¹ One searches long and hard to find anything beyond the “personal grievances of the Peers” in Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 10 vols. (London, 1883-1884), IV:39.Google Scholar

² David Willson, one of the historians of recent decades whose research interests led him to consider the nature and impact of noble opposition, could nonetheless conclude that “opposition there [the House of Lords] was not a serious matter.” Willson, David, The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1604-1629 (Minneapolis, 1940), p. 155Google Scholar. Robert Zaller, in his recent study of the 1621 parliament reiterated the widely held attitude that opposition from within the nobility was not very significant when he wrote of “the weakness of the Upper House as a staging ground for parliamentary opposition.” Zaller, Robert, The Parliament of 1621 (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 123–24Google Scholar. Robert Ruigh spoke of it being “axiomatic that the seventeenth century king ruled through division—pitting one court faction against another.” Ruigh, Robert, The Parliament of 1624 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), p. 258.Google Scholar

³ Ruigh, p. 258.

⁴ Zagorin, Perez, The Court and the Country (New York, 1970), p. 74.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., pp. 74-75.

⁶ See my investigations of the victories of the opposition in “The Dissolution of the Parliament of 1626: A Revaluation,” English Historical Review, 87 (October 1972): 784–90Google Scholar; “The Struggle for the Petition of Right in the House of Lords: The Study of an Opposition Party Victory,” Journal of Modern History, 45 (June 1973): 193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Slow Process. Due Process, and the High Court of Parliament: A Reinterprctation of the Revival of Judicature in the House of Lords in 1621,” The Historical Journal, 17 (January 1974):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Snow, Vernon, “The Arundel Case. 1626.” The Historian. 26 ( 1964):332–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ The-first outburst of discontent took the form of a petition against the precedence extended to holders of non English titles of nobility. Nearly every member of the opposition signed this petition. February 1, 1620/1, Thomas Locke to Dudley Carleton, SP/14/119/99.

⁸ Snow, Vernon, Essex the Rebel, the Life of Robert Devereaux, Third Earl of Essex, 1591-1646 (Lincoln, Neb., 1970), p. 105.Google Scholar

⁹ Professor Snow says that Viscount Say and Sele introduced the proposal for reform of the proxy system and was immediately seconded by the Earls of Essex. Mulgrave, Pembroke, and Hertford as well as by Lord Russell. Ibid., p. 153. Other reforms of the decade included the right of a peer to a writ of summons, the right of peers to attend parliament unless charged with a specific crime, and the right of peers to freely choose their proxy. The Bristol and Arundel cases of 1626 established the first two of these rights while the third was part of the report on proxies voted into law during the same parliament. April 25, 1626, The Journals of the House of Lords 1509 to 1847, 79 vols, (n.d.), III:472Google Scholar; February 25. 1625/6. ibid., III:507.

¹⁰ Before the House of Lords undertook what was for them a most novel role in criminal judicature, both Edward Coke, the leading constitutional lawyer of the day. and King James appeared before them to cite ancient legal precedents which were said to prove that the upper house had played a judicial role in the middle ages. Relf, Helen, ed., Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, 1621…1628, Camden Society, 3d series, 32 (London, 1929): XIV–XVGoogle Scholar; March 10, 1620/1, King's Speech to House of Lords, de Villiers, Lady Elizabeth, ed., The Hastings' Journal of the Parliament of 1621, Camden Society, 3d series, 83 (London, 1953):27–29Google Scholar; March 15, 1620/1, Notestein, Wallaceet al., eds., Debates in the House of Commons in 1621, 7 vols. (New Haven, 1935), VI:383Google Scholar. For a complete description of the resumption of this authority see my article in The Historical Journal, 17:3–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹¹ The Historical Journal, 17:3–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See also the recent study by Colin Tite, C. G., Impeachment and Parliamentary Judicature in Early Stuart England (London, 1974).Google Scholar

¹² The investigation into the monopolists is certainly linked to the favorite since the first monopolist tried and convicted by the upper house, Sir Giles Mompesson, was a kinsman of Buckingham. Two of his brothers also held monopolies under question. Moreover, the king felt it necessary to defend Buckingham's role in the granting of these patents before the upper house on March 10. de Villiers, E., Hastings' Journal, pp. 27, 29Google Scholar. The Yelverton affair struck even more directly at Buckingham for Yelverton, the former attorney general, openly declared before the House of Lords that he could do nothing about the granting of the patents because “he feared the power of the Lord of Buckingham, he who was ever present at His Majesty's elbow ready to hew him down.” May 2, 1621, Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords Taken by Henry Elsing…in 1621, Camden Society, 103 (London, 1870), 54–56Google Scholar. Finally, while the attack upon Bacon was part of a larger inquiry into the courts of justice, the fact that Buckingham was Bacon's patron and that he attempted to ameliorate the lord chancellor's punishment was hardly overlooked by the favorite's opponents in the upper house nor by contemporary observers. Bowen, Katherine D., Francis Bacon, the Temper of the Man (Boston, 1963), p. 209Google Scholar; Gardiner, , History of England, IV:85–86.Google Scholar

¹³ The Yelverton and Bacon cases illustrate the role of opposition leaders in the debates of this parliament. The Earl of Southampton and Lords North and Sheffield each argued strongly against the assertion of the Crown's spokesmen that Yelverton's accusations had touched upon the king's honor and that therefore the culprit should be left to the sovereign for punishment. Gardiner, , Lords' Debates, 1621, pp. 56–59Google Scholar. These peers sought a “charitable” explanation of Yelverton's remarks. May 8, 1621, House of Lords Record Office, MS Minute Book, unfoliated. When Yelverton was censured by the house Viscount Say and Sele, the leading debater of the popular faction, left the chamber rather than participate. May 15, 1621, ibid. It was the Earl of Southampton who led the debate to investigate Bacon's activities as a judge. It was opposition peers who later argued for a public confession by the now disgraced lord chancellor and who took a stand for the most severe punishment possible. April 17, 1621, Gardiner, Lords' Debates, 1621, p. 1; ibid., pp. 13-14, 20-22.

¹⁴ May 21, 1621, SirAshley, Anthony to the of Buckingham, Marquis, Cabala, Sive, Scrinia Sacra, Mysteries of State and Government in the Letters of…Great Ministers of State…in the Reign of Henry VIII to King Charles (London, 1691), pp. 307–8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Flemion, “Dissolution of 1626.”

¹⁶ Flemion, “The Petition of Right.”

¹⁷ Modern investigaors seem generally agreed in naming the Earls of Bedford (Lord Russell until 1628), Bolingbroke, Clare, Dorset, Essex, Hertford, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Mulgrave, Oxford, Salisbury, Southampton, Stamford, and Warwick; Viscount Say and Sele; and Lords Kimbolton, North, Pagett, Robartes, and Spencer as members of the dissident group.

¹⁸ Nine of these men are said to be almost certain puritans—Bedford, Essex, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Salisbury, and Warwick along with Viscount Say and Sele and both Lords Spencer. Many of the others showed sympathy toward the political and religious positions espoused by puritans at that date. Indeed, only two members of the nobility thought to be puritans were not members of the opposition faction. Lord Montague was never associated with it while the Earl of Pembroke did occasionally assist their efforts with his massive electoral and political influence. His motivation seems based primarily on his dislike of the favorite, Buckingham, however. Perhaps what is best concluded about the influence of puritanism on political dissent among the nobility is contained in the observation of Perez Zagorin that the puritanism which did exist in the nobility was heavily concentrated in this small group in the peerage. Zagorin, p. 96.

¹⁹ The Earl of Oxford held the oldest title, dating back to 11 24. About half of the titles-dated from before the Stuart succession although this figure includes some who had no titles at James' accession to the throne but who had them restored shortly afterward. This includes two of the most prominent oppositionists, the Earls of Essex and Southampton. The Earls of Bolingbroke, Clare, Mulgrave, and Stamford, along with Viscount Say and Sele all represented elevations from lower titles during the 1620's. Robartes and Kimbolton acquired titles late in the 1620's.

²⁰ Probably the most illustrious of the peers were Essex, Southampton, and Warwick. The first two carried particularly famous names associated with dissent in the Elizabethan era and both had substantial entourages of followers who looked to their patrons to provide leadership in the protest against Stuart abuses. Southampton was also a privy councillor at the outset of the decade.

²¹ Lawrence Stone has provided information on the estimated income of peers in the century prior to the civil war. According to his tables, only the Earl of Dorset ranked among the wealthiest peers in 1603 and he may have fallen from that state by the 1620's since he was noted for his profligate life. Hertford and Salisbury were both among this wealthiest classification in 1640. Only one of the dissident peers fell into the category which Stone viewed as representing impoverishment. That was the Earl of Oxford. It is certain that the fortunes of the Earldom of Oxford were in such straits as to warrant a discussion in parliament and a request to the Crown that the earldom be provided with sufficient revenues to maintain it in dignity. Sointhing must have been done for the title is listed with an income of £6,600 in 1640. The statistics generally suggest that opposition to the Crown had no notable effect upon the economic fortunes of these noblemen and that most of them had average incomes for their class at the time of their dissent. Stone, , The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), Appendix VIII, pp. 760–61.Google Scholar

²² By virtue of their titles, wealth, and associations, Essex and Southampton were the recognized leaders of the group. The most active and skillful parliamentarian however, was Viscount Say and Sele, a tireless and fearless debater. Of all the earls, Lincoln took the least active political role in parliament.

²³ There were substantial marital ties to the opposition in the Commons and amongst this group of peers. Kimbolton and Robartes were married to daughters of the Earl of Warwick; the Earl of Bedford's daughter married Lord Brooke (an oppositionist peer who succeeded to his title in 1630). Viscount Say and Sele's daughter married the Earl of Lincoln and Essex's sister married the Earl of Hertford. Southampton's daughter married William, Lord Spencer. The business connections of these peers were most prominent in colonizing ventures. Among those more actively involved were Warwick, Say and Sele, Robartes, Kimbolton, and Southampton. Zagorin, p. 101. For a detailed account see Newton, A. P.. The Colonizing Activities of the English Puritans (New Haven, 1914).Google Scholar

²⁴ The prominence of puritan beliefs among these peers has already been noted. Southampton, Essex, Oxford, and others also had strong attitudes on the proper foreign policy for the monarchy to pursue in the 1620's and all of them served in the armies of the protestant Elector of the Palatinate during the decade. Snow, , Essex, p. 118.Google Scholar

²⁵ Probably the best examples of opposition which stemmed, at least in part, from personal reasons are to be found in the careers of Essex, Hertford, Clare, Salisbury, and Kimbolton. Essex was publicly humiliated by the annulment of his marriage to Frances Howard so that she could marry the royal favorite, the Earl of Somerset. Hertford had been forced into exile over his marriage to Arabella Stuart. Ibid., p. 70. Bitterness at their failure to achieve just reward for their services certainly played a role in the discontent expressed by Clare and Salisbury. Mayes, C. R., “The Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart England,” Journal of Modern History, 29 (1957):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kimbolton's forced marriage to a kinswoman of Buckingham did nothing to attach him to the royalist cause. One cannot really separate these motivations from others since every peer probably had several reasons for his actions and which one may have weighed most heavily at any given time is impossible to say.

²⁶ Members of the group who are known to have purchased their peerages include Warwick, Clare, and Robartes. Stone, p. 106.

²⁷ The best examples of peers who frequented the Court before turning to overt opposition are the Earls of Clare, Essex, Salisbury, Southampton, and Warwick.

²⁸ Add to this figure the twenty-six episcopal seats to get the full membership of the upper house.

²⁹ Approximately thirty peers or seventeen percent of the nobility still espoused the old faith. The Catholic nobility included the titles of Abergavenny, Arundel of Wardour Audley, Brudenell, Eure, Viscount Montague, Morley, Petre, Rivers, Rutland, Sandys, Savage, Shrewsbury, Stafford, Stourton, Teynham, Vaux, Weston, Wotton, and Winchester. Possible Catholic titleholders during the period include the Earl of Banbury, Viscount Dorchester, the Earl of Exeter, and Viscount Purbeck. Minors holding titles included male members of the Dormer and Wharton families. In addition, two other peers appeared on a list of suspected papists in 1624 although no further reference to them as Catholics appeared. These are the Barons Herbert and Scrope. May 20-21, 1624, Lords' Journals, 3:393–94Google Scholar. A principal source of information on Catholic recusants comes from the petitions against them drawn up by the House of Commons at various times in the decade. One from the 1624 session included the names of eleven peers, Ibid. References to other Catholic nobility are scattered through many secondary works on the period such as Mathews, David, The Jacobean Age (London, 1938)Google Scholar; Havran, Martin, The Catholics of Caroline England (Stanford, 1962)Google Scholar; and Anstruther, George, Vaux of Harrowden: A Recusant Family (Newport, Mass., 1953)Google Scholar. Licenses given to Catholic noblemen to exempt them from the penalties of recusancy can be frequently found in the State Papers as well, such as that of [Oct.?] 1626 for Lord Arundel of Wardour. SP/16/38/96.

³⁰ These others include the Archbishop of Canberbury who opposed the religious policies of Charles and Laud, and Bishop Williams of Lincoln and Hall of Exeter. Two who may be described as driven into opposition during part of the decade are the Earls of Arundel and Bristol.

³¹ All others have special circumstances to explain their absence. Oxford died in 1625. Southampton was ordered to stay away from the second session of 1621, Hertford did not become politically active until 1626 after his marriage to a sister of the Earl of Essex. Kimbolton and Robartes received their peerages too late in the decade to become politically significant.

³² March 20, 1625/6, Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords…1624 and 1626, Camden Society, 2d series, 24 (1879): 127–35.Google Scholar

³³ Opposition peers held only eleven proxies (about five percent of the total) during these years while the favorite alone held nineteen percent of the proxies.

³⁴ Forty-one men were elevated to the bench in the 1620's representing a turnover of fifty percent in the decade. After 1625 when churchmen who favored the views of Charles and Laud filled most of the vacancies, the clerical block formed the most secure source of royalist votes left in the upper house—more loyal than the Privy Council itself. The bishops who were politically active (thirty-five in all) averaged attendance of eighty-four percent which was better than twenty percent above the average of lay attendance. Their committee participation showed less unusual levels of activity due to the custom of balancing the various ranks within the house on each committee. Traditionally, most committees had twice as many barons as bishops or earls.

³⁵ Additions to the peerage were a major form of reward. Mayes, C. R.. “The Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart England.” p. 30Google Scholar; most of the royalist faction in the 1620's came from the nobility who. as James once put it, were “made by me.” March 10. 1621. de Villiers, E., Hastings' Journal, p. 28Google Scholar. The studies of Lawrence Stone have revealed that the Crown nearly bankrupted itself, giving away lands and rents worth £1 million between 1603 and 1640. to a group of thirty noblemen. Lawrence Stone. The Crisis of the Aristocracy. pp. 475. 493.

³⁶ A good example of the punitive exercise of royal power was James' removal of the office of Captain of the Isle of Wight from the Earl of Southampton along with the £3,000 pension the earl had been granted. These moves were undertaken to punish Southampton for leading the opposition's attack in the first session of 1621. They effectively silenced the earl and caused him to submit to banishment from the second session of that parliament called in the fall. Stopes, Charlotte, The Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton (Cambridge, 1922), pp. 406, 417.Google Scholar