RADCLIFFE, Robert (1573-1629)

The Radcliffes entered the peerage in the mid 1440s, following a marriage between John Radcliffe of Attleborough, Norfolk and the Essex-based Elizabeth FitzWalter, suo jure 8th Lord FitzWalter. The family suffered a serious reverse in 1495/6 with the attainder and execution of John Radcliffe^†, 9th Lord FitzWalter. However, under Henry VIII the latter’s heir, Robert FitzWalter^†, was not only restored (1511) but also elevated to the earldom of Sussex (1529). The Radcliffes reached their peak under Elizabeth I, when Thomas Radcliffe^†, 3rd earl of Sussex, served as viceroy in Ireland (1556-65), lord president of the council in the north (1568-72) and lord chamberlain (1572-83).

Early life and career, 1573-1603

Robert Radcliffe, the subject of this biography, was the only son of the 3rd earl of Sussex’s younger brother Henry. Although his family’s principal estates lay in Essex, Robert, who was born in 1573, was probably raised in Hampshire (his father, Henry, was governor of Portsmouth from 1571 and joint lord lieutenant of the county from 1585). On the death of the 3rd earl in 1583, Henry Radcliffe became 4th earl of Sussex, whereupon Robert himself assumed the style of Lord FitzWalter. However, this social elevation proved to be a mixed blessing, as the first three earls of Sussex, whose estates yielded only a modest income,28 S.J. Gunn, ‘Henry Bourchier, earl of Essex’, Tudor Nobility ed. G.W. Bernard, 152. had racked up enormous debts, including the sum of £12,000, which was owed to the crown.29 Oxford DNB, xlv. 745; HMC Var. vii. 342. In 1587 Robert’s father complained that he was required to pay the queen £500 each year, ‘which is £50 yearly more than there is left for me to live off’.30 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 319-21. Elizabeth, however, declined to grant him any reduction, despite the Radcliffes’ long service to the crown.31 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 369. This seems to have embittered the young Lord FitzWalter, whose portrait, painted to celebrate his participation in his first tournament on 17 Nov. 1593, features the motto ‘amando et fidando troppo son rovinanto’ (‘being too much loving and faithful was his undoing’).32 A. Young, Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments, 140, 143. The Radcliffes’ parlous finances were probably exacerbated in 1594, when FitzWalter, now 5th earl of Sussex, briefly served as ambassador extraordinary to Scotland. On his return to England, Sussex was so short of funds that he applied for permission to quit England and fight the Turks.33 CSP Dom. 1595-7, p. 40.

At the opening of Parliament in 1597, Sussex served as earl marshal. Midway through this assembly he once again pleaded with the queen to allow him to serve abroad, this time in the forces fighting in France, ‘for I had much rather make a good end in her Majesty’s service abroad than to live in miserable poverty at home’.34 Orig. Letters ed. H. Ellis (3rd ser), iv. 149-50. However, despite having commanded a regiment on the Cadiz expedition the previous year, he was denied permission. He was therefore forced to sell a large part of his estate, including the former abbey house at Bermondsey.35 Oxford DNB, xlv. 745; VCH Surr. iv. 21. Thereafter, his need for a house close to the capital was supplied by rented properties.36 HMC Ancaster, 351. See also his 1602 letter to the financier Thomas Sutton, written from lodgings in King Street, Westminster: LMA, Acc/1876/F/03/07, no. 69.

It may have been because of his financial difficulties that Sussex was not retained as earl marshal. In December 1597 he was replaced by his kinsman, the royal favourite, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex. The latter’s circle included several disaffected young noblemen, among them Sussex himself. In February 1601 Sussex was arrested on suspicion of involvement in Essex’s unsuccessful rebellion. In fact, Sussex took no part in the uprising, being out of town at the time, and was swiftly released.37 HMC Bath, v. 281; HMC Townshend, 11; CSP Dom. 1598-1601, pp. 546, 551. He went on to serve as a juror at Essex’s trial. During the last Elizabethan Parliament, Sussex again filled the office of earl marshal.

The final years of Elizabeth’s reign saw Sussex become estranged from his wife Bridget, the intelligent and attractive daughter of a substantial Hertfordshire squire. He had a fondness for whores - one contemporary remarked that he would be loath to bed a wench whose favours had already been enjoyed by Sussex for fear of the pox – and by March 1602 he was infatuated with his wife’s former gentlewoman, one Mrs Morgan, upon whom, despite his impecunious circumstances, he lavished fine clothes. This public humiliation proved too much for Bridget to endure, and by the autumn she had persuaded Sussex to allow her £1,700 a year in order to live apart from him with their children.38 CSP Dom. 1601-3, p. 158; Diary of John Manningham ed. J.P. Sorlien, 97-8; Bodl., Eng.Poet.c.50, lines 9-12.

Following the death of the queen in March 1603 Sussex was a member of the short-lived accession council, which managed affairs until the new king, James I, reappointed the Privy Council in April.39 Pprs. of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey, V: 1603-7 ed. V. Morgan et al. (Norf. Rec. Soc. lxxiv), 25; Loseley Mss ed. A.J. Kempe, 363. He subsequently joined the royal party on its journey south, during which time he quarrelled with Archibald Campbell, 8th earl of Argyll [S].40 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 35. Old Anglo-Scottish rivalries were probably to blame: Sussex was descended from a daughter of Thomas Howard^†, 2nd duke of Norfolk, whose victory at Flodden in 1513 had claimed the life of the 2nd earl of Argyll [S], while both the 3rd earl of Sussex and the 4th earl of Argyll [S] had fought at Pinkie in 1547.41 CP, i. 199; xxiia. 521, 522. Despite this disagreement, Sussex lost little time in representing to the new king the dire state of his finances. He could not have picked a better moment, as James, eager to ingratiate himself with his new English subjects, agreed in July to write off the money he owed to the crown which, despite recent land sales, still amounted to nearly £5,300.42 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, pp. 426-7; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 38. Sussex also claimed the right to serve as lord sewer at James’s coronation feast, on the grounds that his family had enjoyed this privilege at the coronations of Henry VIII and Elizabeth. In the event, his petition was left unexamined.43 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 24; CP, xiia. 518, 523. The lord sewer had charge of the king’s table at the feast. ‘The Queen’s Court and Household’, Brit. and For. Rev. vii. 261. However, at around this time he was granted right of admission to the king’s Privy Chamber.44 HMC Hatfield, xv. 220. Moreover, in August he was also appointed lord lieutenant of Essex, which office had lain vacant since 1598.

The first Jacobean Parliament

Sussex attended the opening of Parliament on 19 Mar. 1604, but thereafter his presence in the House of Lords was sporadic, particularly during the final month of the first session. However, he sought leave of absence only once, on 8 May, when the House was notified that he had injured himself in a fall from his horse.45 LJ, ii. 294b. His infrequent appearances meant that he was named to only a handful of bill committees. These included one on the debts of the late Sir Henry Unton^‡, who, like Sussex, had been a follower of the 2nd earl of Essex.46 Ibid. 274a. For his remaining appointments, see ibid. 298b, 313b, 324b. He was also appointed to attend two conferences with the Commons, one on the proposed union with Scotland, and the other concerning wardship.47 Ibid. 284a, 303a. He made no reported speeches. During the session one of Sussex’s servants, Thomas Rush, was arrested at the suit of a London Mercer, but was released after complaint by the 3rd Lord Sheffield (Edmund Sheffield^*, later 1st earl of Mulgrave).48 Ibid. 271b, 274a, 279a.

Although the king had written off his debt to the crown, Sussex continued to struggle financially. In July 1604 James granted him lands worth 100 marks annually, as a result of which small properties in Somerset, Middlesex and Kent were passed to him the following year.49 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 136, 179, 188; SO3/3, unfol. (July 1605). However, his New Year gift of £10 to the king in January 1606 was just half the size of that offered by most other earls; only the 5th earl of Rutland (Roger Manners*) gave less.50 Add. 8126. Despite his relative poverty, Sussex participated in the life of the court, where he was often required to demonstrate his martial prowess. In 1605 he was listed among those who were to fight with foils, and in January 1606 he led one of the two teams which fought in the barriers held to celebrate the marriage of Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex.51 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 188; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 529, 594; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 43.

Sussex attended the opening of the second session of Parliament on 5 Nov. 1605, but thereafter, until the adjournment in May 1606, he was so rarely seen in the Lords that he was not named to a single committee. He was more assiduous during the third session, which began in November 1606, and as a result he was appointed to the conference with the Commons on the Union and four bill committees: on usury, the preservation of timber, Canons not confirmed by Parliament and the hostile laws between England and Scotland.52 LJ, ii. 452b, 471b, 473a, 503a, 520b. It is unlikely that he attended the latter body, as the Journal indicates that he was entirely absent after 4 May. In neither session is he known to have addressed the House.

In February 1608 Sussex’s 14-year old daughter Elizabeth married John Ramsay^*, Viscount Haddington [S] (later earl of Holdernesse) in the Chapel Royal at Whitehall. At first sight this was an unlikely union, as Haddington, who was heavily indebted, might have been expected to attach himself to a wealthy heiress rather than the daughter of a man so short of funds that in March 1608 he had to be reminded by the Privy Council to pay his contribution to the parliamentary subsidies voted the previous year.53 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 417. However, Haddington may not have expected a large dowry as the king was so grateful to him for saving his life eight years earlier that he agreed to pay off the young Scots’ debts by way of a wedding present.54 JOHN RAMSAY.

By sponsoring Haddington’s marriage, James provided Sussex with a disguised form of subsidy. He certainly continued to assist the earl financially. In 1609 he bestowed upon Sussex and his cousin Sir Edward Radcliffe^* (later 6th earl of Sussex) certain concealed lands. When this grant was rendered null by a proclamation issued in April guaranteeing landowners with defective titles security of tenure he compensated Sussex with a fresh grant worth £800.55 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 505; SO3/4, unfol. (May 1609). Sussex was again the recipient of royal bounty in September 1609, when James granted him and his eldest son a pension of £400 as consolation for being passed over for appointment as governor of Portsmouth. Sussex, whose father had held this office, had asked to succeed Charles Blount^*, earl of Devonshire, as governor, but James decided to appoint William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke instead.56 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 307, 547; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 161; Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 77.

Sussex failed to attend the opening of the fourth session of Parliament on 9 Feb. 1610, having contracted a heavy cold, but he appeared at the next sitting, on 14 Feb., when he was named to the committee for conferring with the Commons over supply. He did not attend again until 5 Mar., despite being appointed on 27 Feb. to the committee for the conference with the Commons on the subject of Dr John Cowell’s controversial legal dictionary, the Interpreter. This prolonged absence was probably due to sickness, as Sussex was formally excused on 19 Feb. on grounds of ill health.57 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 198; LJ, ii. 550b, 553b, 557b. However, Sussex was evidently well enough by 23 Feb. to write to the lord treasurer, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, about the legal arrangements involved in entrusting to Salisbury his eldest son, Robert, Lord FitzWalter, for the latter’s education.58 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 589. For further correspondence on this matter, see HMC Hatfield, xxi. 197-8. Sussex attended the upper House only sporadically thereafter. Indeed, by the end of April he managed to sit only ten times.

Sussex’s attendance improved in May and June. He sat on six consecutive occasions between 5 and 14 May, and on seven between 26 May and 8 June. (During the latter period Sussex carried the robes at the investiture, in Parliament, of Prince Henry as prince of Wales).59 Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 180. Nevertheless, this was hardly impressive. Sussex seems to have regarded his own affairs as more pressing than those of the king, whose financial difficulties dominated the session. He noticeably failed to attend the Lords on the same day that he wrote to Salisbury requesting the wardship of the heir of Thomas Pelham^‡ of Halland Place, one of the richest men in Sussex (15 May).60 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 609. On Pelham’s wealth, see HP Commons, 1558-1603, iii. 194; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 631. This aversion to Parliament meant that Sussex was again named to few committees. His first appointment, aside from the conference on supply, was not made until 1 June, when he was required to help consider the bill to avoid double payment of debts, a matter on which he may have had some experience. Most of his remaining appointments were made during a rare period of attendance in late June.61 LJ, ii. 605a, 611a, 623a, 624b.

Sussex was more assiduous in his attendance when Parliament convened for its final session in October 1610, being present for 13 of the 21 sittings. This resulted in him being named to five committees, a respectable number for such a short session, three legislative and two conferences with the Commons, one of which concerned the Great Contract.62 Ibid. 669a, 671a, 675a, 677a, 678a. As in the previous session, he made no reported speeches. Sussex was a commissioner for the prorogation in December, and also a commissioner for the dissolution, though he failed to attend the dissolution meeting held on 9 Feb. 1611.

The parliaments of 1614-24

In the aftermath of the dissolution, Sussex continued to make financial demands on the king, despite the crown’s poverty. In December 1611 he informed Salisbury that James had agreed to favour him. However, since ordinary grants of money or land were excluded, this promise was ultimately worthless, and in 1612 Sussex was obliged to sell the manor of Lexden, in north-east Essex, which had been in his family since 1505.63 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 101; VCH Essex, ix. 395.

Sussex attended the opening of the 1614 Parliament, but soon reverted to his former practice of sitting in the Lords only infrequently. He attended only 12 of the remaining 28 sittings, but was excused only once (2 May). His longest period of continued attendance lasted seven days (between 12 and 24 May) and coincided with the Commons’ debates on the king’s right to levy impositions and the Lords’ debates on whether to confer with the Commons on this subject. He himself took no recorded part in these deliberations, and his only nomination was to be appointed (by the crown) a trier of petitions from Gascony, a largely honorific post. During the session, in a repeat of events ten years earlier, one of his servants was arrested, in defiance of parliamentary privilege, leading to a formal complaint.64 LJ, ii. 687a, 694a, 695a, 695b, 696a, 697b, 698a.

Following the dissolution, Sussex’s finances continued to deteriorate. In 1616 he borrowed £2,000 from the merchant-financier Sir Lionel Cranfield^* (later 1st earl of Middlesex), to whom, the following year, he sold another of his Essex manors.65 LC4/37, m. 3, nos. 112, 113; VCH Essex, viii. 243. Measures such as these help to explain how he was able, in October 1620, to contribute £200 to the Palatine benevolence demanded by the Privy Council.66 SP14/117/2. He was subsequently, but incorrectly, accused of failing to contribute: SP14/117/96; 14/118/59.

The period between April 1618 and September 1620 was a miserable time for Sussex, and not merely because his finances were in terminal decline. He suffered two serious bouts of sickness, which kept him from attending both the musters in Essex and the annual Garter ceremony.67 HMC 7th Rep. 674; Maynard Ltcy. Bk. ed. B. Quintrell, 41, 42, 44, 46. In addition, in September 1618 his mistress, a married woman named Frances Shute, with whom he had already fathered an illegitimate daughter, was summoned to appear before the Council board ‘to answer some misdemeanours whereof complaint has been made’. When Sussex proved obstructive, both he and Mrs Shute were fetched from Essex and imprisoned. Sussex was only released after putting in bond worth £1,000 promising not to keep her company again. The worst calamity, however, was the loss of all three of his remaining legitimate children: his daughter (Haddington’s wife) died from smallpox in December 1618; his youngest son succumbed to venereal disease the following August; and in September 1620 his heir, Lord FitzWalter, expired from ‘a long and lingering sickness’.68 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 193, 319; ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 49. His only surviving child was an illegitimate daughter by Frances Shute.

Sussex attended both the opening of the 1621 Parliament and the next two days of sitting (3 and 5 Feb.), but soon reverted to his accustomed absenteeism, though he was granted leave of absence only twice (15 Mar. and 8 May). Consequently, he was appointed to no committees before the adjournment in June. When Parliament reconvened in November, his attendance improved, and for a while he attended every other day of meeting. As a result, he was named to consider a bill regarding the debts of those who had been attainted.69 LJ, iii. 45b, 114b, 182b. He made no reported speeches. Sussex attended the prorogation meeting of 8 Feb. 1622.

By the summer of 1622 his finances were so dire that Sussex was forced to sell New Hall, his family’s seat in Essex, to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, for £21,000.70 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 446. For the remainder of his life, he lodged chiefly in a rented house in Clerkenwell. One of the conditions of this purchase was that Buckingham would use his influence with the king to obtain for Sussex a pardon, for despite his earlier promise the earl had not avoided the company of Frances Shute, now widowed, and faced prosecution in the ecclesiastical courts. Over the summer of 1623 Sussex wrote to Buckingham, then in Spain, reminding him of this condition, but it was not until September, after the king was satisfied that he was penitent, that Sussex was granted his wish. However, the earl was anything but sorry for his adultery, and proceeded to irritate James by boasting of having obtained freedom from prosecution.71 Harl. 1581, f. 366; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 84, 99. To add insult to injury, in December 1623, just one day after the death of his wife, he married Frances Shute before messengers sent from court warning him against doing so arrived.72 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 533-4. However, married life thereafter proved far from satisfactory. Both Sussex and Frances complained of loss of libido (which they attributed to sorcerers hired by their previous partners); and in December 1624 Frances came close to death after her abdomen swelled up, in all likelihood due to an ovarian cyst.73 M. MacDonald, Mystical Bedlam, 103; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 592-3. See also Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis ed. Lord Braybrooke, 114. Loss of libido and the ovarian cyst were almost certainly connected. We are grateful to Frederick Holmes, emeritus prof. of medicine at the Univ. of Kansas, for expert medical opinion. Less than three years later, Frances died, apparently after a long illness.74 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 252; Mins. of Evidence ... Petition of Sir William Brook Bridges, 433.

According to the clerk of the Parliament’s manuscript minutes, Sussex attended the opening of the 1624 Parliament on 19 February. He continued sitting for the next four days of business. His attendance thereafter is open to question, however, as the manuscript minutes indicate that he was present on several occasions when the Journal does not. However, even on the most generous reading of the evidence it is clear that Sussex was in the upper chamber only sporadically. Consequently, it is no surprise that he was not appointed to any committees, nor did he make any recorded speeches. Sussex attended the two adjournment meetings of the 1624 Parliament held on 16 February and 15 Mar. 1625.

Following the death of the king in March 1625, a fresh Parliament was summoned. In April Sussex wrote to the bailiffs of Colchester, in Essex, recommending that they elect as one of their burgesses for the forthcoming assembly his kinsman and adopted heir, Alexander Radcliffe, who had recently married Sussex’s illegitimate daughter Jane.75 Procs. 1625, p. 681. However, his nomination carried little weight, for although he remained lord lieutenant of Essex, he now owned only a modest amount of property in the county.

Eclipse and recovery, 1625-6

Sussex was among those peers who accompanied the king, Charles I, to Canterbury in May 1625 to greet the new queen, Henrietta Maria. On returning to the capital he attended the prorogation meeting of Parliament on 17 May. Present at the state opening on 18 June, he also sat in the Lords on the afternoon of 20 June and the morning of 22 June, when he took the oath of allegiance. However, he did not sit again until the 27th, having obtained leave of absence on the 25th, on which day he complained that one of his servants had been arrested, in defiance of parliamentary privilege.76 Ibid. 40; HMC 4th Rep. 3. He resumed his place on 30 June, and sat again on 1 July, but obtained a further leave of absence on 5 July, when he complained, by petition, of a vagrant named Lawrence Poulton, who was threatening to involve him in a bill before Star Chamber. The case concerned Sussex’s mistress (now his wife) who, four years earlier, had caused the destruction of a disorderly house erected by Poulton on land in Hampshire. Poulton, though generously compensated for his loss, had gone to law, which Sussex complained was unreasonable. The following afternoon Sussex again obtained leave of absence.77 Procs. 1625, pp. 88, 91-2, 96; HMC 2nd Rep. 107. He did not attend the remainder of the Parliament, even after it reconvened at Oxford.

Following the dissolution, Sussex retired to Attleborough, in Norfolk, where he owned some property. In late August the government received a credible report that Spain, with whom England was now at war, was preparing to land troops on the Essex coast. However, the king, instead of writing to Sussex, the county’s lord lieutenant, ordered Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick, the richest landowner in the county and a friend of Buckingham’s, to put the local trained bands in order. It was left to the Privy Council to notify Sussex of the invasion threat. Unaware of the role that had been assigned to Warwick, Sussex set out for Essex, arriving at Harwich late at night on 6 September. Early the following morning he was joined by Warwick, who informed Sussex that Charles had appointed him joint lord lieutenant. Sussex was appalled, as this meant that he had, in effect, been demoted. However, not until 13 Sept., when the new commission arrived, did Sussex return to Attleborough in disgust. Over the course of the next few months, both the king and secretary of state Sir Edward Conway^* (later 1st Viscount Conway) tried to reassure Sussex that the addition of Warwick was no reflection on his abilities but simply a necessary assistance in time of crisis. However, Sussex refused to be mollified, and claimed to be now regarded locally as a cipher. He also observed, reasonably enough, that an army commanded by two generals could hardly be well led. On this point he agreed with Warwick, who asked to be appointed sole lord lieutenant, Sussex having indicated his willingness to resign.78 Maynard Ltcy. Bk. 82-5, 90-1, 106, 120-1; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 116, 118, 125, 150.

Sussex was undoubtedly right to suspect that Charles lacked confidence in him. Over the last 23 years he had not been an energetic lord lieutenant, just as he had not been an assiduous member of the Lords. For instance, in February 1615, despite a proclamation requiring all lord lieutenants to reside in their counties, he had not only remained in London but had also instructed his deputy lieutenants (because of ‘some serious occasions’) to write to the captains of the trained bands, a task he himself was expected to perform.79 Maynard Ltcy. Bk. 34. At the beginning of his reign, Charles might reasonably have dismissed Sussex, as the earl was no longer a major Essex landowner. Instead of doing so, however, he had actually enhanced Sussex’s authority, giving him the right, previously vested in the Privy Council, to appoint his own deputy lieutenants.80 Ibid. 80. This was a serious error of judgment but, having made it, Charles could not now dismiss Sussex without appearing foolish. Dividing command of the Essex militia between Warwick and Sussex allowed Charles to save face while ensuring that the trained bands were commanded by someone with energy.

Sussex clearly hoped that by threatening to resign the king would relent and restore to him full control over the Essex militia. However, although the prospect of an immediate invasion quickly receded, he was to be disappointed, at least in the short term. It was against this backdrop that the second Caroline Parliament opened in February 1626, shortly after the coronation, at which Sussex bore the orb. At first, Sussex treated the requirement that he attend in his customary cavalier fashion, for during February and March he was seldom in the House, obtaining formal leave of absence three times. He even failed to attend on 18 Feb., on which day a committee to consider a bill for the better maintenance of hospitals and almshouses met. Sussex had not only been appointed to this committee two days earlier, but was also evidently expected to chair its proceedings, as his name headed the committee list.81 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. lii; Procs. 1626, i. 43, 53, 183, 216. Unsurprisingly, Sussex was not appointed to any further committees that session.

After Easter, however, Sussex’s attendance changed markedly. The earl sat six days in a row between 17 and 22 Apr., and eight days consecutively between 25 Apr. and 9 May. Thereafter, for a short period, he attended on alternate days. Between 22 May and 9 June he again sat without interruption. Significantly, the increase in Sussex’s attendance coincided with the attempted impeachment of Buckingham, and with the decision of Sussex’s fellow lord lieutenant, Warwick, to distance himself from the duke. By attending the House more frequently, Sussex probably hoped to exploit Buckingham’s rift with Warwick by ingratiating himself with the duke in order to recover full control of the Essex lieutenancy. It is telling that William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids, appears to have identified Sussex as one of Buckingham’s supporters in his list of members of the House, compiled in May 1626.82 E.S. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 168.

Following the dissolution on 15 June, Sussex was not immediately restored to sole control of the lieutenancy, perhaps because there was another Spanish invasion scare.83 SP16/28, f. 12. Nevertheless, in mid August orders were given to draw up a fresh commission of lieutenancy, and in mid September, with the threat of invasion now past, Sussex was formally returned to full command.84 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 407, 420; Sainty, 20. The following month he was appointed a commissioner of the Forced Loan, of which levy he evidently approved, unlike Warwick, who refused to contribute.

The 1628-9 Parliament, and Sussex’s final months

On 12 Mar. 1628 Sussex, now a widower, again asked to be allowed to resign as lord lieutenant of Essex, this time on the grounds that the governorship of Harwich and command of the newly built fort on Landguard Point had been granted to Henry Rich, 1st earl of Holland^*, brother of the earl of Warwick. His real objective, however, was to acquire these posts for himself, since the incumbent was entitled to an annual fee of more than £2,000 for payment of the garrison.85 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 8, 14. As usual, Sussex was strapped for cash, having been forced to sell yet another of his Essex manors in November 1627,86 Coventry Docquets, 563; C2/Chas.I/M13/30, f. 2. and such a sum would have provided a welcome fillip to his depleted coffers.

Sussex was still fretting over this issue when a fresh Parliament assembled on 17 Mar., by which time he seems to have taken up residence in one of the buildings attached to the old palace of Westminster.87 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 45; Maynard Ltcy. Bk. 240. However, his complaints were ignored, and, perhaps out of pique, but also due to illness, he lapsed once more into sporadic attendance of the Lords, though he was formally excused only twice. Aside from taking the oath of allegiance on 20 Mar. and being added to the committee for the bill to make the Medway more navigable, he made only three recorded contributions to the business of the session. The first, on 14 Apr., was to support Theophilus Howard^*, 2nd earl of Suffolk, who claimed that criticism he had uttered in respect of the lawyer-Member John Selden^‡ had been misreported. The second was on 1 May, when he confirmed that William Brokett, who had been arrested shortly after the start of the Parliament, was his servant. (Another of his servants, who had also been arrested, petitioned the House on 18 June, and was ordered to be released.) His final contribution was to hold the sword when Charles answered the Petition of Right from the throne on 2 June.88 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 80, 127, 221, 367, 377, 576; HMC 4th Rep. 18.

Following the assassination of Buckingham, Sussex lost his chief friend at court. He nevertheless continued to press his suit for command of Harwich and Landguard Fort, and offered to surrender his claim in return for the keepership of Windsor Castle. In November 1628 he briefly dropped all his demands after he learned from the 3rd Lord North (Dudley North^*) that Warwick was willing to buy from him both the lieutenancy and the two other military positions, but renewed them when he discovered that he had been misled.89 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 267, 310, 323, 415.

Sussex played no part in the 1629 session of Parliament, which opened on 19 Jan., but instead appointed the lord steward, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, as his proxy.90 LJ, iv. 25. He may have been sick; he was certainly unwell in October and November 1628, and was replaced as lord lieutenant of Essex on 5 February.91 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 346, 373. Three days after the session began, another of his servants, Richard Tempest, petitioned to be released from Newgate gaol, having been arrested in defiance of parliamentary privilege.92 HMC 4th Rep. 20.

Following the dissolution, Sussex sought permission from the lord chamberlain, Philip Herbert^*, 1st earl of Montgomery, to take legal action against Edward Eltonhead, a member of the royal household. Three months later, he himself answered a suit in Chancery concerning the sale, in June 1628, of much of his remaining Essex property.93 LC5/183, f. 47v; C2/Chas. I/M13/30, f. 2. He died in September, at his house in Clerkenwell. In his will, drawn up on 15 Aug. and proved on 8 Oct. 1629,94 Mins. of Evidence, 434; PROB 11/56, f. 285. he asked his executors, including Richard Bulkeley^‡, who had recently served as knight of the shire for Anglesey, to sell his goods and part of what was left of his estate to pay off his debts. The lands in question were held by two leading Hampshire gentlemen, Sir Daniel Norton^‡ and Sir Henry Wallop^‡, the latter of whom had lent Sussex £2,000 in 1624.95 LC4/52, m. 5, no. 164.

Sussex was buried at St Andrew’s church, Boreham, close to his former seat at New Hall, on 23 Oct. 1629. His earldom passed to his cousin, Sir Edward Radcliffe, but his estate at Attleborough, which was mortgaged up to the hilt, went to his illegitimate daughter Jane and her husband, Alexander Radcliffe.96 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 1, 2.