The Constables were descended from a Norman knight who came to twelfth-century England as constable to the counts of Aumale and acquired an estate at Burton (later Burton Constable) by marriage; his descendants married into virtually every major family in the East Riding except for their namesakes, the Constables of Flamborough and Holme-on-Spalding Moor.
Constable’s father, Sir John, inherited an estate of over 50,000 acres in Holderness, which enabled him to make two prestigious marriages with daughters of the 8th Baron Scrope and the 5th earl of Westmorland. From the latter he also bought the lordship of Holderness, comprising some 40,000 acres and seigneurial rights over hundreds of copyhold tenants.
Despite the Dormer connection, Constable clearly conformed, and was allowed to prove his loyalty after his father’s death. Appointed a j.p. in about 1582 and sheriff in 1586, he served in Parliament twice for the borough of Hedon, which was surrounded by his estates and had returned his family’s nominees virtually since its enfranchisement in 1547. This preferment had its critics: Archbishop Sandys advised against his reappointment to the commission of the peace after his shrieval year on the grounds that ‘his wife is a most obstinate recusant and will not be reformed by any persuasion, or yet by coercion. Her example is very hurtful’. These remarks went unheeded, and Constable was returned as knight of the shire for Yorkshire in 1589, an accolade which recognized his position as the head of one of the county’s largest electoral interests. It is perhaps surprising that lord president Huntingdon allowed him to stand, as his wife had finally been convicted of recusancy in the previous year.
Constable finally encountered serious trouble in January 1593, when Thomas Clarke, a seminary priest, confessed to saying mass ‘once or twice at the Lady Constable’s ... at Upsall in Richmondshire’; it quickly emerged that two other priests, Cuthbert Johnson and William Richmond, were also regular visitors there.
The allegations made against Lady Constable were serious, as the priests with whom she was connected were politically suspect because of their close links with Scotland. The government’s fears were heightened by reports that her half-sister, the duchess of Feria, was plotting with Francis Dacre, one of the northern rebels of 1569, and also lobbying for the appointment of herself and her son as joint regents of the Spanish Netherlands. Both rumours had some basis in fact, although neither scheme ultimately yielded any significant fruit.
As soon as Constable’s wife returned to Yorkshire in November 1593, she was summoned before lord president Huntingdon, who was apparently moved to show leniency by her sympathizers at Court. She was subsequently prosecuted in Queen’s Bench for harbouring priests, but the case was stayed in March 1596 after Constable petitioned Elizabeth for time to ‘try all good means to win her to conform herself in ... religion’. Constable’s cause was probably solicited by the lawyer (Sir) Edward Stanhope†, who delivered the order staying proceedings to attorney-general Sir Edward Coke*, which perhaps explains why Constable and the Inglebys supported Stanhope’s brother Sir John Stanhope I* and the unpopular puritan Sir Thomas Hoby* at the Yorkshire election of 1597.
Constable’s prospects improved considerably at James’s accession: the Westmorland affinity’s enthusiastic support for a Stuart succession, hitherto a liability, now became an asset;
Not surprisingly, Constable laid low after the Gunpowder Plot: he left no trace on the records of the 1605-6 session, and may have stayed away altogether. Despite the new anti-Catholic measures passed by the House, Lady Constable remained largely undisturbed. Lord president Sheffield, however, arrested two priests at one of Constable’s houses, and informed Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, that ‘although he [Constable] profess to be a Protestant, yet his housekeepers and officers are recusants and the only receivers of priests in this country’. Sheffield begged that the priests should not be pardoned immediately, as this made a mockery of his efforts to effect their capture.
Constable may not have attended the 1606-7 parliamentary session, as he left no trace on its records. If present, however, his status as a Yorkshire MP entitled him to attend committees appointed to debate the Instrument of Union (29 Nov. 1606), and to consider (Sir) John Hotham’s* jointure bill, in which he was personally interested as a trustee of the Hotham entail of 1594.
