Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of Strafford | English Noble, Statesman & Advisor | Britannica (original) (raw)
Quick Facts
Also called (1611–28):
Sir Thomas Wentworth, or (from 1628) Viscount Wentworth, Baron Wentworth of Wentworth Woodhouse, Baron of Newmarch and Oversley
Also Known As:
Viscount Wentworth, Baron Wentworth of Wentworth Woodhouse
Sir Thomas Wentworth
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, Baron of Raby
Thomas Wentworth, 1st earl of Strafford (born April 13, 1593, London—died May 12, 1641, London) was a leading adviser of England’s King Charles I. His attempt to consolidate the sovereign power of the king led to his impeachment and execution by Parliament.
Early life and career
Wentworth was the eldest surviving son of Sir William Wentworth, a Yorkshire landowner. Educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge, and at the Inner Temple, he was knighted by James I in 1611. His marriage to Lady Margaret Clifford, daughter of the impoverished earl of Cumberland, established a link with an ancient and noble family still influential in the north.
Wentworth represented Yorkshire in the parliaments of 1614 and 1621 and Pontefract in 1624. His wife died childless (1622), and he married Arabella Holles, daughter of John, earl of Clare, a peer out of favour at court who brought Wentworth into touch with the critics of the King’s expensive and inefficient policy of war against Spain and, from 1627, against France. Along with other critics of the court he was prevented from sitting in the Parliament of 1626, and later in the year he refused to subscribe to the forced loan imposed to pay for the war, and was for some time under arrest. Despite his record of opposition to the King’s policy, Wentworth was approached by the crown—anxious to strengthen its position in the north—with the offer of a barony (1628). He was appointed lord president of the north (virtually governor of England north of the Humber) and in 1629 was given a seat on the Privy Council.
Wentworth’s return to the service of the court, coming so soon after his vehement opposition to it in Parliament, startled even some of his closest friends. His conduct was no doubt partly inspired by personal ambition, though he had logical reasons for his change of front since in the summer of 1628 the King gradually abandoned his war policy.
On the Privy Council Wentworth seems to have advocated the paternalist government that distinguished the early years of the King’s personal rule: closer supervision of justices of the peace and more effective implementation of the Poor Laws, of laws against enclosure, and of measures for dealing with famine, though he was not above privately making profit out of the corn shortage of 1631. As lord president of the north he quelled all defiance of his authority and made many enemies by his insistence on the honour due to him as the King’s representative, but his administration was on the whole just and efficient; he supervised the local justices and curbed the often tyrannous excesses of local magnates. In 1631 he was deeply distressed by the death of his much-loved wife, though he provoked scandalous rumours not long afterward by secretly marrying (October 1632) Elizabeth Rodes, the young daughter of a neighbouring squire.
Lord deputy of Ireland.
The King meanwhile had appointed him lord deputy of Ireland. Taking up his office in the summer of 1633, he immediately set himself to consolidate the royal authority, break the power of the dominant clique of “new English” landowners, extend English settlement, improve methods of agriculture, increase the productivity of the land, and stimulate industry and trade. His ultimate goal was to assimilate Irish law and customs to the English system and to make a prosperous Protestant Ireland into a source of revenue to the English crown.
Wentworth continued his effective and firm-handed administration of Ireland until 1639, when he was recalled to England by King Charles. The King needed advice and support in handling a Scottish revolt precipitated by an ill-conceived attempt to enforce episcopacy on the Scots. Wentworth was created earl of Strafford (1640) and was expected to resolve the crisis. But his policy of making war on Scotland proved disastrous for both himself and the King. The English Parliament, called especially to vote money for the war, proved recalcitrant, and Strafford, in command of the English army, failed to prevent the Scots from overrunning the northern counties. The King, unable to pay his own troops or to buy off the Scots, was compelled by joint English and Scottish action to call a new Parliament in November 1640.
Strafford was the chief target of attack from both nations. He was advised to leave the country, but the King relied on his help and assured him that he should not suffer in life or fortune. Detained by illness, he reached Westminster on November 10 with the intention of impeaching the King’s opponents in Parliament for treasonable correspondence with the Scots. The leader of the Commons, John Pym, acted first by impeaching Strafford before he could take his seat in the House of Lords.
His trial began in March 1641. The basic accusation was that of subverting the laws and was supported by a charge that he had offered to bring over the Irish army to subdue the King’s opponents in England. More detailed charges rested on his administration in Ireland and the north. He conducted his defense with great skill, and it looked at one point as though he might be acquitted. Pym therefore introduced a bill of attainder (i.e., a summary condemnation to death by special act of Parliament). The Commons passed it by a large majority; the Lords, intimidated by popular rioting, passed it, too, but by a much smaller majority.
Execution.
While an angry mob surged around Whitehall, Strafford wrote to the King releasing him from his promise of protection, and Charles, afraid for the safety of the Queen, gave his consent to the bill. Strafford went to the scaffold on May 12, 1641, in the presence of an immense and jubilant crowd. In his last speech he once more professed his faith in “the joint and individual prosperity of the king and his people,” for which, in his view, he had always worked.
He remains an enigmatic figure in English history: ambitious, greedy for power and wealth, ruthless, and sometimes dishonest, but with a vision of benevolent authoritarian government and efficient administration to which he often gave persuasive expression. He made innumerable enemies, but his few close friends were deeply attached to him. In the last weeks of his life his dignity, eloquence, and loyalty to the King made a deep impression even on some of his enemies.