SACKVILLE, Edward (1590-1652)

Sackville married a Derbyshire heiress and, according to Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, inherited ‘a good support for a younger brother’. He must have grown up thinking that there was little chance of his inheriting the earldom of Dorset or the family estates. Elected for Sussex in 1620, presumably at the nomination of his elder brother, Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, the county’s popular lord lieutenant, he quickly established himself as one of the most powerful orators of the lower House. An advocate of intervention in the Thirty Years’ War to protect the Palatinate, the hereditary estates of James I’s son-in-law invaded by Spanish and Bavarian forces, he also vigorously protested when the Commons decided to petition against the projected Spanish Match for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales). Surprisingly, this did not endear him to the king, as he failed in his attempts to secure either the comptrollership of the household or the French embassy, despite expending large sums preparing for the latter. Moreover, in April 1623, he offended James at a hearing concerning the Virginia Company, of which he was a prominent member. Although the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, quickly smoothed things over, he left England to travel abroad later that year. By then all three of his brother’s sons had died in infancy, and therefore, in June 1623, the Sackville estates were settled on him in case Dorset died without producing any further male heirs.89 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, i. 75; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 120-30; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 384, 492; HMC 4th Rep. 285; Add. 72254, f. 53v; SP23/193, p. 245.

Sackville was still overseas when the 1624 Parliament was summoned and his brother died. For a brief period it seemed possible that Sackville would be unable to inherit the Dorset title, as in early April 1624 it was said that the late earl’s wife was pregnant ‘which may perhaps prove a son; and then Sir Edward Sackville, who is now earl, will become one of the commonality again’. However, this rumour proved to be unfounded.90 HMC Hastings, ii. 65.

At the time of his brother’s death on 28 Mar. 1624, Sackville, now aged 34, was in Florence.91 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 127; A. Clifford, Memoir of 1603 and the Diary of 1616-19 ed. K.O. Acheson, 231. Two weeks later a special courier arrived to recall him to England, where Parliament was then in session. The Venetian secretary in Florence described the new earl as ‘a man of great valour in arms’ who ‘possesses great powers of eloquence’ and predicted that Dorset would play a leading role in Parliament because ‘he is stuffed with detestation and hatred of the Spaniards’. Indeed, ‘once he has reached England he is determined to do everything to hurt them’.92 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 283.

Dorset returned to England towards the end of May, by which time the Parliament had almost ended.93 Clifford, 232. He took his seat without ceremony on the morning of the 28th, when he was appointed to consider a bill for regulating inns. He missed the afternoon sitting but attended both the morning and afternoon ones the next day, the last of the session.94 LJ, iii. 414b; H. Elsyng, Manner of Holding Parls. in Eng. (1768), 96. Appointed a commissioner for proroguing Parliament the following November, he failed to serve. He did, however, attend the final meeting of the Parliament, held to prorogue the assembly, on 15 Mar. 1625. It was perhaps fortunate for Dorset that he missed so much of the 1624 Parliament as he thereby avoided conflict with Prince Charles and George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, over the impeachment for corruption of his friend, the earl of Middlesex. Dorset subsequently stated that he had thought Middlesex entirely innocent of the charges; had he expressed such views in the Lords in 1624 his subsequent political career could have taken a significantly different turn.95 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE299, Sir Henry Goodyer^‡ to Middlesex, 4 June [1625].

It was particularly important for Dorset to keep in favour with the heir to the throne and Buckingham. The 3rd earl had accumulated massive debts - Chamberlain estimated his total liabilities and legacies at £60,000 - and had therefore transferred a large amount of property to trustees in order that it might be sold. However, as these lands could not be alienated immediately, royal protection - and therefore royal favour - was needed for the trustees. Moreover, one of the potential buyers Dorset and the trustees were trying to interest was Buckingham himself. Dorset’s estate was further impaired by the large jointure enjoyed by his brother’s widow, Lady Anne Clifford, who survived until 1676.96 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 551; APC, 1623-5, p. 200; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 202, 474; SP14/183/49; R.T. Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 80-1.

Dorset’s land sales may explain his declining parliamentary patronage in the late 1620s. In 1625 he was able to nominate both Members at East Grinstead and secure seats at Lewes and Rye, all boroughs situated in East Sussex, where the Sackville estates were concentrated. However, in 1626, he lost control of one seat at East Grinstead and, in 1628, his nominees failed at Lewes and Rye. His declining influence probably explains why he had to turn to Sir Robert Killigrew^‡, with whom he probably became acquainted at court, to secure the return of clients at Camelford in 1626 and 1628.97 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 53, 411, 414, 553-4. Where he still possessed patronage, he used it to favour relations and long-standing clients of his family. Sir Henry Compton^‡, who married Dorset’s sister, had been a Sackville nominee at East Grinstead since 1601 and John Sackville^‡, who sat for Rye in 1625 and 1626, was the earl’s cousin. Dorset’s support for Sir Robert Heath^‡, successively solicitor general and attorney general, whom he nominated at East Grinstead in 1625 and 1626, followed family tradition, as Heath had first sat for that borough thanks to the 3rd earl’s patronage in 1624. There is no evidence that Dorset tried to use his clients to influence proceedings in the lower House.98 Ibid. iii. 625-6; vi. 62-3, 131-2.

Dorset received relatively few signs of royal favour from James. However, he succeeded his brother as joint lord lieutenant of Sussex in the summer of 1624, and in December he was appointed to meet the French ambassador sent to ratify the treaty of marriage between Prince Charles and Henrietta Maria. He was also one of the peers who were initially appointed to accompany Buckingham to fetch the princess from Paris, although in the event the duke left with only a handful of servants.99 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 510; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 589; Add. 72332, f. 87v; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 572.

The 1625 Parliament

On 27 Mar. 1625 Dorset signed the proclamation announcing the accession of Charles I.100 APC, 1625-6, p. 5. In the subsequent elections to the first Caroline Parliament he loyally supported the newly appointed secretary of state, Sir Albertus Morton^‡, as knight of the shire for Kent, alongside his old ally, Sir Edwin Sandys^‡, who, by this date, was a client of Buckingham’s. However, Buckingham himself supported an alternative partner for Morton, namely Mildmay Fane^†, Lord Burghersh (subsequently 2nd earl of Westmorland) and it was Morton and Burghersh who were returned.101 Procs. 1625, pp. 687, 696; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 189, vi. 126. On 28 Apr., before the Parliament met, Dorset was ordered to attend the king at Dover on 11 May for the reception of Henrietta Maria.102 Cal. N. Wales Letters. ed. B.E. Howells (Univ. Wales, Bd. of Celtic Studies, Hist. and Law ser. xxiii), 218. Four days later he received a significant mark of royal favour when he was made a knight of the Garter. The Venetian ambassador considered him too young and inexperienced for the honour and attributed his elevation, probably correctly, to Buckingham.103 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 63.

Dorset did not attend the three prorogation meetings held before the session began on 18 June, but was present on the first four days of business. Thereafter he missed the rest of the Westminster sitting, with the exception of 4 July. When Parliament reconvened at Oxford on 1 Aug. he did not attend until the 3rd. Thereafter he attended every sitting, except that of 9 August. During the Oxford sitting he stayed at the lodgings of the sub-dean of his old college, Christ Church.104 Procs. 1625, p. 662.

Dorset received a series of royal appointments in the 1625 Parliament which, although they were ceremonial, may reflect the favour of the new king and Buckingham. At the start of the session Charles appointed Dorset one of the triers for petitions from Gascony and England’s overseas territories. He also named the earl to the commissions to adjourn the session to Oxford on 11 July and dissolve Parliament on 12 August.105 Ibid. 31, 120, 184. In addition, on 22 June, Dorset deputized for the absent earl marshal, his friend and kinsman, Thomas Howard^*, 14th (or 21st) earl of Arundel, responsible for the formal introduction to the House of new peers.106 Ibid. 40.

Dorset made two recorded speeches during the session. The first, on 3 Aug., was to excuse the absence of William Paget^*, 5th Lord Paget. The second, on 11 Aug., took the form of a report from the subcommittee for privileges, and concerned the petition of parliamentary privilege for Thomas Hayne, a servant of his uncle, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk.107 Ibid. 45, 130, 174, 179. Dorset was named to eight of the 25 committees appointed by the upper House in 1625, including both the committee and the subcommittee for privileges (although in the latter case he was not appointed until 10 August). His appointments also included a conference with the Commons, on 23 June, about the lower House’s proposal to petition the king for a general fast. However, a cross appears by his name in the committee book, perhaps indicating that he was absent when the committee presented the petition the following day.108 Ibid. 43, 49. On 4 July Dorset was appointed to help draft amendments to the petition on recusancy, and on 10 Aug. he was instructed to consider a bill on the same subject.109 Ibid. 86, 174.

It was during Dorset’s absence on 5 July that the Sackville estate bill received a first and second reading in the Lords and was committed. This bill empowered the trustees appointed by the 3rd earl of Dorset to sell the lands conveyed to them and to confirm sales already made; the proceeds were to be used to pay the earl’s debts as well as to provide portions for his daughters. It also settled the remainder of the estate on the 4th earl and confirmed the jointure of the 3rd earl’s widow. The bill was reported on 6 July by Henry Montagu^*, Viscount Mandeville (subsequently 1st earl of Manchester), and was approved once the House was satisfied that the measure had the support of the dowager countess of Dorset. The bill was subsequently passed by the Commons but was not enacted because Parliament was suddenly dissolved on 12 August.110 Ibid. 88, 90-1, 98, 105, 349-50, 422, 429. According to the Venetian ambassador, Dorset, described as a friend of Buckingham’s, ‘contributed largely’ to the king’s decision to dissolve the assembly. However, the accuracy of this report is open to question as the ambassador also claimed that Dorset was ‘not mistrustful of the Spaniards’, an observation which, if true, suggests a remarkable transformation in the earl’s attitudes in little more than a year.111 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 147. However, the main reason for doubting the report is that the dissolution cost Dorset his bill.

Dorset was very ill in December 1625, and consequently had to be installed as a knight of the Garter by proxy, his substitute being Sir Richard Young^‡ (the former secretary of Dorset’s friend Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban).112 Shaw, Knights of Eng. i. 31; Bodl., Ashmole 1108, f. 176; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 124, 904. However, he had evidently recovered by the following February, when he was one of the commissioners appointed to hear those who claimed the right to perform services at the coronation of King Charles. During the coronation itself he was one of three earls who acted as sword-bearers.113 HMC Rutland, i. 476. On 17 Feb. he attended the second meeting of the York House Conference, at which Calvinist and Arminian divines debated theological points at issue between them in Buckingham’s riverside residence.114 J. Cosin, Works, ed. J. Sansom, ii. 73. It is unclear on which side of the religious controversy the earl stood. On the one hand, Dorset showed sympathy with certain aspects of puritanism. For instance, he supported godly magistracy where it ‘punished drunkenness and other disorders’. He also wished ‘there were no image of the Father, neither in Church, nor out of Church’ (although he thought pictures of Christ were acceptable). On the other hand, he believed it was important to uphold the authority of bishops, at least in religious matters, and employed as his chaplain the anti-Calvinist minister, Brian Duppa^†, subsequently bishop of Winchester. Indeed, Dorset persuaded Buckingham to promote Richard Corbet^*, the dean of Christ Church, to a bishopric so as to secure the latter’s deanery for Duppa. However, as Duppa had previously served the 3rd earl, it may be that Dorset was motivated more by loyalty to a family servant than by support for Duppa’s views. To complicate matters still further, Dorset, like other members of his family, had close personal connections with Catholics, among them his brother-in-law, Sir Henry Compton. However, in the early 1630s he warmly endorsed Charles I’s orders against allowing English Catholics to attend mass at Henrietta Maria’s chapel. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the earl was described at various points in his career as a Puritan, Catholic and conformist, but the truth appears to be that Dorset took little interest in theological controversies.115 D.L. Smith, ‘Catholic, Anglican or Puritan? Edward Sackville, Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Ambiguities of Religion in Early Stuart Eng.’, TRHS, ser. 6, ii. 105-6, 108, 114; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iv. 292; State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, iii. 554-5; Birch, ii. 68. See RICHARD SACKVILLE.

The 1626 Parliament

The 1626 Parliament met against the background of military disappointment, as the opening of the long awaited war with Spain had resulted in the disastrous Cadiz expedition the previous autumn, for which Buckingham was widely blamed. Many members of the Parliament were determined to impeach the duke, while others, such as Dorset, were equally determined to defend him.

When the Parliament convened on 6 Feb., the king again appointed Dorset a trier of petitions from Gascony.116 Procs. 1626, i. 22. He attended 64 of the 81 sittings, during which time he was appointed to 20 of the 49 committees of the upper House and made 67 recorded speeches, a rate of more than one a day. His longest period of absence occurred in June. Excused on the 2nd, he was reported to be sick six days later but returned to the House on the 12th.117 Ibid. 558; C115/107/8538.

Dorset made his first recorded speech on 9 Feb., on the subject of the privilege claimed by Edward Vaux^*, 4th Lord Vaux. Vaux and his brother, both Catholics, were being prosecuted in Star Chamber for assaulting Richard Knightley^‡, one of the deputy lieutenants of Northamptonshire, during a search of the baron’s house for arms. Dorset thought that Vaux, who had failed to take his seat (presumably to avoid taking the oath of allegiance), should be granted privilege ‘to avoid a precedent hereafter’. However, many in the upper House thought that Vaux should not be protected by privilege because, having not taken the oath, he was not eligible to sit in the Lords. Dorset and Philip Herbert^*, 1st earl of Montgomery (later 4th earl of Pembroke), were subsequently sent to discover if Vaux was willing to be sworn.118 Procs. 1626, i. 39-40.

On 13 Feb. the House ordered the 1625 committee for privileges to be reappointed, but Dorset was not included in the committee list, despite having served in the previous Parliament.119 Ibid. 46, 48. The committee subsequently drew up a number of amendments and additions to the House’s Standing Orders, which were presented to the House on 25 February. These included a controversial proposal to limit each peer in future to no more than two proxies. With the support of Buckingham (against whom the new rule was directed), Dorset expressed his opposition, claiming that the intended alteration was ‘a novelty’. He also seems to have argued that the existing system allowed peers to give their proxies to whomever they trusted. However, his side was defeated, and he subsequently received two proxies formerly granted to the duke, namely those of Edward Bourchier^*, 4th earl of Bath, and Richard Robartes^*, 1st Lord Robartes.120 Ibid. 71-2. Although no longer a member of the privileges committee, Dorset continued to take an interest in privilege cases, for on 13 Mar. he moved to send for the two serjeants who had arrested Viscountess Purbeck, the estranged wife of Buckingham’s brother, John Villiers^*, Viscount Purbeck.121 Ibid. 145.

On 6 Mar. Dorset was appointed to the committee for the defence of the kingdom. Dorset wanted the Lords to put pressure on the Commons to vote taxation for the war with Spain, despite fears that this would infringe the privileges of the lower House, which customarily initiated subsidy bills. On 17 Mar. he urged the Lords to ‘debate the particulars and then to offer them’ to the Commons, arguing that the upper House should ‘remember our own privileges’, including the right ‘to be [as] careful of the commonwealth’ as the Commons. The following day, he seconded Buckingham’s motion for a debate on ‘the great cause for the defence of the realm’. He also successfully moved for the committee for defence to meet. On 12 June, following a report by Secretary of State Conway (Edward Conway^*, Lord Conway, later 1st Viscount Conway) about military preparations against England, Dorset moved the Lords to send a message to the Commons ‘to beseech and require them to proceed to the subsidies’, but without success.122 Ibid. 110. 175, 180; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE299, Sir Henry Goodyer to Middlesex 12 June [1626].

The arrest of Dorset’s friend and kinsman, the earl of Arundel, for the clandestine marriage of the latter’s eldest son into the royal family put the former in an invidious position. Arundel was a prominent opponent of Buckingham and his imprisonment was probably orchestrated to remove him from the upper House. On 14 Mar. the subcommittee for privileges was ordered to search for precedents to determine whether a peer could be committed while Parliament was in session. The issue was again debated the following day, when Dorset moved successfully for proceedings to be suspended until the subcommittee had finished its search. Despite this order, the subcommittee’s parent body continued to debate the issue, and it was raised again in the House on 5 April. Dorset questioned whether these proceedings were contrary to the order of 15 Mar., whereupon he was added to both the subcommittee for privileges, which was ordered to continue its search for precedents, and the main committee. On 17 May Dorset was among those named to draft a petition to the king for Arundel’s release. The House was dissatisfied with Charles’ answer, delivered on 25 May, and when Dorset, following Buckingham, tried to proceed to other business he was ignored, the Lords agreeing to adjourn for the day.123 Procs. 1626, i. 159, 257, 261, 495; Birch, i. 106; D.L. Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule of Chas. I’, JBS, xxx. 273-4.

The duke again tried to persuade the House to proceed with business on 26 May, but this time the Lords resolved to adjourn for a week, for Whitsun. Thereupon Dorset went to see Arundel, as both men signed a letter from Horsley, in Surrey – where Arundel was under house arrest – later that same day. This letter concerned the local militia, as both men shared the office of lord lieutenant of Sussex. However, it is possible that while he was at Horsley Dorset tried to mediate between Arundel and Buckingham. If so, he was unsuccessful.124 Procs. 1626, i. 556; E. Suss. RO, LCD/EW1, f. 24 (ex inf. Philip Bye); M.F.S. Hervey, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, 248.

Dorset spoke four times in the debate of 29 Apr. on whether John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol was entitled to take his seat. A long-standing enemy of Buckingham, Bristol considered the duke guilty of treason over his conduct in Spain in 1623, when Buckingham and Charles had attempted to conclude the Spanish Match. On returning to England he had been placed under house arrest, and was refused a writ of summons to the 1626 Parliament. Under pressure from the upper House, the king relented and granted him a writ, but accompanied it with an instruction not to attend. Charles also announced his intention of preferring charges against the earl in the Lords.

Dorset seems to have been torn between his respect for the privileges of a peer and his support for Buckingham. Initially, he appears to have argued that Bristol should be allowed to sit, having not been formally charged. However, as the debate continued, he became more doubtful and moved for the matter to be referred to the committee for privileges.125 Procs. 1626, i. 321-3. On 1 May Bristol was brought before the Lords, whereupon he delivered charges against Buckingham and Conway. Dorset supported James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, who argued that the king’s accusations against Bristol should take precedence. They presumably hoped that Bristol would be found guilty and that, consequently, his own charges would be summarily dismissed. He opposed the motion for both sets of charges to be read, which seems to have enjoyed even Buckingham’s support, and forced a vote, which he lost. After Bristol’s charges were read, Dorset moved for proceedings against Bristol to begin immediately and for the charges against Buckingham to be reserved for a later date.126 Ibid. 338, 340. The following day, Dorset fiercely criticized Bristol for bringing his charges against Buckingham to the attention of the Commons and for having ‘strewn papers of it elsewhere’. He argued that Bristol’s actions were tantamount to accusing the Lords ‘of not [being] competent judges’ and he accused the latter with ‘a high crime and, next to the crime of treason, the highest’. When his colleagues queried whether the upper House could take notice of proceedings in the lower, he offered to provide witnesses.127 Ibid. 346-7.

Dorset twice questioned whether Bristol had a right to counsel, and on 4 May he continued to argue that the charges against Bristol should be given precedence over other business. When, on 8 May, Bristol attempted to exclude evidence from the king, who, having been in Spain in 1623, was a material witness in Buckingham’s favour, Dorset tried to have the issue referred to the attorney general. Although he argued there was ‘some ground’ for excluding the king’s evidence, he argued that Buckingham’s testimony should stand and that it was ‘unjust to except against him [Charles] that shall be his judge by accusing him of the same offence’. The following day he complained that ‘Bristol requires that neither his Majesty’s accusation nor testimony may be used’. When, on 19 May, Bristol requested permission to ‘take the air this spring time’, Dorset reportedly ‘told the Lords that the Tower was more fit for him’.128 Ibid. 354, 381, 383, 392; iv. 286.

On 8 May the Commons sent a message to the Lords requesting a conference that same day so that they might present their impeachment articles against Buckingham, whereupon Dorset moved for reporters to be appointed. He himself was one of those appointed to discharge this duty and, on 13 May, reported to the House the charge that the duke had failed to guard the English Channel and another concerning the arrest of the St Peter of Le Havre. According to Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu, Dorset performed this task ‘excellently well’, speaking ‘without help of any paper’.129 Ibid. i. 380, 383, 414-19, 442.

On 11 May Dorset was one of the peers who accompanied the king when Charles came to the Lords to explain the arrests of Sir John Eliot^‡ and Sir Dudley Digges^‡ for making ‘insolent speeches’ at the conference of 8 May.130 Birch, i. 102. On 15 May he added to the report of Eliot’s speech, drawing attention to Eliot’s comparison of Buckingham to Sejanus. He also sought to clarify what Digges had actually said. Nevertheless he queried whether the reports of these charges should be entered in the Journal. After the duke was accused by William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, of ‘trench[ing] upon all our loyalties’, by suggesting that they had listened to treason at the conference without protesting, Dorset moved to allow Buckingham to explain himself. He also tried to derail attempts to exonerate Digges by arguing the House needed the king’s permission to do so. He subsequently admitted that he did not really think the words spoken by Digges were treasonable, but ‘I then thought them so ambiguous that he would be troubled for them’. He added that it was up to Digges to explain himself and not the responsibility of the Lords to clear him.131 Procs. 1626, i. 479-82, 484.

On 16 May Dorset and Saye and Sele, one of the duke’s fiercest critics, were instructed to draft an answer to the Commons’ demand that Buckingham be taken into custody. However, they disagreed and each man produced his own answer. Both were read, but the House decided to defer making their reply to the Commons, and neither was recorded. The following day, Dorset moved to prevent the addition of ‘aggravations’, such as those which had been presented against Buckingham, to charges in the future. This may have been intended to protect the reputation of any lord who was accused in the future, but it also implied that the details of the Commons’ charges against the duke had not been worthy of mention.132 Ibid. 490, 497.

During the Parliament Charles I referred to the Lords the succession to the earldom of Oxford, disputed by Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey) and Robert de Vere^*. Gervase Holles^‡ subsequently wrote that Dorset, ‘always a main prop in every lame cause’, made an ‘eloquent oration’ in support of Willoughby’s claim, and moved to proceed to a vote.133 G. Holles, Memorials of the Holles Fam. ed. A.C Wood (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, lv), 104. However, there is no other evidence that Dorset spoke in support of Willoughby’s claim, although he certainly moved for the Lords to give judgement in the case on 20 March. This latter motion led to a clash with Buckingham, who wanted the decision delayed until the following Wednesday, demonstrating that Dorset was not so closely tied to the duke as to prevent disagreement between them on minor matters. Dorset and Buckingham acted as tellers in a vote on the issue, which the former lost. On 31 Mar. Dorset spoke in favour of Willoughby’s right to the office of great chamberlain and, the following day, the Lords having decided to award the earldom of Oxford to de Vere, an impoverished officer in the Dutch army, Dorset moved that the king should give de Vere ‘some means to maintain the same’, a point he reiterated four days later.134 Procs. 1626, i. 186-7, 233, 245, 259.

Dorset spoke on two public bills during the 1626 Parliament. On 31 Mar. he was appointed to consider the bill to regulate apparel, which he opposed at the third reading on 15 Apr., when he argued that ‘the making of laces maintains at least 20,000 folks’ and that any restrictions on the import of luxury fabrics would invite retaliation against English exports. However, the bill was passed and Dorset evidently did not feel sufficiently strongly to enter a formal protest.135 Ibid. 232, 268. At the second reading of the bill against scandalous ministers on the same day, Dorset supported Theophilus Field^*, bishop of Llandaff, who argued for a measure to enhance the powers of the episcopacy to discipline ministers.136 Ibid. 268.

This Parliament also saw Dorset promote another bill to settle the Sackville estates and pay his brother’s debts. This time, however, the measure was introduced in the Commons, where it received its first reading on 13 February. After passing through the lower House it was sent to the Lords on 21 Apr., where it was committed the following day. However, it was never reported.137 Ibid. 295, 300; ii. 25. Dorset himself was appointed to four committees concerned with private legislation, including a measure to permit the sale of a manor in Sussex. He reported the latter as fit to proceed on 15 March.138 Ibid. i. 157. On 15 June Dorset was named to the committee to draft a petition to the king to allow Parliament to continue sitting, but Charles was determined to dissolve it, and appointed Dorset as one of the commissioners for that purpose.139 Ibid. 633-4.

The Forced Loan, 1626-7

The 1626 Parliament had firmly established Dorset as a supporter of Buckingham, and consequently he shared his patron’s unpopularity. Following the dissolution one observer remarked that, as a result of his support for the duke, Dorset and his fellow Buckingham supporter Henry Rich^*, earl of Holland, had ‘lost more esteem … than … rich clothes, or refined courtship, will ever be able to regain’.140 Warws. RO, CR136/B108. However, Dorset no doubt hoped that he would be rewarded by Charles. As early as the latter end of April there had been rumours that he would be appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in place of the lord deputy, Henry Carey^‡, 1st Viscount Falkland [S], whose position had been undermined by his wife’s conversion to Catholicism.141 NLW, 9055E/734; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 435. Dorset himself may have believed that such a promotion was on the cards, for in early June he fell ill, reportedly as a result of disappointment at failing to secure this office. However, soon after the dissolution he was made a privy councillor, allegedly ‘for taking the duke’s part in the Parliament House’.142 C115/107/8538; NLW, 9061E/1422; Birch, i. 116; Procs. 1626, iv. 344. In August, following the expulsion of the queen’s French servants, it was reported that he would be made chamberlain to Henrietta Maria. In the event, the office was left vacant to provide a bargaining counter with the French, possibly with the consent of Dorset, who may have still wanted the lord lieutenancy of Ireland. The Venetian ambassador reported renewed talk of his appointment to the latter post as late as October.143 CSP Ven. 1625-6, pp. 520, 596; M.D. Shephard, ‘Chas. I and the Distribution of Political Patronage’ (Liverpool Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1999), 101-3.

The failed impeachment of Buckingham had ensured that the 1626 Parliament had not voted subsidies, leaving Charles with a choice of either abandoning the war with Spain or turning to non-parliamentary means of raising revenue. Dorset favoured the latter, telling the Venetian ambassador in late August that the people were ‘bound to contribute’ to the cost of a just war. However unpopular such taxes might be, he added, they could be levied with minimum danger to the monarchy because the kingdom ‘contained no fortresses’ and, consequently, there was ‘no fear of insurrection’. Dorset also blamed the deteriorating relations between England and France on the latter, arguing that the French ‘deceived everybody’ and that, in particular, their ‘policy towards this country was insincere’. However, the Venetian ambassador observed that Dorset ‘depends entirely’ on the duke, ‘who may be said to father all these maxims’.144 CSP Ven. 1625-6, pp. 528-9.

Unsurprisingly, Dorset proved a staunch supporter of the Forced Loan, which was initiated in the autumn of 1626. At a preliminary meeting of the commissioners for Middlesex in late October, he chided a reluctant tailor saying, ‘come, come, … one snip will make amends for all’.145 Birch, i. 164. He was subsequently sent down to Sussex, where he was lord lieutenant, to oversee and encourage the Loan’s collection.146 Procs. 1628, p. 32. He reacted angrily to signs of reluctance to pay, threatening to billet all the soldiers stationed in the shire on any rape that fell behind in its payments.147 E. Suss. RO, LCD/EW1, f. 40v. Moreover, he reportedly urged the king to imprison those peers who refused to contribute to the Loan. It was said that his motion had only been defeated at the Privy Council by two votes.148 Birch, i. 177. On 31 Jan. 1627 Dorset clashed at the Council table with Sir William Chauncey, a Northamptonshire Loan refuser. Told it was his duty to pay, ‘his estate being the king’s’, Chauncey protested that his property was ‘his own and as free as any man’s’. Dorset responded by pointing out that Chauncey, having been pardoned for highway robbery, did without doubt owe his estate to the king, whereupon Chauncey retorted that ‘he thanked God that he was never guilty of blood’, a reference to the fact that Dorset had killed Lord Bruce of Kinloss [S] in a duel in 1613. Speaking in Star Chamber in May 1627, Dorset concurred with William Laud^*, bishop of Bath and Wells (later archbishop of Canterbury) and Richard Neile^*, bishop of Durham (subsequently archbishop of York), in describing Loan refusers as traitors who deserved to die.149 APC, 1627, p. 41; C115/107/8541; Birch, i. 194; Diary of Sir Richard Hutton 1614-39 ed. W.R. Prest (Selden Soc. suppl. ser. ix), 128.

In March 1627 Dorset fell ill. His condition was so serious that, in early April, it was reported that he had died. His absence from court sparked the rumour that he had fallen from favour with Buckingham and that he would be made one of the scapegoats for the Loan at a new Parliament which, it was mistakenly believed, was imminent. However, on 4 May it was reported that he was among those of the duke’s ‘private friends’ asked to contribute to the forthcoming expedition to the Île de Ré. Dorset responded by providing 60 arquebuses.150 Birch, i. 218, 222; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 124; Procs. 1628, p. 110; ‘News-Letters from Sir Edmund Moundeford’ ed. C.R. Manning, Norf. Arch. v. 60; APC, 1627, p. 308. On being approached a month later on behalf of Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, who wished to be excused from paying the Forced Loan on grounds of poverty, Dorset replied that ‘it was not possible’.151 HEHL, HAM53/6, ff. 208v-9v.

Writing to Buckingham at the Île de Ré on 21 Aug., Dorset stated that he feared that ‘ordinary and customary ways will not furnish those means’ which were required to support the expedition. However, he was reluctant to ‘advise other, without your warrant’. He also hastened to assure Buckingham of the king’s continued ‘trust, love, zeal, care and affection’ to the duke.152 SP16/74/62. By the time he wrote again to Buckingham, on 28 Sept., Dorset struck a much more cautious note. He urged the duke to return to England speedily once he had succeeded in capturing the fort of St Martin, which he had been besieging since mid July, as he had evidently become convinced that the crown was dangerously weak. He complained of ‘a kind of languishing in all our proceedings’ and reported having heard ‘those officers to whom the knowledge of money most properly appertaineth, profess that the revenue of the crown is for some years anticipated, the last collection of the Loans to be expected, both paid and expended’. Consequently, he feared that ‘all future succour will arrive, both in time and number, far short’. He was concerned, too, that failure abroad would force the king to make concessions to his enemies. Only by returning home would Buckingham be able to save the situation, presumably (though Dorset did not say so explicitly) by making peace. For the rest of his career, Dorset was preoccupied with domestic affairs and argued that England should steer clear of foreign entanglements.153 Add. 22548, ff. 14-15v.

One of the principal ‘officers to whom the knowledge of money most properly appertaineth’ was, of course, the chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Richard Weston^* (subsequently 1st earl of Portland), a former client of Dorset’s friend, Middlesex, and a principal advocate of peace. Dorset admired Weston and may have been influenced by his views. In late 1627 they co-operated in lobbying on behalf of Sir Thomas Wentworth^* (later 1st earl of Strafford), who had been restrained for failing to pay the Forced Loan. On 27 Dec. Dorset wrote personally to Wentworth to inform him of his discharge.154 Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 272, 279, 281, 283; Strafforde Letters, ii. 387. Moreover, his waning enthusiasm for war seems to have made Dorset increasingly wary of un-parliamentary taxation, which he had always thought was justified only by military necessity. During a debate in the Privy Council about a proposed levy on beer and wine in late 1628, Dorset loyally ‘promised all diligence and faithfulness to any way the king should propound’ but, unlike other contributors to the debate, such as Theophilus Howard^*, 2nd earl of Suffolk, he did not express support for the levy. Moreover, his warning against ‘lay[ing] heavy upon the poor man’ can be read as an implied criticism of a proposal which, given the ubiquity of beer in 17th century England, could hardly have failed to affect the poor.155 Harg. 321, f. 139.

The 1628-9 Parliament

It is possible that the reluctance of such a staunch supporter of the Forced Loan as Dorset to advise further unparliamentary levies played a part in persuading Charles to call Parliament again. When the third Caroline Parliament was convened in March 1628, Dorset was again appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony, indicating that he still enjoyed royal favour.156 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 62. He subsequently attended 60 of the 94 sittings of the 1628 session. Excused on 29 Mar., he returned to the House for the next sitting three days later. He was again absent on 1 Apr., and was excused on 3rd and 4 Apr., but returned on the 8th. His absence from the upper House on 30 and 31 May suggests that he went with the king and Buckingham to an unspecified country house to discuss the monarch’s answer to the Petition of Right. His final significant period of absence was in the last stages of the session; having been missing on 18 June, he was excused the day after and only returned on the last day, the 26th, for the prorogation. As Buckingham was also absent during this period, it is likely that Dorset again left town with the duke.157 GEORGE VILLIERS; Lords Procs. 1628, p. 26.

During the session, Dorset acted as proxy for William Petre^*, 2nd Lord Petre, and Thomas Windsor^*, 6th Lord Windsor. He had little known connection with either man, but it is likely that, as a privy councillor close to Buckingham, he was considered a politically safe choice for peers who wanted to stay on right side of the regime. Dorset was also appointed to 12 of the 52 committees named by the upper House and made some 84 recorded speeches. He was initially optimistic that the Parliament would be a success, for as late as 4 Apr. he apparently remarked that ‘the only parallel between the king and the House is who shall outgo and overcome each other with favours’.158 Procs. 1628, p. 205. It is likely that he realized that, if the Commons were to be persuaded to vote money, concessions would have to be made to placate the widespread fears which the Forced Loan, and the methods used to enforce it, had engendered. His remark in a debate on the Petition of Right on 19 May, that the Lords should not go ‘so far [as] to reserve the sovereignty of power to the king, that a man may again suffer in that kind before complained of’, indicates the importance he attached to reassuring people that there would be no repetition of the policies of the recent past. His claim, five days later, that he ‘was ever of opinion that whatsoever is in the Petition of Right concerning the loans, billeting of soldiers, and martial law is the subjects’ right’, may appear hypocritical, as it appears to contradict his previous support for the Forced Loan. However, he had probably always seen these expedients as extraordinary measures, forced on the crown by necessity, rather than as part of the settled law of the land. Always more interested in the practicalities of power rather than legal niceties, Dorset probably did not see the Petition of Right as a major threat to the prerogative. However, he was also aware that it was necessary to keep the king happy, as well as the Commons, if the Parliament were to have a successful outcome. Consequently, on 15 Apr., he called for ‘a middle way [to] be taken, that his Majesty’s right be preserved and the people’s liberties’. Speaking at a conference with the Commons on 23 Apr., he defined his objective as ‘just prerogative and just liberty’.159 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 237, 465, 524; CD 1628, iii. 47.

On 9 Apr., in the debate following the conference on the subjects’ rights two days earlier, Dorset proclaimed that the matter was ‘of great importance’. He persuaded the House to go into committee, at which he called upon the king’s counsel to peruse the records and present them to the Lords.160 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 182, 186. He was evidently impressed by the precedents the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, presented to the upper House on 12 Apr. in support of the king’s power to commit without showing cause because, on being told that the record of one case could not be found, he stated ‘there are enough besides’. Later the same day, he argued that the Lords should hear what the judges had to say before conferring with the Commons again, but only to hear the facts in the case of the Five Knights (who had been arrested for refusing to pay the Loan), ‘not to take away their opinions’.161 Ibid. 202, 205.

On 15 Apr. Dorset called for an accommodation with the Commons. However, six days later, he argued that the precedents showed that no-one committed by the king or Council had ever been released without the consent of the crown and that imprisonment without cause shown was a necessary part of the Council’s emergency power. Indeed, imprisonment ‘without immediate cause showed ... stands with reason and reason of state’. Nevertheless, he held out the prospect of a compromise, in which the ‘power [was] not wholly taken from the king and yet the subject … secured’, by suggesting that the king’s power to imprison be limited to ‘a time’.162 Ibid. 232, 312, 315-16. The following day he complained that resolutions passed by the Commons and delivered to the Lords left the latter little room for manoeuvre: ‘we have not liberty to alter their theses, but we must take them into consideration’. He also questioned the utility of restraining the king’s powers, arguing that ‘the king has been, ought to be, is and will be trusted, whether we will or no’, and that he could only be punished by God. By the law of the land, he added, the king could arrest for reasons of state, as defined by the Council, without expressing the cause, and had as much right to the law ‘for matters of state’ as the subject had to his own rights. Nevertheless, he agreed to another conference with the Commons ‘for an accommodation only’ and, the following day, he was appointed to a committee to consider what was to be put forward to the Commons.163 Ibid. 326, 321, 324-5, 333.

Despite his insistence that the king’s power to commit without showing cause must be preserved, Dorset’s initial concern on hearing the Petition of Right first read in the Lords, on 9 May, was with the king’s reaction rather than the content of the Petition, which condemned imprisonment without a shown cause as illegal. He seconded the motion of William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, ‘to sweeten the manner’ in which the Petition was expressed. He stated that ‘the words in the Petition are good and well suited and those I dislike not’, but wanted ‘such particulars as might give distaste to his Majesty … left out’ so that they ‘may have a gracious answer with a gracious heart’.164 Ibid. 401, 403.

Dorset was right to fear the king’s reaction. On 12 May Charles told the Lords that he could not surrender the power to imprison without showing cause ‘without overthrow of sovereignty’. All he would agree to do was promise not to imprison anyone for failing to lend to the king, and to show cause ‘so soon as with convenience and safety the same is fit to be disclosed’. Dorset hoped that these concessions would be enough to satisfy the Commons, and therefore supported Buckingham’s motion to have the king’s letter debated.165 CD 1628, iii. 372-3; Lords Procs. 1628, p. 412. When it became clear that the Commons were not satisfied, Dorset continued to believe that they could be persuaded to fall into line if the Lords remained firm. On 14 May he reiterated his belief that the king’s power to imprison without showing cause was part of the law of the land and argued that the Lords should insist that the Petition be amended to bring it into line with the king’s letter.166 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 427-9. Despite adopting this hard line, he did ‘not despair of an accommodation’, because, as he declared on the 15th, he could not see that the king’s failure to submit to all the demands of the lower House ‘should overthrow the subject’s right’. On the contrary, he argued that Charles’s concessions provided a basis for preserving the prerogative ‘for the good, not for the hurt, of the commonwealth’.167 Ibid. 439, 441. Two days later, he softened his tone, arguing that the king had no power to imprison indefinitely without showing cause and that the subject was ‘relievable’ in such circumstances. However, he failed to advance any concrete proposals for putting a time limit on detention.168 Ibid. 452, 457.

After 17 May Dorset probably realized that there was little hope of bringing the Commons to accept the king’s letter of 12 May. Instead, he hoped that the king would be satisfied with the general saving clause for the prerogative drafted by his friend Richard Weston, who had by now joined the upper House as Lord Weston. On 19 May he proposed that if the Commons agreed to the saving clause, the Lords ‘should not stand upon’ their other amendments but ‘agree with the Commons in the rest’. He went on to suggest a series of changes to the wording of the Petition, including altering the description of the oath administered by the commissioners for the Forced Loan from ‘unlawful’ to ‘unusual’ or ‘new and never to be used more’.169 Ibid. 461, 463, 465, 467. The following day he argued that if the word ‘unlawful’ were not removed the Lords should refuse to approve the Petition. Nevertheless, it seems to have been the saving clause for the prerogative which was his main concern. He proposed that they should either adopt the form of words suggested by Weston or find ‘some other way’ to include a saving; either way, ‘I shall never condescend to the Petition without a saving’.170 Ibid. 480, 484, 486. He reiterated his support for a saving clause on 21 May, when he supported a motion made by Weston that a committee should be appointed to prepare a defence of the clause, to be put to the Commons at a conference.171 Ibid. 490, 493.

On 23 May Dorset proposed a small joint committee of both Houses to find an accommodation. His motion was approved by the Lords, and Dorset was one of those chosen for the task, but the suggestion was rejected by the Commons.172 Ibid. 508, 513; CD 1628, iii. 594. The following day, he stated ‘we are (without an alteration [to the Petition]) where we were at the first’. Declaring that ‘this is the last speech I will make to this, for I hope it will have an end this day’, he argued that the Petition ‘does touch the prerogative’ and that it ‘will give the king and monarchy a greater blow than any power from beyond seas’. He nevertheless spoke again in the same debate, calling for a protestation to be made in the name of the Lords at the delivery of the Petition. He also stated that, without an addition to save the prerogative, the Petition ‘puts out both eyes of the monarchy’. He cited an incident in King’s Bench in which a man had refused to contribute to the musters ‘because there is no law for it’, as evidence that ‘the king’s prerogative is necessary’.173 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 522-4.

Despite his passionate objections to the Petition of Right, Dorset evidently made no protest when the Lords accepted it without amendment on 26 May. Indeed, his only intervention was to second Buckingham’s motion that the disagreements over the Petition should be forgotten.174 Ibid. 534. His decision not to protest appears to have arisen from a belief that the king could not be constrained by the law in an emergency. It was almost certainly Dorset to whom George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, referred on 21 May, when he stated that he had ‘heard of a learned man of the earls’ bench say that the king’s prerogative is so safe that though we should make an act of Parliament to that purpose we can no way destroy it’. Once Dorset realized that the Commons could not be persuaded to amend the Petition, he seems to have decided that further opposition was pointless.175 Ibid. 493; J. Flemion, ‘Saving to Satisfy All: the House of Lords and the Meaning of the Petition of Right’, PH, x. 43. However, his earlier opposition to the Petition was by now notorious; in June 1628 the Suffolk minister, John Rous, heard a rumour that the earl, whom he described as Buckingham’s ‘great favourite’, had been questioned in Parliament.176 Rous Diary ed. M.A. Everett Green (Cam. Soc. lxvi), 17.

The Petition of Right dominated Dorset’s business in Parliament, but it was not the only matter which concerned him. Though absent, he was appointed to the committee for privileges on 20 Mar., and the next day was made a member of its subcommittee, which checked the draft Journal up to 28 March.177 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 79, 112, n.4. On 28 Mar. Arundel reported from the privileges committee that Dorset had delivered a message from the king to the committee justifying the precedence granted to William Knollys^*, earl of Banbury, who had leapfrogged eight earls created before him. In the debate that followed, Dorset successfully moved for the king’s message to be referred back to the privileges committee. Three days later, he opposed moves to defer the hearing of the case on the grounds that only some of the peers affected were available to put their case. On 10 Apr. Arundel nominated Dorset to render thanks to the king for the message.178 Ibid. 115, 130, 192.

On 31 Mar. Dorset moved for ‘some order’ for releasing persons arrested contrary to parliamentary privilege when the House was not sitting.179 Ibid. 128, 130. He returned to the issue on 28 Apr., when he argued that a law should be drafted to enable the lord keeper to enforce parliamentary privilege during a recess.180 Ibid. 354. On 23 May he moved for privilege for one of his own servants, who had been arrested, and, on the same day agreed to show a petition from one Thomas Aubrey protesting that Henry Parker^*, 14th Lord Morley, had issued protection to someone who was not his own servant. He reported back, six days later, that Morley had affirmed that the man in question was in his service.181 Ibid. 508, 557. Nevertheless, he queried whether privilege extended to Viscountess Purbeck, arguing, on 18 Apr., that the matter should be referred to the privileges committee. There, ten days later, he voted that it did not.182 Ibid. 265; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33 (31 Mar. 1628), no. 12. On the issue of whether peers had the right to give testimony in courts of law on their honour rather than on oath, he argued, on 6 May, in favour of the former position, but added that if it was to be enforced while Parliament was not sitting they would have to ‘have recourse to his Majesty for his assent’.183 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 384, 387.

On 13 June Dorset warned the House that when they censured Roger Manwaring^†, subsequently bishop of St Davids, for his sermon in defence of the Forced Loan, ‘the Commons will be so interest[ed] that we cannot recede from what shall be pronounced against him’. The following day, he came to the support of Laud, supporting the statement of Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery, to the effect that Laud had been reluctant to publish Manwaring’s sermon and had only done so on a direct order from the king.184 Ibid. 639, 642.

In 1628 Dorset again introduced a bill to settle the Sackville estates and pay the debts of the 3rd earl. This time he presented it to the Lords, who gave it a first reading on 27 May; it was committed two days later. On 4 June, a petition from the 3rd earl’s widow was referred to the committee, and the trustees for the earl’s estates were ordered to attend. Additions were made to the committee on 25 June, but the bill was never reported.185 Ibid. 539, 555-6, 585, 700.

Dorset spoke in the debate on 3 May following the second reading of the bill to restore Carew Ralegh^‡ in blood. Presumably to reassure those who held the property formerly owned by Ralegh’s father, Sir Walter^‡, he stated that Ralegh would be content with £400 a year after the death of his mother. He was subsequently named to the committee.186 Ibid. 371, 373. On 15 May, he seconded a successful motion made by Laud for throwing out the bill to restore John Bassett, who had killed a judicial officer, at its second reading.187 Ibid. 440.

In the summer of 1628, Dorset was finally appointed lord chamberlain to Henrietta Maria. The Venetian ambassador reported that he received unspecified additional benefits ‘to render him more satisfied’, suggesting that Dorset had hoped for a more prestigious office. He also argued, probably incorrectly, that the appointment was made to thwart attempts at a reconciliation with the French. The post brought with it an annual salary of £100, with additional prerequisites, but was perhaps most important to Dorset because it gave him a formal place and accommodation at court.188 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 213; Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 258-9. He got off to a bad start, however, for in September Henry Percy^† (subsequently Lord Percy), whose brother had recently retired as the queen’s master of the horse, reported that Dorset ‘hath neither pleased the queen, nor her court, … so that I believe they will make him weary of his employment shortly’. However, Dorset retained his position until the Civil War.189 SP16/529/15.

The king’s affection for Dorset appears to have grown following the assassination of Buckingham, the earl’s patron, on 23 Aug., for on 8 Sept. it was reported that Dorset was ‘almost never from the king’. Dorset himself was saddened by Buckingham’s death, and angry at the disrespect shown by the London trained bands at the duke’s funeral.190 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U350/C2/19; Rous Diary, 31. Nevertheless, he readily perceived that Buckingham’s removal created the possibility for reconciling king and Parliament. On 24 Nov. he wrote to Carlisle stating that ‘the death of so powerful a man [had] opened the way to new courses and new resolutions’ and that ‘all the business of the time’ was ‘to prepare things against the nigh approaching session’. Indeed, he hoped that the end of this meeting would be ‘a day of jubilee, by striking a covenant between sovereign and subject of continual peace and happiness’, to which end ‘the greatest infidels are become right believers’.191 SP16/529/40.

Dorset attended ten of the 23 sittings of the 1629 session and held the proxies of two peers, Lord Morley, with whom he had communicated about privilege for the latter’s servant in the previous session, and Thomas Arundell^*, 1st Lord Arundell.192 LJ, iv. 3b. He was appointed to eight of the 19 committees established by the Lords but, in this poorly documented session, made only one recorded speech, on 22 Jan., when he informed the House that Robert Radcliffe^*, 5th earl of Sussex, had confirmed that a petitioner for parliamentary privilege was indeed his servant.193 Ibid. 9b. On 20 Jan. he was appointed to both the committee and subcommittee for privileges. He delivered a petition to the House from the printer of a brief written by Francis Leak^*, Lord Deincourt (subsequently 1st earl of Scarsdale), about a Chancery case on 7 February. Twelve days later, he was appointed to a committee to petition the king to provide financial for support of the earl of Oxford, an issue he had raised in 1626. His final appointment, on 21 Feb., was to a committee to survey munitions.194 Ibid. 6a-b, 23a, 34b. There is no evidence that he made any further attempt to introduce a bill concerning the 3rd earl’s debts. Either the session proved too short or the trustees were managing to sell the lands adequately without one.

In the absence of Buckingham, Dorset began to attract the ire of the House of Commons. On 4 Feb. Sir Robert Phelips^‡ reported that in the previous autumn Dorset had pressed Attorney General Heath to issue the pardon for the Arminian cleric Richard Montagu^*, bishop of Chichester. Ten days later, the lower House was informed that Catholic priests had been released on Dorset’s warrant. It is likely that, on both occasions, Dorset was acting on the king’s instructions. However, Sir John Eliot^‡ launched an attack on ‘the great lord of Dorset’. He assured the House that, regarding the release of the priests, ‘we shall find his hands too deeply engaged in this business, for he findeth his hand in other business of the like nature’.195 CD 1629, pp. 39-40, 125, 149; HMC Lonsdale, 71.

In the late 1620s Dorset was forced to raise money by selling and mortgaging lands in addition to those that had been assigned to trustees. From 1629 he began to exploit his property around his London residence more effectively, renting his house near Fleet Street to the French ambassador, while adjacent buildings were converted into a playhouse. His better management of the Sackville estates played an important part in the recovery of the family’s fortune, enabling him to start buying back some of the alienated lands; royal favour also helped, in particular the grant he received in 1634 of a third part in the farm of duties on coal exports, worth £1,000 a year.196 D.L. Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville, Fourth Earl of Dorset’ (Camb. Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1989), 262-5; Birch, ii. 35; Phillips, i. 321, 324; HMC Var. viii. 194-5; Strafforde Letters, i. 227. We are grateful to Dr. Smith for providing us with a copy of his thesis. However, the precise extent to which Dorset benefited from his position at court is unclear. He certainly did not take everything he was offered, for in July 1628 he reportedly refused a gift of £1,000 proffered by Henry Danvers^*, earl of Danby, for reminding Charles that Danby had been promised a seat on the Privy Council.197 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 386. On the other hand, he regarded such gifts as perfectly legitimate: in 1635 he publicly argued that rewards from grateful suitors were legitimate recompense for the cost of attending court.198 J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, ii. 313. In the long term Dorset’s most significant contribution to the improvement of the Sackville estates was the marriage he arranged in 1637 between his son and heir and Middlesex’s daughter. This not only produced a dowry of £10,000 albeit many years later, but also eventually ensured that Dorset’s grandson would inherit the Cranfield estates when the male line failed in 1674.199 M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 541-2; Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville, Fourth Earl of Dorset’, 450-1.

The Personal Rule and later life, 1629-52

Dorset achieved the height of his power in the early part of the Personal Rule. In December 1629, John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, described him as a member of the inner circle of councillors who had the king’s confidence.200 Holles Letters, 400. Although in January 1630 he failed to secure the position of lord admiral, to which he was one of the many ‘pretendants’, his wife was appointed governess to the infant Prince Charles (Stuart^†, later prince of Wales) the following summer, bringing the earl as well as his countess into the heart of the royal family. This gave Dorset an allowance of £5,000 a year to defray the cost of the prince’s household and access to St James’s Palace, where he ‘sumptuously feasted’ the king and queen on 29 July.201 CSP Ven. 1629-32, pp. 263, 382; SP16/180/16; C115/104/8072; C115/105/8126.

However, by the second half of the decade Dorset did not regard himself as particularly influential. Writing to Middlesex in January 1637, he described himself as being ‘of the common, not cabinet Council’, the latter meaning the committee for foreign affairs, to which he was never appointed.202 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, 20 Jan. 1637. Dorset’s loss of influence may have arisen from his failure to participate in factional politics. In October 1636 he lamented that there was too much division at court, and wished that ‘for the king’s service and the common good we were all of one mind’.203 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, 1 Oct. 1636; Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 278. Far from promoting discord, Dorset did his best to maintain peace at court; in 1630 he played a key role in trying to mediate between Weston, by now lord treasurer, and Henry Rich, earl of Holland. When the conflict between the two came to a head in 1633, Dorset played down the crisis, arguing that ‘all will be well ere long’. His statement that the king ‘intends no other, but to establish his own peace in his own bosom, and to warn the court from future factions and divisions’, probably reflected his own priorities as much as the monarch’s.204 Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 278; Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, [1633]. However, his pacific leanings tended to leave him isolated. In 1636 he tellingly wrote that ‘I am of myself, I will obey not dispute, and follow those for leaders, whom his Majesty shall think fit to command me’.205 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, 1 Oct. 1636.

During the 1630s members of Henrietta Maria’s household, such as her steward, the earl of Holland, formed a distinct faction at court, which advocated a pro-French, and consequently anti-Spanish, foreign policy. They argued that with French support Charles could intervene in Germany and secure his long cherished ambition of recovering the Palatinate. However, although Dorset remained on friendly terms with Holland and other members of the French faction, he was now reluctant to intervene in the Thirty Years’ War. Following the victories of Gustavus Adolphus in 1631, he informed the Venetian ambassador that England could only provide the Swedish king with money. When even this modest proposal aroused the opposition of the Spanish, he tried to assuage their anger.206 Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 272-3, 276; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 606.

In December 1632 Dorset reportedly accompanied Arundel to The Hague on the latter’s unsuccessful mission to persuade the king’s sister, Elizabeth of Bohemia, to come to England.207 William Whiteway of Dorchester: his Diary 1618-35 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 126. However, whatever personal sympathy Dorset may have felt for Elizabeth, he remained sceptical about the wisdom of lending English military support to the Palatine cause. In October 1636 he hoped that, although ‘the king begins to believe he hast been much abused and deceived’ by the Habsburgs and ‘would be revenged’, Charles would not ‘lose himself’, but ‘measure his undertakings and his engagements by his own means and revenues’.208 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, 1 Oct. 1636. The following January he expressed the wish that Charles would ‘not venture his own peace and quiet to aim at impossibilities’. While conceding that Charles might lend his Navy to the anti-Habsburg forces, he added that ‘I fear a pension from our master [Charles I] will be his [the Elector Palatine’s] best patrimony’. One month later, he argued that it was ‘too late to recover the Palatinate by force’. When the Dutch and Spanish fleets confronted each other in the Downs in 1639, he expressed the hope that ‘the king will at most be but a spectator’. By this date he saw both the French and the Dutch as a much greater threat to England than the Spanish.209 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, 1 Oct. 1636, 20 Jan. 1637, 7 Feb. 1637, [?Sept. 1639].

Dorset not only distanced himself from the French faction but also failed to establish close links with their opponents, most notably Laud, archbishop of Canterbury from 1633 and one of the most influential members of the Privy Council. He was not personally hostile to Laud, whom he characterized as ‘the little man’, for, in 1636, he stated that ‘truly we cannot be much or long enemies, for my heart concurs with his ends, the which I take to be public and royal (void of all self interest)’.210 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, 1 Oct. 1636; Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 279. Indeed, he supported Laud’s project for rebuilding St Paul’s Cathedral, to which he contributed £200. However, he was also a friend of Laud’s principal opponent on the episcopal bench, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), whom he defended in 1639.211 Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville, Fourth Earl of Dorset’, 238, n. 78; Holles Letters, 386; Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 279. In 1635 Dorset supported Laud’s ally, Thomas Wentworth, now 1st Viscount Wentworth, to succeed Weston as lord treasurer. However, this came to nothing and relations between the two men seem to have deteriorated in the latter part of the decade.212 Strafforde Letters, ii. 386-7; Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 281.

Nevertheless, there were limits to Dorset’s support for Laud’s policies. Although he admired the archbishop’s commitment to selfless public service, he probably thought that Laud’s enforcement of rigorous conformity in the Church was unnecessarily divisive and threatened political stability. When the puritan, Henry Sherfield^‡, was tried in Star Chamber, in 1633, for smashing a stained glass window in a church in Salisbury, Laud called for a heavy fine. Dorset, however, disagreed because he thought that Sherfield was ‘a good governor’ and punishing him would cause ‘tumults of the rude ignorant people’.213 State Trials, iii. 555. The Sherfield trial may explain why Dorset intervened in June 1633, to persuade Charles to restore to office the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry, who had been suspended for failing to seal a pardon for recusants. Like Dorset, Coventry had urged leniency for Sherfield, thereby earning him the enmity of Laud, who plotted to supplant him. However, Coventry also had longstanding connections with the Sackvilles, from whom he had previously rented a house in Fleet Street. Moreover, Dorset may have been promoted by his dislike of court factionalism and his desire to maintain the stability of the regime.214 THOMAS COVENTRY; William Whiteway of Dorchester, 131; Add. 38483, f. 106.

Dorset’s concern to ensure stability at home and avoid war abroad probably arose from his continued fears about English weakness, which had first surfaced at the time of the Île de Ré expedition. In 1637 he stated that the Exchequer was not full enough ‘to maintain the ordinary port and necessity of my master, his family and his own kingdom’, much less intervention in the Thirty Years’ War. He probably had no constitutional qualms about unparliamentary taxation as he apparently told members of the London Vintners’ Company, after they complained about an imposition on wine, that ‘it was folly in travellers to deny their purses to robbers … when they have no sufficient force, either to defend their purses, or their own persons: … and swore it was their own case’.215 [H. Parker], The Vintners Answer to Some Scandalous Pamphlets (1642), 3. Nevertheless, he may well have been sceptical about the practical utility of such levies. Although he undoubtedly supported Ship Money, the unparliamentary tax levied in the 1630s for the support of the Navy, he seems to have been unimpressed with the result. In 1639 he (correctly) ranked English naval strength a poor third behind those of the Dutch and Spanish.216 Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 276-7.

In domestic policy Dorset tried to steer a middle course between the ultra conformity advocated by Laud and ‘puritanism and liberty’, which, in 1639, he lamented was too popular.217 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, [?Sept. 1639]. His concern for stability can also been seen in his relations with the borough of Great Yarmouth, where he was elected high steward in 1629 at the behest of the puritan rulers of the town, who were trying to block a new charter being promoted by their local enemies. Dorset seems to have had no hesitation in joining the campaign to uphold the existing municipal status quo, but promptly turned against his allies when they tried to remove their enemies from the corporation. He also intervened in 1631 to assist the town’s puritan lecturer, but quickly backed away when it became apparent that he had aroused the opposition of the dean and chapter of Norwich, which controlled the local parish.218 R. Cust, ‘Anti-Puritanism and Urban Pols.: Chas. I and Great Yarmouth’, HJ, xxxv. 2, 4, 15-17, 19-20, 24; H. Swinden, Great Yarmouth (1772), 505-6, 847-9; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 211.

As has already been noted, Dorset expressed sympathy for the puritan, Henry Sherfield. Like Sherfield, he thought that images of ‘God the father’ were unlawful, and that ‘it were a good work’ to remove ‘all unlawful pictures’ from churches. However, Dorset stopped well short of support for puritan iconoclasm.219 State Trials, iii. 554-5, 584; Smith, ‘Catholic, Anglican or Puritan?’, 109-12. His hostility to puritanism increased in the late 1630s following the outbreak of rebellion in Scotland against the introduction of an English style Prayer Book. The taint of rebellion meant that he no longer associated puritanism with the kind of godly magistracy which he had been willing to support at Great Yarmouth and in the Sherfield case. He initially believed that the rising in Scotland could be crushed in its early stages. Consequently he was hostile to the conciliatory policies advocated by James Hamilton^*, 3rd marquess of Hamilton [S] (2nd earl of Cambridge in the English peerage), whom he thought deserved to be executed. In 1639 he complained bitterly that, despite Hamilton’s concessions, which he described as ‘all things that the fury, lust or liberty of a people puffed up with discontented, rebellious minds can ask’, they ‘more and more study the dethroning [of] their sovereign’.220 Smith, ‘Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule’, 277; Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, [?Sept. 1639].

During the Bishops’ Wars of 1639-40, Dorset was one of the councillors appointed to remain in London. Following Charles’s defeat by the Covenanters in August 1640, he seems to have had no hesitation in advising the king to summon Parliament, even though, four years earlier, he had told Middlesex that he had little hope that a Parliament would vote ‘aids or supplies to furnish great armies and expeditions’.221 Kent Lib. and Hist. Cent. U269/1/CP40, Dorset to Middlesex, 1 Oct. 1636; Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726, ii. 169. The other members of the Council advised the summoning of a Great Council, which convened in York in September 1640, but Dorset was again deputed to remain in London.222 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 607-8; 1640, p. 609; 1640-1, pp. 3, 34, 48.

In early 1642 it was rumoured that Dorset would follow the queen to the Netherlands, but in the event he remained in England.223 CSP Dom. 1641-3, pp. 294. 318. At York in June, he tried to persuade the king to be conciliatory towards Parliament, as he still believed that Civil War could be averted. However, he became increasingly pessimistic as the summer continued and feared the outcome whoever won.224 HMC Buccleuch, i. 305; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 318-19, 372-3; D.L. Smith, ‘“The More Posed and Wise Advice”: the Fourth Earl of Dorset and the English Civil Wars’, HJ, xxxiv. 808-12. His longstanding concern with stability led him to support conciliation, but he nevertheless continued to adhere to the king, who appointed him lord chamberlain in early 1644, shortly before the opening of the Oxford Parliament, which Dorset attended.225 Rushworth, v. 573.

Following the king’s defeat, Dorset compounded for his estate, managing to get his fine reduced from £4,360 to £2,415.226 CCC, 1509. He died at his London house on 17 July 1652, and was buried in the Sackville chapel at Withyham in Sussex.227 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 613; Sutton, 75. He left a will, drawn up on 23 Mar. 1625, when he had perhaps expected to accompany Buckingham to France to fetch Henrietta Maria, as instructions for his burial are expressed conditionally: ‘if I die within the land’. In this document Dorset, like his father, disparaged the expense of traditional funerals, which he described as ‘idle and vain glorious pomps’.228 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/T83/5. However, the will was not proved and administration was granted to a creditor on 19 May 1653.229 PROB 6/30, f. 93. His son Richard succeeded as 5th earl of Dorset and took his seat in the Lords after the Restoration.