WENTWORTH, Thomas (1591-1667)

The Wentworth family, though it originated in Yorkshire,38 W.L. Rutton, Three Branches of the Fam. of Wentworth, 1. had many offshoots, the earliest of which acquired the Suffolk manor of Nettlestead through marriage in the mid fifteenth century. The Nettlestead branch was brought to national prominence by Thomas Wentworth^† (d.1551), a member of the household of the royal favourite Charles Brandon^†, duke of Suffolk. Ennobled in 1529 as Baron Wentworth of Nettlestead,39 CP fails to acknowledge the suffix, but see Rymer, viii. pt. 1, p. 202. Thomas served as lord chamberlain under Edward VI and acquired the manors of Stepney and Hackney,40 D. Lysons, Environs of London, ii. 452. on the eastern edge of London. However, the family’s fortunes waned thereafter. The 2nd baron, another Thomas Wentworth^†, surrendered Calais to the French in 1558, and, though cleared of treason, lost his place on the Privy Council. His son, the 3rd Lord Wentworth (Henry Wentworth^†), never recovered his family’s former standing. Nonetheless he enjoyed a measure of royal favour, for in 1587 he accompanied the queen’s favourite, the earl of Leicester (Robert Dudley^†), on his military expedition to the Low Countries, and in 1591 Elizabeth herself acted as godmother at the christening of his eldest son Thomas,41 E351/542, rot. 173. See also HMC 6th Rep. 468. the subject of this biography.

Early life and parliamentary apprenticeship, 1593-1614

Thomas was less than two years old when the 3rd Lord Wentworth died of plague in August 1593. His mother quickly obtained a grant of his wardship and remarried, taking as her new husband Sir William Pope (d.1631) of Wroxton, in Oxfordshire.42 HMC Hatfield, iv. 380, 426-7; ix. 215. However, the young Wentworth may have been disagreeable to his stepfather, particularly after Lady Wentworth gave Pope a son of his own in 1596 (Sir William Pope^‡, d.1624), for in November 1602 he and his younger brother Henry were enrolled at Trinity College, Oxford, which had been founded by Pope’s uncle, Sir Thomas Pope. Their admission was evidently hastily arranged, as the attic space over the library had to be converted in order to provide them with accommodation.43 H.E.D. Blakiston, Trin. Coll. 86. The two boys remained at Trinity for at least the next three years, as in August 1605 they were presented to the new king, James I, on the latter’s visit to Christ Church.44 Oxford DNB, lviii. 140; I. Wake, Rex Platonicus (1615), 54.

In June 1606, having left university, Wentworth obtained a licence to travel abroad for three years.45 SO3/3, unfol. (4 June 1606). At around the same time, and despite his youth, he evidently married Anne, the daughter of Sir John Crofts^‡ of Little Saxham, Suffolk (his travelling companion, Henry Crofts^‡, being described as his brother-in-law). In 1607 Wentworth, together with Henry Crofts and his tutor, Edward Lichfield, enrolled at the Angers riding academy in north-western France. They subsequently journeyed to Italy, where they visited not only Florence, but also Rome and Bologna. However, in the latter city Lichfield was arrested by the inquisition, the victim of an increasingly common papal tactic, that of separating young English noblemen from their guides.46 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, i. 456-7.

Wentworth returned to England via Paris in July 1609.47 E. Chaney and T. Wilks, Jacobean Grand Tour, 74. He subsequently settled at Toddington, a large manor house, in Bedfordshire owned by his childless great-grandmother Jane, Lady Cheyney (née Wentworth), the widow of Lord Cheyney (Henry Cheyney^†).48 Add. 28621, f. 8; CP, xiib, 504n. On Toddington’s size, see J. Godber, Hist. of Beds. 286. He also established close ties with the court. In June 1610 he was created a knight of the Bath, one of the many honours bestowed at that time to celebrate the investiture of the prince of Wales, and he subsequently attended major state events, such as the funerals of Prince Henry (1612) and Anne of Denmark (1619). He also helped invest Lord Ellesmere (Thomas Egerton^*) as Viscount Brackley in November 1616.49 Harl. 5176, ff. 208, 225v, 235v. In December 1617 his sister married the assistant master of the ceremonies, Sir John Finet.50 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 126.

Wentworth failed to contribute to the aids for Prince Henry in 1609 and Princess Elizabeth in 1613.51 SP14/49/55; APC, 1613-14, p. 76. Summoned to the 1614 Parliament, which opened on 5 Apr., he did not take his seat at Westminster until 2 May, but pleaded illness. This was no more than a polite fiction, however, as on 16 Apr. Wentworth’s great-grandmother had died, leaving him her enormous Toddington estate.52 LJ, ii. 695a; Wentworth Genealogy, i. 41; J.B. Crummett, ‘Lay Peers in Parl. 1640-4’ (Manchester Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1972), 181. On 3 May, the day after he arrived in the Lords, Wentworth took the oath of allegiance and was appointed to the committee on the bill to preserve timber. He played no further recorded part in the brief assembly, but missed three further sittings, the last occasion being on 19 May, when Lord Chancellor Ellesmere revealed the real reason for his absence.53 LJ, ii. 697b, 698a, 700b, 704a; HMC Hastings, iv. 249.

The Parliament of 1621

Shortly after the death of his great-grandmother, Wentworth was challenged in the Court of Wards over his ownership of Toddington by Thomas Cheyney, cousin to the late Lord Cheyney. Although Thomas died soon thereafter, the case was taken up by the latter’s widow and by his adoptive heir. The court eventually ruled that Wentworth’s title was good, a finding upheld by the Privy Council in June 1618.54 APC, 1618-19, pp. 168-9. See also CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 587 (miscalendared). Wentworth faced a different sort of his challenge in respect of his two other principal manors, those of Stepney and Hackney. In about 1589, the copyholders of both properties had paid Wentworth’s father £3,000 in order to establish their right to lease out their lands without fear of being fined or dispossessed by the lord of the manor. Wentworth, however, was dissatisfied with this agreement, and insisted on exerting his customary fiscal rights, leading the copyholders, headed by the London alderman Sir John Jolles, to prosecute him in Chancery. In the event, legal action proved unnecessary, as the two sides reached a settlement in June 1617. In return for a further £3,500, Wentworth promised to uphold the rights and privileges claimed by his tenants. However, having already paid twice over for their privileges, the copyholders insisted that Wentworth lay before Parliament a bill guaranteeing their rights, towards the costs of which they agreed to contribute £20. In order to ensure that he honoured this promise, they also required Wentworth to enter into a bond for £12,000, which would be cancelled once the required legislation had been enacted.55 LMA, CLC/178/MS08478, ff. 65, 67; P79/JN1/366; W.R. Robinson, Hist. and Antiquities of Hackney, i. 353-5, 368, 372.

The terms of this arrangement meant that Wentworth was one of the few peers in England who had a direct personal reason for wanting Parliament to be summoned. In the summer of 1617, there seemed little immediate prospect of another meeting, though, as James hated the English Parliament and was banking on a Spanish dowry to avoid one. However, in November 1620, after Spanish forces invaded the Rhenish Palatinate, which territory was ruled by James’s son-in-law, the Elector Frederick V, James reluctantly ordered Parliament to meet. The following month, Wentworth was asked by the Privy Council to contribute to a benevolence raised for the defence of the Palatinate. However, he declined to do so, having already contributed to the levy previously raised by the Elector Palatine’s ambassador, though he expressed his willingness to further a grant of supply in the forthcoming Parliament.56 SP14/118/60; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 198.

Wentworth played no recorded part in elections to the new assembly. His estate at Toddington was too distant to afford him any electoral interest at Bedford, while his family’s influence over the borough of Ipswich, five miles south-east of Nettlestead, had long since evaporated.57 For the likely electoral interest of the 2nd Lord Wentworth at Ipswich, see HP Commons 1558-1603, i. 249. He attended the opening of Parliament on 30 Jan. 1621, when his appointment by the crown as one of the triers of petitions from Gascony (a largely honorific position) was announced.58 LJ, iii. 7a. Thereafter, until the adjournment in early June, he missed only nine sittings.

Shortly after Parliament began, and despite having sat only once before, Wentworth was appointed not only to the newly created committee for privileges but also to the subcommittee for privileges, which was charged with reviewing the orders and privileges of the House.59 Ibid. 10b, 17b. His inclusion on the latter body perhaps reflected the fact that he had recently demonstrated concern for protecting the privileges of peers, having signed the Humble Petition of the Nobility, which protested against the practice of allowing Englishmen with Irish and Scottish viscountcies from taking precedence on local commissions over English barons like himself.60 HMC Var. v. 120.

Soon after Parliament opened, Wentworth introduced to Parliament a bill to confirm the arrangements he had made with the copyholders of Stepney and Hackney in 1617. On 24 Feb. this measure received its first reading in the Commons,61 CD 1621, iv. 98. where several of his relatives had seats. These included not only distant members of the Wentworth family, such as Sir Thomas Wentworth^* of Wentworth Woodhouse (later 1st earl of Strafford), with whom he was on friendly terms and whom he later acknowledged as ‘my chief’,62 Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. 4th ser. xii), 103; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 80. but also his stepbrother Sir William Pope (Oxfordshire); his first cousin Robert Hopton^‡ (Somerset); his first cousin once removed, Ralph Hopton (returned at a by-election for Shaftesbury on 6 Mar.); his brother-in-law’s father, Sir John Bennet^‡ (Oxford University); and his mother-in-law’s brother, Sir Thomas Shirley^‡ (Steyning). They also included the London Member Sir Thomas Lowe^‡, whose late daughter Elizabeth had been Sir John Bennet’s second wife. However, when the bill received its second reading on 13 Mar., only Lowe, Sir Thomas Wentworth and Thomas Wentworth^‡ of Henley were appointed to the committee, though Richard Taylor^‡, deputy recorder of Bedford, who would have known Wentworth (the chairman of the Bedfordshire bench) very well, was also included. Wentworth may have been alarmed that only a handful of his well-wishers were members of the 21-strong committee, for on 16 Mar., the day before this body was due to meet, the chairman Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby^‡ (whose late brother Sir Edward Hoby^‡ had had some dealings with Wentworth) persuaded the House to add four new members. These included not only Thomas Wentworth of Henley, who had in fact already been named, but also Sir John Bennet.63 C54/2225/21; CJ, i. 551b, 556a.

Wentworth’s bill emerged from committee on 20 Mar., when it was reported, with just a few amendments, by Thomas Wentworth of Henley. However, the Commons were by now so overwhelmed with legislative business that the measure did not receive its final reading until 18 May, and it was not sent up to the Lords until 26 May. The Lords, less hard pressed, quickly gave Wentworth’s bill two readings, and on 2 June the measure was reported as fit to receive a final reading. However, this sudden turn of speed was too late, as Parliament rose for the summer two days later.64 CJ, i. 563b, 624a; LJ, iii. 135a, 137a, 139b, 140a, 155a. The House might have returned to the bill when Parliament reassembled in November, but it did not do so because Wentworth obtained leave of absence from the king, despite having been granted the proxy of the 3rd Lord Darcy and Meinill (John Darcy^*), whose mother was a member of the Wentworth Woodhouse branch of his family.65 SO3/7, unfol. (20 Nov. 1621). See also LJ, iii. 165b; Add. 40086, f. 30. By the time Wentworth resumed his seat, on 17 Dec., Parliament was on the verge of being prorogued.

His close ties with several Members of the Commons may have enabled Wentworth to keep abreast of developments in the lower House. When, on 30 Apr. a petition by north Kent’s fisherman against the 2nd Lord Teynham (Christopher Roper^*) came before the Lords, Wentworth informed his colleagues that this complaint had previously been presented to the Commons.66 LD 1621, p. 41. However, despite his contacts in the lower House, Wentworth was powerless to prevent the expulsion from the Commons of his kinsman Sir John Bennet on charges of bribery. Nevertheless, he obtained appointment to the Lords’ committee for examining the charges against Bennet, and later presented to the upper House a petition from Bennet’s son, who was worried that his father’s conviction would result in the loss of land needed to pay off the latter’s debts.67 LJ, iii. 104b, 151b.

Although he may have found the Bennet case embarrassing, Wentworth played a minor role in opposing corruption during the Parliament. The most important case to come before the House was that of Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, for whom Wentworth had carried the cap of state at the latter’s investiture shortly before the Parliament opened.68 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 66. Wentworth not only formed part of the committee which investigated the evidence against the hapless lord chancellor but also helped draw up the charges against him. On 24 Apr. he questioned the adequacy of the lord chancellor’s written confession, and at the end of the month he was ordered to accompany the prince of Wales, Prince Charles (Stuart^*) to ask the king, on behalf of both Houses, to dismiss Bacon. Following Bacon’s removal, the House debated what further punishment should be inflicted on the former lord chancellor. During the course of this discussion, Wentworth proposed that notes regarding the punishment of the late fourteenth century chancellor, Michael de la Pole^†, duke of Suffolk, who was also impeached by Parliament, should be read to the House.69 ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 31; LJ, iii. 74a, 80a, 101a; LD 1621, pp. 13, 62.

Despite its importance, Bacon’s case was just one among many. On 15 Mar. Wentworth declared that the charges against the monopolist Sir Giles Mompesson^‡ were so serious that, to allow time to investigate, all bill readings should cease, with the sole exception of a bill introduced by Prince Charles regarding duchy of Cornwall leases. He also called for two men involved in the gold and silver thread patent to be sent for, as he did not wish them to ‘slip away’, as Mompesson had done. As a result, he was appointed to the committee charged with investigating the operation of the patent. Five days later, he proposed that the bishop of Llandaff, Theophilus Field^*, who was accused of receiving excessive payments in connection with a suit in Chancery, should leave the chamber while his case was considered.70 LJ, iii. 45b, 47a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 24-5, 28. The following month, Wentworth pressed the House to examine the monopolists Matthias Fowles, who was accused of falsely dyeing silk, and Sir Francis Michell, a key figure in the gold and silver thread monopoly. These men were subsequently judged by the House to be guilty, but when the Lords discussed what punishment to inflict on Michell, Wentworth argued that the latter’s colleague Henry Tweedy should also be questioned, as Tweedy was just as culpable as him.71 LD 1621, pp. 3, 36.

Wentworth was appointed to 15 legislative committees in 1621. Their subjects included the false dyeing of silk and the improvement of navigation on the Thames, which river bordered his manor of Stepney. They also included the lands belonging to the 3rd earl of Bedford (Edward Russell^*), which measure presumably interested Wentworth because Toddington lay close to Bedford’s Woburn estate. Wentworth was twice named to committees for bills to punish abuses committed on the Sabbath.72 LJ, iii. 22b, 39b, 105b, 117b, 130b.

The 1624 and 1625 parliaments

Following the end of the 1621 Parliament, Wentworth’s standing at court seems to have risen, as he was employed three times in 1622 to help bring foreign ambassadors to audiences with the king.73 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 96, 103, 109. Perhaps he had by now entered the orbit of the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. He was certainly on familiar terms with Villiers’ older sister, Susan, Viscountess Feilding, for sometime during the early 1620s he returned to her a picture (presumably a portrait miniature) on the grounds that his possession of this object, if discovered, might be misconstrued.74 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 328. It is also suggestive that his in-laws, the Crofts, enjoyed cordial relations with Buckingham. In 1624 Lady Crofts exchanged presents with Buckingham, who stayed at the Crofts’ seat at Little Saxham in January 1625.75 Add. 12528, ff. 17, 18r, 18v. However, if Wentworth was now a friend of the favourite, there is no evidence to support the claim of the royalist writer David Lloyd that Buckingham found Wentworth so congenial that ‘he would never be without him’.76 D. Lloyd, Memoires of the Lives (1668), 570.

When a new Parliament met in 1624, Wentworth attended assiduously. The Journal records that he missed only 11 sittings, but the true number may have been less, for on two occasions - 2 Mar. and 2 Apr. - he was actually recorded as present in the clerk’s minute book. Most of Wentworth’s absences remain unexplained, but they may have reflected his continuing duties at court, for on 26 Feb., when the House sat, he escorted the newly arrived Dutch ambassadors to their lodgings.77 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 137a (page incorrectly numbered 238). At the start of the session, Wentworth was once again named by the crown a trier of petitions from Gascony. He was also reappointed to both the committee and the subcommittee for privileges.78 LJ, iii. 208a, 215a, 215b.

During this session, Wentworth twice gave evidence of his loyalty to Buckingham, now a duke. On 27 Feb. he moved that a message be sent to the king to clear Buckingham from the aspersions laid on him by the Spanish ambassadors.79 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 3. Three months later he complained that Buckingham’s leading opponent in the House, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, had failed to hand over all his books to his successor as master of the great wardrobe.80 Add. 40088, f. 142. Wentworth clearly had little sympathy for Middlesex, who was impeached for corruption at the behest of Buckingham’s clients. He certainly played some part in investigating the earl, being twice named to committees appointed to consider Middlesex’s petitions in his own defence. He was also a member of the committee appointed to assess the level of damages payable by Middlesex.81 LJ, iii. 296a, 323b, 329a. The main reason for Buckingham’s hostility to Middlesex was the latter’s opposition to breaking off negotiations for a Spanish bride for Prince Charles. Wentworth’s own views on the Spanish Match have gone unrecorded, but it is probably significant that he was appointed to committees for advising the king to end the negotiations, and that he also obtained from the clerk a copy of Buckingham’s ‘Relation’, in which the duke set out in detail the allegedly false dealings of Spain over the Match.82 Ibid. 242b, 246a; PA, HL/PO/HO/5/1/2, f. 60.

The failure of the 1621 bill demanded by the copyholders of Stepney and Hackney meant that Wentworth was obliged to reintroduce this measure in 1624. This time, the bill enjoyed an uneventful passage. In the Commons, it was not even felt necessary to appoint a committee, presumably because the bill had already been subjected to detailed examination. Ironically, the only interruption to the bill came from Wentworth himself, who, shortly before the third reading in the Commons, informed the lower House, through Thomas Wentworth of Henley, that he wished the names of those copyholders who had compounded with him to be inserted in the text. The bill cleared its final hurdle on 4 May, when it received a third reading in the Lords.83 CJ, i. 747a, 747b, 772b, 690a; LJ, iii. 325b, 339b. Shortly thereafter it passed into law.

Wentworth was appointed to 36 legislative committees during the session. Their subjects included the subsidies granted by the Commons, concealed lands, monopolies and the conveyance of York House to the king, who wished to confer this property on Buckingham. As in 1621, Wentworth was a member of the committee for the bill to improve navigation on the Thames.84 LJ, iii. 257b, 267b, 384a, 406b. In April, Wentworth helped draft and present to the king a petition against recusants, while his conference appointments included a meeting to consider charges levelled against Samuel Harsnett^*, bishop of Norwich.85 Ibid. 287b, 304a, 384b. He made only a few recorded speeches. In one of these he urged the House to summon those responsible for arresting a servant belonging to the 5th Lord Mordaunt (John Mordaunt^*), contrary to parliamentary privilege.86 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 36; LJ, iii. 323a. As the servant’s surname was Hopton, he may have been Wentworth’s relative on his mother’s side.

Following the accession of Charles I in March 1625, Wentworth maintained his standing at court, though he was not appointed captain of the guard, as has sometimes been claimed.87 Brackenbury, 123; T. Preston, Yeomen of the Guard: their Hist. from 1485 to 1885, p. 11. In early April he carried the sword before the king on his arrival at Whitehall,88 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 4. and in early May he was appointed lord lieutenant of Bedfordshire, alongside Henry Grey^*, 8th earl of Kent. Later that same month, he accompanied Charles to Canterbury to meet the new queen, Henrietta Maria.89 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 152.

Despite a severe outbreak of plague, Wentworth attended every day of the brief Westminster sitting of the 1625 Parliament. This assembly opened on 18 June, on which day Wentworth was reappointed a trier of petitions from Gascony. He made no recorded speeches, but twice helped introduce new peers to the House, one of whom was Buckingham’s client, Lord Conway (Edward Conway^*, later 1st Viscount Conway). He was also appointed to 12 of the House’s 17 committees, including one on the revived Sabbath abuses bill and two regarding amendments to Parliament’s petition on matters of religion (which petition he was instructed to help present to the king). Once again he was a member of both the privileges committee and its subcommittee. Towards the end of the sitting, Wentworth and two of his colleagues were appointed to distribute money collected at the fast held a few weeks earlier (a duty he had previously performed in 1621). As lord of the manor of Stepney and Hackney, he also received an order from the upper House to see that houses visited by plague were both marked and watched.90 Procs. 1625, pp. 31, 39, 45, 59, 72, 80, 84, 89, 97. On the 1621 appointment, see LJ, iii. 158a.

Wentworth was late in resuming his seat when Parliament reassembled at Oxford in August. However, from the morning of 4 Aug. he was constantly in attendance (though the Journal mistakenly indicates that he was absent that afternoon). He made no recorded speeches, but was appointed to six of the sitting’s eight committees, two of which were concerned with providing relief for London and the areas adjoining the capital, among them Stepney and Hackney. His remaining appointments, aside from a conference committee on matters of religion, concerned bills to explain the 1606 Recusancy Act, allow free fishing off the north American coast and prevent forgery of the seals of the royal courts at Westminster.91 Procs. 1625, pp. 139, 146, 175, 177, 179.

Advancement in the peerage and the parliaments of 1626 and 1628-9

Shortly after he attended the coronation of Charles I on 2 Feb. 1626,92 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l. it was announced that Wentworth was to be elevated in the peerage. Sure enough, he was formally invested on the afternoon of 7 Feb. as earl of Cleveland.93 Not 5 Feb., as in CP. See Procs. 1626, i. 25, 306; C231/4, f. 195. This title, which was new to the English peerage, alluded to the Yorkshire origins of the Nettlestead branch of the Wentworth family.94 Rutton, 65. Whether Wentworth paid for his new honour is unknown.

A fresh Parliament opened on 6 Feb. when Cleveland, still technically known as Lord Wentworth, was reappointed a trier of petitions from Gascony.95 Procs. 1626, i. 23. However, in the attendance list for this day he is described as earl of Cleveland: LJ, iii. 492a. On the 15th he was once again appointed to both the committee and the subcommittee for privileges. Three days later, despite having already been invested by the king, he was formally introduced to the upper House as an earl. Thereafter he attended regularly, missing, according to the Journal, only 12 sittings, though he excused himself only once.96 Procs. 1626, i. 48, 57, 79. Identified as a Buckingham supporter by William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (and later archbishop of Canterbury),97 E.S. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 169. he nevertheless played little known part in proceedings, making only two recorded speeches, both on the subject of Buckingham’s enemy, the disgraced former ambassador to Spain, John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol. In the first, on 2 May, he moved that Bristol be asked whether it was true that he had already delivered his charges against Buckingham to the Commons. In the second, during the 6 May debate on whether to allow Bristol counsel in his forthcoming trial, he advised the House to disregard precedent, for ‘we may give a rule for trials here’. Cleveland was also named to six legislative committees, including one on the now perennial bill to explain a clause in the 1606 Recusancy Act. His remaining, non-legislative appointments included the committee for petitions, to which he was added three months into the Parliament (presumably to help clear a backlog of business), and committees to ensure the defence of the kingdom and provide for the better maintenance of the ministry. On 15 May Cleveland took the protestation which cleared Sir Dudley Digges^‡ of having spoken improperly at the Commons’ presentation of impeachment charges against Buckingham. During the Parliament, one of Cleveland’s servants was arrested for debt, but was released after the matter was brought before the House.98 Procs. 1626, i. 127, 163, 200, 347, 357, 383, 477, 496.

Following the dissolution, and Parliament’s failure to grant subsidies, the king decided to raise a Forced Loan. Cleveland spearheaded the Loan’s collection in Bedfordshire,99 SP16/53/13; APC, 1627, pp. 74, 512. where he encountered stiff opposition led by Oliver St John^*, 1st earl of Bolingbroke, a kinsman of Cleveland’s colleague in the lieutenancy, the earl of Kent. In October 1627 Cleveland, who personally contributed £150 to the levy,100 E401/1913, unfol. (3 Aug. 1627). was rewarded for his loyalty by being appointed sole lord lieutenant of Bedfordshire. It may have been in part because of his duties in respect of the Loan that Cleveland did not accompany Buckingham to the Île de Ré over the summer of 1627, as has sometimes been claimed. He also continued to discharge his duties at court, escorting the duke of Mantua’s ambassador extraordinary to his audience with the king at Windsor in August.101 Oxford DNB, lviii. 140; Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 215.

The increase in his local standing occasioned by his appointment as sole lord lieutenant may help to explain why, when a further Parliament was summoned in January 1628, Cleveland nominated one of the county’s magistrates, Sir Henry Astrey (who may have been his tenant on his Harlington estate) for one of the seats at Bedford.102 G.D. Gilmore, Pprs. of Richard Taylor of Clapham (Beds. Rec. Soc. 1947), 105; J. Thirsk, Rural Economy of Eng. 95. However, he evidently over-reached himself, as Astrey was not returned. Cleveland failed to attend the opening of Parliament on 17 Mar. 1628, but took his seat three days later. Thereafter he was regularly present, missing only a further 16 sittings. He did not even attend the burial of his father-in-law Sir John Crofts at Little Saxham on 29 Mar., though he was absent the previous day.103 W.A. Copinger, Manors of Suff. i. 406.

Cleveland’s name no longer figured on the list of triers of petitions from Gascony, which was read to the House on the opening day of Parliament. The reason for the omission is unclear, but it probably reflected his absence at the time rather than disfavour. By contrast, Cleveland was reappointed to the committee for privileges. He must also have been reappointed to the subcommittee for privileges, as the 1626 committee was reinstated in its entirety and he is known to have helped check the Journal (one of the duties associated with this body). However, the clerk failed to record his name.104 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 80-1, 364n, 367n.

Wentworth took little recorded part in the 1628 session, being named to only two legislative committees, one on making the arms of the kingdom more serviceable, a subject in which, as a lord lieutenant, he was expected to take an interest, and the other regarding fen drainage. His sole non-legislative appointment, aside, that is, from the committee for privileges and its subcommittee, was to the committee for petitions, to which, as in 1626, he was added late in the proceedings. On 17 May he moved the House to grant an order in respect of Sir John Savage^† (later 2nd Viscount Savage), the eldest son of the 1st Viscount Savage (Thomas Savage^*), whose Suffolk estate lay close to Wentworth’s own property at Nettlestead.105 Ibid. 88, 371, 455, 473.

Cleveland was one of those peers affected by the king’s decision to grant the earl of Banbury (William Knollys^*) precedence over eight earls created before him. Aggrieved, he protested that it was unnecessary to refer the matter to the privileges committee since the precedence of peers was clearly defined by a statute of 1540. However, after the king explained that Banbury’s was a special case – he had intended to raise him to an earldom much sooner, and the arrangement would only be temporary since Banbury was old and childless – most of those peers disadvantaged by Charles’s decision reluctantly agreed to allow Banbury the desired precedence over them. The sole exception was Cleveland, who, on 2 Apr., requested that he be given another week to think it over. Five days later, however, he gave his consent.106 Ibid. 91, 128, 137, 160.

During the 1628 session Cleveland began to experience serious financial difficulties. On 1 Apr. he obtained from the king a licence to alienate his Suffolk properties, including his Nettlestead estate, to William Forth of Barking, Suffolk.107 Coventry Docquets, 572. Two months later he borrowed £800 from Forth, and in late May he was lent a further £1,000 by Sir Henry Poole^‡ and his son Sir Neville^‡.108 LC4/58, m. 2, no. 75; m. 3, no. 95. Yet, despite his financial problems, he remained a courtier. Indeed, he was with Buckingham in August when the duke was murdered. He stood so close to the duke that he heard the assassin, John Felton, cry out ‘God have mercy upon thy soul!’ before plunging in the knife.109 Birch, i. 395.

Despite the death of Buckingham, Cleveland continued to perform duties at court. In September 1628, for instance, he stood in for the king of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, when the latter was invested a knight of the Garter at Windsor, while the following year he conveyed the Swedish and French ambassadors to audiences with the king.110 Finet Notebks. ed. A.J. Loomie, 57, 64. When Parliament reconvened in January 1629, Cleveland, who missed the first three days of the session, was reappointed to the committees for privileges and petitions in absentia. He was absent again only twice, both times in February, and was appointed to just two further committees, one to consider the petition of Lady Coningsby, the other to survey munitions.111 LJ, iv. 6a, 6b, 37b. He made no recorded speeches. During the course of this short session, the earl of Kent was reinstated as joint lord lieutenant of Bedfordshire.

Financial affairs and final years 1633-67

Following the dissolution, the war with France, which had begun in 1627, came to an end. Cleveland was among those peers who were ordered to observe the signing of the peace treaty at Windsor in August 1629.112 LC5/132, p. 137. Eight months later, he also witnessed, at London House, the formal appointment of the bishop of London, William Laud, as chancellor of the university of Oxford.113 Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, v. 7. His finances remained precarious, and when it was decided, over the winter of 1632/3, that he would accompany the king to Scotland the following spring,114 LC5/132, p. 358. his need for cash became acute. In December 1632 he mortgaged the manor of Stepney to one Thomas Cartwright. Three months later, he entered into a similar arrangement with Sir Thomas Trevor^‡ and his eldest son Thomas over Hackney manor.115 Eg. 3006, f. 6. Temporarily flush with cash, perhaps, he rashly promised to contribute £40 a year to the coffers of the newly formed Fishery Association, which pledge he never managed to keep.116 CUL, Dd.xi.71, ff. 31, 33v.

By the time he returned from Scotland, Cleveland was in deep financial trouble. In September 1634 he was forced to borrow £10,000 from the estate of the 2nd Viscount Bayning (Paul Bayning^*), whose affairs were being managed during his minority by trustees. From this sum he succeeded in paying off Cartwright and the Trevors,117 Eg. 3006, f. 6; C2/Chas.I/H24/22. but his principal manors of Stepney at Hackney remained at risk. Unable to meet his current outgoings, let alone settle the debt, Cleveland subsequently increased his borrowings. By the end of 1637 he owed the Bayning estate around £14,000.118 WARD 9/359, pt. 2, p. 119a. This total excludes sums owed by his son Lord Wentworth. Not surprisingly, he was soon mired in lawsuits with his creditors, among them a milliner named Percival Potts, whose claim for payment for goods he tried to counter by alleging that he had been massively overcharged.119 C7/274/129. His chief difficulty, of course, was in settling his account with the Bayning estate, but the death of Viscount Bayning in June 1638, followed seven months later by the latter’s principal trustee Viscountess Dorchester, proved to be fortuitous for him. Over the next few years, Bayning’s widow and her new husband, Lord Herbert (Philip Herbert^†, later 5th earl of Pembroke), claimed Cleveland’s debt for themselves, but so too did the executors of the late Viscount Bayning and Viscountess Dorchester. In June 1640 Cleveland exploited this confusion by telling Chancery that he would be delighted to pay his debt once it had been established to whom the money was now due, but as matters then stood ‘he knoweth not to whom the same is ... payable either by law or equity’.120 C2/Chas.I/H24/22.

Cleveland may have fallen into disfavour at court during the mid 1630s, as he was allegedly refused permission to remain in London over Christmas 1634/5, and not employed to escort ambassadors to audiences with the king after March 1635.121 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP16/204; Finet Notebks. 173. The reason is unclear, but his financial difficulties cannot have helped, and in June 1636 his eldest son, Lord Wentworth, was sent to the Tower for duelling.122 CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 8, 66. Moreover, he may have been suspected of fomenting opposition to Ship Money, as many Bedfordshire residents whose Ship Money payments were in arrears lived on manors owned by the earl.123 T. Raylor, Cavaliers, Clubs and Literary Culture, 258. Naturally, Cleveland did not oppose Ship Money openly, but in December 1637 he complained to the sheriff of Bedfordshire on hearing that Ship Money rates in the county were set to rise dramatically.124 A.A.M. Gill, ‘Ship Money during the Personal Rule of Chas. I’ (Univ. of Sheffield Ph.D. thesis, 1990), 313.

Any qualms that Cleveland may have had about the Caroline regime were nevertheless forgotten on the outbreak of civil war. During the first few years of the conflict, Cleveland served as captain of the band of gentleman pensioners, and in 1644, after exchanging this position for a field command, he emerged unexpectedly as a competent cavalry commander, routing the enemy at Cropredy Bridge in June 1644. Captured at the second battle of Newbury four months later, he was subsequently imprisoned in the Tower only to escape and assist in the 1648 royalist risings in Kent and Essex. In 1651 he fought with the young Charles II at the battle of Worcester, but was again captured and returned to the Tower. At the Restoration his loyalty was rewarded by the new king, who reappointed him captain of the band of gentleman pensioners.125 P.R. Newman, Roy. Officers in Eng. and Wales 1642-60, p. 403. He died in March 1667, and was buried in the family vault at Toddington in early April.126 Rutton, 83. On his death the earldom of Cleveland became extinct, his only surviving son Lord Wentworth having predeceased him. However, the Wentworth barony was inherited by his granddaughter Henrietta Wentworth, who achieved notoriety as the mistress of the king’s illegitimate son James Scott^†, duke of Monmouth.