life with a landed estate of 460l. per annum; in 1640 he was the owner of lands worth 3,000l. a year. He had sold his ancestral estate of Hadlow, and bought in its place Fairlawn in Kent, at a cost of about 4,000l. He also purchased the seignories of Raby, Barnard Castle, and Long Newton in the county of Durham, at a cost of about 18,000l. (Dalton, History of the Wrays, ii. 113). In May 1633 he entertained the king at Raby (Rushworth, ii. 178). In 1635 he was granted the wardenship of all forests and chases within the dominion of Barnard Castle, and in the following year the custody of Teesdale Forest and Manwood Chase (Collins, iv. 511; Dalton, ii. 112).
Vane's political importance dates from 1630, when he became a member of the privy council. Sir Thomas Roe describes him about that time, in a letter to the queen of Bohemia, as being ‘of the cabinet,’ that is, one of those councillors in whom the king most confided (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1629–1631, p. 306). On 20 Nov. 1632 he was appointed one of the commissioners of the admiralty, and on 10 April 1636 one of the commissioners for the colonies, and between 1630 and 1640 he was continually employed on different administrative commissions (Collins, iv. 510). When the disturbances began in Scotland he was appointed one of the eight privy councillors to whom Scottish affairs were entrusted, and was one of the peace party in that committee (Strafford Letters, ii. 186). On 3 Feb. 1640 the king, to the general surprise, appointed Vane secretary of state in place of Sir John Coke. This was effected, in spite of Strafford's opposition, ‘by the dark contrivance of the Marquis of Hamilton and by the open and visible power of the Queen’ (Clarendon, Rebellion, ii. 48, 54; vi. 411; Gardiner, History of England, ix. 87; Collins, Sidney Papers, ii. 631, 634).
The intimacy between Vane and Hamilton dated from Vane's mission to Germany, and increased during the first Scottish war, when Vane was the intermediary between Hamilton and the king (Burnet, Lives of the Hamiltons, ed. 1852, pp. 24–30, 155, 165, 175). With Strafford Vane had been for some time on apparently friendly terms, but the mismanagement of the war against the Scots, and differences as to the policy to be pursued towards them in the future, caused a breach (Strafford Letters, ii. 325, 419–28). It became permanent when Strafford on his creation as an earl (12 Jan. 1640) selected Baron Raby as his second title, ‘a house,’ says Clarendon, ‘belonging to Sir H. Vane, and an honour he made an account should belong to him too.’ This, continues Clarendon, was an act ‘of the most unnecessary provocation’ on Strafford's part, ‘though he contemned the man with marvellous scorn … and I believe was the loss of his head’ (Rebellion, ii. 101; cf. Warwick, Memoirs, p. 141).
On the meeting of the Short parliament of April 1640, in which Vane sat for Wilton, he was charged to demand supplies for the war from the commons. On 4 May he informed the house that the king was willing to surrender ship-money, adding that his master would not be satisfied with less than twelve subsidies in return. The debate showed that the king's demand would be refused, and led to the dissolution of parliament on 5 May. Clarendon, who attributes the breach entirely to Vane's mismanagement, charges him with misrepresenting the temper of parliament to the king, and even with ‘acting that part maliciously, and to bring all into confusion’ in order to compass Strafford's ruin (Rebellion, ii. 76; Warwick, Memoirs, p. 147). Another contemporary rumour was that Vane brought about the dissolution in order to save himself from prosecution as a monopolist (Lilburne, Resolved Man's Resolution, pp. 13–18). But Vane was evidently acting by the king's instructions, and Clarendon omits to mention the dispute about the military charges and the intended vote against the Scottish war which complicated the question at issue (Gardiner, History of England, ix. 113–17). The king did not regard Vane as going beyond his orders, and continued to employ him as secretary. Throughout the second Scottish war he was with the king, and his letters show that he was full of confidence even after the defeat at Newburn (Hardwicke Papers, ii. 174; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1640–1, p. 154). Vane took part as an assistant in the debates of the great council and in the negotiations with the Scots at Ripon (ib. ii. 224; Notes of the Treaty at Ripon, pp. 18, 33). In the Long parliament, where, as in the Short parliament, Vane represented Wilton, he was fortunate enough to escape attack. This he owed partly to the fact that he had not been concerned in the most obnoxious acts of the government, partly to his son's connection with the opposition leaders.
In Strafford's trial Vane's evidence as to the words used by him in the meeting of the privy council on 5 May 1640 was of paramount importance. He asserted positively that Strafford had advised an offensive war with Scotland, telling the king, ‘You have an army in Ireland; you may employ it to
