was the evidence of De La Warr's brother-in-law, Sir Henry Owen, on 13 Nov. Not only had De La Warr frequently denounced ‘the plucking down of abbeys and the reading of these new English books;’ Sir Henry had ‘known much familiarity to have been between the Marquis of Exeter’ [see Courtenay, Henry], the arch-suspect, and De La Warr (ib. 821). It is significant that on 4 Nov. 1538 the marquis and Lord Montague were sent to the Tower and on the same day Cromwell received a gratuity of 20l. from De La Warr (ib. XIV. ii. 327). The depositions against De La Warr were collected (ib. XIII. ii. 831–2). At the end of November he was examined before the privy council and confined to his house in London (ib. 968). On 1 Dec. the council wrote to the king apologising for not proceeding ‘more summarily’ (ib.) On 2 Dec. De La Warr was sent to the Tower. On 15 Dec. information reached the government of mysterious nocturnal visits to Halnaker, presumably to put evidence out of the way (ib. 1062). But the house was not searched, and De La Warr evidently had powerful friends. The clerical party in Sussex boldly predicted his speedy return (ib.) About 20 Dec. he was released (ib. 1112) upon recognisances of 3,000l., the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk and the Earl of Sussex being among his sureties (ib. 1117).
But De La Warr's opposition had been crushed. Early in November 1539 Cromwell wrote to Lady De La Warr that the king had forgiven her husband (ib. XIV. ii. 481). As a sign of grace his recognisances were discharged on 18 Nov. 1539, before the twelvemonth had expired (ib. 619–45). The pardon was not gratuitous. Henry intimated that he would like to have Halnaker in exchange for a grant of crown land (ib. 481). There was no alternative but prompt submission. Within a fortnight Halnaker was surveyed for the crown (ib. 544). The nunnery of Wherwell, Hampshire, was accepted in exchange, the grant being dated 24 March 1540 (ib. xv. 436–72; cf. ib. p. 219, c. 74). On 11 Dec. 1539 Cromwell received from De La Warr a fee of 50l. for his services (ib. XIV. ii. 328), and the language of Lady De La Warr seems to point to him as the author of the release of her husband from confinement (ib. 481).
De La Warr now reappeared at court. He was present at Henry's reception of Anne of Cleves on 3 Jan. 1540 (ib. xv. 5). On the following 23 July he purchased from the court of augmentations a house and chapel in the White Friars, Fleet Street (ib. p. 567; Pat. Rolls, 36 Hen. VIII, pt. i.). He had vacated Halnaker, which the king suffered to go to ruin (State Papers, Dom. Edw. VI, i. 30), and had moved to his father's house at Offington, Sussex, where on 22 June he obtained license to enclose land for his park (Letters and Papers, xv. 831–59). In 1541 he again twice became an unsuccessful candidate for the Garter (ib. xvi. 449, 751). His proxies at the opening of parliament on 29 Jan. 1546 were Lord St. John, great master, and Lord Russell, privy seal (Lords' Journals), a proof that he had now surrendered to the court party. But on the opening of parliament on 4 Nov. 1547, and on 24 Nov. 1548, he nominated Lord Seymour of Sudeley and Lord Morley (ib. i. 316, 355), showing that on the death of Henry VIII he had passed into opposition. In this he was perhaps influenced by the marriage of his niece Jane Guildford with John Dudley, earl of Warwick and afterwards duke of Northumberland [q. v.] It was probably through the influence of the earl, then at the height of his power, that on 1 Dec. 1549 De La Warr was elected a knight of the Garter.
De La Warr, having no children, had adopted as his heir, at some date after 1540, William West, son and heir of Sir George West of Warbleton, Sussex. Sir George was De La Warr's younger half-brother by his father's second wife, Eleanor Copley (Collins, Peerage, v. 16). According to Dugdale, William West was bred up by De La Warr in his own house; but ‘being not content to stay till his uncle's natural death, prepared poison to dispatch him quickly’ (Baronage, ii. 141). De La Warr thereupon brought in a bill of attainder to disinherit West. The record of De La Warr's attendances in the House of Lords during November 1549, when the bill passed the lords, confirms this (Lords' Journals). The bill was apparently thrown out by the commons, a new bill being introduced on 9 Jan. 1550. On 23 Jan. West, who had been imprisoned in the Tower, was brought to the bar of the house. ‘He clearly denied the fact, but confessed his hand to be at the confession, which he did for fear.’ Witnesses were called, the house considered his guilt proved, and the bill was passed two days later. It is possible that religious animosities played some part in this case. At any rate, it is certain that De La Warr not only forgave West but left him 350l. a year for life, a house in London, and his manors of Offington and Ewhurst (see West's statement in State Papers, Dom. Eliz. iii. 39).
It is evident that during Edward VI's reign De La Warr retained his religious convictions so far as they were consistent
