SCROPE, Emanuel (1584-1630)

The only son of Thomas Scrope^* (later 10th Lord Scrope), and grandson of the Elizabethan lord chamberlain, Henry Carey^†, 1st Lord Hunsdon, Emanuel Scrope was baptized at Hunsdon, in Hertfordshire in 1584, on which occasion the queen stood as his godmother.31 Gibbs, 106. His family’s estates were mainly concentrated around Bolton Castle in north Yorkshire, but they also included a residence at Langar in Nottinghamshire and the manor of Hambleden in Buckinghamshire, where Emanuel later built himself a mansion house.32 Procs. 1626, ii. 265; Lipscomb, Bucks. iii. 572. Educated at Oxford in the late 1590s, after his father inherited the family’s 14th century barony, Scrope was tutored by Richard Pilkington, who later became an anti-Catholic polemicist. However, Pilkington failed to have a lasting influence on his student, for during the 1620s Scrope was accused of Catholic sympathies.33 HMC Hatfield, xii. 195; Ath. Ox. ii. 513; Reid, 388.

In 1605 Scrope married Elizabeth Manners, daughter of the late John Manners^†, 4th earl of Rutland. The latter left Elizabeth £1,000 for her dowry, but her brother, Roger Manners^*, 5th earl of Rutland, presumably promised to increase this sum to £3,000, as Rutland paid Scrope £300 in annual interest while the dowry remained unpaid. Rutland was still paying interest as late as October 1609.34 North Country Wills ed. J.W. Clay (Surtees Soc. cxxi), 119; Stone, 184; HMC Rutland, i. 396; iv. 465. Although the marriage proved childless, and Scrope had four illegitimate children by one of his servants, there is no evidence that he ever separated from his wife or fell out with Rutland. He was certainly on good terms with his brother-in-law, Francis Manners^*, who succeeded as 6th earl of Rutland in 1612.35 Life and Times of Anthony Wood, 147, n. 4; HMC Rutland, iv. 497, 513.

Scrope inherited his father’s title in September 1609, aged 25, at which time the first Jacobean Parliament stood prorogued. It is unclear whether he attended the Lords for the next session of Parliament, which commenced in February 1610. According to the Journal, he was absent throughout, but another source lists him as present for the investiture of the prince of Wales on 4 June. He gave his proxy to his great-uncle, the lord privy seal, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, who twice made his excuses for him.36 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 333; LJ, ii. 548b, 550a; Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 186. By contrast, Scrope attended 16 of the 21 sittings of the next session of Parliament, which met in late 1610, and was named to all seven of the committees appointed by the upper House. These included conferences with the Commons concerning the Great Contract and supply. The remaining five appointments were legislative.37 LJ, ii. 671a, 678a.

In early 1611 Scrope was caught in the Downs trying to leave the country to fight a duel with Sir John Byron^‡, a Nottinghamshire neighbour. As the crown was then trying to crack down on duelling, this may have led to a period of disgrace.38 HMC Rutland, i. 428. If so, it was probably short-lived, for in June 1613 he succeeded in getting a £200 assessment for a privy seal loan halved, and in December he participated in the masque celebrating the marriage of the king’s favourite, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset. He also took part in the New Year’s Day tilt in 1614.39 APC, 1613-14, pp. 76-7; Nichols, ii. 714, 729.

Scrope was marked as present at 23 of the 28 sittings of the 1614 Parliament for which we have an attendance record. His absences are attributable to an extended Easter break, as he missed the two last sittings before the session was adjourned on 19 Apr., and the first three after the House resumed on 2 May. He was named to two of the nine committees appointed by the Lords, one to confer with the Commons about the bill to settle the succession following the marriage of Princes Elizabeth to the Elector Palatine and another to consider the bill to prevent lawsuits concerning bequests of land.40 LJ, ii. 692b, 694a.

President of the council in the north and the 1621 Parliament, 1619-23

In 1619 Scrope became lord president of the council in north. This advancement has been attributed by one historian to the influence of the Spanish ambassador, Count Gondomar, but in point of fact Gondomar was not in the country at the time.41 Reid, 388. Scrope actually bought out the previous incumbent, Edmund Sheffield^*, 3rd Lord Sheffield (subsequently 1st earl of Mulgrave), who had come under pressure to resign for adopting harsh measures against recusants at a time when the king was trying to negotiate the Spanish Match. Scrope was evidently viewed by the crown as an ideal choice of successor, for as the Spanish agent at the time observed, so far as Catholics were concerned he was ‘a moderate person without malice’.42 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics II: 1613-24 ed. A.J. Loomie (Catholic Rec. Soc. lxviii), 113.

Scrope did not find it easy to conclude his negotiations with Sheffield. The deal was hindered by the claims of Henry Danvers^*, Lord Danvers (subsequently earl of Danby), who had previously obtained a promise, though not a formal reversion, to the post. According to reports, Scrope offered more money than Danvers, and in the autumn of 1618 it was claimed that Danvers had withdrawn. However, not until early in the New Year, after increasing his offer to £4,500, did Scrope secure the post. He was also obliged to pay £1,500 ‘elsewhere’, presumably either to Danvers or to the new royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, who was apparently instrumental in securing the king’s consent.43 Add. 34727, ff. 31v, 33, 35; Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 52; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 120.

Scrope was formally appointed on 6 Feb. 1619.44 C231/4, f. 77v. On his journey from London to take up his post, he was met on the Yorkshire border by his kinsman, Sir Richard Cholmley^‡, accompanied by 20 mounted retainers ‘in handsome livery of grey cloth trimmed with silver lace’.45 Mems. and Memorials of Sir Hugh Cholmley of Whitby ed. J. Binns (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. cliii), 73. However, his appointment was not universally applauded. In July 1620 Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby^‡, the puritan custos rotulorum of the North Riding, had to be instructed to show more respect to Scrope. At the same time, the archbishop of York, Tobie Matthew^*, was ordered to relinquish precedence to the president and take down his pew, set up in front of Scrope’s.46 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 168. Although there is no evidence at this stage that Scrope was Catholic, his devotion to the Protestant faith was evidently considered questionable, as it was subsequently claimed that, on his appointment as president, he ‘was not settled in religion’. Moreover, his morals offended the godly: in addition to keeping a mistress, he was a notorious gambler with a passion for horse racing.47 Procs. 1626, ii. 358; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 259-60; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 187; Mems. and Memorials of Sir Hugh Cholmley of Whitby, 75. However, at court, at least, his position was strengthened in May 1620, when his wife’s niece married Buckingham.

When a new Parliament was summoned in late 1620, Scrope was presumably duty-bound to support the candidacy of the secretary of state, Sir George Calvert^‡, for one of the Yorkshire seats. He may initially have wanted Calvert to be returned alongside Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡ of Gilling, who was married to his second cousin, but Fairfax proved reluctant to stand and Scrope was evidently happy to throw his weight instead behind Sir Thomas Wentworth^* (subsequently 1st earl of Strafford), appointed to the council in the north at the president’s nomination. Scrope’s support for Calvert and Wentworth undoubtedly alienated their defeated opponents, Sir John Savile^* (subsequently 1st Lord Savile) and his son, Sir Thomas Savile^† (subsequently 1st earl of Sussex). As well as helping Calvert and Wentworth, Scrope was probably also responsible for the election of his own secretary, George Wetherid^‡, for Boroughbridge and for the return of his kinsman, Sir Richard Cholmley, for Scarborough. He apparently approached Richmond, close to his estates in north Yorkshire, for the nomination of one their seats, but was persuaded to withdraw by Sir Thomas Wharton^‡, who also owed his seat on the council in the north to Scrope.48 HP Commons, 1604-29, i. 468-9, 485, 501, 505; iv. 223; Strafforde Letters, i. 10; Wentworth Pprs. 143-4; J.J. Cartwright, Chapters in the Hist. of Yorks. 203-4.

According to the attendance lists in the Journal, Scrope was present at 38 of the 44 sittings between the opening of Parliament in January 1621 and the Easter adjournment. He also attended on 3 Mar., when none of the barons more senior than William Paget^*, 5th Lord Paget, were marked as present. On that day Scrope was named to attend a conference with the Commons about apprehending the monopolist, Sir Giles Mompesson^‡. This in itself is not proof of his presence, of course, but he was also explicitly described as being in the chamber that day when he was ordered to make provision for detaining Mompesson should the patentee flee north.49 LJ, iii. 34a.

Scrope is recorded as having spoken only once in Parliament in 1621. The occasion was an incident involving himself and Francis Norris^*, earl of Berkshire, which took place on 16 February. As Scrope entered the chamber, he passed Berkshire, who had been talking with his servants near the entrance. The earl took offence, and, thinking that Scrope was claiming precedence over him – his earldom was less than a month old and his barony was more junior than Scrope’s - shoved Scrope so hard that ‘if he had not well recovered [he] had fallen flat upon his face’. Scrope made no formal complaint, but the incident was brought to the House’s attention by the lord chancellor (Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban), at the command of Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales). Both Berkshire and Scrope were obliged to explain themselves, whereupon the former was committed to the Fleet. Scrope was reproved only for failing to complain to the House.50 Ibid.19b-20a; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 8; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 30. The following day Scrope, who evidently wished to avoid a feud with Berkshire, moved for the earl’s release, but he secured only a relaxation in the conditions of Berkshire’s confinement.51 ‘Hastings 1621’, pp. 22-3; LJ, iii. 21b. On 19 Feb. Berkshire made a formal submission to the upper House and to Prince Charles, whereupon he was discharged and formally reconciled with Scrope.52 LJ, iii. 22b-23a.

Scrope was appointed to 16 of the 28 committees appointed by the Lords before the Easter recess, including the committee for privileges and the subcommittee initially charged with searching for records on the privileges of peers, which subsequently took on other duties, including checking the Journal. He was also named to attend two conferences regarding the petition against Catholicism and a further conference to receive the evidence the lower House had collected about monopolies. He was subsequently one of the lords instructed to investigate the patent for licensing inns.53 Ibid. 20b, 17a-b, 18b, 21a, 42b, 46b. Although Scrope signed the petition of the English nobility against allowing precedence to those who had recently purchased Irish or Scottish titles, he seems to have suffered no loss of favour, participating in the accession day tilt on 24 March.54 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 187; Harl. 5176, f. 24v.

Scrope’s absence was excused on 17 Apr., the first sitting after Easter.55 LJ, ii. 75a. Thereafter, until the 28th, he was marked as present only once, but subsequently attended more regularly. In total, he was recorded as attending 28 of the 63 sittings between Easter and the summer recess, 65 per cent of the total. He did not, though, receive any committee appointments until 30 Apr., when he was the first baron named to consider a bill against recusancy. In total, he was appointed to 13 of the 46 or 47 committees appointed by the upper House between Easter and the adjournment in June. On 24 May he was named, apparently in absentia, to attend a conference about legislation to enforce the Sabbath and restrict the issuing of prerogative writs, which measure he had been appointed to consider on 8 March.56 Ibid. 39b, 114b, 128b, 130b, 150a. In late June it was rumoured that Scrope would be made a privy councillor, but this proved to be unfounded.57 Chamberlain Letters ii. 384.

On 1 June Sir Robert Phelips^‡ reported to the lower House from the Commons’ committee for the courts of justice that a petition had been received on behalf of a widow who had been a litigant before Scrope in his capacity as president of the council in the north. Scrope had allegedly persuaded her counsel to abandon her case, so depriving her of her property, and his secretary, Wetherid, and another of his servants were said to have taken bribes. However, Phelips also announced that prosecution of the widow’s petition had been abandoned and that Scrope, having heard of this document, wanted a copy to show to the king during the recess ‘for the rectifying of his honour, or the condemning him as an unworthy subject’.58 CD 1621, vi. 184; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 146. Several prominent Yorkshire Members promptly came to Scrope’s defence. William Mallory^‡ described the petition as ‘a great injury to the noble lord’; Sir Arthur Ingram^‡, secretary of the council in the north, observed that the case concerned Scrope’s brother-in-law, Rutland, and ‘it is improbable he [Scrope] would take a bribe to do his brother injustice’; while Sir Thomas Wentworth expressed assurance that the petition was ‘scandalous’ and that ‘this business will turn to the honour of the Lord Scrope’ and his servants. However, the Commons declined to let Scrope have a copy of the petition. Instead, the petition’s solicitor was summoned before the Commons, where he denied accusing Scrope of corruption. Ordered to prosecute the petition after the session resumed in the autumn, he never did so.59 CD 1621, iii. 387, 405-6; v. 194; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 149, 161; CJ, i. 635. Scrope himself only attended once after the session resumed in November 1621 (on 21 Nov.), and made no further contribution to the proceedings of the upper House in that Parliament.

Another issue which came before the Commons in 1621 was the level of fees payable by litigants in the council in the north. These had increased as the result of a patent granted in 1606 to John Lepton for drafting all legal documents relating to the judicial business of the council. The agitation against Lepton’s patent appears to have been coordinated by the council’s secretary, Sir Arthur Ingram, and Scrope may have promised Ingram his support before he took up office, despite receiving an order in February 1619 not to interfere with the operation of Lepton’s grant. On 18 May 1621 the king, in response to the Commons’ complaints, ordered Scrope to prohibit the collection of fees by Lepton. Scrope thereupon ordered a general reduction in the fees charged by the officials of the council and, in early 1622, abolished all those fees not specifically mentioned in the council’s instructions. This won him popular support in the north, but brought him into conflict with Ingram. Many of the fees concerned were received by Ingram’s subordinates, on whom the secretary relied to fulfil the duties of his post. Scrope argued that Ingram should pay these men out of his own pocket, but this would have meant significantly reducing Ingram’s profits. In the ensuing struggle, Ingram emerged victorious, thanks to the support of the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, Lord Cranfield (later 1st earl of Middlesex).60 CD 1621, vii. 394-5; HMC Var. viii. 20-3; A.F. Upton, Sir Arthur Ingram, 165-8; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 363. The result was a lasting animosity between Scrope and Ingram. To make matters worse, in the autumn of 1622 the president also fell out with Wentworth, after Scrope, ‘with much neglect’, turned his back on Sir Thomas at court.61 SP14/150/28; Wentworth Pprs. 181-3.

Accusations of Catholicism and the parliaments of the mid 1620s

Scrope appears to have had no impact on the Yorkshire elections to the 1624 Parliament, possibly because the failure of his campaign against fees had made him appear ineffectual. He may have tried to promote Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡ of Gilling and Sir Thomas Belasyse^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Fauconberg) as candidates for the county, but, if so, their campaign never got off the ground, and the Saviles were elected instead.62 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 470.

Scrope missed the first 22 sittings of the Parliament, but when the upper House was called on 23 Feb. it was recorded that he intended to come; he took his seat on 15 March. Three days later he was named to consider the monopolies bill. He was subsequently appointed to eight more committees (out of the 105 appointed by the House), including the privileges committee, to which he was added on 4 May. He made no recorded speeches.63 LJ, iii. 214b, 267b, 338a.

Scrope’s opponents in Yorkshire, Wentworth, Hoby and Sir John Savile, took advantage of the Commons’ decision to draw up a petition against suspected recusant officeholders to attack Scrope, hoping to drive him from office by arguing that he favoured Catholics and failed to take communion.64 HMC Hodgkin, 42. However, when the petition was reported to the lower House on 27 Apr., Belasyse defended Scrope, saying that he had taken communion at Christmas two years earlier. So too did Hugh Cholmley^‡, Sir Richard Cholmley’s son, who asserted that Scrope’s failure to communicate had not arisen out of ‘any scruple of conscience’, and that he would take communion whenever the House wanted.65 CJ, i. 691b, 776a-b.

In its final form the petition accused Scrope of failing to receive communion ‘in the last three or four years’, thereby suggesting that he had converted to Catholicism after becoming lord president. It also said that he had ‘given overt suspicion of his ill affection in religion’ by leaving when the rest of the council in the north took communion, and that he rarely attended church on other occasions.66 LJ, iii. 394b-5a. At around the same time it was reported in Catholic circles that, at a dinner held on 20 Mar., Scrope had declined to drink a toast ‘to the confusion of papists’, because ‘I have many friends papists’. However, the king declined to remove Scrope from office, despite the overwhelming evidence of his Catholic sympathies. Indeed, he refused to remove any lord attacked by the Commons in this way.67 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621–5 ed. M. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxxiv), 260, 267n.644.

Scrope signed the proclamation for the accession of Charles I on 27 March 1625.68 APC, 1625-6, p. 5. Twelve days later, it was reported that the new monarch had ‘sharply censured and threatened’ him ‘for having too much countenanced and supported’ Catholics in his jurisdiction.69 Add. 72255, f. 174. However, on 19 Apr. Scrope’s commission as president of the council was ordered to be renewed.70 CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, p. 5.

Shortly after the king’s accession, a fresh Parliament was summoned. On 14 Apr. Scrope wrote to the bailiffs of Scarborough nominating Sir William Alford^‡, one of his deputy lieutenants, for a borough seat. In response the bailiffs appear to have hinted that they would elect Scrope’s kinsman, Hugh Cholmley, instead. They also suggested that Scrope and Lord Sheffield, from whom they had also received a nomination, were competitors for the remaining place. Scrope reacted angrily to the suggestion that the borough might prefer his predecessor over him, ‘who is more able to do courtesy for the town’, whereupon the bailiffs offered a seat to Alford. However, the latter was returned for Beverley before the Scarborough election was held, and there is no evidence that Scrope made another nomination.71 Procs. 1625, pp. 699-700, 702; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 506, iii. 30-1. Scrope does not appear to have intervened in the bitterly contested Yorkshire county election, even though one of the candidates, Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡ of Denton, protested to Scrope about the tactics employed by the Saviles.72 Fairfax Corresp. i. 6-7.

When Parliament assembled in June 1625, Scrope appears to have attended regularly at first, but absented himself after the session was adjourned to Oxford on 11 July. In total, he was marked as present at 15 of the 31 sittings, 48 per cent of the total, and was appointed to seven of the Lords’ 25 committees. All of his appointments occurred during the Westminster sitting; they included bills to enforce the Sabbath and to arm the militia.73 Procs. 1625, pp. 43, 52, 72, 88. Once again he made no recorded speeches.

In the aftermath of the 1625 Parliament, Scrope was ordered to levy a privy seal loan in Yorkshire, but found he was obstructed by the reluctance of prominent magistrates, including Wentworth, to nominate potential lenders.74 Harl. 7056, ff. 36-7; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 147. Wentworth may have thought that Scrope was responsible for his pricking as sheriff soon afterwards; he certainly wanted to establish whether Scrope had had advance knowledge. However, although the lord president does seem to have been forewarned, the king’s decision to appoint Wentworth as sheriff was part of a wider attempt to keep potential troublemakers out of the next Parliament, and was therefore unrelated to the internal politics of Yorkshire.75 Strafforde Letters, i. 33; Wentworth Pprs. 242-3.

In the ensuing elections to the 1626 Parliament, Sir John Savile was re-elected for the county, having apparently persuaded the godly clothiers of the West Riding that he would use the Parliament to attack Scrope.76 Strafforde Letters, i. 32. By January 1626, before the Parliament met, it widely rumoured that Scrope would leave office. Indeed, Wentworth was so sure that Scrope’s departure was imminent that he applied for the presidency himself. In fact Scrope remained in office.77 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 228.

Scrope was absent from the coronation of Charles I on 2 Feb. and from the first 13 sittings of the 1626 Parliament. It is likely that his official duties detained him at York, as his absence was attributed to the king’s service at the call of the House on 15 February. Having taken his seat, on 1 Mar., he was excused on the 23rd of that month ‘for a time’. The following day it was reported that he was at Brackley, in Northamptonshire, a borough owned by John Egerton^*, 1st earl of Bridgwater, and would return to the north because news had arrived that a Spanish fleet was on its way, but he returned to the chamber on 28 March. In all, he was recorded as attending 56 of the 81 sittings, 69 per cent of the total.78 Procs. 1626, i. 49, 201; Fairfax Corresp. i. 21, 27.

In the latter stages of the Parliament Scrope was the proxy of Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey), who ceased to attend the Lords after 25 April. Willoughby was probably the Lord Willoughby with whom, several years earlier, Scrope and some of their servants had played a football match. (It was said to have been played against ‘a number of countrymen’.)79 SP16/20/8; Procs. 1626, iv. 12; Howell, 283.

On 14 Mar. Edmund Laysinbye petitioned the committee for petitions protesting that Scrope had been suing him in Chancery over disputed property in Yorkshire ever since 1613. Although the case had been dismissed five times, the previous lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), on Scrope’s ‘personal desire and complaint’, had reopened the case ‘upon a private petition’. Following Laysinbye’s complaint, the House ordered the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^* (subsequently 1st Lord Coventry), to dismiss the case or issue further orders. Coventry thereupon announced that a hearing was scheduled for next term. This necessarily raised the question of Scrope’s privilege, but the latter agreed to waive it.80 Procs. 1626, i. 153, 257, 261-3, 296-7. The case was heard in Chancery on 2 May, when Coventry found in favour of Laysinbye. However, the court agreed to suspend passing judgement after Scrope claimed that he had better evidence in the country. However, when this was produced it failed to impress, and the case was dismissed with costs awarded to Laysinbye on 20 May.81 C78/502/3.

Scrope was named to ten of the 52 committees appointed by the Lords in 1626. These included the committee for safety, the committee for petitions (to which he was added in May) and a committee to examine evidence concerning the king’s charges against John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol. In April he was among those instructed to draft a certificate of the House’s resolutions concerning the disputed inheritance of the earldom of Oxford and the office of lord great chamberlain. This last committee was no doubt of interest to Scrope because both the office and earldom had been claimed by his friend, Lord Willoughby de Eresby.82 Procs. 1626, i. 110, 251, 496, 540.

Aside from his interventions concerning Laysinbye’s petition, Scrope was recorded as speaking only once during the Parliament, on 15 May, when he refused to take the protestation exonerating Sir Dudley Digges^‡, who had been accused of impugning the king’s honour during the presentation of the lower House’s impeachment articles against Buckingham. Scrope argued that he was not obliged to do so because it had not been ordered by the House.83 Ibid. 478.

On 21 Feb. the Commons agreed to draw up another catalogue of Catholic officeholders. Six days later Scrope was cited at the committee for religion, when it was alleged that the number of recusants in the North Riding of Yorkshire had increased by 1,670 since he had been appointed lord president. The Commons thereupon drafted a petition to protest against Scrope’s continuance in office, which was approved on 11 March. In the petition the lower House claimed that Scrope had ‘given many and great overt causes of suspicion to be popishly affected’, but it stopped short of charging him with recusancy. Most of the accusations against him related to the worship usually expected of a lord president at York Cathedral, where, it was said, Scrope had only once received communion since his appointment and rarely attended services. His devotions elsewhere were not mentioned. Scrope was also alleged to have favoured Catholics in the performance of his duties, although his precise responsibility for some of the misdeeds catalogued, such as appointments to a commission of sewers, may be questioned. Finally, it was claimed that the recent growth of recusancy in the North Riding was attributed to his ‘manner of carriage in point of religion, and … his extraordinary favour showed towards popish recusants … and … discountenancing others … that are firm in the religion established’.84 Ibid. ii. 138, 175-6, 238, 241, 255-6, 264-7.

It seems likely that it was the attempts by Buckingham’s opponents in the Commons to use Scrope’s religion as a stick with which to beat the duke which ensured Scrope’s survival, as his removal would only have encouraged Buckingham’s enemies. However, this was not always clear to the duke or his adherents in the Commons, who may have contemplated sacrificing Scrope to appease Buckingham’s enemies. On 13 Mar. Scrope’s wife wrote to her brother, Sir George Manners^† (subsequently 7th earl of Rutland), linking the criticism of her husband and the 6th earl of Rutland with the growing attacks on Buckingham. Nevertheless, she was confident that there was little chance that either man would lose office because the king had told them they would not be wronged.85 HMC Rutland, i. 477. On 21 Mar. the subcommittee of causes concluded that Buckingham was responsible for Scrope’s appointment. When this was reported to the Commons three days later, the duke’s supporters attempted to disassociate Buckingham from Scrope, Sir John Danvers^‡ claiming that the duke had ‘had no intention to introduce the Lord Scrope or any affection to him’. Buckingham himself ‘publicly renounced any hand in placing my Lord Scrope’, pointing out that the president had bought the place from his predecessor but overlooking his own role in the transaction. This led to renewed speculation that Scrope would be removed, and a reiteration of the accusations against his religion in the lower House.86 Procs. 1626, ii. 334-5, 357-8; iv. 211-12; Fairfax Corresp. i. 27; Wentworth Pprs. 250.

One of Scrope’s leading enemies in Yorkshire, Sir John Savile, was obliged to refrain from attacking the lord president during the Parliament, as he was intent on securing Buckingham’s favour. Instead, on 24 Mar., he claimed that Scrope was not responsible for the rise of Catholicism in Yorkshire because he was ‘not so great a man as to carry a faction’ in that county, although this comment may have been intended as much to undermine Scrope as to defend him.87 Procs. 1626, ii. 358. In April Scrope and Savile clashed at a Privy Council hearing concerning the former’s privy seal assessments in Yorkshire, which Savile succeeded in getting reduced.88 Wentworth Pprs. 249-50; APC, 1625-6, p. 425.

The rumour which circulated after the 1626 Parliament was dissolved in June, that Savile would replace Scrope, proved to be mistaken, but the former increasingly overshadowed the president. By November 1626 it was felt necessary to appoint Savile to the Privy Council to aid the collection of the Forced Loan in Yorkshire, rather than leave the task to Scrope.89 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 116; APC, 1626, p. 353; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 112-13. Nevertheless, Scrope, though he did not pay his own Loan assessment until May 1627, was active in enforcing the levy. Indeed, in February 1627 he reported to Buckingham that he had successfully initiated collections in York and Hull.90 E401/1387, rot. 40; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 66.

In June 1627 Scrope was created earl of Sunderland, perhaps to compensate him for the loss of prestige caused by Savile’s rising prominence.91 Oxford DNB, xlix. 549. However, he again clashed with Savile, this time at the initial meetings of a commission to compound with recusants in the north, created on Savile’s initiative. Savile reportedly felt obliged to remind Sunderland that they were both equal members of the commission. It was said that Savile ‘hateth my lord [Sunderland] and Sir Arthur [Ingram] for combining together to overthrow the king’s service’, suggesting that by this period Ingram and Sunderland had been reconciled. It was also said that Sunderland attended the commission for only a few days before going to London to attack Savile at court.92 Wentworth Pprs. 265; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 233.

Final illness, 1627-30

In reality Sunderland may have left for London due to the onset of the long-term illness which afflicted him for the remainder of his life. On 27 Oct. Sunderland put himself under the care of Richard Napier, the astrological physician and Church of England minister, at Napier’s rectory in Great Linford in Buckinghamshire.93 Bodl., Ashmole 421, f. 162v. James Howell^‡, who entered Sunderland’s service in 1626, attributed the earl’s ‘languishing sickness’ to the effects of an injury which Sunderland had received during the football match he had played with Lord Willoughby de Eresby many years previously.94 Howell, 283. However, Scrope himself attributed his illness to witchcraft, and seems to have undergone a spiritual crisis, as he informed Napier that supernatural forces had ordered him to pray. Though sceptical on the last point, Napier wrote out a book of prayers for Sunderland and may have succeeded in reconciling his patient to the Church of England.95 M. MacDonald, Mystical Bedlam, 199, 282 n.130, 296 n.234.

Despite his poor health, Sunderland secured the election of Howell to Richmond for the 1628-9 Parliament. The earl himself secured a licence to be absent on 13 Mar. 1628, procured by his cousin, Thomas Carey^‡, a groom of the bedchamber, and gave his proxy to Buckingham. He spent most of the 1628 session in ‘coming and going’ to Linford, probably spending the remainder of his time at his nearby house at Hambleden. He left Napier’s care on 20 May and may have returned to London, as he was recorded as attending the upper House on 17 June. However, as this is the only occasion when he was marked as present in 1628, it may be a clerical mistake.96 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 502; iii. 441; SO3/9, unfol. (13 Mar. 1628).; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 25-6; Bodl., Ashmole 421, f. 162v.

In his absence Sunderland was again presented as a recusant officeholder, thanks to Hoby. However, Howell produced a certificate from Napier that the earl had received communion at Easter. Sunderland himself was confident that he would be cleared. Writing to Wentworth from Linford on 17 Apr., he stated that, although he could not answer the Commons’ charges without the permission of the upper House, ‘when the informers have done their worst, they shall neither in this particular [taking communion], not any other, be able to touch me’.97 CD 1628, iv. 319, 324; Howell, 269; Wentworth Pprs. 292.

Sunderland returned briefly to Napier’s care in early August.98 Bodl., Ashmole 421, f. 162v. However, at about this time, Howell expressed the fear that Sunderland intended to seek a cure from one Atkinson at Wickham, whom Howell characterized as ‘a mere quacksalver’. He had also heard that Wentworth had been promised the presidency if Sunderland’s ‘sickness continue’.99 Howell, 269, where the letter is misdated 5 Aug. 1629. Sunderland evidently did go to Wickham, where he apparently ‘voided … a small worm’. He went back to Linford in October but, in early December, returned to London, where he placed himself in the care of an unqualified medical practitioner named Atkins, described by Napier as ‘a rude, ignorant and drunken sot’ who gave the earl ‘deadly physic’ which ‘weakened him beyond measure’.100 Howell, 269, 282-3; Strafforde Letters, i. 48; Bodl., Ashmole 421, f. 163; 1730, f. 186.

By early December Sunderland had resigned his place to Wentworth. He attended the ceremonial appointment of his replacement on 14 Dec., but reportedly appeared ‘somewhat discontented’ and ‘stole away alone before the rest’. This early departure may, of course, have been attributable to Sunderland’s continued poor health.101 Add. 72299, f, 124. Sunderland apparently received £3,000 for his office, possibly from Wentworth, significantly less than he had paid for it. He was also promised by the king ‘a special mark of our royal favour’, but this was never forthcoming.102 Harl. 1877, f. 77. On 29 Dec. Christopher Wandesford^‡ reported that Sunderland, having ‘darkened himself and all that were about him’, had been left to die ‘unmannerly ... in a corner’.103 Strafforde Letters, i. 403.

There is no evidence that Sunderland attended the 1629 session; on 5 Feb. it was reported that it was feared that he would not long survive, and on 9 Feb. he was excused at the call of the House due to illness.104 Fairfax Corresp. i. 156; LJ, iv. 25b. Sunderland subsequently made three further visits to Linford. However, according to Napier, following Atkins’ treatment the earl ‘never was able to take physic at our hands, but only cordials’. Sunderland died at Linford on 30 May 1630.105 Bodl., Ashmole 421, ff. 163-4; 1730, f. 186. Administration was granted to his widow on 6 June, but a nuncupative will was proved in the prerogative court of Canterbury on 2 July, and at York in October. In this, Sunderland made the countess his executrix and gave her the residue of his personal estate. He was buried, in accordance with his wishes, at Langar on 6 June.106 PROB 6/13, f. 168v; PROB 11/158, f. 16; Borthwick, Reg. Test. 42, f. 218; Godfrey, 316. The earldom of Sunderland became extinct, but the barony of Scrope would appear to be merely dormant.107 CP, xi. 552.