In the latest Revolutionary Stuart Parliaments article, Dr Patrick Little looks at the relationship between two brothers-in-law who ended up on opposing sides during the civil war.

William Seymour, 2nd earl (and later 1st marquess) of Hertford married Frances Devereux, sister of Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, in 1617. This was a match between two powerful families, both of which had experienced the ups and downs of life at the Tudor and early Stuart courts. Hertford’s great-grandfather was Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset and protector of Edward VI; but it was another ancestor, Lady Katherine Grey, granddaughter of Henry VIII and sister of Lady Jane Grey, who made Hertford particularly controversial, and James I was deeply suspicious of him, as a potential pretender to the throne. Essex’s career was equally chequered: he was the son of Elizabeth I’s favourite, the 2nd earl of Essex, who rebelled against his mistress and was executed as a result. It was no surprise that both Hertford and Essex were out of favour under James I, and during the 1620s they became involved in opposition to Charles I in Parliament and without.

Yet the strength of the relationship between the two peers was not based on politics. Their friendship was obvious by the end of the 1620s. In July 1629, Hertford had invited his brother-in-law to treat one of his Wiltshire houses as his own, insisting that there must be ‘no ceremonies passed between two so nearly linked in friendship and alliance as we are’ (BL, Add. 46188, f. .114). Numerous affectionate (but undated) letters between the families survive from the 1630s, mostly concerning domestic matters such as the countess of Hertford’s pregnancies or arrangements to meet socially. In a striking example of their closeness, in 1639 Essex leased half of his London mansion, Essex House on the Strand, to Hertford and his wife for 99 years. According to this agreement, private apartments were set aside for both households, while the great hall, chapel and gardens were shared.

The political crisis of the late 1630s and early 1640s once again brought Hertford and Essex together politically. They both visited another critic of the crown, John Digby, 1st earl of Bristol, in the summer of 1639, in what looks like a counsel of war. In signing the Petition of the Twelve Peers at the end of August 1640, demanding peace with the Scots and the calling of a new Parliament, Hertford was almost certainly influenced by his brother-in-law. The two men worked closely together in the early stages of the Long Parliament, and in February 1641 they were among those peers made privy councillors, in a move designed to placate the king’s opponents. But it soon became clear that Hertford and Essex differed on policy. In the spring of 1641, Hertford backed away from executing the king’s chief adviser, Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of Strafford, while Essex famously decreed ‘stone dead hath no fellow’ (Clarendon, History of the Rebellion ed W.D. Macray, i. 320). During the summer, Hertford was won over by further promotions granted by the king, who made him marquess and then governor of the prince of Wales. The latter appointment was particularly significant, as it echoed the relationship with the crown enjoyed by Hertford’s illustrious ancestor, Protector Somerset, and promised a full reconciliation with the royal family. When the king raised his standard in Nottingham in August 1642, Hertford followed his royal master. Essex, chosen as Parliament’s lord general, now became estranged from his brother-in-law.

Although the rift between the two peers appeared unbridgeable, Essex did try to help his sister. She was made the main beneficiary of his estate when he drafted a new will in the summer of 1642, and in the following winter, Essex was involved in the recovery of her dower house, Netley Abbey, and took custody of household goods seized by Parliament. A few months later, in February 1643, he was probably also behind the grant of a pass for the marchioness to travel freely between London and the royalist capital at Oxford. That summer, Hertford arranged lodgings in Oxford for his wife, whose arrival was imminent, and, he reassured her, ‘I make no doubt your brother will secure your passage’ (HMC Bath, iv. 218). Other links also survived. The shared concern for the fate of another close relative, Essex’s half-brother Ulick Bourke, 5th earl of Clanricarde and 2nd earl of St Albans, brought the two peers together. In February 1644, for example, Clanricarde informed Francis Cottington, 1st Baron Cottington, that Essex was making every effort to protect his estate in England and had ‘written to my lord of Hertford that he would deliver the profits to my use’ (Clanricarde Letter-book ed. J. Lowe, 39). The case of Clanricarde – who was not only a royalist but also an Irish Catholic – demonstrated how far Essex was prepared to go in order to protect the financial interests of his immediate family; and the earl’s flexibility may have encouraged Hertford to hope that he might use his own leverage with Essex for other than personal reasons.

The connection between Hertford and Essex was tantalising for those who supported efforts to make peace between king and Parliament. In the autumn of 1643 and the spring of the 1644 the newsbooks reported that Hertford was one of the ‘moderate’ peers at Oxford who sought to make peace. There were also seem to have been informal peace overtures by Hertford, who wrote to Essex in May, asking for household goods of the prince of Wales to be sent to Oxford and taking the opportunity to enclose letters, on the king’s order, outlining terms for peace. Essex immediately handed the incriminating material to the parliamentary authorities. In August the king again used the Hertford interest to make another approach to Essex, who had marched with his army into Cornwall and had found himself trapped, and at the royalists’ mercy, at Lostwithiel. In the midst of this crisis, Essex was visited by Hertford’s son and heir, Robert Lord Beauchamp, on the pretext of taking leave of his uncle (and namesake) before leaving for a continental tour. However, this proved to be the cover for Beauchamp to introduce Richard Harding, a Seymour client well-known to Essex, who then delivered a private message from the king. Beauchamp’s foreign tutor, John Richaud, also went to the meeting and went on to make a full report of the assignation. Hertford, his family and servants, played every role in this drama, thus confirming the marquess’s closeness to the king and his counsels at this time, as well his commitment to peace. None of this would have been possible without the close friendship between the two peers. Yet Hertford over-estimated the political leverage he could exert on his brother-in-law. As in the previous May, Essex immediately sent the king’s letter, and all other such correspondence he had received, to his masters at Westminster.

The failure of Hertford’s efforts to influence Essex to make peace with the king suggests that Parliament’s lord general was not as weak – or as duplicitous – as his opponents at Westminster tried to portray. On the other hand, the fact that Hertford and his family were emboldened to make this approach at all in August 1644 reveals their continuing relationship with Essex, which can also be seen in the various acts of kindness between them in the previous two years. When considering the social ties between leading politicians, historians must, however, proceed with caution. As the Hertford/Essex example demonstrates, private connections did not always translate into political obligations.

PL

Further reading:

Patrick Little, ‘Blood and Friendship: the earl of Essex’s protection of the earl of Clanricarde’s interests, 1641-1646’, English Historical Review 112 (1997), pp. 927-41.

The biographies of Hertford, Essex, Clanricarde, Bristol, Strafford and Cottington will appear in the forthcoming Lords 1640-60 volumes; that of Richard Harding is available in Commons 1640-60, published last year.