one third of the peerage was involved – it is not surprising that the factionalism of Court and parliament should spill over into the company. Sir Robert Smythe led a city and Court faction and had the support of James I. The company Treasurer, Sir Edwin Sandys, the Earls of Southampton and Pembroke and others opposed them, and in 1619 the latter group ousted Smythe and his associates from control of the company. In 1620 James I, at the Easter meeting of the company, ordered the company ‘to make choice of Sir Thomas Smythe, Sir Thomas Roe, Mr. Alderman Johnson, or Mr. Maurice Abbot, and no other’ as Treasurer. Pembroke and Southampton told the meeting that this was ‘the beginning of a move against the company’s just freedom of election,’ and they would not yield to it. They had to compromise though, and Sandys was replaced as Treasurer by Southampton.37 In 1621 the company tried, unsuccessfully, to get a new charter, and when infighting continued, and the Smythe faction regained control of the company, the Virginia Company was made the subject of a commission of inquiry of the Privy Council in 1623. When the commission met, Nicholas Ferrar, a Deputy of

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 155

22/10/10 12:23 PM

156

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

the company, and a friend of Sandys and Pembroke’s, was sharply questioned by the Lord Treasurer, who often interrupted his presentation of the company’s case. Pembroke, defending the company said, we have called him hither to know what he can say on the Company’s behalf. Let us therefore not interrupt him: it is reasonable to hear him out. Mr. Deputy go on.

After Ferrar had finished his defence of the company, he was congratulated by Pembroke for having spoken well for himself and for the company. Later in the inquiry Pembroke, after the letters and instructions of the company had been read, was of the opinion that, as he put it: there is not one thing in them all, which, as far as I can see, deserves in the least degree to be excepted against. On the contrary, they deserved the highest commendation: containing advices far more excellent than I could have expected to have in the letters of a trading company. For they abound with soundness of good matter, and profitable instruction with respect both to religion and policy, and they possess uncommon elegance of language.38

Pembroke’s defence of the company to the Privy Council was not enough to save the Virginia Company from being dissolved, and in 1624 Virginia became a royal colony. The Third Earl blamed the dissolution not on the factional squabbles but on Spanish interference. By the middle of James’ reign, Spain was becoming increasingly worried about English expansion in the New World. Gondomar, shortly after his arrival in 1614, was reporting back to Philip III about the foundation of the Bermuda Company, a subsidiary of the Virginia Company, and Pembroke’s prominent role in it. But the Third Earl’s charge, that Spanish designs rather than factional fighting made James move against the company, probably says more about Pembroke’s anti-Spanish views than Gondomar’s influence over James. The Third Earl had ‘solemnly affirmed’ to the Earl of Southampton in 1621 that he, Pembroke, and the Marquis of Hamilton heard Gondomar say to the King: that it was time for him to look to the Virginia courts which were kept at the Ferrar’s house, where too many of his nobility and gentry resorted to accompany the popular Lord Southampton and the dangerous Sandys. That though they might have a fair pretence for their meetings, yet he would find in the end that court would prove a seminary for a seditious parliament. [And] that they were deep politicians, and had further designs than a tobacco plantation.39

Pembroke’s interests in Virginia were maintained when the company was dissolved and Virginia became a Crown colony. What the Third Earl’s heir did with his Virginia interests we do not know. We know a little more of what happened to

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 156

22/10/10 12:23 PM

A R I S T O C R AT I C E N T R E P R E N E U R

157

Pembroke’s interests in Bermuda. The Somers Islands, or Bermuda, had come into the orbit of the Virginia Company when the flagship of the fleet sailing to Virginia was wrecked off the island, and the company formally claimed the island. In 1615 the Somers Island Company was chartered and Bermuda separated from Virginia. One of the most prominent patentees of the new company was the Third Earl of Pembroke. Bermuda was divided into eight tribes, one of which was named after Pembroke, and in this tribe (which is still called Pembroke today) the Third Earl was the outstanding landholder. His brother, Montgomery, and his allies Sir Robert Mansell and Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, were also important investors in the company. Pembroke kept a very watchful eye on his investments in Bermuda, but as to how good an investment they were, or how much his heir received from Rudyerd, when he sold him the Third Earl’s interest, we are in the dark.40 Pembroke was less involved financially in the New England Company, yet it was this project that showed most clearly how mixed the Third Earl’s motives in North America were. Pembroke had been involved in Northern Virginia for as long as he had been involved in Southern Virginia, but his main interest in the northern colony was in its potential fishing wealth. Colonists were sent to what is now southern Maine as early as 1608, and it was after the failure of this attempt that the adventurers proposed that they would join in attempts to foster the southern colony, hence their letter to Pembroke asking him to furnish ‘100 mineral and laboring men’. The Third Earl could not have given up on the idea of northern colonization though, for he was one of the six signers of the letter in 1609 to English Protestants resident in the Netherlands (the Pilgrim Fathers?) offering them refuge in an English colony in America.41 For the next decade, most of the colonization energies were concentrated on the southern colony. In 1620 the northern colony was changed into the Council of New England and placed on the same footing as the southern colony. There were forty patentees, thirteen of them peers, Pembroke prominent among them. The ubiquitous Sir Robert Mansell was the most important among the rest. The patentees were empowered to hold territory in America from the fortieth to the forty-eighthdegree North latitude, and westward from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Pembroke’s and Mansell’s strips ran in parallel lines north and south of Sagadahock. In the few records of the Council of New England that have survived, Mansell is prominently mentioned. Pembroke is mentioned only once at a meeting of the company, but we can take it that Mansell was looking after the Third Earl’s interests.42 In September 1620, under the aegis of the Council of New England, the Mayflower sailed to New England, carrying the Pilgrim Fathers. The Pilgrims were free families of settlers, seeking religious freedom in the New World. They are rightly looked upon as the Founding Fathers of the United States. Pembroke would, of course, have been aware of their departure, but one wonders how much he would have supported them. They were, like himself, strong nationalists, Calvinists, and

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 157

22/10/10 12:23 PM

158

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

fearful of the religious direction the country was taking. The Third Earl must have sympathized with them, but he was not a separatist, and had not yet given up hope that ‘true religion’ would eventually triumph in England. A more immediate concern of Pembroke’s was to gain a monetary return from his New England investment. As Vice-Admiral of South Wales, Pembroke knew that the admiralty courts were a very useful source of income. Money came in from fines and fees, flotsam, sales of royal fish, and income from wrecks and pirates’ ships and goods. He tried to set up Vice-Admiralty courts in New England, and by so doing enforce his monopoly over trade and fishing. This was strongly opposed by the ports of western England in the Parliament of 1624, and the company never did get a Vice Admiralty court system, even though such courts were set up in Virginia and Bermuda.43 A further attempt was made by the Council for New England to foster plantations there when the company sent letters to the Lords Lieutenants of Western counties asking them to encourage settlement in New England. The letter to Pembroke urged him not only to become involved himself, but also to encourage ‘other gentlemen and persons of quality and means . . . to join [with him] in the advancement of that plantation.’ Nothing came of this attempt, but Pembroke was still hopeful that colonization schemes would bear fruit in New England. In 1629 Captain John Smith, the historian of the Bermuda, Virginia and New England enterprises, wrote that he, the Earl of Pembroke, and like-minded nationalists thought that had the New England colonies been properly planted ‘as it was intended, that no other nation should come plant between us.’ Such colonies could supply our navy if we fought Spain, supply us with Baltic commodities, and be a good jumping-off point for control of the West Indies.44 The Third Earl of Pembroke had invested a great deal of time and money in his overseas ventures. Yet in financial terms, apart from the investment in the East India Company, he may have profited little from them. He had enhanced his general patronage, and made himself and his ideas more prominent, but his close involvement with the Virginia Company in particular must have hurt him at Court. Pembroke’s antipathy towards Arminianism and an over-powerful favourite was also not likely to further his Court and parliamentary career. The Third Earl must have marked the passing of the old King with great sadness, and awaited with some trepidation the advent of his Arminian-inclined successor, and his chief advisor, the Duke of Buckingham.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 158

22/10/10 12:23 PM

11

At the Caroline Court, 1625–1627

Pembroke’s business affairs, like his patronage, took up a great deal of his time, but politics was still his foremost concern. If he could not maintain his political influence then all his other interests would suffer. The Third Earl hoped to retain his influence with the accession of the new king because Charles, though strongly influenced by Buckingham, was not yet as dominated by the favourite as James I had been. And Pembroke must have hoped for favour from his fellow connoisseur. The vision of an independent monarch, though chimerical, must have seemed possible to Pembroke, who was quickly showered with honours by his friend and new sovereign. At the funeral of James, Charles followed the bier, with Arundel at his right hand, Pembroke at his left. At Charles’ coronation later, Pembroke and Montgomery were singled out for special honour, and Pembroke and his brother-in-law Arundel were authorized to invest deserving recipients with the order of the Knight of the Bath. Pembroke, it seems, was so firmly ensconced in the King’s esteem it was reported that ‘after the Duke [Buckingham]the King hears no counsellors so gladly as the Lord Treasurer and the Lord Chamberlain.’1 King Charles was well aware of Pembroke’s power and influence, and of his reputation in the country. The Countess of Bedford echoed the views of many when she described Pembroke as ‘the only honest-hearted man employed that I know now left to God and his country.’ As heir-apparent, Charles had attempted to reconcile Buckingham and the Lord Chamberlain, and had been partially successful. Now, as king, he attempted to make the reconciliation permanent. He needed men of Pembroke’s calibre and experience. On 9 April 1625, Charles appointed Pembroke to a special commission of five Privy Councillors to consider the most important business of the government. Shortly afterwards, Pembroke was sworn in as a member of the permanent Council of War. The idea of this Council had first been broached by Rudyerd in 1624. It was perhaps only logical that his patron should be a member, as ‘it may have been Pembroke who saw the Council of War as a critical component of an agreement about war, particularly if he was concerned not to give Buckingham a free rein in the event of war.’ Nevertheless, Pembroke and Buckingham must have come to some agreement for, on 12 May when Buckingham left for Paris, he took with him only a handful of servants, but among them was the Earl of Montgomery.2

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 159

22/10/10 12:23 PM

160

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

More tangible honours were then given the Third Earl. He was confirmed as Lord Chamberlain, even though Robert Carey, who had been Prince Charles’ chamberlain, thought the position should have been his. All the other major offices granted by James I were also renewed, and others added to them. The majority of the gifts of the new sovereign were lucrative Crown leases, but there was also one important office, that of the Vice-Admiral of South Wales. The gifts and grants were lifetime ones. In addition, Pembroke was assigned to many important commissions. The King was certainly not neglecting such a useful and influential counsellor.3 Charles may have had other motives in advancing Pembroke. The King’s expensive tastes were a chronic financial embarrassment, and Pembroke was a useful source of cash. The Third Earl lent the King £10,400 to buy jewels shortly after his coronation, and the King was unable to repay the loan until October 1627. In 1628 Charles borrowed a further large sum from Pembroke and other Privy Councillors. The leases that Charles granted to Pembroke were also a useful source of revenue for the King.4 The King may have needed Pembroke’s advice and purse, Buckingham needed neither. In fact the King’s reconciliation of Pembroke and his favourite did not even survive 1625. In August it was reported that ‘there fell some dryness’ between the Third Earl and the Duke, but this was apparently due to a misunderstanding, Buckingham believing that Charles’ French queen wanted Pembroke to make a party against Buckingham, to promote French interests. Charles was able to reconcile his two ministers, but in mid-October they quarrelled again. Pembroke was by now convinced that Buckingham controlled the King and that the favourite ‘carries all business in his breast’. Another reconciliation took place in November 1625 but, once Pembroke was convinced that Buckingham exercised the same malevolent influence over Charles as he had over his father, no lasting accommodation was possible.5 One wonders if Pembroke knew how dangerous to the health of the commonwealth his opposition to the favourite was, and to the Crown of which he was a lifelong supporter. As a contemporary noted, Pembroke in 1625, like a number of the ancient nobility: brought a great distemper of humors in Court, and that distilled itself soon into the veins of the country; and thus a displeasure to the favorite soon lessened the duty and reverence which was due to the Prince. Thus the factions of a court always feed the peccant humors of the city and country; so as commonly the throne is most endangered by those, whose obligation it is to uphold it, and who most commonly suffer with it.6

As well as having to act as a peacemaker between his two ministers, Charles I was in serious economic difficulties. He needed money to finance his war effort, funds that could only be provided by parliament. In April 1625 the writs for a new parliament

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 160

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

161

were issued. But before this twice postponed parliament met in June, the issues separating Crown and parliament were again becoming evident. The King’s French marriage exacerbated the religious question, especially when it was rumoured that the marriage treaty contained provisions favourable to the Catholics. The growing anti-Catholic feelings of the nation were further provoked when Charles made himself the champion of Arminianism. This theological movement was ‘specifically aimed against the deterministic teaching of Calvinism’. But this anti-Calvinist Protestantism was, to the average Englishman, indistinguishable from popery. Arminianism appealed only to an educated minority, and Charles’ championing of it was politically disastrous. The views of the average Englishman were succinctly summed up by a speaker in Parliament in 1629 when he said: an Arminian is the spawn of a Papist . . . and if you mark it well, you shall see an Arminian reaching out his hand to a Papist, a Papist to a Jesuit, a Jesuit gives one hand to the Pope, and the other to the King of Spain.

Equally disastrous for the Crown was the growing unpopularity of the other new convert to Arminianism, Buckingham.7 The Crown and the political nation also disagreed as to where the war with Spain should be fought, should one be fought. Charles and Buckingham wanted a land war on the Continent, involving grand alliances and even grander expenditures; parliament wanted an inexpensive naval war combined with a defensive build-up in Britain. Neither was very realistic, given the stated aims of both parties. Parliament though was hardly likely to sanction the King’s grand designs since the Mansfield expedition to the Continent in 1624 had turned out to be a costly and humiliating fiasco. The relations between Crown and parliament were made even worse by the King’s insensitivity. Parliament was summoned to meet on 17 May, but the King waited until Henrietta Maria arrived from France before meeting his subjects, and the members had to wait until 18 June in London, a plague-ridden capital in the process of losing a fifth of its population.8 When the Parliament of 1625 finally met, the Pembroke Connection contained twenty-six MPs and in the Lords Pembroke had ten proxies, including that of the Earl of Bristol. The most Buckingham could muster was thirteen. There was a frantic scrambling for seats in 1625, the Third Earl attempting to extend his influence outside of his usual areas of influence. In Yorkshire Sir George Wentworth wrote to his father-in-law looking for support as ‘Sir Francis Cooke and Sir Edward Letch (Leech?) are laboring for My Lord Of Arundel and Pembroke’s people.’ In Nottinghamshire, John Holles wrote to Charles Thynne that ‘I cannot furnish you, as you coveted and myself desired, with a burgeship,’ as Pembroke and other courtiers ‘ingross all, at the least those where my provision lay.’ And Sir Dudley Carleton, writing to Sir Francis Nethersole and looking for a seat through Lord Conway, ‘was

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 161

22/10/10 12:23 PM

162

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

put . . . off upon the Lord Chamberlain (Pembroke), who says that he has two Privy Councillors newly put upon him, else he could have seated Sir Dudley at first hand, as he hopes he shall do at the second on some double return.’9 The competition for seats in this parliament led to some very high-pressure electioneering. For example, for the Connection seat of Monmouth, one of the opposition, a Mr Wogan, unsuccessfully solicited divers for voices; threatened divers [others]; impressed [others] for soldiers; divers [were] stricken [from the roll]; others hindered from coming to the election.

Pembroke himself was not averse to this. For example, Pembroke and the Attorney General both tried to pressure the Mayor and the Council for seats in Salisbury, an area where the Third Earl had some influence, but the Council stood firm and rejected their advances. Pembroke was much more arrogant later when he addressed a letter to the Mayor and aldermen of neighbouring Wilton, his pocket borough, recommending his steward, Sir Thomas Morgan, for the first place. He then told the Mayor, ‘I shall also desire that you, for the other burgesses place, you will send me up a blank, that therein I may insert the name of such of my friends as I shall think fit.’10 What is interesting about the scramble for seats is act that, this early in the reign, Pembroke and his Connection were definitely looked upon as committed supporters of the Court. In this election the Crown asked Pembroke to place Privy Councillors. At this stage in Charles’ reign, even though Pembroke and Buckingham were at loggerheads, it was assumed that the Third Earl was the King’s man and would do his sovereign’s bidding. It was not thought that Pembroke would attempt to thwart Charles’ or Buckingham’s policies, however distasteful he might find them. The King’s maladroitness or insensitivity to parliament’s feelings was apparent from the beginning of the parliament. The opening sermon was given by Buckingham’s confessor, William Laud, the Bishop of St David’s. Laud, soon to be the most prominent of the Arminians, stressed that parliament received its power from the King and that its duty was to uphold his authority. The King was briefer and more diplomatic, but it did not lessen the damage done by Laud. A parliament made suspicious of the King’s intentions by the rumours of naval help given to France to be used against the Huguenots, and by concessions made in the marriage treaty to English Catholics, was not very receptive to such a speech. Pembroke himself, a lifelong King’s man, was also extremely uneasy. He had urged caution in breaking the treaties with Spain and, though he had been in favour of a French alliance, he was not happy with the terms Buckingham had negotiated. He did not trust the French because, as he wrote to Buckingham, ‘the King of France is young and uncertain [and] our Papists industrious and malicious.’ Certainly Pembroke did not

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 162

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

163

deem Buckingham, Charles’ chief negotiator, capable of protecting the interests of England and Protestantism against Louis XIII’s wily minister, Richelieu.11 Pembroke wanted parliament to meet and discuss the government’s programme so he suspended judgment on the French treaties, and his spokesman, Rudyerd, urged moderation and sought an accommodation between Crown and parliament. Early in the session he blamed all the troubles of the kingdom ‘on the late distastes between the late king and parliament’ and hoped that the new King, ‘being bred in parliament would bring about a lasting reconciliation between the King and his people.’ Buckingham and Charles, although keen to obtain parliamentary subsidies, had unwisely left the councillors in the Commons without any specific instructions about what subsidies were required. The Commons voted two woefully inadequate subsidies, which Rudyerd afterwards contended were both too small and an insult to the King.12 On 8 July, Buckingham asked the Commons to vote a larger subsidy but, as there were very few members present in the House, either such a request might be considered as sharp practice, or because the sums mentioned for the war were frighteningly large, the House refused to vote for them. Parliament was recessed three days later and told to reassemble at Oxford. The members showed little enthusiasm for this idea. They wanted to get out of London and go home, and feared that a trip to Oxford might result in them catching the plague that was also raging there. The Oxford meeting began on 1 August, but in the intervening fortnight the terms of the French marriage treaty had come to light. It was now certain that the King had broken the pledge he had made to enforce the penal laws. Furthermore, it was now obvious that Buckingham had undertaken not only to supply ships to France but also to sanction their use against the French Huguenots at La Rochelle. This latter news infuriated parliament. To prevent the impending split between Crown and parliament, Pembroke and his Connection urged compliance with the King’s requests for supply. Sir Robert Mansell even went so far as to defend Buckingham and Charles’ military policy. But Mansell, a member of the Council for War, had to admit he did not favour their overall policy, nor would he take joint responsibility for it. Later, after parliament was dissolved, Mansell was called to account before the Privy Council. Pembroke came to his defence and Mansell was not prosecuted.13 The Third Earl himself was not very active in the Parliament of 1625, especially in London. He answered the roll only six times, was absent on thirteen occasions, and did not sit on any committees. He may have been more concerned with the plague than with politics. Or perhaps he was just keeping a low profile and acting through intermediaries. Pembroke did not sit on any committees at Oxford either, but he did attend more regularly. His apathy towards committees, however, is typical of the age. Most of their work was done by a small number of members,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 163

22/10/10 12:23 PM

164

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

attendance was unreliable and many of those who attended had not been named to them. In general, the committee system was still developing and there were ‘more anomalies than fixed rules’ in early seventeenth-century parliamentary committees.14 Questions of religion dominated the Oxford session more than they had during the first meeting, the Arminian cleric Richard Montague being the focus of the Commons’ complaint. Charles unwisely protected Montague by making him one of his chaplains, thus shielding him from parliamentary attack. The focus then shifted to Buckingham whose religious views were also suspect. He was Laud’s patron, the Duke’s wife was from a Catholic family and his mother had just converted to Catholicism. Buckingham as Lord Admiral was also attacked for his neglect of the naval defences and, as the King’s chief minister, for his misspending of public funds. The Commons refused to vote money unless it was to be spent by ministers whom they trusted and the King, unwilling to let Commons force his ministers on him, decided to dissolve parliament. On 12 August Charles dissolved his first parliament, largely to protect Buckingham. As the Venetian Ambassador correctly commented, Charles I put the safety of his friend above the needs of the state. It was a miscalculation that would cost him dearly in the future.15 The dissolution of the Parliament of 1625 came as no surprise to the Third Earl. A week before the dissolution, he had written to the Earl of Leicester advising him not to come to Oxford because ‘all things are in heat, and I think will have a sudden and distasteful conclusion.’ Pembroke, according to the Venetian Ambassador, was hoping that ‘matters shall not go smoothly, so that the Duke [of Buckingham], whose fortune is threatened, may have the blame for the mismanagement.’ Pembroke was undoubtedly worried by the way foreign affairs were moving from disaster to disaster, and was worried that Arminianism was becoming more and more acceptable at Court. Whether Pembroke and his Connection were clandestinely attacking Buckingham in the parliament we just do not know. Buckingham was certain he was. The Duke saw the collapse of the Parliament of 1625 as a personal affront, and considered the failure of the parliament as the result of an attack on him by his enemies in the House of Lords. The Duke: was, and is possessed, that there were four in the Higher House, that upon any complaint that should come up of him to them, that they with all their strength would set it forward there. He is likewise possessed that there was [sic] divers combined against him in the Lower House. For them in the Higher House, it was My Lord’s Grace of Canterbury, My Lord Keeper, my Lord Marshal, and my Lord Chamberlain. For them in the Lower House, he doth conceive, there were many who had their conferences with these four lords and others, that were depending upon them.

Abbot, Williams, Arundel and Pembroke were not the only voices raised against

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 164

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

165

Buckingham in the Lords, but these four undoubtedly were the most important ones, especially Williams and Pembroke, and it was rumoured that they would be questioned by the Privy Council after the dissolution.16 Abbot did not have influence to worry Buckingham, and Pembroke and his brother-in-law Arundel were too powerful to be crushed. This was not the case with Williams though. The Lord Keeper was taken to task by Buckingham for his opposition. He defended himself by saying that ‘he was engaged with William, Earl of Pembroke, to labor the redress of the people’s grievances.’ This indirect appeal for Pembroke’s support, however, was not enough to save him and he was dismissed from his office. It must, though, have soured even more the relations between Pembroke and Buckingham and convinced the latter that the Third Earl had been leading the opposition.17 King Charles was also annoyed by Pembroke’s opposition in 1625, for in October of that year, while on a trip to Plymouth to review the fleet, the King slighted Pembroke by not making him a member of his personal entourage. Pembroke replied by making a formal visit with Montgomery to the Earl of Bristol, who was still in disgrace. Charles realized that he had made a mistake and went to the trouble of reconciling himself to his Lord Chamberlain, even staying with him for a few days at Wilton. While the Court was at Wilton, Buckingham also attempted a reconciliation with the Third Earl, but the best he could do was to change their relationship, ‘to a strangeness, rather than an open dislike’. Pembroke, for his part, could not afford an open break with the King’s most influential subject.18 In November, after the failure of the attack on Spain at Cadiz, and the gradual drift towards a diplomatic break with France, a new parliament again became a necesssity, especially as the royal purse was so empty that it was seriously proposed to pawn the crown jewels in Holland. Charles I, however, was considered such a bad financial risk that the Amsterdam merchants refused to take the jewels as a pledge, unless they were given security that they would be redeemed within a limited period of time.19 Charles decided on calling parliament but then, with typical lack of foresight, immediately alienated it. He tried to deprive the House of Commons of its antiCourt leaders by making sheriffs of those who had been the most active against the Crown in 1625. Unfortunately for the King, though the new sheriffs could not sit in parliament, the House developed new leadership, and the new leaders proved to be far less moderate than their predecessors. The King’s manoeuvre had at least one parliamentary supporter, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd. Rudyerd’s strident Protestantism forced him to favour a vigorous prosecution of the war against the old enemy, Spain, and for this supply was necessary. Sir Benjamin exulted: The rank weeds of parliament are rooted up, so that we may expect a plentiful harvest the next.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 165

22/10/10 12:23 PM

166

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Rudyerd’s opinion, however, was a strictly personal one, confided to a friend. It was not necessarily the opinion of Pembroke nor of the Connection, nor was it delivered in parliament.20 With the decision taken to call parliament, Buckingham’s friends began to speculate as to the course the parliament would take. One wrote to the Duke that, though he hoped the parliament would be calmer than the last one: a rumor runs that there are clouds already engendered which will break out into a storm in the lower region, and most of the drops are like to fall on Your Grace.

Another of Buckingham’s friends, after acutely assessing the electoral power of the opposition, came to the conclusion that the chief rainmaker would be the Earl of Pembroke.21 The Connection reached its apogee in 1626 with at least thirty-one members in the House of Commons. Pembroke’s proxy power in the House of Lords also remained very strong. The Third Earl was trying hard to increase his political power in 1626 but, as in 1625, even he did not have enough seats at his disposal for all his followers. For example, Rudyerd, replying to Sir Francis Nethersole’s request for a place, wrote that Pembroke would do all that he could to seat Sir Francis, but warned that the chances were slight as the Third Earl was extremely ‘streighted’ [stretched] to find enough seats for this parliament.22 Four days before the new parliament met on 6 February 1626, the King was formally crowned. The Herberts were still in the King’s good graces, for at the coronation they were honoured by Pembroke being allowed to carry the crown and Montgomery the spurs. Charles and Buckingham must have hoped that the King would be able to work with the Third Earl and his supporters in the coming session. But parliament was determined to demand an enquiry into the Cadiz failure, and was very worried about the drift towards war with France at a time when the war with Spain was going so badly. And again Laud’s sermon at the opening of parliament did not help either. According to Laud, ‘a royal command must be God’s glory, and obedience to it the subjects honor, and it was the nation’s responsiblity to revere and love their sovereign.’ He continued, ‘never fear him, for God is with him. He will not depart from God’s service, nor from the honourable care of his people, nor from wise managing of his treasure.’23 Laud’s pious loyalist platitudes, more the views of a moralist than a politician, were capable of a more sinister interpretation after the York House Conference met. This conference was held at Buckingham’s house to examine the theological views of the Arminian Richard Montagu. The cleric defended his position before a group of peers, Pembroke being the most prominent Calvinist among them. The conference showed that Buckingham and Charles were clearly moving towards Arminianism, and this had an immediate impact on parliament. Pembroke was

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 166

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

167

strongly anti-Arminian and so were the Connection members Rudyerd, Sir James Perrot, Sir John Eliot and William Coryton. Their detestation of what they considered to be ‘dangerous innovations’ in religion and a concomitant strengthening of absolutist tendencies was to have an immediate impact in the second parliament of Charles’ reign.24 At the York House Conference, Pembroke like other non clerical participants: epitomised the contradictions embodied in adherence to the English church . . . at a time when it was becoming increasingly difficult to ignore intellectual conflicts and ambiguities and when extremists demanded explicit and divisive choices.

Serious laymen like Pembroke were much less interested in the subleties of predestinarianism than modern commentators presume, ‘their religious commitment accommodated itself to considerations of secular, pragmatic and social good sense.’ Pembroke, Buckingham and the other lay participants in the conference thought that Montagu’s views were acceptable. Tyacke, in his analysis of the Early Stuart church, is correct in that the church was generally Calvinistic and thus disturbed by Arminian innovations but still managed to skirt awkward theological points and maintain the appearance of a national Calvinist church. Later Arminianism does become anathema to the commitment to election and perseverance, but it was not theology but ‘the conjunction of Arminian practice and discipline with political anxieties that drove [many Calvinists] and their younger and more radical allies into confrontation in 1642.’25 Pembroke knew that potentially divisive issues had not been solved but merely swept under the carpet. As he remarked after the conference, ‘none returned Arminians thence, save such who repaired thither with the same opinions.’26 In 1626 Parliament was concerned mainly with prosecuting the war with Spain, avoiding a war with France and, growing out of both, an all-out attack on Buckingham. Tangential to the attack on Buckingham were the Duke’s charges against the Earl of Bristol, the imprisonment of the Earl of Arundel, and the limitation of the use of proxies in the Upper House. In the Lords, Pembroke was actively involved in all these issues and, more importantly, led the opposition in the Commons against Buckingham. Pembroke was well aware of Buckingham’s influence over Charles, and how difficult his own position would be at Court if he mounted an all-out frontal assault on the Duke. He had to mount his campaign against Buckingham very carefully and partly surreptitiously. The Duke, however, was in no doubt as to who was leading the opposition to him and his policies. His trusted agent, Sir James Bagg, was only confirming what Buckingham already knew when he wrote that:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 167

22/10/10 12:23 PM

168

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

the Earl of Pembroke, trusting to the assent of the public, doth appear publicly rather by strangers than Sir Benjamin Ruther[Rudyerd], Sir William Herbert, and others of his.27

On the first day of business, 10 February, Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, the usual spokesman for the Connection took the floor. He moved for a committee to consider ways of dealing with ministers who led immoral lives, and others of the clergy whose livings were not large enough to support them. To emphasize both problems he pointed out that he knew of two ministers in Lancashire who were unlicensed alehouse keepers. Rudyerd was followed by one of the new spokesmen for the Connection, Sir John Eliot. The Vice-Admiral of Devon had always been considered a follower of Buckingham but, as Bagg reported to the Duke, Eliot was ‘in a distraction how to divide himself betwixt Your Grace and the Earl of Pembroke.’ Eliot was an idealist who was convinced that all the major political problems of the nation were the result of Buckingham’s mismanagement. He was convinced that the Duke had to be removed from power. He must also have been sickened by what he saw of the aftermath of the Cadiz failure. In one day in Devon he saw seven sailors die in the streets of Plymouth from malnutrition.28 Eliot’s maiden speech was moderate, though in asking that an inquiry into the Cadiz failure should precede any supply, it was obvious to all who he blamed for these disasters when he said: Our honour is ruined, our ships are sunk, our men perished; not by the sword, not by the enemy, not by chance, but, as the strongest predictions had discerned and made it apparent beforehand, by those we trust.

Eliot’s new patron felt just as strongly as he did, but Pembroke was torn between his hatred of Spain and his ever growing animosity towards the favourite. He had to postpone his attack on Buckingham, though, in order to concentrate his efforts on Spain. The Third Earl wanted to improve relations with France, even suggesting at the conference of both Houses that a virtual alliance should be brought about with France. Pembroke was given the major role in this conference and he strongly urged the Lords to support the war effort against Spain. In the Commons, Rudyerd echoed his patron’s views, but the rest of the Connection were apparently more interested in attacking Buckingham than Spain. When the movement to bring the Duke to account started to gain momentum, the Connection took a conspicuous part in the proceedings.29 The Commons’ delegation to meet with the Lords on 4 March concerning Buckingham contained eight members of the Connection, and the deputation sent to the Lords three days later contained no fewer than ten. Pembroke was obviously not acting by ‘strangers’, yet on the 11th, when the attack on Buckingham began in earnest, Dr Samuel Turner, the member from Shaftesbury, dumbfounded the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 168

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

169

House with a virulent attack on the favourite, stating that the real cause of their grievances was ‘that great man, the Duke of Buckingham’. His denunciation was as unexpected as it was violent, coming from a little-known member of the House. It is less surprising when we learn that Turner was voicing the views of the Connection. The new member for Shaftesbury was expressing his own genuine anger at Buckingham’s mishandling of foreign affairs – Turner had been the official medical doctor to the English contingent on the Continent fighting with Prince Maurice – and he was also acting for his patron. During Charles’ reign both Pembroke and Arundel were clients of Dr Turner, and he remained close to the Connection. In 1633 he was a joint tenant for some property with Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, and when Dr Turner died in 1639 the Fourth Earl was one of his executors. With the full but covert support of the Third Earl, Turner blamed Buckingham for the Cadiz fiasco, loss of control of the Channel, depletion of the Treasury by gifts to relatives, nepotism, selling offices in church and state, and supporting papists. He also insolently queried the Duke’s right to hold so many great offices of state.30 It is curious that Dr Turner, a relative unknown and a new member of the Connection should be the first to make such an attack on Buckingham. Was Pembroke dissatisfied with the pace of Eliot’s attack and wanting a quicker decision, or was his attack premature and stronger than Pembroke intended? We do not know. Perhaps Bagg was right in surmising that the Third Earl would act ‘rather by strangers’ than by the well-known members of his Connection. Of one thing there can be no doubt: Pembroke was, either directly or indirectly, orchestrating the opposition to Buckingham in 1626.31 Turner’s charges against the favourite were discussed in the weeks following, and by early May impeachment proceedings against the Duke were set in train. In the interim the question of supply came up again, Rudyerd and Eliot both speaking favour of granting it, though Eliot demanded redress of grievances first. The House followed Eliot’s lead and on 1 May voted charges against the Commons’ greatest grievance, Buckingham. Two days later eight managers for the impeachment were named; two of them were members of the Connection, Edward Herbert and Sir John Eliot. Sir Benjamin Rudyerd was nominated as one of the assistants.32 Herbert and Eliot gave a masterly analysis of the charges, and Eliot was chosen to sum up the opposition’s case. He gave a brilliant summation. The King retaliated by imprisoning both him and Sir Dudley Digges, another of the managers, on the charge of speaking words against the honour of the King. Both Lords and Commons protested that their members could not be arrested while parliament was sitting, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace, and the Commons refused to proceed to any business while the two were imprisoned. The King had to relent and release both men. By this point the King and Buckingham had completely alienated the House of Commons, and had even succeeded in alienating the usually friendly House of Lords.33

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 169

22/10/10 12:23 PM

170

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Early in the session the Lords had also moved against the favourite. Buckingham had perhaps as many as thirteen proxies and was considered to have too large a voice in the House, especially as the spiritual lords could usually be depended upon to vote with him. On 25 February a motion was made that, after the current session, no lord could receive more than two proxies. Buckingham spoke strongly against the motion, but to no avail. The motion carried. Pembroke was not in the House when the vote came. Though the Third Earl was the only person besides Buckingham who had any real proxy power, the attack was in no way directed against him, and in all probability he would have voted for the motion.34 Pembroke conscientiously attended parliament in 1626 and, unlike 1625, sat on all the important committees. Moreover, he was one of the real leaders of the Lords in its opposition to Buckingham. The Duke, through the King, had attacked the privileges of the Lords by having one of its members, Pembroke’s brotherin-law, the Earl of Arundel, arrested during the session. Arundel was arrested, ostensibly, because of his son’s clandestine marriage, which the King described as ‘a misdemeanor which was personal to His Majesty and had no relation to affairs of parliament.’ But it was well known that Arundel was leading the opposition with Pembroke and that Buckingham had urged the King on to silence a critic. The Lords, like the Commons in the Eliot-Digges case, finally forced the King to give way and release Arundel.35 Pembroke must have been upset by this attack on his brother-in-law and fellow connoisseur, as they were close friends. Their closeness can be seen in a draft of his will which Arundel wrote in 1617. He made Pembroke his chief executor because of the: singular justness and nobleness I have found in his nature and actions, and especially good inclination to me and mine [and thus] I make [him] my one supravisor of this my last will, not doubting but he will take into his protection and care my wife and poor children, and make them the subject of his noble and pious disposition. To whom, as a small token of my great love, I give my best Garter, being all of diamonds.

A much more dangerous opponent of Buckingham’s, the Earl of Bristol, did not even receive a summons for the parliament. He petitioned the House for one, and when the Lords insisted that one be sent, the King accused Bristol of high treason for his behaviour in Spain. Unfortunately for the King, Bristol was quite capable of defending himself, and his defence contained damaging relevations against Buckingham. The Lords knew how to use such material. Bristol’s and Buckingham’s trials were complementary in the Lords. Pembroke sought to exonerate Bristol and to punish Buckingham. The Third Earl was made one of the managers of Buckingham’s impeachment, but he was not to have the pleasure of trying his great adversary. The King, as in 1625, chose to dissolve parliament in

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 170

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

171

order to save his favourite. In vain the House of Lords sent four peers, including Pembroke, to plead with the King for a prolongation of the parliament. To their final entreaty that the King grant them just two more days Charles replied, ‘not a minute’, and on 15 June the parliament was dissolved.36 Before Charles I dismissed his second parliament though, he alienated it even more. On 28 May the Chancellorship of Cambridge fell vacant and the King presssured the heads of colleges to support Buckingham. The Duke was elected against the Calvinist candidate by a vote of 108 to 103. Not only had the King pressurized the university, but he had put an Arminian, Buckingham, in office at a time when parliament was attacking the favourite for monopolizing too many offices. June 1626 was one of the lowest points in Pembroke’s political career. He had been unable to stop the dissolution of the parliament, the King was alienated and Buckingham was violently antagonistic. It was also now obvious that the Duke had the total support of the King. What could Pembroke do now when the question of extra-parliamentary taxation came up? And arise it had to, as the Crown was desperately in need of funds. Added to these worries were the threats posed by the highly-placed support for Arminianism, including the new Chancellor of Cambridge. Pembroke’s utter distaste for Buckingham and his policies were not going to be assuaged by the Duke’s championing of Arminianism and the threat he, and his ally Laud, posed to Pembroke’s University of Oxford. Pembroke considered the Chancellorship of Oxford his greatest honour. The prestige was important to an old Oxonian like the Third Earl. Besides the honour the office bestowed, there was the political distinction of being the King’s representative to the university. In addition to the prestige, the office bestowed great political power, namely his ability to nominate the Oxford MPs and the opportunity to exercise an influence on the MPs from neighbouring Woodstock. As Chancellor, Pembroke had control of or could influence many university appointments, he could directly encourage learning, extend his literary and religious patronage, and further the cause of Protestantism, i.e. protect the university from Arminianism. And, unlike Buckingham, he was a popular Chancellor, not foisted upon the university after a dubious election, but unanimously elected upon the warm recommendation of his old friend Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Ellesmere.37 His student days at Oxford had made a deep impression on the young Lord Herbert, and for the whole of his life he stayed in close touch with his alma mater. In 1605 Oxford honoured him by awarding him an MA, and four years later he returned the compliment by presenting to the Bodleian some Arabic manuscripts plus some Spanish sermons. In 1616 when he was elected Chancellor he was extremely pleased by the honour bestowed on him. As he wrote, how grateful unto me the advertisement was of your choice of me to be your ChancelIor, and how great a favor I take to have been done me in it.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 171

22/10/10 12:23 PM

172

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

He promised that he would conscientiously and diligently fulfill his duties and solemnly declared that ‘you shall never want [of] my best endeavors.’38 The second and third decades of the century were turbulent times for the university, and they were exacerbated by the perennial ‘town and gown’ problems. In 1618 the townsmen of Oxford applied for a new charter and received the King’s Signet and Privy Seal while Pembroke was away from Court. The Third Earl ‘had good reason to suspect no good meaning’ from the townsmen as regards the rights of the university, and he persuaded the King not to issue the charter until the Chancellor was satisfied that the university was protected. Pembroke asked Convocation to appoint some scholars who knew the rights of the university, and he promised not to assent to the new charter until they were satisfied.39 In the 1620s most of the problems the Chancellor had to face were internal. In 1616 Pembroke had nominated ‘my very good friend, Mr. Dr. Goodwin, Dean of Christ Church . . . a man of . . . eminent place and worth,’ but the troubles at the university were such that by 1619 Goodwin had had enough and relinquished the Vice-Chancellorship. Pembroke replaced him with Dr Prideaux, the Rector of Exeter College who, like many of Pembroke’s nominees, had been a royal chaplain. Thus Pembroke could forward men he knew, and ones who would be acceptable to the King. The Third Earl recommended Prideaux, who had been Regius Professor of Divinity since 1615, to Convocation as one ‘whose soundness in religion, wisdom and great learning are known unto you all.’ By 1621 Pembroke was reporting to Convocation that, though Dr Prideaux had been an effective Vice-Chancellor, Convocation knew ‘how troublesome these last two years have been to Mr. Dr. Prideaux,’ and so he was nominating Dr Piers, the Prebend of Christ Church to be the new Vice-Chancellor.40 Dr Prideaux’s problems had not been lessened by an energetic and determined Chancellor who insisted on maintaining his influence and on keeping the university free from ‘unsound’ religious ideas. In his first year in office there was a dispute regarding the election of a principal for Jesus College. In defiance of the fellows, Prideaux installed Francis Mansell, Pembroke’s nominee and expelled most of those who opposed the election. Prideaux remained very close to Pembroke and served again as Vice-Chancellor from 1624 to 1626. In July of the latter year Pembroke, writing about Prideaux’s imminent retirement from the ViceChancellorship, wrote of: the much employment, whereunto the now Vice-Chancellor is called, especially by those painful endeavors wherewith he hath discharged the place of Regis [sic] Professor to the great and general satisfaction of all such as are well affected to the true religion, keeping by his sound doctrine the fountain there [free] from the erroneous tenets and opinions which are apt to disturb the peace and quiet of the church and commonwealth, wherein I cannot enough commend his care and integrity.41

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 172

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

173

Internal problems continued at the university, and in 1622 the Chancellor wrote testily to Convocation that, though he had always tried to help the university, the various disputes there had hurt the university’s image both at home and abroad. It had been further damaged by innovations such as: the waiving of formalities in public assemblies, and the ordinary use of wearing boots and spurs, a fashion rather befitting the liberty of Inns of Court than . . . the academical life.

And these abuses were not confined to ‘the younger sort’, but also to the Masters of Arts. There were also complaints from parliament and from the Crown about the breakdown of discipline, and angry complaints from the King about students killing the King’s deer in Woodstock.42 A much happier occasion for the Third Earl was the founding in 1624 of the college that was to bear his name. Two Berkshire men, Thomas Tisdale and Richard Whitwick, were the main benefactors, and the new foundation was to be called Pembroke College, partly to honour the Chancellor, ‘partly in expectation to receive some favor from him.’ The foundation was based on Broadgates Hall, and a commission consisting of Archbishop Abbot, the Chancellor, Sir John Bennett, the Vice-Chancellor, a college master, Sir Eubule Thelwell, Walter Darell, the Recorder of Abingdon and Richard Wrightwick, was set up to draw up statutes for it. The statutes for Pembroke College were finalized by 1628. It was expected that Pembroke would provide the foundation money, and though Pembroke’s interest ‘is said to have been liberally employed in the establishment of this college’, we do not know how large a contribution he made. One contribution he did make was to surrender to the new college the right to appoint the Principal of Broadgates Hall which was his as Chancellor of the university.43 Besides being closely involved in the foundation of Pembroke College, the Third Earl as Chancellor was able to honour his friends with degrees. The MA awarded to Ben Jonson must have pleased him just as much as the DDs awarded to John Hassall and Thomas Chaffin. Hassall, Pembroke recommended by saying he was a friend of the Count Palatine and ‘calling to mind that, when myself was a student in the university, he was then a hopeful scholar and of especial note in the same house with me.’ Thomas Chaffin was forwarded by the Third Earl for preaching ‘upon the divine office in my house and family’. Chaffin was undoubedly the TC who repaid his patron by composing and reading over him his funeral oration.44 The continuing problems of discipline gave the King and Laud the opportunity to interfere more and more with the university, and in 1628 a proctorial system similar to that of Cambridge was installed. The forbidding of all predestinarian teaching, the muzzling of the university presses, and the reissuing of the ThirtyNine Articles effectively outlawed the teaching of Calvinism and made certain the victory of Arminianism. As Prideaux put it, ‘we are concluded under an anathema

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 173

22/10/10 12:23 PM

174

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

to stand to the Synod of Dort against the Arminians,’ i.e. the victory of the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort was now reversed. Pembroke was unable to stem this antiCalvinist tide at Court or in parliament, but he was able to keep Arminianism in check at Oxford so long as he remained Chancellor.45 Laud’s interference at Oxford was not all negative though. In 1629 he urged on Pembroke a thorough reform of the university statutes. The bulk of the labour was done by delegates appointed by Pembroke, and the work was completed and a new code drawn up in 1636 by Pembroke’s successor as Chancellor, Laud himself. Also in 1629 Pembroke wrote to his Vice-Chancellor announcing ‘an excellent collection of Greek manuscripts brought from Venice’, which he thought ‘would be of more use to the Church in being kept united in some public library than scattered in particular hands.’ He had bought them at the instigation of Laud who noted in his diary, ‘the 240 Greek MSS were sent to London House. These I got my Lord of Pembroke to buy and give to Oxford.’ This collection, gathered together by Francisco Baroccio of Venice was: esteemed the most valuable collection of books that ever came into England at one time; those which that peer [Pembroke] kept for his own use being 22 in number, Oliver Cromwell afterwards bought and gave.

This was the first notable accession of manuscripts in the history of the Bodleian, and they marked ‘the beginning of a decade of enlightened benevolence which placed the Bodleian amongst the foremost centres of European scholarship.’ It is very appropriate that Pembroke’s statue stands today as the sentinel outside the Bodleian.46 Pembroke’s deep feeling for his university can be seen in the letter he wrote accompanying the Barocci Manuscripts. In it he said he wanted to present them to the university: remembering the obligation I had to my mother the university, first for breeding of me, after for the honor they did me in making me their Chancellor. I was glad of this occasion to repay some part of that great debt I owe her.

The Barocci Manuscripts cost the Third Earl the sum of £700, and to them he added some Javanese manuscripts and probably various others purchased by him. And it was not only Oxford that had cause to thank the Third Earl. In 1629 Cambridge University was grateful to him for lending Greek matrices to their printers, who gave their sincere thanks ‘for this favor and goodness which so readily diffuseth itself to all opportunities for the advancement of learning.’47 To sum up Pembroke’s contributions to Oxford and to the ‘true religion’ one need go no further than to the writings of Anthony Wood and Daniel Featly.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 174

22/10/10 12:23 PM

AT T H E C A R O L I N E C O U R T

175

Anthony Wood, the contemporary Oxford historian, wrote that Pembroke, ‘was not only a great favourer of learned and ingenious men, but was himself learned.’ Featly, a noted Protestant controversialist, pointed out that, during Pembroke’s chancellorship, the revenues of the university had increased, libraries were furnished, the number of professors increased, new buildings were raised, and old ones refurbished. But even with all these advances, Pembroke’s most lasting contribution was the ‘repairing [of] the collapsed discipline’, the reviving of the ancient statutes, and the keeping of the university free from the ‘contamination’ of papists and semi-Pelagians (Arminians).48

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 175

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 176

22/10/10 12:23 PM

12

The Lord Steward, 1627–1630

The failure of the Parliament of 1626 was a major setback for Pembroke: his political power and influence had availed him little against the power of the favourite. But Pembroke’s role in the attack on the favourite in 1626 had convinced Buckingham and the King that it would be wise to come to an accommodation with him, preferably as quickly as possible. Other important opponents of Buckingham, such as Bristol and Arundel, were more peremtorily treated for their roles, but Pembroke was too influential for this heavy-handed treatment. Immediately after parliament was dissolved, overtures were made to the Third Earl, and a bargain was struck. Pembroke was offered the advancement he had been angling for for years. Even before the dissolution of the Parliament of 1625, there had been a strong rumour that Pembroke was to be made Lord Steward and his brother Montgomery was to replace him as Lord Chamberlain. Upon coming to the throne in 1625 the King had already announced his intention that ‘my lord [Pembroke] should be Lord Steward and my Lord of Montomery, Lord Chamberlain.’ After the Parliament of 1626, the changing of offices became a fact. By a marriage alliance between the Herbert and Villiers families, the seven-year-old son of Montgomery was betrothed to Buckingham’s four-year-old daughter. The King ‘came expressly to London to honor these arrangements with his presence’, and by the agreement Pembroke agreed to give his nephew £4,000 a year in land, and this was to be increased to £10,000 after the marriage. The agreement signed, Pembroke was sworn in as Lord Steward on 30 June, though he did not officially take up the office until August.1 Why had Pembroke come to such an arrangement with Buckingham when he had just tried to destroy him politically, and when he detested everything he stood for? The Third Earl probably had little choice, as the proposals had the full support of the King. From 1618 on, Pembroke had been offered many offices, but he had tenaciously held out for his brother to succeed him as Lord Chamberlain. Buckingham had always barred the way. As the Earl of Kellie wrote in November 1625, even though Montgomery is a friend of Buckingham’s and deserves preferment: yet I see but little appearance of preferment to him, because of some quarrel the Duke has with his brother . . . The true quarrel is that Pembroke was a counsellor and strong in all these things that was [sic] projected against him in the parliament. And besides,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 177

22/10/10 12:23 PM

178

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

he has no mind to remove him to Steward, except that he may be assured that Kairllile (Carlisle) shall be Chamberlain, which Pembroke will never do except that Montgomery be Chamberlain.

The above letter serves as a reminder that the Court consisted of a relatively small group of people who had to work together, that alliances were fluid and estrangements seldom total. The Duke may have been the most important of the King’s advisors, but that he was not the only one. Montgomery was a long-standing friend of Buckingham, Carlisle was one of Pembroke’s close friends, and Pembroke and the King were old acquaintances and both intended to maintain these connections.2 King Charles also had his own agenda, and it is interesting to see how different the new king’s patronage, for example, was from his father’s. Charles took a lot of Montgomery’s patronage into his own hands and in so doing ‘squandered the potential of his Household patronage as a political tool. He did not succeed in bolstering support for the Crown and undermined the position of the important office of Lord Chamberlain.’ The king also took firm control of the patronage of his wife’s and his son’s households. However, by appointing his friends he lost the political benefit of the patronage at his disposal. This was ‘another lost opportunity which together with others prevented him from securing his personal objectives and lost the Crown a considerable amount of political support.’3 King James could not control his patronage and thus his patronage was never restricted. Any political discontent could always be blamed on disposable favourites. The King could thus always keep his options open. Charles’ close control of patronage gave him few tangible rewards or much political support and this damaged his position in the long run. And because Charles was: determined to uphold his right to be obeyed to the full in every sphere, despite possessing a complete inability to gain the support of any significant groups of people by his patronage, he was particularly ill-suited to deal with the religious and political problems facing the country at this time.4

The King’s ideas about patronage were, of course, not known to the Herberts, but they did know that if they were to make any further advancement Buckingham’s acquiescence was necessary. Pembroke resigned himself to this fact and negotiated for the best possible terms. Buckingham, for his part, wanted to marry his daughter into one of the great families in the land, and wanted to wean Pembroke away from opposition. To attain these ends, the Duke had to make concessions, and these are testimony to the value Buckingham placed on Pembroke’s goodwill. Buckingham agreed to Pembroke’s advancement to the office of Lord Steward, and acquiesced in Montgomery’s replacement of his brother as the new Lord Chamberlain. In return Pembroke tacitly agreed to drop the idea of impeaching

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 178

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E L O R D S T E WA R D

179

Buckingham, though he did not bind himself to support any specific policies of the Duke’s. Pembroke, though, had to give up any independent political initiatives. But Pembroke and Montgomery held on to their offices, their political patronage was undiminished and, though they had to come to an accommodation with Buckingham, neither the King nor Buckingham could afford to dismiss them. Even the Duke of Buckingham was never all-powerful, and the Herberts still had the King’s ear. After Buckingham left for the expedition to Rhé, one of the royal chaplains gave an uncompromisingly Calvinist sermon before the King. It was immediately published with Montgomery’s support. Shortly afterwards Joseph Hall, a Calvinist, was made Bishop of Exeter. The first Calvinist to be offered a mitre since the York House Conference, his elevation was made possible by the support of Pembroke and Montgomery, in the face of Buckingham’s opposition.5 The financial settlement agreed for Montgomery’s son was also no great concession by Pembroke to Buckingham, as they would have gone to his nephew anyway as his heir. Besides, Buckingham’s daughter was a good match for Montgomery’s son. All in all it was not a disadvantageous settlement for Pembroke to make, even though the Third Earl had to limit his political options. Pembroke was also fortunate that he made the arrangement when he did. If he had still been seen as leading the opposition to Buckingham when the Duke was assassinated, the King would never have forgiven him, and he and his family’s position would have been gravely threatened. As the new Lord Steward, Pembroke held the highest office in the Household, an office of more status than that of Lord Chamberlain, though of less political importance. The diminished political profile was unimportant, however, so long as Montgomery was Lord Chamberlain. Pembroke now had control of the Household, ‘below stairs’, and his position was much more an administrative one than it had been when he was Lord Chamberlain. As Lord Chamberlain he had had to supervise the ceremonial side of Court life; now he had to supervise the material functioning of the Court.6 The salary paid to the Lord Steward was the same as was paid the Lord Chamberlain, £100 per year, but the allowance for diet was greater, £1,845 per annum. With the brokerage of lesser Household offices added, Pembroke’s income as an administrator increased greatly as he advanced to higher office. The Lord Steward’s domain consisted of the twenty departments of the Household and their staffs, excepting the Chamber and the stables. The Lord Steward concerned himself with the supply of food and drink, lighting, and the other necessities for the dayto-day running of the Court. The actual administrative control of the Household was in the hands of the Board of Green Cloth.7 The Board of Green Cloth consisted of the Treasurer and Comptroller of the Household, and the Cofferer or Household Cashier. The Lord Steward supervised the Board of Green Cloth but was not bound by its decisions. He alone had

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 179

22/10/10 12:23 PM

180

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

complete control of the Household, with ‘commandment, direction, and appointment, of all matters therein.’ He had to check all Household expenses, make all the Household officials give an account of their stewardship, and, theoretically, make sure that no monies were paid out without his approval.8 Pembroke’s reconciliation with Buckingham was one of Charles’ few successes between his second and third parliaments. But it was an important if not a permanent one. In January 1628, the Venetian Ambassador was extremely upset when his diplomatic correspondence was seized at Dover. Pembroke was astounded and blamed it on Buckingham who ‘meant to quarrel with everybody, thus helping none but the Spaniards.’ When the King was forced to call parliament again in 1628, Pembroke was more concerned with the sorry state of the country than with chastising the Duke. And Buckingham was probably successful in persuading Pembroke to deny his political patronage to those who had been the Duke’s strongest critics in 1626. The King, for his part, must have been pleased to have on his side such a respected figure as Pembroke when financial necessity forced him to resort to extra-parliamentary taxation.9 The King asked the City for a loan, sold some of the royal plate, and proposed that loyal subjects make him ‘free gifts’. He finally had to resort to forced loans which were of dubious legality and politically disastrous. Pembroke, as ever in favour of parliament, convinced the King that he and his Connection would prevent any repetition of the 1626 attack on Buckingham, and even used his influence to get counties such as Devon and Wiltshire to pay the forced loans in return for the calling of a new parliament. But Rudyerd worried about the efficacy of such manoeuvres by his patron. It might be easy enough to collect the forced loan in the Home Counties, but he asked ‘what will be the success further from London . . . [where] the awe of the Council is much doubted.’ There was also a report that Dr Turner of 1626 notoriety was riding around the country organizing opposition to them, saying that the whole idea of the loan was Buckingham’s and ‘if it failed he was assured of a parliament.’ One doubts if Pembroke would give him such assurances, at least publicly.10 The forced loan raised the equivalent of five subsidies, but the King’s finances were still precarious and the means used to augment them only strengthened the opposition to the Crown. And when the government continued to show leniency to recusants, and continued to favour Arminianism in the Church of England, the opposition to the King and Buckingham was strengthened. In addition to these domestic follies, at the time when the war with Spain was going badly, England drifted into war with France. Disaster followed disaster, and with the failure of the ill-fated expedition to the island of Rhé, though Buckingham personally acquitted himself bravely, the King and the Duke’s policies were completely discredited. The Privy Council advised calling parliament, and the King conditionally agreed. Pembroke and other Privy Councillors assured the King that Buckingham’s

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 180

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E L O R D S T E WA R D

181

impeachment would not be renewed if parliament was called, and so the King reluctantly agreed. For his own protection, Buckingham was urged by his supporters to build up his strength in the Commons. As Sir John Hippisley wrote to the Duke: In the coming parliament the Duke has the part of a wise and discreet man to play. Begs him to make as many burgesses as he can, and to get the Lord Steward to make such as shall comply with the King’s occasions, and not to make Sir Thomas Lacke [Lake] and Dr. Turner, and such like.

Probably Buckingham approached Pembroke, for the most virulent opponents of Buckingham in the Parliament of 1626, Dr Turner, Sir John Fullerton and Sir Clipsby Crewe, did not sit in 1628. Buckingham probably sought to exclude from Commons only the members of the Connection who had attacked him in the previous parliament, which was just as well, for the Third Earl, though willing to purge the Connection of a few firebrands, had no intention of giving up his political power. He did not trust Buckingham and thus kept in close touch with the leaders of the opposition, especially Sir John Eliot. This was an act of courage by Pembroke as Eliot was detested by Buckingham, because he had shifted his allegiance from the Duke to the Third Earl and had also refused to pay the forced loan, or it was an act of political self-interest on Pembroke’s part. If Buckingham were toppled then the Third Earl would be at the head of the victorious faction in parliament.11 The Connection was twenty-six strong when parliament met in March 1628; in general it was a force for moderation. Nevertheless, it strongly opposed arbitrary taxation, and was very conscious of its privileges. Fighting for a balanced constitution and the liberties of the subject, the Connection tried to do so in a moderate, parliamentary way. But by the end of the session their patience wore thin and they renewed the attack on Buckingham. Pembroke had either failed to fulfil his agreement or, what is more likely, he had lost control of his Connection. Later in the parliament the Connection split and the more radical among them threw moderation to the winds and helped formulate the revolutionary Three Propositions of 1629.12 At the beginning of the session, Sir John Eliot spoke passionately against arbitrary taxation and innovations in religion. Rudyerd, though he agreed with Eliot’s position, took a different tack when he spoke on 22 March. He thought that wisdom and moderation were necessary to defend ‘our lives, our fortunes, and our religion,’ and that this defence could only take place in parliament. Rudyerd was convinced that: this is the crisis of parliaments; by this we shall know whether parliaments will live or die; besides, the eyes of Christendom are upon us; the King and the kingdom will be valued,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 181

22/10/10 12:23 PM

182

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

and disvalued, by both enemies and friends, according to the success of this parliament. We are beset with enemies both at home and abroad, and if we remain a divided nation: the King to draw one way, the parliament another, the common-wealth must sink in the midst. But I hope better things of so grave, so wise an assembly.

It was his earnest hope that parliament ‘would be curiously wary and careful to avoid all manner of contestation, personal or real.’ Rudyerd argued that they had to trust the King, supply his just wants, and present parliament’s grievances to him ‘modestly and humbly’. Rudyerd also consistently stressed the dangers England and Protestantism faced from foreign enemies, and argued that only parliament could alleviate these dangers. As to arbitrary taxation, he stated on 4 April that ‘money given by parliament hath roots, it will grow again, but money otherwise given doth root it up.’13 On 18 April, Rudyerd again spoke for the Connection. He again pleaded for moderation so as to keep parliament in session, for when it was not, ‘many disorders . . . were committed, by innovations in religion, violation of laws, and intrusions upon our liberties.’ Later, speaking on the Petition of Right, he summed up his position when he said that: Moderation is the virtue of virtues, and wisdom of wisdoms. Let it be our masterpiece so to carry our business, as we may keep parliament on foot; for, as long as they are frequent, there will be no irregular power; which though it cannot be broken at once, yet, in a short time, will be made weaker and moulder away. There can be no total and final loss of liberty but by loss of parliaments.14

Unfortunately, not all Rudyerd’s fellow parliamentarians, not even all of the Connection, realized that only in parliament could the King be successfully opposed. Commons early in the session had voted supplies to the King on condition that there would be redress of grievances. Eventually the grievances became the Petition of Right, a petition whose formulation and passage owed much to the efforts of the Connection, especially to Sir John Eliot, Edward Herbert, William Herbert, Wiliam Coryton, Sir Robert Mansell, Sir James Perrot and Charles Price. The Petition of Right laid down that no man should be ‘compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge without common consent by Act of Parliament,’ that no man could in any way be brought to book for refusing such, that billeting of soldiers was illegal, and so were martial law commissions. Rudyerd, old parliament man that he was, fully understood that the Petition of Right was arguably the most important act since Magna Carta. He echoed the sentiments of the Connection when he said: for my own part, I shall be very glad to see that good, old, decrepit law of Magna Carta,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 182

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E L O R D S T E WA R D

183

which hath been so long kept in and laid bedrid as it were . . . walk abroad again, with new vigor and lustre . . .. For, questionless, it will be a general heartening to all.15

Though ardently in favour of protecting the Englishman’s life, liberty and property, Rudyerd’s primary concern was the defence of Protestantism. He urged reform of the Church of England, better maintenance for ministers and criticized the growth of Arminianism in the universities. He also strongly supported the defence of Continental Protestantism against France and Spain. To do the latter would require parliament to supply the King with the necessary funds. Could England let its enemies say that ‘we choose our religion because it is the cheaper of the two; that we would willingly serve God with somewhat that cost us naught?’ But the Commons, though it may have shared Rudyerd’s zeal, did not share his faith in the King, and supplies were not voted until the Petition of Right was fully accepted. In this case, Rudyerd’s colleagues were right, for the King, though he had fully accepted the Petition of Right, would not agree that tonnage and poundage were encompassed under the rubric of ‘such like charges’ and continued to collect them.16 Parliament voted the King five subsidies after the Petition of Right had been agreed to, but the Commons would not rest content while the man responsible for most of the ills of the state, Buckingham, was still the King’s chief minister. The impeachment proceedings were not renewed, but the Commons, led by Sir John Eliot, prepared a Remonstrance – a statement of grievances – and Buckingham was specifically named in it. The King angrily tried to stop the Remonstrance but could not do so and, when he found that a second Remonstrance was in preparation, as he put it ‘to take away my chief profit of tonnage and poundage-one of the chief maintenances of the Crown’, he replied by suddenly proroguing parliament.17 In the Lords, Pembroke was as active as his Connection in the Commons. He involved himself in important committee work, especially work that involved liason with the House of Commons, and was much concerned with the passage of the Petition of Right. The Third Earl had always argued for a ‘balanced constitution,’ a harmony based on the mutual agreement of Crown, Lords and Commons, a harmony in which the House of Lords would act as arbiter. He strongly supported the Petition of Right but refused to blindly follow the Commons’ leadership. For example, when Commons was attacking the King’s use of his prerogative for imprisoning people without just cause shown, Pembroke pointed out that, though the Commons objected to the King doing this, they did it themselves with suspected recusants. Pembroke wanted the Petition of Right to succeed, but wanted to soften its language so as not to offend the King unnecessarily.18 Pembroke wanted reform, not revolution. He favoured the Petition of Right, for example, yet did not want it or any piece of legislation to attack the King’s prerogative. To do so would result in a split between Crown and parliament. An open breach had to be avoided for, as his spokesman Rudyerd had pointed out in the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 183

22/10/10 12:23 PM

184

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

Commons, the only way it was possible to bring about reform successfully was in parliament, and it was the King who summoned parliament. But Pembroke’s moderate constitutionalism was being cast aside by more fiery spirits, led by some of his own Connection, and the second session of the parliament of 1628 produced the breach that Pembroke had for so long laboured to avoid. Between the proroguing of parliament on 16 June 1628 and its meeting again in 1629, one of the principal barriers between the King and his people was assassinated. On 23 August 1628, while on a visit to the King at Portsmouth, Buckingham was murdered. Charles was shattered by the news. Never again would he give his full trust and affection to any minister, and he held Buckingham’s enemies in parliament at least morally responsible for his murder. But, apart from Buckingham’s family and the King, the country at large rejoiced. It was now confidently expected that relations between Crown and parliament would improve, because most people assumed that Buckingham had been the author of all the contentious policies that had separated the King from parliament. The death of Buckingham provoked a political realignment at Court. Pembroke, to enhance his own position and to build a Protestant party to counter the growing influence of Charles’ Catholic queen and the crypto-Catholic Richard Weston, Earl of Portland, quickly contacted his old friend and possible future power broker at Court, the Earl of Carlisle, in hopes of enticing him back from Venice. ‘The fearful and fateful blow given to the Duke’, he wrote: I am sure other pens will relate at large, which, when I consider the person who acted it, and some other circumstances, grows every day more admirable unto me . . .. The King, our master begins to shine already, and I hope this next session will see a happy agreement between him and his people.

Pembroke was certainly glad to see Buckingham removed from the scene, and in describing Buckingham’s death as ‘admirable’ meant an event to be wondered at, or wonder mixed with approbation. At about the same time, the Third Earl was describing Buckingham’s death to the Venetian Ambassador as ‘the catastrophe’.19 The Third Earl hoped that Carlisle would return to England as soon as possible for, as he put it, this is no time now to follow your airy employments of Italy or to satisfy the curiosity of your sight. I pray hasten home, where you may do your master better service.

He wrote later to Carlisle ‘I can assure you our master governs like a will[ing] and steady prince.’ Nevertheless, Pembroke urged his old friend to hurry home. As he amusingly put it, ‘I pray you leave your trittle trattle trollilollies and come to us.’ In November Pembroke wrote that:

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 184

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E L O R D S T E WA R D

185

we are in the height of preparation for a parliament which will be good, and I doubt not but the success will be the same, which must be the beginning of the raising again our lost honor.

In December, he again wrote: hoping that the bearer will find him ready to set sail for England, where he will find a master full of all wisdom and goodness in general, and in particular one that knows his virtues, weighs them, and loves his person.

The Third Earl prophesized that the next session of parliament would end in an agreement between Crown and people. In fact Pembroke proved to be more a wishful thinker than a prophet. Weston and the Queen had the ear of the King, and their influence was steadily growing.20 Still, with Buckingham’s death, Pembroke was now not only one of the King’s oldest and most important ministers, but still one of his closest advisors. The Third Earl’s dream of becoming the King’s chief advisor must have seemed realizable late in 1628. One acute observer agreed when he wrote that Pembroke and Montgomery were now the King’s chief advisors. Their prospects looked very promising indeed. In July 1628 it was rumoured that Pembroke would be given a dukedom and Montgomery named as Lord Steward. Nothing came of it. In December the rumour was that Pembroke would fill the Duke’s old position as Lord Admiral, and Montgomery the Lord Steward’s office. Pembroke was supported strongly in these manoeuverings by Carlisle, who wanted the Lord Chamberlain’s job. Again, nothing came of this, probably because, as usual, Pembroke would not agree to compound unless guaranteed that his brother would inherit his previous office.21 Pembroke and Montgomery were two of the seven Lord Commissioners who finally executed the duties of Lord Admiral in 1628, and the Third Earl was still considered a likely candidate for the office up to a few months before his death. But even if Pembroke could not exchange his office for the Lord Admiral’s, this did not stop him from adding lesser offices to the ones he already enjoyed. The most important of these was the office of Warden and Chief Justice in Eyre of all the royal forests south of the Trent.22 In the years 1627 to 1630, Pembroke also received large grants from Charles I, which were, as before, in the form of leases. He also received at least one lucrative wardship. However, as was often the case, these gifts and grants presaged new obligations, which quickly arrived in the form of commissions. These commissions usually concerned the Admiralty, foreign affairs or fund raising, but could cover almost any topic, from killing the King’s deer to investigating the killing of the royal favourite. It says much for Pembroke’s closeness to the King, and proof that Pembroke had been forgiven for his opposition to Buckingham, that he was named

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 185

22/10/10 12:23 PM

186

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

with Weston, the rising power at Court, and three others to sit on the commission ‘to take such course as is fittest for the foul act and actor of the bloody murder of the Buckingham.’23 Pembroke’s hopes of becoming the King’s great minister were soon dashed. The influence of Weston and the Queen continued to grow, and the Arminian and proCatholic bias of the Court became more and more evident. Charles appointed no single minister to replace his fallen favourite and, given the drift of Court opinion, if he had appointed one, Pembroke would hardly have topped the list. The King may have honoured his old councillor with gifts and favours, but he was unlikely to advance as premier minister a councillor whose ideas on government were beginning to diverge so strongly from his own. The Third Earl and his master differed in their ideas of government, religion and foreign affairs, and with Buckingham dead the disastrous policies of the government could no longer be blamed on the Duke. The divergent ideas of Pembroke and the King became obvious when parliament reconvened in 1629. Financial necessity forced the King to recall parliament. It was expected to reconvene in October 1628, but events forced a delay. In the autumn of 1628 there was a great agitation among the merchants over impositions, and they had much support from the Commons. It was considered unwise to summon parliament until the agitation had subsided. The King therefore waited until January 1629. Unfortunately, hope of harmony between Crown and Commons was illusory, for not only was the whole question of tonnage and poundage unresolved, but fundamental religious questions were coming to the fore. When parliament finally met, it was ‘in an irritable humour.’24 The King’s ‘patriot’ councillors, however, led by Pembroke, probably with the King’s blessing, put together a new programme to settle grievances over Arminianism and tonnage and poundage, relaunch the war with Spain and restore a harmonious relationship with parliament. But this far-sighted programme broke down in the face of radical elements in the Commons who wanted to implement their alternative strategy of punishing the King’s ‘evil councillors’. Religion and impositions were the two major issues of the second session, and the Pembroke Connection took a strong stand on them. Rudyerd, Sir John Eliot and William Coryton, Pembroke’s Vice-Warden of the Stannaries took the most prominent stands. All viewed with alarm the spread of popery and Arminianism, and all spoke out strongly in favour of checking their spread. Rudyerd was of the opinion that Arminianism had ‘lately crept in and crept up into high places’ and advised the House that it should ‘consider of the articles of our faith . . . and advance against all that shall vary from those.’ Arminianism the Connection feared as much as Catholicism, for not only did it, in their opinion, destroy the Church of England but, by exalting the power of the Crown, attacked the whole raison d’être of parliament. Non-parliamentary impositions had precisely the same effect.25

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 186

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E L O R D S T E WA R D

187

The House of Commons demanded the right to say what the religion of England should be, and then went on to attack the legal status of tonnage and poundage. Tempers were high, and on 25 February the King adjourned the House for five days. When the House reassembled on 2 March, it was obvious that the Connection had split. Sir John Eliot, probably unaware that parliament would be dissolved if he did not desist, continued his attack against the Crown. A recent historical analysis of the 1629 session argues that Eliot’s miscalculation, ‘combined with his strong sense of personal frustration and desire for reform, made it impossible for Pembroke . . . to restrain him.’ Rudyerd and the majority of the Connection may have agreed wholeheartedly with the radicals’ position on religion and impositions, but they were reformers not revolutionaries, and did not favour the events of 2 March. On that fateful day, the King attempted to adjourn the House and some of the members, Eliot and Coryton among them, knowing that a dissolution was imminent, refused to let the Speaker adjourn. While several members held the Speaker in his chair, the House carried by a voice vote the Three Resolutions, which branded as traitors anyone bringing in innovations in religion, anyone advising the levying of non-parliamentary taxes and anyone paying these taxes. It then adjourned itself.26 The King dissolved parliament on 10 March and imprisoned the Commons’ ringleaders, Eliot and Coryton among them. Pembroke was not present in the Lords when the King dissolved parliament and a breach between Crown and parliament, a breach he had laboured so consistently to avoid, finally took place. It must have been shattering for him to see his ideas of a ‘balanced constitution’ so rudely rejected by both the King and prominent members of his own Connection in 1629. However, he still hoped an accommodation was possible between the King and the moderate leaders of the Commons, and he strove mightily to limit the damage done. Pembroke was a constant advocate of a new parliament in late 1629, by which he hoped to restore the King’s finances, renew the war against Spain, and curb the power and influence of Weston. The Third Earl favoured peace with France, regarding a treaty with France ‘as a necessary preliminary to an active cooperation with the German Protestants.’ The King, unable to finance war a with France, sued for peace, and on 14 April 1629 a peace treaty was signed. Peace feelers were also put out by Spain, and Charles actively pursued them. The painter cum diplomat, Sir Peter Paul Rubens, was sent to negotiate, and he arrived in London on 3 June, barely six weeks after the peace with France. Pembroke, lifelong anti-Spaniard though he was, was closely involved in the negotiations as one of the two royal commissioners. Perhaps he had been chosen because he had bought paintings from Rubens, or because Charles trusted him, even though he was known to be anti-Spanish. The Third Earl, however, did not live long enough to see England at peace with Spain; the peace treaty itself was not finally signed until November 1630.27 Though Pembroke still played an important role in the King’s counsels and

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 187

22/10/10 12:23 PM

188

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

took an active part in the King’s government, he nevertheless kept his political power independent of the Court, and continued to look after his Connection members. He could do little for the imprisoned Eliot, whom the King blamed for Buckingham’s assassination, but he did intercede for the other members of parliament imprisoned, and he was responsible for Coryton’s release from imprisonment. The Third Earl even went so far as to allow Coryton to continue to act as his Vice-Warden of the Stannaries which, given the King’s animus against the Commons’ ringleaders, was an act of political courage.28 It is difficult to say what effect Pembroke’s support of his allies would have had on his future political career or, for that matter, how well his views of a balanced constitution and his strongly-held views of a Protestant foreign policy would have been tolerated by the King, had the Third Earl lived longer. It is easier to predict the effect his religious views would have had. The most influential of Charles’ new ministers, Weston and Archbishop Laud were, respectively a crypto-Catholic and an Arminian, and both had Charles’ personal support. It is likely that Pembroke would have found the King’s religious policies impossible to accept and, unable to support them, would lose a lot of his influence at Court. After 1629 the king was left with only two possible ‘representative’ bodies, the Court and the Privy Council. The former he filled with ‘yes’ men and more than once suppressed the record of the Privy Council when he faced dissent. As Laud sadly remarked, the king was ‘more willing not to hear than to hear.’ Charles also turned away from men who were of independent judgment and had solid landed bases in the country. And in 1630 one of the few front rank figures who was also a local magnate, the Third Earl of Pembroke, was removed from the scene.29 Pembroke may have had neither the energy nor the inclination to mount another campaign against another favourite, for his health was failing. He had recovered from an attack of gallstones in 1623, but the condition remained. Also, by 1625 he was growing infirm with gout. He was free from the worst effects of both for most of 1625, but in July of the following year he had another serious bout with gallstones. In the next two years he was again in poor health, but he seems to have recovered in 1629. In fact, he recovered so well that immediately before his death in 1630 he was boasting of his health and strength.30 Even in poor health, Pembroke remained an active Privy Councillor and Lord Steward, and fulfilled his offices of Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, Somerset and Wiltshire. His patronage never slackened, nor was there any slackening in his interest in foreign affairs or domestic politics. And even with the arrangement he came to with Buckingham and his uneasiness over the King’s religious policies, he was still committed to his programme of a balanced constitution. Had he not died so unexpectedly in 1630, he probably would have continued to fight for it. One thing is certain: he would have constantly advocated, and used all his influence to bring about, another meeting of parliament. His death spared him the knowledge

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 188

22/10/10 12:23 PM

T H E L O R D S T E WA R D

189

that the nation was to be inflicted with the ‘loss of parliaments’ for eleven years, and he would never know that, when parliament finally met again, the constitution would not only be unbalanced but destroyed. Pembroke’s death was sudden and surprising, and, like much of his life, surrounded by drama. It was also, ironically, one of the best documented periods of his life. His health seemed to have improved early in 1630, when he boasted of it. His boast was partly inspired by the fact that it had been predicted that he would not outlive his fiftieth birthday. The prognostications concerning his death were multiple. His old tutor Sanford, Thomas Allen of Gloucester Hall in Oxford, and Lady Davies, had all predicted that he would not live beyond two score and ten. In fact, referring to the prediction of Lady Davies, the Third Earl remarked that one should never trust female fortune-tellers, as her prediction had not come to pass. She and her male counterparts were only wrong by two days.31 According to Clarendon, on 8 April, Pembroke’s fiftieth birthday, there was a party to celebrate it. Invited were: some persons of quality, of relation or dependence upon the . . . Earl of Pembroke (Sir Charles Morgan, Dr. Field, Bishop of St David’s, and Dr. Chafin, the Earl’s chaplain). At supper one of them drank a health to the Lord Steward; upon which another of them said that he believed his Lord was at that time very merry, for he had now outliv’d the day which his tutor Sandford had prognosticated upon his nativity he would not outlive; he had done it now, for that was his birth-day, which he had completed his age to fifty years.

The following day Pembroke ‘supped with my Lady of Devonshire’ and was ‘very jocund at supper’. He said that, now he had reached fifty years, he was hoping ‘to attain to his Father’s years, that lived till sixty four, and so see many happy days.’ He returned home to his London residence, Baynard’s Castle, where: staying up till midnight, he found himself very well; but after he had been awhile in bed, his lady lying by him, he fetched out a profound groan, whereat she, not being able to wake him, shreiked out for company who, coming in, found him speechless. In which condition he lay until eight in the morning, [at] what time he died.32

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 189

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 190

22/10/10 12:23 PM

Epilogue

On 26 April 1630, the Venetian Ambassador reported from London to the Doge in Venice that the Third Earl of Pembroke ‘has died suddenly, to the great sorrow of the whole Court, owing to his great qualities.’1 From Oxford, the religious writer and poet John Earle penned a poetic lament to mourn the loss of a fellow poet and popular Chancellor: Come, Pembroke lives! Oh! do not fright our ears with the destroying truth! First raise our fears and say he is not well: That will suffice to force a river from the public eye.

And addressing Pembroke he continued: Thou needst no gilded tomb, Thy memory is marble to itself, The bravery of jem or rich enamel is mis-spent, Thy noble corpse is its own monument.2

There was an elaborate funeral in Salisbury cathedral but, so far as we know, no monument marked the Third Earl’s resting place. In 1635 mention is made in the cathedral manuscripts of ‘a rich and rare piece of brass. . . to be set up in the Lady Chapel for the Earl of Pembroke, late Lord Chamberlain’, but no such memorial was erected. This ‘rare piece of brass’ may be the statue by Le Sueur made about the time of Pembroke’s death, supposedly after a sketch by Rubens, which now stands outside the Bodleian. In 1644 a visitor reported that in Salisbury cathedral ‘upon the south pillar next the lower steps of the altar, hang the atchetements (sic) (armorial bearings), sword, and golden gauntlets of William, Earl of Pembroke . . .. buried here.’3 Exactly what was the final disposition of the armorial bearings, or even the ‘noble corpse’, we do not know. The former were probably taken as booty during the Civil War and, as regards the latter, a zealous nineteenth-century cleric, ‘tidying up’ the crypt of Salisbury cathedral, ‘mislaid’ the remains. Pembroke’s bones had suffered the same fate as his reputation. This study has been an attempt to unearth

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 191

22/10/10 12:23 PM

192

W I L L I A M H E R B E RT

the latter. A corrective is badly needed, in the face of the adverse judgments passed on Pembroke by Clarendon, S. R. Gardiner, and various other scholars. The Third Earl’s great contributions as a poet, patron, politician, courtier and statesman, have too long been ‘mislaid’. Pembroke was a carefully educated intellectual whose early career and subsequent reputation was almost destroyed by an unfortunate scandal. Recovering his rightful political role under Elizabeth’s successors, Pembroke devoted his life to furthering the interests of his family and friends, England and Protestantism. But even with his great wealth, influence and political power, he was unable to successfully counter the dominance of the royal favourites. One must remember, however, that the Third Earl was not a disinterested reformer, but an active courtier and politician searching for, and receiving, great gifts and honours from his sovereigns. The life of the courtier and politican alone was not scope enough for Pembroke’s broad interests. He led an active social life, had a successful though childless marriage, and his friendship for, and patronage of, nearly all the outstanding literary figures, artists and musicians of his age, was of incalculable value to the whole field of English arts and letters. The arts and literature of the Jacobean and Caroline periods would have been much poorer but for the Earl of Pembroke’s patronage. The driving force behind the man though was a deep Calvinist faith. Perhaps the last word should be given to the chaplain who spoke his funeral oration. He eulogized his old friend and master as a man who gave: duty to his God, obedience to his sovereign, love to his equals, patience to petitioners, regard to his inferiors, affability to all. A just Christian, a just servant, a faithful and just councillor, a just peer, a just steward, a just master, a just man.4

Such a ‘just man’ was William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 192

22/10/10 12:23 PM

Appendices

THE PEMBROKE CONNECTION, 1604–1624 Seat

County

1604

1614

1621

1624

Wilton

Wilts

T. Morgan T. Edmondes

T. Morgan R. Sidney

T. Morgan T. Tracy

T. Morgan P. Herbert

Downton

Wilts

C. Raleigh

C. Raleigh

C. Raleigh

E. Herbert C. Crewe

Old Sarum Wilts Devizes

W. Ravenscroft W. Ravenscroft E. Leech W. Price

Wilts

Shaftesbury Dorset

R. Hopton

W. Kent

J. Kent

J. Kent

S. Steward

P. Herbert R. Hopton

J. Thoroughgood W. Whitaker

B. Rudyerd

B. Rudyerd

J. Palmer W. Frowde

R. Palmer R. Pooley

C. Edmondes

C. Calvert

Portsmouth Hants Q’borough Kent Oxford

M. Oldisworth T. Cotton

R. Palmer

Oxon

Woodstock Oxon

W. Coryton M. Davies Unknown Wilts

Bodmin

Cornwall

J. Trevor

Saltash

Cornwall

J. Trevor

East Looe

Cornwall

J. Trevor

St Germans Cornwall

J. Stradling

Lostwithiel Cornwall Monmouth Mon

J. Trevor

E. Leech J. Herbert

R. Johnson

E. Morgan

E. Morgan (continued)

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 193

22/10/10 12:23 PM

194 Seat

APPENDICES

County

1604

1614

1621

1624

Glamorgan Glam

P. Herbert

T. Mansell

W. Price

R. Mansell

Cardiff

Glam

M. Davies

M. Davies

W. Herbert

W. Price

M’gomery

Mont

E. Whittingham J. Danvers

E. Herbert

G. Herbert

Mont’shire

Mont

W. Herbert

C. Herbert

W. Herbert

Radnor

Radnor

C. Price

C. Price

Flint

Flint

W. Ravenscroft W. Ravenscroft

Anglesea

Anglesea

S. Trevor

W. Herbert

THE PEMBROKE CONNECTION, 1625–1629 Seat

County

1625

1626

1628

Wilton

Wilts

T. Morgan W. Harrington

T. Morgan J. Evelyn

T. Morgan H. Doddington

Downton

Wilts

E. Herbert C. Crewe

E. Herbert H. Doddington

E. Herbert B. Rudyerd

Old Sarum

Wilts

M. Oldisworth J. Stradling

M. Oldisworth B. Rudyerd

M. Oldisworth

Shaftesbury

Dorset

P. Herbert R. Hopton

Dr Turner A. N. Other

J. Thoroughgood M. Oldisworth

Derby

Derby

Portsmouth

Hants

B. Rudyerd

J. Fullerton

Q’borough

Kent

R. Pooley

R. Pooley R. Palmer

R. Palmer

Oxford

Oxon

J. Danvers T. Edmondes

J. Danvers F. Steward

J. Danvers H. Marten

Woodstock

Oxon

E. Taverner

E. Taverner

W. Coryton

J. Thoroughgood

Sir J. Perrot Unknown Wilts Cornwall Co.

Cornwall

W. Coryton

Bodmin

Cornwall

R. Weston

East Looe

Cornwall

J. Trevor

J. Chudleigh

W. Murray (continued)

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 194

22/10/10 12:23 PM

195

APPENDICES

Seat

County

1625

1626

1628

St Germans

Cornwall

J. Elliot

Lostwithiel

Cornwall

R. Mansell

J. Chudleigh

Grampound

Cornwall

F. Courtenay

Lord Carey

Fowey

Cornwall

W. Murray

H. Grenville

Liskeard

Cornwall

W. Coryton

F. Steward

F. Steward

St Mawes

Cornwall

J. Fullerton

Callington

Cornwall

R. Weston

C. Crewe

Monmouth

Mon

W. Morgan W. Steward

W. Herbert N. Arnold

W. Morgan N. Arnold

Glamorgan

Glam

W. Price

J. Stradling

R. Mansell

Cardiff

Glam

W. Herbert

W. Price

L. Morgan

M’gomery

Mont

E. Herbert

H. Herbert

R. Lloyd

Mont’shire

Mont

C. Herbert

W. Herbert

W. Herbert

Radnor

Radnor

C. Price

C. Price

C. Price

Flint

Flint

W. Ravenscroft

W. Ravenscroft

W. Ravenscroft

Haver’west

Pembroke

Sir J. Perrot

Sir J. Perrot

LORD CHAMBERLAIN’S DEPARTMENT: RECOGNIZANCES FOR DEBT Date

Signed by

Signed with

Amount Status Identification Due

Jun 1602 P, Sanford, Morgan

Hicks

£3,000

Paid

LC4/195 117v

Jun 1604 P, Morgan

Hicks

£1,600

Paid

LC4/195 197

Dec 1604 P, Sanford

Hicks

£2,000

Paid

LC4/195 360v

Apr 1605 P, M, Sanford, Morgan

Hicks

£1,938

Paid

C54/1813 Close

Nov 1605 P, Sanford

Gawdy, Vanlore £2,000

Paid

LC4/198 11

Dec 1605 P, M, Sanford, Morgan

Popham

£2,000

Paid

LC4/196 27v

May 1606 P, M, Sanford, Morgan

Popham

£2,000

Paid

LC4/198 64

July 1606 P, M, Sanford

Popham

£2,000

Paid

LC4/196 99v (continued)

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 195

22/10/10 12:23 PM

196 Date

APPENDICES

Signed by

Signed with

Amount Status Identification Due

Dec 1606 P, M, Sanford

Coke

£1,000

Paid

LC4/196 134v

?

1606 P, M, Sanford

Coke

£4,000

Paid

LC4/196 141v

?

1606 P, M, Sanford

Popham

£2,000

Paid

LC4/196 144

July 1607 P, M, Morgan, Frowde

Vanlore

£4,000

–

LC4/196 201v

Nov 1607 P, M, Morgan, Frowde

Hicks

£4,000

Paid

LC4/196 226

Feb 1608 P, M, Browne, Frowde

Hicks

£4,000

Paid

LC4/196 252v

Feb 1608 P, M, Morgan

Coke

£2,000

Paid

LC4/196 257v

Feb 1608 P, M, Morgan, Kent

Coke

£4,000

Paid

LC4/196 257v

Nov 1608 P, M

Fleming

£6,000

Paid

LC4/29

Dec 1609 P, M, Morgan

Coke

£2,000

Paid

LC4/197

Jun 1610 P, M, Morgan

Coke

£4,000

–

LC4/30 242

Jul

1610 P, M, Morgan

Coke

£2,000

Paid

LC4/197 87v

Jul

1610 P, M, Morgan

Coke

£3,000

Paid

LC4/197 88

Jul

1610 P, M, Morgan

Lord Compton £3,000

–

LC4/30 247

1 year

Jul

1610 P, M, Morgan

Lord Compton £4,000

–

LC4/29 255

Xmas

Jul

1610 Shrewsbury

P, Morgan

£2,000

Paid

LC4/197 102

1 year

Jul

1610 P, M, Herbert

Soane

£14,000 Paid

Jul

1610 M, P, Morgan

Lord Compton £1,000

–

LC30/243

Feb 1611 P, M, Morgan

Coke

Paid

LC4/197 22

Jun 1616 M, P

Hobart, Hicks £2,000

–

LC4/37 174

Jun 1616 M, P

Hobart, Hicks £10,000 Paid

LC4/198 315

Jun 1616 M, P

Hobart, Vanlore

£15,000 Paid

LC4/198 315v

Jul

1617 M, P

Hicks

£10,000 –

LC4/137 174

1 year

Jul

1617 M, P

Vanlore

£15,000 –

LC4/137 175

1 year

Jul

1618 P, M

Tracy, Whyte

£4,000

–

LC4/41 171

Jul

1618 P, M

Hobart

£4,000

Paid

LC4/199 44

£2,000

LC4/197 103v 1 year

(continued)

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 196

22/10/10 12:23 PM

197

APPENDICES

Date

Signed by

Signed with

Amount Status Identification Due

Nov 1619 P, Morgan

Marsham et al. £4,000

Jun 1620 P, M, Morgan

Russell, Montague

£14,000 Paid

LC4/199 210

Nov 1620 P, Morgan

Rowbatch, Montague

£4,000

–

LC4/42 291

Apr 1622 M, P

Russell

£2,000

Paid

LC4/48 7

Apr 1622 P, M

Ley

£10,000 Paid

LC4/199 356

May 1622 P

Hobart

£1,000

Paid

LC4/199 372

?

Williams et al. £4,000

–

LC4/199 394v

1622 P, Ley

Paid

LC4/199 44

Apr 1623 M, P

Russell

£10,000 –

LC4/48 7

May 1623 P

Seymour

£20,000 –

LC4/49 66

Jun 1627 P, Morgan

Bayning

£10,000 –

C54/2722

P = Pembroke M = Montgomery

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 197

22/10/10 12:23 PM

198

APPENDICES

POETIC WORKS DEDICATED TO THE THIRD EARL OF PEMBROKE

Anton, R. The Philosophers Satyrs. London: 1616. ———Seven Satires Alluding to the Seven Planets. London: 1616. Baxter, N. Sir Philip Sydneys Ourania . . . London: 1606. Browne, W. Britannia’s Pastorals. London: 1613. Bruch, R. Epigrammatum Hecatontades Duae. London: 1627. Chapman, G. Homer Prince of Poets . . . London: 1610. Davies, J. Mirum in Modum. A Glimpse of Gods, Glorie and the Soules Shape. London: 1602. ———Microcosmos. The Discovery of the Little World, With the Government Thereof. Oxford: 1603. ———A Select Second Husband for Sir Thomas Overburies Wife, Now a Matchlesse Widow. London: 1616. Davison, F. A Poetical Rapsody. London: 1602. Digges, L., trans. Gerardo the Unfortunate Spaniard. London: 1622. Fennor, W. Fennors Descriptions . . . London: 1616. Fletcher, J. Christes Bloodie Sweat. London: 1613. Goodwin, G. Babels Balm: Or the Honey-Combe of Romes Religion. London: 1624. Harington, Sir J. Epigrams Both Pleasant and Serious. London: 1615. Hieron, S. Davids Penitentiall Psalme Opened. Cambridge: 1617. Leech, J. Musae Priores Sive Poematum Pars Prior. London: 1620. Lichfield, E. I. and Short, I. Vltima Linea Savilii Sive in Obitum Clarissimi Domini Henrici Savilii. Oxford: 1622. May, T., trans. Lucan’s Pharsalia . . . London: 1627. Quarles, F. Sion’s Elegies. London: 1625. Sylvester, J., trans. Bartas, His Devine Weekes and Workes. London: 1608. Sylvester, J. The Second Session of the Parliament of Vertues Royall. London: 1614. ———The Sacred Workes of that Famous Poet Joshua Sylvester. London: 1620. Taylor, A. The Defence of Divine Poesy, Committed to the Protection of the Right Honorable, William Earle of Pembrooke. etc. London: 1623. Taylor, J. The Nipping or Snipping of Abuses: Or the Woolgathering of Witte. London: 1614. ———All the Workes of John Taylor the Water-Poet. London: 1630. Wyther, G. Abuses Stript, and Whipt. Or Satirical Essays by George Wyther. London: 1613.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 198

22/10/10 12:23 PM

APPENDICES

199

NON-POETIC WORKS DEDICATED TO THE THIRD EARL OF PEMBROKE

Adams, T. A Divine Herball. London: 1616. ———Three Sermons. London: 1625. ———The Workes of T. Adams, Being the Summe of his Sermons. London: 1629. Babington, G. The Workes of G. Babington. London: 1615. Barret, R. The Theorike and Practike of Modern Warrres. London: 1598. Blount, E., trans. Ars Aulica or the Courtiers Arte. London: 1607. Brooke, R. A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings, Princes, Dukes and Marquesses, Earls and Viscounts and the Realm of England. London: 1619. Bruen, R. Pilgrimes Practice. London: 1621. Burges, C. The Fire of the Sanctuarie Newly Uncovered, Or a Compleat Tract of Zeale. Oxford: 1625. Carew, R., trans. A World of Wonders: Or an Introduction to a Treatise Touching the Conformitie of Ancient and Moderne Wonders. London: 1607. Carpenter, N. Geography Delineated Forth in Two Bookes Oxford: 1625. Chaloner, E. Sixe Sermons. London: 1623. ———Six Sermons Now First Published. Edward Chaloner. London: 1629. Crashaw, W. A President to the Nobilitie of Court and Countrey. London: 1612. Daniel, S. A Defence of Ryme. London: 1603. De Moulin, P. A Preparation to Suffer for the Gospell of Jesus Christ. London: 1623. Dickinson, W. The King’s Right, Briefly Set Downe in a Sermon. London: 1619. Dowle, J. The True Friend. Or A Bill of Exchange Expressed in a Sermon. London: 1630. Featley, D. The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in Taking Away the Sacred Cup from the Laiety at the Lords Table. London: 1630. Foxe, J. The Book of Martyrs. London: 1631. Ford, E. Honor Triumphant Or, the Peeres Challenge. London: 1606. Gentili, R. In Titulos Codicis. Disputationes Decem. Oxford: 1625. Godwyn, T. Moses and Aaron. Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites Used by the Ancient Hebrewes. London: 1607. Goodyere, Sir H. (G. H.). The Mirrour of Majestie. London: 1618. Hall, J. The Best Bargain. London: 1623. ———The Works of . . . London: 1625. Hastler, T. An Antidote Against the Plague. A Sermon. London: 1625. Healey, J., trans. The Discovery of a New World. London: 1609. ———Saint Augustine of the Citie of God. London: 1610. ———Epictetus Manuall. London: 1616.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 199

22/10/10 12:23 PM

200

APPENDICES

H. G. A Gagge for the Pope and the Jesuits London: 1624. Hitchcock, J. A Sanctuary for Honest Men. Or an Abstract of Human Wisdom. London: 1617. Hotman, J. Jean Hotman’s the Ambassador. London: 1603. Hume, T. The First Part of Ayres, French, Pollish, etc. London: 1605. Jackson, T. A Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes. London: 1628. Jenney, G. A Catholike Conference, Betweene a Protestant and a Papist. London: 1626. Johnson, R. Essaies, Or Rather Imperfect Offers. London: 1601. Jonson, B. Catiline His Conspiracy. London: 1611. ———The Workes of Beniamin Jonson. London: 1616. L. A. Spiritual Almes. London: 1625. Lennard, S., trans. The Bloudy Rage of that Great Antechrist of Rome and his Superstitious Adherents. London: 1624. ———trans. Perrin’s Luther’s Forerunners. London:1624. Markham, F. The Booke of Honour or Five Decads of Epistles of Honour. London: 1625. Monfart, M. M. de Monfart’s An exact and Curious Survey of the East Indies. London: 1615. Moryson, F. An Itinerary Written by Fynes Moryson. Gent. London: 1617. Newton, R. The Countess of Mountgomeries Eusebeia: Expressing Briefly the Soul’s Praying Robes. London: 1620. Norden, J. A Pathway to Patience. Oxford: 1626. Parry, H. Victoria Christiana. London: 1594. Parson, B. The Barren Trees Doome. London: 1616. Peacham, H. Minerva Britannia. London: 1612. Perrott, Sir J. Certaine Short Prayers and Meditations. London: 1630. Petrucci, L. Apologia Equitis L. Petrucci Contra Caluminatores. London: 1619. Prideaux, J. Orationes Novem Inaugurales de Totidem The logicae Apicibus. Oxford: 1626. Proclus, D. Procli Sphaera. Oxford: 1620. Reynolds, J. The Triumph of God’s Revenge, Against the Crying and Execrable Sinne of Murther. 3 vols. London: 1621–1624. Roberts, J. Compendium Belli. London: 1626. Rolfe, J. The True Relation of the State of Virginia. London: 1616. Ross, T. Idaea, Sive de Iacobi Magnae Britanniae. London: 1608. Scott, T. Vox Dei: In Justice Cast and Condemned. In a Sermon. Preach [ed] The Twentieth of March 1622. London: 1623. Shakespeare, W. Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies, Published According to the True Originall Copies. London: 1623. Sheldon, R. A Survey of the Miracles of the Church of Rome. London: 1616.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 200

22/10/10 12:23 PM

APPENDICES

201

Shute, W., trans. The Generall Historie of the Magnificent State of Venice. London: 1612. ———The Triumphs of Nassau. London: 1613. Smith, J. The General History of the Bermudas . . . London: 1624. ———A Continuation of the Generall Historie of The Summer Islands, and New England, 1624–1629. London: 1630. ———The True Travels, Adventures, and Observations of Captaine John Smith . . . London: 1630. Sweeper, W. A Briefe Treatise Declaring the True Christian Noble- Man and the Base Worldling. London: 1622. Teixeira, J. The Spanish Pilgrim. London: 1625. Thornborough, J. The Last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ, Touching the Blessed Sacrament. Oxford: 1630. Thorne, W. Ducente Deo. London: 1603. Tomkins, T. Songs of 3, 4, 5. and 6. Parts. London: 1622. Udny, A. The Voyce of the Cryer. Two Sermons. London: 1628. Vaenius, O. Amorum Emblemata. Antwerp: 1608. Vaughan, R. Most Approved, and Long Experienced Waterworkes. London: 1610. Vaughan, W. Cambrensium Caroleia. London: 1625. ———The Golden Fleece. 6th ed. London: 1626. Wadsworth, J. The English Spanish Pilgrime. Or a New Discoverie of Spanish Popery and Jesuiticall Stratagems. Oxford: 1629. Walker, W. A Sermon. London: 1629. Whear[e], D. De Ratione et Methodo Legendi Historias Dissertatio. London: 1628. Wheare, D. Epistolarum Eucharisticharum Fasciculus. London: 1628. Williams, G. The True Church: Shewed to All MenThat Desire to Be Members of the Same. London: 1629. Witzell, G. G. Wicelii Methodus Concordiae Ecclesiasticae. London: 1625. Zouch, R. Elementa Iurisprudentiae. Oxford: 1629.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 201

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 202

22/10/10 12:23 PM

Endnotes Notes to Chapter One: Formative Influences, 1580–1597 (All references given in abbreviated form. Full citation in the bibliography.) 1 Hoare, History. II, 119. 2 Young, Mary Sidney. p. 43. 3 Stephen and Lee, Dictionary of National Biography, ‘First Earl of Pembroke’. IX, 669–71. 4 Stephen and Lee, Dictionary of National Biography, ‘First Earl of Pembroke’. V, 26. 731–6; G. E. C(ockayne), The Complete. X, 405–6; Nef, Rise of British Coal. I, 143; Diane Willen, John Russell. 5 Andrew Clark, ed., ‘Brief Lives’ . . . I, 316. Aubrey is typical of the gossips to whom far too much credence is given. Aubrey made little distinction between fact and fiction, especially if it spoiled a good story. He wrote of Pembroke’s mother, ‘I have heard old gentlemen say’ that she lay with her brother, ‘and it was thought that the first Philip Earl of Pembroke was begot by him’. After the death of her husband, Aubrey wrote that she liked to watch her stallions cover their mares ‘and then act with her stallions, one of them was crookebacked Cecill, Earl of Salisbury’. The undependability of Aubrey can be seen when he writes that, after the Great Fire of London, in the ruins of St Faith’s Church, was found the leaden coffin of the Third Earl of Pembroke, ‘whose monument among others tumbled into the church beneath’. As a neighbour of the Third Earl in Wiltshire, Aubrey should have known that Pembroke was buried in Salisbury Cathedral. (D. T. Wright, John Aubrey . . . pp. 133–4). 6 Steven and Lees, ‘First Earl of Pembroke’ DNB. IX, 671–4; N. P. Sil, Tudor Placemen, pp. 103, 187–8. 7 ‘First Earl of Pembroke’. DNB. IX, 640–6. 8 ‘Second Earl of Pembroke,’ Oxford DNB., v. 26, 688–9; Coleman, Land, p. 91; Fleay, A Biographical. II, 33–4; Taylor, ‘The Masque,’ p. 21; Wentersdorf, ‘The Personnel,’ pp. 65–6; George, ‘Shakespeare,’ p. 323. 9 Rowse, William Shakepeare. pp. 75,100: Peter Hyland, An Introduction. p. 71: Brown, Shakespeare’s. p. 69; Edwards, The Revels. IV. p. 78; Evans, Henry Lawes. p. 35. 10 Pembroke to Lord Doncaster, 20 May, 1619. BL Egerton MSS. 2592 f.81; Katherine Duncan-Jones, Shakespeare’s. p. 68.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 203

22/10/10 12:23 PM

204

N O T E S T O PA G E S 4 – 1 2

11 DNB. IX, 640–1; for theatre patronage see: Wallace, ‘The Swan Theatre,’ pp. 340–9, Foakes and Rickert, Henslowe’s Diary; Murray, English Dramatic. 2 vols. For mining see: Hamilton, The English Brass and Rees, Industry. 2 vols; for overseas ventures see: Brown, Genesis. pp. 922, 1001; for electoral influence in England see Pugh, A History of Wiltshire. v. 117 of the V.C.H. 12 Duncan-Jones, Shakespeare’s. p. 68; Clark, Brief Lives. I, 311; Lamb, ‘The Countess of Pembroke’s Patronage’, pp. 162–79. 13 Weiner, Sidney. p. 3; van Dorsten, Sidney. p. 5; James Howel, Epistolae. p. 119. 14 Buxton, Sidney. pp. 53–4; Howel, Epistolae. 15 Pears, The Correspondence. pp. 181–2. 16 Greville, Sir Fulke Greville’s. p. 130. 17 Mazzola, Favorite Sons. p. 29. 18 Stewart, Philip Sidney. pp. 2, 7; ‘Dedication to Pembroke’, Davison, A Poetical. 1602. 19 Heltzel Nobilis. By T. Moffet. pp. 81, 95–96. 20 Waller, ed., The Triumph. p. 6; Parker, as cited in Buxton, Sidney. 187–8; Heltzel Nobilis. xii, 136. 21 De Lisle MSS. II, 173, 182: Collins, Letters. I, 372, II, 258: De Lisle MSS. II, 173: De Lisle.MSS. II, 180: Collins, Letters. I, 372: Collins, Letters. I, 374. 22 Collins, Letters. II, 258. Notes to Chapter Two: Elizabethan Prelude, 1597–1601 1 Collins, Letters. II, 43. 2 Stopes, Life of Southampton. p. 97: Collins, Letters. II, 139. Salisbury MSS. XIV, 164: De Lisle. II, 203. See also II, 192, 196, 200. The letters use cyphers, due to dangers involved in sending letters. As Pembroke wrote to Leicester, ‘it is no time to write the news when the man that carries them may die of the infection (the plague), and the next constable open the letters’. Add.MSS. 15, 552, fol.10: Collins, Letters. I, 370: Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix, p. 155 argues that Lord Herbert might have joined Essex to seek reconciliation after the Norwood Park quarrel. It would have been the thing to do as Essex was so powerful, but I doubt that it happened. Lord Herbert was only 16, his father was very ill and his heir could hardly have gone on an expedition at this time. 3 The letter that note 4 refers to fell into the hands of Cecil and is thus calendared in the Salisbury MSS. 4 Salisbury MSS. VII, 374: ‘Pembroke to Cecil, August 16, 1597,’ Salisbury MSS. VII. 354: Countess of Pembroke to Cecil, August, 1597’ Salisbury MSS. VII, 375. 5 Salisbury MSS. VIII, 219. 6 ‘John Udale to the Earl of Essex, October 30, 1598,’ Salisbury MSS. VIII, 415; Taylor in ‘The Earl of Pembroke in a note on p. 37 identifies Udale (Uvedale)

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 204

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 3 – 1 9

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

205

as a member of Sir Philip Sidney’s household. He must have known the young Lord Herbert, as the letter was written from Wilton; Salisbury MSS. VIII, 530. Salisbury MSS. VIII, 233–4. ‘Queen Elizabeth to Henry Earl of Pembroke, July 2, 1599,’11 Pepys MSS. p. 182. Chamberlain. I, 179; De Lisle MSS. II, 380–1. Collins, Letters. II, 115, 383; II, 384. De Lisle MSS. II, 388–9; Collins, Letters. II, 122. Collins, Letters. II, 123; De Lisle MSS. II, 391; Cecil MSS. v. 73, f. 98, cited in Young, Mary Sidney. p. 73. De Lisle MSS. II, 403; De Lisle MSS. II, 410; Collins, Letters. II, 146, 144. De Lisle MSS. II, 423; Collins. Letters. II, 152; De Lisle MSS. II, 425; Collins. Letters. II, 156; II.160–1: II. 164. Collins, Letters. II, 182; De Lisle MSS. II, 469; CSP Dom. (1598–1601), p. 445; ‘Dedication to Pembroke’, London 1598. Collins, Letters. II, 216, 218; De Lisle MSS I, 489. Cecil MSS. v. 75, f. 104. Cecil MSS. v. II, 3; his liason with Mary Fitton. Cecil MSS. XI, 13. Cecil MSS. v. 76, f. 8; Dodd, Dictionary. p. 351; he received this office in June 1601. (Salisbury MSS. XI, 225). Newdigate-Newdegate, Gossip. pp. 40–1. Ibid., p. 46. Maclean, Letters from Cecil. p. 65. CSP Dom. (1601–3). p. 19: APC.XXXI, p. 299. Clarendon, History. VII. Robinson, ‘Lord Clarendon’s Moral Thought,’ p. 55; Pembroke detested the quiet life of the country. Clarendon thought it necessary ‘to compound life out of action and contemplation’ and they must, as it were, succeed each other. He thought that the Earl of Bristol was politically ineffective because he refused to withdraw occasionally from public life for the sake of reflection. He undoubtedly thought the same of Pembroke. For a good discussion of Clarendon’s portrayal of Pembroke see: Taylor, ‘Clarendon’, pp. 337–44. For an excellent critique see: Firth, ‘Clarendon’s History’ 26–54, 246–62, 464–83; the only other writer who was critical of Pembroke was the preacher who spoke the burial sermon over him in 1630. He was critical of a devout Christian, and his criticism is that of a moralist. He said that Pembroke was ‘every morning and evening upon his knees to God, for the pardon of the sins of his youth, I doubt not, and for preventing the sins of his age. He did acknowledge he was a grievous sinner, and this confession made him just’ (T.C. The Just Mans.1630, pp. 13–14). Gardiner, History. VII, 133.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 205

22/10/10 12:23 PM

206

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 9 – 2 6

27 See Chapters 3, 4 and 8: Gardiner, History. IX, 244. 28 Taylor, ‘Clarendon,’ p. 324. 29 Times Literary Supplement. 30 January 1964, p. 87: Wilson, An Introduction. p. 71; Hotson, The First Night. p. 107. 30 Brennan, p. 157; Mackenzie, ‘Sir Thomas Herbert,’ p. 37. 31 Brennan, Literary. p. 157; Waller, Pamphilia; Smith, The Poems of Lord Herbert, Although Pembroke was a distant relative of Sir Thomas Herbert, he secured for him in 1626 a place in Sir Dodmore Cotton’s diplomatic mission to Persia. Sir Thomas was also later helped in his career by the Fourth Earl. Ronald H. Fritze, ‘Sir Thomas Herbert,’ Oxford DNB., v. 26, p. 725. 32 Wilson, Queen Elizabeth’s. p. 267: Newdigate-Newdegate, Gossip. pp. 81, 77; Alexander, Writing after Sidney. p. 148. 33 For a discussion of marital negotiations see Chapter 3: Lamb. ‘Lady Mary Wroth,’ Oxford DNB., p. 536. 34 Alexander, Writing. p. 318. 35 For patronage of religious poets and writers see Chapters 6 and 7. 36 Lamb, op.cit., pp. 536–7. 37 Brennan, The Sidneys. p. 176. 38 ‘The Sidney Homepage’ of the English Department of the University of Cambridge adds to the Wroth story. This writer claims that by 1614 Lady Mary was deeply involved with her cousin, ‘an inveterate philanderer’, agrees that she had two children by him and that ‘it is possible’ their relationship began before their respective marriages in 1604. Nandini Das, The Sidney Homepage: www.english.cam.ac.uk/wroth/biography.htm.07.08.04 39 The precedent of the union of Elizabeth Vernon and Southampton was probably still fresh in the Queen’s mind, and she may have favoured a Fitton–Herbert alliance. (Taylor, ‘Clarendon,’ pp. 336–7.) 40 De Lisle MSS, II, 501; Osborne, Historical’s. p. 12 Carew MSS. IV, 20. 41 Salisbury MSS. XI, 40; Salisbury MSS. XIV, 40. 42 Young, Mary Sidney. pp. 95, 76. 43 Cecil MSS. V. 89, f. 108, B.L. Microfilm. 44 Hannay, Philip’s. p. 170. 45 Cecil MSS. IX, 239–40; Cecil MSS. V. 86, f. 108. Notes to Chapter Three: Exile, 1601–1603 1 2 3 4

Cecil MSS. v. 87, f. 95: Cecil MSS. v. 87, f. 141. S. P. 38/9. Docquets James I, unfoliated. Cecil MSS. loc. cit. XI, f. 36: *‘sense’ meaning instinct. I have modernized the writing for clarity. It is necessary to regularize the spelling, leaving it unchanged only if it is interesting yet comprehensible. The arbitrariness of

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 206

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 2 6 – 3 1

5 6

7

8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

207

early seventeenth-century spelling can be seen in the Lord Steward’s Book (PRO L.S.13/169.) when Pembroke himself was Lord Steward. In the records of his own department I found Pembrooke (f. 23), Pembroke (f. 59), Pembrocke (f. 82). Penbrock (f. 84), Pembrowke (f. 93), Pembrock (f. 99) and Pembrok (f. 102). Cecil MSS. v. 183, f. 119 Cecil MSS. v. 183, f. 120; v. XI, f. 464; Cecil MSS. 90, f. 145. See Chapter 3 for marriage negotiations with Burghley; Nicholas, Glamorganshire. p. 135; this was based on the Subsidy Payments of 1625 (Gardiner, VI, 29). For a more complete analysis of the Pembroke’s lands see Chapter 9. P.R.O. Wards 9/160. ff. 114v-115: P.R.O. Wards 9/254. f. 11; Chamberlain writing to Carleton, 3 February 1601, charged that the Second Earl left his wife ‘as bare as he could . . . bestowing all on the young lord, even to her jewels’ (Chamberlain Letters. I, 100). This is inaccurate. The Second Earl’s will in Somerset House was a generous one. She was left £1,000 in cash, plate, jewels and household stuffs, and various properties. She was so wealthy that when the King granted her the manor of Amthill in 1615, she could spend £10,000 in building a mansion there (Young, Mary Sidney. pp. 82, 108); Maclean, Letters from Cecil. p. 57. Note: the text says ‘a jewell called a ffether of dimondes’. De Lisle. II, 519. Foster, The Register. p. 104: Spedding, The Letters. V. 135: Bald, John Donne. p. 385. Whyte reported to Sidney 28 December that Pembroke was still there (Collins, Letters. II, 262); Leeds Barroll, Politics. p. 39. Krueger, Poems . . . pp. 19, 72; ‘Epistle to the Countess of Devonshire’, John Donne, Poems; ‘Preface to the Reader’, John Donne, Poems; Onderwyzer, William Herbert . . . Poems. p. iii. Henry Lawes. p. 41. Note: Preface to the Reader, John Donne, Poems: Onderwyzer, William Herbert . . . Poems. p. iii. Kastner, Works of . . . II, 187. National Library of Wales, Peniarth MSS. 500b. ff. 30–31 Henry Lawes. pp. 38–9: K. Duncan-Jones, Shakespeare’s. p. 68. Onderwyzer, William Herbert . . . Poems. p. 2. Margaret Forey, ‘Manuscript evidence for the author of ‘Ask me no more,’ 181, 191. Onderwyzer, p. 2. William Herbert . . . Poems. p. 7: Nixon, ‘Aske me no more . . .,’ pp. 99, 130. BL Sloane MS.1446. f. 35: This misattribution is pointed out by Grierson in The Poems of John Donne. p. 389: Onderwyzer, William Herbert . . . Poems. p. 24.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 207

22/10/10 12:23 PM

208

N O T E S T O PA G E S 3 2 – 3 4

18 A Poetical Rapsody. 1602; Britannia’s Pastorals. 1613; ‘The Lord Chamberlain’s in the masque, “The Gypsies”’ (Herford, Ben Jonson. VII, 588); ‘Epistle to the Countess of Devonshire’, John Donne, Poems. p. 18. 19 Brydges, Imaginative Biography. II, 161–2; John Donne, Poems; DNB. IX, 682; Buxton, Sidney. p. 245. 20 John Donne, Poems. p. 8; Krueger, Poems of William Herbert. pp. XX, XXV. 21 Whyte to Sidney, 8 October 1595, Collins, Letters. II, 180; Whyte to Sidney, 15 October 1595, De Lisle MSS. II, 173; Whyte to Sidney, 29 October 1595, De Lisle MSS. II, p. 180; Whyte to Sidney, 22 November 1595, De Lisle MSS. p. 188; Mistress Carey was in love with Thomas Berkeley, who married her shortly after the collapse of the negotiations (Taylor, ‘Pembroke,’ pp. 47–8); Whyte to Sidney, 5 December 1595, Collins, Letters. I, 372; Whyte to Sidney, 8 December 1595, Collins, Letters. I, 374. 22 Mary Sidney to Lord Burghley, 16 August 1597, CSP Dom. 1595–1597. pp. 489–90; ‘Earl of Pembroke, to Lord Burghley,’ 16 August 1597, 1 CSP Dom. 1595–1597. p. 489; Discussions centred around the bride’s youth, and the consummation of the marriage. Further questions concerned intermediaries, and the residence of the bride during ‘the time of my son’s travel’. (‘Earl of Pembroke, to Lord Burghley,’ 3 September 1597,1 CSP Dom. 1595–1597. p. 497.) 23 ‘Earl of Oxford to Lord Burghley’, 8 September 1597,1 CSP Dom. 1595–1597. p. 499; Whyte to Sidney, 22 October 1597, De Lisle MSS. II, 297; Whyte to Sidney, 20 December 1597, De Lisle MSS. II, 305; Whyte to Sidney, 5 November 1597, De Lisle MSS. II, 302. 24 Tobie Matthew wrote to Carleton on 15 September 1598, that ‘there is speech of a match between my Lord of Pembroke’s [son], Lord Herbert, and Lady Hatton’. CSP Dom. 1598–1601. p. 95: The plans were afoot in September 1599 when Whyte wrote to Sidney, ‘Lord Pembroke is dangerously ill. I told Lady Warwick of your desire to be Lord President of Wales, and of Lord Pembroke’s purpose to resign’ (12 September 1599, De Lisle MSS. II, 389). Lady Warwick referred Whyte to Nottingham, about whom Whyte informed Sidney, ‘I mean to break unto him, as from myself, the marriage of Lord Herbert with his niece, and if you were here and wrought to deal in it, you might induce Lord Herbert and his mother to hearken to it. If anything advance you it must be this, for I see no other way’. (De Lisle MSS. II, 390.) The next day, upon being told that the Earl was out of danger, Whyte wrote, ‘I will now forbear the motion I meant to make to my Lord Admiral’. (De Lisle MSS II, 391). A week later Whyte wrote, ‘I perceive [Nottingham] would be glad to have [Lord Herbert] match in his house’. And, stressing the urgency of the negotiations, continued ‘you had missed the office in Wales if the Earl had died. It must be done while he lives, if at all.’ (De Lisle MSS. II, 392). Whyte’s hopes for the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 208

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 3 5 – 4 2

25 26

27

28

29 30

31 32

209

match continued through the following year, (De Lisle MSS. II, 419, 421–2, 424, 441, 477–8,) but by August 1600 even Whyte had to admit it was over. De Lisle MSS. II, 478. Cecil MSS. v. 85, f. 7: ‘Earl of Pembroke to Earl of Shrewsbury, August 29, 1603.’ For this and other letters re: the marriage see Young, Mary Sidney. pp. 101, 200. ‘Sir Thomas Edmondes to the Earl of Shrewsbury, 23 December 1601,’ Lodge, Illustrations. II, 224; ‘Pembroke to the Earl of Shrewsbury, 23 January 1604,’ as cited in Young, Mary Sidney. p. 101. PRO S.R. 179/70/1159; The First Earl married first Anne the daughter of Thomas, Lord Parr of Kendal, then Ann daughter of George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury. By his first wife he had Henry, Edward and Anna. Anna married Francis Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury. The Second Earl married first Catherine, daughter of George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, and secondly Mary, daughter of Sir Henry Sidney. William, The Third Earl, married Mary, daughter of Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury. (Clark, Limbus. p. 60.) Stone, ‘Marriage among the English nobility . . .’ p. 202: Lodge, Illustrations, III, 258, 271. Masson, Drummond . . ., p. 101. Drummond’s statement reads: ‘Pembroke and his lady discoursing, the Earl said the [sic] women were men’s shadows and she maintained him. Both appealing to Jonson, he affirmed it true, for which my lady gave him a penance to prove it in verse, hence his epigram’. As cited in Brown, Patrons . . . p. 80. Lodge, Illustrations. III, 316. ‘Seventh Earl of Shrewbury,’ DNB. XIX, 317–18: This is clear in Shrewsbury’s will. See: Brown, Shakespeare’s Patrons, p. 79.

Notes to Chapter Four: At the Court of James the First, 1603–1612 1 Microcosmos as quoted in Grosart, The Works. II, Preface: Salisbury MSS. XV, 58. 2 Akrigg, Jacobean. p. 51; Williams, Anne. p. 86; C.S.P Ven. 1605–7. pp. 114, 116, 206; CSP Ven. 1613–19. pp. 550, 572: Leeds Barroll, Politics, pp. 59–61; CSP Ven. (1603–7), X, 77. 3 Houlbroke, James VI and I, p. 84. 4 Mirum in Modum . . . 5 Microcosmos: Grosart, The Complete Works. II, 97. 6 Grosart, The Complete Works. I, liv. 7 Katherine Duncan-Jones, Shakespeare’s. pp. 59, 67–69; Many modern commentators agree with Katherine Duncan-Jones as to Pembroke being the dedicatee of the sonnets. For example. Peter Holland, Oxford DNB., v. 49, p. 940; Nicholson, Earls of Paradise. p.138 writes ‘It is perhaps impossible

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 209

22/10/10 12:23 PM

210

8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15 16

N O T E S T O PA G E S 4 2 – 4 7

now to read some of these poems as they might have appeared when their first manuscript copies were read, but if they do not illuminate the life of William Herbert, which they might, they at least illuminate for sure the world in which he lived, thought and felt.’ Nicholson argues that Pembroke is the ideal candidate for the young man of the sonnets. Edmondson and Wells, Shakespeare’. pp. 28, 36–39; ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Mirum in Modum (1602). Howell, Sidney. pp. 213–214, 218; Trevor-Roper, ‘George Buchanan,’ pp. 13, 38–9; Briggs, ‘Political Ideas,’ no. 2. p. 159, no. 4. p. 537; Weiner, Sir Philip Sidney; McElwee, The Wisest Fool. pp. 42, 38. Cobbett’s. II, 336. For example John Donne, Ben Jonson, Thomas Browne and Inigo Jones were, at one time or other, Catholics. In 1622 he donated £100 to rebuild St Paul’s (McClure, Chamberlain. II, 441); His gift of the Barocci MSS was a gift to the Church. For the help he gave to individual clerics and Church musicians see Chapter 6, for Pembroke at York House see Cosin, The Works of. II, 20–64; Pembroke’s anti-Arminianism was reflected in his chaplains. Thomas Lawrence, for example was noted for his anti-Arminian views (Cogswell, Politics, p. 176). CSP Ven. 1603–7. p. 114. CSP Ven. 1613–19. pp. 572, 550; Archbishop Abbot had four religious/ political priorities viz.: the propagation of the Gospel, the protection of the purity of English Calvinism, the persecution of English Catholics, and the defence of foreign Reformed Churches from the Catholic ambitions. This programme has been dubbed ‘political Puritanism’ by Dr Simon Adams. Pembroke agreed on all but the third (Fincham, ‘Prelacy’, p. 38). Chamberlain. I, 116. See Chapter 9; BL Cecil MSS. v. 76. f. 8. Pembroke owed Hickes various sums between 1601 and 1612. For what we do not know, as the Hickes were not moneylenders but agents for Cecil or the Crown. See Smith, Hickes and BL Lansdowne MSS. LXXXVIII, no. 11; XC, nos. 1, 21, 34; LXXXIX, no. 87; XCI, nos. 16, 26, 70; XCII, nos. 32, 35, 37, 93; As to selling land, Cecil spent £14,500 between 1611 and 1612, buying up land in the Dorset area, mainly from the Crown and Pembroke. (Stone, ‘The Fruits’, p. 106). Pembroke was also buying and selling land in this period, and it is not clear whether he was a net buyer or seller of land. For a fuller analysis of his land transactions see Chapter Nine. Akrigg, Jacobean. p. 51: Williams, Anne. p. 86: CSP Ven. 1605–7. pp. 114, 116, 206: CSP Ven. 1613–19. pp. 550, 572. For example, licenses for the transportation of beer and cloth, free from various duties, issued to the Duke of Argyll, Lord Kinloss, Montgomery and others. The value was £30,000. And in 1610 the King bestowed £8,000 each

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 210

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 4 7 – 5 1

17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27

28

29

30

211

on Montgomery, Viscount Fenton, Lord Haddington and Lord May. (Dietz, English Public. pp. 104, 107); List of the Earl of Pembroke’s Offices, May 1603; Also in December 1603 Pembroke was appointed ‘to use all good means for the preserving of his Majesty’s game of all sorts within the division called the Earl[dom] of Pembroke’. (P.R.O. Signet Office Docquets. ind 6801); Williams, The History of the Great Sessions. p. 152; The grant was for Clarendon Park with the Forests of Burkholt, Paweret and Melshin in Somerset and Wiltshire, and for the Stewardship of the Devizes in Wiltshire, the bailiwick of Burley in the New Forest, and the stewardship of Brecknock and Dynas in the County of Brecknock. (BL Egerton. Charter 418). P.R.O. Signet Office Docquets. 18 January 1604 and May 1604, Ind. 6801; Lewis, The Stannaries; For the political impact see Chapters 5, 8 and 10. Lodge, Illustrations. III, 162; Collins, Letters, 1, 217. Sawyer, Memorials. III, 181; The masque was Daniel’s Tethy’s Festival and had more significance for Pembroke than did the tilting. This masque declared the squabbles among his proteges, Samuel Daniel, Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones. He had great difficulties resolving these disputes. For details of these famous dispute see Chapters 6 and 7. Smith, The Life. 11, 17: ‘Extracts-from the Journal,’ VI, 17. Lodge, Illustrations. III, 359, 360, 361. Nichols, Progresses. II, 284. H.M.C. Downshire MSS, 216, 221; Lodge, Illustrations. 11, 83–4. Sullivan, Court Masques. pp. 2–3. Chambers, The Elizabethan. III, 279; For this masque see: Welsford, The Court. pp. 171–173; Taylor, ‘The Masque,’ p. 39 and note 14 on the same page. For a recent survey of the masque see: Butler, The Stuart Court Masque. For a good discussion of this masque see Taylor, ‘The Masque’; For a discussion of Jonson and Jones in court masques see Chapters 6 and 7. For example, in 1608 Pembroke was one of the twelve masquers in the Hue and Cry, a Jonson-Jones production. Participation cost each £300. As Montgomery was also a masquer, it probably cost Pembroke £600 (Gotch, Inigo Jones p. 46; Herford, Ben Jonson. VII,743). Cobbett’s. I, 1022; For Pembroke’s exploitation of the Forest of Dean see Chapter 9. Pembroke was, for example, partially bought out in 1615 for £4,100. (P.R/0. Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6805). On 28 May 1609, Pembroke was appointed one of the Councillors for Virginia. On 16 October 1609, Captain of Portsmouth, and on the same day was made Constable of Porchester Castle. For the economic impact of these appointments see Chapter 9: Ven. 1607–10. p. 394. ‘Pembroke to Cecil, July 8, 1611,’ CSP Dom. 1611–18. p. 58. Pauline Croft, Patronage. pp. 121, 141, 183.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 211

22/10/10 12:23 PM

212

N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 1 – 5 4

31 For his electoral influence prior to 1604 see the author’s preliminary study, ‘Politician, Patron, Poet: William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke., 1580–1630.’ Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1966. Chapter 4; Pugh, A History of Wiltshire VCH. V, 116–17. 32 Price was even a relative! (Neale, ‘Three Elizabethan,’ p. 238.) 33 Calendar of Wynn Papers. p. 36. 34 Pugh, History of Wiltshire. V, 116–17. Pugh thinks Pembroke controlled neither nomination in 1601. (Pugh, History of Wiltshire. V, 120.) Stone states that the patronage there prior to 1614 is hard to discern, even though Pembroke in 1620 claimed that he and his father had influenced elections there ‘this three score years’. He considers it likely that the Herbert influence was dominant at Old Sarum. I am inclined to agree with him. (Stone, ‘The Electoral Influence . . .’394); Pembroke definitely controlled one of the Downton seats from 1604 on, and from 1614 onwards controlled both. It is highly likely that he would have had great influence there in 1601. (Clark, Limbus Patrum. p. 318, Dunn, Philip Massinger. p. 6); Cardiff and Montgomeryshire were tightly controlled by the Herberts, though the seats for Monmouthshire and Glamorgan had to be shared with other county families (Dodd, ‘Wales’s Parliamentary’Apprenticeship.’ p. 70). 35 Cogswell, The Blessed . . . p. 104; The limits of Pembroke’s influence can be seen in his Welsh supporters. Discussing Pembroke’s proteges, Sir William Herbert, Matthew Davies, and William Price Dodd stated that ‘the Welsh bill of grace meant more to Davies and the Welsh butter bill to Price, than all Pembroke’s political manoeuvres; and Sir William Herbert was more convincing when he denounced the threat of the Irish cattle trade than when he tried to shoot Pembroke’s bullets for him in the Commons’. Dodd overstates his position. Davies and Price owed their seats directly to Pembroke and would hardly be in a position to take a truly independent line. Also, both members later sat for Pembroke’s English seats, Price at Old Sarum in 1614 and Davies for a Wiltshire borough in 1624 (Dodd, ‘Wales’s,’ p. 71). 36 John Wroughton, ‘Michael Oldisworth,’ Oxford DNB. v. 41. pp. 697–8. The West Country was also the area best for finding new seats for the Connection. The greatest concentration of borough seats, 60 to 70 MPs, was in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire (History of Parliament Database, 1). 37 J. Reeve, ‘William Coryton’, Oxford DNB., v. 13. p. 524. 38 Patterson, King James. pp. ix, 362–3; William Ravenscroft and Edward Leech, (one of Pembroke’s stewards) Old Sarum, Carew Ralegh (Downton), Thomas Morgan, Sir Thomas Edmondes (Wilton). In 1604 Pembroke controlled Old Sarum (Stone, ‘The Electoral influence’, p. 394), one of the Downton seats (Pugh, History of Wiltshire. V, 117). Pugh also thinks that Pembroke had to share Wilton with the Cecils, assuming Edmondes to be a Cecil nominee. It

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 212

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 4 – 5 7

39 40 41

42

43

44 45

213

is highly unlikely that Pembroke’s home seat of Wilton, a borough that he owned, would ever be influenced by anyone but a Herbert, and Edmondes was closely connected to Pembroke’s father-in-law and had been one of the principals in the Third Earl’s marriage negotiations. He remained closely connected to Pembroke from then on. Pugh is of the opinion that Pembroke had to share Old Sarum with the Cecils. Henry Martyn (Wooten Basset) (Wiltshire) is likely to be the Henry Martin who was Pembroke’s nominee for Oxford in 1628. The Third Earl owned much land in Wooten Basset and probably had the nomination of at least one of the two candidates there: Robert Hopton (Shaftesbury), a seat that had been under the control of the Second Earl of Pembroke. From 1601 to 1628 it returned at least one Pembroke nominee every election. Pembroke was the lord of the borough, and most of the electors were his tenants (Rowe, ‘The Electoral Influence’, p. 243); Sir William Herbert, Pembroke’s spokesman in the Commons, (Montgomeryshire), Edward Whittingham (Montgomery), Matthew Davies from Pembroke’s pocket borough of Cardiff; Philip Herbert (Glamorgan) until 1605 when he was made Earl of Montgomery. He was replaced by Sir Thomas Mansell. From Monmouth came one Pembroke nominee, J. Herbert. W. P. Patterson, King James. p. 342: Munden, ‘James I.’ 43–72; Lindquist, ‘The Failure,’ p. 650; Croft, ‘Wardship,’ p. 47. As quoted in Willson, ‘Summoning.’ p. 280; JHC. I, p.752. Pembroke answered the roll thirty-four times. This roll is, however, not reliable. For example, in 1628 Pembroke is down as ‘present’ and ‘excused’, and he reported a bill on 8 April of that year when he was down as absent. (JHL. III, 715–716, 731–732.) Also, in the parliament there is no mark of attendance at all from 6 May to 6 June. For example, Lord Zouch wrote to Pembroke 5 February 1624, thanking him: ‘for rightly construing his meaning in offering him his voice [proxy] in parliament, being wishful for it to be used for the good of church and country. Beseeches his lordship to protect in parliament the ancient privileges of the Cinque Ports which, through his absence, old age, and infirmity, may be attacked’. (SP Dom. 1623–5. p. 160.) de Kermaingant, L’Ambassade. Entry of 10 January 1604, v. l: The Earl of Shrewsbury was informed on 3 October 1604 that the Spanish Ambassador ‘. . . hath presented gifts to the Earls of Pembroke and Southampton’. (Nichols, Progresses. p. 458), McClure, Chamberlain. I, 324: CSP Ven. 1610–13. p. 356. CSP Dom. 1611–18. pp. 133, 140. Kreuger, Poems. p. 57; Pembroke and Cecil’s heir were the chief mourners at Cecil’s funeral; Peck, Northampton.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 213

22/10/10 12:23 PM

214

N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 9 – 6 3

Notes to Chapter Five: The Rise of the Favourites, 1612–1621 1 Peck, ‘Northampton,’ p. 551; Thrush, ‘The French’, in Clucas, The Crisis . . . 2 Peck, Northampton. p. 147. 3 Gibbs, King’s Favourite. p. 20; Thrush, ‘The French’, p. 29; Thrush, ‘The Personal Rule I, 84–102’ Politics, Religion; Bellany, The Politics. 43–45. 4 See White, Cast; Akrigg, Jacobean. pp. 190–205. 5 Turner, ‘Origin,’ pp. 187, 205. 6 Pembroke was appointed to the Privy Council on 28 September 1611 (De Lisle MSS. IV, 289.) For examples of his Privy Council activities in 1611 see CSP Dom. 1611–1618. pp. 97–9; From May to September 1613 Pembroke only attended sixteen of thirty meetings (Turner, ‘Origin,’ p. 188). Of the sessions in 1614, Pembroke attended all but one (Moir, The Addled, p. 183); Willson, ‘Summoning’, p. 287. 7 Tanner, English. p. 46; The electoral management of the Parliament of 1614, the use of ‘Undertakers’, has often been described as a part of Neville’s proposals, but it rightly belongs to Bacon. For this see Moir, Addled. pp. 10–22, and Roberts and Duncan, ‘The Parliamentary’. 8 As cited in Moir, Addled. p. 28. 9 As cited in Willson, The Privy. p. 33. 10 William Price, William Ravenscroft (Old Sarum), Sir Robert Sidney, Thomas Morgan (Wilton), Gilbert Raleigh (Downton), William Kent (Devizes). Raleigh was a family retainer at Wilton and Kent was Pembroke’s chief steward. This is not the limit of Pembroke’s support in Wiltshire for, of the thirty-two members, seventeen were Pembroke adherents or had similar links with the Court; (Moir, Addled. p. 49); From other English seats came Sir Simon Steward (Shaftesbury), Roger Palmer (Queensborough). The latter borough was under the control of Montgomery due to his office as Constable of the castle there (Rowe, ‘The Influence,’ 242–56); From Wales came Thomas Mansell (Glamorgan), Matthew Davies (Cardiff), Sir Robert Johnson (Mommouthshire), John Danvers (Montgomery), Sir William Herbert (Montgomeryshire). From the West Country came Edward Leech, (Lostwithiel). Leech was one of Pembroke’s secretaries. 11 Jansson, Proceedings, XIII–XXXIV; Moir, Addled. pp. 106–9: JHL, I, 470–1. 12 JHL I, 483; Sir William Herbert’s wife was a recusant though her husband was a staunch Protestant. Her name was omitted from the list while others in similar circumstances were included. This is probably due to Pembroke’s influence (Rowe, ‘Electoral’, p. 254); Perrot was a Pembroke supporter from 1621 on. This early he may have been part of the Connection, or his position in 1614 may have impressed Pembroke who recruited him after the parliament; Brewer, Court. I, 321.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 214

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 6 3 – 6 8

215

13 Committee re: wasteful consumption of gold; Conference with Commons re: Prince Palatine’s bill; Committee for bill for avoiding suits at law touching wills of land; Committee for the preservation of timber; Committee called to punish abuse of the sabbath (JHL. II, 686–711). 14 ‘Speeches and Notes . . .’ 11 fol. 26–26v. 15 Gardiner, History. II, 243. 16 Peck, Northampton. p. 62. 17 McClure, Chamberlain, I, 502, 542. 18 For of this see: Bald, Donne. pp. 123–5; P.R.O. SP.14/70, f. 46; It was reported in 1612 and 1613 that Pembroke and Somerset were reconciled. This latter reconciliation seemed to have lasted for a while, for Neville got Pembroke’s support for the Secretaryship in 1613 (Birch, Court. II, 210); H.M.C. Buccleuch MSS. I, 131: H.M.C. Mar MSS.Supplement. p. 51. 19 For Buckingham’s early life and his entry into the Court, see Lockyer, Buckingham. 20 Twenty-five peers were chosen to try Somerset, Pembroke and Montgomery being two of them (Somerset, Unnatural . . . pp. 379–80); Gibb, Buckingham. p. 14; Willson, James VI and I. p. 352; McClure, Chamberlain. I, 520 Birch, The Court. I, 313. 21 Clarendon, History. I, 10. 22 Brewer, Court. I, 336; Clenennau Letters,’ p. 90; APC 1615–16. p. 187. 23 Collins, Letters. II, 359; Gardiner, History. II, 368. 24 CSP Dom. (1611–18). p. 244; McClure, Chamberlain. I, 502, 520; The Commission to Compound for Defective Titles, Patent Rolls 10 James I. p. 6; Doyle, The Official Baronage. III, 24. Gardiner, History. II, 322–3. 25 Willson, Privy Councillors. 385; Smith, The United Kingdom. I, 453. 26 A more balanced modern view is Hirst, England in Conflict . . . p. 93 where he writes ‘James taste for lively and handsome young men became, and still is, notorious.’ But he goes on to say that this ‘stemmed not from the homosexuality that has often been alleged but from a socially accepted homosocial delight in physical fellowship . . . and a less socially accepted but still not necessarily homosexual taste for intergenerational relationships’. 27 Cuddy, ‘The Revival’, pp. 178–85. Pembroke effectively controlled the Bedchamber though, technically, it was beyond his jurisdiction (Sharpe, ‘The Image’, p. 253). 28 As cited in Orgel, The Illusion. p. 43. 29 Blackstone, Commentaries. IV, 215. 30 Elton, The Tudor. p. 371. 31 Aylmer, The King’s. p. 206. However, in the work published by the Society of Antiquaries, A Collection, the Lord Chamberlain’s salary is listed at £200 per annum.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 215

22/10/10 12:23 PM

216

N O T E S T O PA G E S 6 8 – 7 3

32 For a complete listing of the officials under the control of the Lord Chamberlain see Chambers, The Elizabethan. I, 38, 48–50 and Aylmer, The King’s, p. 473. 33 Chambers, The Elizabethan. pp. 233, 309; Nichols, Progresses. III, 260–1; Albright, Dramatic. p. 19; Finkelpearl, ‘The Comedians Liberty’, pp. 123–38; Murray, English Dramatic. II, 351. 34 As a Court correspondent reported: Most of our young court gallants are vanished like mushrooms, by reason that the day before the King’s going to Theobalds the Lord Chamberlain, by express order, told young Monson that the King did not like of his forwardness and presenting himself continually about him . . . And, if he would follow his [Pembroke’s] advice, he would likewise forbear the court. This was a shrewd reprimand and cross blow to some [the Howards] who, they say, made account to raise and recover their fortunes by setting up this new idol (Nichols, Progresses. III, 469). 35 Sir John Finett, Finetti; Sullivan, Court. 36 CSP Colonial, East Indies (1617–21). p. 61; B.L. Egerton MSS.2592, f.81; CSP Ven. (1621– 3). p. 620; Willson, Privy. pp. 410–11; P.R.O. S.P 14/152. f.89; CSP Dom. (1623–5). p. 404; P.R.O. S.P. 14/120. f. 82. 37 B.L. Egerton MSS.2592 f. 102; CSP Ven. (1626–8), p. 153; Stowe MSS 175. f. 380; P.R.O. S.P.14/67. 38 Moir, Addled. p. 153. ‘Consultation . . .’ B.L. Harleian MSS.4289. p. 224b. Alsop, ‘Privy Council . . .’ pp. 205, 207, 209, 210. 39 Spedding, The Letters of. V. 195, cited in Willson, ‘Summoning’, p. 290. 40 Nichols, Progresses. III, 458. 41 Pembroke was a relative of Raleigh, employed his half-brother Adrian Gilbert as housekeeper at Wilton, and one of Pembroke’s namesake cousins was a gentleman volunteer on the expedition. Pembroke may have partly financed the expedition and, with Arundel, pledged surety to the King that Raleigh would return. Willson, James VI. p. 369; Raleigh’s son, Carew, addressed him as his ‘noble kinsman’, (Birch, The Works of. II, cxviii); Buxton, Sidney. p. 190; Britton, The Natural. p. 90; Wallace, Sir Walter Raleigh. p. 266. 42 For example, Pembroke was interested in New England, was a Member of the Council for Virginia in 1609, and an incorporator of the Northwest Passsage Company in 1612. In 1626 he was one of the promoters of the original Guiana Company (Harlow, Colonizing. p. 149). For Pembroke’s overseas ventures see Chapter 10; Raleigh was not above utilizing his friends for his own ends, and his financial affairs do not bear too close scrutiny. See: Shirley, ‘Sir Walter Raleigh’s’, pp. 55–56, 68. 43 Birch, Raleigh. I, CXVIII; Wiltshire Notes. II, 142. 44 McClure, Chamberlain. I, 619–620; Brewer, Court. II, 462; CSP Dom. 1611–1618. p. 492 P.R.O. SP,14/93 f. 149; CSP Dom. 1611–1618. pp. 490–491. 45 Marquess of Downshire MSS, VI, pp. 272, 527, 981, 997, 1061, 1190.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 216

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 3 – 7 8

217

46 Brewer, Court. II, 174McClure. Chamberlain. II. 204.163.168; CSP Dom. 1611–18. pp. 566, 596; CSP Dom. 1619–1623. p. 8; Brewer, Court. I, 166. 47 P.R.O. SP.14/110 f. 54v, 94v; Lockyer, Buckingham. pp. 65–6. 48 P.R.O. SP.14/110 f. 94; McClure, Chamberlain. II, 275: Pembroke also clashed with the Villiers family in the Forest of Dean and this must have embittered relations. For this see Chapter 9. 49 H.M.C. Mar and Kellie MSS., Supplement. p. 188. It is also possible that the King may have encouraged these disputes, playing the game of divide and conquer. See CSP Ven. 1623–5. p. 196; Evans, Henry Lawes. pp. 35–7. 50 In 1617 Pembroke was awarded £900 from the Court of Wards. His brother, Montgomery, received £4,000 (Deitz, The Receipts. pp. 130, 168). In 1618 Pembroke and Arundel were awarded the fine of £20,000 imposed on the Countess of Shrewsbury by Star Chamber (P.R.O. Signet Office Docquets, Ind. 6805). The offices granted him were: Constable of the prison of Radnor and Steward of the Lordships of Radnor, Melleneth, . . . Presten . . . and Knighton, the manor of Glandestry, and the towns of Radnor, Knighton, and Presten on 5 July 1615, High Steward of Tutbury, Constable of Tutbury Castle. . . Steward of the town . . . of Newcastle Under Lyme . . ., 11 July 1616 (Doyle, Baronage. III, 25). Joint Commissioner for the Office of Earl Marshal, 25 September 1616, CSP Dom. (1611–18). p. 395. Commissioner of the High Court of Chivalry, 25 September 1616 (Squibb, The High Court. p. 232). Privy Councillor of Scotland, 29 July 1617 (Masson, The Register.) XI, 164; Chief Steward of Hereford, 1620 (Doyle, Baronage. III, 25); Lord Chancellor of Oxford, 29 January 1617 (Wood, Athenae. p. 882); Lord Lieutenant of Wiltshire and Somerset, April 1621 (P.R.O. Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6806). The exact date is given as 14 April in the Grant Book (P.R.O. SP 14/141. f. 339). 51 See Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 for the Chancellorship of Oxford. 52 Sainty, ‘Lieutenants of Counties 1585–1642’, p. 4; Barnes, Somerset 1625–40. pp. 100–3; P.R.O. SP.38/7, f. 58 P.R.O. Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6806. 53 Victor L. Stater, Noble. pp. 24, 29; Thomson, Lords Lieutenant. pp. 47, 77, 120–121, 126. 54 For example, the eating of meat in Lent (Thomson, Lords Lieutenant. p. 137); Wake, The Montagu. p. 1. 55 Barnes, Somerset. pp. 100–3: CSP Dom. (1619–23). pp. 33, 306. Notes to Chapter Six: ‘Thy Mother’s Glass’ 1 Clarendon, History. pp. 25–6; Goodman, The Court. p. 396; Baker, A Chronicle. p. 447; Wood, Athenae. p. 795. 2 Neilson, The Shorter Oxford Dictionary. p. 1973; Onions, The Shorter . . . p. 1449; Thompson, ‘The Literature’; Thomas Dekker, A Knight’s, 1607 in

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 217

22/10/10 12:23 PM

218

3

4

5 6

7 8 9

N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 8 – 8 0

Gebert, ed., An Anthology of. pp. 11, 21. Rosenberg, Leicester. p. 18. Rosenberg says one of the least understood aspects of patronage is that the writers were more interested in preferment rather than direct support. If one had a government office one had an income, or the leisure it afforded, to further advance oneself. Brennan, ‘Sidney,’ 430–1; Riggs, Ben Jonson as cited in Dutton, Mastering . . . p. 234. Authors such as Davison, Fraunce, Breton and Baxter. Schelling, ‘Sidney’s.’ pp. 100–13; Thompson, ‘The Literature.’ p. 113. With the exception of the royal family. In the standard work on the subject, Williams, Index, the author credits Pembroke with ninety-nine, Egerton with seventy-six, and Buckingham with fifty-six. In fact 110 works were dedicated to Pembroke, more than were dedicated to Earl of Leicester. Unfortunately Williams’ magnificent compilation is incomplete, and very difficult to evaluate. The word ‘dedication’ as it applies to some works is also open to question. For example, in G. H., The Mirrour of Majestie of 1618, Williams says the work is dedicated to Pembroke. The work has verses and emblems to thirty-three people, and the one to Pembroke is not qualitatively different. Williams was not able to analyse manuscript material, yet, for example, more than a fifth of the works dedicated to Sir Thomas Egerton are in manuscript (Heltzel, ‘Sir Thomas Egerton,’ 105–27). Also, Williams’ classification of dedications into dedications, editor’s dedications, publisher’s dedications, joint dedications, part dedications, and epistles, though perhaps necessary, makes it very difficult to weigh the importance of specific dedications, especially when the distinctions are at times somewhat arbitrary. Another problem is what to do with dedications like John Taylor’s Actes and Monuments, a 1 inch by 2 inch book made as a toy for the Court and dedicated to Pembroke. For example, Bishop Williams, The True Church (1629), dedicated to Pembroke and Montgomery, wrote, ‘I presume to present (this work) unto your honors, not to beg any patronage from your greatness . . . but because I truly honor your goodness’.; Drummond, ‘Notes,’ in Jonson, Timber. p. 14; In Herford, Ben Jonson. V, 25; As recorded in a diary kept by the Earl of Huntingdon in 1610. (Information supplied by Mrs Richard W. Foster of Ursinus College.) ‘Dedication to Pembroke’, Davids Penitentiall: Fennors Descriptions. 1616. Thorne, Ducente. Parry, Victoria: In Barret’s, The Theorike there are two dedications, one to Lord Herbert and one to his father; Dedication to Pembroke’, Davison, A Poetical, 1602; Dick Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 46; For a listing of the poetic works dedicated to Pembroke see Appendix. A Defence. (1602); ‘Dedication to Pembroke’. A Defence. Prefatory Epistle. Mirum in Modum (1602); Microcosmos (Oxford: 1603); Grosart, The Complete Works. II, 97. Grosart III, 97.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 218

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 8 0 – 8 4

219

10 His Wittes Pilgrimage. Williams does not list this; in Pollard and Redgrave, Short Title, it is given as tentatively 1605. Taylor, in his ‘Pembroke as Patron,’ p. 53, lists it as 1604; The Scourge. 1611; ‘Dedication to Pembroke’, John Davies, A Select; Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, pp. 53–4. 11 Michael O’Callaghan, ‘William Browne’, Oxford DNB. v. 8 pp. 222–5. 12 Brennan, Literary . . . p. 190; O’Callaghan. p. 224. 13 Bullen, Poems of William Browne. I, xxiv, 21, 23–25. Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 60. 14 Brennan, ‘Robert Sidney . . .’, 430–5; Herford, Jonson. I, 199; Linklater, Ben Jonson. p. 152; Chapman later dedicated one of his works to Pembroke and wrote an epistle to the Third Earl in his Homer. 1610. 15 Summers, ‘Inviting’, pp. 343–51. 17 Evans, Ben Jonson, pp. 109, 117–18. Helgerson, ‘Politics, . . .’, p. 22: Catiline. 1611; Herford, Jonson. II, 113, V, 431. 16 ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Herford, Jonson. VIII, 25: I, 83, 234; For a fuller discussion of this aspect of their relationship see Chapter 7. 17 Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 64: 18 May 1619, Postcript, BM Egerton. MSS 2592, fol. 81. McCullough, Sermons . . . p. 115n. 19 George Herbert was Pembroke’s fourth cousin (Summers, George Herbert. pp. 31, 33; Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron,’ pp. 62–63, states that in 1619 George Herbert was chosen orator of Cambridge and gave the university’s thanks to the King for one of his gifts. Herbert greatly impressed the King, who enquired who the orator was. Upon being told that he was a Herbert, he asked Pembroke if he knew him. Pembroke replied that ‘he knew him very well, and that he was his kinsman; but he loved him more for his learning and virtue than for that he was of his name and family’. The King asked ‘if he might love him too, for he took him to be the jewel of that university’. Taylor quotes Isaak Walton as his source but, as Walton often invented dialogue, the whole speech is suspect (Summers, George Herbert, p. 13). Herbert was orator at Cambridge though, and his kinsman Pembroke probably took the opportunity to introduce him to the King there, and generally furthered his career; Summers, George Herbert p. 35 and note on p. 208; Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 63 quoting Isaak Walton; Technically he received it from the Fourth Earl six days after the Third Earl died, but the latter was involved in the negotiations (Summers, George Herbert. p. 35); Malcolmson, Heart-Work . . . pp. 6, 17. 20 Summers, George Herbert. p. 31; Hutchinson, The Works. p. 183. The first two works ever dedicated to him, in 1592 and 1594, were religious works, and some religious poetry was also dedicated to him. In 1613 the first such poetry was dedicated to the Third Earl, but as not until did a religious poet actively

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 219

22/10/10 12:23 PM

220

21

22

23

24

25 26

N O T E S T O PA G E S 8 4 – 8 6

sought his patronage. In that year Robert Anton dedicated his Philosophers Satyrs to Pembroke, hoping for the Earl’s ‘noble patronage’. Anton was an acquaintance of Jonson and Daniel and thus may have been connected to the Pembroke circle, but it is not known if he obtained any preferment. Other religious writers dedicated works to Pembroke in the latter years of James’ reign (Fletcher, Christes, 1613; ‘Dedication to Pembroke’, Anton, Philosophers. 1616; In the same year Anton dedicated his Seven Satires. [Colin Burrow, ‘Robert Anton’, Oxford DNB. v. 2. p. 290]; DNB. I, 520). In 1623 Augustine Taylor sought out Pembroke as the patron of divine poetry when he dedicated to him his work The Defence. The following year George Goodwin dedicated to the Third Earl his anti-Catholic satire, Babels Balm, and the year after this Francis Quarles dedicated to Pembroke his Sions. On the occasion of Pembroke’s death in 1630, the religious poet John Earle penned a lament, but it is unknown whether Earle was patronized by Pembroke when the latter was Chancellor of Oxford, or whether the Oxford scholar was just writing a set piece to mourn a popular Chancellor. Probably it was a bid for favour from the Fourth Earl, who was strongly fancied to succeed his brother as in Oxford. He was successful in 1631, the Fourth Earl’s patronage when he made him his chaplain (Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 66). Rudyerd married Sir John Harington’s daughter who, through her grandmother, Lucy, daughter of Sir William Sidney, was one of Pembroke’s near relatives (Manning, Memoirs. p. 28); Hutchinson, Notable. p. 211, as cited in Bell, Court. p. 22; For Rudyerd’s involvement with Pembroke’s colonization ventures see Chapter 10. Morrice, Wales. p. 293; DNB. XIX, 15; One of his daughters was married to Pembroke’s secretary, Michael Oldisworth; ‘A Politike Discourse’; ‘ Dedication to Pembroke.’; Pembroke in 1625 would not support a work favourable to Catholicism or Arminianism. For the whys and wherefores of this question see Chapter 11. The only copy of this work is the manuscript copy in the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. For Stradling’s colonial ventures with Pembroke see Chapter 10; Another Welsh poet, John Owen, saluted Pembroke in his works. In his Epigrammatum of 1606 Owen included an epigram on Pembroke’s marriage (Brown, Shakespeare’s. p. 80). It is not known if Pembroke patronized Owen, but in the 1612 edition of his epigrams the same epigram appeared. In the 1618 edition the epigram was replaced by an epigram of general praise (Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 48). Homer. 1610; ‘Epistle to Pembroke,’ Homer. Solve, Stuart. p. 154; ‘Epistle to Pembroke,’ Homer. Chester, Thomas May. pp. 34–5, 44; The work as a whole is dedicated to the Earl of Devonshire. Lucan’s. Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 52. 28 London 1608. The title page reads, ‘Josiah Sylvester’ not ‘Josuah Sylvester’;

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 220

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 8 6 – 9 2

27 28

29 30 31 32 33

34

221

‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ The Second Session; The Sacred Workes. 1620; Grosart, The Complete’s. I, liv. London: 1614. The verses written on the death of the astronomer and mathematician, Henry Savile, were dedicated to the Third Earl, and in 1625 William Vaughan in his Cambrensium saluted Pembroke and his brother in a joint epistle. The former work may have been dedicated to the Chancellor as a matter of form, but the latter was a plea for patronage. In 1626 Vaughan dedicated the sixth edition of The Golden to Pembroke. Richard Bruch in his Epigrammatum in 1627 hailed Pembroke with an epistle and sought his patronage. The other epigrammist of the period dedicating a work to Pembroke was John Leech, Pembroke’s secretary, who dedicated a work to the Third Earl in 1620. (Ultima Linea Savilii. 1622; Musae Priores. 1620; Leech was one of Pembroke’s secretaries in 1621. [DNB. XI, 828]) London: 1614. Taylor, The Booke. 1616; Taylor, All the Workes of. 1630; Fennor, Fennors; Taylor’s Revenge, as cited in Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 59. Capp, The World of. p. 17; Abuses Stript. 1613; ‘Epistle to Pembroke.’ Shami, John Donne. p. 186. John Healey’s free translation of it, The Discovery, 1609, was dedicated to Pembroke; Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, p. 65; Yates, John Florio. pp. 283–4; Healey’s translation of St Augustine, 1610 was also dedicated to the Third Earl; Babel’s Balm. 1624. Harington, Epigrams. 1615; Posthumous dedication by the publisher John Budge (Hazlitt, Prefaces. pp. 269–70).

Notes to Chapter Seven: ‘The Greatest Maecenas’ 1 Paul Whitfield White, Shakespeare. pp. 45, 52; Dedication to Pembroke and Montgomery’; For this dedication see Taylor, ‘The Dedicatory,’ pp. 121–3. 2 See Richard Wilson, ‘Shakespeare,’ TLS. Dec. 19, 1997, pp. 11–13; E. A. J. Honigmann, Shakespeare’s. Peter Milward, ‘Shakespeare,’ Moreana. V. 42. 163; The Oxford DNB argues that there is no reason to assume that Shakespeare was a Catholic, though he may have been brought up a Catholic. 3 Taylor, ‘The Masque’, p. 21. This article is still the most useful survey of Jacobean court entertainments. 4 The anonymous and posthumous works dedicated to Pembroke are a tribute to his known religious fervour. Evans, Henry Lawes, p. 35 thought that Pembroke’s rights to clerical appointments were usurped by Buckingham. Contemporaries did not agree, especially the authors who dedicated their works to him. Evans may have misread the evidence. It is true that Pembroke’s steward, Michael Oldisworth, at the impeachment of Laud charged that ‘the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 221

22/10/10 12:23 PM

222

5 6 7

8

9 10

11 12 13 14

15

N O T E S T O PA G E S 9 2 – 9 5

Chamberlain by his place was to nominate chaplains to the king, and William, Earl of Pembroke, had a sole power to do it. And when I served the Earl of Pembroke as now as when he was Chamberlain I found the right so taken away from him that he did not nominate any’. Here Oldisworth is criticizing Laud, and perhaps Buckingham indirectly, but he is talking about the Fourth Earl as Lord Chamberlain (Bond, House of Lords MSS. XI, 439). Thorne, Ducente Deo. 1592 and Parry, Victoria. 1594. A World. 1607. ‘Richard Carew,’ DNB. III, 969–70; ‘Richard Carew’, Oxford DNB., v. 10, 60–1; Wright, ‘Propaganda,’ 171–2. Sheldon, A Survey. ‘Richard Sheldon,’ DNB, XVIII, 27; ‘Richard Sheldon,’ Oxford DNB, v. 50, 187–9. Lennard, The Bloudy Rage. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Samson Lennard, DNB. XI, 919. In the same year he dedicated his translation of Perrin’s Luther’s, invoking his service with Sidney at Zutphen (Jan Broadway, ‘Lennard,’ Oxford DNB. v. 41, pp. 697–8). Others were William Crashaw and Cornelius Burges. It is not known if they were successful in their appeal for patronage ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Adams, A Divine. As cited in ‘Thomas Adams,’ DNB. I, 102; ‘Thomas Adams,’ Oxford DNB., v.1, 260–1. Bush, English Literature. p. 314 note and The Works of T. Adams. Amussen, Kishlansky and Underdown, Political . . . p. 78. Other Calvinist writers dedicating works to Pembroke were John Reynolds, Thomas Hastler and William Walker. For their works, and all the other works dedicated to Pembroke, see Appendix. Dickinson, The King’s Right. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ The King’s Right. For Pembroke’s religious position see Chapter 4. ‘Griffith Williams,’ DNB, XXI, 401; ‘Griffith Williams,’ Oxford DNB, v. 59, 197–200. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Williams, The True Church. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Parsons, The Barren Trees. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Chaloner, Sixe Sermons. ‘John Prideaux,’ DNB, XVI, 354. ‘John Prideaux,’ Oxford DNB, v. 45, 342–5. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Jackson, A Treatise. ‘Thomas Jackson,’ DNB, X, 544–5 ‘Jackson was a “learned Arminian”.’ Curtis, Oxford. p. 184. Jackson was hoping to replace Prideaux as Regius Professor of Divinity. His Arminianism did not appeal to Pembroke and so Prideaux kept his place. Jackson was later appointed as Visitor of Corpus Christi at the King’s instigation in 1631 (Pembroke being safely gone). ‘Thomas Jackson,’ Oxford DNB, v. 29, 225–7. For example, the works of Burges, Godwyn, Wadsworth,Thornborough, Featly, Chaloner, Babington and Scott. Also the authors, L. A. and Jenney. For a full listing of these works see the appendices. Pembroke’s patronage of conformist Calvinists attracted a lot of people seeking patronage. Benjamin

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 222

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 9 5 – 9 8

16

17

18

19 20

21 22 23 24

223

Agar, one of the King’s pages, took notes of Bishop Montagu’s Ash Wednesday sermon in 1615 and presented them to Pembroke saying that just as the bishop had opened ‘the temple door of virtue’ in his sermon, so Agar hoped that the Third Earl would open to him ‘the temple of his honorable Favour and protection’ in exchange for his humble offering and in acknowledgement of Pembroke’s well known ‘devotion to religious exercises’ (McCullough, Sermons . . . p. 135). So does Robert Watt in his Bibliotheca, I, 486, but Watt titles the work Of the Internal. For Pembroke’s theological knowledge see his involvement in the York House conference concerning the Synod of Dort and the whole question of Arminianism see The Works of. II, 20–35, 49–64. In this tract of thirty-seven pages, there are quotations of seven and four pages. Better than 50 per cent of the work is biblical quotation. The tract talks of the Virgin Mary (p. 3), Purgatory (p. 17), and the Real Presence (p. 27). These are hardly the views of a Calvinist like Pembroke. The notation does not say ‘Third Earl’ as the British Library catalogue implies. Wheare, De Ratione. His name appears on the title page as Diggory Whear. Also dedicating works to Pembroke were Gentili and Wadsworth. For a full listing see Appendix. ‘Nathaniel Carpenter,’ DNB. III, 1070–1; ‘Dedication to Pembroke’ Carpenter, Geography. The sixth edition of Vaughan, The Golden and Zouch’s Elementa were also dedicated to Pembroke as Chancellor. ‘Nathaniel Carpenter,’ Oxford DNB, v. 10, 239. Herford, Ben Jonson. I, 35; Brown, Shakespeare’s. p. 70; Britton, The Natural History. p. 90. McKisack, ‘Samuel Daniel’, 226–7 ‘Samuel Daniel,’ Oxford DNB, v. 15, 71–7. For Wheare’s works dedicated to Pembroke see the Appendix. Wheare was very closely connected to the Pembroke circle. In his Epistolarum dedicated to Rudyerd, are five epistles to Pembroke, and his Degorei-Whaeri contains sketches of his friends who were Pembroke’s secretaries, John Thoroughgood and Michael Oldisworth. Gotch, Inigo Jones. pp. 33–4; ‘Edmund Bolton,’ DNB, II, 787; ‘Edmund Mary Bolton,’ Oxford DNB, v. 6, 481–4; Gotch, Inigo Jones. p. 44. ‘The Articles’ BL Lansdowne MS. 846 f. 120; Gotch, Inigo Jones. p. 44; Portal, ‘The Academ’, pp. 199–204; BL Lansdowne MSS. 846, f. 120. Ford, Honour. Ford also dedicated to Pembroke his Christes (Leech, John Ford. p. 124). ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Blount, trans., Ars Aulica. Brooke, A Catalogue. The first dedication was to the King, the second to Pembroke, Arundel, Buckingham, Lennox, Nottingham and Suffolk. ‘Francis Markham,’ DNB, XII, 1050; Epistle to Pembroke’ Markham, The Booke. Two other martial works were dedicated to Pembroke, one to Pembroke and

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 223

22/10/10 12:23 PM

224

25 26

27 28

29 30 31

32 33 34

35 36

37 38 39 40

41 42

N O T E S T O PA G E S 9 8 – 1 0 3

his father, Barret’s The Theorike in 1598 and, to Pembroke alone, Robert’s Compendium 1626. ‘Francis Markham,’ Oxford DNB, v. 36, 87–8. Hotman, The Ambassador. 1603; ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ The Ambassador. Moryson, An Itinerary. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ An Itinerary. The DNB. (XIII, 1070) states that Moryson ‘made an apparently vain appeal to the Earl of Pembroke, to accept the dedication’. ‘Fynes Moryson,’ Oxford DNB., v. 39, 450–1. As cited in Hazlitt, Prefaces. p. 273. By his death in 1630 Pembroke had an investment of £4,000 in the company (CSP Colonial, [1630–4]) p. 239. In 1619 Pembroke was the second largest individual shareholder in the company (Kingsbury, The Records). p. 86. Smith, The General History. Smith, The True. ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ The True. As quoted in Buxton, Sidney. p. 242. ‘Vaughan Williams,’ DNB, XX, 184; Vaughan, Naturall as cited in the DNB, XX, 184. ‘Rowland Vaughan,’ DNB, XX, 178–9 Vaughan, Most Approved. p. Q.2; ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Most Approved. ‘Rowland Vaughan,’ Oxford DNB, v. 56, 200–1. Freeman, English. pp. 1, 5. Daniel, trans., ‘The Worthy Tract’ as cited in Freeman, Emblems. p. 47; ‘Dedication to Pembroke and Montgomery,’ Vaenius, Amorum. Peacham, Minerva, as cited in Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron,’ p. 62; Henry Peacham,’ DNB XV, 579; Another one dedicated to Pembroke was G. H.’s The Mirrour in 1618. Most of the major emblemists – Henry Peacham, George Wyther, Samuel Daniel, Joseph Hall and Francis Quarles – all either dedicated works to Pembroke or were patronized by him (Bath, Speaking Pictures . . .). Buxton, Sidney. p. 242; Cunningham, Inigo Jones. pp. 16, 33. Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron,’ p. 62; ‘Inigo Jones,’ DNB, X. 101; ‘Inigo Jones’ Oxford DNB, v. 30, 527–38; Gotch, Inigo Jones. p. 92; Sainsbury, Papers of Rubens. p. 279; ‘Pembroke to Sir Edward Herbert,’ 9 November, (c. 1619–1623), Collections Historical. pp. 205–6. Wilkinson, Wilton House. I, xvi; Vertue, A Catalogue. pp. 4–7, 35, 44, 66, 90, 133–4. Wilkinson, Wilton House. II, 315, I, xvi. Cunningham, Inigo Jones. p. 18; Lees-Milne, Inigo Jones. pp. 130, 90. Taylor, ‘The Masque,’ p. 31; ‘Chamberlain to Carleton, January 16, 1619,’ McClure, Chamberlain. II, 201 Lees-Milne, Inigo Jones. p. 75; Palme,Triumph of Peace. p. 53, as cited in Akrigg, Jacobean. p. 84. Nicholls, Progresses. II, 155; ‘Whyte to Sidney, September 26, 1600’ Collins, Letters. II, 216; Herford, Ben Jonson. II, 265; Cunningham, Inigo Jones. p. 24. ‘Samuel Daniel’ DNB, V. 475–476, 479. As early as 1598 Jonson ridiculed

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 224

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 0 3 – 1 0 6

43 44 45

46 47

48

49 50

51

225

Daniel in his play, Every Man and followed it up with an attack in his Every Man the following year (Herford, IX, 45). Jonson also wrote, but did not publish, ‘A Discourse’, both against Campion and Daniel, especially the latter (Herford, Jonson I. 132) but probably abandoned this project when Daniel was assured of Pembroke’s patronage. Daniel’s work, A Defence, was the intended victim of Jonson’s discourse. Daniel retaliated against Jonson in the dedicatory epistle of ‘The Vision’, and both kept up the attack in the year following. For a good analysis of this feud see Taylor, ‘Samuel Daniel,’ Oxford DNB, v. 15, 71–7. For a discussion of the ‘stage war’ see Small, The Stage Fleay, A Chronicle. I, Herford, Ben Jonson. I, 24–8, Harrison, Elizabethan. pp. 150–80, and Ellis-Fermor, Jacobean. pp. 313–15. The last three are the most useful. Gordon, ‘Poet,’ p. 155; Taylor, ‘The Masque,’ p. 35. Gordon, ‘Poet,’ p. 170. This characterization is found in an epigram of Jonson’s of that year; it may even be earlier. As quoted in Gordon, ‘Poet,’ p. 152; Herford, Ben Jonson I, 245; Taylor, ‘The Masque,’ p. 36. Herford, Ben Jonson. VII, 743. Sabol, Songs. pp. 171–2; ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Hume, The First Part: ‘Tobias Hume,’ DNB, X, 235: ‘Tobias Hume,’ Oxford DNB, v. 28. 783; Price, Patrons and pp. 91, 106, 117, 171n; One other collection of Tomkins’ songs was published after his death in 1668 (‘Thomas Tomkins’ DNB, XIX, 937); ‘Dedication to Pembroke,’ Tomkins, Songs Thomas Tomkins,’ Oxford DNB, v. 54, 925–6. Spink, Henry Lawes . . . Evans, Henry Lawes p. 37. Possibly his family were Pembroke’s tenants, for in the manor of Chilmark and Ridge, Robert Lawes and his two sons were tenants of Pembroke’s (Kerridge, Surveys. p. 135); Poulton, John Dowland. pp. 277, 291; Evans, Henry Lawes. p. 26. Evans, Henry Lawes. p. 35; ‘Nicholas Lanier,’ DNB, XI, 575; ‘Nicholas Lanier,’ Oxford DNB, v. 32, 529–30; Philipps, ‘Crown,’ pp. 35–9. Sainsbury, Original Papers. p. 322; ‘Nicholas Lanier,’ DNB, XI, 576; Inigo Jones, when buying paintings for Pembroke and Arundel, was buying them from Nys. Ferrabosco had lodgings in Pembroke’s London home, Baynard’s Castle, possibly at the same time that Coperario did. The Second Earl had been the patron of Tobias Hume and the Fourth Earl was the patron of Alfonso Ferrabosco II and III, Thomas Lanier and Tobias Hume. Oddly enough the standard work on musical patronage in this period (Hulse, Musical, pp. 30, 77) says very little about the Third Earl’s patronage of music. Dutton, Mastering . . . pp. 227–30; Bawcutt, The Control . . . pp. 32–4; Albright, Dramatic. p. 19. The reversion of the office of the Master of the Revels was sold to Henry Herbert in 1623 by Sir John Astley, and ‘that the

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 225

22/10/10 12:23 PM

226

52 53 54 55 56

57

58 59

60

61 62

63

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 0 6 – 1 1 1

Lord Chamberlain exercised his influence is highly likely.’ A month later, ‘at my Lord Chamberlain’s motion’, Herbert was knighted by the King. Adams, The Dramatic. p. 8. Finkelpearl, ‘The Comedians’, pp. 123–38. Albright, Dramatic. pp. 27, 18, 51; Letter of 3 May 1619, as quoted by Kirshbaum, Shakespeare. pp. 199, 253. Albright, Dramatic. pp. 167, 165; Cogswell, ‘Thomas Middleton’, pp. 273–88; Dunn, Massinger. p. 174. Chambers, ‘Court’, p. 153; Adams, The Dramatic. p. 52; Fleay, A Biographical. I, 169. Dutton, Mastering. pp. 246–7. Fleay, A Biographical. II, 33–4; Taylor, ‘The Masque’, p. 21. Pembroke’s Men in July 1597 gave offence to the King with their play, The Isle; ‘full of seditious and slanderous matter, written by Nashe and Jonson, and played by my Lord of Pembroke’s Men at the Swan’, (as cited in G. B. Harrison, Elizabethan). Dunn, Massinger. pp. 5–6; Bentley, Jacobean. IV, 176; Bentley (IV, 751) states that Massinger was probably an Anglican. Dunn, Massinger. p. 22 states he was a Catholic. Britton, The Natural History. p. 91 says that Massinger was a servant of the Fourth Earl and had a pension of £20 or £30 p.a. Garrett, ‘Philip Massinger’, pp. 251, 257. Buxton, Sidney. p. 248; Solve, Stuart Politics. p. 154. Yates, John Florio. p. 205. Pembroke’s general patronage can be seen in his letter to the Stationers’ Company Court in 1619 ordering them, in the future, not to print any plays belonging to the King’s Men without their consent (Greg, The Shakespeare. p. 15). Yates, John Florio. p. 205; Wallace, ‘The Swan,’ p. 386; Murray, English. II, 92; Yates, John Florio. pp. 197, 205, 7, 10; Buxton, Sidney. p. 243. Pembroke was probably also taught French by Sanford, at least the latter taught French at Oxford (Curtis, Oxford. p. 138). In 1610 the publisher Thomas Thorpe published Healey’s work, Epictetus, and dedicated it to Florio. Thorpe thanked Florio for finding a patron (Pembroke) for Healey’s first work, ‘his apprentices essay’, St Augustine and hoped that he (Florio) would do the same for this work (Yates, Florio. p. 283). Yates, Florio. pp. 282, 313. Yates, Florio. p. 313. It is also possible that Pembroke never forgave Florio’s insult to his mother’s edition of the Arcadia (1593 edition) (Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix . . . p. 74). For example, in his dealings with Sir Henry Herbert, who was made Master of the Revels, and Edward Herbert, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who was ‘brought to court by the Earl of Pembroke, where he was knighted by King James’ (Lloyd, The Statesmen. p. 789 William Maurice, 7 August 1616) (Pierce, ‘Clenennau Papers’, p. 93). Collins, Letters. II, 196–7; Pugh, History of Wiltshire. III, 349–50.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 226

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 1 1 – 1 1 6

227

64 ‘Pembroke to Sir Julius Caesar, 21 December,’ 1603, BL Caesar Papers. 12,506, f. 119; Same to same, 17 November 1623, BL Additional MSS. 12,496, f. 53. 65 John Aubrey, as quoted in Britton, The Natural History. p. 77. Notes to Chapter Eight: Parliament and Politics, 1621–1625 1 CSP Dom. (1611–19). p. 360; Moir, Addled. pp. 152–3: SP/84 89/160 SP/84 89/160: CSP Ven. (1621–23). p. 620; CSP Ven. (1621–23). p. 620. 2 Moir, Addled t. pp. 152–3; Gardiner, History. III, 380. 3 Firth, House of Lords. p. 37. 4 He was only just a part of the ‘old nobility’, being the third earl of the second creation. He was also sensitive as to his family’s origins. In 1618 he officially changed his coat of arms to conceal the evidence of the bastard origin of his family (Michael Maclagan, ‘Genealogy,’ in Fox, English Historical. p. 40). 5 Patterson, ‘King James I,’ in Mews, Religion. p. 334. 6 Dodd, ‘Wales’s Parliamentary,’ p. 51. 7 BL Egerton MSS 2592. p. 102. 8 SP14/120 f. 82 SP/81 19/17. 9 SP14/110 f. 81. 10 Bell, Court of Wards. p. 22. Rudyerd married Sir John Harrington’s daughter who, through her grandmother Lucy, daughter of Sir William Sidney, was a near relative of Pembroke (Manning, Memoir. p. 28). 11 Carew Raleigh (Downton) John Kent (Devizes), Thomas Morgan, Sir Thomas Tracy (Wilton), Owen, Marquess of Salisbury MSS. XXII, p. 136. 12 Seddon, Letters of John Hollis. v. 2. pp. 247–8; Salt, ‘Sir Thomas Wentworth’, p. 148. James Palmer, William Frowde (Queensborough), Percy Herbert, Ralph Hopton (Shaftesbury). Pembroke did not hold the seat there in 1614 against Northampton’s nominee. Sir John Trevor (Bodmin) and Sir Thomas Trevor (Saltash) (Dodd, ‘Wales’s Parliamentary’, p. 70). Gruenfelder, Influence. p. 129 credits Pembroke with the Callington election also. At Oxford, the Chancellor, was given the nomination of one member (Rex, University. pp. 97–115). In 1621 this member was Sir Clement Edmondes. But when the other member, Sir John Bennett, was expelled, he was replaced by Sir John Danvers. Danvers was related to Pembroke by marriage (Rowe, ‘Influence’, p. 251) and had sat for the Connection seat of Montgomery in 1614 (Rowe, ‘Influence’, p. 250) William Price (Glamorgan), William Herbert (Cardiff), Sir Edmund Morgan (Monmouthshire), Edward Herbert (Montgomery) and Sir Charles Herbert (Montgomeryshire). A new member was Charles Price (Radnor), Pembroke’s agent in Radnor (Dodd, ‘Pattern’, p. 41). William Ravenscroft, who had been replaced by Cecil’s nominee at Old Sarum, now sat for Flint. For the information re: Ravenscroft’s connection to the Pembroke patronage network I am indebted to Dr Louis A. Knafla.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 227

22/10/10 12:23 PM

228

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 1 6 – 1 2 1

13 The earls of Bedford, Derby and Kent, and Lords Audley and Wharton (with Wharton, old wounds, it seems, had healed) (J.H.L. III, 4). From February to December 1621, Pembroke sat on 14 different committees, and was on the subcommittee with the Commons on the Lloyd case (Appointment to Committees Book, ff. 1–48). 14 Pembroke had a good attendance record. He answered 50 out of 80 roll calls from 28 May to 4 June. His absences were probably due to court business and illness (J.H.L. III). On 17 March 1621 the Third Earl was appointed to the committee to meet with the Commons re: their demands for redress of grievances (BL Braye MSS. II, f.14). 15 For example, see his comments on the Lloyd case in Gardiner, Notes. p. 66; Notestein, Commons Debates. III, 183. 16 Gardiner, Debates. p. 72. 17 Birch, Letters. pp. 276, 356. 18 Relf, Notes. pp. 19–20. 19 Notestein, Commons Debates. IV, 343–4, 447; Cobbett’s. I, 1304. 20 Actually, he only sat on eight committees, four of them by virtue of his being a burgess from a port town (J.H.C. I, 527, 529, 597, 611,621,626). Notestein, Commons Debates. IV, 294, 314; Notestein, Commons Debates. II, 125; It is almost impossible to discover which Ravenscroft or Price gave what speech, as there were two Ravenscrofts and four Prices, and only seldom were first names given. W. Price probably spoke the most among the Prices. Dodd, ‘Wales’s’ p.41–2. 21 Dodd, ‘Wales’s,’ p. 47. 22 Cobbett’s. I, 1275. 23 Cust, ‘Prince Charles’. 24 Cobbett’s. I, 1304. 25 Tanner, English Constitutional. p. 49. 26 Birch, Court. II, 281, 287; Willson, ‘Summoning’. 296; Ibid., p. 297. 27 Pursell, ‘James I,’ pp. 428, 443–5. 28 For example Commission for Exercising Office of Earl Marshal, 1 August 1622 (CSP Dom. [1611–18] p. 395). Commission concerning inventory of the Wardrobe, 29 October 1622 (Grant Book S.P. 141141 f. 352). Commission for Office of Earl Marshal, 17 July 1623 (BL. Add. MSS.6297 f. 188), ‘Ecclesiastical Commissioner concerning redress of grievances’ 14 February 1623, (CSP Dom. [1619–23]. p. 491). Commissioner to treat with the Dutch concerning an alliance, (Valaresso to the Doge and Senate, 3 May, 1624. CSP Ven. [1623–5] p. 293). Lord Digby was to replace Pembroke as Lord Chamberlain (Schofield, Knyvett. p. 56). 29 Chamberlain to Carleton, 8 March 1617, Birch, Court. II, 462; Chamberlain to Carleton, 8 August 1618, McClure, Chamberlain. II, 163 Chamberlain to

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 228

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 2 1 – 1 2 4

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

229

Carleton, 20 August 1618, ibid., p. 168: Chamberlain to Carleton, 23 January 1619, ibid., p. 204; Sir Thomas Wynn to Carleton, 28 January 1619, SP. Dom. 1619–23, p. 8; Rev. Thomas Larkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, 24 May 1619, Birch, Court. I, 166; Chamberlain to Carleton, 8 January 1620, McClure, Chamberlain. II, 281; Chamberlain to Carleton, 9 June 1621, ibid., II, 381; Chamberlain to Carleton, 20 October 1621, ibid., II, 401. In the years 1599 and 1600. See Collins, Letters. II, 152, 156, 61, 164, 172. For 1619 see BL Sackville MS. 44. See also NicholIs, Progresses. IV, 883–4. There is no evidence that he was ill in 1629. However, he was ill with gallstones in 1628 and 1630. Pursell, ‘The End.’ Valaresso to Doge, 5 January 1624, CSP Ven. (1623–5). pp. 182–3; Bamford, A Royalist’s. p. 6. Valaresso to the Doge on 26 January 1624, reported that the reconciliation had actually taken place. CSP Ven. (1623–5). p. 202. For a discussion of this see Gardiner, History. V, 178–9; Chamberlain to Carleton, 21 January 1624, CSP Dom. (1623–5). p. 156. On 12 February, Sir William Pelham wrote to Secretary Conway about Buckingham, Pembroke and the Spanish Match, stating that Pembroke ‘was always supposed not to favor it.’ CSP Dom. (1623–5). p. 162; Chamberlain to Carleton, 31 January 1624, CSP Dom. (1623–5). p. 156; As in 1625 and 1626, to quote Conrad Russell, ‘Pembroke allowed his hostility to Spain to beat his hostility to Buckingham by a short head’. Parliaments. p. 148. This was Pembroke’s position as he confided it to the Venetian Ambassador. (Valaresso to Doge and Senate, CSP Ven. (1623–5). p. 216; Gardiner, History. V, 261.) Gardiner states that Prince Charles reconciled Pembroke and Buckingham, and that before parliament began Pembroke was ‘an unwavering supporter of the government’ (History. V, 180). If Pembroke ever did ally with Buckingham and/or become a ‘supporter’ of the government, as opposed to momentarily agreeing with its aims, it was after the Parliament of 1625, and not before the Parliament of 1624. For Sir Edward Vere see R. C. L. Sgroi, ‘The Electoral’, p. 323; Arundel Castle, Autograph Letters 1617–1632, f. 261 VCH Wilts. VI, 66; Michael Oldisworth, Sir T. Cotton (Old Sarum); Thomas Morgan, Philip Herbert (Wilton); Edward Herbert, Clipsby Crewe (Downton); John Kent (Devizes); Matthew Davies unknown Wiltshire seat. For Oldisworth and Stradling see Rowe, ‘Influence’, p. 243. There is no direct evidence that John Kent was a Pembroke nominee, but his family were Pembroke’s stewards at Devizes (Moir, Addled. p. 49). For Davies, see Dodd, ‘Wales’s,’ p. 71; John Stradling (St Germans), John Trevor and Sir Thomas Trevor, East Loo and Saltash respectively, and William Coryton the county seat. The two Trevors were connected closely

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 229

22/10/10 12:23 PM

230

37

38 39 40

41

42

43 44

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 2 4 – 1 2 7

to Pembroke, (Dodd, ‘Wales’s’, pp. 69–70), and Coryton was Pembroke’s Vice-Warden of the Stannaries. R. Palmer and R. Pooley (Queensborough), J. Thoroughgood (one of Pembroke’s secretaries), W. Whitaker (Shaftesbury). Pembroke, as Chancellor of Oxford, had the nomination of one, but usually fought for both seats. Of the two members in 1624, Sir George Calvert and Sir Isaac Wake, probably Calvert was Pembroke’s nominee. It is also possible that Sir Richard Wynn, returned for Ilchester, was a Pembroke nominee (Dodd, ‘Wales’s’, p. 68). The MP for Woodstock was P. Carey. In 1621 Pembroke had both seats, but usually only one. The influence there was Montgomery’s William Ravenscroft (Flint), Charles Price (Radnor), George Herbert (Montgomery), Sir William Herbert (Montgomeryshire), Sir Edmund Morgan (Monmouth), William Price (Cardiff) and Robert Mansell (Glamorgan). For the new member, Mansell, see Dodd, ‘Wales’s’, p. 70. As cited in Clarendon, History. p. 10. The parliaments of 1621 and 1625 were a political apprenticeship for Prince Charles and yet, apparently, he learned little from them. Rudyerd remarked that Charles was ‘a prince bred in parliament’ and yet he completely mismanaged his early parliaments. He treated parliament as a continuous institution not an ‘institutional event’ and assumed his 1624 influence would persist into his new parliaments. It is to be doubted if he realized just how transient parliaments were (Kyle, ‘Prince Charles,’ pp. 613, 622). Yale University Library, Gurney MSS. ‘Diary’, pp. 41–2. Ibid., p. 101. Willson, Privy. p. 165. For Mansell’s views as they differed from Rudyerd’s, i.e. a soldier as opposed to a religious zealot’s, see ‘Diary,’ Gurney MSS, p. 126; D’Ewes MSS. p. 174; Erle MSS. p. 128. All at Yale: Dodd, ‘Wales’s,’ pp. 63–4. The J.H.L. (III, 205) gives six proxies for Buckingham and four for Pembroke (Bedford, Derby, D’Arcy, Abergavenny). This is incomplete. Pembroke had at least one more, Lord Zouch’s (Lord Zouch to Pembroke, 6 February 1624, CSP Dom. (1623–5). p. 160. For the text of this letter see Chapter 4, note 53. In the first session, to 25 March, of seventy-two roll calls he missed only twenty-one, most of these coming from 5–15 March, when he was probably busy at Court. Compared to 1625, his attendance was very good. Gardiner, Notes’s, p. 2. Russell, Parliaments. p. 159. 27 February, Gardiner, History. p. 7. This was Pembroke’s usual position. He did vary from it though in 1624. 4 March, Gurney MSS. p. 75. This may have been his usual opinion, but he did not always stick slavishly to it. SP 14/176 f. 34. BL Harleian MSS, 1580 f. 445, f. 447. CSP Ven. (1623–5). pp. 196, 202; CSP Dom. (1623–5). p. 162; Lockyer,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 230

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 2 7 – 1 3 4

231

Buckingham; p. 202; Russell, Parliaments. p. 148; Adams, ‘Foreign Policy,’ p. 159; CSP Ven. (1623–5). p. 511. 45 Baker, A Chronicle. p. 447; Clarendon, History. pp. 25–6 Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis. p. 795. Notes to Chapter Nine: Improving Landlord 1 Stone, Entrepreneur. pp. 14–15; Matthews, Cardiff Records. IV, 133. 2 For the Third Earl’s inheritance see the will of the Second Earl dated 18 January 1595. Somerset House. 3 Close Rolls. C54/2293, C54/1616; Close Rolls. C54/2410, 20 November 1619: Close Rolls. C54/2786, June 1629. 4 As cited in Simpson, Wealth. pp. 17–18. 5 ‘Rev. Joseph Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville, April 17, 1630,’ Birch, Court and Times. II, 73; For the indebtedness for the years 1616–1627, and the two recognizances totalling £25,000 see Index of Recognizances at end of notes. 6 For recognizances concerning Sanford see the Index of Recognizances; Close Rolls. C54/1638, 41 Elizabeth (Stockman); Close Rolls. (Morgan). 7 Warner, Epistolary. p. 3; Matthews, Cardiff Records. V, 513; For recognizances concerning Morgan, 1602–27, see the Index of Recognizances; Chancery Decree Rolls. C78/456; Close Rolls. C54/2184, C54/1872; Chancery Decree Rolls. C78/206. 8 Donald, Elizabethan. p. 300; DNB. XI, 827–8. 9 Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy. p. 760. 10 Britton, the Natural History. II, 88; Aylmer, The King’s Servants. pp. 205–6; Close Rolls. C54/2829. 11 Straton, Survey . I, XXVIII, XLVI–XLVII; Colvin, The King’s Work. IV, 50–2; 12 £6,970 (Kerridge, Agrarian Development p. 494); £11,140 / 9 /6 (Bright MSS. BR185a); £6,994 /8 /3 (Elmhirst MSS. EM1353/3); Clay, Economic Expansion. I, 89. 13 Chancery. C78/226; Chancery. C78/457; Cases re Shrewsbury lands; Chancery C2 E22/43, C2 P44/26, C2 Plg/22, C2 P6/64, C2 Plg/32, C2 P65/17, C2 P58/54, C2 P57/12, C2 23/1; Other land disputes: Close Rolls. C54/2825, C54/2520, C54/2686, Chancery. C21 P3/7, C21 P13/5, C21 P8/8, C781440, C2 Pl/53, Chancery Decree Rolls. SP46/76, f.243; Cases re: entry fines and recognition money: Chancery. C78/159, C78/319, C78/457, C78/509, Exchequer. 151/39/3, 150/68/15; Cases with wife: Close Rolls. C2 P55/5, Chancery C78/226; Cases re: timber and church presentations: Close Rolls. P54/45, C3 P415/75, C2 P63/60, C2 P23/18. 14 Kerridge, ‘Movement’, p. 34. 15 Birch, Court and Times Charles I. II, 73; Talbot MSS. II, 332, 300; Stone, Crisis, p 110.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 231

22/10/10 12:23 PM

232

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 3 4 – 1 3 8

16 Coward,’ Disputed Inheritances,’ pp. 202–203; Bebbington, Bright MSS. p. 1. 17 Signet Office. Docquet Ind. 6805, September 1618; Patent Rolls. C66/2184; Signet Office. Docquet Ind. 6805, March 1619; In 1621 Pembroke received another inheritance, the estate of his deceased mother. She died intestate, so the Third Earl gave Montgomery all her personal estate and kept for himself only the lands that had belonged to his father (Chamberlain Letters). II, 400. The Calvinist Pembroke and the Catholic leaning Arundel were great friends, a contemporary calling them ‘the Countess of Shrewsbury’s Court Sons. It was her two Court sons in 1617 who were very concerned about the estate of the widowed Countess. One commentator wrote that the Countess was going mad and that her Court Sons were anxious about the disposition of her estate. ‘They have desired of the king the protection of her estate and the fruits thereof they will enjoy if she mend not.’ He further added, though how accurate his information is we do not know, ‘that which chiefly works her to this (madness) is an apprehension that she shall be poisoned.’ As cited in: Peck, Court Patronage. p. 71. 18 Salisbury MSS. XIX, 196; Hawkins, Sales of Wards. p. 212; CSP 1611–18 . p. 456; Jones, Exchequer. p. 260; Signet Office. Docquets Ind, 6808 November 1629. 19 Smith, Servant of Cecils. p. 158; See the monies borrowed in the Recognizances for Debt. Smith, ‘Sir Michael Hickes’, Oxford DNB. v.37, p. 13 20 See the Recognizances for Debt for the years 1602–1611. 21 See the Recognizances for 1616–1627. 22 BL Sloane MSS. 1044, f. 261; Wellborn, Philip Herbert. 23 BL S.P.46. v.62, ff. 29-30 (£12,400.2.2); DNB. I, 619: Lodge, Illustrations. III, 203: Deitz, English Public Finance. p. 105, note 10, CSP.Dom.(1628-9). p. 465; Deitz, English . pp. 107, 168, 165, 160, 130 n. 24 Stone, ‘The Fruits’, p. 206; V.C.H. XIII, p. 44; Talbot MSS. II, 294; Close Rolls C54/1991. 25 Close Rolls C54/1817, C54/1884, C54/1930, C54/1969; Close Rolls C54/1872; Pembroke got Knighton back in 1618 after paying off the debt (Close Rolls C54/2339), and it was made part of the jointure of Elizabeth Craven when she married one of the Herberts in 1622 (Close Rolls. C54/2520); Close Rolls C54/1969. 26 Chancery Decree Rolls C66/1855; Chancery Decree Rolls C78/206; Bowen, Lion and the Throne. p. 527. 27 Close Rolls C54/1960; Close Rolls C54/2856. 28 Close Rolls C54/2177 Close Rolls C54/2211; Lord Chamberlain Recognition Rolls LC4/48. 29 Patent Rolls C66/1614; Close Rolls C54/1875; Patent Rolls C66/1656; Close Rolls C54/1963, C54/2300.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 232

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 3 9 – 1 4 5

233

30 Roberts, Mitre and Musket. pp. 5, 55, says Williams purchased the property very cheaply. However, the contemporary John Hacket wrote: ‘William, Earl of Pembroke, his noble friend, made the bargain with him to purchase his grandfather’s lands in Wales . . . for which he disbursed ten thousand pounds, not much more to be added to the seller, which he borrowed.’ (Hacket, Scrinia Reserata. p. 60); Brewer, Court and Times. I, 313; S.P.46 v.65, f. 40. 31 Close Rolls C54/2388; Close Rolls C54/2400; V.C.H. XIII, 22; Colvin, The King’s Works. IV. 237–240. 32 Close Rolls C2 P47/57; Close Rolls C54/2581; CSP Dom,(1627–8). p. 113; Close Rolls C54/2703; Close Rolls C542688; Stone, An Open Elite. p. 163; Close Rolls C54/2795; Close Rolls C54/2757. 33 Close Rolls C54/2688; Patent Rolls C66/2175; Patent Rolls C66/2285; Close Rolls C2 P47/63; Close Rolls C54/2520; Brewer, Court and Times. I, 313. 34 Patent Rolls C66/2285; Patent Rolls C66/2292; Close Rolls C54/2566; Close Rolls C54/2688. 35 Patent Rolls C66/2406; Patent Rolls C66/2436; Parkmansworth was sold for £4,509.13.8; Patent Rolls C66/2448; Patent Rolls C66/2553. 36 In 1603 Pembroke paid out £307 2s. for a collar of gold and two chains given by the King to the Duke of Wurtemburg and others (Signet Office Docquets Ind. 6801); In 1604 the Third Earl paid out £156 14s. 4d. for a gold chain given to a servant of the Duke of Guise (Devon, Issues of the Exchequer. p. 10); Signet Office Docquets Ind. 6807; Signet Office Docquets Ind. 6808; 37 The most interesting payment made to Pembroke was in 1627. He was reimbursed £125 to pay ‘Daniel Mittens (Mytens), His Majesty’s Picturer’ for various pictures of the King, Notes to Chapter Ten: Aristocratic Entrepreneur 1 Stone, ‘The Entrepreneur’, p. 21. The will of the Second Earl: Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6801; BL Egerton Charter. 418; Exchequer. E315/243. f. 175; Doyle, The Official. III, 24 Signet Office Docquets. S.O. 6802; Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6803; Cockayne, The Complete, X, 413; CSP Dom. (1629–31). p. 417 CSP Dom. (1629–31). p. 53. 2 Cox, The Royal. p. 177. 3 Cox, The Royal. p. 321. 4 Lewis, The Stannaries. p. 79. Schubert, ‘The King’s,’ p. 153. Hart, The Royal. p. 89. 5 CSP Dom. (1603–10). p. 395. Nicholls, Personalities. pp. 28–30. Docs. James I. SP38/10. 6 As cited in Jenkins, ‘Iron Making,’ p. 48. Close Rolls. C54/2013. 7 Hewins, English Trade. p. 14; Sharp, In Contempt. p. 183; Hart, Industrial History. pp. 10, 12.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 233

22/10/10 12:23 PM

234

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 4 5 – 1 5 3

8 Sharp, In Contempt. p. 195; CSP Dom. (1611–18). p. 144; Sharp, In Contempt. p. 195; VCH Gloucestershire. II, 272. 9 Nicholls, Forest. p. 24. 10 Willcox, Gloucestershire. p. 193; Nicholls, Forest of Dean. p. 25. 11 Hammersley, The Crown. p. 149. Note: Ibid., p. 155; Shubert, ‘King’s Ironworks’, p. 221; As cited in Economic History III, 157–8; Hammersley, The Crown. p. 159. 12 Acts of the Privy Council (1613–14). p. 279; Jenkins ‘Iron Making’. p. 51; Schubert, The King’s. p. 154; Jenkins, ‘Iron making’. pp. 48–49; Close Rolls The Earl of Pembroke and Rex. February 1615. C54/2262; Signet Office Docquets Ind. 6805. 13 Hart, The Royal Forests. p. 102; Sharp, In Contempt. p. 202: CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 457; CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 408; CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 415; Close Rolls. C54/2790. 14 Price, English Patents. pp. 49–50, 51, 55–58; Lewis, The Stannaries. pp. 41–42 notes: Carr, Select Charters. pp. 5, 15. 15 Lipson, Economic History. II, 174–5; Hamilton, English Brass. pp. 17, 19–20, 25–26, 40–44; Scott, Joint Stock. p. 44; Schubert, Iron and Steel. p. 294; Hamilton, English Brass. p. 48. 16 Donald, Elizabethan Copper. pp. 93–4, 242, 300, 57; Rees, Industry. I, 104; DNB. XV, 906. 17 Hamilton, English Brass. p. 34; Scott, Joint Stock. pp. 41, 395, 398–401. 18 Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6801. Jan. 18,1604; For the best analysis of this see: Lewis, The Stannaries: Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6801. May 1604; For the political influence see Chapters 8, 11 and 12; ‘Appts. in the Gift of the Lord Warden’; SP14/28. f. 130. 19 Lewis, The Stannaries. p. 144; Quinn, The English. p. 467. 20 SP46/62, ff. 29–30. Rees, Industry. I, 86. 21 Wilkins, History of the Iron Trade. p. 19; Penrice and Margam MSS II, 58, 62; Chancery Rolls. C2 P16/15. 22 Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6807, July 1625, June 1627. 23 Donald, Elizabethan. p. 57; Scott, Joint Stock. II, 371. 24 Howel, Epistolae. p. 3; Brown, Genesis. II, 941; Lipson, Age of Mercantilism. III, 365. 25 Rabb, Enterprise. p. 13. Note: Brown, Genesis. II, 922; CSP Colonial East Indies, (1513–1616). pp. 17–18. 26 Rowse, The Elizabethans. pp. 22–3; CSP Colonial East Indies, (1513–1616). p. 37: Buxton, Sidney. pp. 53–4. 27 Brown, English Politics. p. 15. 28 CSP Colonial East Indies 1617–11. pp. 212, 114, 327. 29 CSP Colonial East Indies 1625–29. pp. 95, 104, 111.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 234

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 5 3 – 1 6 0

235

30 Somerset, Unnatural. pp. 11–12; CSP Colonial East Indies (1625–1629). pp. 174, 182; Hill, Century. p. 38; CSP Colonial East Indies (1625–1629). p. 239. 31 Rowse, The Elizabethans. pp. 22–3: CSP Colonial East Indies (1513–1616). p. 37CSP Colonial East Indies (1513–1616). pp. 239–240; Clark, Account of Mansel. p. 14. 32 CSP Colonial (1574–1660). p. 84; Thornton, ‘A Happie Shipwreck’, in Harlow, Colonizing. p. 148. 33 ‘Letter from the Council of Virginia to the Corporation of Plymouth, February 17, 1608/9,’ as cited in Brown, Genesis. I, 239; SP14/141 165 Grant Book: Kingsbury, Records. III, 85–9; Brown, Genesis. 1, 209, 228, 231. 34 Kingsbury, Records. III, 85–89; Scott, Joint Stock. 1, 185; Kingsbury, Records. III, 29; Bemiss, The Three Charters. p. 791. 35 For these dedications see Chapter 7. 36 Andrews The Colonial Period., I, 128–31; Robinson, Land Grants. p. 19; Kingsbury, Records. III, 480, 587, 241; Neill, ‘Earliest efforts’, p. 64 note. 37 Stopes, Life of Southampton. p. 425; Brown, English Politics. p. 32. 38 Peckard, Memoirs of Ferrar. pp. 90, 124–6, 131–2. 39 Brown, Genesis. II, 681; Brown, English Politics. p. 27; Peckard, Nicholas Ferrar. pp. 115–6. 40 C038/1 Charter and Entries of the Bermudas. ff. 6, 9; Smith, The Generall Historie. p. 663; Lefroy, Memorials I, 346: Wilkinson, The Adventurers. p. 211. 41 Deane, ‘Letter from the Virginia Company’, p. 245; Brown, English Politics. p. 15. 42 Deane, ‘Records of the Council’, pp. 53, 54–6, 64. 43 Crump, Colonial. pp. 29, 33. 44 Smith, A Continuation. p. 893. Notes to Chapter Eleven: At the Caroline Court, 1625–1627 1 Rushworth, Historical. I, 167, 197; Lewkawski, Cornwallis. p. 74; CSP Dom. (1625- 6). pp. 10, 12; Turner, ‘The Origin’, quoting the Tuscan Ambassador, 2 May, 1625. 2 Lewkawski, Cornwallis. p. 74; With Lord Treasurer (Ley), Lord Admiral (Buckingham), Secretary of State (Conway) and Lord Brooke; Birch, Court. I, 21; Young, ‘The Council of War’, note p. 25; Lockyer, Buckingham. p. 236. 3 Gregg, King Charles I. p. 122; For example, see: June 1625 Signet Office Docquets Ind. 6807; July 1625 Ind. 6807; December 1625 Docquet; CSP Dom. (1625–6). p. 194; Doyle, Official Baronage. II, 26; For example: a commission concerning the East India Company, 6 May 1625 CSP Dom. (1625–6). p.19; Commission re: the draining of the Fens, July 1625 (Signet Office Docquet.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 235

22/10/10 12:23 PM

236

4

5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 0 – 1 6 4

Ind. 6807); Commission for making Knights of the Bath, 30 January 1626 (CSP Dom. (1625–6.). p. 239). Docquet, 23 October 1627, CSP Dom. (1627–8), p. 403; 5 November 1627 SP 38 /14, f. 240. For example, in June 1627, one of these leases was regranted at £134 per annum instead of the previous £60 16s. 5d. Pembroke and his associates also had to pay the fine of £2,509 16s. 8d. (Signet Office Docquets Ind. 6807). The Third Earl was also granted 10,000 cords of wood yearly from the Forest of Dean at 6s. 8d. per cord, or £3,333 per annum, the grant being for twenty-one years. ‘Earl of Kellie to Earl of Mar, August 15, 1625,’ Mar and Kellie MSS. Supplement, p. 233 Sir John North to Robert, Earl of Leicester, 17 October 1625, Collins, Letters, II, 364. ‘Pembroke to Earl of Leicester, October 19, 1625,’ ibid. p. 365. ‘Sir Arthur Ingram to Sir Thomas Wentworth, November 7, 1625, Knowler, The Earl of Stafforde’s. I, 28. Warwick, Memoires. p. 5. Tyacke, Arminianism. p. I; Notestein, Commons Debates 1629. p. lIv. Willson, Privy Councillors. p. 169. The percentages are cited in Hirst, Authority. p. 128. Wiltshire returned Michael Oldisworth, John Stradling (Old Sarum), Edward Herbert, Clipsby Crewe (Downton), Thomas Morgan, William Harrington (Wilton). Oxford Thomas Edmondes, John Danvers, Shaftesbury and Portsmouth members it had in 1624, Queensborough (R. Pooley), and Monmouth Pembroke’s agent, William Morgan and William Steward. Cornwall, Sir John Trevor (East Looe), W. Carrington (Liskeard), J. Fullerton (St Mawes), Richard Weston (Callington). For Fullerton’s connection see Rowe, ‘Influence’, pp. 249–50, and for Weston see Willson, The Privy. p. 81. Of the Welsh members, seven had held the same seat in the previous parliament, only Sir Sackville Trevor was a new adherent. For Trevor, see Dodd, ‘Wales’, p. 21. For the information re: Ravenscroft’s part in the Connection, I am indebted to Dr Louis A. Knafla. Pembroke’s proxies were from Lord Sheffield, Lord D’Arcy, Lord Deyncourt, Lord Zouch, Lord Huntingdon (JHL III, 431); Johnson, Fairfax Correspondence, pp. 5, 8 Seddon, Letters of Holles. II, 304. CSP Dom. (1625–6). p. 13. Journal of the House of Commons. I, 806; Pugh, VCH Wilts. V, 113; Stone, ‘Electoral Influence’, p. 395. Gregg, King Charles I. p. 127; BL Harleian 1581 f. 368. Gardiner, History. V, 345–6. Tanner, English. p. 55; Dodd, ‘Wales’, pp. 22–3. Kyle, ‘Attendance . . .’, p. 58, Kyle, ‘It will be a Scandal’, p. 181. J.H.L. III; He answered the roll eight times out of twelve.(J.H.L. III); Willson, The Privy Councillors. p. 54.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 236

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 5 – 1 6 6

237

16 Collins, Letters. II, 359; CSP Ven. (1625–6). p. 139; ‘Sir Arthur Ingram to Sir Thomas Wentworth, November 7, 1625,’ as cited in Willson, The Privy. p. 180; Some of the others involved were Richmond, Lennox, Hamilton, Montgomery, Essex, Say, Salisbury, Sheffield and Mulgrave (Warwick, Memoires. p. 16). 17 Rushworth, Historical Collections. p. 198. 18 ‘Sir John North to Robert, Earl of Leicester, October 17, 1625,’ 11 Collins, Letters. II, 363; North had written to Leicester that: ‘it is true there hath been no great conversation between the Duke and my Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Montgomery, but it hath been only a strangeness rather than an open dislike, and for the King’s countenance toward the two lords, it is the same it was wont to be’. Gardiner in his History VI, 30 cites this and remarks that their estrangement was at an end. North would, of course, put as favourable a gloss possible on the estrangement to his patron so that the Earl of Leicester would not unduly worry about the position of his patrons, Pembroke and Montgomery. The estrangement was not at an end, but Pembroke now had to be much more careful in the means he used to oppose the favourite. 19 Gardiner, History. VI, 24–58; Ibid., pp. 8, 59. 20 ‘Rudyerd to Nethersole, November 23, 1625, CSP Dom. (1625–6). p. 156. 21 ‘James Howel to Buckingham, February 18, 1626,’ Howel, Epistolae, p. 170; ‘Sir James Bagg to Buckingham, March 1626,’ CSP Dom. Addenda. (1626–49). p. 112. 22 Wiltshire provided at least six. Oldisworth, Rudyerd (Old Sarum), E. Herbert, H. Doddington (Downton), T. Morgan, J. Evelyn (Wilton). Oxford two, Sir John Danvers, Sir Francis Steward, (Rex, University 107–27), Woodstock one, Edmund Taverner (Williams, Parliamentary History, p. 200). The Connection was strengthened tremendously in Cornwall, or perhaps, for the first time, we have evidence of the breadth of Pembroke’s influence there. Sir James Bagg, Buckingham’s agent, surmised that Pembroke controlled five seats in Cornwall: Coryton (County), Sir R. Mansel (Lostwithiel), Sir Francis Steward (Liskeard) or replacement as he sat for Oxford, Sir Clipsby Crewe (Callington), William Murray (Fowey). (Gardiner, Notes by Sir James Bagg. pp. 325–6). Rowe (‘Electoral’, pp. 246–8), concedes that the first three were Pembroke nominees. Willson (‘Privy’, p. 183) thinks all five were. Crewe had previously sat for the safe Pembroke seat of Downton in 1624, and Callington had returned a Pembroke nominee in 1625. As to Murray being a Pembroke nominee it is highly likely. Pembroke had tremendous influence in Cornwall, and Fowey only had thirty-eight electors (Oldfield, Representative. III, 307). Also, Sir John Eliot was a Pembroke adherent (Rowe, op. cit., pp. 249–50). Sir R. Weston came in from Bodmin, instead of Callington which he had represented in 1625, and J. Cudleigh replaced Sir J. Trevor at East Loo. Francis

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 237

22/10/10 12:23 PM

238

23 24

25 26 27

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 6 – 1 6 8

Courtenay sat for Grampound, replacing Sir Benjamin Rudyerd who sat for Old Sarum (Return Members of Parliament. I, 468). Monmouth returned two Connection MPs, again in 1626, W. Herbert, N. Arnold and Shaftesbury the soon to be famous Dr Turner. The name of the other Connection member for Shaftesbury is unknown. Sir John Fullerton took Rudyerd’s seat at Portsmouth, a seat relinquished by another Pembroke adherent, Sir William Harrington (Willson, Privy Councillors. p. 185). Queensborough a Connection nominee in R. Pooley, and Pembroke’s secretary, John Thoroughgood, was elected for Derby, (Rowe, op.cit., p. 248, Pugh, VCH V, 126), Sir James Perrot came in from an unknown English borough in 1626 (Dodd, ‘Wales,’ p. 34). Wales produced six members in 1626: John Stradling (Glamorgan), W. Price (Cardiff), Henry Herbert (Montgomery), Sir W. Herbert (Montgomeryshire), Charles Price (Radnor) and William Ravenscroft (Flint). It is also possible that Sir Thomas Lake was part of the Connection, at least Sir John Hippisley, when he wrote to Buckingham, assumed that Lake was (‘Hippisley to Buckingham, Feb. 2, 1628,’ CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 541). The J.H.L. III, 491, gives Buckingham thirteen proxies, Pembroke five, and Montgomery two. John Chamberlain credits the Duke with eleven and Pembroke and Montgomery with eight. CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 273. Chamberlain is probably more correct as to the relative strength of the Duke and Pembroke. ‘Rudyerd to Sir Francis Nethersole, February 3, 1626,’ CSP Dom. (1625–6). p. 246. Davies, The Early. p. 35; Gardiner, History. VI, 63–4. Russell, in his Parliaments. p. 298, argues that Buckingham’s conversion to Arminianism was too recent and little known after the York House conference, and that Arminianism was only a minority issue at this juncture. But the Commons certainly knew about it, Calvinist leaders like Pembroke definitely did, and Laud was Buckingham’s confessor. Professor Russell cites Rudyerd’s letter to Nethersole of 22 April 1626, (SP 16/25/46) in which Rudyerd wrote: ‘My Lord Chamberlain in his opinion doth think it fit His Majesty should stand neutral towards the Arminians, lest he should give them too much countenance, and make the Prince of Orange more confident and obstinate than otherwise he could be.’ But Rudyerd was strongly anti-Arminian, as was his patron, and the above comments are likely the remarks of one who knows that the King and Buckingham are now privately committed to Arminianism but hopes that they will not make their commitment public as it would be injurious in both domestic and foreign affairs. Donagan, ‘The York’, pp. 312–29; Asmussen, Kishlansky, Political Culture, p. 78. Donagan, p. 312 quoting Fuller, The Church. (1635) XI, 125. S. R. Gardiner, ‘Notes by Bagg’, p. 325.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 238

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 8 – 1 7 3

239

28 Cobbett’s. II, 45. For the reasons behind Eliot going into opposition to the Crown see: Hulme, ‘The Leadership of Eliot,’ and Hinton, ‘English Constitutional’. For Eliot’s connection with Pembroke see: Rowe, ‘Electoral’, pp. 249–50, (Hulme, Eliot, pp. 103, 162, 305). Pembroke’s constitutional theories were very close to those of Eliot. Eliot was influenced by Bodin and thought that a country would be well governed if it possessed a wise and tactful monarch who allowed no favourites and ruled in harmony with parliament. He thought the evil lay in the person of the monarch, not the system itself. Eliot placed the king under the law but thought he should be counselled, not controlled by a Council (Hoe, Origin. pp. 266–8); Gardiner, History. VI, 62–3; Ball, ‘Faction’, p. 205; Davies, Early Stuarts. p. 62. 29 Forster, Sir John Eliot. I, 285; Gardiner, History. VI, 68; Russell, Parliaments. p. 288. 30 Sir W. Herbert, Edward Herbert, Mansell, Stradling, Fullerton, Eliot, Coryton, Rudyerd. The three Herberts, Rudyerd, Fullerton, Coryton, Eliot, Stradling, Sir Thomas Morgan, William Price. (J.H.C. I,832); Hulme, Eliot. pp. 113–14; Rowe, ‘Electoral’, p. 248; Snow, ‘New Light’, p. 62n. 31 Ball, ‘Faction’, p. 184. 32 J.H.C. I, 854. 33 Tanner, English Constitutional. p. 59. 34 Gardiner, Debates in the Lords. pp. 114–15. 35 Pembroke answered the roll fifty-nine times, missed twelve times and was excused ten times (J.H.L. III). For example, in the period from 11 February to 24 May, Pembroke sat on at least fourteen important committees. The J.H.L. III, 499–589, says he sat on fifteen, the ‘Committee Book’, H.L. Record Office, fols. 2–46 says he sat on fourteen. Both lists agree on twelve of the committees on which he sat: Firth, House of Lords. p. 44; Gardiner, History. VI, 71–2. 36 Newman, ‘Draft Will of Arundel’, p. 696; J.H.L. III, 589; Gardiner, History. VI, 121. 37 McClure, Chamberlain. II, 52. 38 Hunt, A Summary Catalogue. I, 94; Acta.Con. (1615–1628). f. 35v. Acta.Con. (1615–1628). ff. 65–65v. 39 Acta.Con. (1615–1628). ff. 49, 77, 120, 120v. DNB XVI, 354, as cited in Tyacke, Arminianism. p. 120. 40 Acta.Con. (1615–1628). f. 155v–156: SP 38/13; Signet Office Docquets. Ind. 6808. 41 Chalmers, History of Colleges. p. 39; Fuller, Church. p. 37; Salter and Lobel, VCH Oxford. p. 293. 42 Acta.Con. (1615–1628). ff. 216, 217, 262v, 263; T.C. The Just Man’s Memoriall. 43 CSP Dom. (1628–9). pp. 111, 361, 408: Tyacke,‘Puritanism’, in Russell, Origins. p. 133.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 239

22/10/10 12:23 PM

240

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 7 3 – 1 8 0

44 Sharpe, ‘Laud’, pp. 146–7; Philip, The Bodleian. p. 60; Pointer, Oxoniensis. p. 138. 45 Brown, Shakespeare’s. p. 70; Macray, Annals of Bodleian. p. 68. 46 Hunt, A Summary Catalogue. pp. 99, 107; Magdalen MSS 281. f. 18. When the Bodleian was rebuilt in 1613 one of the biggest contributors was Pembroke who donated one hundred pounds (Tyacke, University of Oxford, v.4. p.140). 47 Athenae. p. 466; DNB, VI, 1140–1144. 48 Featley, The Grand Sacrilege. ‘Dedication to Pembroke.’ Daniel Featly was Archbishop Abbot’s chaplain and Licenser of Books from 1617–21, and it is ‘in the control and manipulation of the licensing process which emerges as one important means by which the religious middle ground (i.e. Abbot, Pembroke et al.) was defined and controlled in the early Stuart period.’ (Milton, ‘Licensing, . . .’, pp. 625, 628. The most recent historian of the University of Oxford, Nicholas Tyacke, argues that Pembroke was a ‘benign, though not noticeably active Chancellor, intervening to settle academic disputes over dress, protecting the university against threatening moves from the city and acting promptly on royal initiatives’ (University of Oxford. V. 4., p. 190). For someone involved in so many spheres, it is not surprising that Pembroke could not devote more time to his beloved university. Dr Tyacke does, though, to a certain extent, damn with faint praise. Notes to Chapter Twelve: The Lord Steward, 1627–1630 1 CSP Ven. (1525–6). p. 13: Birch, Court. 1, 123; CSP Dom. (1625–6). p. 396. It is possible the delay was due to Pembroke not being ready to bestow his estate on his nephew. (Birch, Court. 1, 135); H.M.C. XI Report Appendix I, p. 82. 2 Mar and Kellie MSS. Supp. p. 237. 3 Shepherd, Charles I. pp. 68, 81, 349–50 4 Ibid., pp. 352–54. 5 Cust, The Forced. pp. 11, 237. 6 Elton, The Tudor. pp. 395–6; Aylmer, The King’s p. 111. 7 His allowance for diet was £1,845 per annum (Aylmer, ibid., p. 205). Aylmer puts the Lord Steward’s income at c. £2,000 per annum. But, when discussing Pembroke as Lord Chamberlain, he adds in the proceeds of other offices out of court (e.g. the Stannaries). He must have assumed that these offices belonged to the office of Lord Chamberlain, not to Pembroke personally. Even with the gifts and grants Montgomery received, it is inconceivable that his income, even just comparing income from office, was in any way comparable to Pembroke’s in the years 1626–30. 8 Chambers, The Elizabethan. I, 34–5; Society of Antiquaries, A Collection. pp. 281, 308–9.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 240

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 8 0 – 1 8 3

241

9 CSP Ven. (1626–8). p. 572. 10 Cust, Forced Loan. pp. 82–3, 84, 101; Birch, Court. I, 171, as cited in Cust, Forced Loan. p. 229n. 11 Hulme, Life of Eliot. p. 185; CSP Dom. (1627–8), p. 541; Willson, Privy Councillors. p. 202; Hulme, Eliot. p. 162. 12 Though Pembroke held both seats at Downton (Edward Herbert and Rudyerd), and Wilton (Morgan and H. Doddington), had to share Old Sarum with the Cecils and could only return Oldisworth (Stone, ‘Electoral Influence’, pp. 398–9). Cornwall gave him six seats: Coryton (County), Lord Carey (Grampound), H. Grenville (Fowey), W. Murray (E. Looe), J. Chudleigh (Lostwithiel), F. Steward (Liskeard). Oxford returned, Henry Marten and John Danvers (Rex, University Representation. pp. 114–5), and E. Taverner from Woodstock. Monmouth returned two Connection MPs, so did Shaftesbury (Thoroughgood, and J. Croke). Queensborough returned R. Palmer, but Pembroke lost Portsmouth to Buckingham. Wales returned seven: Mansell (Glamorgan), L. Morgan (Cardiff ), Perrot (Haverfordwest), R. Lloyd (Montgomery), Sir W. Herbert (Montgomeryshire), Charles Price (Radnor) and W. Ravenscroft (Flint). Ravenscroft was later replaced by R. Wynn. For example, see Rudyerd’s speeches (Notestein, Commons Debates. pp. 57, 116, 137, 167), and those of Coryton (pp. 19–20, 34–5, 64, 70, 121–2, 129, 149). The opposition to arbitrary taxation finds expression mainly in the speeches of Eliot, Rudyerd and Coryton. For example, Rudyerd (Notestein, Commons Debates. p. 9) and Price (ibid., p. 169). 13 22 March. Cobbett’s, II, 234–5. 4 April. (‘Diary of the Parliament of 1628’, Yale University Library, Nicholas MSS. p. 16). The speech given by Cobbett (op.cit., III, 272–3) is an almost totally different speech. 14 18 April. ibid., II, 545; 28 April. ibid., II, 336. 15 Gardiner, Constitutional. p. 69. In this speech of 18 April, he stated that ‘the very scope and drift of Magna Carta was to reduce the regal to a legal power’ (Cobbett’s. II, 335–6). 16 On 3 June (Cobbett’s. II, 385–7). On 16 May he spoke against other abuses in the Church, and in favour of better maintenance of the ministers (‘Diary of the Parliament of 1628’, Yale, Grosvenor MSS. p. 176), and on 6 February 1629 he spoke against Arminianism in the universities. (Fuller, Ephemeris. p. 253) 3 June 1628. (Fuller, ibid., p. 178). Fuller dates this speech May 1628. Cobbett’s dates it correctly as above. 17 ‘The King’s speech proroguing parliament,’ 26 June. J.H.C. I, 919–20. 18 Pembroke was more active in this parliament, in 1628 answering the roll forty-four times, absent eight times, and excused seven times. Though the roll calls are inaccurate, they are a fair indicator of Pembroke’s increased activity. (J.H.L. II and IV). Between 20 March and 14 May, 1628, Pembroke

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 241

22/10/10 12:23 PM

242

19 20 21 22

23

24 25

26

27 28 29 30

31 32

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 8 3 – 1 8 9

sat on nine important committees (ibid., III, 671–794). 22 April 1628 (Relf, Debates. p. 126). 9 May 1628 (ibid., p. 148). Onions, Oxford. p. 24; CSP Dom. Addenda. (1625–1649). p. 290; CSP Ven. (1628–9). p. 262. CSP Dom. Addenda. (1625–49). pp. 290, 295: CSP Dom. (1628–9). p. 409: S.P.16/121. f. 66. Birch, Court. I, 378–9, 440. CSP Dom. (1628–9). p. 333; Again the negotiations came to naught, probably because Montgomery wanted to succeed Pembroke as Lord Steward. (CSP Ven. [1629–32]. p. 263); Docquet, 8 September 1629, CSP Dom. (1629–31). p. 53. For example, the Forest of Dean (2 March 1627, CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 76); Forest of Exmoor (Signet Office Docquets, Ind. 6807); Manors of Kirkmansworth and Pinchfield in Herts (Signet Office Docquets, Ind. 6807); The wardship of Richard Neville, heir of Sir Henry Neville (Signet Office Docquets, Ind. 6808); See, for example, CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 574; CSP Dom. (1628–9). pp. 117, 178–9, 333, 407; CSP Dom. (1628–9). p. 174; June 1628. Signet Office Docquets, Ind. 6808; CSP Dom. (1628–9). p. 269. Tanner, Constitutional . p. 68. Cust, ‘Was there an Alternative?’ On religion: Rudyerd (Notestein, Commons. pp. 57, 116, 137); Coryton (ibid., pp. 19–20, 34–5, 64, 70, 121–2, 129), Eliot (ibid., pp. 24–8, 33–4, 116–117, 121, 155, 220); On impositions: Coryton (ibid., pp. 22–3, 61, 142, 197–8), Eliot (ibid., pp. 23, 32–3, 60–61, 108, 113, 121, 142–3, 196–7). On the Three Propositions: Eliot (ibid., pp. 240–61), Coryton (ibid., pp. 255, 261–2). In the notes of 2 March of the Commons Debates, only Coryton and Eliot of the Connection were recorded as having spoken. I think the Three Propositions were too radical for the Connection as a whole. They may have agreed with the sentiments, but not the strong language the Propositions were presented in, or with the manner of their presentation: Reeve, Charles I. p. 89. Gardiner, History. VI, 366; CSP. Relating to English Affairs. (1629–32). p. 93. Cope, Politics. p. 35n. Hirst, England . . . p. 133. CSP Dom. (1623–5). p. 451; Collins, Letters. II, 366; Ibid., p. 370; CSP Dom. (1627–8). p. 281; Letter to the JPs of Cornwall, 21 May 1628 (APC. 1627–1628). p. 439; Hoare, South Wiltshire. V, 364; Kennett, Life of King Charles, p. 61. Kennet, loc. cit. Echard, The History. p. 448: Wood, Athenae. II, 482; Wiltshire Inquisitions. p. 101; Clarendon, State’s. II, 230; Birch, Court. Charles I. II, 73. Clarendon, State Worthies. II, 230: Birch Court . . . Charles I, II, 73

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 242

22/10/10 12:23 PM

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 9 1 – 1 9 2

Notes to the Epilogue 1 2 3 4

CSP Ven. (1629–32). p. 329. As cited in Taylor, ‘Pembroke as Patron’, pp. 65–6. Long, Diary. p. 136. T. C. The Just Mans Memorial. p. 14.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 243

22/10/10 12:23 PM

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 244

22/10/10 12:23 PM

Bibliography

MANUSCRIPTS BRITISH LIBRARY Additional MSS. Braye MSS. Caesar MSS. Cotton MSS. Egerton MSS. Harleian MSS. Heath MSS. Lansdowne MSS. Sackville MSS. Salisbury MSS. (British Library Microfilm) Sloane MSS. Stowe MSS. Yelverton MSS.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES Chancery Rolls. Chancery Decree Rolls. Charters and Entries of the Bermudas. Close Rolls. Exchequer Rolls. Grant Book (SP 14) Herbert MSS., French Embassy 1624. Lord Chamberlain’s Book, James I. Lord Chamberlain Recognition Rolls. Lord Steward’s Book, Charles I. Patent Rolls.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 245

22/10/10 12:23 PM

246

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Signet Office Docquets. State Papers, Domestic, James I and Charles I. State Papers, France, Charles I. State Papers, Spain, James I. Wards 9, 16.

HOUSE OF LORDS RECORD OFFICE Appointment to Committee Books, 1610, 1621, 1624, 1625–6, 1628. Draft Journals of the House of Lords (Braye MSS). House of Lords, Parliamentary Papers (Braye MSS).

SALISBURY CATHEDRAL Muniments of the Dean and Chapter.

WILTON Borough of Wilton MSS.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY Acta. Covocat: Univ: Oxon: Arch. 1615–1628.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY Magdalen College MSS.

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF WALES National Library of Wales MSS. Peniarth MSS.

SHEFFIELD CITY LIBRARY Bright MSS. Elmhirst MSS.

HARKNESS MEMORIAL LIBRARY (YALE UNIVERSITY) Diaries of the Parliament of 1624. Diaries of the Parliament of 1628.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 246

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

HUNTINGTON LIBRARY (PASADENA, CALIFORNIA) Parliamentary Papers 1624.

HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION REPORTS Bath MSS. II. Buccleuch MSS. I. Carew MSS. Cowper MSS. De Lisle and Dudley MSS. II, III, IV, V. Downshire MSS. II, III, VI. Hastings MSS. II, IV. House of Lords MSS. XI. Mar and Kellie MSS. I, II, and Supplement. Pepys MSS. Portland MSS. II. Reports 1, 3, 4, 5, 7. 2nd Report, Appendix IX. 8th Report, Appendix II. 9th Report, Appendix II. 10th Report, Appendices I, IV. 11th Report, Appendix III. Salisbury MSS. VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. Various Collections I, III, IV.

OFFICIAL PAPERS Acts of the Privy Council, 1613 to 1631. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, East Indies, China and Japan, 1513–1624. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, East Indies, China and Persia, 1625–1634. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1595–1649. Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1607–1632. Journals of the House of Lords, II, III, IV. Returns, Members of Parliament, Part I, Parliaments of England, 1213–1702.

BOOKS Akrigg, G. P. V. Jacobean Pageant: Or, The Court of King James. London: 1962. Albright, E. M. Dramatic Publication in England. 1580–1640. New York: 1927. Alexander, G. Writing After Sidney: The Literary Response to Sir Philip Sidney 1586–1640. Oxford: 2006. Andrews, C. M. The Colonial Period in American History. New Haven, CT: 1934. v. 1. Amussen, S. D., Kishlansky, M. A. and Underdown, D. Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England. Manchester: 1995.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 247

22/10/10 12:23 PM

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atkins, C. D. Shakespeare’s Sonnets, With Three Hundred Years of Commentary. Madison, Wisconsin: 2007. Aylmer, G. E. The King’s Servants: The Civil Service of Charles I, 1625–1642. London:1961. Baker, R. A Chronicle of the Kings of England. London: 1679. Bald, R. C. Donne and the Drurys. London: 1959. Bamford, F. (ed.). A Royalist’s Notebook: The Commonplace Book of Sir John Oglander. London: 1936. Barnes, T. G. Somerset 1625–1640. Cambridge, Mass: 1961. Barroll, L. Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theater. London: 1991. Bath, M. Speaking Pictures. English Emblem Books and Renaissance Culture. London: 1994. Bawcutt, N. W. The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama. Oxford: 1996. Bell, H. E. An Introduction to the History and Records of the Court of Wards and Liveries. London: 1953. Bellany, A. The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England. Cambridge: 2002. Bemiss, S. M. The Three Charters of the Virginia Company of London. Williamsburg,VA: 1957. Bentley, G. E. The Jacobean and Caroline Stage. London: 1941. 5 vols. Bevington, D. and Holbrook, P. The Politics of the Early Stuart Masque. Cambridge: 1998. Birch, T. An Historical View of the Negotiations Between the Courts of England, France and Brussels From the Year 1592–1617. London: 1749. ———The Works of Sir Walter Raleigh. London: 1751. 2 vols. ———The Court and Times of Charles the First. London: 1848. 2 vols. ———The Court and Times of James the First. London: 1849. 2 vols. ———Letters, Speeches, Charges, Advices, of Lord Viscount St Alban, Lord Chancellor of England. London: 1869. 7 vols. Birch, W. de Gray. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Penrice and Margam Abbey Manuscripts. London: 1893. Blackstone, W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: 1778, v. 4. Boas, F. S. Sir Philip Sidney Representative Elizabethan. London: 1955. Bowen, C. D. The Life and Times of Sir Edward Coke. Boston, MA: 1956. Bowen, L. The Politics of the Principality: Wales c. 1603–1642. Cardiff: 2007. Bowles, C. Modern Wiltshire. Shaftesbury, Wilts: 1827. Bradney, J. A. A History of Monmouthshire. London: 1921–32. 4 vols. Brennan, M. G. Literary Patronage in the English Renaissance: The Pembroke Family. London: 1988. ———The Sidneys of Penshurst and the Monarchy, 1500–1700. Ashgate: 2006.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 248

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

Brenner, Robert. Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political conflict, and London’s overseas traders, 1550–1653. Cambridge: 1993. Brewer, J. S. (ed.). The Court And Times of King James the First by Dr. Godfrey Goodman. London: 1839. 2 vols. Britton, J. (ed.). The Natural History of Wiltshire: By John. Aubrey. London: 1847. Brown, Alexander. The Genesis of The United States. Boston: 1890. ———English Politics in Early Virginia History. Boston, Mass: 1901. Brown, H. Shakespeare’s Patrons and and Other Essays. London: 1912. Brock, R. A. Abstract of the Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London 1619–1624 . . . Richmond, VA: 1899. 2 vols. Brydges, Sir E. Imaginative Biography. London: 1834. Bullen, A. H. (ed.). Poems of William Browne of Tavistock. London: 1893. 2 vols. Bush, D. English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth Century, 1600–1660. 4th ed. rev. Oxford: 1962. Butler, M. The Stuart Court Masque and Political Culture. Cambridge: 2008 Buxton, J. Sir Philip Sidney and The English Renaissance. 3rd. ed. London: 1987. Callaghan, D. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Oxford: 2007. Calvert, H. Shakespeare’s Sonnets and the Problems of Autobiography. Braunton, Devon: 1987. Campbell, S. C. Only Begotten Sonnets. London: 1978. Capp, B. The World of John Taylor the Water Poet, 1578–1653. Oxford: 1994. Carr, C. T. (ed.). Select Charters of Trading Companies ad 1530–1707. Selden Society. London: 1913. v. 28. Chalmers, A. A History of the Colleges, Halls and Public Buildings, Attatched to the University of Oxford. Oxford: 1810. 2 vols. Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage. London: 1923. 4 vols. Chester, A. G. Thomas May: Man of Letters. 1595–1650. Philadelphia: 1932. Clarendon (Earl of), E. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War. New, ed. London: 1839. Clark, A. (ed.). ‘Brief Lives’: Chiefly of Contemporaries, set down by John Aubrey. Oxford: 1898. Clark, G. T. The Earls, Earldom and Castle of Pembroke. Tenby: 1880. ———Some Account of Sir Robert Mansel. Dowlais: 1883. ———Limbus Patrum Morganiae et Glamorganiae. London: 1886. Clay, C. G. A. Economic Expansion and Social Change: England 1500–1700. London: 1984. v. 1. Clucas, S. and Davies, R. The Crisis of 1614 and the Addled Parliament. London: 2003. Cobbett, W. Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England. London: 1806. v. 2. Cobbett, W. and Hansard, T. C. Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England. London: 1806. vols. 1, 2.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 249

22/10/10 12:23 PM

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cockayne, G. E. (G. E. C.). The Complete Peerage. London: 1945. v. 10. Cogswell, T. The Blessed Revolution. English Politics and the Coming of War 1621–1624. Cambridge: 1989. ——— Home Divisions: Aristrocracy, the State and Provincial Conflict. Manchester: 1998. Cogswell, Thomas, Cust, R. and Lake, P. (eds). Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain. Cambridge: 2002. Coleman, J. P. Land., Men and Beliefs. London: 1983. Collins, A. Letters and Memorials of State. London: 1746. 2 vols. Colvin, H. M. The History of the King’s Works. London: 1982. v. 4. Cook, A. J. The Privileged Playgoers of Shakespeare’s London, 1576–1642. Princeton: 1981. Cope, E. S. Politics Without Parliaments. 1629–1640. London: 1987. Cosin, J. The Works of John Cosin. Oxford: 1845. v. 2. Courtenay, W. P. The Parliamentary Representation of Cornwall to 1832. London: 1889. Cox, J. C. The Royal Forests of England. London: 1905. Craven, Wesley Frank. Dissolution of the Virginia Company: The Failure of a Colonial Experiment. New York: 1932. ———The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth-Century 1607–1689. Baton Rouge, LA: 1949. ———The Virginia Company of London, 1606–1624. Williamsburg, VA: 1957. Croft, Pauline. King James. London: 2003. Croft, Pauline (ed.). Patronage, Culture and Power: The Early Cecils. London: 2002. Crump, Helen J. Colonial Admiralty Jurisdiction in the Seventeenth Century. London: 1931. Cunningham, Peter. Inigo Jones, A Life of the Architect. London: 1948. Curtis, Mark H. Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, 1558–1642. Oxford: 1959. Cust, R. and Hughes, A. (eds). Conflict in Early Stuart England. London: 1989. Cust, R. The Forced Loan and English Politics 1626–1628. Oxford: 1987. Davis, Richard Beale. George Sandys, Poet Adventurer. London: 1955. Davies, G. The Earlv Stuarts. Oxford: 1959. 2nd ed. Dibdin, Thomas Frognall. The History of Cheltenham and its Environs. Cheltenham: 1803. Dietz, Frederick C. The Receipts and Issues of the Exchequer During the Reigns of James I and Charles I Smith College Studies in History. XVI I I, no. 4. Northampton, MA: 1928. ———English Public Finance 1558–1641. London: 1932. Dodd, A. H. Dictionary of Welsh Biography. London: 1959. ———Studies in Stuart Wales. Cardiff: 1952.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 250

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Donald, M. B. Elizabethan Copper. The History of the Company of Mines Royal 1568–1605. London: 1955. ———Elizabethan Monopolies. The History of the Company of Mineral and Battery Works from 1565 to 1604. London: 1961. Donne, J. Poems, Written by the Right Honorable William Earl of Pembroke, Lord Steward of His Majesty’s Household, Whereof Many of Which are Answered by Way of Repartee by Sir Beniamin Ruddier. London: 1660. Doyle, J. W. E. The Official Baronage of England 1066–1885. London: 1886. v. 3. Duncan-Jones, K. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. The Arden Shakespeare. London: 1997. Dunn, T. A. Philip Massinger: The Man and the Playwright. Accra, Ghana: 1957. Dutton, R. Mastering the Revels. The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. London: 1991. Dutton, R., Findlay, A. and Wilson, R. (eds). Region, Religion and Patronage: Lancastrian Shakespeare. Manchester: 2003. Echard, L. The History of England from the First Entrance of Julius Caesar. London: 1720. Edwards, P., Ewbank, I. -S. and Hunter, G. K. (eds). Shakespeare’s Styles. Cambridge: 1980. Philip Edwards et al. The Revels History of Drama in English. London: 1981. v. 4 (1613–1660). Edmondson, P. and Wells, S. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Cambridge: 2002. ———Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Oxford: 2004. Ellis-Fermor, U. The Jacobean Drama: An Interpretation. London: 1958. 4th ed rev. Elton, G. R. The Tudor Revolution in Government. Cambridge: 1953. Evans, R. C. Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage. London: 1989. Evans, W. M. Henry Lawes: Musician and Friend of Poets. New York: 1941. Fennor, W. Fennors Descriptions, or a True Relation of Certaine and Divers Speeches, Spoken Before the King and Queen’s Most Excellent Majesties, the Prince His Highness and Lady Elizabeth. London: 1616. Ferrell, L. A. Government by Polemic. James I, the King’s Preachers and the Rhetorics of Conformity, 1603–1625. Stanford: 1998. Finett, Sir J. Finetti Philoxensis: Some Choice Observations of Sir John Finett, Knight and Master of Ceremonies to the Last Two Kings. London: 1650. Firth, C. H. The House of Lords During the Civil War. London: 1910. Fleay, F. G. A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare. London: 1886. ———A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama 1559–1642. London: 1891. 2 vols. ———A Chronicle History of the London Stage 1559–1642. New York: 1909.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 251

22/10/10 12:23 PM

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Foakes, R. A. and Rickert, R. T. Henslowe’s Diary. Cambridge: 1961. Fogle, F. R. and Knafla, L. A. Patronage in Late Renaissance England. William Andrews Clark Memorial Library. Los Angeles: 1983. Forster, J. Sir John Eliot. London: 1865. 2 vols. Foster, J. The Register of Admissions to Gray’s Inn 1521–1889. London: 1889. Fox, L. (ed.). English Historical Scholarship in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Oxford: 1956. Freeman, R. English Emblem Books. London: 1948. Fry, G. and Fry, E. (ed.). Wiltshire Inquisitions Post Mortem. The Index Library. London: 1901. v. 23. Fuller, T. Ephemeris Parliamentaria. London: 1654. Gardiner, S. R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War. London: 1899. 7 vols. ———Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords.1621 ad. Camden Society. London: 1870. ———Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660. Oxford: 1951. 3rd ed. Rev. Gebert, C. (ed.). An Anthology of Elizabethan Dedications and Prefaces. Philadelphia: 1933. Gibb, M. A. Buckingham. 1592–1628. London: 1935. Gibbs, P. King’s Favorite: The Love Story of Robert Carr and Lady Essex. London: 1929. Gotch, J. A. Inigo Jones. London: 1928. Greg, W. W. The Shakespeare First Folio: Its Bibliographical and Textual History. Oxford: 1955. Gregg, P.King Charles I. London: 1981. Greville, F. Sir Fulke Greville’s Life of Sir Philip Sidney. Oxford: 1907. Grierson, H. J. C. The Poems of John Donne. London: 1929. Grosart, A. B. (ed.). The Complete Works of John Davies of Hereford (15–1618). Edinburgh: 1878. 2 vols. ———The Complete Works of Josuah Sylvester. Edinburgh: 1880. 2 vols. ———The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Samuel Daniel. London: 1896. 4 vols. Guibbory, A. The Cambridge Companion to John Donne. Cambridge: 2006. Gurr, A. The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642. Cambridge: 2004. ———Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London 3rd. ed. Cambridge: 2004. Hacket, J. Scrinia Reserata. A Memorial Offered to the Great Deservings of John Williams. London: 1692. Hamilton, H. The English Brass and Copper Companies to 1800. London:1926. Hannay, M. P. Philip’s Phoenix: Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke. Oxford: 1990.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 252

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Harlow, V. T. Colonizing Expeditions to the West Indies and Guiana, 1623–1667. London: 1925. Harrison, B. (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: 2004. Harrison, G. B. Elizabethan Plays and Players. London: 1940. ———The Elizabethan Journals. London: 1938. ———A Jacobean Journal. London: 1941. ———A Second Jacobean Journal. London: 1958. Hart, C. E. Royal Forest: A History of Dean’s Woods as Producers of Timber. Oxford: 1966. ———The Industrial History of Dean. Newton Abbot: 1971. ———The Forest of Dean: New History 1550–1818. Stroud: 1995. Hatch, C. E. Jr. The First Seventeen Years, Virginia 1607–1624. Willimsburg,VA: 1957. Hawkins, M. J. Sales of Wards in Somerset, 1603–1641. Somerset Record Society. Frome: 1965. v. LXV11. Hazlitt, W. C. (ed.). Prefaces, Dedications, Epistles, Selected from Early English Books, 1540–1701. London: 1874. Heinemann, M. Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama Under the Cambridge: 1980. Heltzel, V. B. and Hudson, H. H. Nobilis or a View of the Life and Death of a Sidney . . . by Thomas Moffet. San Marino, Calif: 1940. Hening, W. W. The Statutes at Large of Virginia. New York: 1823. v. l. Herford, C. H. and Simpson, P. Ben Jonson. (Oxford: 1925–52). 11 vols. Hill, C. The Century of Revolution 1603–1714. New York: 1961. Hirst, D. Authority and Conflict: England 1603–1658. London: 1986. ———England in Conflict, 1603–1660: Kingdom, Community, Commonwealth. London: 1999. Hoare, Sir R. C. The History of Modern South Wiltshire. London: 1822–1843. 6 vols. Hoe, C. C. The Origin of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Shanghai: 1935. Honigmann, E. A. J. Shakespeare: The Lost Years. 2nd. ed. Manchester: 1998. Hotson, L. The First Night of Twelfth Night. London: 1954. Houlbrooke, R. (ed.). King James VI and I. Ideas, Authority and Government. Aldershot: 2006. Howarth, D. Art and Patronage in the Caroline Courts. Cambridge: 1993. Howel, J. Epistolae Ho-Ellanae. Familiar Letters Domestic and Foreign. London: 1688. Howell, R. Sir Philip Sidney, the Shepherd Knight. London: 1968. Hulme, H. The Life of Sir John Eliot, 1592 to 1632: Struggle for Parliamentary Freedom. 1st US ed., New York: 1957.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 253

22/10/10 12:23 PM

254

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hulse, L. M. The Musical Patronage of the English Aristocracy. London thesis 1992. Hunt, R. W. (ed.). A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Oxford: 1953. v. l. Hutchinson, F. E. (ed.). The Works of George Herbert. Oxford: 1941. Hyland, P. An Introduction to Shakespeare: The Dramatist in his Context. London: 1996. Jansson, M. Proceedings in Parliament 1614. Philadelphia: 1988. Johnson, G. W. The Fairfax Correspondence: Memoirs of The Reign of King Charles the First. London: 1848. 2 vols. Jones, T. I. Jeffreys. Exchequer Proceedings Concerning Wales in Tempore James I. Cardiff: 1955. Kastner, L. E. The Poetical Works of William Drummond of Hawthornden. London: 1913. 2 vols. Kennett, W. The Life and Reign of King Charles the First. v. 3 of A Compete History of England. London: 1706. Kermaingant, L. de. L’ambassade de France en Angleterre sous Henri IV. Paris: 1895. 2 vols. Kernan, A. Shakespeare, the King’s Playwright: Theater in the Stuart Court, 1603–1613. Yale: 1995. Kerridge, E. Surveys of the Manors of Philip, First Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery 1631–2. Devizes: 1953. Kingsbury, S. M. An Introduction to the Records of the Virginia Company. Washington, DC: 1905. ———The Records of the Virginia Company of London. Washington: 1933. 3 vols. Kirschbaum, L. Shakespeare and the Stationers. Columbus, Ohio: 1955. Knowler, W. The Earl of Strafforde’s Letters and Dispatches. London: 1739. 2 vols. Kyle, C. R. (ed.). Parliament, Politics and Elections 1604–1648. Cambridge: 2001. ———Parliament at Work: Parliamentary Committees, Political Power and Public Access in Early Modern England. London: 2002. Lake, P. and Pincus, S. (eds). The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Manchester: 2007. Lamb, M. E. The Popular Culture of Shakespeare, Spenser, and Jonson. London: 2006. Larkin, J. F. and Hughes, P. L. Stuart Royal Proclamations. Oxford: 1973, 1983. 2 vols. Leapman, M. Inigo: The Troubled Life of Inigo Jones, Architect of the English Renaissance. London: 2003. Lees-Milne, J. The Age of Inigo Jones. London: 1953. Lefroy, J. H. Memorials of the Bermudas 1511–1687. Hamilton, Bermuda: 1932. Reprint. 2 vols.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 254

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

Lewis, G. R. The Stannaries, A Study of the English Tin Miner. Cambridge, Mass: 1924. Lindley, D. The Trials of Frances Howard:Fact and Fiction at the Court of King James. London: 1993. Lipson, E. The Economic History of Enqland. London: 1931. 3 vols. Lloyd, D. The Statesmen and Favourites of England from the Reformation to the Revolution. London: 1665. Lockyer, R. Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, 1592–1628. London: 1981. Lodge, E. Illustrations of British History and Manners. London: 1791. v. 3. ———Portraits of Illustrious Personages of Great Britain with Biographical and Historical Memoirs of their Lives and Actions. London: 1850. Long, C. E. (ed.). Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army During the Civil War: Kept by Richard Symonds. Cam. Soc. Old Series. v. 74. London: 1859. Lytle, G. F. and Orgel, S. Patronage in the Renaissance. Princeton: 1981. Maclean, J. (ed.). Letters from Robert Cecil to George Carew. Camden Society. London: 1864. v. 88. Macray, W. D. Annals of the Bodleian. Oxford: 1868. Malcolmson, C. Heart Work: George Herbert and the Protestant Ethic. Stanford: 1999. Manning, J. A. Memoirs of Sir Beniamin Rudyerd .Knt. London: 1841. Masson, D. The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland. Edinburgh: 1894. Matthews, J. H. Cardiff Records. Cardiff: 1898–1905. 5 vols. Mazzola, E. Favorite Sons: The Politics and Poetics of the Sidney Family. New York: 2003. McClure, N. E. The Letters of John Chamberlain. Philadelphia: 1939. 2 vols. McCullough, P. E. Sermons at Court. Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean Preaching. Cambridge: 1998. McElwee, W. The Murder of Sir Thomas Overburv. London: 1952. ———The Wisest Fool in Christendom: The Reign of King James I and VI. London: 1958. Mews, S. (ed.). Religion and National Identity. Oxford: 1982. Moir, T. L. The Addled Parliament of 1614. London: 1958. Morrice, J. C. Wales in the Seventeenth Centurv. Bangor: 1918. Morrill, J., Slack, P. and Woolf, D. (eds). Public Duty and Private Conscience in Seventeenth Century England. Oxford: 1993. Murray, J. T. English Dramatic Companies 1558–1642. London: 1910. 2 vols. Nef, J. U. The Rise of the British Coal Industrv. London: 1932. 2 vols. Newdigate-Newdegate, Lady A. Gossip from a Muniment Room, Being Passages in the Lives of Anne and Mary Fitton, 1574 to 1618. London: 1908.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 255

22/10/10 12:23 PM

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Newton, A. P. The Colonizing Activities of the English Puritans. New Haven, CT: 1914. Nicholas, T. The History and Antiquities of Glamorganshire and its Families. London: 1874. Nicholls, H. G. The Forest of Dean: An Historical Descriptive Account. London: 1858. ———The Personalities of the Forest of Dean. London: 1863. ———Iron Making in the Olden Times: As Instanced in the Ancient Mines, Forges, and Furnaces of the Forest of Dean. London: 1866. Nichols, J. The Progresses, Processions and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First. London: 1828. 4 vols. Nicholson, A. Earls of Paradise: England and the Dream of Perfection. London:2008 Norbrook, D. Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance. London: 1984. Notestein, W. and Relf, F. H. Commons Debates for 1629. Minneapolis, Minnesota:1921. ———Commons Debates 1621. New Haven, Connecticut: 1935. 7 vols. O’Farrell, B. Politician, Patron, Poet, William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke, 1580–1630. Doctoral Dissertation, U. of California.1966. Oldfield, T. H. B. The Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland. London: 1816. v. 3. Onderwyzer, G. E. William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke, Poems. Los Angeles: 1959. Orgel, S. The Illusion of Power: Political Theater in the English Renaissance. London: 1975. Owen, G. D. (ed.). Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable Marquess of Salisbury. London: 1971. Part XXII (1612–1668). Page, W. (ed.). A History of Gloucestershire. Victoria History of the Counties of England. London: 1907. 2 vols. Patterson, R. F. (ed.). Ben Jonson’s Conversations with William Drummond of Hawthornden. London: 1924. Patterson, W. B. King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom. Cambridge: 1997. Pearce, T. The Law and Customs of the Stannaries in the Counties of Cornwall and Devon. London: 1725. Pears, S. A. The Correspondence of Sir Philip Sidney and Hubert Languet. London: 1845. Peck, L. L. Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I. London: 1982. ———Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England. London: 1993. Peckard, P. Memoirs of the Life of Mr. Nicholas Ferrar. Cambridge: 1790.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 256

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

Pettus, Sir J. Fodinae Regales, Or the History of the Chief Mines and Mineral Works. London: 1670. Philip, I. The Bodleian Library in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Oxford: 1983. Pointer, J. Oxoniensis Academia: Or the Antiquities and Curiosities of the University of Oxford. London: 1749. Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R. A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed. London: 1926. Poulton, D. John Dowland. London: 1972. Price, D. C. Patrons and Musicians of the English Renaissance. Cambridge: 1981. Price, W. H. The English Patents of Monopoly. London: 1913. Pugh, R. B. A History of Wiltshire. v. 5 The Victoria History of the Counties of England. London: 1957. Quinn, D. B. and Quinn, A. M. The English New England Voyages 1602–1608. London: 1983. Rabb, T. K. Enterprise and Empire: Merchant and Gentry Investment in the Expansion of England, 1575–1630. Harvard, MA: 1967. Rashdell, H. and Rait, R. S. New College. London: 1901. Ravelhoper, B. The Early Stuart Masque: Dance, Costume, and Music. Oxford: 2006. Rees, W. Industry Before the Industrial Revolution. Cardiff: 1968. 2 vols. Relf, F. H. Notes on the Debates in the House of Lords ad 1621, 1625, 1628. Camden Society. London: 1929. New Series. v. 42. Rex, M. B. University Representation in England, 1604–1690. London: 1954. Roberts, B. D. Mitre and Musket: John Williams Lord Keeper. London: 1938. Robinson, W. S. Jr. Mother Earth-Land Grants in Virginia 1607–1699. Williamsburg, VA: 1957. Rosenberg, E. Leicester: Patron of Letters. New York: 1955. Rowse, A. L. The Elizabethans and America. London: 1959. ———William Shakespeare. New York: 1963. Rushworth, J. Historical Collections. London: 1682. v. 1. Russell, C. Parliaments and English Politics 1621–1629. Oxford: 1979. ———The Addled Parliament of 1614: The Limits of Revision. Reading: 1992. Sabol, A. J. Songs and Dances for the Stuart Masque. Providence, RI: 1959. Sainsbury, W. N. ed. Original Unpublished Papers Illustrative of the Life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens. London: 1859. Salter, H. E. and Lobel, M. D. (ed.). The Victoria History of the County of Oxford. London: 1954. v. 2. Sawyer, E. (ed.). Memorials of Affairs of State in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and King James I: From the Papers of Sir Ralph Winwood. London: 1725. v. 3. Schoenfeldt, M. A Companion to Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Oxford: 2007.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 257

22/10/10 12:23 PM

258

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schofield, B. (ed.). The Knyvett Letters (1620–44). London: 1949. Schubert, H. R. History of the British Iron and Steel Industry from c. 450 bc to ad 1775. London: 1957. Scott, W. R. The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish, and Irish JointStock Companies to 1720. Cambridge: 1910–12. 2 vols. Seddon, P. R. ed. Letters of John Hollis 1587–1637. Thoroton Soc. Notts. 1979–1983. vols. 31, 35, 36. Shami, J. John Donne and Conformity in Crisis in the Late Jacobean Pulpit. Cambridge: 2003. Sharp, B. In Contempt of all Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660. London: 1980. Shepherd, M. D. Charles I and the Distribution of Political Patronage. PhD thesis Liverpool Univ. 1999. Sil, N. P. Tudor Placemen and Statesmen. Madison, Wisconsin: 2001. Simpson, A. The Wealth of the Gentry 1540–1660. Cambridge: 1961. Small, R. A. The Stage Quarrel Between Ben Jonson and the So-Called Poetasters. Breslau, Poland: 1899. Smith, A. G. R. Servant of the Cecils:The Life of Sir Michael Hickes, 1543–1612. London: 1977. Smith, G. C. M. The Poems, English and Latin, of Edward,Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Oxford: 1923. Smith, G. The United Kingdom: A Political History. London: 1899. v. 1. Smith, J. The General History of the Bermudas. London: 1624. ———A Continuation of the Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and, the Summer Isles. London: 1630. ———The True Travels, Adventures, and Observations of Captaine John Smith in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. London: 1630. Smith, L. P. Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton. London: 1907. Society of Antiquaries. A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Government of the Royal Household. London: 1790. Solve, N. D. Stuart Politics in Chapman’s Tragedy of Chabot. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1928. Somerset, A. Unnatural Murder: Poison at the Court of James I. London: 1997. Spedding, J. The Letters and Life of Francis Bacon Including All his Occasional Works. London: 1763. v. 5. Spink, I. Henry Lawes. Cavalier Songwriter. Oxford: 2000. Sprague, A. C. Samuel Daniel 1563–1619. Cambridge, MA: 1930. Squibb, B. D. The High Court of Chivalry: A Study of the Civil Law in England. London: 1959. Stater, V. L. Noble Government: The Stuart Lord Lieutenancy and the Tranformation of English Politics. London: 1994.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 258

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

Statham, E. P. History of the Family of Mansell. London: 1917. 2 vols. ———A Jacobean Letter-Writer: The Life and Times of John Chamberlain. London: n.d. Stephen, L. and Lee, S. (eds). Dictionary of National Biography. London: 1885–1900. Stewart, A. Philip Sidney: A Double Life. London: 2000. ———The Cradle King: A Life of James VI and I. London: 2003. Stone, L. The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558–1641. Oxford: 1965. Stone, L. and Stone, J. C. F. An Open Elite: England 1540–1880. Oxford: 1984. Stopes, C. C. Life of Henry Third Earl of Southampton. Cambridge: 1922. Straton, C. R. Survey of theLands of William, First Earl of Pembroke. Oxford: 1909. 2 vols. Sullivan, M. Court Masques of James I. Lincoln, Nebraska: 1913. Summers, J. H. George Herbert: His Religion and his Art. London: 1954. Tanner, J. R. English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century, 1603–1689. Cambridge: 1928. T. C. The Just Mans Memoriall. To the Pretious and Immortal Memory of William Earle of Pembroke. As it was Delivered at Baynard’s Castle Before the Interment of the Body. London: 1630. Thomas, W. S. K. Stuart Wales, 1603–1714. Llandysul: 1988. Thompson, P. Shakespeare’s Professional Career. Cambridge: 1992. Thomson, G. S. Lords Lieutenants in the Sixteenth Century. A Study in Tudor Local Administration. London: 1923. Turner, E. R. The Privy Council of England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centurues. London: 1928. 2 vols. Tyacke, N. Arminianism in England: Religion and Politics 1604–1640. Oxford D. Phil. 1968 ———The History of the University of Oxford. v. 4. The Seventeenth Century. Oxford: 1997. ———Aspects of English Protestantism. c.1530–1700. Manchester: 2001. Tylden-Wright, D. John Aubrey. A Life. London: 1991. van Dorsten, J., Baker-Smith, D. and Kinney, A. F. (eds). Sir Philip Sidney: 1586 and the Creation of a Legend. Leiden: 1986. Vertue, G. A Catalogue and Description of King Charles the First’s Capital Collection. London: 1757. Wake, J. (ed.). The Montagu Muster Books ad 1602–1623. Northamptonshire Record Society Publications. Peterborough: 1935. v. 1. Wallace, W. M. Sir Edwin Sandys and the First Parliament of James I. Philadelphia, Penn: 1940. ———Sir Walter Raleigh. Princeton: 1959.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 259

22/10/10 12:23 PM

260

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Waller, G. F. (ed.). Pamphilia to Amphilanthus by Lady Mary Wroth. Elizabethan and Renaissance Studies. v. 65. Salzburg: 1977. ———The Triumph of Death of Mary Sidney Countess of Pembroke (1561–1621). Elizabethan and Renaissance. Studies. v. 65. Salzburg: 1977. Warner, R. Epistolary Curiosities: Unpublished Letters of the Eighteenth Century Illustrative of the Herbert Family. London: 1818. Warwick, Sir P. Memoires of the Reigne of King Charles I. London: 1701. Watt, R. Bilbliotheca Britannica: Or a General Index to British and Foreign Literature: 1824. 4 vols. Weiner, A. D. Sir Philip Sidney and the Poetics of Protestantism. Minneapolis: 1978. Wellborn, S. G. Philip Herbert, Fourth Earl of Pembroke. Unpub. MA thesis. U. of South Carolina. 1971. Wells, R. H. Shakespeare, Politics and the State. London: 1986. Welsford, E. The Court Masque: A Study in the Relationship Between Poetry and the Revels. Cambridge: 1927. White, B. A Cast of Ravens. New York: 1965. White, P. W. and Westfall, S. R. (eds). Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England. Cambridge: 2002. Wilkins, C. History of the Iron, Steel, Tinplate and Other Trades of Wales. Merthyr Tydfil: 1903. Wilkinson, H. C. The Adventurers of Bermuda. London: 1958. Wilkinson, N. R. Wilton House Pictures. London: 1907. Willcox, W. B. Gloucestershire: A Study in Local Government 1590–1640. London: 1940. Willen, D. John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford. London: 1981. Williams, E. C. Anne of Denmark. London: 1970. Williams, F. B. Index to Dedications and Commendatory Verses in English Books Before 1641. London: 1962. Williams, S. (ed.). Letters written by John Chamberlain During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Camden Society, v. 79. London: 1861. Williams, W. R. The Parliamentary History of the Principality of Wales. Brecknock: 1895. ———The Parliamentary History of the County of Gloucester. Hereford: 1898. ———The History of the Great Sessions in Wales 1542–1830. Brecknock: 1899. ———The Parliamentary History of the County of Oxford. Brecknock: 1899. Willson, D. H. The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons 1604–1629. Minneapolis: 1940. ———King James VI and I. London: 1956. Wilson, J. D. An Introduction to the Sonnets of Shakespeare. Cambridge: 1964. Wilson, V. A. Queen Elizabeth’s Maids of Honour. London: 1922.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 260

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

261

Wood, A. Athenae Oxoniensis. London: 1691. Wright, L. B. Religion and Empire: The Alliance Between Piety and Commerce in English Expansion 1558–1625. Chapel Hill, NC: 1943. Yates, F. A. John Florio; The Life of an Italian in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge: 1934. Young, F. B. Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke. London: 1912.

ARTICLES ‘Herbert Manuscripts at Powis Castle, Part II, Correspondence etc. of Sir Edward Herbert, First Lord Herbert of Chirbury, 1614–1626,’ Collections Historical and Archaelogical Relating to Montgomeryshire and its Borders, XX (1886), 84–209. Adams, S. L. ‘Foreign Policy and the Parliaments of 1621 and 1624,’ in K. Sharpe, ed., Faction and Parliament, rev. ed. (Oxford:1985), pp. 139–71. Adams, S. ‘Spain or the Netherlands? The Dilemmas of Early Stuart Foreign Policy,’ in H. Tomlinson, ed., Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government (London: 1983), 79–101. Alsop, J. D. ‘The Privy Council Debate and Committees for Fiscal Reform, September 1615,’ Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, LVIII (June 1995), 191–211. Ball, J. N. ‘Sir John Eliot at the Oxford Parliament, 1625,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXVIII, no. 78 (November 1955), 113–27. Brennan, M. C. ‘Mr Johnston’ and the Education of William Sidney at Penshurst,’ Notes and Queries, 50:4 (2003), 430–37. Briggs, W. D. ‘Political Ideas in Sidney’s Arcadia,’ Studies in Philology, XXVIII, no. 2 (April 1931), 137–61. Bushman, R. L. ‘English Franchise Reform in the Seventeenth Century,’ Journal of British Studies, III, no. L (November 1963), 35–57. Chambers, E. K. ‘Court Performances Under James the First,’ The Modern Language Review, IV (1908–09), 153–66. Cogswell, T. ‘A Low Road to Extinction? Supply and Redress of Grievances in the Parliaments of the 1620’s,’ Historical Journal, XXXIII, part. 2 (1990), 283–303. ———‘Thomas Middleton and the Court, 1624: A Game at Chess, in Context,’ Huntington Library Quarterly, 47 (1984), 273–88. ———‘Foreign Policy and Parliament: The Case of la Rochelle, 1625–1626,’ English Historical Review (1984), 241–67. ———‘Prelude to Ré: The Anglo-French Struggle over La Rochelle, 1624–1627,’ History, v. 71 (1986), 1–21.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 261

22/10/10 12:23 PM

262

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coward, B. ‘Disputed Inheritances: Some Difficulties of the Nobility in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLIV, no. 110 (November 1971), 194–215. Craven, W. F. ‘An Introduction to the History of Bermuda’. In four parts. William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd Series, XVII, no. 2 (April 1937), 176–215, XVII, no. 3 (July 1937) 317–62, XVII, no. 4 (October 1937), 437–65, XVIII, no. l (January 1938), 13–63. Croft, P. ‘Wardship in the Parliament of 1604,’ Parliamentary History, 2 (1983), 39–48. ———‘The Reputation of Robert Cecil . . .,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1991, 43–69. Cuddy, N. ‘The Revival of the Entourage: The Bedchamber of James I, 1603–1625,’ David Starkey et al. eds, The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (London; 1987), 173–225. Cust, R. ‘Prince Charles and the Second Session of the Parliament of 1621,’ English Historical Review, CXXII, no. 496, 427–41. ———‘Was there an Alternative to the Personal Rule? Charles I, the Privy Council and the Parliament of 1629,’ History, v. 90, no. 299 (July 2005), 330–52. Das, N. ‘Lady Mary Wroth,’ The Sidney Homepage, http://www.english.cam. ac.uk/wroth/biography.htm Deane, C. ‘Records of the Council for New England,’ American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings (24 April 1867), 53–131. Mass Historical Society, Proceedings, 2nd Series, II (March 1868), 143–9. Dodd, A. H. ‘Wales’s Parliamentrary Apprenticeship (1536–1625),’ Transactions of the Honourable Society of the Cymmrodorion (1942), 8–72. ———‘Wales in the Parliaments of Charles I. 1625–1629,’ Transactions of the Honourable Society of the Cymmrodorion (1945), 16–49. ———‘The Pattern of Politics in Stuart Wales,’ Transactions of the Honourable Society of the Cymmrodorion (1948), 8–19. Donagan, B. ‘The York House Conference Revisited: Laymen, Calvinism and Arminianism,’ Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research, LXIV (1991), 312–31. Elton, G. R. ‘The State: Government and Politics Under Elizabeth and James,’ John F. Andrews ed., William Shakespeare His World, His Work, His Influence (New York: 1985), 3 vols. I, 1–19. Farnham, E. ‘The Somerset Election of 1614,’ English Historical Review (October 1931), 579–600. Fincham, K. ‘Prelacy and Politics: Archbishop Abbot’s Defence of Protestant Orthodoxy,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LXI (1988), 36–64.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 262

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

263

Finkelpearl, P. J. ‘The Comedians’ Liberty: Censorship of the Jacobean Stage Reconsidered,’ English Literary Renaissance, 16 (1986), 123–38. Firth, C. H. ‘Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion,’ English Historical Review, XIX (1904), 26–54, 246–62, 464–83. Flemion, J. S. ‘The Nature of Opposition in the House of Lords in the Early Seventeenth Century,’ Albion, v. 8, no. 1 (Spring 1976), 17–34. Gardiner, S. R. (ed.). ‘Notes by Sir James Bagg on the Parliament of 1626,’ Notes and Queries, 4th Series, X (October 6, 1872), 325. Gardiner, S. R. ‘The Political Element in Massinger,’ Contemporary Review (August 1876), 495–507. Garrett, M. ‘Philip Massinger: Jacobean and Caroline Playwright,’ The Hatcher Review, v. 2 no. 16 (Autumn 1983), 251–59. George, D. ‘Shakespeare and Pembroke’s Men,’ Shakespeare Quarterly, 32 (1981), 305–23. Gordon, D. J. ‘Poet and Architect: The Intellectual Setting of the Quarrel Between Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones,’ Journal of the Warburg_and Courtauld Institute, XII (1949), 152–78. Gotch, J. A. ‘Inigo Jones: A Modern View,’ Essays by Divers Hands . . . Royal Society of Literature, VII (1927), 55–80. Grayson, C. ‘James I and the Religious Crisis in the United Provinces 1613–19,’ in Derek Baker, ed., Studies in Church History (Oxford: 1979), 195–219. Gruenefelder, J. K. ‘The Wynns of Gwydir and Parliamentary Elections in Wales, 1604–1640,’ Welsh History Review, v. 9, no. 2 (June 1978), 121–41. ———‘Dorsetshire Elections, 1604–1640,’ Albion, v. 10, no. 1 (Spring 1978), 1–13. Helgerson, R. ‘Politics, Patronage and Literature in England 1558–1658,’ in Andrew Gurr, ed., Yearbook of English Studies, v. 21 (1991), 1–286. Habakkuk, H. J. ‘The Market for Monastic Property 1539–1603,’ Economic History Review, 2nd Series, X, no. 3 (April 1958), 362–81. Hammersley, G. ‘The Crown Woods and Their Exploitation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXX, no. 82 (November 1957), 136–62. Harrison, G. A. ‘Innovation and Precedent: A Procedural Appraisal of the 1625 Parliament,’ English Historical Review, CCCCII (January 1987), 31–62. Hart, E. F. ‘The Answer-Poem in the Early Seventeenth Century,’ Review of English Studies, VII, no. 25 (January 1956), 19–29. Heltzel, V. B. ‘Sir Thomas Egerton as Patron,’ Huntington Library Quarterly, XI, no. 2 (February 1948), 105–27. ‘Herbert Manuscripts at Powis Castle, Part Two, Correspondence etc. of Sir Edward Herbert . . . of Chirbury, 1614–1626,’ Collections Historical and Archaeological Relating to Montgomeryshire and its Borders, XX (1886), 84–209.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 263

22/10/10 12:23 PM

264

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hinton, R. W. K. ‘English Constitutional Theories from Sir John Fortescue to Sir John Eliot,’ English Historical Review, LXXV (July 1960), 410–26. Hirst, D. ‘The Privy Council and the Problems of Enforcement in the 1620’s,’ Journal of British Studies, XVIII, no. 1 (Fall 1978), 40–66. ———‘Parliament, Law and War in the 1620’s,’ Historical Journal, v. 23, no. 2 (1980), 455–61. ———‘Revisionism Revised: The Place of Principle,’ Past and Present, v. 92 (August 1981), 79–99. ———‘Court, Country, and Politics Before 1629,’ in K. Sharpe, ed., Faction and Parliament, rev. ed. (Oxford: 1985), 105–37. Hulme, H. ‘The Leadership of Sir John Eliot in the Parliament of 1626,’ Journal of Modern History, IV, no. 3 (September 1932), 361–86. Jenkins, R. ‘Iron-Making in the Forest of Dean,’ Newcomen Society Transactions, IV (1925–6), pp. 42–65. Kerr, R. J. ‘The Customs of the Forest of Dean,’ Trans. of Bristol and Gloucs. Arch. Society, XLIII, 63–78. Kerridge, E. ‘The Movement of Rent, 1540–1640,’ Economic History Review, 2nd Series, VI, no. 1 (August 1953), 16–34. ———‘The Revolts in Wiltshire Against Charles I,’ Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, LVII, no. 206 (July 1958), 64–75. Kishansky, M. A. ‘Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity?’ Past and Present, v. 189 (November 2005) 41–80. Knight, G. W. ‘Shakespeare’s Sonnets,’ Times Literary Supplement (30 January 1964), p. 93. Kyle, C. R. ‘Prince Charles in the Parliaments of 1621 and 1624,’ Historical Journal, 41, no. 3 (September 1998), 603–24. Lake, P. G. ‘Political Consensus and the Puritan Opposition in the 1620s: Thomas Scott and the Spanish Match,’ Historical Journal, 25, part 4 (1982), 805–25. Lamb, M. E. ‘The Countess of Pembroke’s Patronage,’ English Literary Renaissance, 12 (1982), 162–79. Lawrence, W. J. ‘The Dedication of Early English Plays,’ Life and Letters, III, (July– December 1929), 30–44. Lee, P. A. ‘Play and the English Gentleman in the Early Seventeenth Century,’ The Historian, XXXI, no. 3 (May 1969), 364–80. Lindquist, E. ‘The Failure of the Great Contract,’ Journal of Modern History, 57 (December 1985), 617–51. Lloyd, H. A. ‘Corruption and Sir John Trevor,’ Trans. of Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion, 1974/5, 77–102. Mackenzie, N. ‘Sir Thomas Herbert of Tintern: A Parliamentary Royalist,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXIX, no. 79 (May 1956), 32–86.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 264

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265

Marotti, A. F. ‘John Donne and Patronage,’ Guy F. Lytle, S. Orgel, eds, Patronage in the Renaissance (Princeton: 1981), 207–34. Mathew, D. ‘Wales and England in the Early Seventeenth Century,’ Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion (1955), 36–49. McKisack, M. ‘Samuel Daniel as Historian,’ Review of English Studies, XXIII, no. 91 (July 1947), 226–43. Milton, A. ‘Licensing, Censorship and Religious Orthodoxy in Early Stuart England,’ Historical Journal, 41, no. 3 (September 1998), 625–52. Munden, R. C. ‘James I and “the Growth of Mutual Distrust”: King, Commons, and Reform, 1603–1604,’ Kevin Sharpe, ed., Faction and Parliament (London: 1978), 43–72. Neale, J. E. ‘Three Elizabethan Elections,’ English Historical Review, XLVI (April 1931), 209–38. Neill, E. D. ‘Virginia Governors Under the London Company,’ Macalester College Contibutions, no. 1 (1899), 1–35. ———‘A Contribution to the Early History of New England,’ Macalester College Contributions, no. 8, n.d. 199–209. ———‘The Earliest Efforts to Promote Education in English North America,’ Macalester College Contributions, 2nd Series, no. 2, n.d. 61–88. Newman, J. ‘A Draft Will of the Earl of Arundel,’ The Burlington Magazine, CXXII, no. 931 (October 1980), 692–6. Nixon, S. ‘Aske Me No More’ and the Manuscript Verse Miscellany,’ English Literary Renaissance, v. 29, no. 1 (Winter 1999), 97–130. Patterson, W. B. ‘King James I and the Protestant Cause in the Crisis of 1618–22,’ in Stuart Mews, ed., Religion and National Identity (Oxford: 1982), 319–34. Peck, L. L. ‘Problems in Jacobean Administration: Was Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, a Reformer?’ Historical Journal, v. 19 (1976), 831–58. Phillips, G. A. ‘Crown Musical Patronage from Elizabeth I to Charles I,’ Music and Letters, LVIII (January 1977), 29–42. Phillips, J. E. ‘George Buchanan and the Sidney Circle’ Huntingdon Library Quarterly, XII, no. 1 (November 1948), 23–55. Pierce, T. J. ‘Clenennau Letters and Papers in the Brogyntyn Collection,’ National Library of Wales Journal, Supplement, Series IV, Part 1 (1947). Portal, E. M. ‘The Academ Roial of King James I,’ British Academy (1915–16), 199–208. Pursell, B. C. ‘James I, Gondomar and the Dissolution of the Parliament of 1621,’ History, v. 85 (July 2000), 428–45. ———‘The End of the Spanish Match,’ Historical Journal, v. 45, no. 4 (2002). Rabb, T. K. ‘Sir Edwin Sandys and the Parliament of 1604,’ American Historical Review, LXIX, no. 3 (April 1964), 647–70.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 265

22/10/10 12:23 PM

266

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———‘Revisionism Revised: Two Perspectives on Early Stuart Parliamentary History,’ Past and Present, no. 92 (August 1981), 55–78. Relf, F. H. ‘Debates in the House of Lords, 1628,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th Series, VIII (1925), 38–55. Roberts, C. and Duncan, O. ‘The Parliamentary Undertaking of 1614,’ English Historical Review, v. 93 (1978), 481–98. Robinson, T. H. ‘Lord Clarendon’s Moral Thought,’ Huntingdon Library Quarterly, XLIII, no. 1 (1979–80), 37–60. Rowe, V. A. ‘The Influence of the Earls of Pembroke on Parliamentary Elections, 1625–41,’ English Historical Review, I (April 1935), 242–56. Rowse, A. L. ‘Shadow and Substance in Shakespeare,’ Times Literary Supplement, 30 January 1964, p. 87. Russell, C. ‘Parliamentary History in Perspective,’ History, v. 61, no. 201 (February 1976), 1–27. ———‘The Foreign Policy Debate in the House of Commons in 1621,’ Historical Journal, v. 20, no. 2 (1977), 289–309. Sainty, J. C. ‘Lieutenants of Counties 1585–1642,’ Bulletin of The Institute of Historical Research, Special Supplement, no. 8 (May 1970). Salt, S. P. ‘Sir Thomas Wentworth and the Parliamentary Representation of Yorkshire, 1614–1628,’ Northern History, XVI, p. 148. Schelling, F. E. ‘Sidney’s Sister, Pembroke’s Mother, Shakespeare and “DemiScience”, ’Papers on Elizabethan Topics (1927), 100–25. Schubert, H. R. ‘The King’s Ironworks in the Forest of Dean, 1612–1674,’ Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, v.173 (February 1953), pp. 152–62. Sgroi, R. C. L. ‘The Electoral Patronage of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1604–1628,’ Parliamentary History, v. 26, Part 3. Sharpe, K. ‘Archbishop Laud and the University of Oxford,’ H. Lloyd-Jones, et al., eds, History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H.R. Trevor-Roper (London: 1981), 146–64. Sharpe, K.‘The Image of Virtue: The Court and Household of Charles I, 1625–1642,’ David Starkey et al., eds, The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (London 1987), 226–60. Sharpe, K.‘Crown, Parliament and Locality: Government and Communication,’ English Historical Review, CI (1986), 321–50. Shirley, J. W. ‘Sir Walter Raleigh’s Guiana Finances,’ Library Quarterly, XIII, no. 1 (November 1949), 55–69. Snow, V. F. ‘New Light on the Last Days and Death of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton,’ Huntington Library Quarterly, XXXVII, no. 1 (1973–4), pp. 59–70. Starnes, D. ‘John Florio Reconsidered,’ Texas Studies in Literature and Language, VI, no. 4 (Winter 1965), 407–22.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 266

22/10/10 12:23 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

267

Stephenson, N. W. ‘Some Inner History of the Virginia Company,’ William and Mary College Quarterly Hist. Magazine, XXII, no. 2 (October 1913), 89–98. Stone, L. ‘The Electoral Influence of the Second Earl of Salisbury, 1614–68,’ English Historical Review, LXXI (1956), 384–400. ———‘The Fruits of Office: The Case of Robert Cecil, First Earl of Salisbury, 1596–1612,’ in F. J. Fisher ed., Essays in the Economic and Social History of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge: 1961), 89–116. ———‘Marriage Among the English Nobility in the 16th and 17th Centuries,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, III, no. 2 (January 1961), 182–206. Summers, C. J. ‘Jonson’s Inviting a Friend to Supper,’ Ben Jonson Journal, VII (2000), 343–51. Taylor Jr., D. ‘The Third Earl of Pembroke as Patron of Poetry,’ Tulane Studies in English, V, (1955), 41–67. ———‘The Masque and the Lance, the Earl of Pembroke in Jacobean Court Entertainments,’ Tulane Studies in English, VIII (1958), 21–53. ———‘The Earl of Pembroke and the Youth of Shakespeare’s Sonnets: An Essay in Rehabilitation,’ Studies in Philology, LVI, no. 1 (January 1959), 26–54. ———‘Clarendon and Ben Jonson as Witnesses for the Earl of Pembroke’s Character,’ Studies in the English Renaissance Drama (1959), 322–44, ———‘The Earl of Montgomery and the Dedicatory Epistle of Shakespeare’s First Folio,’ Shakespeare Quarterly, X (Winter 1959), no. 1, 121–3. Thomson, P. ‘The Literature of Patronage, 1580–1630,’ Essays in Criticism, no. 3 (July 1952), 267–84. Trevor-Roper, H. R. ‘George Buchanan and the Ancient Scottish Constitution,’ English Historical Review, Supplement 3, 1966, 1–53. Turner, R. E. ‘The Origin of the Cabinet Council,’ English Historical Review (January 1923), 171–205. Tyacke, N. ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter Revolution,’ in C. Russell, ed., The Origins of the English Civil War, rev. ed. (London: 1980), pp. 119–43. Wallace, C. W. ‘The Swan Theatre and the Earl of Pembroke’s Players,’ Englische Studien, 1910–1911), XXXXIII, 340–9. Wentersdorf, K. P. ‘The Origin and Personnel of the Pembroke Company,’ Theatre Research International, v. 5, no. 1 (1980), 45–68. Williams, F. B. ‘Dedications and Verses Through 1640: Addenda,’ The Library, 5th Series, XXX, no. 1 (March 1975), 3–19. Willson, D. H. ‘Summoning and Dissolving Parliament, 1603–1625,’ American Historical Review, XXXVI, no. 2 (January 1931), 274–95. ———‘The Earl of Salisbury and the “Court” Party in Parliament, 1604–1610,’ American Historical Review, QXXXVI, no. 2 (January 1931), 274–95.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 267

22/10/10 12:23 PM

268

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wilson, R. ‘Shakespeare and the Jesuits: New Connections Supporting the Theory of the Lost Catholic Years in Lancashire,’ Times Literary Supplement (19 December 1997), 11–13. Wright, L. B. ‘Propaganda Against James I’s “Appeasement” of Spain,’ The Huntington Library Quarterly, VI, no. 2 (February 1942), 149–72. Young, M. B. ‘Buckingham, War and Parliament: Revisionism gone too far,’ Parliamentary History, v. 4 (1985), 45–69. ———‘Revisionism and the Council of War, 1624–1626,’ Parliamentary History, v. 8, part 1, 1989, 1–27. Zaller, R. ‘Interest of State: James I and the Palatinate,’ Albion, v. 6, no. 2 (Summer 1974), 144–75. ———‘The Concept of Opposition in Early Stuart England,’ Albion, v. 12, no. 3 (Fall 1980), 211–34.

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 268

22/10/10 12:23 PM

Index

The following abbreviations are used: amb = ambassador archbp = archbishop bp = bishop Pembroke = 3rd Earl of Pembroke

A Game at Chess 107 Abbot, George archbp 59, 65, 67, 153, 164–5 Academ Roiall 96–7 Adams, Thomas 93 Allen, Thomas 189 Alleyn, Edward 4 Anne of Denmark 28, 39, 46, 64–5, 66–7, 143 Arminianism 53, 93–4, 161, 164, 166–7, 175, 186 Arnold, Sir Nicholas 135 Arundel, Henry Earl of 100, 101, 102, 134, 140, 159, 161, 164–5, 167, 170 Aubrey, John 2, 5, 81, 132, 133 Bacon, Sir Francis 61, 116–18, 124 Bagg, Sir James 167–8 Barratt, Robert 15 Bayning, Paul 136 Blackstone, William 68 Blount, Edward 97 Boaden, James 19 Boyle, Richard Earl of Cork 144 Brooke, Sir Basil 147 Brennan, Michael G. 20–1 Brooke, Raphe 97 Browne, William 32, 78, 80–1

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 269

Brydges, Sir Egerton 32 Buchanan, George 44 Burbage, Richard 4 Buxton, John 32 Caesar, Sir Julius 59, 110–11 Campion, Thomas 49, 80, 105 Carew, Richard 92 Carpenter, Nathaniel 95 Carr, Robert Duke of Somerset and James I 56 fall from grace 65 marriage to Lady Frances Howard 47, 60 murder of Overbury 61 relations with Pembroke 64–5 Cavendish, William Duke of Newcastle 106, 134, 140 Cecil, Robert Earl of Salisbury death of 55–7 and the Great Contract 54 and James I 53–6 land purchases 46, 135–7 patronage of musicians 50 relations with Pembroke 14–16, 23–7, 50–1, 148 works dedicated to 79

22/10/10 12:23 PM

270

INDEX

Chaffin, Thomas 173, 189, 192 Chaloner, Edward 94 Chapman, George 21, 82, 85, 91, 106, 108 Charles I and Buckingham 67, 122–3, 124–7, 159–61, 162–4, 166–71, 177–9, 183 finances 141, 165, 180–1 and Montgomery 121–2, 166 and parliaments 119, 124–7 patronage 178 and Pembroke 101, 105–6, 141, 159–60, 162–8, 170–1, 177–9, 183, 185–6, 188 Spanish marriage treaty 121–2 Clifford, Anne Dowager Countess of Dorset 136 Cobham, Lord 22 Coke, Edward Sir 71, 117, 119, 120, 122, 138 Coperario Giovanni 50, 104, 105 Coryton, William 52–3, 150, 167, 182, 186, 187, 188 Cranfield, Lionel Earl of Middlesex 113, 124–5, 126, 127 Crewe, Clipsby Sir 181 Daniel, Samuel 8, 49, 78, 80, 96, 100, 103, 110 Davies, Lady 189 Davies, John of Hereford 5, 21, 39, 41–2, 80–1, 99 Davison, Francis 32, 79–80 Devonshire, Christiana Countess of 29–30 Dickinson, William 93 Digby, John Earl of Bristol 122, 124–5, 165, 167, 170 Digges, Sir Dudley 122, 169 Donne, John 31, 83–4 Donne, John the Younger 28–9, 30, 31, 32, 84 Dowland, John 105 Drayton, Michael 81, 89, 146 Drummond, William of Hawthornden 21, 29, 81 Dudley, Robert Earl of Essex 11–12 Earle, John 86, 191 Edmondes, Sir Thomas 35

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 270

Egerton, Thomas Lord Ellesmere 59–60, 71, 153, 171 Eliot, Sir John 150, 167–70, 181–2, 183, 186, 187, 188 Elizabeth I offer of private army by 2nd Earl of Pembroke 3 reaction to the Fitton affair 16–18 relations with Pembroke 1, 8, 11–14, 24–6 Factions at Court of James I 43 Featly, Daniel 174–5 Fennor, William 79, 87 Ferrabosco, Alphonso 104, 105 Florio, John 78, 89, 109–10 Ford, John 97 Frederick of Bohemia 70, 71 Fullerton, Sir John 181 Gardiner, Samuel Rawson 18–19, 123, 132, 192 Gilbert, Adrian 96 Godwyn, Thomas 96, 172 Gondomar, Diego Count Sarmiento de Acuna 60, 66, 114, 115, 120, 156 Grey, Henry Earl of Kent 134, 140 Hall, Joseph 88, 93–4, 179 Harington, Sir John 28, 89 Hassell, John 173 Hay, James Earl of Carlisle 178, 184–5 Healey, John 88 Heminge, John and Condell, Henry 91 Herbert, Sir Edward 101 Herbert, Edward MP 169, 182 Herbert, George 84 Herbert, Henry 2nd Earl of Pembroke 1–3, 12–13, 15–16, 151–2, 153 Herbert, Philip Earl of Montgomery and Charles I 121–2, 166 heir to Pembroke 121–2, 127, 165 and James I 40, 46, 47, 50 and marriage 34, 49 patronage 106, 109

22/10/10 12:23 PM

INDEX

political career 53, 55, 73, 116, 185 relations with Buckingham 75, 127, 159, 177–9 and wealth & estates 27, 114, 131, 132, 135, 136–9, 140–1, 150, 152–4, 157 works dedicated to 42, 80–2, 87, 92, 95, 98, 100, 102 Herbert, Thomas Sir 20 Herbert, William 1st Earl of Pembroke 2, 151 Herbert, William 3rd Earl of Pembroke birth 1 and Buckingham 65–6, 73–5, 106–7, 145, 159–60, 164–6, 169, 177–9, 180, 181 and Cecil 24–7, 46, 50–1, 56–7, 148 and Charles I 101, 105–6, 141, 159–60, 162–8, 170–1, 177–83, 185–6, 188 as Chancellor of Oxford 75, 171–5 at Court 47–50, 104 death of 189, 191–2 dislike of Scots 48 education of 5–8, 28 and Elizabeth I, 1, 3, 8, 11–14, 24–6 Entrepreneurial activities Africa Company 153 East India Company 152–3 Forest of Dean 50, 143–7 Mineral and Battery Works 147–8 New England Company 157–8 Northwest Passage Company 153 Pilgrim Fathers 152, 157–8 Society of the Fishery 151 Society of Mines Royal 148–9 Somer’s Island Company 156–7 Stannaries 46–7, 149–50 Virginia Company 154–6 the Essex Faction 11–13 financial affairs 24, 27, 46, 130–2, 135, 143–4 forced loans 113–14 and foreign affairs 45, 55, 70, 113–15 health of 14–15, 121–2 House of Lords 116–18, 163–64, 167, 170, 183–4 and James I 39–40, 43–4, 47–9, 53, 55–6,

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 271

271

60, 61, 62, 63–68, 70–6, 113, 141 and Inigo Jones 4, 49–50, 101–3, 104, 133 and Ben Jonson 3, 4, 19, 32, 36, 49–50, 78, 79, 81–3, 102, 103, 107, 173 and King’s Men 40–1, 106, 107 as Lord Chamberlain 68–71, 102, 106–7 as Lord Steward 177, 179–80 and marriage 9, 33–7, 134 martial ambitions 13–15 Mary Fitton 16–20, 22–3, 35 patronage of 77–9, 92, 100–1, 104–6 personality of 23, 40, 48 and Pembroke College 173 and Pembroke Connection 51–3, 62–63, 115–16, 118, 124, 161–62, 166, 181 and Pembroke’s Men 3–4, 81 poetry of 28–33, 41 political career of 46–7, 51–2, 54–5, 63–65, 75–6, 159 political ideas of 44–5, 183–4 portraits of 101–2 religious ideas of 45 Spanish factions 44–5, 55, 56, 59, 60–62, 64–66, 73, 114 Spanish marriage treaty 123 Ramsbury 133 and Rudyerd 8, 19, 45, 73–4, 81, 84, 95, 107, 115, 118, 119, 125–6, 151, 157, 163, 165–69, 180–3, 186–7 and Shakespeare 19–20, 30–1, 39–40, 41–2, 77, 91–2, 106, 107 social life of 28 Venice 39–40, 45, 50, 98, 123, 164, 180, 184, 191 wealth and estates 27, 129–30, 133–4 Herbert, Sir William, MP 63, 74, 118, 126, 182 Herbert, William of Red Castle 139, 140 Hicks, Sir Baptist 46, 136 Hicks, Sir Michael 21, 46, 135, 136 Hieron, Samuel 79 Hoskins, P.P. 101 Hotman, Jean 98 Hotson, Leslie 20

22/10/10 12:23 PM

272

INDEX

Howard family 59 Hume, Tobias 104 Hyde, Lawrence 131 Hyde, Edward Earl of Clarendon 18–19, 189, 192 Jackson, Thomas 94 James I and Buckingham 65–68, 73–5, 106–7 and Cecil 53–6 death 128, 159 foreign affairs 59 and Inigo Jones 102–3 Montgomery 40, 46, 47, 50 Parliament 1624 124–7 patronage 179 and Pembroke 39–40, 43–4, 47–9, 53, 55–6, 60, 61, 62, 63–69, 70–6, 113, 138, 141 Johnson, Robert 98, 154 Johnson, Samuel Dr 78 Jones, Inigo 4, 49–50, 101–3, 104, 133 Jonson, Ben 3, 4, 19, 32, 36, 49–50, 78, 79, 81–3, 102, 103, 107, 110, 173 Kent, William 131 Knollys, Sir William 16–17 Kruger, Robert 33 Lambert, Sir Thomas, 113 Lanier, Nicholas 29–30, 50, 104–6 Laud, William archbp 162, 164, 166, 174, 188 Lawes, Henry 4, 29, 30, 104, 105 Lee, Sidney 32 Le Sueur, Hubert 102 Leech, Edward 131–2, 138, 140, 161 Leech, John 82, 132 Lennard, Samson 93 Lloyd, John 8 Lord Herbert of Cherbury 20 Lowe, John 131 Mansell, Robert Sir 114, 126, 151, 153, 154, 157, 163, 182

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 272

Markham, Francis 97–8 Marston, John 81–2, 106 Massinger, Arthur 25, 108 Massinger, Philip 92, 107–9 May, Humphrey Sir 74 May, Thomas 85–6, 96 Middleton, Thomas 4 Moffit, Thomas 7–8 Mompesson, Giles Sir 116–17 Morgan, Charles Sir 189 Morgan, Thomas 131, 138, 140, 162 Moryson, Fynes 98 Mytens, Daniel 101 Nashe, Thomas 4, 5, 92, 109 Neville, Henry Sir 61–2, 65, 135 Norden, John 96 Of the Internal and External Nature of Man in Christ 95 Oldisworth, Arnold 132, 148 Oldisworth, Michael 52, 85, 95, 97, 132 Oliver, Isaac 101 Onderwyzer, Gaby P. 33–4 Overbury, Sir Thomas 60, 61 Painter, William 106 Parliament of 1604 53–5 Parliament of 1614 61–3 Parliament of 1621 and Cautionary Towns 113 dissolution of 120 Lloyd (Floyd or Flood) case 116–17 and the Palatinate 114–15 the Pembroke Connection 115–16, 118 Prince Charles 119 and Protestation of 18 December 120 Parliament of 1624 the Pembroke Connection 124 Prince Charles and Buckingham 124–7 Parliament of 1625 160–5 Parliament of 1626 166–71 Parliament of 1628 dissolution of 187

22/10/10 12:23 PM

INDEX

the Pembroke Connection 181, 186 the Petition of Right 182–3 the Three Resolutions 187 Parsons, Bartholemew 94 Peacham, Henry 100, 101 Perrott, Sir James 149, 167, 182 Phelips, Sir Robert 120, 122 Pocahantas 99 Prideaux, John 94–5, 171–4 Privy Council 51, 52, 55, 59, 61–2, 66, 71–2, 75, 106, 113, 115, 120–3, 146, 155, 156, 159, 162, 165, 180, 188 Proclus, Diadochus 95 Pym, John 120 Raleigh, Carew 119 Raleigh, Sir Walter 71–3, 96, 143 Rolfe, John 99, 154 Rowse, A.L. 19–20 Rubens, Peter Paul 102, 187 Rudyerd, Sir Benjamin and business ventures 151, 157 Oxford 8 Pembroke’s spokeman 19, 45, 73–4, 107, 115, 118, 119, 125–6, 163, 165–9, 180–3, 186–7 and poetry 81, 84, 95 Russell, Francis Earl of Bedford 120, 130, 138 Russell, Lucy Countess of Bedford 89, 139, 159 Salisbury, bp of 134 Sandys, Sir Edwin 122 Sanford, Hugh 8, 15, 21, 35, 49, 51, 103, 109, 131, 189 Shakespeare, William dedication of Sonnets 41–2 relations with Pembroke 19–20, 30–1, 39–40, 77, 91–2, 107, 108 Sheldon, Richard 93 Shute, W. 98 Sidney, Mary Countess of Pembroke 1, 5, 7, 20, 27, 28, 33, 79, 80, 83, 152 Sidney, Sir Philip

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 273

273

influence on Pembroke 1, 5–8 investments 152 poetry 79 political ideas 6 Sidney, Robert Earl of Leicester 78 Sidney, Robert Viscount Lisle 135 Sidney, Sir Robert 8–9, 11–15, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 41, 80 Smith, Captain John 98, 154, 158 Society of Antiquaries 96, 97, 108 Spanish Marriage 122–4 Stanhope, John Sir 22 Stockman, John 131 Stone, Lawrence 132 Stradling, John Sir 85, 126, 149 Sylvester, Josuah 42, 79, 85–6 Talbot, Elizabeth Countess of Shrewsbury 134–5 Talbot, Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury 35–7, 130, 133, 134, 139, 144 Talbot, Mary Countess of Pembroke 35, 36, 134, 138, 140, 154 Tawney, R.H. 132 Taylor, John, The Water Poet 86–7 Thornton, Richard 153 Thoroughgood, John 95, 106, 131, 140 Tomkins, Thomas 105 Turner, Samuel Dr. 168–9, 180, 181 Tyacke, Nicholas 167 Tyler, Thomas 19 Vaenius, Otto 100, 101 Van Dyke 101 Van Somer 101 Vanlore, Peter Sir 136, 138 Vaughan, Roland 99–100 Vaughan, William 99 Vere, Henry Earl of Oxford 33–4 Villiers, George Duke of Buckingham Academ Roiall 96 assassination of 184–6 and Charles I, 67, 122–3, 124–7, 159–61, 162–4, 166–71, 177–9, 183

22/10/10 12:23 PM

274

INDEX

Villiers, George Duke of Buckingham (continued) and James I, 65–8, 73, 75, 106–7 and Montgomery 75, 127, 159, 177–9 and Pembroke 65–6, 73–5, 106–7, 145, 159–60, 164–6, 169, 177–9, 180, 181 political career 114–15, 117, 118–19, 120, 124–8, 161–5, 166–71, 183 and Spanish Marriage treaty 122–4 Weston, Richard Earl of Portland 184, 185, 186, 188 Wharton, George Sir, 48 Wheare, Degory 95

CS5_William Herbert final.indd 274

Whyte, Roland 8–9, 11–15, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Williams, Griffith 93 Williams, John Lord Keeper 139, 164–5 Wilson, J.Dover 20 Wood, Anthony 174–5 Wriothesley, Henry Earl of Southampton 19–20, 39, 42, 48, 52, 60, 155 Wroth, Lady Mary 20–2, 35, 135 Wroth, Philip Sir 21 Wyther, George 81, 87–8 Yelverton, Henry Sir 117 York House Conference 166–7

22/10/10 12:23 PM