Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:37:04.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Earl of Northampton, Merchant Grievances and the Addled Parliament of 1614*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Linda Levy Peck
Linda Levy Peck
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

S. R. Gardiner, the doyen of English historians, wrote of the earl of Northampton's oration, delivered at a conference between the two houses of parliament in 1607, that it was ‘a speech which hardly any other man in England would have allowed himself to utter. In him was combined the superciliousness of a courtier with the haughtiness of a member of the old nobility. He treated the Commons as if they were the dust beneath his feet.’1 Furthermore, Northampton was accused by some contemporaries and most later historians of engineering the abrupt dissolution of the Addled Parliament in 1614, an abortive two-month session that was the last for seven years. For both, Northampton epitomized the authoritarian and anti-parliamentary views which came to dominate the early Stuart court.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 1981 , pp. 533 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the accession of James I to the outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–1642 (10 vols., London, 1884), 1, 353.Google Scholar

2 More recent Whig interpretations of early Stuart parliamentary history include Wallace Notestein, The House of Commons, 1604–1610 (New Haven, 1971)Google Scholar; Rabb, T. K., ‘Sir Edwin Sandys and the Parliament of 1604’, American Historical Review, lxix (1964), 646–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Willson, D. H., The privy councillors in the House of Commons (Minneapolis, 1940). Notestein and Willson accept and expand Gardiner's portrait of Northampton.Google Scholar

3 Geoffrey, Elton, ‘A high road to civil war?’, Studies in Tudor and Stuart politics and government (Cambridge, 1974), 11, 162–82Google Scholar; ‘Studying the history of parliament’, ibid.. 11, 3–12; Elton, G. R., ‘Parliament in the sixteenth century: functions and fortunes’, Historical Journal, xxii (1979), 255–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Conrad, Russell, ‘Parliamentary history in perspective, 1604–1629’, History, lxi (Feb. 1976), 1–27Google Scholar; Parliaments and English politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar; Sharpe, K. M., ed., Faction and parliament (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar. The December 1977 issue of the Journal of Modem History was devoted to revisionist views of early Stuart politics; see the articles in that issue by Mark Kishlansky, ‘The emergence of adversary politics in the Long Parliament’, pp. 617–40; Paul Christianson, ‘The peers, the people and parliamentary management in the first six months of the Long Parliament’, pp. 575–99; James E. Farnell, ‘The social and intellectual basis of London's role in the English Civil Wars’, pp. 641–60. For replies to these views see Hexter, J. H., ‘Power struggle, parliament and liberty in Early Stuart England’ and Derek, Hirst, ‘Unanimity in the Commons, aristocratic intrigues and the origins of the English Civil War’, Journal of Modern History, l (Mar. 1978), 1 50, 51 71.Google Scholar

4 Willson, D. H., King James VI and I (London, 1956), p. 349.Google Scholar

5 Linda, Levy Peck, ‘Problems in Jacobean administration: was Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, a reformer?’, Historical Journal, xix (1976), 831–58.Google Scholar

6 Peck, ‘Patronage, policy and reform at the court of James I: the career of Henry Howard, earl of Northampton’ (unpublished dissertation, Yale, 1973), pp. 52–5; see Gruenfelder, John K., ‘The Lord Wardens and elections, 1604–1628’, Journal of British Studies, xvi (Fall, 1976), 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Peck, , ‘Court patronage and government policy: the Jacobean dilemma’, Patronage in Renaissance Europe, ed. Guy, Lytle and Stephen, Orgel (Princeton, 1981).Google Scholar

7 The parliamentary diary of Robert Bowyer, 1606–1607, ed. Willson, D. H. (Minneapolis, 1931), p. 324; here after cited as Bowyer.Google Scholar

8 James, Spedding, The letters and the life of Francis Bacon (London, 1868), III, 360; here after cited as Spedding.Google Scholar

9 British Library, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fo. i88v. Cecil to Howard (no date, probably 1608–12).

10 Journal of the House of Lords (22 vols; London, 1846), 11. Here after cited as L.J.Google Scholar

11 ibid..

12 L.J. 30 Jan. 1605–6; 8 Feb. 1605–6. The committee on Newcastle coal also heard those of Newcastle and London whom the bill affected. On Ackland's bill, see House of Lords Record Office, Main papers, Mar. 1606–7. Northampton's speech on the bill is in B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus C VI fos. 454–6. I am grateful to Elizabeth Read Foster for information about the organization of committees in the House of Lords. For more detail see her forthcoming book on House of Lords procedure.

13 Derek, Hirst, ‘The Privy Council and problems of enforcement in the 1620s’, Journal of British Studies, xviii (Fall, 1978), 46–66.Google Scholar

14 Bowyer, p. 48.

15 Peck, ‘Patronage, policy and reform at the court of James I’, pp. 163–79.

16 Robert, Ashton, ‘The parliamentary agitation for free trade in the opening years of the reign of James I’, Past and Present, xxxviii (1967), 40–55Google Scholar; Rabb, T. K., ‘Free trade and the gentry in the parliament of 1604’, Past and Present, xl (July, 1968), 165–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashton, , ‘Jacobean free trade again’, Past and Present, xliii (May 1969), 151–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pauline, Croft, ‘Free trade and the House of Commons, 1605–1606’, Economic History Review, xxviii (1975), 17–27.Google Scholar

17 Bowyer, p. 293.

18 ibid.. pp. 320–2.

19 ibid.. p. 339n.

20 Spedding, iii, 360. Spedding prints the copy of Bacon's report to the Commons corrected by Bacon himself. The clerk of the Commons’ record of Bacon's report of Northampton's speech is in Bowyer, p. 339.

21 Spedding, iii, 349. The entire speech can be found on pp. 347–59. Salisbury's speech is also recorded in Bowyer, pp. 333–9.

22 Sir Thomas, Edmondes’ report of the negotiations, B.L. Add. MSS 14033, was published as an appendix to Phillip Watson's History of the reign of Philip III (2nd edn, 2 vols., London, 1786), 11, 245–68. Sir Robert Cotton collaborated with Northampton on the speech.Google Scholar

23 Spedding, iii, 359–60.

24 Spedding, iii, 360; Bowyer, p. 339.

25 Cf. Peck,’ Patronage, policy and reform’, pp. 142–93. These included Francis Tate, Sir John Dodderidge and Sir Robert Cotton.

26 Spedding, iii, 360–1.

27 Spedding, iii, 361; Bowyer, p. 339.

28 Spedding, iii, 361. In Bowyer, p. 339n, Willson says of Northampton's oration: ‘This was a most insulting speech, which Bacon toned down in his report. See Gardiner, 1, 353 354’; but Gardiner nowhere suggests that Bacon ‘toned down’ the speech. White Bowyer's version of the speech is briefer than Bacon's, it does not seem to differ in any substantial way. The original speech is found in Northampton's own hand in B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fos. 435 ff. and does not differ significantly from Bacon's report. The tone of Northampton's MS speech is clearly conciliatory, and his historical analysis of the origins of the House of Commons is sound, stressing the importance of the representation of localities.

29 Cf. Pocock, J. G. A., The ancient constitution and the feudal law (Cambridge, 1959), and ‘Propriety, liberty and valour; ideology, rhetoric and speech in the 1628 debates’, prepared for a conference on the Petition of Right held at Washington University, 20 21 Oct. 1978. It is interesting to note that Northampton invokes the civil law (which he had taught at Cambridge in the 1560s), but not the common law.Google Scholar

30 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fo. 435V.

31 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fos. 442–3.

32 Pocock, The ancient constitution and the feudal law; Christopher, Hill, ‘The Norman yoke’, Puritanism and Revolution (London, 1969), pp. 58–125Google Scholar; Fussner, F. S., The historical revolution (New York, 1962)Google Scholar; Levy, F. J., Tudor historical thought (San Marino, 1967).Google Scholar

33 Peck, ‘Patronage, policy and reform’, pp. 142–93.

34 Bowyer, pp. 332–3; ‘Mr. Alford remembered that our petition for the merchants trading in Spain was lately rejected and now likewise this [for the better execution of laws against seminaries, Jesuits, priests etc.] therefore he wished that precedents be considered and that Sir Rob[er]t Cotton and Mr. Bowyer, may bring forth such precedents as are best known to them, to thend that if our privilege do so bear, we be not prejudiced, if otherwise, we offende not.’ Cotton, Bowyer, Francis Tate, Sir Maurice Berkeley, Mr Wentworth, Sir William Bulstrode and others were added to the committee for privileges.

35 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus F IV, fos. 295v–298. For a detailed study of Cotton, published since this article was written, see Sharpe, K. M., Sir Robert Cotton: history and politics in early modem England (Oxford, 1979). Sharpe does not, however, discuss Cotton's brief on merchant grievances analysed here.Google Scholar

36 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fos. 446–446V is a list of ten precedents in Northampton's hand on the Spanish merchant grievances. According to Bacon's report of Salisbury's speech, the latter cited eight of Northampton's precedents. Cotton's brief on the mechant grievances contains several of the precedents cited by Northampton but one, an act of 10 Henry vi that appears in both Cotton's and Northampton's papers in almost exactly the same language, is not used by Salisbury. It would appear that it was for Northampton that Cotton wrote his brief which argued ‘ that it is proper only for aggrievances of this nature to receive their redress at the council table by opinion of parliament’. B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus F IV, fo. 298.

37 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus F IV, fo. 297.

38 ibid..

39 Moir, Thomas L., The Addled Parliament (Oxford, 1958), p. 140, cites John Hoskyns as ‘simply the tool of the pro-Spanish interests’, particularly Northampton.Google Scholar

40 Wallace, Notestein, ‘The winning of the initiative by the House of Commons’, Proceedings of the British Academy xi (1924–1925), 125–75.Google Scholar

41 Nicholas, Tyacke, ‘Wroth, Cecil and the parliamentary session of 1604’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, l (1977), 120–5. See Rabb, ‘Sir Edwin Sandys and the parliament of 1604’, pp. 647–8.Google Scholar

42 Peck, ‘Patronage, policy and reform at the court of James I’, pp. 163–79.

43 Public Record Office, State Papers 14/19/37 (12 Mar. 1606), ‘An abstract of Sir Robert Cotton's speech on Wednesday last concerning petition for restitution of deprived ministers intended to be offered to the king’.

44 Smith, L. P., The life and letters of Sir Henry Wotton (2 vols. Oxford, 1907), ii, 39Google Scholar; Gardiner, S. R., History of England, 1, 247–8; Moir, The Addled Parliament, pp. 134–49; Willson, The privy councilors in the House of Commons, 1604–1629, pp. 140–2 tell the traditional story; Clayton Roberts and Owen Duncan, ‘The parliamentary undertaking of 1614’, English Historical Review, xciii (July 1978), 481–98, tend cautiously to accept the traditional version of Northampton's role.Google Scholar

45 See Roberts and Duncan, ‘The parliamentary undertaking of 1614’ for a careful analysis of the events leading up to the calling of parliament in 1614 which coincides with the argument presented here that Northampton did not support ‘undertaking’.

46 B.L. Stowe MSS, 168, fos. 169v–170, 10 Oct. 1605.

47 Robert, Zaller, The parliament of 1621 (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 22, 35.Google Scholar

48 Quoted in Elizabeth Read Foster, ed., Proceedings in parliament 1610 (2 vols. New Haven, 1966), 1, 264.

49 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus F IV, fo. 331. In his undated memo, Northampton made these other points. ‘(1) More can not be urged for help than the last parliament. (2) For instance nothing can be added; many motives abated; the king's wants they understood as well and were not moved till the wards were spoken of… (6) the king's retribution better trusted then than now (7) All sweet things most please the taste at the first offer, use makes them ordinary… (8) It was then said that the ordinary of the wards being now £30,000 would be trebled. It is not so but so little raised as will teach them to know true values and abate offers then not tasted now not valued [In the margin he noted of the wards ‘Nowe only 6000 more’.] (9) The like improvement assured upon licences of alienation and post fines. All turned to smoke and nothing…

Impediments

Infinite grudge upon the baronets and the reasons

Privy Seales promised to be laid down by Sir Julius Caesar

Hand closed promised by my Lord of Northampton (worse)

Extraordinary insolences against some persons breed deep impression meanly chastised

Liklihood of preferment to some that were most busy give great encouragement.’

[These last two impediments may be references to slander cases in Star Chamber and the undertaking of Sir Henry Neville.] In the late summer of 1613, Northampton was reported by the Spanish envoy, Gondomar to have told the king ‘ that he should in no case call together and join his enemies; for such were those of the Parliament; that would do nothing which he desired, as he had seen by experience,… they did already… murmur at his actions both for having sold the titles of Baronets and for having raised those sums of money with much attention’. The king responded that he had spoken with much freeness, but with as much truth. Quoted in Moir, The Addled Parliament, p. 26.

50 Roberts and Duncan, ‘The parliamentary undertaking of 1614’, pp. 481–98.

51 For Bacon's own description of his views after the Addled Parliament and his analysis of the errors made, see Spedding, iv, 180–91.

52 Moir, The Addled Parliament, pp. 25, 68, 140–5.

53 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus F IV, fos. 329ff.

54 ibid.. fo. 332.

55 ibid.. fo. 340.

56 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus F IV, fos. 340–1. Moir, in quoting this passage, omits the crucial words ‘which you must give me dispensation for following your direction’, which provide the crucial information that Suffolk was following Somerset's instruction, The Addled Parliament, p. 68.

57 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus F IV, fos. 329ff.

58 B.L. Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fos. 122–122V.

59 Historical Manuscript Commission Reports, Down shire iv, 362, Sir John Throckmorton to William Trumbull: ‘ You know of my Lord of Northampton's sickness. I think him more sick in mind than in body.’ Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. N. E. McClure (2 vols. Philadelphia, 1939), 1, 526: Chamberlain to Carleton: ‘the Lord Privy Seale languisheth and is thought will not last, having been twice let blood within this fortnight’, 14 April 1614.

60 Acts of the privy council of England, 1613–1614 (London, 1921), p. 364. Northampton is not listed in formal attendance after 22 Feb. The last signature recorded is 30 March: on 28 March, his signature was added after the rest of his colleagues signed, pp. 397, 401.Google Scholar

61 LJ, II.

62 ibid.. Gardiner, History of England, ii, 248, suggests that ‘ u p to the unfortunate episode of the speech of Bishop Neile, the proceedings of the House of Commons had been all that could be desired’. This seems exaggerated. On 5 May, for instance, there were complaints of disorder in the House, Kenneth Spencer Research Library MS E 237, transcript of Maija J Cole, pp. 19–20. I am grateful to Maija Cole for permission to quote from her transcript of this important parliamentary diary for 1614 which she is editing for publication.

63 KSRL MS E 237, 3 May, Cole transcript, pp. 14–15. Henry Wotton described the sessions as ‘ the parliament of greatest diligence, and of least resolution that ever was, or ever will be. For our committees were as well attended… and yet we did nothing’. Smith, Wotton, 11, 36, 8 June 1614.

64 KSRL MS E 237, Cole transcript, pp. 48, 80.

65 KSRL MS E 237, Cole transcript, p. 101.

66 KSRL MS E 237, Cole transcript, pp. 99, 103–4, 115. The latter message was sent on 3 June 1614.

67 Carter, C. H., The secret diplomacy of the Hapsburgs (Columbia, 1964), p. 130.Google Scholar

68 P.R.O. S.P. 14/77/43, 43 1, 44. Cornwallis confessed to planting the speech but denied that Hoskyns’ speech as delivered was what Cornwallis intended. He also denied that Hoskyns had been paid £20 for the speech, which Sharpe apparently alleged. Finally, Cornwallis never implicated Northampton during his many months in the Tower. Perhaps his real patron was still alive? Cf. Smith, Wotton, 11, 39.

69 ibid..

70 Tyacke, ‘Wroth, Cecil and the parliamentary session of 1604’, pp. 120–5; Conrad, Russell, ‘The foreign policy debate in the House of Commons, 1621’, Historical Journal, xx (1977), 289–309Google Scholar; ‘The examination of Mr Mallory after the parliament of 1621’, BIHR, l (1977), 120–5; Letters of John Chamberlain, 1, 540; Osborne, L. C., The life, letters and writings of John Hoskyns (New Haven, 1937) p. 75.Google Scholar

71 Gardiner, History of England, ii, 250.

72 L. C. Osborne, John Hoskyns, 1–15; ‘Hoskyns had the advantage of the best classical background that England could provide’, p. 4. Menna, Prestwich, Cranfield: politics and profits under the early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), pp. 93–9.Google Scholar

73 KSRL MS E 237, Cole transcript, p. 120. ‘Mr. Hoskyns said that the last Parliament he was the last man that spoke in the House, so it might be he should be of this’.

74 P.R.O. S.P. 14/77/44, 22 June 1614.

75 Spedding, iii, 182.

76 Foster, Proceedings, 1, 346n.

77 For Ellesmere's views on the prerogative, see Knafla, L. B., Law and politics in Jacobean England: the tracts of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere (Cambridge, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Jones, W.J., The Elizabethan Court of Chancery (Cambridge, 1977).Google Scholar

78 Pocock, ‘Propriety, liberty and valour; ideology, rhetoric and speech in the 1628 debates’.

79 B.L. Cotton MS, Titus C VI, fos. 408–14, Mar. 1604.