CLINTON, Theophilus (c.1599-1667)

Styled Lord Clinton from 1615, when his father, Thomas Clinton alias Fiennes^*, became 3rd earl of Lincoln, Clinton was created a knight of the Bath in the following year, but never fully embraced life at court. His tutor at Cambridge was the notable puritan, John Preston, who continued to influence him for many years.32 H. Beddows alias Hajzyk, ‘Church in Lincs. c.1595-c.1640’ (Camb. Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1980), 346; CSP Col. E.I. 1622-4, p. 488. Clinton inherited the earldom of Lincoln in January 1619, while still a minor. However, his father’s inquisition post mortem was not held until late the following year, by which time he was more or less of age, and he seems to have avoided the burden of wardship.33 C142/397/66. Lincoln’s first formal appearance as an earl was probably in May 1619, when he attended Anne of Denmark’s funeral. He was appointed a magistrate in December 1620, having recently achieved his majority.34 Harl. 5176, f. 237.

Lincoln’s early parliamentary career, 1621-4

Lincoln is not known to have influenced the Lincolnshire elections prior to the 1621 Parliament. However, when a by-election was called at Boston, he nominated Sir Alexander Temple^‡ (whose niece he was planning to marry), but without success.35 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 230-1; vi. 500. The earl attended the Lords quite regularly until the summer recess, and was present for three-quarters of the sittings during this phase. After Parliament resumed in November his record declined sharply, and he turned up only six times during the remainder of this session. His absence was formally excused just once, on 8 February.36 LJ, iii. 12b.

Lincoln received five appointments, all of them prior to the long recess. Named to the committees for the bills to punish Sabbath abuses, and to reform the procurement of writs of certiorari, he was also nominated to attend a conference about these two measures.37 Ibid. 10b, 39b, 130b. Surprisingly, given that he was a newcomer to the Lords and barely of age, he chaired the committees for the bills against drunkenness and profane swearing, reporting both of them on 9 May as fit to pass, the latter with one amendment. While neither measure was of great importance, it is striking that the earl was added to the committee for the anti-blasphemy bill just hours before delivering his report. This suggests that he had already made a favourable initial impression in the House, even if his subsequent absenteeism tarnished his image.38 Ibid. 107b, 117b, 118a.

At the start of this session, a number of the younger peers drafted a petition to the king concerning their social precedence in relation to Englishmen with Scottish or Irish titles. Lincoln, one of the signatories, was apparently twice summoned before James, on 19 and 20 Feb., as the furious monarch acted to suppress the document, which was not formally adopted by the Lords.39 A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 231; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 10; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 348. Nevertheless, James’s anger was short-lived, as Lincoln accompanied the king to St Paul’s Cathedral on 26 Mar. and participated in that year’s accession day tilt at court.40 Harl. 5176, ff. 241, 242v.

During the next two years Lincoln seems to have lived primarily in the country. Around this time, he married a daughter of William Fiennes^*, 8th Lord Saye and Sele (later 1st Viscount). His father-in-law, who came to exert considerable influence over him, was by now emerging as an opponent of arbitrary taxation. Indeed, Saye was in disgrace when Lincoln’s wife became pregnant in 1623, and had to be released from house arrest in order to attend the childbirth.41 APC, 1623-5, p. 87. The earl was now active in local government, and quickly established a reputation for the uncompromising pursuit of his own ideas. In 1622 Lincoln found fault with a proposal for urgent repairs to be carried out to a sluice at Boston, where he was high steward. Blocking a carefully constructed deal whereby the necessary funds would be raised through a county-wide collection, he offered a smaller sum himself, and, when the corporation rejected his overtures, he set about sabotaging the town’s efforts to raise money by other means. The sluice project had to be abandoned, and shortly afterwards he was obliged to resign the stewardship.42 C. Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincs. 100; Boston Corp. Mins. 435.

In the 1624 parliamentary elections, Lincoln gave his backing to Sir Montagu Bertie^* (later 2nd earl of Lindsey), who was returned for Lincolnshire aged only sixteen. However, given recent events, he did not attempt another nomination at Boston.43 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 230, 232. Back in the Lords, he was present for four-fifths of the sittings, with no significant periods of absence. No longer a novice, on 25 Feb. he served as a supporter during the introduction to the House of Henry Grey^*, 8th earl of Kent; William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Exeter; James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle; William Feilding^*, 1st earl of Denbigh; Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex; and Christopher Villiers^*, 1st earl of Anglesey.44 LJ, iii. 217b; Add. 40087, f. 21. Lincoln again received five committee nominations during this session: these concerned bills on usury; the wharves at Colchester, Essex; the divinity lectures founded by Thomas Whetenhall; Westminster brewhouses; and the estates of the Cheshire gentleman, Ralph Starkey.45 LJ, iii. 316a, 325a, 342a, 386a; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 34v. Lincoln twice briefly intervened during the inquiry into the earl of Middlesex’s conduct as lord treasurer. On 12 May he unsuccessfully requested clarification of the latter’s initial defence that he was the victim of a conspiracy, while the next day he recommended that the roll-call of Middlesex’s offences should include his failure to answer letters sent from Ireland.46 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 73, 87.

A military interlude, and signs of discontent with the crown, 1624-6

An enthusiast for war against Spain, Lincoln was commissioned in November 1624 to command a regiment of horse and foot in the expedition being sent under Count Mansfeld to the Low Countries. He quickly recruited 500 men from Lincolnshire, but the logistical flaws in the military planning were already becoming apparent by the time he embarked for the Continent in the following February. The army was denied permission to land, first in France and then the United Provinces, and with disease rapidly decimating the ranks Lincoln evidently abandoned his command and returned home.47 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 378, 408-9, 441, 448; HMC 10th Rep. VI, 112; Collins, ii. 210. He was in London in late March 1625, in time to sign the proclamation announcing the accession of Charles I, and briefly hung around court, in June escorting three Dutch envoys from Gravesend in Kent to the capital.48 APC, 1625-6, p. 5; Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 155.

Lincoln is not known to have influenced any of the elections to the first Caroline Parliament, though he presumably approved of the return for Lincolnshire of a noted puritan, Sir John Wray^‡.49 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 230. The earl attended both the Westminster and Oxford phases of the 1625 session, and although his absence was twice excused, on 25 June and 7 July, he actually missed just nine sittings in total.50 Procs. 1625, pp. 54, 102. Even so, he received only one nomination, to the committee for the bill to punish Sabbath abuses.51 Ibid. 72.

In 1626 Lincoln probably supported the election of another prominent Lincolnshire puritan, Sir William Armyne^‡, to represent the county, but otherwise exercised no visible electoral influence that year.52 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 230. He missed the first four sittings of the new Parliament, but was rarely absent thereafter, attending four-fifths of the session in total. He was also present at the York House Conference, at which his friend John Preston helped argue the case against Arminianism. In the Lords he once again contributed little to proceedings, attracting a single committee nomination, for the bill for better maintenance of almshouses.53 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 86; Procs. 1626, i. 53. Lincoln made six short speeches, mostly in relation to the imprisonment of Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel. Ostensibly detained because his son, Lord Maltravers (Henry Frederick Howard^*, later 22nd or 15th earl of Arundel) had married a royal cousin without the king’s permission, Arundel was in reality kept away from the Lords because of his opposition to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham. Charles, anxious to avoid an open breach of parliamentary privilege, repeatedly declined to confirm why Arundel remained in detention. Lincoln’s father-in-law, Viscount Saye and Sele, helped to lead the campaign for his release, and the earl seems to have been primed to raise the issue in the upper House at key moments. It was, for instance, Lincoln who first broached the question on 14 Mar., more than a week after Arundel’s arrest, moving to proceed in such a way as to give ‘no offence to the king nor breach of the Lords’ privileges’. The ensuing debate resulted in the case being referred to the committee for privileges. When Charles sent a message the following day, asserting that the case did not constitute a breach of privilege, Lincoln called for precedents to be produced to show whether the monarch could detain peers during a Parliament without giving a reason. In the event, it took several months of sustained agitation to secure Arundel’s return to the Lords, during which time Lincoln successfully called on 9 and 17 May for further petitions to be sent to Charles, though he seems not to have been involved in drafting them.54 Procs. 1626, i. 151, 158, 393, 498.

On 15 May Lincoln lined up with those peers who defied Buckingham by insisting that Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had not made treasonable remarks while delivering impeachment articles against the duke. The earl was also sympathetic to the Commons’ request for Buckingham to be detained during the impeachment process. The Lords initially ignored this proposal, but Lincoln moved on 16 May for a formal reply to the lower House, and recommended that the duke voluntarily withdraw in the meantime.55 Ibid. 484, 489. On 12 June Edmund Sheffield^*, 1st earl of Mulgrave informed the Lords that ‘divers’ of Lincoln’s servants had been arrested, in breach of parliamentary privilege. However, this matter was still unresolved when the session was dissolved three days later, Mulgrave moving then for the offenders to be dealt with in due course by the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry.56 Ibid. 610, 636.

Opposition to the Forced Loan, 1626-8

The king’s refusal to sacrifice Buckingham in return for supply left him with no choice but to resort to arbitrary taxation in order to fund the war against Spain, first through a benevolence, and then, when that strategy failed, the Forced Loan. However, that too met with opposition, and around late November 1626 word spread that both Lincoln and Saye were refusing to pay the Loan.57 Birch, Chas. I, i. 172; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 485. Most of the peers opposed to this levy, even Saye, settled for withdrawal from court, and polite excuses, but Lincoln went much further. In January 1627 he wrecked a public meeting at Lincoln held to drum up support for the Loan, violently denouncing the whole exercise. Later that month, an anonymous manuscript pamphlet, almost certainly written by him, began to circulate in Lincolnshire. This condemned arbitrary taxation as an attack on liberty, and the road to ‘perpetual slavery’, since it undermined the need to call parliaments. Completely ignoring the current imperative to pay for the war, and questioning Charles’s assurances that the Loan was just a temporary expedient, the pamphlet further alleged that any money raised would inevitably be squandered by ‘favourites at the court’, and that if the Loan proved successful, it would spell the end of parliamentary taxation. Finally, the pamphlet called on people to reject both the Loan and the government’s enforcement measures, and to rally behind those peers and judges who were standing up against it.58 R. Cust, Forced Loan, 170-3, 231-2.

This incendiary challenge could not be ignored, and in early February Lincoln was summoned before the Privy Council. However, the government was reluctant to prosecute him openly for opposition to the Loan, which would encourage debate of his arguments, and instead found another pretext to punish him. Some months earlier, during a legal battle with his uncle, Sir Henry Fiennes, over ownership of some of the Clinton estates, Lincoln had declined to swear on oath in court, offering instead to testify on his honour as a peer. This was a recognized privilege, reasserted by the House of Lords in 1621, but viewed with distaste by the crown, which held that peers should swear on oath in the central courts. Accordingly, on 11 Feb. Lincoln was brought before Star Chamber and ordered to testify on oath, rather than his honour. When he naturally refused to do so, he was imprisoned in the Tower. As John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, another opponent of the Loan, observed with reference to Buckingham: ‘thus is Parliament, like dirt, trodden under his highness’ feet’.59 C115/107/8541; Reps. of Sir George Croke (1669) ed. H. Grimston, iii. 64; LJ, iii. 10b, 41b-2a; Coke, 12th Rep. crown v. countess of Shrewsbury (1612); Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 345.

Undeterred by this punishment, Lincoln continued to challenge the Loan from a distance, a number of his servants distributing copies of his pamphlet as far afield as Norfolk and Nottinghamshire. The earl’s groom, Thomas Perkins, was eventually arrested and tried in Star Chamber for this offence. Consequently, in June 1627 Lincoln was dismissed as a magistrate. Nevertheless, and contrary to popular expectation, he himself was not brought back into court, but simply detained in the Tower, the king ignoring his petitions for release. Not until early 1628 did the crown prepare to bring a further prosecution, and this was then abandoned as part of the preparations for a new Parliament. The earl was finally set free on 15 Mar., two days before the state opening.60 Cust, 60-1, 68, 171; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 294, 301-2; APC, 1627-8, pp. 265, 350.

The 1628-9 Parliament

Given his record of opposition to the Forced Loan, Lincoln most likely backed the election of two fellow Loan refusers, Sir John Wray^‡ and Sir William Armyne, as Lincolnshire’s Members in the 1628-9 Parliament.61 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 230. Once again Lincoln attended the Lords for four-fifths of the 1628 session, rarely missing more than one sitting at a time, yet he still attracted just one appointment, to the committee for the bill about fen drainage.62 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 371. The precise extent of his contribution to the House’s debates is difficult to determine, as 11 speeches by ‘Lincoln’ are not clearly attributed to the earl, and could refer to the bishop of Lincoln, John Williams^* (later archbishop of York). He may have intervened briefly on 29 Apr. in a debate over whether to grant privilege to the wife of John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck, and possibly commented on 30 May about measures to punish Sir Henry Shirley, who stood accused of slandering Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon.63 Ibid. 360, 567. The remaining nine speeches were made during debates about the liberties of the subject, and as they mostly concerned questions of tactics or procedure, the majority were probably made by the bishop, a former lord keeper who played a major role in these discussions.64 Ibid. 258, 320, 326, 426, 428-9, 513.

Nothing was said openly in the Lords about Lincoln’s stance on the Forced Loan, and the session was already well advanced when the peers addressed Star Chamber’s refusal to let him testify on his honour. On 5 May the issue was raised by Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, and referred to the committee for privileges. The next day, the earl of Arundel reported back that, in the precise circumstances of Lincoln’s case, his rights as a peer had indeed been breached. A lengthy debate ensued, most leading government figures vigorously defending the Star Chamber ruling, while their opponents insisted that this was a matter of hereditary entitlement, with which the judges should not have interfered. All efforts at compromise failed, and eventually the Lords unanimously agreed that ‘the nobility of this kingdom and lords of the upper House of Parliament are, of ancient right, to answer in all courts, as defendants, upon protestation of honour only, and not upon the common oath’.65 Ibid. 377-8, 382-7. With this matter now settled, Lincoln was numbered among the disgraced peers who were admitted on 26 May to kiss the king’s hand, and be restored to favour.66 Birch, Chas. I, i. 358-9.

Lincoln himself remained silent throughout the debate on testifying in court, and also stayed in the background when another alleged breach of his privileges was addressed a few weeks later. On 26 May William Compton^*, 1st earl of Northampton, informed the Lords that Lincoln’s uncle, Sir Henry Fiennes, had trespassed on one of the earl’s properties in late April, illegally leasing the land to a new tenant who promptly procured the arrest of a shepherd employed by the rightful lessee. While it was accepted by this date that peers might claim privilege over the prosecution of their servants, Lincoln was stretching the point by acting on behalf of one of his tenants’ labourers. The Lords agreed to investigate, and summoned Fiennes for contempt, but the latter boldly petitioned for the case to be thrown out, questioning whether privilege should apply in these circumstances. On 11 June, having considered this petition, the peers hesitantly concluded that it did, ordering Fiennes to suspend all lawsuits relating to the disputed property for the duration of the session, but discharging him without further sanction, upon payment of his fees.67 Ibid. 531-3, 535, 579-80, 621-2; P.M. Hunneyball, ‘Development of Parliamentary Privilege, 1604-29’, Managing Tudor and Stuart Parls. ed. C.R. Kyle (PH, xxxiv. pt. 1), 117; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/36 (11 June 1628).

Following the end of this session, Lincoln seems to have retired quietly to the country, though he was back at court in November with Saye to kiss the king’s hand once again. In December he was restored to the Lincolnshire and Oxfordshire benches. When the Parliament resumed in early 1629, the earl attended three-quarters of this brief session, with no extended absences, but as usual received just one appointment, to the committee to review the kingdom’s munitions and defences.68 De Jure Maiestatis ed. A.B. Grosart, ii. 25; LJ, iv. 37. The session ended abruptly after a number of Members in the Commons disrupted proceedings in order to present a remonstrance attacking the government. The culprits were imprisoned in the Tower, and three weeks later Lincoln demonstrated his support by attempting to visit their leader, Sir John Eliot^‡. In the following October, along with the earl of Arundel and Robert de Vere^*, 19th earl of Oxford, he petitioned the king for their release.69 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 499; 1629-31, p. 83.

Continuing alienation from the crown, 1629-39

During 1629, clearly disillusioned by the Caroline regime, Lincoln helped to found the Massachusetts Bay Company, which facilitated the emigration of puritans to America. Several key meetings took place at Tattershall, and the earl’s steward, Thomas Dudley, helped to recruit settlers from Lincolnshire. One of the principal undertakers in the new colony was Lincoln’s brother, Charles Fiennes, though there is no evidence that the earl himself contemplated leaving the country.70 L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 374-5; Beddows, 346; CSP Col. 1574-1660, p. 112. Evidently interested in such transatlantic enterprises, he also lent money in 1634 to the Providence Island Company, a project backed by his father-in-law Viscount Saye, though it is unclear whether he actually became a member.71 CO124/2, ff. 136, 166-7; CSP Col. 1574-1660, p. 179. In addition, Lincoln tried to become a major player in the drainage of the fens, in 1635 competing with Robert Bertie^*, 1st earl of Lindsey for the contract to drain Lindsey Level. Although he lost that battle, he did invest in the project, only to find that the works caused flooding on several of his Lincolnshire estates, a development which decisively turned him against the whole enterprise.72 K. Lindley, Fenland Riots and the Eng. Rev. 15, 51; Stone, 356. Perhaps surprisingly, given his puritan leanings and confrontational nature, the earl showed himself willing to work with the regime during this decade to improve the conditions of the clergy in the parishes where he was the patron. The metropolitical visitation of Lincolnshire in 1634 found that he had repaired a number of chancels, while five years later he persuaded William Laud^*, archbishop of Canterbury, to support the merger of two poor livings.73 CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 205; 1639-40, pp. 14-15. Nevertheless, arbitrary taxation remained a sore point with him, and in 1636-7 he emerged as a prominent opponent of Ship Money, along with his father-in-law Saye. Both men had goods distrained for non-payment, and retaliated by suing the under-sheriffs responsible.74 Harl. 7000, f. 379; CSP Dom. 1635-6, pp. 289, 361; E389/202; Birch, Chas. I, ii. 272.

Later life, 1640-67

Lincoln was one of the peers who voted during the Short Parliament of 1640 for the addressing of grievances to take precedence over supply. Attendance at the Great Council of Peers a few months later failed to change his stance, and he remained an opposition figure through the early years of the Long Parliament. At the outbreak of the Civil War he accepted a commission to lead the parliamentarian forces in Lincolnshire, though with time he grew disillusioned with the conflict. Having sided in 1647 with the peace party in the Lords, he was impeached by the Commons, and imprisoned for several months before the charges were dropped.75 CSP Dom. 1640, p. 66; SP16/466/42; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 563, 570; HMC 6th Rep. 195; HMC 7th Rep. 29. As early as 1651, the earl was identified as potentially supportive of the exiled Charles II, and he welcomed the king back nine years later. Lincoln died in May 1667, and his titles descended to his grandson, Edward Clinton^†, 5th earl of Lincoln.76 HMC Portland, i. 586; HMC 5th Rep. 150; CP, vii. 698.