FEILDING, Basil (c. 1608-75) | History of Parliament

FEILDING (FIELDING) (alias HAPSBURG), Basil (c. 1608–75)

styled 1622-43 Visct. Feilding; accel. 21 Mar. 1628 Bar. FEILDING; suc. fa. 8 Apr. 1643 as 2nd earl of DENBIGH; cr. 2 Feb. 1665 Bar. ST LIZ

First sat before 1660, 24 Mar. 1628; first sat after 1660, 25 Apr. 1660; last sat 13 Nov. 1675

b. c.1608, 1st s. of William Feilding^†, (later earl of Denbigh) and Susan, da. of Sir George Villiers, sis. of George Villiers^†, duke of Buckingham. educ. Queens’ Coll. Camb. (1621); Basel Univ.; travelled abroad (Germany) 1631. m. (1) 1633 (with £4,480),1 Anne (d.1635) da. of Richard Weston^†, earl of Portland, s.p.; (2) 12 Aug. 1639 (with £50,000), Barbara (d. 1 Apr. 1641) da. of Sir John Lambe (d.1647) of Rothwell, Northants, s.p.;2 (3) 8 July 1641 (with £4,000),3 Elizabeth (d. 1670) da. and coh. of Edward Bourchier^†, 4th earl of Bath, s.p.; (4) 1670, Dorothy (1654-1709?) da. of Francis Lane of Glendon, Northants., s.p. KB 1626. d. 28 Nov. 1675; admon. 29 Apr. 1676.

Amb. Venice 1634-9;4 gent. of bedchamber to Charles, Prince Wales aft. 1630;5 commr. treaty of Uxbridge 1645; speaker of House of Lords 1648-9; mbr. council of State 1649, 1650.6

Ld. lt. Denb. and Flint 1642, Warws. 1643; recorder, Coventry 1647-51; custos rot. Warws. 1660-d., Leics. 1667-d.7

Col. regt. of horse 1642; cdr. West Midlands Assoc. 1643-5; capt. tp. of horse 1667.8

Associated with: Newnham Paddox, Warws., and Martinsthorpe (Mastrop), Rutland.9

Likenesses: etching by W. Hollar, NPG D28214.

Feilding has been vilified by some as the embodiment of an unprincipled opportunist.10 Despite fighting on the side of Parliament in the Civil War, he maintained a foot in both camps through his family’s royalist connections. He opposed the king’s execution but squared his conscience to serve on the first two councils of state. He later retired from public life having possibly offered his support to Charles II in 1651.11 Reconciled with Charles II at the time of the Restoration, Denbigh again slipped into opposition during the 1660s and at the time of his death was a fierce critic of the direction being taken by the government.

The Feilding family claimed descent from the Hapsburgs, a fiction that Feilding was eager to perpetuate and which belied the family’s relatively recent rise to prominence.12 In reality, the Feildings were a Warwickshire family of solid gentry origin which had owned land in the county since the early 15th century. Their seat at Newnham Paddox was assessed at 34 hearths in 1666 and they owned other estates in Wales, Leicestershire and Rutland.13 The family was propelled into wider political importance by his father’s marriage to a sister of the duke of Buckingham and his consequent elevation to the peerage as Baron Feilding in 1620. Promotion to the earldom of Denbigh followed in 1622. Feilding himself was summoned to the House by a writ of acceleration as Baron Feilding of Newnham Paddox. Further awards and advantageous marriages followed for other members of the family. Feilding’s brother, George, was created earl of Desmond [I], while his sister Mary married James Douglas, duke of Hamilton [S]. Another sister, Anne, was married to Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden; Elizabeth was married to Lewis Boyle, Viscount Boyle of Kinalmeky [I], and later created countess of Guildford in her own right.

While the 1st earl of Denbigh appeared reluctant to court further advancement, the driving force for his promotions apparently being his countess, Feilding seems to have been all too eager to build upon these foundations.14 It was through his Villiers relations that he established a friendship with Edward Hyde, later earl of Clarendon, who was connected to the family through his first marriage to Anne Ayliffe.15 Feilding’s most significant connection remained with his uncle, Buckingham, through whose influence he was promised the offices of master of the rolls and gentleman of the bedchamber.16 The duke’s assassination stalled Feilding’s prospects for rapid promotion and he was advised by the king to seek his fortune in the European wars instead.17 Following service at the siege of Bois-le-Duc, Feilding was offered a position as gentleman of the bedchamber to the Emperor Ferdinand II, who may have been intrigued by Feilding’s supposed Hapsburg ancestry.18 On his return to England, Feilding forged a new alliance by his marriage to a daughter of Lord Treasurer Portland, through whose influence he was appointed ambassador to Venice.19 He remained there until 1639, though his wife died within a few months of their arrival.20 The death of his father-in-law in 1635 weakened Feilding’s position at court, while financial concerns further added to his difficulties.21 By 1637 it was expected that he would be recalled from his embassy.22 His continued employment caused bemusement in some Venetian circles but was explained by their resident in London, who emphasized the strength of his court connections: ‘without such support he would have fallen utterly, as faults which in him are not noticed or are condoned, would be believed and punished in others’.23

Civil War to Restoration

On his return from Venice, Feilding was able to contract another advantageous match but in other regards he was less fortunate.24 Deprived of the queen’s favour as a result of his support for a Spanish alliance, he was thwarted in his quest to secure court office and was prevented from returning to his Venetian embassy.25 The outbreak of Civil War found Feilding at odds with the rest of his family who all rallied to the king. Some have speculated that he was imbued with the principles of the Venetian republic and made a principled stand against arbitrary monarchy. Certainly he proved to be a consistent upholder of the parliamentary and aristocratic interest. He may, though, have been disgruntled at the lack of suitable rewards for his services to the crown.26 In April 1642 he was named one of the delegates to wait on the king but he declined to act, a decision that elicited surprise from the Venetian Resident, Giustinian, who was struck by Feilding’s unusual ‘coyness’. Such scruples were laid aside at the outbreak of hostilities. At the battle of Edgehill, Feilding was present in the ranks of the parliamentary army on the opposite side to his father and was even mistakenly reported to have been killed in the fray.27 Feilding’s close ties to the court led many to suspect his true loyalties and there is some evidence to suggest that after Edgehill he sought a return to the king’s party.28 He remained in the parliamentarian camp, though, and in 1643 succeeded Robert Greville^†, 2nd Baron Brooke, as commander of the West Midlands Association, an appointment that brought him into conflict with Robert Devereux^†, 3rd earl of Essex. His moderate approach also caused problems with the more radical county committee in Warwickshire led by William Purefoy, who accused him of favouring royalists.29

Feilding succeeded to the earldom of Denbigh after his father was mortally wounded during a skirmish at Birmingham. He later resigned his command in accordance with the self-denying ordinance and was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the king at Uxbridge in 1645. Denbigh became associated with the handful of Independent peers after the end of the Civil War, signing the Vote of No Addresses in 1648. On 9 Jan. 1649 he was nominated speaker of the Lords and appears to have been behind a scheme to preserve both the House and the king’s life.30 He refused to act on the commission trying the king, protesting that he would rather be ‘torn in pieces than have any share in so infamous a business’.31 In spite of his opposition to the king’s execution, Denbigh served on the first two councils of state.32 At least one authority mistakenly suggests that he was also one of the peers to accept a seat in the Commons.33 He was uncomfortable with the engagement to be taken by all members of the council, conceiving it to be ‘contrary to what he then acted as a peer in the House of Lords, then acknowledged a third estate of this kingdom’. As a result of Denbigh’s response a new engagement was drawn up.34

Denbigh stepped back from public life in the 1650s. He was not elected to the third council of state and from 1651 appears to have been at least on the peripheries of royalist plotting. He may have offered his support to Charles II prior to the battle of Worcester.35 In the middle of the decade he was engaged in a tussle over settling the estate of Henry Bourchier^†, 5th earl of Bath.36 By the late 1650s Denbigh had manoeuvred himself clearly into the ranks of the Presbyterian opposition associated with Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, and in March 1658 he was said to have been in negotiation with William Legge^‡ about seizing Coventry. Similar negotiations were afoot in June of the following year.37

Restoration to 1670

Denbigh was among the first peers to enter the reconstituted House of Lords, taking his seat on 25 Apr. 1660. He opposed the admission of the ‘young lords’, favouring instead the inclusion of the ‘Oxford lords’, who he believed would be more moderate. His concession to admit even the latter appears to have been the result of pressure applied by George Monck, later duke of Albemarle. For all this, in discussion with royalists agents he was eager to let it be known that his intentions throughout the years of Civil War and interregnum had been ‘loyal’.38 Present on 96 sitting days in the first session of the Convention (81 per cent of the whole), Denbigh quickly threw himself into the House’s business. On 27 Apr. he was named to the committee for privileges and on 1 May to the sub-committee for the Journal and the committee considering an answer to the king’s letter. On 2 May he was named to the committee considering the ordinance appointing Monck captain general. The same day, the House issued an order for attaching John Seagrave, a tailor, and two others who had arrested Thomas Chamberlane, one of Denbigh’s servants, contrary to parliamentary privilege. On 9 May the committee for privileges requested that Denbigh and Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, be present the following day for hearings in the separate case of Antonio Vas.39 On 14 May Seagrave and the two other delinquents were brought to the bar but Seagrave was released through Denbigh’s intercession on account of his poverty. The following day Denbigh moved that the two remaining prisoners, John Dowell and John Osborne, should also be released. On 24 May, Denbigh was one of those named to the committee to compose a letter of congratulation to the king on his safe landing. On 9 June Denbigh was given leave of absence and on 20 June he was granted a pardon for his activities during the Civil War and Interregnum.40 He resumed his seat in the House the following day. On 4 July he was named to the committee for the bill to confirm the privileges of Parliament and on 19 July to the committees considering the bill for poll money and that confirming judicial proceedings.

On 9 Aug. 1660 Denbigh was again granted leave of absence for his health. He resumed his seat on 22 Aug. after which he sat without major interruption until the close of the session. On 5 Sept. he was named to the committee for the bill to restore Thomas Howard, 16th earl of Arundel, to the dukedom of Norfolk. The same day he was added to the committees considering the patent purporting to create Edward Somerset, 2nd marquess of Worcester, duke of Somerset and Beaufort, and the bill for restoring William Seymour, as 3rd duke of Somerset, which contested Worcester’s claim to the titles. Denbigh was named to a further five committees before the close of the session. He returned to the House for the opening of the second session in November 1660 after which he continued to attend until 12 Dec. (56 per cent of the whole). On 6 Nov. he was named to the committee considering the bill restoring Henry Arundell, 3rd Baron Arundell of Wardour, to his estate and to three further committees before withdrawing on 12 December. On 30 Dec. Denbigh registered his proxy in favour of William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele, perhaps not realising that the session had ended the day before.41

The early years of the restoration found Denbigh eager to achieve payment of his arrears from the time of his service in Venice under the previous reign. In January 1661 he was the first of the peers to receive a warrant for his creation money.42 Despite his position as custos rotulorum for the county, Denbigh does not appear to have been active in the elections in Warwickshire following the dissolution of the Convention. He returned to the House for the opening of the new Parliament on 8 May 1661 and was thereafter present on just over a quarter of all sitting days. On 11 May he was named to the standing committees for privileges, petitions and the sub-committee for the Journal and on 14 May he was named to the committee for the bill to reverse the attainder of Thomas Wentworth^†, earl Strafford. On 6 June he was granted leave to go into the country. The following day he again registered his proxy with Saye and Sele, which was vacated by his return to the House on 16 July.43 On 18 July he was nominated to the committee for the corporations bill and on 20 July for that considering the bill for Charles Stuart, duke of Richmond. Denbigh was absent from the House from 25 July and a call of the House on 25 Nov. indicated that he had left a proxy. On 6 Feb. 1662 he was again excused his attendance on account of sickness and did not return to the House until 14 April. He was then present until 14 May, attending 24 sittings in that period during which he was named to a further three committees.

Denbigh took his seat in the second session on 20 Feb. 1663. He was present on just 11 days in the session (approximately 13 per cent of the whole) and over the ensuing three years there was a marked decline in his attendance of the House. On 12 Mar. he was named to the committee for the heralds’ bill, in which he may have had a particular interest given his partiality for devising spurious genealogies. On 16 Mar. he was granted leave of absence, after which he was absent for the remainder of the session, though he ensured that his proxy was registered in favour of Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland. He was consequently away from the House at the time of the attempt to impeach Clarendon launched by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol.

Denbigh’s departure may have been connected with the continuing dispute over the settlement of the Bourchier estate, though he explained his decision to retire to the country as being on account of ‘a great cold taken at London’. In settling the Bath dispute he appears to have been promised the assistance of the queen mother through the intercession of his sister Elizabeth, countess of Guildford, and Sir Kenelm Digby. Denbigh’s rural solitude was rudely broken shortly after his arrival in Warwickshire when he was served with a subpoena to appear in a case concerning one Walter Devereux at Warwick Assizes. Denbigh was quick to remonstrate with Serjeant Richard Newdigate^‡, taking exception both to the style by which he was addressed and the subpoena itself: ‘the peers of England enjoying the privilege in the chancery of being [cited] to appear by letter, and not by an ordinary subpoena, I may well lay claim to the same civility in other courts of justice.’ Denbigh requested that he be excused attendance at the assizes, ‘before I have acquainted my lords the peers… least by my condescension I may prejudice others in their hereditary rights and privileges, as well as my self.’44 Denbigh returned to the House a fortnight into the new session on 4 Apr. 1664 but sat for only 13 days (36 per cent of the whole) before absenting himself once more. His proxy was again registered in favour of Northumberland.

That summer Denbigh became embroiled in a boundary dispute concerning the limits of his estate at Martinsthorpe. Disagreement over the extent of the adjoining manors of Preston and Martinsthorpe dated from at least the Civil War. It was asserted by Denbigh’s witnesses that a conspiracy had been hatched at the Oakham assizes to deprive him of the disputed land. The case appeared before the court of exchequer in October, but was delayed to the following term.45

Denbigh returned to the House on 24 Nov. 1664 and the following day he was named to the standing committees for privileges and petitions. Present on just under half of all sitting days in the session, on 12 Dec. he was named to the committee for the bill enabling Philip Smythe^‡, 2nd Viscount Strangford [I], who was connected to Northumberland by marriage, to sell lands for the payment of his debts. On 13 Feb. the ongoing dispute between Denbigh and the remaining heirs of Edward Bourchier, earl of Bath, reached the House. The point at issue was over rights to Roach Forest in Somerset. The House ordered that there should be no further proceedings in the case before Denbigh’s counsel had been heard but the session ended before any progress could be made.

On 2 Feb. 1665 Denbigh was honoured with the additional barony of St Liz. At first sight the peerage was a somewhat puzzling award. It gave Denbigh, already an earl, no superior precedence and was far inferior to the marquessate it was rumoured he had been offered by Charles I during the Civil War. The explanation may lie in the dispute over Martinsthorpe, which had descended to the Feildings from the family of Seyton or St Liz. Creation as Baron St Liz might have been an attempt on Denbigh’s part to strengthen his claims to the estate as well as appealing to his antiquarian interests.46 It certainly did nothing to alleviate his financial difficulties, which continued to plague him through 1665. In rejecting a plea for assistance from his nephew, William Feilding, earl of Desmond [I] (later 3rd earl of Denbigh), he complained of being oppressed by ‘the incivilities of my tenants, charge of buildings, and burden of debts.’47 Alongside his own concerns he was also involved with a chancery action brought by John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, relating to his daughter-in-law’s marriage settlement, of which Denbigh was one of the trustees. Bridgwater was anxious to assure Denbigh that his inclusion in the action was form’s sake alone and that he had ‘no other thoughts towards you than always to acknowledge the kind respects I have ever found at your hands.’ Denbigh obliged by making no difficulties over Bridgwater including his name in the suit.48

Denbigh took his seat in the new session convened in Oxford on 21 Oct. 1665, after which he was present on 32 per cent of all sittings. On 26 Oct. he was named to the committee for the bill to prevent the importation of foreign cattle, in which he may have had a vested interest given the extensive Irish holdings of his nephew and of his sister Elizabeth, countess of Guildford.49 On 30 Oct. he made a brief intervention during the debates about the passage of the five mile bill relating to the attitudes of those wishing to have the measure recommitted.50

Denbigh returned to the House for the ensuing session on 18 Sept. 1666. Present on just over 30 per cent of all sitting days, on 24 Sept. he was named to the usual standing committees. The following day he was named to the committee for the hemp and flax bill and on 27 Sept. to the committee considering the bill for naturalizing Isabella, Lady Arlington. Denbigh sat for just three days in October but he resumed his place on 22 Nov. when he was named to the committee for the bill to prevent frauds in receiving the king’s money. He was named to a further two committees in December. On 5 Feb. 1667 he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to allow a conference with the Commons over the issue of the trial of John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt. The same day Denbigh was named to the committee for the bill for rebuilding the city of London.

Denbigh failed to attend the brief session of July 1667 but that autumn he returned to the House to rally to his old friend, Clarendon. Having taken his seat on 14 Oct. he was present on 69 per cent of all sitting days and named to 16 committees. On 22 Oct. Denbigh and Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Nottingham, were the only two peers to oppose joining with the Commons in an address of thanks to the king for Clarendon’s dismissal, alleging that it was improper for the House to take notice of the matter as Clarendon had been dismissed at the instance of the king and not of Parliament.51 The same day Denbigh was added to the standing committee for privileges. On 4 Nov. he was in attendance at the privileges committee and was one of those ordered to meet at the Parliament office to examine the proceedings concerning the privileges of peerage. Two days later Denbigh was again active in the committee deliberating on the question of foreign nobility and was responsible for the replacement of one of the points composed by the committee with one of his own:

His Majesty by his letters patent giving precedency only to such persons so created to the degree of peers in those kingdoms from whence they derive their titles, it must needs be looked upon as a deviation from the law and a high dishonour and derogation to his Majesty’s letters patent and the nobility of this kingdom that they should not enjoy those privileges and pre-eminencies contained in them and so highly affected and grounded upon the law of the land.52

The same day Denbigh complained to the House about a scandalous petition that had been presented to the king against him by one Thomas Insley (or Hinsley) of Leicestershire. Insley had complained that for the past four years he had been ‘persecuted and overpowered by the greatness’ of Denbigh; that Denbigh had turned out one of the Leicestershire justices and threatened to turn out others.53 Insley was ordered to answer at the bar of the House the following day.54 He confessed to the petition and requested to be sworn on oath. Denbigh desired that the House would grant Insley liberty to speak but the House took greater offence at Insley’s presumption than Denbigh and reprehended him for his ‘scandalous and saucy expressions towards the earl of Denbigh.’ Insley was enjoined to seek Denbigh’s forgiveness and the unfortunate man was compelled to submit completely.

Denbigh chaired two further sessions of the privileges committee on 21 and 26 November. He also continued to work on behalf of the disgraced Clarendon. On 3 Dec. 1667 he presented Clarendon’s petition to the House and confirmed that the former lord chancellor had fled the country.55 On 9 Dec. he was again one of those named to a sub-committee of the committee of privileges to compose a declaration on the subject of foreign nobility.56 He continued to attend regularly through the latter part of the session until 24 Feb. 1668 when he absented himself for six weeks. He ensured once more that his absence was covered by registering his proxy in favour of Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough. Denbigh resumed his seat on 13 Apr. and on 5 May he was nominated one of the peers to report the conference with the Commons concerning the dispute between the East India Company and Thomas Skinner.57

During the summer of 1668 Denbigh’s newly constructed chapel at Newnham Paddox was consecrated by John Hacket, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, while Hacket was undertaking his visitation of the diocese.58 In August Denbigh appears to have been one of a number of peers to convey messages of support to James Butler, duke of Ormond [I].59 He returned to the House on 25 Oct. 1669, after which he was present on 34 of the session’s 36 sitting days. The same day he was named to the committee considering the decay of trade and fall of rents. On 10 Nov. he made an ‘eloquent speech’ arguing for the rejection of the bill for limiting the Lords’ privileges and on 22 Nov. he entered his protest at the resolution to pass the measure.60

Opposition in the 1670s

Following the fall of Clarendon, Denbigh came increasingly to be identified with the opposition in the House. Disgruntlement may also have been reflected in his diminishing attendance of the Lords, though he was active initially on a number of committees. Having taken his seat on 14 Feb. 1670 he was present on just 17 per cent of the whole session. On 17 Feb. he was again nominated to the committee considering the decline in trade and he was named to a further nine committees before quitting the session. On 21 Feb. he was one of 9 peers (among them Bridgwater and Wharton) to vote against razing the records from the Journal relating to the dispute with the Commons over Thomas Skinner.61 On 11 Mar. he chaired the committee considering Lord Strangford’s bill and reported its conclusions to the House later the same day.62 Three days later he was nominated to a sub-committee of the committee for privileges considering the case Slingsby v. Hale and on 19 Mar. he was named to the committee considering the bill to enable John Manners, styled Lord Roos (later duke of Rutland), to remarry.63 On 25 Mar. he was named to the committee considering the bill for a treaty of union between England and Scotland. The following day William Grey, Baron Grey of Warke, registered his proxy in Denbigh’s favour, which was vacated by his return to the House on 29 March. The same day Denbigh was one of only four peers to vote against the passage of the union bill.64 He then registered his dissent at the resolution to pass the bill against conventicles. In spite of his marriages to the Catholic Anne Weston and the high Anglican, Barbara Lambe, and the conversion of his own sister Elizabeth, countess of Guildford, to Catholicism, Denbigh himself appears to have remained sympathetic to Protestant Dissent: he was noted to have offered protection to at least two ejected ministers.

Denbigh quit the session after 29 Mar. 1670 though he ensured that his proxy was registered with his cousin, George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. Denbigh’s absence may have been connected with the final illness of his wife, who died in September at Martinsthorpe.65 Plans for her funeral, initially expected to be a public event, were altered and she was eventually buried in the Feilding vault at Monks Kirby following a private ceremony.66 Denbigh wasted little time in seeking out a fourth wife and before the end of the year he had married Dorothy Lane, a distant relative of Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu of Boughton. This may have been the occasion of an affidavit sworn by one Alexander Ekins about complaints made against Montagu by Denbigh’s new father-in-law.67

Denbigh was excused at a call of the House on 14 Nov. 1670. Ill health may have been behind his absence. He was excused again on 10 Feb. 1671 and in May 1671 it was reported, inaccurately, that he had died.68 In January 1673 he was named in a case brought in chancery by Bennet Sherard^‡, 2nd Baron Sherard [I], concerning the profits of the manors of Great and Little Harrowden. The case arose out of a dispute involving the 1649 marriage settlement of Nicholas Knollys, 2nd earl of Banbury, and one of Denbigh’s distant relations, Lady Isabella Blount, in which Denbigh had been named one of the trustees.69 Denbigh attested, perhaps reasonably, that he could not ‘well remember the particular contents of the deeds to which it is alleged this defendant was a party’ and requested that he be ‘dismissed with his costs and charges wrongfully sustained.’70

Denbigh had rallied by the beginning of 1673. He returned to the House three weeks into the new session on 25 Feb., after which he was present on two thirds of all sittings. On 26 Feb. he was named to the committee considering Robert Bellamy’s bill. On 3 Mar. he chaired the committee and reported its findings to the House but subsequent sessions of the committee for the bill were chaired by Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset, and Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey.71 On 8 Mar. Denbigh’s cousin, Henry Grey, earl of Stamford, registered his proxy in Denbigh’s favour, which was vacated by Stamford’s death later that year. On 12 Mar. Denbigh was named to the committee for Sir William Rich’s bill and the following day he was again involved with a case concerning breach of privilege relating to his lands at Martinsthorpe. The governors of neighbouring Oakham School claimed that Denbigh owed them a rent charge. When he refused to pay, some of his cattle were confiscated by the under-sheriff of Rutland, acting as Oakham’s attorney. Denbigh then complained to the Lords that his privilege had been infringed by the governors issuing a writ against him.72 The Lords ordered that the dispute be heard at the bar of the House on 2 Apr. but further proceedings were lost by the close of the session on 29 March.

In the midst of such proceedings, Denbigh appears to have become increasingly troubled by the state of the administration. At about this time an unsigned document, annotated by Denbigh, appears to have been composed either as the basis for a speech or pamphlet expressing his concerns at the increasingly arbitrary nature of the restored monarchy.73 His concerns may not have been entirely high minded. Denbigh experienced increasing financial difficulties in the later years of his life and from 1673 he renewed his appeals for his arrears of pay as ambassador to Venice (still outstanding) and of a 1,000 mark pension awarded to him by Charles I to be honoured. In all, Denbigh claimed to be owed upwards of £13,157. His financial straits were hampered further by debts of £3,000 and he was compelled to pawn his jewels worth £6,000.74 On the king’s order, Denbigh related the ‘unhappy story of my embassy at Venice’ to Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington. He excused his importunity by explaining that he had held off from appealing for restitution for as long as possible but laced his explanation with a veiled threat of the consequences to the crown of not honouring past debts:

If my design had taken a view of prospect upon my own particular profit, my address to my lord treasurer had lain fairer in my way, but desiring to take His Majesty off from the trouble of charges and expenses in this time of war, especially when the discharging the debts of the late king of glorious memory might give an ill precedent of drawing his present Majesty into a bottomless and clamorous gulf of engagements not to be overcome I am only become an humble suitor to his Majesty that by your lordship’s advice and the assistance and representation of his Majesty’s ministers abroad, his late Majesty’s honour and dignity of his crown… may be brought off from that rock upon which they were split in the ruins and dissolution of this monarchy…75

Tardy satisfaction of what he considered his due appears to have left Denbigh embittered. It may have been his failure to secure what he considered to be due to him that directed him towards the opposition, though the matters with which he was particularly concerned were those connected with privilege, a subject in which he had been consistently active.

Denbigh attended just one day of the brief session of October 1673. He then took his seat in the new session on 7 Jan. 1674, after which he was present on all bar one of the session’s 38 sittings. Named to four committees, on 6 Feb. he was nominated one of the peers to consider the manner of the securities to be imposed upon his cousin, Buckingham, and Anna Maria Brudenell, countess of Shrewsbury, following the revelations about their scandalous liaison. In April further mistaken reports of Denbigh’s demise encouraged Richard Jones^‡, 3rd Viscount Ranelagh [I], to approach Edward Conway, 3rd Viscount Conway, about procuring one of Denbigh’s offices.76

In the spring of 1675 Denbigh launched a new effort to secure his Venetian arrears. This time his petition was referred to Thomas Osborne earl of Danby, who recommended to the king that the arrears be paid.77 Danby may have hoped that settlement of Denbigh’s financial concerns would encourage him to forsake opposition but in this he was mistaken and Denbigh continued to associate with the ministry’s critics. Denbigh took his seat in the new session on 13 Apr. after which he was present on 64 per cent of all sittings. Named to just two committees, he made the first of a series of protests on 21 Apr. at the resolution that Danby’s non-resisting test bill did not encroach upon the Lords’ privileges. Denbigh put his name to a further protest on 26 Apr. and three days later he protested again at the resolution that the previous protest reflected upon the honour of the House. From 30 Apr. he participated in the debates in committee on the same issue.78 On 4 May Denbigh protested once more at the resolution to agree with the committee’s amendment to include members of the Commons and lords of Parliament within the scope of the first enacting clause of the bill.

Denbigh was embroiled once again in family disputes during the session and on 30 Apr. 1675 he was ordered to present his answer in writing to the petition of Robert Villiers to receive a writ of summons as Viscount Purbeck. In May he submitted his own petition to the House against Villiers’ right to the viscountcy. Emphasizing Villiers’ illegitimacy and his own close interest in the case, Denbigh appealed to the Lords to:

take care that the streams derived from the fountain of honour [the king] may run clear in their proper channels; and this most illustrious body of peers composed of so many noble and princely families, may not receive diminution by any illegitimate mixture injuriously obtruded and pinned upon this of Villiers.79

The case was delayed until 3 June when the House eventually dismissed Denbigh’s petition, who was not even in the House for the conclusion. Buckingham was also ordered to pay Villiers £20 in costs.

On 24 May 1675 Denbigh registered his proxy in favour of George Booth, Baron Delamer. He returned to the House on 13 Oct., after which he was present on two thirds of all sittings and was named as usual to the three standing committees. The following day he was named to the committee for the bill explaining the former measure about Popish recusants and on 11 Nov. he was named to the committee for the countess of Warwick’s bill. Denbigh sat for the final time on 13 Nov. and on 20 Nov. he registered his proxy in Delamer’s favour once more. The proxy was employed the same day in favour of the motion to address the king to dissolve Parliament.80 Denbigh died eight days later at Dunstable.81 Despite a series of premature reports of his demise, his death may have been unexpected, as he died intestate. An inventory of his personal estate at Newnham and Martinsthorpe compiled in March 1676 estimated his private fortune at over £3,191. It was expected that half of this would be divided among his nephews and nieces.82 He was succeeded by his nephew, Desmond, as 3rd earl of Denbigh. His widow later married Sir John James.

R.D.E.E.

1 Warws. CRO, CR 2017/F30/1.
2 CSP Ven. 1636-39, pp. 540, 572; CSP Dom. 1639, p. 452.
3 Warws. RO, CR 2017/L1/a/1.
4 CSP Ven. 1632-36, 243-4.
5 Warws. RO, CR 2017/R12.
6 Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 33.
7 HMC Hastings, ii. 169.
8 CSP Dom. 1667, pp. 182-3.
9 VCH Rutland, ii. 84-85.
10 HR, lx. 109.
11 CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 479.
12 Collins, Peerage, iii. 265; WCRO, CR 2017/L1/a/10; HMC 4th Rep. 262.
13 G. Tyacke, Warws. Country Houses, 148; A. Hughes, Pols. Soc. and Civil War in Warws. 22-23.
14 Hughes, Pols. Soc. and Civil War in Warws. 22-23.
15 Bodl. Clarendon 129, ff. 81, 83, 85.
16 WCRO, CR 2017/R12.
17 C. Denbigh, Royalist Father and Roundhead Son, 83-84.
18 HMC 4th Rep. 262.
19 CSP Ven. 1632-36, p. 63.
20 Ibid. 349; HMC Denbigh, 13.
21 HMC Denbigh, 14-15.
22 HMC 6th Rep. 283.
23 CSP Ven. 1636-39, p. 207.
24 Ibid. 501, 516, 540, 572.
25 HMC 6th Rep. 286; CSP Ven. 1636-39, p. 572.
26 Hughes, Pols. Soc. and Civil War in Warws. 221; C.H. Firth, House of Lords during the Civil War, 116.
27 CSP Ven. 1642-43, pp. 31, 191.
28 Ibid. 211.
29 Firth, House of Lords, 143.
30 Ibid. 170, 209; Gardiner, Great Civil War, iv. 283-7; Hughes, Pols. Soc. and Civil War in Warws. 221.
31 Denbigh, Royalist Father and Roundhead Son, 268.
32 Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 33.
33 Denbigh, Royalist Father and Roundhead Son, 274.
34 Firth, House of Lords, 222-3.
35 Denbigh, Royalist Father and Roundhead Son, 294.
36 WCRO, CR 2017/c2/vol. 2, 223, 224.
37 CCSP, iv. 20, 227.
38 Bodl. Clarendon 72, f. 59; CCSP, iv. 681, 687; Sawpit Wharton, 160.
39 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1, p. 6.
40 WCRO, CR 2017/F 103.
41 PA, HL/PO/JO/13/1.
42 CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 479.
43 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/29.
44 WCRO, CR 2017/c2/vol. 2, 227; CR 136/b/111; HMC 4th Rep. 261.
45 TNA, E 134/16Chas 2/Mich 8; E 127/3, f.216v.
46 VCH Rutland, ii. 84-85.
47 WCRO, CR 2017/c2/vol. 2, 229.
48 HEHL, EL 8106; Herts. ALS, AH 1094.
49 Bodl. Carte 34, f. 456.
50 BIHR, xxi. 224.
51 Bodl. Rawl. A 130.
52 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, pp. 28-29.
53 PA, HL/PO/JO/1/328/104.
54 Bodl. Rawl. A 130.
55 Bodl. Rawl. A 130; Carte 47, f. 174; Add. 36916, f. 35; Chatsworth, Cork mss misc box 1, Burlington, 3 Dec. 1667.
56 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, p. 33.
57 Stowe 303, f. 22.
58 CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 478.
59 Bodl. Carte 36, f. 631.
60 Harris, Sandwich, ii. 307-9.
61 Mapperton, Sandwich mss, journal vol. x. 196-204.
62 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 304-5.
63 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/2, pp. 66-68.
64 NLS, Yester pprs. ms 7023, letter 239.
65 CSP Dom. 1670, p. 478.
66 WCRO, CR 2017/H4/2, ff. 6, 13; CSP Dom. 1670, p. 478.
67 Northants. RO, Montagu letters, xvii. p. 45.
68 Add. 36916, f. 221.
69 WCRO, CR 2017/L1/b/2.
70 TNA, C 6/208/73.
71 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/3, pp. 15-16, 23-24.
72 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/352/107.
73 WCRO, CR 2017/R13;HR, lx. 113-15..
74 WCRO, CR 2017/c6/100.
75 WCRO, CR 2017/c6/101B.
76 CSP Dom. 1673-5, pp. 228-9.
77 HMC 7th Rep. 224.
78 Timberland, i.153.
79 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/358/228.
80 HEHL, EL 8418.
81 Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R.Verney to E. Verney, 5 Dec. 1675.
82 TNA, PROB. 5/3226-7; Verney ms mic. M636/29, Lady V. Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, 16 Dec. 1675.