DIGBY, George, Lord (1612-77), of Sherborne Castle, Dorset.

George Digby’s father, Sir John Digby†, 1st earl of Bristol, had risen to prominence in the Jacobean court and through his negotiations as ambassador to Spain in the 1610s and 1620s. Bristol’s involvement in attempts to discredit the 1st duke of Buckingham later in the decade ensured that he was estranged from the Caroline court throughout the 1630s, and in 1640 he sided with the opposition peers who called for reforms in church and state. George Digby was implicated in his father’s political activities from the mid-1620s. In June 1626 he joined the family friends, Sir John Strangways* and Sir Lewis Dyve*, in ‘stirring up of disaffection of divers of the Members of both Houses’ in his father’s defence; in 1632 he married Anne Russell, daughter of another opposition peer, Francis Russell†, 4th earl of Bedford; and on his arrival in court in 1634 he quarrelled, and fought a duel, with the queen’s favourite, William Crofts.26Eg. 2978, f. 18; Dorset RO, D/SHC/KG/1279, 2741. The Crofts duel brought Digby further royal displeasure, imprisonment in the Fleet, and prosecution in the star chamber. The star chamber case was dropped only in June 1636, and Digby was released in July.27CSP Dom. 1634-5, pp. 81, 129, 523.

Such treatment merely increased Digby’s inclination to side with the king’s critics. In October 1637 he was given leave to remain in London, through the good offices of Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke.28Bodl. Bankes 38, f. 49v. In January 1638 he was indicted for having spent Christmas at Essex House in the Strand, as the guest of the Devereux and Seymour families, and in company with his brother-in-law Edward Montagu†, Viscount Mandeville.29CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 162. After this latest brush with authority, Digby retired to Dorset, where he served on local commissions alongside Denzil Holles*, Sir John Strangways, Sir Walter Erle* and other local opponents of the crown.30C181/5, ff. 113, 222. If the company he kept is any guide, there can be little doubt where Digby stood politically by the winter of 1638-9.

Digby’s election as knight of the shire for Dorset in March 1640 confirmed his position within opposition circles. The election was an amicable affair, with the three candidates all being men critical of the government. Digby was third in the poll, with 800 votes, while Richard Rogers* (cousin of William Seymour, 2nd earl of Hertford) gained 942 and Sir Walter Erle 902; but Erle agreed to withdraw in Digby’s favour, sitting instead for the borough of Lyme Regis.31Dorset RO, D/BOC/22, p. 30. During the Short Parliament, Digby worked closely with a group of west country MPs associated with his extended family and its allies. He was named to six committees, being appointed alongside his brother-in-law, William Russell*, Lord Russell, the Digby client, Edward Kyrton*, Sir John Strangways and Sir Francis Seymour*.32CJ ii. 4a, 8a, 9a, 12a, 18b. The Seymour connection is particularly important, as it suggests that even at this stage Digby was not an uncritical supporter of John Pym* and his friends in the Commons. Sir Francis’s opposition to the government was less violent than that of Pym, and based more on objections to Ship Money and other secular abuses than distrust of the king, desire for root and branch reform of the church or fear of popish plots.33Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 100-1. In his speech of 22 April, Digby echoed Seymour’s call for the removal of evil counsellors, and advised ‘cutting off these incendiary persons and firebrands of the state’ as the solution to the nation’s problems. His antagonism towards the Scots was also evident, as he warned that ‘we fear the sparks of the Scottish fire may be catching here at home if we remain unsatisfied’, and demands moves ‘to quench the Scottish fire and supply his majesty’s occasions’.34Procs. Short Parl. 222-3. In his second major speech of the Parliament, on 2 May, Digby seconded Seymour, Kyrton and Viscount Falkland (Lucius Cary*), who all called for Ship Money to be removed before subsidies would be voted. Digby insisted that he trusted the king, but warned that giving way to his demands might ‘be destructive to posterity’, adding, ‘let his majesty relieve our grievances and restore us to liberty, he then may not only command our purses but our hearts’.35Procs. Short Parl. 124, 191. Again, Digby implied that the trust between the king and his people could be restored by secular reform, and that the Scottish war was a good cause, which the English could pursue without any qualms.

By the autumn of 1640, it was clear that Digby’s relationship with the opposition leaders was becoming more problematic. His friends still included prominent opposition politicians like the 4th earl of Bedford, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, Mandeville and Holles, but he did not join them in opposing the renewed the war against the Scottish rebels in the summer of 1640, when he raised volunteers in Dorset under the guidance of Sir Francis Cottington*.36CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 306; 1640-1, pp. 68, 104, 106. This fits with what is known of his antipathy to the Scots, and to the Presbyterian Church, which had marked his contribution to the Short Parliament and would emerge more strongly during the Long Parliament. Bristol’s lack of sympathy with the Scots, displayed in his refusal to join the Twelve Peers in justifying the Scottish rebellion (despite the involvement of Bedford, Essex and Hertford), suggests that this was a family policy. Significantly, Sir Francis Seymour also broke ranks, refusing to support the Twelve Peers.37Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 154-5. The situation was further complicated by Digby’s continuing close relationship with his cousin, the Catholic convert, Sir Kenelm Digby. When George had made his first appearance at court after his term of imprisonment, in May 1637, he was chaperoned by Sir Kenelm.38HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 107. During 1638 and 1639 Sir Kenelm acted as George’s mentor, conducting a long correspondence concerning the relative merits of Catholicism and Protestantism, in which George defended the Church of England, with its bishops and ceremonies, rejecting both Catholicism (for its reliance on tradition) and the Scottish Presbyterians (as a church ‘imposed by adversity and oppression’).39Sumner, ‘Lord George Digby’, 24-7; Letters between the Lord George Digby and Sir Kenelm Digby concerning Religion (1651, E.1355.2). Unlike his more ‘godly’ political allies, George did not reject Catholicism out of hand, and his later commonplace book included passages from authors who defended prayers to saints and prayers for the dead.40Sherborne Castle, MS ‘Lord George Digby, cir. 1651’. His friendship with Sir Kenelm Digby lasted at least until the end of 1640, when the two corresponded about political events, and he was content to act as his cousin’s messenger with such prominent Catholics and courtiers as Sir Toby Matthew and Walter Montagu, and the queen’s adviser, Henry Jermyn*.41Lismore Papers ed. Grosart, ser 2, iv. 123-40. A high regard for bishops, and sympathy with the Catholic queen, would be important elements in Digby’s later parliamentary career.

In the elections for the Long Parliament, Digby was again returned with Richard Rogers for the county seat. He was also elected for the Somerset borough of Milborne Port, which was dominated by the Digbys and Seymours, who owned property in and around the town, but he resigned that seat in favour of his brother, John Digby*.42CJ ii. 25a. Digby’s activity in the House started conventionally enough. In November 1640 he presented a petition given to the Dorset MPs by the inhabitants of the county at the elections, which set out their grievances against the Caroline regime, including Ship Money, coat and conduct money, and monopolies.43Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 30-2. There was particular emphasis on Laudian innovation in the Church of England, which, Digby argued, was caused by ‘grand contrivers’ who ‘disguised religion in fantastic dresses that heaven and earth cannot but be angry to see’.44Add. 24863, f. 5. Once again he stopped short of advocating the abolition of episcopacy, and his double-edged description of the 1640 Canons as ‘a covenant worse than that of the Scots’, would not have pleased John Pym.45D’Ewes (N), 20n. Despite such differences of emphasis, the Commons took up Digby’s suggestion that there should be a remonstrance on the state of the kingdom, and he was named to the drafting committee, with Seymour, Strangways and Kyrton.46CJ ii. 25a. In the next few months, Digby pursued a number of the secular complaints included in the Dorset petition, and was named to committees on the crown’s breach of privilege against the 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†) and the Robert Greville, 2nd Baron Brooke, complaints against Ship Money and local government, and he supported his father’s efforts in attempting to pay off the northern army and make peace with the Scots.47CJ ii. 25b, 45b, 50b, 67a, 80b, 85b, 103b. In January and February 1641 Digby was a natural inclusion in the raft of ‘bridge appointments’ suggested as a means of bringing the king’s critics into positions of responsibility, and thereby effecting a compromise settlement. Under the scheme, Bristol was nominated as the new lord privy seal, while Digby was repeatedly mentioned as a possible secretary of state.48CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 439; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 388.

There were significant differences between Digby and men like Pym and Holles, in secular affairs. For Digby, the solution to the nation’s ills lay in the removal of evil counsellors, and the establishment of regular Parliaments to advise the king instead. On 30 December 1640 Digby was named to a committee to consider yearly Parliaments.49CJ ii. 60a. During the debate of 19 January 1641, which concerned triennial Parliaments, he was forthright: ‘the frequency of Parliaments is the sole catholic antidote that can preserve and secure us for the future’ and ‘is mostly essentially necessary to the power, the security, the glory of the king’. It would be pointless to remove the king’s bad advisers if the lack of Parliaments – ‘the primary and the efficient cause’ of the kingdom’s problems – was not also rectified. Digby emphasised his trust in the king, and borrowing from Seymour’s speech of 16 April 1640, said that such reforms would ‘dissipate clouds’ between king and people, ‘to the perpetuating our sun, our sovereign, in his vertical, in his noon-day lustre’.50Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 146-9; cf. Procs. Short Parl. 141. With the argument won, on 20 January Digby took the new bill for regular Parliaments to the Lords.51CJ ii. 70b. Digby may have seen this as his crowning achievement, but he acknowledged the importance of the queen in making such radical changes acceptable to the king. Indeed, from early February, Digby seems to have drawn much closer to those around the queen. On 4 February, when the Commons received a message from the queen, promising to send away Jesuit priests and make her own arrangements more discreet, Digby asked them to pass a formal vote of thanks, a course ‘generally disapproved’ by the House.52D’Ewes (N), 325. On 15 March he intervened in the debate on banishing Sir John Winter from the queen’s household, saying that ‘the triennial bill had not passed but by reason of the queen’s earnest solicitation’.53D’Ewes (N), 489n. In this he was no doubt influenced by his existing connections with Sir Kenelm Digby, and also with Henry Jermyn. His relationship with Jermyn is hinted at in a rumour in early April that the queen’s favourite was lobbying for Digby to be appointed ambassador to France.54HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 398.

The public differences between Digby and the opposition leaders became more apparent from the beginning of February, with a series of debates on religious issues. On 1 February Digby objected to the ministers’ remonstrance, saying that he knew a number of clerics who disavowed the final version.55D’Ewes (N), 309-10. When these allegations were investigated the following day, the ministers in question said that they objected to the length of the document, not its content. Despite support from Sir John Strangways, who claimed the Dorset clergy also rejected the remonstrance, Digby was forced to drop the matter in the face of strong objections by Pym, Holles and John Hampden*.56D’Ewes (N), 313, 315n. As the younger Sir John Coke commented, ‘there was some art in this whereby to cast some blemish upon this petition and the subscribers’.57HMC Cowper, ii. 272. On 8 February Digby made his position clear, when he dismissed the London petition calling for radical religious change as ‘a presumptuous petition’ and defended episcopacy more directly.58D’Ewes (N), 335. He argued that bishops had guided the church faithfully ‘through all ages of Christ’s church from the apostles’ time’, and called for moderate reform, which would ‘not destroy bishops, but make bishops such as they were in the primitive times’. His defence of episcopacy was matched by his hostility to Presbyterianism, which he saw as ‘a comet or blazing star, raised and kindled out of the stench, out of the poisonous exhalation of a corrupted hierarchy … [and] a terrible tail with it … pointed to the north’.59Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 170-4. Digby’s fear of Scottish influence was already obvious, and he voiced his objections strongly in the next few weeks. On 1 March he was drawn into a dispute with Isaac Penington*, who objected that he had promoted a rival remonstrance from London, which promoted bishops and attacked the Scots.60D’Ewes (N), 421. Digby returned to this theme on 10 March, when he promoted episcopacy as a better form of government than a Presbyterian ‘assembly’ which would challenge the king’s power as supreme governor of the church.61D’Ewes (N), 470n. Digby later identified religion as the reason for his ‘first declination’ from the opposition agenda, saying that ‘from the first debate of episcopacy, upon the London petition, all men observed the date my unmerited favour began to expire’.62Lord Digby’s Apology (1643), 3 (E.84.32). This was not new. Digby’s religious objections can be traced back to the Short Parliament and, indeed, to the exchanges with Sir Kenelm in the late 1630s, and there can be little doubt that the survival of the Church of England, with the royal supremacy and episcopal jurisdiction, was of great personal importance to him.

If religion was the long-term cause for Digby’s change of heart, the attainder of the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†) was the immediate trigger. Digby had been involved in attempts to bring Strafford to justice since 11 November 1640, when he was named to the committee which presented the charges to the Lords. He acted as messenger to the Lords to arrange a conference on 25 November, and was appointed to the committee which considered whether MPs should be called as witnesses.63CJ ii. 26b, 36a, 39b. On 19 January 1641, in the triennial debates, Digby had attacked Strafford and the former attorney-general, William Noye, as ‘apostates to the commonwealth’; on 6 March he was appointed to the committee which met with the Lords to discuss arrangements for the impeachment; and in late March and early April he appeared as a witness against Strafford.64Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 146; CJ ii. 98a; Sumner, ‘Lord George Digby’, 74-5. Yet Digby’s attitude to the prosecution changed, quite suddenly, with the introduction of the attainder bill on 10 April. On 15 April Digby accepted that Strafford was guilty of each charge, but questioned ‘whether the result of this is high treason’; and on the next day he was recorded as speaking more directly, saying that ‘he is not satisfied whether these illegal acts done by Lord Strafford doth amount to the subversion of law’.65Verney’s Notes, ed. Bruce, 48-9. On 21 April, in the debate immediately before the bill was voted through, he delivered a broadside against the prosecution. According to Digby, Strafford was still ‘the most dangerous minister’ and ‘that grand apostate of the commonwealth’, but the holes in the prosecution case – particularly the inconsistencies of Sir Henry Vane I’s* evidence – had ‘blunted the edge of the hatchet’. The Commons could insist on Strafford’s removal, but should not demand the death penalty, for ‘he that commits murder with the sword of justice heightens that crime to the utmost’. If the Commons insisted on continuing, he would, like Pontius Pilate, wash his hands of Strafford’s innocent blood.66Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 225-7; Harl. 478, ff. 15v-16v. Digby’s words angered the House, but did not alter the inevitable outcome. According to D’Ewes, ‘Lord Digby spake dangerously’ but was ‘fully confuted’ by Pym, William Strode I*, John Glynne* and others in the ensuing debate.67Procs. LP iv. 41-2. When it came to a vote the bill passed 204 to 59, with Digby as teller for the noes.68Procs. LP iv. 41-2; cf. CJ ii. 125a. When the list of ‘Straffordians’ was published a few days later, Digby was at its head.69Verney’s Notes, ed. Bruce, 57.

Digby’s switch from prosecutor to defender of the ill-fated earl of Strafford was the culmination of a number of factors. He had become increasingly concerned at the religious policies of the opposition, who seemed intent on dismantling the Church of England and replacing it with an alien, Presbyterian system. He also saw the dispute between the king and his people as easily resolved, through the removal of evil counsellors and the institution of frequent Parliaments. These reforms had been conceded by the end of January 1641, and it was unnecessarily divisive to call for further measures against the queen and her Catholic friends, or, indeed, for Strafford’s execution. Suggestions that ‘chief aim’ of Digby and Bristol ‘was to gain royal favour’ and that they switched sides during Strafford trial because Digby ‘saw the prospects of winning royal favour by saving the favourite’s neck’ are unconvincing. If Digby sought preferment, he would have been safer to rely on the ‘bridge appointment’ strategy backed by Bedford, Hertford, Seymour and Essex, which continued to be the preferred policy of the ‘country peers’ at least until early August 1641.70Sumner, ‘Lord George Digby’, 47. As it was, Digby’s speech gained him no immediate royal reward, and left him dangerously exposed to an angry House of Commons.

In the weeks after 21 April, Digby faced mounting hostility from his former colleagues in the House. On 23 April he was questioned about the Strafford speech, and called upon to withdraw from the House; he was also accused of stealing vital evidence for the trial from Pym’s study.71CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 559-60; Procs. LP iv. 77 Digby’s decision to print his speech was deliberately provocative. In early May 500 copies were produced and distributed by one of Hertford’s servants, and by Digby’s step-brother, Sir Lewis Dyve.72Procs. LP iv. 216. The Commons reacted by appointing a committee to consider this breach of privilege, which reported on 8 June.73CJ ii. 136a; Procs. LP v. 30, 41. On the same day, Digby intervened in the debate on the army plot, in an attempt to discredit the evidence given by the main informer, George Goring*. After a debate ‘with so much heat and animosity on both sides’ Digby was at last forced to withdraw from the House.74Procs. LP v. 30. It was only at this stage that the king intervened to save his champion. On 9 June a writ was issued, summoning Digby to the House of Lords, as Baron Digby of Sherborne.75LJ iv. 271a. When the Commons finally struck, on 10 June, it was too late. Henry Marten moved that Digby be sent for; and Edward Kyrton countered that this would be impossible, as ‘the said Lord Digby was by writ called up this morning to the Lords’ House’. Robbed of its prey, the Commons attacked Digby’s associates instead. His brother, John Digby, had sat on the ladder to the gallery during the debate, and the Speaker ordered him down; when he was defended by another Digby client, Richard King, he was also commanded to withdraw.76Procs. LP v. 79. On 13 July the Commons ordered that the printed copies of the speech should be publicly burned, and denounced the publishers as delinquents; on the same day a petition was passed, asking the king not to employ Digby in any government position – a motion opposed by Strangways and Kyrton.77Procs. LP v. 617, 620-1; CJ ii. 208b-9b. The king refused to be bound by such demands, and in August Digby was duly appointed ambassador to France; it was probably on his advice that the king tried to arrest the Five Members and his former friend, Lord Mandeville, in January 1642.78HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 410. Parliament retaliated by impeaching Digby on 26 February 1642.79LJ iv. 602b, 616a-b.

The impeachment ensured that, in the civil wars, Digby was reluctant to accept anything short of a complete victory by the king before any political settlement could be achieved. His refusal to countenance the various peace negotiations through the 1640s distanced him from his former allies, including Hertford, Seymour, Strangways and Kyrton, who were a moderating influence on the king during this period. Digby was jealous of his position in royal circles, and came to bitterly resent the influence of the king’s nephew, Prince Rupert. This rivalry may have started with Digby’s appointment as secretary of state on 28 September 1643, and it reached its height with the defeat at Naseby in June 1645, which Rupert, who had strongly advised against giving battle, blamed on Digby’s malign influence over the king. With the surrender of Oxford in June 1646, Digby went into exile in Paris, and he served Charles Stuart on the continent after 1649. He succeeded his father as 2nd earl of Bristol in 1653, and, despite his conversion to Catholicism in the later 1650s, proved an influential politician after the Restoration. He died in 1677, and was succeeded by his son, John Digby†, who became 3rd earl of Bristol.80Oxford DNB; CP.