In the first of a short series, Dr Patrick Little of the 1640-60 Lords section,  discusses how illness undermined a compromise between Charles I and his opponents in Parliament in the early months of the Long Parliament.

Francis Russell, 4th earl of Bedford, is well-known as the originator of the so-called ‘bridge appointments’ scheme, a compromise agreement in the winter of 1640-1 which would have seen Charles I replace his unpopular officers of state – notably Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of Strafford, and William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury – with men who were Parliament’s appointees, as the first step in a comprehensive plan for a political settlement. In putting forward such a plan, Bedford was going out on a limb. He was much more willing to seek common ground than his colleagues in the ‘junto’ which led opposition to the king and his policies, and as an apparently honest broker he had to overcome suspicions on both sides. The earl’s presence at Westminster was crucial to the success of settlement, and his absence would have serious consequences.

The origins of the ‘bridge-appointments’ scheme are obscure, but Bedford was promoting it soon after the Long Parliament opened on 3 November 1640. At the very beginning of December, the dowager countess of Carlisle (Lucy Hay, née Percy) wrote to her sister, the countess of Leicester (Dorothy Sidney, née Percy) that ‘what you hear concerning my lord of Bedford is certainly the news of the town’, commenting that his friends had now ‘disposed and changed all the officers of the kingdom’. She added that ‘the king makes himself merry at it’, though she cautioned that ‘there is not much cause for that’ (HMC de L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 346). Indeed, the king’s initial reaction to the plan caused considerable disquiet among Bedford’s allies. Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland wrote to his friend, Robert Sidney, 2nd earl of Leicester, that if Bedford became treasurer, ‘tis not by the favour of the Parliament, who [sic] is unsatisfied with him, believing him to be gained by the king’ – although Northumberland indicated that this was ‘certainly without ground’ (Collins, Letters and Memorials, ii. 664). It was clear that Bedford still needed to convince the junto, as well as the king, that his plan was the best way forward.

At this crucial juncture, Bedford fell ill. The nature of his sickness is not known, but its course can be traced in the records of the commissioners treating with the Scots during this period. The earl was absent from the meeting on 4 December, present on the 7th and 8th, and then absent ‘sick’ for a month from 9 December. This coincides with his total absence from the Lords’ Journals in the weeks following 8 December. Bedford did not recover until the end of the first week of January 1641: he reappeared in the Lords on 8 January and resumed attendance at the meetings concerning the Scottish treaty at about the same time. This was a crucial period for the development of the junto’s plans, and during Bedford’s absence, the ‘bridge-appointments’ scheme appears to have dropped off the political radar.

After Bedford’s return to Westminster, ‘bridge-appointments’ also reappeared. By 14 January 1641, the countess of Carlisle had heard of a new push to effect ‘a great change of officers’ (HMC de L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 361), with Bedford as treasurer and Northumberland and Leicester also receiving government posts; she hinted, too, that the queen was now involving herself in the plan. Those around the king were at last taking the project seriously. Two letters from Leicester’s agents, dated 21 January, reveal that the outlines of a remodelled Caroline court were quickly taking shape. There were reports that Bedford would be treasurer, his ally in the Commons, John Pym, chancellor and another junto peer, William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, master of the court of wards. Not all those in line for jobs were opponents of the king: it was said the pro-Laudian bishop of London, William Juxon, would be the new archbishop of Canterbury and the earl of Leicester – who remained politically neutral – Strafford’s replacement as lord lieutenant of Ireland. If Leicester’s promotion was broadly acceptable to the junto, Juxon’s surely was not. Other sources modified the line-up slightly: it was rumoured that Juxon would fill the vacancy as archbishop of York, leaving Laud at Canterbury, and Bedford’s friend, John Digby, 1st earl of Bristol, who was also in favour of compromise, would be the new lord privy seal.

Leading figures in the junto, notably Bedford, Saye and Pym, remained as the core appointments, but it looked like Bedford’s original scheme was being watered down by the inclusion of those more favourable to the king. It was particularly suspicious that the queen, and two key courtiers, Henry Jermyn (later 1st Baron Jermyn and eventually earl of St Albans) and James Hamilton, marquess (and later 1st duke) of Hamilton and earl of Cambridge, were behind the amended proposals. That the changes would now be done by ‘the marquess’s advice’ was reported by the Scottish commissioner, Robert Baillie, on 23 January (R. Baillie, Letters and Journals, i. 292). In the weeks after Bedford’s recovery from illness, it seems that the original plan had become twisted: instead of the junto and their friends taking all the top jobs, many of the old courtiers would still be there to influence the king.

Worse still, during February the ‘bridge appointments’ plan was becoming linked to the fate of the earl of Strafford, who faced impeachment by the Commons. On 17 February, Bedford again demonstrated his willingness to compromise with the king by arguing that Strafford should have more time to put his case – a move supported by Bristol and other non-junto peers, in what looked like the beginnings of resistance to the junto in the Lords. The first fruits of Bedford’s trimming came two days later, when he was sworn as a privy councillor, alongside not only the staunch junto peers such as Saye but also politically doubtful figures such as Bristol.

Just as the ‘bridge appointments’ seemed to be taking shape, Bedford’s plans were beginning to unravel. The rot had set in by late in February, when the Scottish demands for the execution of Strafford and the imposition of far-reaching religious changes disrupted English politics, encouraging the junto to take a harder line. By this time the involvement of the queen and her friends in Bedford’s plans had reduced the junto’s faith in the whole enterprise. These political changes have long been recognised by historians charting the rise and fall of the ‘bridge-appointments’. But a third factor also needs to be taken into account – one that was outside the control of politicians on any side. Bedford had been the instigator and manager of the scheme, and his illness caused a loss of momentum that was never recovered, allowing these external factors to undermine his plans. As a result, by the end of February 1641 the first, and arguably the best, chance of averting political crisis had been lost.

PL

The biography of John Pym appears in the recently-published House of Commons, 1640-60; those of the duke of Hamilton, the earls of Bedford, Bristol, Leicester, Northumberland and Strafford, Viscount Saye and Sele, Baron Jermyn, Bishop Juxon and Archbishop Laud will appear in the forthcoming House of Lords, 1640-60.

Further reading:

John Adamson, The Noble Revolt: the Overthrow of Charles I (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2009)

Patrick Little, ‘Gout and the political career of Lord Broghill’, History of Parliament, 14 June 2018

Clayton Roberts, ‘The earl of Bedford and the coming of the English Revolution’, Journal of Modern History 49 (1977)

Conrad Russell, The Fall of British Monarchies, 1637-42 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)