DARCY, Thomas (c.1555-1640)

The Essex Darcys believed that they were descended from the medieval baronial family of the same name, making them distantly related to the Darcys of the North, with whom they are easily confused. This was confidently asserted to be the case by the antiquarian William Dugdale, although he admitted he had no supporting evidence.19 Ibid. 43; Dugdale, ii. 392. The family can be traced with more certainty to the lawyer Robert Darcy^‡ (d.1448) of Maldon, Essex, who started his career in Northumberland and was said to be the grandson of a fourteenth-century lord mayor of London. Robert built up a prosperous estate and repeatedly represented Essex in Parliament in the early fifteenth century.20 HP Commons, 1386-1420, ii. 749-52 The family subsequently entered royal service, as Robert’s descendant, Roger Darcy (d.1508), served as an esquire of the body or a gentleman of the chamber to Henry VII. It was Roger’s son, Thomas^†, who brought the Darcys to national prominence. A privy councillor, lord chamberlain of the household and a knight of the Garter under Edward VI, he was raised to the peerage on 5 Apr. 1551 as Baron Darcy of Chiche. The day before his ennoblement, he received a large grant of land in Essex, including the site and lands of the dissolved priory of St Osyth’s, from which he derived his territorial suffix (Chiche being the original name for St Osyth’s).21 HP Commons, 1509-58, ii. 14-16; Oxford DNB online sub Darcy, Thomas (Jan. 2010); CP, iv. 78; CPR, 1550-3, pp. 135-8; Watney, 41.

The first baron’s grandson and namesake, the subject of this biography, inherited the peerage in 1581 and, thanks to the 1551 grant, a compact and prosperous estate near his home at St Osyth’s in the hundred of Tendring in north-east Essex; he subsequently sold the family’s older properties near Maldon.22 F. Hull, ‘Agriculture and Rural Soc. in Essex 1560-1640’ (London Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1950), 252-3, 285-6. In the 1630s he was described as ‘rich in both land and money’, enjoying an income of £6,000 a year, almost as much as Essex’s leading peer, Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick, an amount which enabled him to live in hospitable splendour in his native county.23 Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 489; Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 79, n. 223; ROBERT RICH, 2ND EARL OF WARWICK.

The details of Darcy’s education are obscure; the Catholic secular clergy thought him intelligent but not well versed in vernacular learning, especially in history and politics.24 Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. 79, n. 223. However, James Howell^‡ described him as a ‘great knowing lord’ and, judging by Howell’s letters to him, he had wide interests in European politics and culture. He certainly collected tapestries, and his travels in Italy in the 1590s suggest an interest in Renaissance culture. (His brother-in-law, John Lumley^*, Lord Lumley, was an important collector of books and paintings.) The newsletters addressed to Darcy by his friend and kinsman, John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, also point to an interest in politics. Although no letters from Darcy to Howell and Clare survive, internal evidence suggests that Howell at least responded to Darcy’s requests for information.25 J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae ed. J. Jacob (1892), i. 109, 114-15, 149-50, 173-4, 197-204, 208, 214-15, 235-6; ii. 459; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 271, 273, 286-8. So far as religion is concerned, the Catholic secular clergy judged Darcy a pious Catholic but fearful and timid.26 Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. 79, n. 223. Certainly his faith does not seem to have tempted Darcy into disloyalty. While in Italy in the early 1590s, he tried to suppress polemics against the Elizabethan regime, which earned him thanks from the queen.27 CSP For. 1591-2, pp. 441, 445; Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, i. 291-4. He had returned to England by 1594, when he formally separated from his wife, heiress to a large Suffolk estate. He agreed to pay her £350 per annum and to let her take possession of her family lands after the death of her parents.28 Watney, 49; Oxford DNB online sub Kitson Fam. (May 2014).

The accession of James I and the first Jacobean Parliament, 1604-10

Darcy did not sign the proclamation acknowledging the accession of James I on 24 Mar. 1603, but by the 28th formed part of the Council of accession.29 Rymer, vii. pt. 2, p. 64. In the early Jacobean period Darcy supported his cousin Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich (later 1st earl of Warwick) in Essex politics, despite Rich’s puritanism. Consequently, he threw his weight behind Sir Francis Barrington^‡, whom Rich nominated as knight of the shire in 1604.30 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 121-2.

During the 1604 session Darcy received the proxy of his brother-in-law Lord Lumley. He himself gave his proxy to the crypto-Catholic, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton. It is not clear when Darcy did so; his longest period of absence appears to have been between 2nd and 18th Apr. inclusive, during which time he apparently missed ten sittings.31 LJ, ii. 263a. In all, he was listed as attending 39 of the 81 sittings, 55 per cent of the total. At the start of the session he was appointed by the crown to the largely honorary position of trier of petitions from Gascony, possibly in recognition that by now he had been attending the upper House for nearly 20 years. He received five committee appointments, including three conferences on wardship, the continuance of expiring laws, and a controversial book by John Thornborough^*, bishop of Bristol, in support of the Union. Of his remaining appointments, the committee for the bill for restoration in blood of Thomas Lucas, son of Sir Thomas Lucas^‡ of Colchester, Essex, was probably of local interest. He may have been less concerned with the bill for regulating the tanning of leather, as he appears not to have attended the only recorded meeting of the committee.32 Ibid. 264b, 266b, 269b, 312b, 329a, 332b; HP Commons, 1509-58, ii, 555-6; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/3, f. 17. He made no recorded speeches in this session, or indeed in any Parliament in this period.

Darcy appears to have briefly visited London shortly before the opening of the second session on 5 Nov. 1605.33 Letters of Philip Gawdy ed. I.H. Jeayes, 160, 166-5. He probably received at least informal permission to absent himself from the upper House, as his absence at the time of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot does not appear to have aroused suspicion. He took his place in the upper House when the session resumed on 21 Jan. 1606, and thereafter was recorded as attending 54 of the 85 sittings, 64 per cent of the total. He received 11 committee appointments, three of which were made when he was not recorded as present. On 28 Jan. he was named to the committee for the bill to prevent delays in executing judgements for debt, which measure needed to be redrafted. When the revised version was committed to the same lords on 10 Feb., Darcy was apparently absent. Darcy was also not recorded as present on 8 Apr., when he was named to consider a bill to restrict the export of undressed cloth (which was presumably of interest to Darcy’s cloth producing neighbours in northern Essex) and to confer with the Commons about ecclesiastical matters. His other committee appointments all concerned legislation, including the bill to restrict the growth of London, a private measure concerning a Cambridgeshire manor near the border with Essex and a bill to confirm letters patent.34 LJ, ii. 364a, 371a, 389a, 391b, 393b, 410a, 411a; SR, iv. 1084; N.R. Shipley, ‘Hist. of a Manor; Castle Campes, 1580-1629’, BIHR, xlviii. 174.

Darcy was marked as present on 64 occasions during the 1606-7 session, 60 per cent of the total. He also received Rich’s proxy, probably shortly after 31 Mar. 1607, the last date on which Rich was recorded as attending the upper House,35 LJ, ii. 449b. and was appointed to ten committees. Most of his appointments were legislative: two were for private bills concerning Catholics, one to confirm bequests made by Thomas Hoord and the other to enable John Good^‡ to convey land to the king. Others included bills against the enforcement of Canons without statutory authorization, the manufacture of woollen cloth and the confirmation of letters patents concerning copyhold lands in the crown estates. On 24 Nov. 1606 Darcy was named to confer with the Commons about the Union.36 Ibid. 452b, 453a, 503a, 514b, 519b, 521b, 524b.

Darcy was granted a licence to travel on 19 Apr. 1610, during the fourth session of the Parliament.37 SO3/4, unfol. (19 Apr. 1610). However, he did not leave immediately, but continued to attend the upper House until 4 June, when Prince Henry was installed as prince of Wales, on which occasion Darcy’s only son, Thomas, served as page to the prince. Thereafter Darcy was marked as present only once, on 26 June, possibly erroneously. However, he probably lingered in England until 22 June at least, when a patent was issued concerning his lands.38 Watney, 50, 52. He perhaps ceased attending because, on 7 June, following the assassination of Henri IV, the king required all members of the upper House to take the oath of allegiance.39 LJ, ii. 608b. (He was subsequently listed among those lords who had not taken the oath.)40 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/7. In all he was recorded as attending 23 of the 95 sittings, 24 per cent of the total, and was named to seven committees, of which six were for private bills. Twice he was appointed, apparently in his absence, to consider redrafted bills, having previously helped to consider the original versions. These were on establishing a hospital and grammar school at Thetford in Norfolk, and the estates of Edward Neville^*, 1st or 8th Lord Abergavenny. He may have been interested in the Thetford measure because it was promoted by Northampton. He was also appointed, apparently while absent, to consider the bill concerning the estate of Sir John Wentworth of Gosfield, Essex. His only non-legislative appointment was to a delegation to attend the king about including wardship in the Great Contract.41 LJ, ii. 569b, 578b, 579b. 595b, 600a, 631b. There is no evidence that he attended the fifth session in late 1610, when he was probably out of the country. He does not appear to have appointed a proxy.

The reversion to the Darcy estates, 1611-22

Darcy returned to Italy, from where he sent the lord treasurer, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, a marble table, and was back in England by the end of July 1611.42 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 40, 65. The following May Darcy’s only son died, barely six months after he had married.43 HMC Downshire, iii. 306; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 101. This left Darcy as the last surviving male heir of the 1st Lord Darcy, meaning that, on his death, his title would become extinct and any of his lands covered by the entail created in 1551, when his family had acquired its estates, would revert to the crown. (In June 1610 Darcy had managed to free from the entail only part of his estates, including St Osyth, by paying the crown £500 to compound for a defective title.44 CPR, 1550-3, p. 137; 1547-53, pp. 99, 215; Watney, 52; E401/1886, unfol. (22 May 1610); SO3/4, unfol. (June 1610).) In December 1612, James granted the reversion of the entailed lands to his favourite, Robert Carr^*, Viscount Rochester (subsequently earl of Somerset).

Lack of a male heir gave James the opportunity to grant Rochester Darcy’s property only after the latter’s death. However, were Darcy to be convicted of recusancy his lands might be forfeit much sooner. On 17 Dec. Isaac Wake^‡ noted that Lady Lumley, Darcy’s sister, was urgently trying to contact her brother because ‘there is a fear his lands are upon the point of being begged for recusancy’.45 SO3/5, unfol. (Dec. 1612); Watney, 52. Either James could grant Rochester immediate possession or, under threat of seizure, force Darcy to come to terms with the favourite. The latter tactic was the one adopted, thanks to Darcy’s son-in-law, Sir Thomas Savage^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Savage), who presumably wanted to inherit as much of the Darcy estate as possible, and in January 1613 Rochester conveyed his reversion of the Darcy estates to William Noye^‡, a prominent lawyer employed by Savage and John Dackombe^‡, who seems to have been acting on behalf of the favourite.46 Watney, 53; Savage Fortune ed. L. Boothman and R.H. Parker (Suff. Rec. Soc. xlix), 182.

In May 1613 Darcy visited Spa, in the bishopric of Liége, with his daughter and her husband, and also Lady Lumley. There he took the opportunity to inquire about purchasing tapestries from the estate of the duke of Aerschot, on which he was willing to spend £300.47 HMC Downshire, iv. 117, 160, 164. It is not clear how long Darcy remained abroad, but he had presumably returned by the autumn to conclude Savage’s deal with Rochester. This had undoubtedly been finalized by 8 Oct., when Savage was granted the reversion to the barony of Darcy of Chiche.48 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 201. The following month it was reported that Savage and Rochester, now earl of Somerset, had agreed to partition the reversion to Darcy’s estate. As part of this arrangement Savage paid Somerset £24,000. Darcy’s estate was then conveyed to Noye and Dackombe as trustees.49 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 489; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 212; SO3/5, unfol. (Nov. 1613); Watney, 53.

Darcy was recorded as attending 20 of the 29 sittings of the 1614 Parliament, 69 per cent of the total. The king again appointed him a trier of petitions from Gascony, but Darcy was named to only one committee, for the bill to preserve timber. He was not marked as present on 9 Apr., when the House was informed that the king wanted those lords who had not taken the oath of allegiance to be sworn. He apparently attended the next sitting, on 11 Apr., but though others then took the oath, Darcy himself seems not to have done so.50 LJ, ii. 687a, 690a, 691a, 697b. Following the dissolution, Darcy contributed £100 to the benevolence raised because Parliament had failed to vote subsidies.51 E351/1950.

Darcy was one of the peers summoned by the Privy Council, in 1616, to try Somerset for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, but, possibly due to his connection with the earl, he was omitted from the trial commission.52 APC, 1615-16, p. 505; 5th DKR, app. ii. 146; State Trials, ii. 953. Darcy may have been one of the barons who rejected the crown’s offer to buy an earldom for £10,000 in 1618. In June his friend, John Holles, now Lord Houghton, reported that ‘my Lord Darcy’ had refused because ‘a baron hath as much privilege as an earl, so as nothing is added but a little precedence, and a coronet over their coat armour’. However, Houghton may have been referring to John Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy.53 Holles Letters, 209. In late 1620 Darcy again contributed £100 to a benevolence levied to defend the Palatinate. Although the Privy Council register records on 18 Jan. 1621 that ‘Lord Darcie of the South’ was one of the lords who had failed to pay the benevolence, this was evidently a mistake for Lord Dacre of the South.54 SP14/117/2; APC, 1619-23, p. 335.

Darcy attended the upper House on the first day of the 1621 Parliament (30 Jan.), but did not do so again until after the Easter recess. When the House was called on 10 Feb. he was ‘excused for sickness’. He initially received the proxy of his fellow Catholic, Edward Vaux^*, 4th Lord Vaux, suggesting that he had originally intended to attend, or at least that Vaux thought he would. (Vaux did not bestow his proxy elsewhere until 15 April.) Fear of taking the oath of allegiance, rather than ill health, may have caused him to stay away. Darcy himself granted his proxy to the lord steward, Ludovic Stuart^*, earl (subsequently duke) of Richmond.55 LJ, iii. 4a-b, 14b; Add. 40085, f. 21. He attended the first sitting after the Easter recess (17 Apr.), and on three additional occasions before the summer adjournment, but received no committee appointments.

In July Darcy was created Viscount Colchester, but only for life; he would be succeeded by his son-in-law, Savage, or Savage’s heirs, even if he had another son. He presumably chose the title because the town lies only about 11 miles from St Osyth’s. Unsurprisingly, Darcy’s promotion was attributed to Savage, who was close to the new royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. The latter now enjoyed the reversionary interest in Darcy’s estate, which had been forfeited to the crown following Somerset’s conviction for murder. Savage may have persuaded Darcy to purchase the Colchester title in the hope of inducing the favourite to relinquish his interest in the estate.56 47th DKR, 107; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 387; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 444. This tactic seems to have borne fruit, for, in April 1622, Buckingham sold his reversion to the viscount. (How much was paid is not entirely clear, as part of the sum recorded in the sale document is now illegible). Buckingham had decided to buy another property in Essex – New Hall – and probably needed the cash from the Darcy reversion to help finance this purchase.57 Essex RO, D/DAc 237. The purchase sum appears to contain the words ‘seven hundred’. On the purchase of New Hall, see GEORGE VILLIERS.

Colchester attended the first sitting when the 1621 Parliament resumed on 20 Nov., being brought into the House in his new title by Savage’s kinsman (and Buckingham’s father-in-law) Francis Manners^*, 6th earl of Rutland and Lord Houghton. He delivered his patent to the lord keeper (John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln, later archbishop of Canterbury), although the clerk of the parliaments noted that he should actually have delivered his new writ of summons. He subsequently attended the upper House eight times before the dissolution, but received no committee appointments.58 LJ, iii. 162b; Add. 40086, f. 10.

The consequences of Catholicism, 1624-6

Colchester was recorded as attending 13 of the 93 sittings of the 1624 Parliament, 14 per cent of the total. He received a licence to be absent on 7 Apr., although he had not taken his seat in the upper House since 24 Mar.; he granted his proxy to Rutland but returned for the final sitting of the session on the afternoon of 29 May.59 LJ, iii. 212b; SO3/8, unfol. (7 Apr. 1624). His infrequent attendance appears to have enabled him to continue to avoid taking the oath of allegiance. He received no committee appointments. On 27 Apr. it was suggested in the Commons by Sir Francis Barrington (whose election he had supported in 1604) that he be included in the petition against Catholic officeholders, on the grounds that he was an Essex justice of the peace who ‘(by report) … cometh not to the church, nor receiveth communion’.60 CJ, i. 776a; LJ, iii. 394b. Nevertheless, he again supported Barrington when the latter sought election as knight of the shire for Essex in 1625, having been urged to do so by Buckingham, who was then in alliance with Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick, the son of Colchester’s old ally, the 3rd Lord Rich. He also endorsed Sir Thomas Cheke^‡, writing to the borough of Colchester on behalf of both men. He wrote a second letter to the borough on 30 Apr., informing them that Cheke had withdrawn and reiterating his advice to vote for Barrington for the first seat. He initially gave them liberty to choose a replacement for Cheke, but sometime after midnight he contacted them again to say that Warwick supported Sir Arthur Herrys^‡, who was also the choice of ‘other of the gentlemen of the county’. Colchester therefore urged the townsmen to vote for Barrington for the first place and Herrys for the second.61 Procs. 1625, pp. 682-3. This support for Herrys, whose selection was presumably unknown to Buckingham, suggests that Colchester did not simply consider himself as the duke’s agent but that he was also concerned to uphold the political unity of his native county.

Colchester subsequently attended the prorogation day meeting of Parliament on 14 June, and the first day of the new session on 18 June, but not subsequently. He was listed as excused when the House was called on 23 June, and gave his proxy to Buckingham.62 Ibid. 48, 590. It is likely that Colchester’s unwillingness to take the oath of allegiance contributed to his growing reluctance to attend Parliament in the 1620s. However, increasing poor health, which, by May 1625, obliged him to employ a surgeon in his household, also probably played a part.63 Add. 64883, f. 82; APC, 1627, p. 318.

The following October the Privy Council ordered the disarming of Colchester and other Catholic peers. Warwick, the lord lieutenant of Essex, apparently went in person to Colchester’s house to take the viscount’s weaponry into custody. This latter task had evidently been performed by 22 Dec., when Warwick delivered these arms to one of his deputy lieutenants, Sir Harbottle Grimston^‡. Some of the more expensive items, which included gilt armour for a horseman and a target with purple velvet fringed with gold, may have been purchased for Colchester’s son, who had won a prize in the ‘Barriers’ tilt in 1610.64 APC, 1625-6, p. 228; Maynard Lieutenancy Bk. ed. B.W. Quintrell, i. 122; SP16/12/34; Chamberlain Letters, i. 293. It seems likely that it was also in late 1625 that Colchester was removed from the Essex bench. He was still listed as a justice of the peace at the 1625 summer assizes, but is omitted from the list created sometime after 1 Nov., when Sir Thomas Coventry^* (later 1st Lord Coventry) was appointed lord keeper. (Although Colchester’s name is inserted in the list of the Essex commission in a liber pacis compiled in January 1626, this was presumably a mistake.65 Rymer, viii. pt. 2, p. 8; Harl. 1622, f. 28.)

On 12 Jan. 1626 Colchester was indicted for recusancy at the Essex quarter sessions. He subsequently appeared at the Easter sessions, but no verdict was recorded. In July he petitioned the midsummer sessions, stating that he had attended church at St Osyth’s since Easter. He also presented a certificate which demonstrated that in London, on 23 May, he had conformed before the bishop (George Montaigne^*, later archbishop of York) and received communion. It is not clear how long Colchester continued to conform; his participation in the internal disputes in the English Catholic Church in the early 1630s indicates that he remained at heart a Catholic. He was never restored to the bench, and his arms were not returned to him until 1633.66 Essex Archives Online, Q/SR 252/36d, 254/75; Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. 130; PC2/43, p. 337.

Later life, 1626-40

Colchester was granted leave of absence from the forthcoming second Caroline Parliament on 31 Jan. 1626. He initially granted his proxy to Buckingham, who had procured his dispensation, but, following the ruling of the upper House, on 25 Feb., restricting the number of proxies which a lord could hold to two, he transferred it to Rutland.67 SO3/8, unfol. (31 Jan. 1626); Procs. 1626, iv. 11. He was evidently in London in May, when he received communion, but was only once recorded as present in the upper House, on 22 Apr., possibly in error. On 24 May Thomas Grey, who claimed to be Colchester’s servant, petitioned the Lords for protection after his goods were seized by the under-sheriff of Essex. When the case was heard in the upper House on 10 June, Grey changed his tune, and denied being in Colchester’s service. Two days later, however, Rutland claimed that Grey had in fact been in Colchester’s employ for many years. Nevertheless, the Lords decided to dismiss the case.68 Procs. 1626, i. 546, 603, 610.

On 27 Oct., following the dissolution, the attorney general was ordered to draw up a patent making Colchester earl Rivers, and his son-in-law Viscount Savage. This patent, unusual for granting titles to different people, was issued on 4 November. The earldom was to pass to Savage on Colchester’s death, but only if the latter died without a male heir; unlike the 1621 grant, it allowed for the possibility that Colchester might still beget a son.69 Savage Fortune, 44. The patent is printed in Rymer, viii. pt. 2, pp. 107-8. Colchester may have chosen the title Rivers at the instance of Savage, who was descended from the fifteenth century earls Rivers, but it is possible he only chose it because its antiquity made it prestigious.70 P.W. Montague-Smith, ‘Earldom of Rivers’, N and Q, xcix. 198-9; SP12/222/21.

Rivers may have been created an earl to help implement the Forced Loan in Essex, where he had been appointed a commissioner. His improved status, damaged by his earlier removal from the bench, would no doubt have augmented his authority in his locality, although, in fact, he was already busy enforcing the Loan before he received his new title. (His recent experience of having been disarmed and prosecuted for Catholicism may have made him particularly concerned to keep the king’s favour.) On 1 Nov. an initial meeting of the commissioners for north-east Essex was held at his house at St Osyth’s. Still signing as Colchester, he and his fellow commissioners reported to the Council that the Loan had received little opposition locally. In response the Council wrote to Rivers praising the ‘good affections and endeavours … wherewith you have managed the affair’.71 SP16/39/3; 16/76/1; APC, 1626, p. 352; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 200, 262. He himself paid £250 towards the Loan on 14 November.72 E401/1386, rot. 26. In July 1627 he exploited the goodwill which he had earned for his support for the Loan to benefit his neighbours, by getting a Council order to station 50 militiamen at Harwich (about 12 miles from St Osyth) altered. Instead of being permanently deployed in the town, the men were to be kept in readiness, to respond only if the need arose.73 Maynard Lieutenancy Bk. 197-8; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 259.

A new Parliament was called on 31 Jan. 1628 and, nine days later, Rivers tried to reserve the votes of his friends and adherents in Essex for Sir Richard Weston^* (subsequently 1st earl of Portland), the crypto-Catholic chancellor of the Exchequer, ‘if he stand for it’; however there is no further evidence of Weston’s candidacy.74 Procs. 1628, p. 146. Rivers attended the upper House on 17 and 18 Mar. but was excused on 20 March. When the House was called two days later, it was recorded that he was sick, that he had leave to be absent and that he would send a proxy. In fact his licence was only granted that day, procured by the lord chamberlain, Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (subsequently 4th earl of Pembroke), to whom he gave his proxy on the 24th.75 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 72, 87; SO3/9, unfol. (22 Mar. 1627[/8]). Thereafter he was absent. There is no evidence that he attended the 1629 session, when he also gave his proxy to Montgomery.76 LJ, iv. 3a, 25b.

Rivers was probably in his late 70s by the early 1630s. His friend, Clare, feared for his health in March 1631, but he remained active in the affairs of his locality, subscribing reports to the Council on disputes including one between the inhabitants of Harwich and a local minister in September of that year and another concerning water supplies in Colchester in 1633.77 Holles Letters, 425; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 145-6; 1633-4, p. 249. He probably also attended the meeting of Essex landowners in October 1634 concerning the limits of the royal forest, as he was one of those who agreed to sponsor a search of the records.78 C115/106/8438. In February 1632 he was obliged to pay £500 for failing to receive the knighthood at the coronation of Charles I (which he had attended) and, despite the 1634 meeting, a further £200 for the disafforestation of his lands in May 1639.79 E401/1395, rot. 27; 401/2461, unfol.; Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l.

In April 1637 Rivers wrote to the king that ‘going now on my last day, with so much weakness and decay’, he could ‘never hope to come into your Majesty’s presence’. He stated that he had settled his estate on his eldest daughter, Viscountess Savage (who had been widowed a year and a half before). Although he had ‘made it as sure as I can in law’, he nevertheless sought the king’s ‘favour and protection’ to prevent any disputes, involving (no doubt) his younger daughter.80 Savage Fortune. 111-12. He nevertheless survived for nearly three more years. Excused attendance when Charles summoned the peerage to York in April 1639 to fight the Scottish Covenanters, paying £1,000 instead, he died in February 1640 at Winchester House in Austin Friars, which he probably rented from John Paulet^*, 5th marquess of Winchester (whose first wife had been Rivers’ granddaughter). The exact date of his death is unclear. According to his funeral certificate he expired on the 25th, but that was the date on which his will was proved. It is perhaps more likely that Dugdale is correct in stating that he actually died four days earlier. He was buried at St Osyth’s. By the terms of a short will, written in March 1636, when he was still ‘in health of body’, Rivers bequeathed his entire estate to his daughter, Viscountess Savage, who was asked to bestow bequests on his friends, servants and charities, a list of which he would provide either in a codicil (although none was proved) or by word of mouth.81 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 506; 1639-40, p. 486; SP16/538/84; PROB 11/182, ff. 149v-50. His grandson, John Savage^†, 2nd Viscount Savage, inherited his titles.